Didn't realize we had so many marketing experts here

 

While I lean towards the "It's Starscream cuz this is a soft reboot" side of the argument, I think it's ultimately irrelevant. I think he's only in it for one scene. I think there's a Vietnam War flashback, with Starscream (or whomever) as an F-4, and Bee sporting his yellow Jeep mode. I think during this fight scene (which may have a ton of cameos), Bee gets separated from the Autobots and starts him on the path to Charlie and the plot of the movie.

 

To be fair, they're not wrong in their logic. Having a character nearly identical to the classic depiction of Starscream in a soft reboot that otherwise seems hellbent of fixing the "mistakes" of the previous series and appeal to fans of more traditional designs and have said character not be Starscream sounds utterly ridiculous and counter-intuitive.

But that doesn't mean their conclusion is right.

 

Ok here is my prediction. Whether it is Starscream or not it shouldn’t matter continuity wise (one cause bay continuity is screwed up but anyway) because we have no indication of wtf starscream was doing before 07. He just shows up at Hoover dam.
Also if we are looking at codenames megatron’s name is fox. Yes he’s “not” really active in the movie but I think he’s gonna be part of the central plot. I think his code name is fox because he’s the “elusive enemy” bumblebee is trying to search for. And he’s somewhere on earth undetectable like a fox. See. I mean at this point in the timeline he’s moreso a foxcicle but anyway.

I do think the jet is starscream. But that’s a personal opinion. I just really don’t see why they’d make him look EXACTLY like g1 starscream and movie starscream had a love child if it’s not him. They even added the fact that his wings fold up like the usual and his jet engines go in the same place roughly as his 07 alt mode and his weapon is his iconic arm cannon. Idk, it just seems super dumb to me. But then again. ALL OF US here have seen some pretty dumb stuff....

 

Alot of people are bringing up the people who saw the screening saying it wasn't him, can one of those people tell us it was then exactly?

 

Gobot cameo

 

TBH, BayScream is such a non-entity in terms of personality that it really doesn't matter who or what it is in the trailer.

I'm half-hoping for the movie to be a reboot of sort doing its own thing without leaning to much on other movies. The continuity went down the drain after The Last Fail anyway.

 

I could see why after the first movie. Starscream takes out a squad of human jets with relative ease so we were still in a phase where you could say well maybe the Decepticons are an actual threat. For the generation that grew up on things like skateboarding that flip number had to be pretty cool. We got that run away run away moment to make Starscream feel like a cowardly back stabbing bastard.

Toss in all the excitement that was around the Reign of Starscream comic book to make it look like the potential of the next film was going to be great with Starscream as the leader.

But after that he's pretty nothing as he's waiting around for his eventual lame death because gods forbid we needed yet another lame death at the hands of the all mighty humans. Somehow he goes from I eat top fighter pilots for breakfast to I have even worse aim than Stormtroopers.

 

I don't understand how Starscream was so under-utilized in later films. He lends himself so well to creative and awesome action scenes because he can fly and is super agile, and he never does what he did in TF1 ever again. Same thing with the Decepticons' cyber attack. They devastated the US military network and forced everyone to use basic tech because they hacked everything else like it was nothing.

I think it's why the first movie is still fondly remembered, because the Transformers themselves are better utilized. They're not just goons, they're deadly physically and technically. Their robotic nature and "hide in plain sight" ability is used to its fullest in ways no movie since has seemingly even attempted. Their presence and effects are felt in nearly every scene. It's what I think contributes to minor characters like Barricade's popularity and the fact that the robots feel more and more marginalized despite physically appearing more often. They're far less integrated into the plot and the world around them. Disguise and subterfuge are routinely downplayed or not even a factor.

 

"I'm tired of Spider-Man being Peter Parker in a red and blue suit, web-slinging through the city, having problems with his dual identity and fighting Green Goblin and Doc Oc. It's stupid. Let's turn Spider-Man into a 40-year old woman, in purple pajamas, fighting against gluten. That'll make it interesting." - said no Spider-Man fan ever.

Why does the same line of thinking get you likes in the transformers fandom?

 

lol well, we'll see about that bit lol

However, this is a 'smaller' movie apparently, so I'm hoping for something a bit different. Part of me is expecting a cameo from Peter Cullen as primes voice right at the end.

Back to the topic... I hope (if it is Starscream) his voice is done better in this one. I hated how he sounded in the other movies.

 

Because Transformers is the same franchise that has Megatron go from a silver gun to a purple dinosaur to a floating hand to a beetle tank with various different personalities with nobody ever blinking?

We have always been used to wildly different interpretations.

 

After a little bit of deductive reasoning, the question is this --

Are live action movies meant for people who have:

A) immersed themselves in the entire TF universe
(therefore very familiar with both original and wild iterations)

B) a basic pop culture awareness, especially the G1 characters
(therefore still don't recognize gorilla dorito starscream)

or

C) A & B

???


I feel like hasbro wants it to be C) to make maximum profit
(based on their willingness to cater to the loudest voice when the money dries up)



I also feel like this delusional fandom exists in a perpetual battle between

"WE ARE A), therefore B) must = A), because NYAH you're wrong!"

VS

"I may be A), but after 5 live action Bays, why cant Bee be B)?"


 

 

Wouldn't you say that creates uncontrollable inconsistency? Especially for someone who isn't knee deep in the history of the brand like we are. Instead of Transformers having a singular vision and identity that's cemented in people's hearts and minds in the depth of time, it's diminished to a broad concept where anything that transforms is a transformer as long as Hasbro says so. Sure, Spider-man has Miles Morales and Spider-Man 2099. But those are spin-offs that do not detract from the core identity of the character that has been loved for decades. What if Hasbro decided to bring the most iconic versions of the characters and concepts to the mainstream media and keep the experimentations and spin-offs on the side things instead of the other way around? Would that have been bad? I bet we'd get along way smoother in the fan communities, that's for sure.

 

Nothing that you just said is remotely related to the subject, and I frankly I don't want to have another discussion out of thousands I've had to endure about this subject in the last 10 years in this fandom.

Your question was "Why are Transformers fans more open to diff interpretations than Spiderman fans", I gave you a clear answer. That's that. Never said what was good or bad and don't care to.

Also I would say that no, we would not get along way smoother in the fan communities because nerds manage to be childish fucks no matter the context of the brand they find themselves flocking around. Your very idea of "Hasbro decided to bring iconic versions ot mainstream media" is skewed as hell in first place, because Transformers fans might be delusional enough to think something, like, Ironhide being a featureless red van is iconic, but it clearly wasn't needed for the movie version to sell toys to kids.

 

There's a big difference between a featureless red van

and a characters actual literal physical features as a robot

 

The transformers movies have done a "good" their job to remain the concept and adapt it to another world, but what you want it's adaptation of the g1 characters wich it's an entirely different thing.


Let's be honest, transformers was never remembered by the actual characters, BUT the concept.


BUT, following your logic, it's still valid, Optimus it's the leader of the autobots in the movie, transforms into a truck, red and blue, it's still the same conceptor, or it is NOT?.

Starscream or dorito-scream it's a modern jet, wich it's the b*tch of the leader of the decepticons, we've seen him like that in the movies, isn't that still faithful to the concept?.

The new starscream seems promising for remining some faithful things to his original incarnation, but just ebcause of the design, but we still don't know if he's starscream at all, if we'll see him more than 10 minutes of the movie, what are his motivations or what it's his role and personality.



IT'S VERY STUPID hearing the same argument all over again here, transformers has been adapted diffrently and PROPERLY sometimes in other type of media, why complain about it until its 1298321987432402th's incarnation?. And let's not act that the super heroes have been adapted 100% greatly in all media.


HOWEVER, The live action movies (of TF) have been faithful to its concepts, or not?, maybe the looks, okay, that's right, but the roles (wich it's your argument) are still the same.

 

There's just one problem with the 'they can always change his name in the reshoots' mindset. The movie can do that easily yes ... But what about everything else? What about the promotional material, the toys, etc? Is that something they can change in time?

 

That's just a conspiracy theory perpetrated by those whom we shall not speak.

I'm telling you, it's barricade.