As the title suggests, this is just my opinion. I'm posting it as a topic because I'd like to hear other takes, so if you disagree, agree, whatever, let me know! I'd like to get a discussion going.

I'm writing this mostly to explain my own view on the franchise as a whole and to address certain trains of thought I see floating around in Transformers discussion. It usually goes something like this:

"This character is a nameslap, they're nothing like (refers to original version of the character)."

or

"In the movie and Prime, Unicron is Earth? That's dumb, Unicron is supposed to eat other planets."

These comments bother me, not because they're opinions that differ from my own (I want to clarify, everyone is entitled to like the things they like about literally anything-- this is not about bashing a point of view). These comments concern me because they are appealing to a certain argument, that the creator of any Transformers fiction's job is to represent a single version of a character or concept.

I think that's relatively understandable attitude to have because the vast majority of pop-culture franchise fiction is written from a monolithic perspective: there is one universe or continuity, and one version of all characters or concepts. I don't think I really need to give examples of what this looks like, but consider how angry people get when these characters and concepts are changed in subsequent material, whether via retcons or new content re-writing older characters with new traits (think about the response to Luke Skywalker's portrayal in TLJ). I'm not really here to discuss that vitriol, but I can say that I at least understand where it comes from: in a monolithic franchise, things are the way they are, there is one version of the story, so changes can sometimes feel out of place.

However, I would like to posit that Transformers shouldn't be considered with the same mindset. That may seem like an obvious stance to take, as most fans are very familiar with the multiple continuities justified by fanon concept of "universal clusters." However, even with those distinctions in place, I still see comments like the ones listed above, which kind of baffles me. At this point, it's clear that Transformers is (and bear with me here) polylithic, containing more than one "true" version of any character, concept, or event. An example of another franchise with a similar perspective would be the Final Fantasy games. Within Transformers itself this is not a recent phenomenon, as already in G1 there was a clear difference between the characters/concepts/events of the comics, the toy bios, and the cartoon. With this in mind, I can't really justify claims like "Why is (character here) so serious in (insert media here)? He's supposed to be funny," or so on. If we view the Transformers universe as one that can be reinvented and retold in an infinite number of ways, why can't we accept that different versions of characters/concepts/ideas can be different?

One of the ideas that really stands out to me is the concept of the "nameslap," which I think is just silly. Who is the higher power that gets to say that certain characters can't be named certain things, just because other characters wore those names first? That's just one example of this mindset that I can think of off the top of my head.

I want to clarify that I'm not attacking people who don't like later versions of the character/concept/whatever. Everyone is entitled to their own preferences. What I am more concerned with is the idea of "truth" or "purity" that is sometimes assigned to these preferences, that certain characters/concepts/events must be a certain way, or they're "not themselves." The truth is that with an endless possibility for reinvention, any of these characters/concepts/events could be anything, and there really wouldn't be anything wrong with that.

If this sounds like a dull rant or ramble it's because it's what it is, so I apologize for my long-windedness. What do you all think of this? Would you agree or disagree?

 

I mostly agree. There are two things transformers fans need to understand about our franchise; one in which it is different from other franchises and one in which it is the same.

First, unlike comic book characters who always have a main universe that everything else is an elseworld of, Transformers was never a monolith. Our marvel comics universe in which the transformers were created by a space God to fight evil space God Unicron was concurrent and equally valid to the Sunbow cartoon in which they were robot slaves who rebelled against their masters and Unicron was created by a space monkey.

The second thing is that all characters are not created equally. If I was adapting Spiderman, then it would be very important to keep the eponymous character mostly the same. Bit by spider, misuses powers, Uncle Ben dies, same personality, same powers and even mostly the same costume. The main villains like Doc Ock are a little looser. Evil mad scientist with four tentacles and some kind of glasses, calls Spiderman arachnid and that's about it. Electro? If he's a villain and has electrical powers that's about it. Kangaroo? Just make sure the name Kangaroo makes sense and you're good.

It's the same with Transformers. Optimus, Starscream, and Megatron need to be readily recognizable but not all characters need to be that faithful.

 

I agree, and I'll just reuse my post from a movie forum topic:

 

Transformers fans do tend to put more stock into aspects and characters of the franchise than necessary. Not only is reinvention in its blood, Hasbro only has so many trademarked names to draw on. Repetition and reuse is a necessity to a degree when every new iteration features an ensemble cast and everyone needs a marketable, trademarked name.

However in the same breath I do believe a franchise that's lasted 30 years is of course going to bring along expectations, deserved or otherwise. Optimus is always going to be leader of the good guy faction, for example, and change from the norm isn't automatically an improvement. Sometimes changing things just to be changed is a waste of time and effort, and can be viewed as spiteful to the source material and the fans of that original character/aspect if all you're doing is messing around for messing's sake. Making Ironhide, a character who's historically been a tough guy who turns into a larger, often rugged, vehicle into a different kind of rugged vehicle and tough guy personality is a far cry from taking Star Saber, the leader of the Autobots from Victory characterized by his sense of justice and virtuous personality, and making him into a murderous religious zealot for no real reason at all. And that's actually a very rare, "I had to actually stop and think of it ever even happening" example. There's smaller versions, like for example DOTM Shockwave, clearly emulating the classic character, being nothing more than a snarling brute rather than the intelligent, well-spoken individual he is. But even that's down to the flaws in writing than an inherent flaw in the character, as "Shockwave" was made into a violent, dangerous psychopath in Energon with no hints of a genius intellect or eloquence of speech and it was fine. (again, barring the terrible writing quality) That's really more a question of preference than some nebulous obligation to match the source material. (though I was personally happy when he showed up in Bumblebee looking and talking like the G1 version)

"Nameslaps" actually bother me the least when it comes to reinvention, since it's clear there's no attempt to emulate or reference the original character, thus no comparison or perceived slights against them. I don't care that Armada Smokescrean is not like G1 Smokescreen because he's so obviously not meant to be a new version of that character or at all related, ditto his upgraded form "Hoist." More characters were nameslaps than weren't for a solid decade of the Transformers' 30+ years of history. It seems silly to pretend like it's unique to whatever version did it recently.

 

I definitely get what you're trying to say and I think you did a great job writing it, but a word of advice: you probably shouldn't use Luke Skywalker's bastardization from TLJ as an argument in favor of anything other than bad writers ruining beloved characters because while I get the point you're wanting to make, that example doesn't make it.

The 'vitriol' as you so describe was 1000% deserved. Not all change is good and each of these things need to be analyzed on a case by case basis.

Otherwise I don't have much to add because this is a topic I find rather dull and tiresome because it often reduces a complicated issue into something lacking nuance.

 

Yeah, Luke's ruination was an actual effort by the filmmakers and Disney to dispose of the "old guard" and prop up their own characters. It's like I said, reinvention isn't automatically bad, but if it come from a place of spite and ego, it can stand out as particularly unappealing.

 

The reason why this opinion exists is because some fans are G1 loyalists. I was one of them, but I don't complain much about G1 inaccuracies as much, as I've come to accept that different continuities appreciate their differences from others, making them unique from one another.

 

I think you misunderstood my use of the example-- I was using it to explain why changes to characters causing people to be upset is understandable in the context of a "monolithic" franchise, like Star Wars. Though I suppose Star Wars an odd example to use because of the relationship between its "old" canon (Legends) and its "new" canon.

I actually want to disagree here-- G1 is not the only continuity that people use as a reference of "truth" within the fandom. Maybe it is used more frequently than others, but I wouldn't say it's the only reason this mindset exists.

 

I agree. So many different versions of Transformers across the years, and then you have several versions of one character.

 

I also think context plays a big part. A series that's clearly emulating or trying to reboot/retell G1 changing aspects is a lot more egregious than a series that's very obviously not. Going back to Shockwave as an example, but I personally don't mind the DOTM design/character as much as I'm bothered by the Netflix one, as the Netflix one is clearly trying to depict the classic character, but utterly fails in doing so. TFA Shockwave is somehow a far different character and yet feels far more faithful. (and Shockwave is a character who had two very different depictions in G1 itself)

G1 is where the mindset began though, as far back as Beast Wars, and embodies the notion that new iterations must follow off the previous one, rather than change or be entirely new.

 

Monolithic it may not be, but when you attach classic characters' names to new characters who don't fit the foundational storytelling version's personality at all, it ends up both unrewarding and confusing. Wheeljack from Armada is an example of this, an interesting character undone by a name that already carried baggage and doesn't match up.

 

But that's exactly what I'm talking about, isn't it? Why does it matter that his name is the same as the other guy, if in the storytelling world of Armada, other Wheeljacks don't exist? Why is that name beholden to a certain character if characterization is essentially never 100% consistent between different iterations of the franchise? There isn't even anything particularly "inventor" about the name Wheeljack, so it's not like it doesn't make sense for a car-based character.

 

The problem comes from the fact that people who know who Wheeljack is associate his name with the original Wheeljack. It just doesn't make sense to want to use a well known name for a new character who is in no way reminiscent of the original use of the name.

And you could argue that it doesn't matter because only fans would know who Wheeljack is, but shouldn't you just put a little effort in to not make a decision that will annoy them? It's not like you're ruining the story with too much "fanservice." It's just giving a character a name that would fit a little better. If people who aren't as familiar with the brand see it, they're not going to care either way what the characters are named, so the only people who you would want to be concerned with in that specific aspect is the people who do care about the names.

And when it comes to movie changes, I think the problem lies not in the fact that there are changes at all, but that there are massive changes all over the place, and the movies are the most well-known representation of the brand. So when the movies don't really get any of the characters right, that means that most people now have an idea of the characters that is vastly different from any other version of the brand.

 

But again, why does it really matter? How is your enjoyment of G1 Wheeljack hampered in any way by knowing there's a weird Armada guy who has the same name?

You're also assuming supremacy of the original, just because you think of G1 Wheeljack first doesn't mean there aren't fans whose first thought is the Armada version, or some other version.

 

Because it just creates confusion. We wouldn't have to worry about whether someone is talking about the Armada version or the G1 version if they just didn't give him that name. I'm not claiming to have my enjoyment "ruined" by the use of his name on someone else; just that it seems like an unnecessary choice to do so, especially when they could have called him Sideswipe, because he at least looks an awful lot like him. And don't get me started on Armada's actual use of the name "Sideswipe." If they couldn't come up with a new name for whatever reason, any blue Autobot car's name would at least be a little more fitting for that guy.

This also would have prevented Energon's version of Wheeljack from having to use the name "Downshift," since the name "Wheeljack" would have still been available. That's a whole other problem with nameslapping, that once you use a name you aren't able to later decide to do a more proper version of them, at least not with a fitting name. That's the problem I've had with BB Blitzwing, but I know how much you don't like when I bring up that example so I'll just leave it right there.

Point is, I haven't ever heard of anyone saying, "No guys, you don't understand! We absolutely NEED to give this new character the name of some other legacy character who they have nothing in common with!!!" So I don't see why it's that big of a deal to either make a new name or find a more fitting one.

 

Sit in on a meeting between Hasbro execs and their copyright lawyers.  

 

Agreed! Name re-uses doesn't bother me, I enjoyed G1 Scourge and RID Scourge.

Megatron has so many different takes on his character that doesn't even feel similar to his earlier roots but I enjoyed them. It gives a fresh spin to the character that sadly Optimus feels bland because he always has to be the infallible leader who gives big speeches and talks in that monotone voice he always does.

 

It really doesn't. Not when we have endless resources like TFWiki and this very site to make it clear there's different continuities and characters. Plus if you're into Transformers at all (or any media franchise these days) you're well acquainted with the concept of separate continuities.

I mean, that's exactly how it happens, though. Like I said earlier, Hasbro has a name pool of available Trademarks they can use. (the pool was much smaller during the UT days) Hot Shot was originally going to be Bumblebee, but "Bumblebee" wasn't available at the time, so they used a RID name that was already good to go. When designing the Bay characters, Hasbro literally gave Bay a list of approved names, of which he chose which ones best fit the characters to him.

You're also conflating a character's name with their identity, which isn't the case. Names can be used because they just fit that character, regardless of who used it before. Many TF names are generic enough to fit a wide variety of characters. "Sideswipe" for example, just as much fits the Armada character as it does the G1 character. Hell, I don't remember G1 Sideswipe sideswiping anyone. The Bayverse TFs especially go for names that fit what the character does or how they look, like Demolishor who demolishes things, Sideswipe who rolls around on wheel feet and swipes with his swords, Ironhide who's big and tough, Jolt who uses electricity, etc.

 

Not to mention that confusion regarding these characters is assuaged simply by adding their continuity, like what TFWiki does. Armada Wheeljack, RID2001 Grimlock, ROTF Rampage are honestly all that needs to be said. And even then, the visual styles of any given character often varies radically between continuities, at least through the mid-2010s. Sure, when merely talking, it's unclear which Wheeljack you're talking about, but bring up a picture and it's almost instantly clear that "Oh, it's Armada Wheeljack" or "Oh, we were talking about ROTF Scavenger."

 

I've never had a problem with reusing names. I worked for a year and a half with four other people with the same name as mine. two Hot Shots? Oh, no. I'm so confused!