Opinion: Transformers is not a monolithic franchise

Discussion in 'Transformers General Discussion' started by Porkulus, Oct 6, 2020.

  1. Max Rawhide

    Max Rawhide Rollin' Rollin' Rollin' ... uh, never mind

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,725
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Likes:
    +7,600
    Hm, lithic means stone and monolith is a large single stone…. Nope, Transformers is not Rock lords :D 


    Transformers has never been just one universe, or even a single concept/storyline that takes dominance. Not even characters who, despite having the same name, are the same in every iteration (although this is becoming more and more a thing, but then TF fiction is very often a G1 variant today).

    And it has been a multiverse from the start with the toy bios, the Marvel comics (even US and UK not being the same) and the Sunbow cartoon...plus other, smaller iterations: all of them the same yet different. And of course later we had even more divergent G1 universes through Dreamwave, IDW and arguably series like Cyberverse.

    BW and BM are in this case unique because they're a new series that follows an existing continuity, albeit one that doesn't truely exist (neither fitting perfect with the sunbow cartoon not any of the Marvel comics series -- Dreamwave is arguably the best fit). And I will admit, with Armada I hated that it was a new continuity since they used so much from G1 and it would've fit with G1 to some extend.



    I agree with this sentiment. As pointed out by others, if the universe created is clearly different from the G1 universe (as the Unicron trilogy clearly was), then it doesn't matter if a character uses a certain name without any of the characteristics of the G1 character. To take I @JT-bob example of Armada Wheeljack, I actually found it refreshing (like a lot of the Unicron trilogy), especially in hindsight, that we have familiar names in completely different usage: be it design or characteristics.

    An important element to me is that the name use has to make sense. To use the example mentioned by @SPLIT LIP, armada Smokescreen. I hated that this character was called Smokescreen. Not because he wasn't a red/blue sports car like the G1, but because the name didn't fit. The word Smokescreen has a meaning (be it a literal screen of smoke to hide something or the figurative hiding of true intentions through words or actions), while there was nothing like that in the character or abilities of the Armada version.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2020
  2. siccoyote

    siccoyote Worst side of the fandom

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Posts:
    4,692
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +4,411
    Ebay:
    It all depends on the impact of the first character with that name. Also it depends how important the production is, and sometimes how much impact the new character of the same name has.

    No-one ever says "Barricade in the movies is nothing like his G1 version" because he had no impact.

    But also no-one really cared that much that Wheeljack in Prime didn't have much in common with G1 wheeljack, because they both had a reasonable impact.

    New TV series coming and going with new toylines and characters using the trademarked names didn't really matter much. It was only when the Live Action Movie was coming along. This was a big deal and people wanted the movie to reflect their FAVOURITE itteration of the franchise. Which for most meant the G1 cartoon. One reason people would keep on with it is aside from a couple of characters, the movie versions were not given any chance to outshine previous versions as they were given extremely little character and rely for their popularity mainly on esthetics.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Arrogant Arachnid

    Arrogant Arachnid Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2019
    Posts:
    2,132
    Trophy Points:
    212
    Likes:
    +4,388
    Depends on the media, I guess. I don't really care what a animated tv show or a comic does with the characters, but if it's something like the movies, which are gonna watched by more people than a tv show would and will also become the face of the franchise, it should give a good representation of the basics of a character. Despite the fact there's no main continuity for Transformers, there are aspects that major versions of certain characters share. Optimus is always a red and blue truck man who's the leader of the Aubots, that's his character. Having him not be that in a movie would be weird (not saying that this is what the Baymovies did btw).
     
  4. CannonBlaster

    CannonBlaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2020
    Posts:
    1,175
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Likes:
    +8,537
    Instagram:
    I think as an adaptation they should try to be somewhat faithful to their source material, although I do agree it’s not a big a deal as it would be if it was a sequel because it’s not the same versions of the characters.

    Tangentially related, I don’t understand when people act like a newer iteration of a series ruins their enjoyment of what came before. Even if it’s intended to be a sequel, you don’t have to think about it when watching the original.
     
  5. bellpeppers

    bellpeppers A Meat Popsicle

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Posts:
    27,637
    News Credits:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    412
    Location:
    Somewhere over Macho Grande
    Likes:
    +26,773
    I wonder how this discussion would go in the Zack Snyder Justice League threads...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Haywired

    Haywired Hakunamatatacon

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2014
    Posts:
    9,019
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Likes:
    +12,909
    Wait, wait... There was a version of Barricade with any impact?

    Because the G1 doesn't really count outside of the Dreamwave and the Bayverse one is more memorable because of his looks... But it didn't really do many things or had a very detailed characterization.
     
  7. siccoyote

    siccoyote Worst side of the fandom

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Posts:
    4,692
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +4,411
    Ebay:
    I said that was the case with the bay versions. Barricade was a gruff bad cop/robot, who shouts. Which is more characterisation than G1 barricade got, but there was a G1 Barricade.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Haywired

    Haywired Hakunamatatacon

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2014
    Posts:
    9,019
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Likes:
    +12,909
    At times I want a reboot where the Micromaster patrols are given single hivemind for the entire patrol just to poke fun at how they didn't even have separate bios for the group members.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. CannonBlaster

    CannonBlaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2020
    Posts:
    1,175
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Likes:
    +8,537
    Instagram:
    I don’t think the Bay characters are all that unfaithful other than Optimus and Hound.
     
  10. Porkulus

    Porkulus Too Many Hobbies

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,405
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Location:
    The Space Jam
    Likes:
    +1,059
    YouTube (Legacy):
    But most iterations of Transformers aren't adaptations, at least not strictly speaking. They're reinterpretations. So why would the creators be under any obligation to match "source material?" Of course, I'm asking that question hypothetically. In the real world, Hasbro does have some incentive to keep some ideas similar between every iteration of the Transformers story.

    I think this is an important thing to note in terms of where people with this mindset draw their lines.

    I think I mentioned Energon Bulkhead earlier-- no one complains that new versions of Bulkhead aren't anything like him, because they didn't like him (or Energon) very much. But again, that response is being derived from personal preference. People didn't like Energon Bulkhead, so they don't mind if he changes.

    But Hasbro and Transformers creators have the same right to change any character, not just ones people don't care about. And are we supposed to then believe that popular consensus determines which elements of the Transformers story remain fixed as canon through all iterations of the brand? To give a hypothetical example, if people really like Cyberverse Grimlock, and we determine that he makes a significant enough "impact," is it wrong if future versions of Grimlock aren't like him? Because if we follow the logic that the monolithists use, that would be true. And I don't think that's fair.
     
  11. Haywired

    Haywired Hakunamatatacon

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2014
    Posts:
    9,019
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Likes:
    +12,909
    Something can be inaccurate only when it's intentionally set in the same continuity. In a franchise where each and every reboot is its own continuity, an inaccuracy can happen only if it contradicts itself.

    I reserve myself the right to not like a reimagined take, etc, etc... But nine times out of then it hardly is an inaccuracy.
     
  12. CannonBlaster

    CannonBlaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2020
    Posts:
    1,175
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Likes:
    +8,537
    Instagram:
    There’s a big difference there in that Bulkhead was never particularly liked before Animated while Grimlock has been popular for years before Cyberverse came out.
     
  13. Porkulus

    Porkulus Too Many Hobbies

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,405
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Location:
    The Space Jam
    Likes:
    +1,059
    YouTube (Legacy):
    Right, but my point is that Hasbro/ the writers of whatever Transformers media is in question have the same right to change any character/concept/idea regardless of popularity. In that post, I was trying to explain that while the fanbase may only react in certain ways based on preferences or perceived importance of a character/concept, Hasbro/creators have the right to change things regardless of what the fanbase likes, especially considering the polylithic nature of Transformers' storytelling.
     
  14. CannonBlaster

    CannonBlaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2020
    Posts:
    1,175
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Likes:
    +8,537
    Instagram:
    Well really anyone can do anything. Hasbro can change whatever they want and fans can like or dislike it. I’m not sure what you’re getting at?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Porkulus

    Porkulus Too Many Hobbies

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,405
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Location:
    The Space Jam
    Likes:
    +1,059
    YouTube (Legacy):
    I'm not denying that fans have a right to like or dislike whatever they want. Everyone is entitled to their own preferences. The point of the thread was to point out the flaw in fans claiming that certain versions of characters/concepts are "bad" because they are unfaithful to an "original," despite the fact that the franchise's storytelling structure means that there have never really been "originals" to compare things to and that any take or spin on a concept/character is equally valid as the creation of the writers/Hasbro.
     
  16. CannonBlaster

    CannonBlaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2020
    Posts:
    1,175
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Likes:
    +8,537
    Instagram:
    Fair enough. Personally, I wouldn’t call something objectively bad just because it didn’t follow the logic of another continuity, even if it disappointed me
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. siccoyote

    siccoyote Worst side of the fandom

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Posts:
    4,692
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +4,411
    Ebay:
    Nothing is "Bad" because it's unfaithful, things are unfaithful if they are unfaithful and they are bad if they are bad.

    Some creations are better than others.

    You can go away from what people want, if in the end you make it good enough that people forget about how they didn't like the change (ala beast wars)

    It's like the star fleet orders, you can disobey them and save Earth, it'll be cool to your superiors. They'll even applaud you. But you better be sure you save Earth. 'Cause if you don't, then you'll get a court martial.
     
  18. WishfulThinking

    WishfulThinking The world has moved on...we've always said.

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    20,771
    News Credits:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    372
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Likes:
    +26,845
    Facebook:
    Twitter:
    Some context...

    While Generation One might not have told a cohesive story between the Sunbow cartoon, the TOEI sequels, the Marvel comics, Beast Wars and whatever popped up in the 80's and 90's, the characters were largely consistent in look and characterization. Optimus Prime was unmistakably Optimus Prime in whatever media he appeared in, Megatron ditto, etc. All media tied back to the original concept of Autobots and Decepticons leaving Cybertron and continuing their war in disguise on Earth and beyond.

    This lasted immutably for 25 years.

    All this changed at Botcon 2000, when Hasbro declared at their panel that, out of perceived necessity, they were going to start approaching the franchise as continually rebooting ala "Final Fantasy". This shocked the fan community, meaning that Robots In Disguise was officially not connected and that the incoming series Armada would be another reboot on top of that. This has been Hasbro's stance until the ill-fated Aligned Continuity...but we're still technically there.

    The most recent shift has been toward establishing iconic franchise characters. Bumblebee, Optimus, Megatron, Soundwave, etc. are now receiving "evergreen" designs. This means those characters will now on retain most of the evergreen characteristics, both physically and personality wise. Some will say this is redundant or boring...but it's what comicbooks have done for eight decades now and are still going. That's what Hasbro wants for Transformers - icons to tentpole around.

    So, such things as Unicron being Earth is probably going to be left behind, like the Bay movie franchise as a whole. What made characters iconic, whether in G1 or in later media, is what will be used for the foreseeable future.

    While it's not a monolithic franchise, we're moving into an iconic franchise where the icons are expected and will be used.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Magnum Dongus

    Magnum Dongus @DiddlyDipstick on Twitter

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Posts:
    1,523
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Likes:
    +3,783
    Yes, I’m aware that they want to use previous names so that they can keep the trademarks on them. That is why I said if they don’t want to come up with a new name, it would make sense for them to at least use a name with a previous meaning that fits the new character. Like I said earlier, they could have called Armada Wheeljack “Sideswipe” and they would have still retained copyright on a G1 name.
     
  20. JT-bob

    JT-bob Autobum

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Posts:
    4,264
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Likes:
    +8,959
    Ebay:
    Are we ever given the idea that "Wheeljack" is a common Cybertronian name? It's not like he's "Bob Wheeljack", the names are monolithic in Transformers even if the storytelling isn't, the one time we've had 2 Megatrons in the same continuity - BW - it came about because initially it wasn't a different character in very early product, and the storytelling had to be directly addressed. Tankor and Tankor was direclty addressed in the IDW comic. There's expectations when your characters are singularly-named, you yourself highlighted that with "Wheeljack" not being an inventor-related name, the name is generic but you know the name in Transformers is tied to an "inventor" character because that's its origin.