I have to say that I probably wouldn’t be a Transformers fan today if I were introduced to anything besides the movies. I guarantee that I wouldn’t have liked Armada. My initial impressions of Transformers was a cheesy giant robot fight cartoon, and barely paid any mind to it. I remember seeing it for the first time on cable TV when I was around 4 to 5 years old in my family room and being starstruck. The designs as well as the film itself blew any prior impressions I had of Transformers out of the water. I can’t speak for others, but they were the perfect gateway for me to be introduced to the franchise. That’s probably why I am so fond of them.

 

I think it's a cultural thing for me, since I don't think the Unicron Trilogy (or indeed, anything between Sunbow and the '07 film) was ever that big a deal in the UK.

Now, I remember seeing a couple of episodes of TF: Cybertron before the '07 movie came out (I definitely remember the one where Starscream releases all the Ancient Decepticons), so nobody was totally unfamiliar, but I don't think anyone in my age group was really all that into the franchise prior to the first movie. Maybe that was because it aired on CITV, which was famous at the time for airing anime dubs (except for the Disney cartoon block which aired every Saturday morning), whilst all the good stuff (mostly Scooby Doo and Pinky and the Brain) was on CBBC.

 

That was my first impression. As Armada and RID 2001 was my introduction and was wondering where Jetfire was, I thought Bumblebee was Hot Shot, Ratchet was Red Alert, Blackout and Brawl was Cyclonus and Demolishor, respective, and I thought Ironhide was meant to be Scavenger as they felt the same. I knew who Megatron, Optimus, and Starscream were.

Was hoping to see the rail team, was also disappointed, to see no Wedge. The build team were my first Transformer toys.

And I thought RID 2001 and Armada was the same series or at least connected somehow although at the time I didn't understand what sequels were or shared universe so I didn't know how to describe it?

 

Your saying that the live action Transformer films partly inspired super hero film effects? When the comic industry has been around and on screen for far longer then any of Hasbro's major properties? That's...such a pompous and erroneous statement.  

 

While I can’t really add anything to prove or dispute his argument, I think what he’s saying is that it inspired the big blockbuster super hero movies like Avengers and Iron Man, and not necessarily the super hero genre as a whole.

 

Well I'm not entirely sure what he means then? Certain forms of CGI? That's been around for a long time. Longer I think, then some people might remember. Bombastic battle effects? Ditto. Hollywood likes their big flashy fights and splosions. Its more like a consistent evolution of special effects for better and worse that have been going on a long time. And its still an erroneous statement.

X-Men predates live TF and it had those things in spades.

 

Could be worse, could be his transformation from the Western Star in AOE where his arm just floats next to his truck cab and everything completely vanishes without a trace, sucked away into a robot with no truck parts on it anywhere.

The first three movies definitely made the transformations "overdramatic" to make them look more awe-inspiring and impressive, but at least they actually felt like stuff was moving around into a new place. Like when everything around Optimus' cab in the alley scene clicks into place, then the whole section falls forward like it was waiting for everything to get into position, is completely unnecessary but looks super cool and "real." Like everything has to move in a specific way. By AOE parts just floated around, unconnected to anything, often just getting sucked inside and out of sight. The worst offender was Lockdown in front of the grain silos, who's entire alt mode was a different colour and finish than his robot mode, and looked especially bullshit since nothing matched between modes and just completely vanished.

 

ILM's very specific work on doing highly convincing CGI metal was allegedly a big confidence boost for Marvel studios that they could make Iron Man work.

 

As was Dead Man's Chest - Jon Favreau hired ILM to do the effects for Iron Man after he saw those two films.

 

So it would be fair to say that your affection and love of these designs comes from a place of nostalgia rather than something tangible? I'm not judging, I'm just trying to make sense of things.

It also must not feel particularly great to latch onto something, when that thing you love so much (and may be your only attachment to the series as a whole) is the ugly, unwanted bastard child of the Transformers IP, like the baby from Eraserhead. Perhaps that's a little harsh but there are few redeeming elements about these objectively bad films and I see no need to hold back in my critique.

I'm gonna finish this by saying something that I'm getting tired of having to specify: It's okay to like these movies. I like bad movies too. Don't take harsh criticism of something you like as a personal attack. You're probably not gonna have a fun time if you honestly try to argue that these are good films because as far as I can see, someone who has scoured the web for any and all arguments in favor of these movies, there are just no convincing arguments that don't fall back on subjective things such as feelings, nostalgia and other platitudes.

 

I can't speak for him, obviously, but in my case, it's a little bit of nostalgia - when I was ten years old, both myself and pretty much my entire class thought that Transformers was the shit. To a mid 2000's kid, Optimus Prime transforming in the alleyway is what the first scene with the Brachiosaurus in Jurassic Park was to the 90's kids. And we still remember it fondly.

However, there are tangible reasons that I like not just some of the designs, but the films in general - I like the intricacy and the attempts to make the robots look more alien and I like the way the visual effects artists made the designs look in CGI.

This, aside from being very much a backhanded compliment, is ignoring the fact that there has been far, far worse contant in the brand - TF: Energon, the Dreamwave comics, the online Combiner Wars cartoon. All those are objectively bad - not in the funny, drecky so-cheesy-it's-hilarious way ROTF is bad, but genuinely, horrifically, abysmally bad.

If you criticise the 2007 film and defend Energon, what you are is wrong, just as the people who say that TLK was teh best film evah are wrong. As you have said, there's opinions and there's facts - if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Also, the overall impact of the films on the franchise has been positive - it gave the brand a massive amount of coverage and led to a massive increase in mainstream popularity for the brand. That's a good thing, no matter how you look at it.

Transformers has been around for 35 years - that's a long time as franchises go. And be they Marvel, DC, James Bond, Godzilla or Transformers, franchises don't span multiple decades without changing significantly. The Batman of today is a very different character to the one Bob Kane and Bill Finger created 80 years ago, just as the Daniel Craig Bond is very different to the Sean Connery Bond.

But, you know what? Change is good; we shouldn't go round acting like "all change is bad", because what would we be left with if we didn't? We'd be left with shit like the 2019 Lion King - bland, repetitive, paint-by-numbers content, with no willingness to take risks.

And, besides, other people may like the changes. To my eight-year-old cousin, Bumblebee is mute and talks through the radio - just as Carol Danvers is Captain Marvel. That's not "wrong" - that's the version of the characters she knows. And she cherishes them just as much as some people do G1 Bee and Mar-Vell.

​

The bolded statement you have made is true - I like the trashy, Syfy Original Movies because I like schlocky monster films. There's nothing wrong with appreciating something for dreck value - hell, ROTF is a good example of that. It's a bad film, but it's not capital-B bad - it's so cheesy and drecky, it's impossible not to like it. And surely that's all that matters - the film is supposed to be entertaining.

However, what people consider a "good" film is subjective - I find most so-called "Oscar bait" films utterly tedious and boring, whilst Pixels is one of my favourite films, because it's funny, surprisingly charming in places and takes the piss out of various aspects of video game culture (speaking as someone who's been a gamer all his life).

If you go on some of the Internet articles about the movies, multiple redeeming elements are noted - the effects, the score, the cinematography and the attempts to introduce high-concept sci-fi in DOTM and AOE. It is just that you refuse to hear them out - it isn't people taking something they like as a personal attack, it is attempts to rebuke your arguments and your backfire effect is preventing you from listening to them.​

 

The thing is you DO attack users who like the movies:

Kinda ironic, given you also have said:

 

Yes, @Novaburnhilde, you're either being unintentionally hypocritical - or you're just being self-righteous and saying "please don't take me calling you idiots as a personal attack - you are idiots!"

I would hazard a guess as to the latter.

 

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, @Novaburnhilde is referring to the casual moviegoers who don't view it any deeper than "entertain me while I snuggle my boo thang" and give little to no shits about deep storytelling or the lack thereof.

 

When reading rest of the quote, specifically the bold part - it definitely seems like she's talking about some users on these boards since she's clearly referring to the countless debates and arguments between defenders and haters of the Bay movies that has happened in these threads:

 

Whether someone likes the films or not, I don't know how someone can defend insults like this:

So just because this individual doesn't like the Bay movies and thinks they're bad, that means the primary audiences of those movies aren't "mentally capable of appreciating more complex elements in a film?"

OR it could be that people just enjoy the movies for what they are and that many of the same people can also enjoy deeper fiction? People are allowed to like both effects-laden blockbusters and Oscar bait.

Also, could it be possible that some people actually see good things in the Bay movies others don't? And that such people aren't wrong for seeing good things in them?

One of the reasons I enjoy them is that, in addition to being entertaining, I DO think there's a lot of good things in these movies that are haphazardly dismissed by critics and fans. They DO make me think!

 

I don't see that, the context I pointed out before is plain to see. The only way you could interpret that as a dig at specific fans here is if you were going into it with that expectation and you fill in the blanks to allow you to be professionally offended.

 

And that's still kind of a self-righteous thing to say. Let's look at her quote in full, shall we, particularly the bits in bold?

She seems to think that the kind of people who went to see the Transformers movies aren't "mentally capable of appreciating more complex elements in a film". If that isn't being self-righteous, I don't know what is.

In reality, if you plot 'a person's favourite films' against 'their intelligence', the pattern is so unreadable that you might as well just draw a bunch of random dots. Plenty of intelligent people went to see the Bay films - myself included.

I have a first-class honours degree in Zoology, and had the highest grade in my year (I was the valedictorian for you Americans). And, yet, I snigger at the word "toilet" in the manner of Beavis and Butthead.

I enjoyed the Bay films in their better moments, as well as absolutely loving crappy monster flicks, such as the Syfy original films and Sharknado, as well as lowest-of-the-low comedy movies, such as the Jackass films and Borat - however, I also absolutely love The Shape of Water, E.T., and the Wizard of Oz.

Bookwise, I read books by many highbrow science fiction, horror and fantasy authors, such as Michael Crichton, Stephen King, George R.R. Martin and Robert Holdstock, as well as science textbooks - however, I also read comedy books with names like Shitsville, UK.

And the point is, if you feel a series of films about giant robots punching each other insults your intelligence, you might not be as intelligent as you like to think yourself to be.​

 

We see it differently then. However, I don't understand how "when called out on this the only thing they seem capable of sputtering out is 'b-but all art is subjective' to make themselves feel a tiny ounce better" is a reference to casual moviegoers. To me it's obviously a jab at a set of individuals on this site that has made that exact argument plenty of times.

Either way, to whoever it was for, hardcore fans or casual moviegoers, it's an insult. She's attacking people for liking and defending a movie/movies because her view is the only "correct" one. She can't stand someone defending these movies. And she's clearly a hypocrite for it - saying "there's no need to lob insults"... unless she's the one handing them out eh?

 

Speaking for myself, I'm not the easily offended type at all. I think society is going too much in the direction of restricting what people say and do and what opinions people are allowed to have, because some people might take offense (although I can't say too much more on that for obvious reasons).

And yet, the way some fans act here is still ridiculous. The movies a person likes says nothing about what they are "mentally capable" of. Especially if you consider the fact that many of the most vocal haters of the movies who now say such things once enjoyed the movies to some capacity. That's one reason a lot of the current Bayverse hatred feels forced to me; it's like many people feel obligated to hate the movies, and while many detractors don't insult the fans, and I respect that, others feel a need to insult the fans of the Bayverse, too.