Every time I see a bayformer, I want to throw my tv out the window.

 

I love the designs and the action. My biggest problem with the movies was the "down time". Characters need to take a breath and not be so hyper the whole time.
The G1 cartoon didn't really have much character development that I recall. I remember the toy tech specs giving more character. For example, one of the seekers was kind of questioning the Decepticon cause. That was never explored in the show AFAIK. The only real dynamic in the show I remember was Star Screams quest to overthrow Megatron.
I thought Beast Wars had by far the best character development of any Transformers media I watched.

 

You literally said "Transformers is G1", then backtracked on that here. And there's more non-G1 parts of the franchise out there than there are G1 parts, so I would totally be able to believe that there are more fans of things other than G1 than there are fans of just G1 by itself. Literally, this whole post was glorifying G1 and how other parts of the franchise are inferior and don't matter (even though I grew up with the Unicron Trilogy, smart-alack). BTW, in the initial post I responded to, you said "It doesn't have to be G1", then proceeded to describe a completely G1-styled movie.

 

No backtracking required. I still think Transformers are G1....personally. and popular culture agrees. You can find an Optimus Prime t shirt at Walmart. Its a cultural phenomenon. You dont have that same effect with the other secondary lines. Why get defensive over it?

Dont put words in my mouth: i never said the other lines were crap. I said they are not popular enough to warrant modern Hollywood films. And they are not, clearly. Even G1 is barely on the radar, compared to other brands and fiction. So you have to go with what the people know, as much as you dont like it or agree with it...and hope it catches on.

Prove me wrong when a Hollywood Beast Wars movie is made....hell, even Bay can direct it, I dont care. Reality check: not going to happen.

But keep bashing the childish G1 cartoon that did so much to popularize Transformers in North America...because thats going to help.

 

Please go reread my post...the one you quoted. "To ME, G1 is Transformers"thats what I said....who are you to say an opinion I stated about myself is wrong? I didn't say to YOU, Transformers have to be G1. I said what I would like to see in a TF movie. No drama, you just want to argue. Maybe some other time.

 

Fire in the sky, The Secret of omega supreme, War Dawn, The girl who loved powerglide, Microbots, Desertion of the dinobots, just to name a few off the top of my head. All of these characters went through some sort of significant change or backstory was revealed. Tell me anything you've learned about the characters in the Bayformers universe other than Bumblebee didn't want to talk because...he didn't.

Look, you're obviously not on board w/ a new G1-inspired interpretation of Transformers. Based on your comments, it sounds like you're assuming a "faithful" G1 interpretation includes 80s cartoon camp. That's definitely NOT what a lot of G1 fans I know and talk to online for years are asking for, not even CLOSE. There are tons of G1 fans who are STILL waiting for a faithful retelling/reinterpretation of the classic characters. The Bayverse wasn't it, and domestic audiences have spoken at the box office. Say what you will, but it was a helpful dose of G1 nostalgia that brought most people to the theaters for Transformers. Of course there are fans from every iteration, but the biggest and longest are the G1 fans. I don't know why you are so against them, or which ones rubbed you the wrong way, but you can't throw us all into a box and assume we all want the same thing.

Oh, and for the record I loved Beast Wars when I finally gave it a chance and actually thought the storytelling was far superior to the G1 cartoon. But of course it was! It was done over ten years later in a different creative atmosphere w/great writers building upon the legacy of an established franchise. But that doesn't mean I think Beast wars should be made into a live action series first, because it just wouldn't reach as many fans as G1 would.

I was open-minded about the Bay version when it launched. It was nothing like the one I remembered from my childhood, but I thought it had enough to build from and hoped it would integrate more from the reservoir of history. Instead, it devolved into idiotic, cash-grab, mindless "entertainment", which didn't even care about its own consistency. It was clearly a case where the producers said, "we can do anything we want at this point and people will still buy it." But that sort of philosophy can't sustain any brand, not with such a low-tier narrative. Even the Fast and Furious franchise kept its core family consistent enough to produce seven films, most of which were received well by its fans.

But with Transformers, a lot of G1 fans and their children came to the theaters super hyped from their nostalgia. And back then, before the movie was announced, nobody could have ever predicted they would produce a live action film. The idea was just so out there for so many people. After watching some early "Citreon Transformer" commercials, people started to see that this could work. So for lots of people, trading G1 authenticity for the chance of seeing a live action transformer was an easy trade. We were all pessimistic in those days, we "knew" Hollywood would butcher it. But a lot of people didn't care. They just wanted to see something transform onscreen, lol. But then people heard Peter Cullen was voicing Optimus Prime, and the G1 fans sighed relief. Because Cullen is so authentic G1 that even if everyone else had new voice actors and none of the characters were the ones we remembered, somehow having Cullen would legitimize and authenticate the experience. It would be like a G1 reboot.

Then the film came out. It had a core team including some of the most memorable characters from the original cartoon. The designs didn't sit well with many people, while others embraced them. I was one of the people who thought doing boxy looking Transformers onscreen was a bad idea. However I thought some of the designs went too far from a design perspective that made it difficult to even see what we were looking at at times. I think there's a middle ground that should have been reached. For example, we know they can do organic faces, just look at Quintessa, and Drift, or Lockdown. Less "exposed" parts, more focused/stylish design. Bumblebee and Prime's designs were nice, but some of the others....FEH.

To say nothing of the gross bastardization of Optimus Prime by the second film ("give me your face!") and turning him into a homicidal @$$hole.

But I digress...

Back to the point. Since the second film, the domestic box office has fallen consistently. That means that American audiences have been far less interested w/each film that's released. Why? Because there's NOTHING there for many people. Paramount MILKED the nostalgia dry. Nostalgia is a one-trick pony; it can't sustain a brand if shoddy writing and poorly conceived concepts continue to be the norm. And if you change things too much, you can kill nostalgia and threaten your brand (just look at fans after the Last Jedi)

We can analyze this into oblivion, but of course we'll diverge on subjectivity. Frankly, I choose my battles arming myself w/box office facts. People thought I was crazy (my brother included) when I told him The Last Knight wasn't going to do well months before it released. He was looking at the huge Age of Extinction numbers, mostly from China. But I was looking at the domestic numbers and the fan reactions, which say much more than international box office did, at least to me. And I was right. My sales drop estimates were too conservative actually (I predicted a drop to around 800 million)

In the end, people can say what they want, but I suspect Bumblebee won't do that well, at all. The franchise will definitely be rebooted, and you'd better believe producers are scrambling right now to figure out how to save the franchise.

Sadly, it's not that hard, but they make it sound hard. Hollywood, and the consumer industry as a whole, has ALWAYS had problems replicating success because they always follow the trends and never the requests of the fans. Fans are the ones who spend the money and give these corporations a job to go to work at and a very nice paycheck. Why is it so hard for them to realize that if you satisfy the fans, you'll be rich? People always throw money at what they appreciate and adore. People's money is always where their heart is.

Both Paramount and Lucasfilm are realizing that you can't ignore the fans without losing hundreds of millions. If they are fine w/that, then so are the fans; they'll just spend their money elsewhere. But if they are interested in sustaining their brand, like Marvel has, they must cultivate a positive relationship between the studio and the customer.

I find it SO IRONIC that everyone tries to be like Marvel, starting these huge universes, but NONE of them are experiencing the success they want because they all REFUSE to acknowledge the fans and give them what they want.

Just look at IDW. The company is literally in the tank. +90% drop in sales last year. Their revenue has all but atrophied. Rebooting the Transformers universe isn't going to shore their interests unless they address the fan concerns.

I know there are people that LOVE IDW Transformers comics. But at 5k sales a month on each of their titles, they don't have enough fans to sustain their business. That means that there's a much larger segment of the fandom that is displeased and unless they address and/or market to those fans, they won't be able to keep in business. It's just simple MATH.

Anywho, food for thought.

P.S. (my apologies if things seem incoherent, I'm fighting a cold)

GrungeWerX

 

We all have different ideas of what would make a good TF movie. We all have preferences. It's obvious we are all passionate about the brand. I rarely get into the era vs era arguments, so I should stick to my previous course of action. I appreciate everyone's passion for the brand, even though we don't agree how the movies should portray them. I hope you all are having a great weekend, I won't be commenting on this further.

 

A very well thought out position.

 

The fact the bee still has the ball gag mouth insults me.

 

@GrungeWerX Absolutely great comment. Finally someone who gets it. I wish somehow your commentary reached Hasbro's ears.

 

Because name recognition. Just look at how over the past decade, people posted in those "who do YOU want in the next film?" threads and specified characters by name. Very few, if any, EVER specified anything other than adapted G1 character versions even though the films are full of nameslaps (I.E. G1 Skids is nothing like ROTF Skids except maybe being a hatchback).

The real problem is not having characters who can last long enough to leave an impression for people to care about them, in so far as the movies are concerned. If it isn't Prime or Bumblebee, don't bother getting attached to any of those characters because they're all going to die without ever getting development. It's entirely hollow to suggest that the replacement Autobots in AoE are any kind of acceptable because why couldn't the original surviving cast be given the opportunity to really shine? Sideswipe's in two films where he gets memorable one liners? Nope he's just killed off screen and replaced by another Corvette with a lamer design who ALSO has dual pistols, for instance.

At this point, with TLK being a disaster almost on terms as being the same as the infamous Batman and Robin (right down to Goldsmith's involvement), Paramount needs ANYTHING they know will bring in the money. And G1 always sells.

Creative Risk may have given us the Transformers film franchise originally, but creative risk is what also led us into the pit that TLK landed the franchise currently. Trying to be 'experimental' with the films was a disaster, as was playing fast and loose with the continuity, so now either Paramount has to really reign it in from here or simply reboot and develop a damn linear backstory so this kind of dissonance within sequels doesn't happen again.

Except Transformers is at the end of the day, still a toyline aimed at children. Hasbro is a toy company. For decades, the formula was to let Transformers run for a few years before rebooting the continuity, such that the boys who aged out of that toy buying range are replaced by a new generation who could pick up the beginning of a story instead of having to start midway through (like the films pretty much are doing by not rebooting despite its original target market having grown into college students, and college students generally do not buy toys over more important things like food and other life necessities).

 

I'm saving this quote. It says what I want to say but in a better way.

 

Well that's on you.

Considering it's the same old people that have made it very clear they hate the current Movieverse with a passion, and they choose to come into threads about the movies and hate on them, even though they could easily not do that, then yeah, I'm gonna be annoyed with these people. There are a group of G1 fans that do just want G1 placed on rerun, and plenty of them come around and make these claims all the time. If you think I hate G1, you haven't even bothered to actually read everything I've written before about it. You can say that referencing other continuities is fine, but plenty others have made it clear they want other continuities to die and G1 be the only thing that exists. Claiming that referencing G1 should be first and foremost is still not right, having some equal references to other parts of the franchise would be the way to go, unless they want to make each series it's own Live-Action universe, and create a Multiverse (as unlikely as that is). Why don't you try going back and reading some things from this and other threads where plenty of "fans" just ask for G1 pandering and nothing else. You'd be disgusted at the attitude some of that group of the G1 fans have.

 

What would they lose if they finally admitted that the concept is appealing just as well to adults as it does to children? Why does it have to be one or the other exclusively? They already have a pretty substantial following from the beginnings of the franchise. We all know how passionate people who grew up with G1 are. They might not be the bulk of their audience, but they're damn well a potentially dependable backbone. You can produce fiction that on surface level can appeal to a kid, but has some depth to it if you care to look deeper. Which is what Marvel does at their best. Transformers fiction is as much kid's stuff as any Marvel comic that appeals to adults through the movie adaptations today. Heck, it IS a Marvel comic originally. I think what I'm getting at is what they used to call "for the young and young at heart". That's the sweet spot that, ideally Transformers should strive to hit in my opinion.

 

Also, this is a thought process that I've seen give many people the wrong idea. The Live-Action Movies were not trying to be G1. These movies weren't created as a reboot of G1, they were made as another part of the franchise. Peter Cullen was name recognition, but he does good anyway because he's Peter Cullen.  The argument I've heard several times is "Transformers IS G1". No. G1 is part of Transformers, as the franchise is full of varying continuities that aren't the main focus over others, like how DC and Marvel have one specific universe they focus on more. The brand is fluid, it creates these new worlds all the time. Honestly, the Multiverse being explored would be amazing to see, if it somehow became a logical and profitible possibility for the movies. Until people can understand this, then the idea of Transformers only being, or mainly being, G1 will always let people down because those are unrealistic expectations.

This seems kind of strange to say. The idea with the Bumblebee movie and seemingly for the reboot is nostaglia. How could they have milked the well of nostalgia dry, but then turn around and change things to be more nostalgic, and somehow that'll be better (not that the movie will flop because of it, this statement just seems contradictory to me).

 

That still doesn't quite deal with the fact that, as new fans come in, not rebooting would cause them to come in right in the middle of whatever's going on, and things would be confusing and they'd have to go back and watch/read everything for it to make sense. Kids definitely won't do that, and a lot of adults don't want to do that either. Part of the reason they do the constant refreshing of the franchise is that G1 lasted almost a decade, and the franchise started to die down during the late 80's-early 90's. Hasbro created Beast Wars to revitalize the franchise, and it worked. Transformers almost died back then because it was the same thing all the time. I believe that's why Hasbro constantly creates new continuities, to keep from losing fans/buyers.

 

How is this NOT a description of what was done with the characters in the Bay movies? That made up the majority of the screentime across 5 films.

 

You also said "it doesn't have to be full G1", then still proceeded to describe a soley G1-styled movie.

 

Oh, I agree with that to a certain degree. Of course there need to be reboots every so often. My point was not as much against rebooting as it was about what the appeal of the concept seems to be to me. If you can get adult fans as well as kids, why not get them? Adults bring their kids to the theater as well and buy all their toys for them. And the kids grow up and hopefully look back to the franchise with fondness instead of cringe. And overall the brand creates a sense of consistency and dependable quality. On the other hand though, rebooting so often and with such extreme variety of style, quality and result, has major downsides in that it can seem overwhelmingly chaotic to someone interested in diving into the history of the brand. And also, it often makes every previous thing essentially obsolete by the time the next comes along. This creates divisions in the fandom and deprives the brand of a unifying identity. To be honest, if the movies, which have been a central pillar and a public face for the brand had been less experimental and distant with their approach, things would have been a lot smoother. I hope the reboot represents everything we love about the brand at its purest, most iconic form, so that the general public can hopefully join us in our love for Transformers, instead of a deviation that doesn't faithfully represent it. In other words, a solid, clear vision and identity across media.

 

That is a thing only with many of us Transformers fans. The average person on the street does not care if the supporting Autobots in the films are Skids and Mudflap, Sideswipe and Sunstreaker, or Kup and Hot Rod. The average person on the street would not care if the supporting Decepticons to Megatron/Galvatron or whoever the leader was were Starscream or Shockwave, or Cyclonus and Scourge, or Mindwipe and Weirdwolf.

One, those replacements in AoE have more to their characters and personalities than the cast members they replaced.

Two, new robots being introduced is part of the reality of Transformers. It's been that way since G1. If people don't like it that's their freedom. I just think that fans shouldn't expect a brand with many hundreds of robot characters to always feature their personal favorites. Some of my favorite robots have barely been featured in recent fiction if any at all, but I'm perfectly okay with that.

Not in all cases. Some of the best things about the movies were risky. Making the main antagonists of DotM and AoE an Autobot turncoat wanting to work with the Decepticons and a bounty hunter who viewed both sides as damaging to the universe, respectively, were two of the best creative decisions in the Bay movies. Neither would have happened had the people making the movies had not taken risks.

Did I ever say that wasn't the case? The vast majority of Transformers characters across all media are stereotypes, archetypes, and clichés. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I just think that people who hold the one-note characters from G1 as some sort of pedestal of quality next to the Bay movies have no idea what they're talking about.

Yeah, the Bay movies have plenty of examples of robots that are either snarling monsters or one-line spouters, but they also have some robots that actually have a little more to them.