When it comes to following rules, it's more about following thread topics rather than posting quirks. Yeah, we're admittedly going off topic in here, but I think when we go into a thread, and we get into the same debates in every thread, it kind of takes away from the uniqueness of thread topics. I'm not saying none of here have never gotten off topic, because we probably all have multiple times. If I do want people to follow the rules, it usually means I want the thread to go back on topic, which in this thread probably won't happen, but this thread was probably doomed from the beginning.

But I am a realist. It's why I don't have pipe dreams about a Beachcomber- or Sixshot-starring spinoff or a live action film with no humans that costs much more than even The Last Knight.

Thanks!

Yes, the movies aren't perfect. Yes, The Last Knight had its problems, some similar to previous films, but others unique to it. That doesn't mean TLK eliminated everything people may have liked about its predecessors.

Except in the last decade-and-a-half, there have been plenty of avenues for the Transformers brand in addition to the movies. That's one of the best things about the brand this millennium! You had multiple cartoons, IDW comics, Generations, and Masterpiece, not to mention video games like WFC, FoC, and Devastation!

And if the "face of the brand" happens to be something I don't like? That's fine. People should not base their happiness based on what is or isn't popular, but on what they enjoy personally.

Kind of going off topic, but just to use it as an analogy, if you ever notice, ads for environmental and conservation NGOs typically use famous and charismatic or cute animals: whales, polar bears, tigers, giant pandas, etc. However, many of the most threatened species are animals most people have never heard of. A lot of media focus is put on the African rhinos and the poachers they face, but the much more threatened Javan and Sumatran rhinos, with fewer than 100 animals alive each, get much less attention. Cute and fuzzy mammals get a lot more attention than amphibians, which are much more threatened as a group. Ever hear of saolas? Vaquitas? Great Indian bustards? Giant, white-shouldered, and dwarf ibises? All much more threatened than polar bears or the vast majority of whales; every specific species I just mentioned numbers less than a thousand individuals by far; vaquitas might number less than a dozen.

Yet, those more famous animals can act as umbrellas for supporting the conservation of those even much rarer species, even if they arguably hog much of the media spotlight from lesser known but equally important species, and initial interest in more well known species can get people to learn and care about those lesser known species. That's what the movies can be viewed as. People don't have to like them, but they have been an avenue for getting people interested in the brand.

And even if there never was a single piece of Transformers I liked made again, I'd still be fine with that, because all of the stuff I do like is still present, and perhaps other people will find something new they like.

But you see, that's one of the reason why I like it. I understand fans wanting a happy ending for the Autobots, or being nostalgic for the days of Sam Witwicky, but it's also interesting to see the alternative where things go in a new direction and the Autobots have new enemies and old ones reincarnated. AoE took things a little out of that Original Trilogy comfort zone, and I love it as a result. It was similar enough to the previous movies to be enjoyable to fans like myself who enjoyed the first three, but it also did enough things different to seem novel. I like it, because, while following some formulaic aspects of its predecessors, it also wasn't the movie many people predicted. It wasn't the movie I expected nor the movie I would have made...and I love it as a result!

I don't know. In real life, most people don't have a problem with that. The few people who do are people that didn't like much of anything about me anyway.

Unfortunately, it's the tendency of human beings in groups to act as groups rather than individuals. Consequently, people of any opinion need to be careful about it. Personally speaking, I have always advocated for a diversity of opinions, because intellectual diversity is a greater strength than conformity. Not even all of the movie fans in this thread have the same opinions as I do, but that's okay, because it shows we do think differently.

You're kind of missing the point here.

My point isn't that Hazekiah is this perfect, flawless individual. We all have flaws. Every single Transformers fan is a human being that has flaws, unless they're a dog who likes to chew on Transformers toys left out; then they're a flawed canine!

My point was that he came up with thread topics where he built up a case by using plenty of evidence to show the movies were more than meets the eye. He was trying to point things out other people had not noticed, or at least not posted about before. And it's by looking at things through different lenses where we can really let our minds run wild.

The human mind works best on the edge of insanity. Not insane enough, and you end up with complacency and stagnation. Too insane, and the mind is completely unorganized. Only on the knife's edge between sanity and insanity is the human mind daring enough to be creative and innovate, but not too insane to be chaotic.

 

Nah, that's not how it works. Anyone can be a fan but they have to actually make an effort to be a part of the space, they're free to not be a part of the fandom but if they choose to interact with other fans they should expect some push-back if they say dumb, objectionable or just flat-out incorrect things.

Gatekeeping is a good thing to do with any hobby or interest, obviously not taken to an extreme but without any gatekeeping at all it allows people who don't care about or understand the thing in question to get involved when they probably shouldn't be. Your statement is just gutless, wishy washy platitudes to make people with fragile egos feel better. Which is also why I've stated Bay movie fans appear to be very insular and will react poorly to slight prodding.

This whole thing seems to hinge on the fact that some peoples love for Transformers seems to originate for a series of badly made films that are a bad representation of Transformers. If they still really like it despite it not being good TF Media, what does that say about them and their beloved 'fan' status? Nothing's halting their progress from consuming other (better) TF media, they also seem to project a lot onto others because I truly think deep down they feel like they aren't 'true fans'.

I'd go further and state that generally ardent fans of the Michael Bay movies just make the rest of us look bad. It makes us look like we have basically no standards and will support and consume bottom-tier shlock that has no substance. I'm genuinely embarrassed that the film legacy of something I care about is just trash, and has kind of cemented itself as damaged goods to many normies on the outside looking in.

They hear "Transformers", they think "Oh, those terrible CGI robot movies with the explosions and off-color humor?"

I'm not appealing to popularity, I'm just pointing out what I've observed from others in my interactions with people outside the fandom, who aren't bad people, they just don't know any better. Why should they? Transformers is niche by definition, a lot of Toylines from the 80's are, which isn't a bad thing either.

But when niche things become more popular / mainstream / socially acceptable to consume, it tends to lead to an influx of people who don't understand the appeal of the original, or want to change it (usually for the worse) and inevitably leads to inferior content as a result.

The irony is that Bay fans will often call the dreaded "Geewunners' stubborn to accept change and are unwilling to see other perspectives of the thing they love, when they themselves seem to be incapable of separating themselves from these objectively terrible movies.

I don't even know why I'm continuing to engage with these displays, boredom? Maybe a little stir crazy from the current situation we're all dealing with? Maybe I'm just interested in seeing what happened when Bay movie fans are provoked just a little bit. Nothing will register or compute, I'm just being a meanie head and a hater or a troll or whatevs.

 

The pretentious fuckery on display in this thread is astounding.

 

YIKES! Talk about "fragile egos". I'll say it again. Gate keeping is pretentious nonsense.

 

I guess the real question will be what happens when the franchise finally moves on from the bay films. Who will stay and who will go?

 

If Transformers was, historically, a franchise worth “gatekeeping,” there wouldn’t be any need to gatekeep it.

I’d almost agree that the movies reflect poorly on the franchise... had it’s legacy until then not been a terrible cartoon from the 80’s made to promote toys. Even public knowledge of the brand circa 2006 were shitty anime dubs. The movies, to most people, were an improvement on their perception of the brand. That’s how worthless Transformers as a franchise was, and in many ways still is.

Like, I hate what the movies have done to Transformers’ image, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking Transformers as a concept is anything beyond hokey shlock to begin with. We’re almost 35 years in and we have, what, three/four genuinely good shows and one decent movie to boast about? It may have produced some great things and kept us entertained, but it’s hardly anything to write home about, especially given its age.

 

Your point, kid?

 

In a franchise that has had some very sophisticated stories and character arcs, dealing with some very mature themes, it's not unreasonable to ask for higher standards from a Transformers film - and the Bayverse for the most part failed to reach those standards. And in an age where actors can win Oscars for playing the Joker and where Black Panther was in serious consideration for Best Picture and people were expecting Robert Downey Jr get a nom for Avengers: Endgame, it's understandable why people, you included were left wanting from the Bayverse sequels.

Like all fandoms, we crave general respectability, because we know how good the brand can be when it is at its best. With the MCU, Marvel have gained that, DC are starting to have that - however, Batman has had that for a very long time; indeed, that's the core reason actors winning Oscars for playing the Joker isn't really something people bat an eyelid over. Reinventions of Godzilla, James Bond and King Kong in recent years have earned great acclaim - the MonsterVerse interpretations of Godzilla and other Toho monsters have been very popular, Daniel Craig is widely considered to be one of the best Bond actors ever and, aside from being a big player in the MonsterVerse, King Kong had an acclaimed remake done by Peter Jackson. Transformers, for the most part, has not achieved this - the Bayverse at its best was standard blockbuster dreck and it's far too early to tell whether the goodwill the franchise has got now will last.

Let's point out, however, that those franchises had a strong and steady bedrock from which to build upon - Marvel and DC largely redefined the superhero comic as a genre and have had some incredibly good stories, Godzilla has had three eras of mostly good films and the 1933 King Kong is widely considered to be one of the greatest films in history. Prior to TF2007, the franchise's legacy was a shitty 80's cartoon made to sell toys and an animated movie that totally ripped off Star Wars. In the mid 2000's, most people knew the brand as crap anime dubs - TF2007 , to most people, was an improvement on public perception of the brand.

However, there's a difference between demanding higher standards from what we expect to see and gatekeeping. In fact, gatekeeping is precisely why the TF fandom has such a negative reputation - something which people who've worked on Transformers media and Hasbro themselves have pointed out multiple times. And yet the fandom refuses to listen.

Basically, your statement should be, "The poor quality of the Bayverse, by and large, has meant that the Transformers franchise has not gotten the cinematic respectability it deserves", not "We haven't got the respectability we deserve because the Bayverse fans are lowering the tone." One is debating the subjective merits (or lack thereof) of one of the most high-profile pieces of the brand which has clouded many people's perception of what the brand should be. That's fine, The other is calling a whole set of the fandom degenerates - which is a horrendously elitist attitude.

Except... what standards are you judging "inferior content" by? Not to be confrontational, but you've been consistently vague on what you consider "good content" to be. Give an example.

As for the "appeal of the original", @SPLIT LIP puts this in far better words than I ever could.

 

Thanks. I'll admit I sometimes cause things to go off the rails. At the same time, I, too, want good future additions to TF media. I just heard another tidbit about the forthcoming animated film-and to be brutally honest, there are G1 things that make me cringe, and I'm way past tired of getting the same G1 characters over and over again: Animated ‘Transformers’ Prequel Activated; ‘Toy Story 4’s Josh Cooley To Direct For Hasbro/eOne & Paramount. I just want decent entries.

 

I wanna preface what I'm about to say by stating I like you SL and I often value your input, but I think this is a bad argument in an effort to downplay the damage that's been done. Overly nihilistic and cynical and it kinda leads me to wonder why you even hang around these parts in the first place if you have such a negative view of the hobby. Obviously anyone is free to do as they wish but if you dislike it that much maybe this isn't something you should spend as much time on? Maybe it's not for you? Maybe you can find what you're looking for in TF elsewhere? I don't doubt your 'credentials' or whatever, but this mindset you've unintentionally promoted is super unhelpful and detrimental to good content. Even if I'd be willing to agree that the majority of content TF has produced is just hokey schlock that doesn't mean we should just continue to accept low quality content, which I doubt is what you were trying to say, but I think to other users it will come off as that, as well as reaffirming the biases of hardcore Bay fans.

You claim that if this franchise was worth gatekeeping there wouldn't be any need to, which is ridiculous when you see all the stuff out there that has been co-opted and ruined from within. This is just false from the outset.

You then claim you'd almost agree that the movies reflect poorly on the series if it's legacy wasn't already trash, 1. that's just your opinion, 2. that doesn't somehow make the movies any less bad, this what aboutism feels like a smokescreen to deflect from the topic at hand. If you told me the things that you enjoy I'm sure more than a few of them began as vehicles to promote merchandise, which is not inherently a bad thing that somehow prevents it from being good. Believe it or not, 35 is still quite young in regards to the age of a franchise, there's still plenty of time to grow.

Whether you've intended it or not, this argument can basically justify any bad media under the idea that "Transformers was never good so who cares?". Look, I know that you're openly tired of "G1", is that perhaps leading to a kind of negative bias or outlook? I can imagine it's a bit tricky to like something while also dislike an element that's basically a fundamental part of the things identity. While I'd agree that the cartoon was not that great, a product of the time more than anything, what about the comics? The books? The toys to this day are still beloved due to how popular they were despite how simplistic and clunky they often were. Yeah the UT dubs weren't great, but so many other series went through that phase, it's not abnormal whatsoever. It's true that initially the movie did improve the perception, even for a year or so I'd say thanks to the film the perception of the brand was better.

But the first movie aged like milk. It does not hold up well at all.

You have a right to your opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. This really isn't that much different from the defenses I've seen for Star Wars to try and downplay just how disastrously Lucasfilm and Disney have butchered a once beloved franchise.

No hard feelings friend. <3

Not responding to Split Lip here, but this kneejerk reaction to the concept of gate-keeping is amusing, something that's existed in hobbies for literally decades.

As I've said before, there is zero sin in gatekeeping the "don't get me wrong, I love <hobby> but wouldn't it be better for everyone if <hobby> was fundamentally changed and the things you like about <hobby> were changed to be the things I like?" types.

 

There's a difference between wanting the franchise to be better than the bayverse films and saying people aren't "true fans" if they like or don't like the bayverse films. The later is what people call gatekeeping and should be avoided.

 

That's not what he was trying to say at all - he was saying that, to single the movies out as ruining the perception of Transformers as a brand is sort of foolish. It took the franchise over a decade to have a good cartoon - and it took another decade to make another good one. However, the good content is really freaking good. TF: Animated, Beast Wars and TF: Prime are amongst the best cartoons ever made and the IDW comics are among the best comics ever written.

It's not just @SPLIT LIP - people are getting kind of bored with the rampant G1-true updating. It was great at the time, but it's gradually wearing out its welcome. There's nothing wrong with reworking characters - in both appearance and personality - to keep in with the spirit of the originals, whilst being distinct in their own right. Indeed, the Transformers franchise's capacity for reinvention - people taking the franchise and putting their own spin on it. is exactly why the reason the franchise has endured for so long, whilst others from that time have sulked in obscurity. ​

A good comparison would be the Godzilla franchise - where virtually no character has an established origin. King Ghidorah and Mechagodzilla have gone through a lot of different origins - Ghidorah's gone from destructive alien monster (and self-employed superweapon for various invading aliens) to mutant created by time travellers to heroic guardian monster to Lovecraftian abomination from another dimension to near-unkillable devil-analogue. Mechagodzilla's gone from alien robot built to invade Earth, robot built by the JSDF to protect Japan from Godzilla, a cyborg built by the JSDF using the bones of the original Godzilla, alien grey-goo weapon and (according to rumours from Godzilla vs. Kong) a superweapon built by a secret conspiracy who want to exterminate all of the Titans.

Firstly, @SPLIT LIP was talking about Transformers media - not Transformers toys. And, secondly, whilst Furman's run on the Marvel G1 comic is quite rightly considered one of the high points of Transformers fiction, the fact still remains that more people remember the cartoon than the comics - in fact, I honestly think there are people who don't know there were Transformers comics before IDW. G1 is more remembered from the cartoon, which coloured people's perception of the franchise. Prior to TF2007, the franchise's legacy was a shitty 80's cartoon made to sell toys and an animated movie that totally ripped off Star Wars and traumatised a generation of kids. In the mid 2000's, most people knew the brand as crap anime dubs - in fact, the Unicron Trilogy was pretty much shite from beginning to end, which caused the brand to sink into a bit of a slump.

However, you are right to say that TF2007 hasn't aged well - for a very good reason.

Back in 2007, Transformers was groundbreaking in terms of CGI - many have cited it as a highwater mark in large-scale visual effects. It's no exaggeration to say that the 2007 film set a new standard for extravagant visual effects - indeed, the whole MCU probably wouldn't have existed if it weren't for what Transformers proved could be done with large-scale visual effects.

I often say that Transformers was to film what the revival of Doctor Who was to TV - the 2005 revival basically said that you could have Hollywood-standard special effects and top notch screenwriting for a television programme on television budgets. In the same vein, Transformers showed what you could do with visual effects by bringing these characters to life - visual effects standards had advanced to a point where you could make giant transforming robots look real in CGI and portray them as characters. Remove these two things from history in the mid 2000's and the picture changes significantly.

I was ten years old when the first Transformers came out and it blew me away - I'd had an ambition to make films for quite a few years and seeing Transformers was pretty much what catalysed that desire. I can't articulate to you what it felt like, sitting in my local ODEON, watching the Blackout base attack and thinking "I want to make something like that someday". Transformers is the reason I want to be a filmmaker.

Nowadays, we live in an age where we've seen the visual standard TF2007 got praised for done better and more effectively, with other action blockbusters such as the MCU having equally extravagant visual effects as well as much better acting, plotlines and characterization. People are starting to get that top-notch special effects aren't really any substitute for a good story. The Bayverse didn't adapt to what audiences were wanting and became "old hat" as a result. We've also had an increased standard in CGI characterisation - the acclaim that Rocket Raccoon, Caesar and Iorek Byrnison (in the BBC/HBO His Dark Materials series) got, not just as visual effects, but as actual characters make most of the Bayverse Transformers look rather less impressive by comparison. Yes, it's an accomplishment they made these characters seem realistic and emotive, but we've had characters who are more emotive, more realistic-looking and have significantly better dialogue and characterisation in the thirteen years since. They were cutting-edge for the time, but are old hat now.​

This.

In a franchise that has had some very sophisticated stories and character arcs, dealing with some very mature themes, it's not unreasonable to ask for higher standards from a Transformers film - and the Bayverse for the most part failed to reach those standards. And in an age where actors can win Oscars for playing the Joker and where Black Panther was in serious consideration for Best Picture and people were expecting Robert Downey Jr get a nom for Avengers: Endgame, it's understandable why people were left wanting from the Bayverse sequels.

Like all fandoms, we crave general respectability, because we know how good the brand can be when it is at its best. Marvel have gained that, Batman has had that for a very long time and reinventions of Godzilla, James Bond and King Kong in recent years have earned great acclaim - in fact, Kong has achieved this twice, with an acclaimed film by Peter Jackson twelve years before he became a big player in the MonsterVerse. Transformers, for the most part, has not achieved this - the Bayverse at its best was standard blockbuster dreck and it's far too early to tell whether the goodwill the franchise has got now will last.

However, there's a difference between demanding higher standards from what we expect to see and gatekeeping - gatekeeping encourages toxic attitudes that end up alienating people from the fandom. In fact, gatekeeping is precisely why the TF fandom has such a negative reputation - something which people who've worked on Transformers media and Hasbro themselves have pointed out multiple times. And yet the fandom refuses to listen. Basically, the statement should be, "The poor quality of the Bayverse, by and large, has meant that the Transformers franchise has not gotten the cinematic respectability it deserves", not "We haven't got the respectability we deserve because the Bayverse fans are lowering the tone." One is debating the subjective merits (or lack thereof) of one of the most high-profile pieces of the brand which has clouded many people's perception of what the brand should be. That's fine, The other is calling a whole set of the fandom degenerates - which is a horrendously elitist attitude.​

 

Holy fucking HELL, how many times do I have to repeat this one sentence in this fucking thread?!??!!?!!?


When they made the comment about non-fans, they meant casual moviegoers that have no real investment in the franchise other than sucking down popcorn while killing a couple hours at the theater on the newest hotness. It's not that fucking difficult for anyone other than the professionally offended to understand.

 

Implying that casual moviegoers somehow do not "matter" or their opinions are invalid, compared to so-called "real fans" is not the smartest thing to do if you want to get people interested in your fandom.

Gatekeeping is exactly why the Transformers fandom has such a negative reptutation - something which people who've worked on Transformers media have pointed out.

 

If the opinions of casual moviegoers mattered, then we wouldn't have gotten four sequels loaded with the exact same criticisms leveled at the first film.

 

I think the "Casual Moviegoers" here refer to those who only watch TF because "it's the new hip" or... just went in because they want to see Mark Wahlberg.

We've those too in MCU, like those who only went to see Capt because they want to see Chris Evans, or GotG because they want to see Chris Pratt (also applies to Jurassic Park).

Sure they give money from ticket selling, but overall they don't really contribute to the Fandom's health... in a way I can't really explain over words.

 

How best to sum it up where you might understand it...

… @cybeast to the rescue.

 

@G1Prowl

And those casual moviegoers may become fans from what they've seen, like the MCU probably go a lot of people into Marvel. They may leave the film and think "I really enjoyed that, I wonder what other stuff from that there is? I'll Google it when I get home." And then they'll get hooked on the other stuff... If they behave themselves, that isn't a problem.

A perception of being insular and combative is exactly why the Transformers fandom has such a negative reputation - something which people who've worked on Transformers media have pointed out. And, whilst we all know those sort of people are a minority and that the vast majority of fans are decent people, the minority is a vocal one.

In some of the attitudes I've seen in these discussions in the past, I'm strongly reminded of a convention I went to in 2011 (I think) where some arsehole made my little cousin cry because, apparently, not knowing incredibly obscure A: TLA trivia didn't make her a true fan.

Some people appreciate Transformers because of the stories it has told, some people appreciate the characters, and others just like cool action scenes and badass robots. That's fine. There's more than one way to appreciate something - and just because somebody appreciates it in a way that is different to yours doesn't mean they should be judged for it.

 

This I agree with, hence I don't agree with the gatekeeping itself.

Sadly, I've seen my portion on other fandom slowly gets ruined due to this "casual moviegoers" who is a lot more in numbers.