The most common argument in my last thread "Why character name misuse is unnecessary" that kept arising out of discussions initially intended to address the distinction between creative choices in the films reflecting a sometimes quite thorough adherance to any particular Generation One character and in other cases an almost complete revamping of what we would recognize as Generation One (or any previous representation of the character in a past adaptation of Transformers), was a sub argument on the notion of the films all together being based upon, or not, Generation One.

As any of you who participated in my previous thread have most likely deduced, I am first and foremost a Generation One fan. It's what I grew up with, it's what I deem, without insult or disregard for any other subsequent story line, the original Transformers.

There is one key truth regarding G1 that is undeniable to any Transformers fan (which I am not merely isolating for argument's sake but to further another point, so bear with me), which is, its essential originality. Before G1 there were no Autobots or Decepticons, there was no Cybertron, there was no Optimus Prime nor any character with their now legendary traits in the context of any story in any shape or form. "The Transformers" did not exist (and this is referring to the beginning of characterization, so please do not argue with the existence of Diaclone).

A look at the distinction between the word "adaptation" in contrast with the term "based upon" might help me elucidate my point. Every animated program and/or corresponding toy line has been based on, or an adaptation of, Generation One. There is simply no room for argument here. By definition, a story IS a Transformers story by being constituent of representative factors originated by Generation One. That is to say, to BE "Transformers", something must necessarily BE, either based on or an adaptation of, Generation One. Everything, and I mean everything, leads back directly OR indirectly to G1.

I don't believe in "mutiverses", no matter what efforts Dreamwave made in their crossover comics to bring legitamacy to all the different adaptations and stories based upon G1. I believe in just that: "Adaptations" and stories/characters that are "based upon".

Lets draw a control to avoid argument hemorrhage: The Oxford defines adaptation as the process of being adjusted to fit new conditions. And to be based upon is to be using something that serves as your foundation. Of course levels of how much something is "adjusted" vary, so lets use the term loose for adaptations with a lot of adjustment (fewer G1 elements), and firm for adaptations with less adjustment (significant number of G1 elements) from the original. And finally, within the context of Transformers we are dealing with a story and the characters that pertain to it, thus:

Generation One: The Original story and characters are created. The Transformers and thus the essence of the franchise is born.

Beat Wars/Machines: Based upon G1.
Robots In disguise: Loose Adaptation of G1 & BW/M.
Armada/Energon/Cybertron: Loose Adaptation of G1.
Animated: Adaptation of, or if you think the flashback references including G1 footage are true G1 historical references then based upon, G1 & BM/W
The Films: Firm Adaptation of G1

Note: If something includes adaptations of BW/M for instance, it still leads back to G1 as BW/M isolated is based upon G1.

This is an argument about creativity not storyline continuity, and under the definition that we are using here an adaptation is both allowed strict adherance AND originality, what changes is whether it is loose or firm. This is just to show that any fictional story that is either based upon, or an adaptation of G1, is what actually defines it as Transformers. And, further, that amongst all the subsequent creations in both of these categories since Generation One, the films, though as some of you have argued (and I agree) are not G1 per se, nor are based upon G1, they are the strongest adaptation of G1 to date.

Discuss.


Note: I just came from a thread where someone was joking about how they'd like to see rape in a Transformers movie. WTF. Please keep it intelligent and respectful on here guys. And please try to refrain from personal attacks and and/or insulting other members and/or their opinions on this thread. Finally, if you really don't feel this thread is worth your time commenting on, then please just don't.

 

I actually agree. If it wasn't based on G1 or somehow loosely adapted from it, Optimus Prime and Megatron would not be the leaders.

 

yeah. I wouldn't want it to be entirely G1 because it would be no fun with little surprises. Mix in a little Unicron trilogy and RID (maybe some of the comics but I am not familiar with those) and there you have a great new TF franchise. I would like some more G1 characters to be introduced, but not too many themes plotlines and the such.

How do people feel about Astrotrain in the movies? It would be pretty difficult to believably have a humongous robot who turns from a train car to a space shuttle and back. But I like the idea.

 

great point. the movie plot is pretty close to what happens in g1 in that they are fighting for the energy(allspark) to replenish cybertron or conquer universe.
and all the newer continuities depend on g1 for structure.

 

Very true.

 

About Astrotrain, if they do work him into the films with the whole 'no mass-shifting' thing, he'd have to become an entire train from engine to caboose (rather than just only the train engine he's always been) to match the scale of a space shuttle and he would be MASSIVE. But at least he would be workable, unlike Octane who would be impossible to do.

Anyway, EVERY single TF franchise has to have some kind of connection to G1 for it to actually be Transformers. Without that G1 connection, it would at this point just end up being another robot show/toyline (like Brave, Gundam, or hundreds of other robot animes in existence).

 

This. A thousand times this. It's why I'm loving the movie toylines, because the homages to non-G1 series are there in bulk. (Stalker Scorponok's BW color scheme, Lockdown, Deluxe Ratchet's EMP, Arcee Cycles, even last year's Fracture comes to mind.)

 

I don't think the films are a firm adaptation of anything. They're based on characters and concepts from G1, but all TF series have been. The films are no closer of an "adaptation" of G1 then any other TF series out there. I don't get why the films are held to a higher standard of "G1-likeness" then any other new continuity in the TF-multiverse when they change and alter just as much about the mythos as the A/E/C trilogy, RiD or Animated do.

 

I'm not sure you read the initial post. I realize it's long for some of you but please do so if you're going to argue a point. All of these terms were defined, including the term "firm".

I'll let you refer to the post for the clear examples of each that are listed.

 

Both the movies and the animated are good remakes of G1. G1 was about stealing the earth's energy resources. Recent remakes are about the fighting over the similar AllSpark or scraps of the AllSpark. The AllSpark also has creation and repair powers. G1 season 3 had the matrix of leadership which TF2 also has. Favorite G1 characters are in the recent remakes. The movies just have fewer characters. The recent remakes gives a bigger role to humans with the Indian girl holding to the AllSpark key and in TF2, Sam containing the AllSpark. In the movies, the military has a larger role and is also able to kill Decepticons. G1, Animated and the movies pretty much tell the same story. I like the movies best bec. of the more realistic transformations.
I like the movie updates like :
Megatron as a Jet in TF1. I think the tank mode is more of a demotion for Megatron. I would've preferred a flying tank.
Soundwave as a spy satellite or spy jet.
Alice the Pretender. I would've preferred Decepticons who can scan human shapes to make them more effective as spies. Martians or Pod people who can take the shape of humans are always scary.

 

Well yes all of the Transformers spinoffs have some connection to G1, in some form or another. But I always felt the idea of the multiverse was a way of explaining each adaptation.

It's like comparing original Star Trek to the new Star Trek movie. New Star Trek is part of another universe as far as I'm concerned.

I mean what you said was well thought out and too the point, and I have agree with most of it.

 

This.

 

I appreciate how you're trying to make a very subjective idea as this into an objective one by use of syntax. However, in the end, it is simply not possible. I think I am somewhat intelligent when it comes to jargon/syntax but reading your post made my head spin. First, we all have pre-existing ideas on what the words "Based upon", "loose adapation", "firm adaptation", etc. Its admirable that you're standardizing those words for this thread so everyone starts with the same baseline. However, I do not think the majority of readers will delve into this subject with the specificity you want and that the subject truly needs to be discussed properly.

In the end, I think Hasbro should have gone with an all or nothing approach to the movie. In fact, I think they should do that with all remaining series they will ever produce from now on. Its the cleanest way to avoid stoking resentment.

1) Either say the series IS based upon a previous series and take pains to ensure so, or

2) Say the series is NOT based upon a previous series and is completely new with no relation to any other series, characters, or events and take pains to ensure that the series is completely different

As no one wants to rehash an old series, most people will choose option 2 to produce a new series. When they do so, they should avoid using old characters - thus preventing the resentment. Not only will this give the production team ultimate creativity at completely reimagining the series without limitations, it would make people 100% open minded as there is no point of reference.

But I digress, Hasbro will not go this route. They will milk this cow till its dead and the characters reused to the point people will eventually turn to something new and refreshing.

 

Then who was leading RID, Beastwars, Armada, Cybertron, and Energon?

 

It has a lot of fan wanks and nods, but I still feel it's only very loosely based off the original. Personally, I really like that it is it's own little take on Transformers.

 

iod say more inspired by G1 then based on it which is how i see the other series after G1 as well

 

It's like, throwing a party with the hope that no one comes to it...

 

yoda

 

I think you're confusing "adaptation" a bit. Saying Transformers can't/wouldn't exist without G1 is, very simply, a "No shit" statement. If we never had G1, this forum would not exist, three movies would not exist, and a toyline/series would never have survived for 25 years.

To suggest, however, that because they use the word "Cybertron" and therefore it is clearly an adaptation of G1 is a pretty big jump. G1 established certain aspects of the Transformers Universe, and each subsequent series both draws from and adds to this pool of ideas to meet the needs of the Transformers verse.

Where does the movie fit in? It's taking ideas from the past incarnations of the franchise and mixing them in for now. Are there going to be similarities? Absolutely. Whether or not its a direct adaptation is really Orci and Kurtzman's call. If they sat down to reinvent G1, that's a lot different than simply having similar traits in common with G1.

It comes down to if you buy the idea of a multiverse. You don't, so everything is a G1 adaptation. I do, so everything draws from a common pool of ideas that exist as a result of G1. That's pretty much the big difference, and neither side is "right".

 

The problem of attempting to be and not be all at the same time.

On one hand the creative team would be tempted to use as much of the old as they can because even though most people can't remember names they do remember things like that guy that turned into a tape player or that guy who turned into a truck. So by using the old you tap nostalgia which causes excitement which causes buzz. Name the film and in almost every case the makers want to hit that nostalgia button on some level because most people remember childhood as a happy time so thus the movie should make them happy.

On the other hand they feel the pressure to make it all new because the important teen market likes to rebel against their parents so attempting to sell something as say your dad's Transformers isn't going to be hip enough for them.

So like most Hollywood films the film was attempting to be old without being the old all at the same time. If they had truly wanted to be totally new all they really needed was a few terms like Transformer and everything else could have changed. So it's more like maybe an attempt to be G1 while not being too G1.