Dark of the Moon Michael Bay has killed Transformers for me

[roach]

Exactly even the Marvel comics and cartoon didnt agree on things

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

No, it's not the same, at all. Transformers is not like Batman, or even X-Men. It has far less continuity, and what do you mean "G1" movie. G1 is simply a garbage can term that describes mostly "that which came before, or references what came before G2 in the 1990s". The plotlines for G1 don't even agree with each other. IDW, Marvel, Dreamwave, Sunbow, Marvel UK and Japan all had "G1" timelines that rarely agree on much of anything aside from the characters which were predetermined by the toyline.

Batman at least has some consistency: trust fund child of about 8 whose parents were murdered by a shadowy assailant, who goes into intense training to become the feared vigilante known as Batman. Yes, tone and writers interpretations aside, even with DC's many retellings they've never drastically re-imagined the character or thrown away the entire plot like Transformers has.

In G1 alone the Transformers have been everything from sentient robots to transectors, which were piloted by humans.

Transformers is this: Toys that transform (sometimes), led by Optimus Prime and Megatron (mostly), that are sentient beings (usually) from Cybertron (until it exploded in Headmasters).

Here's another fun fact about Transformers: most of G1 mythos is fanon, or fan invented canon. Beast Wars was basically written by a message board, one of the first called alt.toys.transformers. If you watch the show they make many references to actually posters (subsection Hooks for example was the name of a user). Beast Wars timeline actually outright lies about things from the G1 cartoon to make it make more sense. G1 is a jumbled mess of plot elements, because from episode to episode the writers didn't communicate much and were just expected to hawk toys to kids. In Starscream's Brigade Starscream makes transformers out of old war vehicles, in The Key to Vector Sigma though it clearly states only vector sigma can grant new transformers life, which completely contradicts the Dinobots who were built on Earth. That's what I meant when I said it's incredible crap.

When making a Transformers movie you're better off tying together all the series, or cherry picking the elements you like. Beast Wars is probably the most highly regarded show they produced. G1 is actually closer to the worst show they produced. As I say, most of it's "brilliance" came from the toys and poor, nostalgia filled memories of what the show was really like. Transformers has never had a clear narrative, that's it's downfall as a piece of fiction. It's not really telling any story, it's just selling toys.

In my opinion Transformers was made by Welker and Cullen (and Latta). Without their voices the show would not have held up on it's writing.

Batman has had alot of consistancy issues as well. I mean Batman started out using a gun on every mission, then we have issues with Bat-mite and the cheesy tv show which accurately depicted the kid-friendly comics of that era and we have Frank Miller's darker Batman and the critically acclaimed BTAS.

As you can see Batman has a diverse past but that doesn't mean Batman fans should give up after Batman and Robin. Neither should G1 fans.

G1 has good stuff and silly stuff just like the various Batman eras. It's up to the film-makers to pick out the best the G1 mythos has to offer to make a respectable adaptation the way Nolan, Burton, and Bruce Tim/Paul Dini did with Batman.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

While its true the original G1 toon had consistency issues, this......

In Starscream's Brigade Starscream makes transformers out of old war vehicles, in The Key to Vector Sigma though it clearly states only vector sigma can grant new transformers life,

Is not a true example of one.

Starscream only made new bodies for old transformers in "Satarscream's Brigade"

which completely contradicts the Dinobots who were built on Earth. That's what I meant when I said it's incredible crap.

Not exactly either.

Vector Sigma "programed" TF's with simulated life.Apparently, Wheeljack and Ratchet were able to do the same on a limited bases.

And BTW, what do you mean by this

If you watch the show they make many references to actually posters (subsection Hooks for example was the name of a user).

Exactly even the Marvel comics and cartoon didnt agree on things

Most cartoon's based on comics dont agree with each other.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

While its true the original G1 toon had consistency issues, this......

Is not a true example of one.

Starscream only made new bodies for old transformers in "Satarscream's Brigade"

Not exactly either.

Vector Sigma "programed" TF's with simulated life.Apparently, Wheeljack and Ratchet were able to do the same on a limited bases.

And BTW, what do you mean by this

No, actually it is, and your nonsense explanations are basically what most TF Fanon is. You're attempting to rectify very clear discreptencies in the fiction that simply wouldn't stand if this were anything but a 22 minute Toy Commercial. The real explanation for why Transformers were created a variety of conflicting ways? They had new toys to sell that week and they had to hastily write them into an episode. You could actually view the bulk of Transformers G1 as stand alone stories, because most of them did stand alone. You think people in a movie want to sit and listen to why the Dinobots are different from the Constructicons (who were built on Earth by Megatron whom they built on Cybertron before Megatron warped their brains and convinced them to become Decepticons - I, uh, makes sense?) that have different rules than the Combaticons and Stunticons. No You streamline the explanation like Bay did in his movies.

Transformers comics and cartoons are what they always have been: big dumb action for kids. The movie won't and shouldn't be much different. I think Bay's utter failing as a director is simply his inability to fuse humor into the action genre without it seeming really awkward. Michael Bay, IMO, has the ability to be an outstanding action movie director if he'd simply go back to what worked for The Rock. That style of action though is perfect for Transformers, the raunchy humor is not.

Most cartoon's based on comics dont agree with each other.

The comic/cartoon weren't based upon each other. They drew from a committee of writers, but they were based on the toys, not on a central fiction.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Batman has had alot of consistancy issues as well. I mean Batman started out using a gun on every mission, then we have issues with Bat-mite and the cheesy tv show which accurately depicted the kid-friendly comics of that era and we have Frank Miller's darker Batman and the critically acclaimed BTAS.

As you can see Batman has a diverse past but that doesn't mean Batman fans should give up after Batman and Robin. Neither should G1 fans.

G1 has good stuff and silly stuff just like the various Batman eras. It's up to the film-makers to pick out the best the G1 mythos has to offer to make a respectable adaptation the way Nolan, Burton, and Bruce Tim/Paul Dini did with Batman.

I think you're missing the point, which is that while Batman's narrative often has a point to it, Transformers only motivation as a narrative is to sell toys. As I say, in relative terms, Transformers is a pretty stupid story. The only reason the Transformers are humanoid is because the toys were supposed to be human piloted military vehicles, not sentient aliens. I would say if they were meant to be alien then the designs would've been much more reflective of what aliens would look like. In fact, thus far, Bay was only the second fiction that had full design and story control before the toys were made. Aside from that the much different Beast Machines was the only other fiction to write and design before Hasbro made the toys (which is why that particular line has so many non-appearing characters and took so many liberties with the figure design).

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

No, actually it is, and your nonsense explanations are basically what most TF Fanon is.

No, it really isint.Your just taking a very ridged and ignorant position on the topic.

As I pointed out, yes there are some discrepancies in the fiction, you just failed to cite any of the real ones.

You think people in a movie want to sit and listen to why the Dinobots are different from the Constructicons (who were built on Earth by Megatron whom they built on Cybertron before Megatron warped their brains and convinced them to become Decepticons - I, uh, makes sense?) that have different rules than the Combaticons and Stunticons. No You streamline the explanation like Bay did in his movies.

Yet an other poor example of a "FAN PERCEIVED" inconsitancy.

Megatron said he "built" the Constructicons on Earth, but he never claimed he "CREATED" them.

"Built" is not always synonymous with "Created".

And theres no supporting dialog to indicate that Megatron built them from scratch.

So, he could have ment he built them new bodies, we cant say for sure because the dialog is far too vague.

And before you say I'm trying to "rectify" the issue with fanon,

A] not 1 of the Autobots were surprised by the existence of the Construticons or Devestator.

which suggest they werent new robots to the Autobots.

B] the pre-production bible for the show states the the Constructicons were not to get an origin story for their debut episode, that they would get one in season 2.0

Which is exactly what happened in "The Secret of Omega Supreme".

So, the great Constructicon Origin Contradiction is really not a contradiction at all.

The root of it was always fan perception.

The comic/cartoon weren't based upon each other. They drew from a committee of writers, but they were based on the toys, not on a central fiction.

Thats not exactly the case either.

The toys had no fiction till Hasbro brought them to Marvel comics.

Marvel created the fiction behind the toys and the back story for the comics at the same time.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Megatron said he "built" the Constructicons on Earth, but he never claimed he "CREATED" them.

Outside of the episode when he built them. No, you're right, there is no "evidence".

"Built" is not always synonymous with "Created".

But, hey, while we're splitting hairs, let's be honest, would we even be having this dumb discussion if "The Secret of Omega Supreme" and "Five Faces of Darkness" had never overwritten "Heavy Metal". Probably not.

And theres no supporting dialog to indicate that Megatron built them from scratch.

The line you're searching for is Megatron: "the time we spent building them in these caverns"

So, he could have ment he built them new bodies, we cant say for sure because the dialog is far too vague.

(and people make fun of Clinton for asking to define the word "is")

And before you say I'm trying to "rectify" the issue with fanon,

A] not 1 of the Autobots were surprised by the existence of the Construticons or Devestator.

which suggest they werent new robots to the Autobots.

...Or to the viewer who would have already bought the toys. The Autobots were rarely shocked by anyone's existence, by the by. They weren't shocked when a dozen more of them showed up in Season 2. And before you say "Oh, they were on the Ark in status", A FAN developed that explanation after the fact and it became canon.

There's another word for this by the way, it's called "bad writing". Good Science Fiction would never stand for such ridiculous things.

B] the pre-production bible for the show states the the Constructicons were not to get an origin story for their debut episode, that they would get one in season 2.0

Which is exactly what happened in "The Secret of Omega Supreme".

So, the great Constructicon Origin Contradiction is really not a contradiction at all.

The root of it was always fan perception.

No, in fact it's a huge glaring contradiction. So much so they even poke fun at it in several additional pieces of Transformers fiction

How did we get on this discussion? Oh yeah, because the show already had set down glaring contradictions about how Autobots/Decepticons were made, which you also can't admit were there. Yes, if one episode shows that Vector Sigma is necessary to create Transformer life, so much so that a character needs to sacrifice himself to make it work then another episode has them gleefully create them out of arts and crafts in a cave you have a contradiction. The necessity to "explain it" is evidence that the contradiction exists.

It's okay to admit you're indulging in fanboyism to rectify glaring contradictions in the show. I mean if you have to go to the "Pre-Production Bible" to explain away a glaring inconsistency that couldn't be explain by simply watching the show then it's probably a glaring contradiction. This is kind of like how jokes aren't funny if they require a ten minute explanation.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Outside of the episode when he built them. No, you're right, there is no "evidence".

Said evidence works against you.

He never said "created"
the dialog used was vague.
theres no supporting info in the episode that indicates they were newly created

But, hey, while we're splitting hairs, let's be honest, would we even be having this dumb discussion if "The Secret of Omega Supreme" and "Five Faces of Darkness" had never overwritten "Heavy Metal". Probably not.

Thats the point, they didnt over write "Heavy metal war".

(and people make fun of Clinton for asking to define the word "is")

if you think you can provide some solid evidence please do.

...Or to the viewer who would have already bought the toys.

The perceptions of the viewer do not created a contradiction to the story.

No, in fact it's a huge glaring contradiction.

No, the fact is there is no contradiction in this case what so ever.

It only "looked" that way because the characters were new to the fan base.

But nothing in the episode in question states Megatron built them as new life.

I mean if you have to go to the "Pre-Production Bible" to explain away a glaring inconsistency that couldn't be explain by simply watching the show then it's probably a glaring contradiction.

Or, it wasnt clearly covered in the episode, as it wasnt in this case.

The only evidence that supports the idea of a contradiction here is Megatrons dialog saying he "built" them.

Which is a very vague statement.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

lol! What about ET, Harry Potter, and Star Wars as concepts are so terribly superior to alien machines fighting an intergalactic war?

Those concepts are basically simple too. It's the execution that elevates them.

Because with Transformers that's not simply the concept, there are these toys to go along with it. The movie Alien is essentially that concept. The Aliens of Alien are biomechanical weapons, presumeably of the Space Jockeys but this is as of yet unknown. This conflict of sorts spills over onto the Human race when the 'Nostromo' discovers the derilick ship.

The difference is that while Alien began as a self-contained concept, Transformers didn't, and therefore is riddled with problems. For example, why the disguise? What do super powerful Aliens benefit from transforming into vehicles smaller and less powerful than them? Yes, you and I can spit ball explanations for these things but therein lies the problem. Stories shouldn't explain something that ought to make sense naturally.

Is there metaphor in Transformers? Yes, of course there is, but just because a story has metaphor and symbolism doesn't mean the story itself is good or makes much sense. Star Wars, Alien, and Harry Potter all make a certain amount of sense within their universes because they play by a set of rules established by the writers.

What you point out is that Transformers' conceptually is interesting. That intergalactic war and resources make for interesting fiction, and that they do. What I'm pointing out is that the execution is poor. There are better, cleaner ways to tell them same story without having to use Aliens that make little sense.

A lot of the changes in Bay's first film make lots of sense. For example, the push to make the Transformers look less human makes them more believeable as Alien creatures. H.G. Giger's Alien designs for immediately strike me as something otherworldly, whereas the original G1 Sunbow/Takara designs don't. Were they to have done designs closer to the show Transformers would look something like Who Framed Roger Rabbitt? and even the best dialogue in the world wouldn't save the movie from audience snickering.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

The only evidence that supports the idea of a contradiction here is Megatrons dialog saying he "built" them.

Which is a very vague statement.

No, it's not, not to anyone else in the world. The specific line is "[we spent time] building them in the caverns".

Build: construct, make by combining materials and parts.

Then there is this

Then the Transformers wikia says this

The Constructicons' origins are clouded. They were reportedly on Cybertron millions of years ago, though the accounts jell poorly.

David Wise, by the way, who wrote the story for "The Secret of Omega Supreme" was not aware of "Heavy Metal" mentioning their origin was on Earth.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

No, it's not, not to anyone else in the world.

To anyone with an understanding of the English language it is.

The specific line is "[we spent time] building them in the caverns".

Build: construct, make by combining materials and parts.

Which would all apply if he ment he built them new bodies.

With out any supporting dialog, we cant be sure what was ment by the vague line.

Thanks for proving my point.

Then there is this

That pic proves nothing definitive.

To begin with, none of those character models are an exact match for the Constructicons.

Althou you can call that lazy animation.

Also, the Constructicons numbered at 6, that pic shows 8 green robots.

Which would seem to indicate they were intended to be "generic" Decepticons, like the generic seekers and shockwaves we saw true out the series, and not any particular team.

Further more, even if they were intended to be the same team of Constructcons....so what.

Just because they may have created Megatron doesnt mean they were evil or intended Megatron to be evil.

Then the Transformers wikia says this

Funny how you pick what you feel helps your argument.

The same site also says this.

A straight reading of the "facts" appears to go: the Constructicons started out Decepticons, built Megatron, left the Decepticons, built the Crystal City, were Robo-Smashed back into Decepticons, ran around the galaxy for umpteen million years, ended up on Earth, and were (re)built by Megatron

.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

To anyone with an understanding of the English language it is.

So says the guy who makes a number of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in this very response. Well I work in manufacturing, so we use the term "build" an awful lot. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

Which would all apply if he ment he built them new bodies.

With out any supporting dialog, we cant be sure what was ment by the vague line.

I saw "Heavy Metal" before I saw "Secret of Omega Supreme" and at the time I had no trouble parsing the logic of this supposedly vague line, which really isn't all that vague.

Thanks for proving my point.

But I didn't. You're simply stubborn

That pic proves nothing definitive.

To begin with, none of those character models are an exact match for the Constructicons.

I can clearly make out Mixmaster, Hook, Bonecrusher and Scavenger.

Althou you can call that lazy animation.

Yeah, ironically I would.

Also, the Constructicons numbered at 6, that pic shows 8 green robots.

Yeah...

Which would seem to indicate they were intended to be "generic" Decepticons and not any particular team.

I doubt the Korean animators really gave two sh**s who they were drawing for 2 cents a day. However it's an editorial oversight. Just like allowing David Wise to write a story that seems to contradict "Heavy Metal" is an editorial oversight. This is exactly what happens on committee produced Cartoons.

Further more, even if they were intended to be the same team of Constructcons....so what.

So it certainly seems to indicate they were Decepticons at the time.

Just because they may have created Megatron doesnt mean they were evil or intended Megatron to be evil.

You accused me earlier of putting my own personal interpretation on things, but that's what you're doing. I know the Constructicon scene is an animation error, and I know the series Bible claimed "no origin given" and chose not to list Megatron's throwaway line causing David Wise to not consider it when writing "The Secret of Omega Supreme". What I'm doing is taking things at face value, because if I have to go to a middle aged fan to explain why the series Bible makes it okay then it's a contradiction. Because something is contradictory doesn't mean it was intended to be that way, it's because it is apparently so. You may love your explanation, but it's hardly apparent, and the contradiction is.

I will also say you have a huge double standard by which you judge G1 versus Michael Bay. You said before you hated Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen because of it's own merits, or lack thereof, such as plot, dialogue and acting. Yet G1 is allowed to get away with storytelling murder. I concede that the lattitude you give a children's cartoon is greater, but it doesn't mean the quality is any better.

I also love how you don't detect the sarcasm in what you posted at the end, something that site is noted for.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

So says the guy who makes a number of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in this very response.

Irrelevant to the point I'm making.Try to keep the debate on the facts of the issue...if you can.

Well I work in manufacturing, so we use the term "build" an awful lot. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

And I work in retail home improvement, and the term "build" does mean exactly what I think it does.

Hence why the dialog used was far too vague to claim it was a contradiction.

I saw "Heavy Metal" before I saw "Secret of Omega Supreme" and at the time I had no trouble parsing the logic of this supposedly vague line, which really isn't all that vague.

I would assume most fans of the series saw "Heavy Metal War" first.

But the line is indeed vague.

But I didn't. You're simply stubborn

But you did, your just too stubborn to see it.

I can clearly make out Mixmaster, Hook, Bonecrusher and Scavenger.

And I can "clearly" point out where the character models dont exactly match.

But again, it can be called lazy animation
Yeah, ironically I would.

Just like allowing David Wise to write a story that seems to contradict "Heavy Metal" is an editorial oversight. This is exactly what happens on committee produced Cartoons.

keep words there being "seems to contradict"

So it certainly seems to indicate they were Decepticons at the time.

Even in that it really doesnt.

It only indicates they , if its them, created Megatron.Not that they were active members of the Decepticon army.

You accused me earlier of putting my own personal interpretation on things, but that's what you're doing.

No I'm not.

I'm examining the facts of the issue, removing all perceptions and just reading the facts as they are.

What I'm doing is taking things at face value, because if I have to go to a middle aged fan to explain why the series Bible makes it okay then it's a contradiction. Because something is contradictory doesn't mean it was intended to be that way, it's because it is apparently so. You may love your explanation, but it's hardly apparent, and the contradiction is.

The problem with taking things at face value is that its going to be influenced by what you perceived from what you saw and or heard.

So when you saw "Heavy metal war" you were introduced to new characters....from your point of view.So, you perceived cMegatrons dialog as indicating he built then new.

But if you examine the dialog itself, with out your perceptions , you'll see the vague dialog does not directly support that idea.

So, in cases like that, where the answer can not be found in the episode, you must look to production materials.

I will also say you have a huge double standard by which you judge G1 versus Michael Bay. You said before you hated Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen because of it's own merits, or lack thereof, such as plot, dialogue and acting. Yet G1 is aloud to get away with storytelling murder. I concede that the lattitude you give a children's cartoon is greater, but it doesn't mean the quality is any better.

I dont recall making that exact claim....but so what??

One would hope that story telling , plot,dialog and acting would get better for a fiction after 25+ years.

Can you imagine if Batman Begins and the Dark Knight were written and produced with the same levels of plot,dialog,acting and story telling as the 1966 Adam West Batman movie??

I also love how you don't detect the sarcasm in what you posted at the end, something that site is noted for.

I noticed it, but sarcasm aside, the truth still holds.

 

[knowsbleed]

Haha. Oh man.

Was G1 stupid, toy-commercial, 80s crap? Maybe... but nostalgia has proven that people really loved all that stuff.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Haha. Oh man.

Was G1 stupid, toy-commercial, 80s crap? Maybe... but nostalgia has proven that people really loved all that stuff.

I loved it, but I take it for what it is: a spectacle. I understand why people don't like what Bay did, but at the same time I cringe when people think it could produce something the likes of The Dark Knight. It can't.

 

[CEREBRAL....]

I loved it, but I take it for what it is: a spectacle. I understand why people don't like what Bay did, but at the same time I cringe when people think it could produce something the likes of The Dark Knight. It can't.

and why can't it?

 

[Hotwire]

Wow! This thread is too much. I still can't believe that Michael Bay is catching all the flack for everything wrong with the movies, even though the things he's done were almost all done in the cartoons. Bottom line, most of you are beating a dead horse. Those who are complaining about the things Bay has done are simply repeating themselves, you have made your point and your opinions are know. Those offering counter arguments, you too, are unfortunately spinning your wheels. Agree to disagree. At the end of the day, those who dislike Bay will stay home and not watch the movie, the rest of us will probably head out to see it. The movie is going to make a ton of money and Hasbro is going to sell a lot of toys, which has been the goal all along. If people actually like the movie, well, that's a bonus!

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Wow! This thread is too much. I still can't believe that Michael Bay is catching all the flack for everything wrong with the movies, even though the things he's done were almost all done in the cartoons. Bottom line, most of you are beating a dead horse. Those who are complaining about the things Bay has done are simply repeating themselves, you have made your point and your opinions are know. Those offering counter arguments, you too, are unfortunately spinning your wheels. Agree to disagree. At the end of the day, those who dislike Bay will stay home and not watch the movie, the rest of us will probably head out to see it. The movie is going to make a ton of money and Hasbro is going to sell a lot of toys, which has been the goal all along. If people actually like the movie, well, that's a bonus!

I will grant the Bay-Haters this: the cartoon rarely had humor that could be construed as raunchy. About the closest thing was Optimus using the word 'boobies' in G1 (and it wasn't in a sexual sense, though still awkward as heck) and Rattrap talking about strip clubs.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

and why can't it?

I'm wondering this too.

Batman is a pretty silly premise: rich kid grows up to fight costumed crazed villains while dressed as a flying rodent.

But when writers take it seriously it elevates the concept. The same could be done with Transformers. They're alien robots fighting a covert war over Earth's energy. The military class machines want tyranny and the worker class machines fight for freedom. The concept has just as much potential as a guy who dresses up as a flying rodent to fight crazed people with themes. Batman is silly without writers adding sophistication, layers, and details. Same goes for most fiction.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Wow! This thread is too much. I still can't believe that Michael Bay is catching all the flack for everything wrong with the movies, even though the things he's done were almost all done in the cartoons. Bottom line, most of you are beating a dead horse. Those who are complaining about the things Bay has done are simply repeating themselves, you have made your point and your opinions are know. Those offering counter arguments, you too, are unfortunately spinning your wheels. Agree to disagree. At the end of the day, those who dislike Bay will stay home and not watch the movie, the rest of us will probably head out to see it. The movie is going to make a ton of money and Hasbro is going to sell a lot of toys, which has been the goal all along. If people actually like the movie, well, that's a bonus!

I disagree. The debate actually emphasizes the need for a reboot with better sci-fi and characterizations.

 

[roach]

I disagree. The debate actually emphasizes the need for a reboot with better sci-fi and characterizations.

The amount of cash the series made and its popularity emphasizes the opposite

 

[Marvin]

I will grant the Bay-Haters this: the cartoon rarely had humor that could be construed as raunchy. About the closest thing was Optimus using the word 'boobies' in G1 (and it wasn't in a sexual sense, though still awkward as heck) and Rattrap talking about strip clubs.

I personally will not.
BeastWars(the best incarnation this concept in many an opinion) has it's share of raunch, potty humor it's that within the saturday morning context it's called another name.

Moreover, the way they and most critics go about it most of the time is in a hypocritical manner. They act like this is the first and only movie that has ever had this kind of humor and because of it Transformers is the worst movie of all time and is killing cinema..etc.

Transformers isn't Superbad with aliens.

I'm wondering this too.

Batman is a pretty silly premise: rich kid grows up to fight costumed crazed villains while dressed as a flying rodent.

But when writers take it seriously it elevates the concept. The same could be done with Transformers. They're alien robots fighting a covert war over Earth's energy. The military class machines want tyranny and the worker class machines fight for freedom. The concept has just as much potential as a guy who dresses up as a flying rodent to fight crazed people with themes. Batman is silly without writers adding sophistication, layers, and details. Same goes for most fiction.

I'll be the first to agree that any concept can be elevated to a "better" form.The Problem is people act like bay turned the brilliant material that was "G1" into a silly "kids movie" for young adults. If anything retaining the sillyness is the truer and more sinsear adaptation.

There are kids out there that can comprehend and love Adam Wests series to Nolans. If the source material was in fact silly(and i'm not sure it was) than where does that leave us. (Many to this day think burton nailed it in 89)

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I'll be the first to agree that any concept can be elevated to a "better" form.The Problem is people act like bay turned the brilliant material that was "G1" into a silly "kids movie" for young adults. If anything retaining the sillyness is the truer and more sinsear adaptation.

My point exactly, more or less. I think you could elevate the concept, but the changes you'd have to tolerate would leave us with a movie farther away from G1 than even this one. The Dark Knight is evidence of this. However the trauma Bruce deals with from his parents murder feels a lot more believeable to me then a group of super powerful aliens taking on the guise of Vokswagon Beatles in order to pillage our resources.

 

[Hotwire]

I disagree. The debate actually emphasizes the need for a reboot with better sci-fi and characterizations.

Reboot it all you want, the argument will remain. No movie adaptation is going to please everyone. For example, if thy redid Transformers and used G1 designs, it would be a step back for me. I like the new designs. They actually try to show how these robots hide their robot parts.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Reboot it all you want, the argument will remain. No movie adaptation is going to please everyone. For example, if thy redid Transformers and used G1 designs, it would be a step back for me. I like the new designs. They actually try to show how these robots hide their robot parts.

Also, Optimus Prime never went through any characterization really. Transformers Animated and Beast Machines did a pretty good job of maturing and changing the characters, but you have tons of fans who complain about Optimus acting too young or being too much of a hippy. The Optimus Prime people remember from G1 was a pretty flat and standard character. I'm not saying that Transformers couldn't be improved by creating more dynamic characters, far from it, but I think the other side of that coin is as Hotwire says "No movie adaptation is going to please everyone".

I remember back when the first Bayformers came out one of the complaints was that Optimus got impatient with Spike while he was trying to find the allspark. That he was "Naggy Daddy" Prime, and somehow this violated the characters even though he'd shown impatience before in both the comic and cartoon. People had such an idealic view of him though it was considered out of character.