Sifting Through the Revenge of the Fallen DVD
Zobovor
double-post if anybody gets it twice.)
I think it's gotten to the point where there simply is too much
content in DVD packages. When the format started growing in
popularity and older movies were being released to DVD, I used to balk
that there were so few extra features. Some of them have maybe the
theatrical trailer, and that's it. Pshaw! Obviously, this is because
studios don't always film behind-the-scenes footage and they don't
always preserve their outtakes and deleted scenes. There was a time
when the movie itself was the end product, but now what used to be
considered material for the cutting room floor ends up packaged with
the movie for the consumer's perusal. Now, they film footage with the
specific intent of including it as a DVD extra. I sat down to look at
the Revenge of the Fallen DVD today and I think I've hit overload.
Given a choice between the "regular" movie release and the special
edition with all the extra content, I always go for the special
edition so I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. Three or
four hours of bonus content is way too much for me to ingest,
though...especially when I'm having to stop periodically to clean up
something that the baby or the cat or the refrigerator has
inadvertantly regurgitated.
So, anyway. There actually is some interesting content on the bonus
disc, even though a lot of it strikes me as meaningless filler.
There's a segment called "25 Years of Transformers" that talks about
the longevity of the brand and how it's remained successful because of
its ability to change and adapt over time. One of the guys from
Hasbro actually proposes that fans *want* to see the characters
constantly being reinvented—that part of the fun of the brand is the
excitement over seeing what robots like Optimus Prime are going to
look like next. I do seriously question the validity of this
statement. (It's also ironic that they're purporting this, of all
possible places, on a DVD sequel in which almost none of the main
characters underwent any kind of major overhaul.)
There's a photo gallery called "NEST: Transformers Data Hub" that
includes design artwork for Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ironhide,
Jetfire, Skids and Mudflap, Megatron, Starscream, Devastator,
Soundwave, Ravage, and The Fallen. Some of them are more
comprehensive than others—Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, in particular,
seem to have been given the lion's share of attention. Both of their
galleries include numerous alternate head design concepts, some of
which are kind of cool and some of which are absolutely hideous.
There's also an alternate concept for a "super armor" version of Prime
in which he is equipped with a trailer that doubles as an add-on for
his robot mode. I've said many times that Prime really needs a
trailer to complete his appearance, so this would have been immensely
cool. (It would probably also make the toy really expensive, but the
filmmakers seem to rarely concern themselves with such things.) I was
hoping that there would be some kind of liner notes that explained
away some of the oddities of the sequel character designs, like the
misshapen arms and faces on the Twins or the weird arm-connector
thingies on The Fallen, but no such luck.
Something I did notice was that the original designs for Jetfire,
Devastator, etc. were utilized as reference points when designing the
new characters. Obviously they didn't stay particularly true to the
G1 look (indeed, they could have been added to remind the designers,
"Whatever you do, don't make it look like this!") but it's nice to
know they were at least looking at the original characters.
Oh, and Devastator's robot testicles are indisputably Michael Bay's
fault. He has a little laughing fit over this as he's suggesting it
during the movie's development. (One can only imagine what this movie
would have been like using the same writers and art department but
with a different director.)
The deleted scenes are mercifully brief, including one scene (which is
in the novelization) in which the Witwicky folks are in Paris and Judy
is playing footsie with Ron Witwicky's crotch. Obviously the
precedent was set with the first movie to play Judy's character as the
most embarrassing human being imaginable, which makes me wonder how
they're going to top her performance for the third film. Sam
accidentally catching the two of them in bed, perhaps? The mind reels
with absurd and revolting possibilities.
Revenge of the Fallen is so interesting to me. It's an example of
everything that a movie shouldn't be, and yet it's enormously
successful. I don't get it. It doesn't make any attempts to cater to
the fans, aside from some casual references to G1 lore that are used
in completely the wrong context. It doesn't appeal to most of the
film critics, who said it was too loud, too long, and had too many
explosions. So why did it make so much money? Sure, the mainstream
moviegoers are suitably ignorant about Transformers lore that the
mistakes and omissions go completely lost on them. Even somebody
who's never heard of Transformers before would be able to recognize
that half the robots got no dialogue or characterization (Jolt is the
worst pegwarmer of all right now, and he's supposedly an on-screen
movie character!). Can it be that the general populace is sincerely
entertained by the very things about the movie that seem to turn the
fans off (watching robots and dogs pee on things, jokes about Sam
masturbating and getting his cherry popped, et al. ad nauseum)?
Revenge of the Fallen is technically proficient—the robots do actually
look like they're actually in the scene, and not just pasted on top in
post-production, Jar Jar Binks style. All the robot scenes are really
captivating and fun to watch, and the movies do such a good job at
making them look large and imposing in a way that the G1 cartoon never
quite captured. Just imagine, then, how successful the movie would
have been if it were actually, y'know, good!
Zob
Gustavo Wombat
> (I posted this yesterday but it never showed up. Apologies for the
> double-post if anybody gets it twice.)
>
> the longevity of the brand and how it's remained successful because of
> its ability to change and adapt over time. One of the guys from
> Hasbro actually proposes that fans *want* to see the characters
> constantly being reinvented—that part of the fun of the brand is the
> excitement over seeing what robots like Optimus Prime are going to
> look like next. I do seriously question the validity of this
> statement. (It's also ironic that they're purporting this, of all
> possible places, on a DVD sequel in which almost none of the main
> characters underwent any kind of major overhaul.)
Oh, I definitely like to see characters get reinvented. It absolutely
dazzles the design geek in me to see how a few well applied elements
from an earlier toy can completely suggest the original toy.
I am less dazzled by the lazy redecos and obvious redos -- toys like
Classics Hot Rodimus Minor (or whatever he ended up getting called)
aren't reinventing the character, and aren't exciting that way.
And just slapping the name on an unrelated toy and pretending that it
is a reinterpretation of the character (Movie Bumblebee, Sideswipe...)
also doesn't excite. (Yes, yes, Bumblebee is yellow, but so was
Sunstreaker. Does Moviebee have any more in common with G1 Bumblebee
than he does with G1 Sunstreaker? I don't see it)
> Oh, and Devastator's robot testicles are indisputably Michael Bay's
> fault. He has a little laughing fit over this as he's suggesting it
> during the movie's development. (One can only imagine what this movie
> would have been like using the same writers and art department but
> with a different director.)
Rewatching ROTF the other day with some friends, what bothered us most
about the testicle scene was that Agent Simmons was saying that he was
directly underneath the robot's scrotum. Devastator had no scrotum,
just testicles.
> The deleted scenes are mercifully brief, including one scene (which is
> in the novelization) in which the Witwicky folks are in Paris and Judy
> is playing footsie with Ron Witwicky's crotch. Obviously the
> precedent was set with the first movie to play Judy's character as the
> most embarrassing human being imaginable, which makes me wonder how
> they're going to top her performance for the third film. Sam
> accidentally catching the two of them in bed, perhaps? The mind reels
> with absurd and revolting possibilities.
Perhaps the threequel will be "Judy Witwicky: Cougar (also starring
Transformers)".
> Revenge of the Fallen is so interesting to me. It's an example of
> everything that a movie shouldn't be, and yet it's enormously
> successful. I don't get it. It doesn't make any attempts to cater to
> the fans, aside from some casual references to G1 lore that are used
> in completely the wrong context. It doesn't appeal to most of the
> film critics, who said it was too loud, too long, and had too many
> explosions. So why did it make so much money?
As one of my friends said after watching it. "Oh, god, that was
terrible. Why didn't we turn it off?"
For the record, it was not my idea to watch it. One of my friends had
downloaded the Rifftrax version and felt compelled to put it on. At
least the womenfolk got to spend some quality time in the kitchen,
discussing whatever womenfolk discuss.
Gustavo!
Thunder Strikes Twice!
> Rewatching ROTF the other day with some friends, what bothered us most
> about the testicle scene was that Agent Simmons was saying that he was
> directly underneath the robot's scrotum. Devastator had no scrotum,
> just testicles.
THAT bothered you most? ;)
> Perhaps the threequel will be "Judy Witwicky: Cougar (also starring
> Transformers)".
I was amazed that the deleted scenes made the parents even *more*
annoying! Maybe in the third movie, Sam can walk in on a naked Judy,
Ron and Ramirez--their new special friend--having a three-way?
> As one of my friends said after watching it. "Oh, god, that was
> terrible. Why didn't we turn it off?"
Car accident syndrome? You want to turn away and stop watching--but you
can't! :)
t.k.
ahsan.sa...@gmail.com
> I think it's gotten to the point where there simply is too much
> content in DVD packages. When the format started growing in
> popularity and older movies were being released to DVD, I used to balk
> that there were so few extra features. Some of them have maybe the
> theatrical trailer, and that's it. Pshaw! Obviously, this is because
> studios don't always film behind-the-scenes footage and they don't
> always preserve their outtakes and deleted scenes. There was a time
> when the movie itself was the end product, but now what used to be
> considered material for the cutting room floor ends up packaged with
> the movie for the consumer's perusal. Now, they film footage with the
> specific intent of including it as a DVD extra. I sat down to look at
> the Revenge of the Fallen DVD today and I think I've hit overload.
> Given a choice between the "regular" movie release and the special
> edition with all the extra content, I always go for the special
> edition so I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. Three or
> four hours of bonus content is way too much for me to ingest,
> though...especially when I'm having to stop periodically to clean up
> something that the baby or the cat or the refrigerator has
> inadvertantly regurgitated.
"More bang for the buck", maybe? Or maybe it's more of a "Oh gosh, I
don't want to miss out on this stuff! Someone might talk about it, and
I won't know what's going on at all."
I blame modern social networks. They ask too much of people.
> There's a segment called "25 Years of Transformers" that talks about
> the longevity of the brand and how it's remained successful because of
> its ability to change and adapt over time. One of the guys from
> Hasbro actually proposes that fans *want* to see the characters
> constantly being reinvented—that part of the fun of the brand is the
> excitement over seeing what robots like Optimus Prime are going to
> look like next. I do seriously question the validity of this
> statement. (It's also ironic that they're purporting this, of all
> possible places, on a DVD sequel in which almost none of the main
> characters underwent any kind of major overhaul.)
Re-invention, I'll grant you, was pretty good the first couple of
times, especially when they started getting it right ("Masterpiece
series? A new toy that looks like the animation model that looked
nothing like the original toy it was based of? Oh, yes please!"
"Alternators? Transformers that look like real cars, and transform
into fully articulated robots? Awesome!" "Classics? Old school toys
using modern toy methods, how cool is that?"), but it's starting to
pall now. I'd like something new out of Transformers, really I would.
Strip the idea down to its essence, and give us something new.
> Revenge of the Fallen is so interesting to me. It's an example of
> everything that a movie shouldn't be, and yet it's enormously
> successful. I don't get it. It doesn't make any attempts to cater to
> the fans, aside from some casual references to G1 lore that are used
> in completely the wrong context. It doesn't appeal to most of the
> film critics, who said it was too loud, too long, and had too many
> explosions. So why did it make so much money? Sure, the mainstream
> moviegoers are suitably ignorant about Transformers lore that the
> mistakes and omissions go completely lost on them. Even somebody
> who's never heard of Transformers before would be able to recognize
> that half the robots got no dialogue or characterization (Jolt is the
> worst pegwarmer of all right now, and he's supposedly an on-screen
> movie character!). Can it be that the general populace is sincerely
> entertained by the very things about the movie that seem to turn the
> fans off (watching robots and dogs pee on things, jokes about Sam
> masturbating and getting his cherry popped, et al. ad nauseum)?
Big noise. Lots of publicity, lots of hype, lots of money thrown
around. Most folks who walked in wanted loud explosions, great special
effects, and they got them. If you want a story, read a book.
Bread and circuses, yes-yes?
Zobovor
<ahsan.salahud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like something new out of Transformers, really I would.
> Strip the idea down to its essence, and give us something new.
In the same "25 Years" segment, the Hasbro folks also said that they
always try to follow the cardinal rules of Transformers, that they
always stay true to the basic guidelines of the brand. I'm not
exactly sure what those are, though. Transformers is so vaguely-
defined. It's shape-changing alien (most of the time) robots
(usually) from Cybertron (typically) who come to Earth (frequently)
and fight over energy sources (generally). Everything else is pretty
much up in the air. Even the ability to transform doesn't define the
brand 100% of the time (Action Masters, Beast Riders, Alpha
Quintesson, Heroes of Cybertron, Robot Heroes, Optimash Prime...)
I would like something new out of Transformers, too—specifically, I
want them to stop trying to reinvent the G1 characters over and over
(Armada Starscream, Animated Starscream, movie Starscream, et al.) and
come up with some new characters. That was one of the exciting things
about Beast Wars—a whole new group of robots to meet! They never
could have crafted memorable characters like Rattrap or Dinobot or
Tarantulas or Blackarachnia if they were trying to shoehorn them into
character archetypes named Ironhide or Soundwave. As long as they
keep recycling the G1 characters, they're locked into basic character
archetypes that are stale and predictable. In the next Transformers
series—let's call it Transformers: Robots—you know that Bumblebee is
always going to be the uppity kid-friendly character that turns into a
little yellow car, that Starscream is going to be a sneaky traitor who
turns into a jet, etc. There are so many types of stories they could
tell and so many new characters they could use to tell it—but not
until all these characters who have been around since I was nine years
old are finally put out to pasture.
> Big noise. Lots of publicity, lots of hype, lots of money thrown
> around. Most folks who walked in wanted loud explosions, great special
> effects, and they got them. If you want a story, read a book.
I did read the book, actually. It wasn't much better than the film.
Sigh.
Zob
Gabi TM D'Galvatron
> In the same "25 Years" segment, the Hasbro folks also said that they
> always try to follow the cardinal rules of Transformers, that they
> always stay true to the basic guidelines of the brand. I'm not
> exactly sure what those are, though. Transformers is so vaguely-
> defined.
The may have been talking about their "reboot laws" as I think of
them :
Keep Optimus , Megatron , Cybertron and come up with something new
around them .
That's what they said they'll do after they decided that the G1 saga
was at an end after BM .
At the time they claimed that for new audiances , it was just too
convoluted to keep referring to G1 events that happened over 15 years
before , thus they chose to reboot every 1-2 years , based on those 3
concepts .
> I would like something new out of Transformers, too—specifically, I
> want them to stop trying to reinvent the G1 characters over and over
> That was one of the exciting things
> about Beast Wars—a whole new group of robots to meet!
Umm yeah , except the whole BW toyline was something of an
"accident" .
What I mean is that Hasbro just purchased Tonka (whch at the time also
owned Kenner) and Hasbro sorta "threw" TF's at Kenner with a "do
something with that" note attached .
(Hasbro : Well Kenner ... DO something ... .
Kenner: If only to spite you ... ) :)
> Just imagine, then, how successful the movie would
> have been if it were actually, y'know, good!
Watchmen style ?
Hmmmm. Here's the conundrum : what would we want ... a good movie that
tanks at the box office , or a bad one that assures sequels /
continued exposure for the brand ?
If we look back on today from a 10 year perspective in the future , I
think that we may just see this as "Bays run" with the franchise . Who
knows , in 10-20 years time we may have someone else with a different
vision .
SteveD
>In the same "25 Years" segment, the Hasbro folks also said that they
>always try to follow the cardinal rules of Transformers, that they
>always stay true to the basic guidelines of the brand. I'm not
>exactly sure what those are, though. Transformers is so vaguely-
>defined.
Which gives it much of its staying power. You can make _anything_ into
Transformers. Any story, any character, any vehicle or object or animal.
Set it on Earth, on another planet, in space, underwater. Make something a
central theme or ignore it entirely. It's all workable.
A tricky part of the implementation, though, is remaining similar but not
TOO similar from year to year. There's got to be enough evolution and
change to keep things interesting and fresh, but not so much that it falls
outside the nebulous boundaries of Transformers-ness itself. Even then,
it's a continuum - it's quite possible to be "slightly" Transformers -
Action Masters, Crossovers, that sort of thing.
-SteveD
Thunder Strikes Twice!
> Hmmmm. Here's the conundrum : what would we want ... a good movie that
> tanks at the box office , or a bad one that assures sequels /
> continued exposure for the brand ?
A good movie that does well at the box office. The Empire Strikes
Back--with Transformers! ESB is not a masterpiece (despite what some
claim) but everyone loves it and it is a very good sci/fantasy film that
did very well at the box office. For a more recent example, G.I.JOE was
good and did well at the box office (it wasn't as good by comparison
with ESB but it reinvented a Hasbro property and still made a pretty
good movie, imo).
t.k.
Gustavo Wombat
> Gustavo Wombat wrote:
> > Rewatching ROTF the other day with some friends, what bothered us most
> > about the testicle scene was that Agent Simmons was saying that he was
> > directly underneath the robot's scrotum. Devastator had no scrotum,
> > just testicles.
>
> THAT bothered you most? ;)
The entire little moment was awful, and just strikes the viewer like a
sack of wet sacks. And to do that much damage to the movie, and botch
it on testicles vs. scrotum? Pathetic.
Gustavo! (Cat pounced on keyboard when I was writing this... if there
was another reply, I blame Chi-Chi)
Gustavo Wombat
> On Nov 23, 7:03 am, "ahsan.salahud...@gmail.com"
>
> <ahsan.salahud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd like something new out of Transformers, really I would.
> > Strip the idea down to its essence, and give us something new.
>
> In the same "25 Years" segment, the Hasbro folks also said that they
> always try to follow the cardinal rules of Transformers, that they
> always stay true to the basic guidelines of the brand. I'm not
> exactly sure what those are, though. Transformers is so vaguely-
> defined. It's shape-changing alien (most of the time) robots
> (usually) from Cybertron (typically) who come to Earth (frequently)
> and fight over energy sources (generally). Everything else is pretty
> much up in the air. Even the ability to transform doesn't define the
> brand 100% of the time (Action Masters, Beast Riders, Alpha
> Quintesson, Heroes of Cybertron, Robot Heroes, Optimash Prime...)
>
> I would like something new out of Transformers, too—specifically, I
> want them to stop trying to reinvent the G1 characters over and over
> (Armada Starscream, Animated Starscream, movie Starscream, et al.) and
> come up with some new characters. That was one of the exciting things
> about Beast Wars—a whole new group of robots to meet! They never
> could have crafted memorable characters like Rattrap or Dinobot or
> Tarantulas or Blackarachnia if they were trying to shoehorn them into
> character archetypes named Ironhide or Soundwave.
Or Inferno. Or Optimus, or Megatron.
And Terrorsaur was Starscream... Closer than Optimus Primal and
Megatron were to their namesakes.
> As long as they
> keep recycling the G1 characters, they're locked into basic character
> archetypes that are stale and predictable. In the next Transformers
> series—let's call it Transformers: Robots—you know that Bumblebee is
> always going to be the uppity kid-friendly character that turns into a
> little yellow car, that Starscream is going to be a sneaky traitor who
> turns into a jet, etc.
I'd say that Animated Optimus Prime and Movie Optimus Prime are so
different that they are almost entirely unrelated characters.
And Animated Bumblebee, Movieverse Bumblebee and G1 Bumblebee also
have very little in common, other than color (which they also share
with Sunstreaker, and Spongebob Squarepants)
> There are so many types of stories they could
> tell and so many new characters they could use to tell it—but not
> until all these characters who have been around since I was nine years
> old are finally put out to pasture.
If you want something new and different, then I'm a little surprised
that you never got into Animated, since it is new and different. Yes,
Bumblebee is named Bumblebee, and he is yellow, but he's basically a
new character. Optimus, Ratchet, Megatron and Blitzwing are similarly
unrelated to their namesakes, with the rest of the characters even
further from their origins. Except for Starscream, who is just
Starscream.
Gustavo!
Gustavo Wombat
wrote:
> > Just imagine, then, how successful the movie would
> > have been if it were actually, y'know, good!
>
> Watchmen style ?
> Hmmmm. Here's the conundrum : what would we want ... a good movie that
> tanks at the box office , or a bad one that assures sequels /
> continued exposure for the brand ?
Good one that tanks. That's easy -- I think the movies are terrible,
and I don't like the toys, so I want them gone. Transformers is enough
of a staple for Hasbro that it wouldn't be hurt in the long run by a
flop.
Hurt by a successful terrible movie series... maybe. We'll have to
see.
Gustavo!
Gustavo Wombat
That's a movie that would have been improved by robot testicles. GI
Joe, I mean, not Empire, although the AT-ATs might have worked just
fine with balls.
Gustavo! (if nothing else, large robot testicles on the polar ice cap
might have forced the ice to sink...)
Zobovor
> If you want something new and different, then I'm a little surprised
> that you never got into Animated, since it is new and different.
Perhaps it is, in some ways, but it's also a retread of what we've
seen before. I'm so tired of stories where Optimus Prime and the
Autobots come to Earth for the very first time. It's been done.
Let's please stop retelling the origin story and move on, shall we?
Zob
Zobovor
wrote:
>> That was one of the exciting things about Beast Wars—a whole new
>> group of robots to meet!
>
> Umm yeah , except the whole BW toyline was something of an
> "accident" .
That doesn't matter, though. The point is that we got some brand-new
characters that weren't tied down by decades of baggage regarding how
their previous incarnations behaved or what the fans expected of
them. Do a new version of a G1 character and instantly there are
certain expectations about what they transform into, how they behave,
what their color scheme is, and what their voice sounds like. You
can't escape that. Create a cast of new characters, like they did
with Beast Wars, and you're free from all those limitations.
> Hmmmm. Here's the conundrum : what would we want ... a good movie that
> tanks at the box office , or a bad one that assures sequels /
> continued exposure for the brand ?
I don't want more sequels or continued exposure for the brand just for
its own sake. Obviously Hasbro is in the business to make money off
their little plastic toys and they'll put in the bare minimum of
expenses required to do it, but a sub-par cartoon show or generally
lackluster movie that fails to capture the minds and imaginations of
children isn't going to inspire them to buy toys in the same manner as
an excellent cartoon show or a truly memorable movie. One of the
reasons that Transformers as a brand still exists today is because the
original toys and cartoon were sufficiently awe-inspiring to create an
entire generation of fans who have grown up and are still fans. I
seriously doubt that 25 years from now, people will still be gathering
together and discussing the Michael Bay movies.
Zob
No One in Particular
"Zobovor" <zm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d4dafe25-777a-4307...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> I don't want more sequels or continued exposure for the brand just for
>its own sake. Obviously Hasbro is in the business to make money off
>their little plastic toys and they'll put in the bare minimum of
>expenses required to do it, but a sub-par cartoon show or generally
>lackluster movie that fails to capture the minds and imaginations of
>children isn't going to inspire them to buy toys in the same manner as
>an excellent cartoon show or a truly memorable movie. One of the
>reasons that Transformers as a brand still exists today is because the
>original toys and cartoon were sufficiently awe-inspiring to create an
>entire generation of fans who have grown up and are still fans. I
>seriously doubt that 25 years from now, people will still be gathering
>together and discussing the Michael Bay movies.
>Zob
Sure they will be. And it will be us doing it.
Brian
Onslaught Six
> There's a photo gallery called "NEST: Transformers Data Hub" that
> includes design artwork for Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ironhide,
> Jetfire, Skids and Mudflap, Megatron, Starscream, Devastator,
> Soundwave, Ravage, and The Fallen. Some of them are more
> comprehensive than others—Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, in particular,
> seem to have been given the lion's share of attention. Both of their
> galleries include numerous alternate head design concepts, some of
> which are kind of cool and some of which are absolutely hideous.
> There's also an alternate concept for a "super armor" version of Prime
> in which he is equipped with a trailer that doubles as an add-on for
> his robot mode. I've said many times that Prime really needs a
> trailer to complete his appearance, so this would have been immensely
> cool. (It would probably also make the toy really expensive, but the
> filmmakers seem to rarely concern themselves with such things.) I was
> hoping that there would be some kind of liner notes that explained
> away some of the oddities of the sequel character designs, like the
> misshapen arms and faces on the Twins or the weird arm-connector
> thingies on The Fallen, but no such luck.
I do believe we've already seen a lot of that extra movie material. In
fact, there's a Prime design that's pretty close to the final but has
an entirely different head and the wheels are off the rims in his
robot mode that was, I believe, one of our first real looks at him.
When I saw the film in theaters, I remember some of those S7 buggies
that Landmine turns into rolling out of a trailer, and I initially
thought they were coming from a trailer Prime was carrying. T'wasn't
so, but.
> Something I did notice was that the original designs for Jetfire,
> Devastator, etc. were utilized as reference points when designing the
> new characters. Obviously they didn't stay particularly true to the
> G1 look (indeed, they could have been added to remind the designers,
> "Whatever you do, don't make it look like this!") but it's nice to
> know they were at least looking at the original characters.
There's a design somewhere of a multicoloured movie Dev who stands
upright and looks 'awesome.' I'll see if I can dig it up later.
> Revenge of the Fallen is so interesting to me. It's an example of
> everything that a movie shouldn't be, and yet it's enormously
> successful. I don't get it. It doesn't make any attempts to cater to
> the fans, aside from some casual references to G1 lore that are used
> in completely the wrong context. It doesn't appeal to most of the
> film critics, who said it was too loud, too long, and had too many
> explosions. So why did it make so much money? Sure, the mainstream
> moviegoers are suitably ignorant about Transformers lore that the
> mistakes and omissions go completely lost on them. Even somebody
> who's never heard of Transformers before would be able to recognize
> that half the robots got no dialogue or characterization (Jolt is the
> worst pegwarmer of all right now, and he's supposedly an on-screen
> movie character!). Can it be that the general populace is sincerely
> entertained by the very things about the movie that seem to turn the
> fans off (watching robots and dogs pee on things, jokes about Sam
> masturbating and getting his cherry popped, et al. ad nauseum)?
Well, a lot of my friends liked the Twins, and I sorta do too in their
own idiotic way. The idea of two immature teenage Autobots who are
trying really hard to be grown up has a lot of room for growth, and
ideally *that's* what Bumblebee's character arc should have been more
like in the first film.
Imagine if Bumblebee could have 'talked' in the first film, and
reveals that, just like Sam, he's just a child who's getting his first
real mission--scout out some mission on some dirtball named Earth. And
then suddenly the entire AllSpark and fate of the race is thrust on
him. 'That' would have been cool.
> Revenge of the Fallen is technically proficient—the robots do actually
> look like they're actually in the scene, and not just pasted on top in
> post-production, Jar Jar Binks style.
I theorize that Jar Jar Binks is in the situation he is because he was
never, ever supposed to be there to begin with.
> All the robot scenes are really
> captivating and fun to watch, and the movies do such a good job at
> making them look large and imposing in a way that the G1 cartoon never
> quite captured. Just imagine, then, how successful the movie would
> have been if it were actually, y'know, good!
You don't have to tell me.
Onslaught Six
<ahsan.salahud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Strip the idea down to its essence, and give us something new.
They did that, and we got Demolishor.
(I mean, I love Demolishor, but lots of people don't.)
Onslaught Six
> I would like something new out of Transformers, too—specifically, I
> want them to stop trying to reinvent the G1 characters over and over
> (Armada Starscream, Animated Starscream, movie Starscream, et al.) and
> come up with some new characters. That was one of the exciting things
> about Beast Wars—a whole new group of robots to meet! They never
> could have crafted memorable characters like Rattrap or Dinobot or
> Tarantulas or Blackarachnia if they were trying to shoehorn them into
> character archetypes named Ironhide or Soundwave. As long as they
> keep recycling the G1 characters, they're locked into basic character
> archetypes that are stale and predictable. In the next Transformers
> series—let's call it Transformers: Robots—you know that Bumblebee is
> always going to be the uppity kid-friendly character that turns into a
> little yellow car, that Starscream is going to be a sneaky traitor who
> turns into a jet, etc. There are so many types of stories they could
> tell and so many new characters they could use to tell it—but not
> until all these characters who have been around since I was nine years
> old are finally put out to pasture.
While I agree in every sense of this, I have to throw something back
out: Batman.
Batman's been around for the better part of the last century, and yet
they're always finding new ways to have him Do Stuff. People thought
that Heath Ledger could never outdo Jack NIcholson as the Joker, but
he didn't try to--he did something entirely different to begin with,
and succeeded well with it. Similarly, Batman enters this new dark-and-
gritty-and-serious phase with TDK, and what does the cartoon do to
accompany that? We get 'The Brave And The Bold,' which is the most
ridiculous and awesome Silver Age tribute cartoon ever. Batman's being
used in a different and new capacity there, and he's corny and says
horrible one-liners ("THE HAMMER OF JUSTICE IS UNISEX!") and is
coloured blue and everything. But it's not the same thing we got
before, and it works well.
Zobovor
> They did that, and we got Demolishor.
>
> (I mean, I love Demolishor, but lots of people don't.)
I dunno. I thought he was kind of interesting, with his
unconventional tank mode and the way he wanted his own Minicon so
badly.
Zob...
Onslaught Six
> That doesn't matter, though. The point is that we got some brand-new
> characters that weren't tied down by decades of baggage regarding how
> their previous incarnations behaved or what the fans expected of
> them. Do a new version of a G1 character and instantly there are
> certain expectations about what they transform into, how they behave,
> what their color scheme is, and what their voice sounds like. You
> can't escape that. Create a cast of new characters, like they did
> with Beast Wars, and you're free from all those limitations.
I also just argued against this in another post (and I really
shouldn't come into threads late and try to respond like this), but
the movie is also kind of doing this. For example, Barricade!
Barricade's an awesome character. Okay, his character on the cardback
is kind of ridiculous, but he's a badass police car Decepticon who
will eat your face. Barricade can work in 'any' TF continuity, and the
best part is, his robot face is one of the fewer Movie designs that
can be simplified down and applied to a more traditional TF aesthetic.
And he's got a name 'without' a major distinctive character to it,
like Brawl does. With Brawl, you expect Tank Combaticon Guy, but G1
Barricade wasn't introduced until those late-year days when almost
nobody was paying attention.
Blackout is also a pretty decent cool new character, and I was glad to
have him show up in Animated. And his name was even appropriate, in
both the film and Animated, because he had EMP powers. (I'd love to
see a short story where he's the one responsible for that huge
blackout in New England several years back, in order to do some kind
of mission.)
That said, I'd also like more old, awesome and 'obscure' characters to
get updated. Let's take a look at Longtooth, for example. Longtooth is
really awesome and I'd love to see a new version of him, in a new
continuity and in a new context.
> I don't want more sequels or continued exposure for the brand just for
> its own sake. Obviously Hasbro is in the business to make money off
> their little plastic toys and they'll put in the bare minimum of
> expenses required to do it, but a sub-par cartoon show or generally
> lackluster movie that fails to capture the minds and imaginations of
> children isn't going to inspire them to buy toys in the same manner as
> an excellent cartoon show or a truly memorable movie. One of the
> reasons that Transformers as a brand still exists today is because the
> original toys and cartoon were sufficiently awe-inspiring to create an
> entire generation of fans who have grown up and are still fans. I
> seriously doubt that 25 years from now, people will still be gathering
> together and discussing the Michael Bay movies.
But 50 years from now, will people still be disussing the 1986 movie,
or Furman's G1 comics?
Onslaught Six
> If you want something new and different, then I'm a little surprised
> that you never got into Animated, since it is new and different. Yes,
> Bumblebee is named Bumblebee, and he is yellow, but he's basically a
> new character.
No he isn't. He's Hot Shot.
Gustavo Wombat
Hot Shot was never a sociopath.
Gustavo!
Onslaught Six
> I dunno. I thought he was kind of interesting, with his
> unconventional tank mode and the way he wanted his own Minicon so
> badly.
>
> Zob...
I see what you did there. (Incidentally, they could have easily called
ROTF Long Haul Demolishor instead, and made off by making him an
Energon homage.)
Zobovor
> Batman's been around for the better part of the last century, and yet
> they're always finding new ways to have him Do Stuff.
That's still a little different, though. You can't *do* a Batman
story without using the character named Batman. The character is the
whole point of the story.
By contrast, Transformers is more of a concept than a character. Some
characters are more popular than others, of course, but there is no
single defining character. A lot of Transformers stories focus on the
favorites like Optimus Prime and Megatron, but you could remove them
from the picture entirely and substitute, say, Rodimus Prime and
Galvatron and it's still a Transformers story. Whether the focus is
entirely on the Technobots ("Money is Everything") or the Triggerbots
(Marvel Comics issue #63) or the Decepticons ("Webworld") or Swoop
("Desertion of the Dinobots" part 2) it's still a Transformers story.
I mean, sure. Prime and Megatron and Starscream and Bumblebee are
interesting, but they're not the be-all and end-all of Transformers.
There are lots of other interesting characters out there. If Hasbro
had focused exclusively on the core characters we're all familiar with
today, then the Transformers universe would never have been populated
by the likes of cool characters like Wheeljack, Smokescreen, Hoist,
Red Alert, Bombshell, Cyclonus, the Quintessons, Sky Lynx, First Aid,
Swindle, Brainstorm, Mindwipe, Punch/Counterpunch, Doubledealer,
Skullgrin, Bludgeon, Thunderwing, Roadhandler, Axer, Skyfall, Skram,
Windrazor, Jolt, Motormouth, Dinobot, Blackarachnia, Sky Shadow,
Torca, the Diagnostic Drone, T-AI, or Sky-Byte.
Zob
SteveD
>One of the
>reasons that Transformers as a brand still exists today is because the
>original toys and cartoon were sufficiently awe-inspiring
To kids of the 80s, yes. Looking back on them from the perspective of
adults, the quality was... variable. Even TFTM had holes you could drive
Optimus through sideways.
I think there are going to be plenty of kids inspired by practically any
generation of Transformers. We may be able to see the cracks, but the
target demographic isn't as demanding.
-SteveD
Chad Rushing
>
> I mean, sure. Prime and Megatron and Starscream and Bumblebee are
> interesting, but they're not the be-all and end-all of Transformers.
> There are lots of other interesting characters out there. If Hasbro
> had focused exclusively on the core characters we're all familiar with
> today, then the Transformers universe would never have been populated
> by the likes of cool characters like Wheeljack, Smokescreen, Hoist,
> Red Alert, Bombshell, Cyclonus, the Quintessons, Sky Lynx, First Aid,
> Swindle, Brainstorm, Mindwipe, Punch/Counterpunch, Doubledealer,
> Skullgrin, Bludgeon, Thunderwing, Roadhandler, Axer, Skyfall, Skram,
> Windrazor, Jolt, Motormouth, Dinobot, Blackarachnia, Sky Shadow,
> Torca, the Diagnostic Drone, T-AI, or Sky-Byte.
Did you just call the Quintessons "cool characters?" In theory,
perhaps. In practice, they left much to be desired. I did like that
evil laughter that rotated through all five faces in TF:TM, though =)
- Chad
Gustavo Wombat
Quint 1: May I propose an anticipatory snicker of triumph?
Quints 1-N: <snicker>
They're cool.
Gustavo!
Zobovor
> Did you just call the Quintessons "cool characters?"
Heck, yeah! They're not Autobots or Decepticons—they're the
mysterious third party who are sometimes helpful and sometimes a
menace. You never know quite when to trust them. They make the
Decepticons more sympathic protagonists because the 'Cons aren't the
only ones going around doing Evil Stuff for its own sake—now suddenly
it's the Quintessons who are the REAL bad guys. They have intimate
knowledge of the Transformers because they created 'em all, so they
are in the unique position of knowing exactly how to manipulate them
like puppets. The Quintessons are awesome.
Zob
ahsan.sa...@gmail.com
> On Nov 24, 1:48 pm, Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > That doesn't matter, though. The point is that we got some brand-new
> > characters that weren't tied down by decades of baggage regarding how
> > their previous incarnations behaved or what the fans expected of
> > them. Do a new version of a G1 character and instantly there are
> > certain expectations about what they transform into, how they behave,
> > what their color scheme is, and what their voice sounds like. You
> > can't escape that. Create a cast of new characters, like they did
> > with Beast Wars, and you're free from all those limitations.
>
> I also just argued against this in another post (and I really
> shouldn't come into threads late and try to respond like this), but
> the movie is also kind of doing this. For example, Barricade!
> Barricade's an awesome character. Okay, his character on the cardback
> is kind of ridiculous, but he's a badass police car Decepticon who
> will eat your face. Barricade can work in 'any' TF continuity, and the
> best part is, his robot face is one of the fewer Movie designs that
> can be simplified down and applied to a more traditional TF aesthetic.
> And he's got a name 'without' a major distinctive character to it,
> like Brawl does. With Brawl, you expect Tank Combaticon Guy, but G1
> Barricade wasn't introduced until those late-year days when almost
> nobody was paying attention.
All hail Barricade! I loved that character concept... and the
Decepticon symbol and the "to punish and enslave". That was new and
different, and I've latched on to it like a... thing that latches on
to things that it really likes.
We want more of that.
> That said, I'd also like more old, awesome and 'obscure' characters to
> get updated. Let's take a look at Longtooth, for example. Longtooth is
> really awesome and I'd love to see a new version of him, in a new
> continuity and in a new context.
I guess if it's obscure characters, it'd be okay... just no more of
Optimus Prime and Megatron. Or Starscream.
Well, maybe Megatron, if the story is from the perspective of the
Decepticons.
But I think I know what Zob's talking about, because I've tried to
express the same idea several times without much success.
Optimus Prime is always a truck cab, he's always a leader of the
Autobot contingent that's on-screen for any length of time, heroic to
the point of being annoying; Bumblebee / Hot Shot is the young,
yellow, headstrong "small car"; Megatron is always monomaniac, leader
of all Decepticons with a massive gun; Screamer is a jet, usually the
best at what he does and a second-in-command (and sneaky, sycophantic
and suffering from Chronic Backstabbing Syndrome, but we won't mention
that), Ratchet is a medic...
Even when they're completely different characters, they're still the
same archetypes, I think the word is.
> > I don't want more sequels or continued exposure for the brand just for
> > its own sake. Obviously Hasbro is in the business to make money off
> > their little plastic toys and they'll put in the bare minimum of
> > expenses required to do it, but a sub-par cartoon show or generally
> > lackluster movie that fails to capture the minds and imaginations of
> > children isn't going to inspire them to buy toys in the same manner as
> > an excellent cartoon show or a truly memorable movie. One of the
> > reasons that Transformers as a brand still exists today is because the
> > original toys and cartoon were sufficiently awe-inspiring to create an
> > entire generation of fans who have grown up and are still fans. I
> > seriously doubt that 25 years from now, people will still be gathering
> > together and discussing the Michael Bay movies.
>
> But 50 years from now, will people still be disussing the 1986 movie,
> or Furman's G1 comics?
Furman's Marvel G1 run? Or any of Furman's work on G1, whether Marvel
or IDW?
I think maybe the '86 movie will still be discussed in 50 years time.
It wasn't so much that it was a good movie, as that it was... I dunno,
really. It was an indicator that kids take cartoons more seriously
than toy makers had suspected (killing off most of the Season 1 cast?
Very, very naughty, Hasbro). It also had pretty good animation for an
American feature-length movie of the time. And if G1 is still being
discussed in 50 years, Transformers: The Movie and Furman's Marvel G1
comics will still be a part of those discussions.
Zobovor
> And Animated Bumblebee, Movieverse Bumblebee and G1 Bumblebee also
> have very little in common
I don't know enough about Animated Bumblebee to really draw any
comparisons, but movie Bumblebee is patterned so closely after G1
Bumblebee. First, there's the superficial stuff, like the fact that
they're both yellow cars that turn into yellow-and-black robots. It's
a little harder to gauge movie Bumblebee's personality when he doesn't
talk, but he's brave and he likes humans and he's a little sassy, just
like the original character. As far as their roles in the story go,
movie Bumblebee became Sam's favorite Autobot and the one he rode
around in, and both of them are willing to do anything to help the
other, which mirrors the relationship between Spike Witwicky and G1
Bumblebee pretty much exactly.
Zob
Optim_1
there are some differences. Movie Bumblebee comes off as a self-
assured, efficient, powerful and cold-blooded warrior that is also a
respected commander. G1 Bumblebee is a big-hearted TF that is weak
and is learning the ropes of combat. He also idolizes other TF.
Animated Bumbleee, as others have stated, is like Hot Shot character-
wise.
Gustavo Wombat
Well, except for Animated Bumblebee being an evil sociopath. No one on
the show seems to notice, but he's clearly evil. His solution to
Nanosec (the human who could run really fast but aged quickly when he
did so) -- try to force him to run himself to death.
People always say that G1 Sunstreaker was a sociopath, but no one
notices that plucky little Animated Bumblebee is pure, unadulterated
evil.
Gustavo!
Optim_1
It was the only way to stop Nanosec. It was Nanosec's actions that
made him almost run himself to death, not Bumblebee's. Nanosec could
have chosen to stop runnning and surrender. He risked his life so that
he would not have to surrender. That was his choice.
Animated Bumblebee has also expressed feelings on numerous occasions,
notably when he expressed remorse about accusing someone wrongly of
being a traitor and helping send him to prison. A sociopath would have
no feelings.
> People always say that G1 Sunstreaker was a sociopath, but no one
> notices that plucky little Animated Bumblebee is pure, unadulterated
> evil.
>
> Gustavo!
I like Sunstreaker. I wish he was written more. His G1 tech specs are
cool.
Kil - Michael McCarthy
>On Nov 24, 9:51 pm, Chad Rushing <notu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Did you just call the Quintessons "cool characters?"
>
mysterious third party who are sometimes helpful and sometimes a
menace.
When were the Quintessons ever helpful?
-Kil
Replying to months old post again, apparently.
Chad Rushing
wrote:
>
> When were the Quintessons ever helpful?
During the Hate Plague of TRoOP, a Quintesson made a deal with Sky
Lynx that he would repair Optimus Prime (and some of the other
uninfected Autobots) if Sky Lynx would rescue him from his infected
troops. Sure, the help was coerced to a degree, but the Quint
fulfilled his end of the bargain. Feel free to correct me if I am
remembering those episodes incorrectly.
- Chad