Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

cotss2012 wrote:

JOP wrote:inserting narrative coherence, character development, emotional depth and so forth into a franchise in which these things have either been notoriously lacking or poorly handled.

Someone obviously never saw G1 season 1, TFTM

Both of which were notoriously lacking in narrative coherence, character development, emotional depth and so forth.

Well, unless little kids crying and/or raging that almost everyone from the first two seasons died so abruptly counts as emotional depth.

Actually, I was talking about skyfire's changing loyalties and sacrifice in Fire in the Sky, the Dinobots' split loyalties in War of the Dinobots, the whole "when next we meet, we are enemies" angle in The Ultimate Doom, etc... but yeah, if you can make your audience care enough to cry, then that's definitely evidence of emotional depth.

The total disregard for story continuity didn't begin until Season 2.

Autobot032 wrote:No one's saying they can't both happen, just that that's usually how it works. Hasbro's main concern is making money. Always has been, always will be. Both sides can't win always and whatever side will make them guaranteed money and a lot of it, will always win.

I could well be wrong, but that's very much the impression I took away from comments by RaH and 5150 Cruiser - that what we might think of as 'critical qualities' (excellence of script, narrative, dialogue) are no more than personal preferences; and preferences that conflict with those of other fans and the larger movie-going public. It is a model in which film-making is portrayed as a zero-sum game; and I reject this.

I do agree with you that Hasbro, Paramount and their ilk are of a mercenary bent; however, this does not mean that they cannot - to stretch a metaphor - "Have their box office success cake and eat it too (with the spoon of critical success"). Now I can understand why, given the track record of such entities (as you suggest), it would be foolish to expect any better of them - but I don't understand why we can't at least hope for better.

Autobot032 wrote:Wait... um... I'm a tad confused here.

Sorry about that. I was calling back to your earlier point regarding Hasbro's ever-increasing production of Bumblebee and Bumblebee-themed accessories.

Autobot032 wrote:I'm not opposed to better writing, but I'm also not expecting it to be overwhelmingly Oscar material either. I guess it's because I'm a realist.

I understand where you are coming from, but but please consider this - Christopher Nolan, Jon Favreau and JJ Abrams have demonstrated (with The Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Star Trek respectively) that the traditional blockbuster movie can aspire for greatness beyond mere financial considerations.

NatsumeRyu wrote:To get a truly fantastic film I honestly think we need a smaller budget...

That is a very interesting thought. I'm not sure if necessarily it is the budget at fault here, but rather - as I think was brought up earlier in the thread - the choice of director. svk2K posted a very interesting quote by Christopher Nolan:

"...It is a real honor to work on something that means so much to people," Nolan said. "I'd love to be able to claim that I invented the whole thing and that’s why they’re interested. I did not. I’ve been given a very precious thing to do my best with..."

I think the contrast between Nolan and Bay could not be more apparent - one approaches his source material with care, consideration, and humility; the other is, well... Michael Bay... Perhaps if we simply had a director that was more than financially invested in the project; someone more philosophically akin to High Moon Studios?

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:thank you very much, You did a better job of wording my point then I did

You're welcome.

RhA wrote:So it's not about what we should want in life, but you're only dictating what we should want in movies?

Again, I think you are interpreting svk2K's comments in an overly literal way. When svk2K speaks to what we deserve, I believe it is simply another way of stating that "Transformers-related material has, at times, achieved excellence on a critical scale; and for a variety of reasons, it would behoove the live-action films to follow suit." I think we have very much clarified at this point that the one thing svk2K is not arguing is that he / she can dictate the expectations and desires of others.

cotss2012 wrote:Someone obviously never saw G1 season 1, TFTM, Beast Wars seasons 2&3, Beast Machines, Animated, or Prime.

I apologize for the confusion here - I was referring solely to the three live-action films, and should not have used the word 'franchise' to do so.

JOP wrote:

NatsumeRyu wrote:To get a truly fantastic film I honestly think we need a smaller budget...

That is a very interesting thought. I'm not sure if necessarily it is the budget at fault here, but rather - as I think was brought up earlier in the thread - the choice of director. svk2K posted a very interesting quote by Christopher Nolan:

"...It is a real honor to work on something that means so much to people," Nolan said. "I'd love to be able to claim that I invented the whole thing and that’s why they’re interested. I did not. I’ve been given a very precious thing to do my best with..."

I think the contrast between Nolan and Bay could not be more apparent - one approaches his source material with care, consideration, and humility; the other is, well... Michael Bay... Perhaps if we simply had a director that was more than financially invested in the project; someone more philosophically akin to High Moon Studios?

Yeah, that's something like what I meant to say. Basically, we're looking for the people who work on a smaller budget, because I find they tend to be more passionate beyond the money.

Shadowman wrote:

NatsumeRyu wrote:To get a truly fantastic film I honestly think we need a smaller budget. Yes, I said it.

The first movie had a (comparatively) smaller budget. Turns out, CGI is expensive. Turns out, that's why there was so little screen time for the actual robots.

NatsumeRyu wrote:I think the fans would either have to make it (Lord knows enough of us know how, it's just finding the time to volunteer to it)

Someone suggested this around the time of the first movie. The response was, more or less, it would never work because we'd never be able to agree on anything long enough to do it.

Part I: Only because of the direction they took with it. CGI in and of itself isn't horribly expensive. It's what the people working on the first film decided to do with their money. And if the entire thing was done in CGI it'd probably be cheaper than compositing. Hmm, maybe I'm saying: if you give the director and team more money, then you're rewarding them and saying good job. Then they will be more likely to do more of that if asked, right? Well, if you keep the budget the same or lower it, you're telling them something is wrong, and change needs to happen to get that more money.

Part II: Only if they can't be a team. Look at Ng and Smoove. J3.0 and his buddies. Any other numbers of fans who've put out some neat stuff. The talent is there. I mean, heck, we could probably even make TFA s4 if any number of us truly wanted to. Wyatt is kind enough I'm sure he'd be willing to do something, even if just answering questions like "would this character do this?" if not give us some small script to start with. Then it's just up to a team to make that dream come true. It's not hard, honestly, coming from someone who worked on a team of 5 for 4 weeks to make a game prototype for a brand-new concept at the first day of the project. It's just finding the people who can and will do it. They would have to take time out of their day to work on it, and that's the biggest part, if it's volunteer stuff. Just making sure to set aside an hour every week or every few days to get something done. And if the team's big enough, you can say "I can't do it for a month," and have someone else pick that up.

So, that's sort of what I'm trying to say about a "better" Transformers movie, I think fan-made would be the highest possibility of success among the fandom. Not to say that other options don't have chances or opportunities to be better, just that it's less likely to be done the way we're suggesting it.

Speaking of which, if anyone wants a 3D animator, I can devote some time to that.

Transformers is too big of an entity now to be a low budget anything or no name director to be behind the seat for the franchise.

Just not going to happen. Especially in Hasbro's case.

Half the money they make off the films is the hype of Bay (whom has fans whether we like it or not) and the other half arguably the bigger half is the Transformers themselves.

You can bet anything that results in a new Transformers movie.

1. Transformers 4: Unicron
2. Reboot

Will have a name and a big budget behind it. Even if the name is relatively new. It will be a name that's bankable.

Cameron
Spielberg
Nolan
Uwe Boll
Tarantino
Eastwood
Stallone
Lucas
Anderson

Or writer turned director for the movie

Aaron Sorkin - Overrated
Diablo Cody - Would be lols
Kevin Williamson - A movie within a movie

On and on and on. It will be a name

JOP wrote:I could well be wrong, but that's very much the impression I took away from comments by RaH and 5150 Cruiser - that what we might think of as 'critical qualities' (excellence of script, narrative, dialogue) are no more than personal preferences; and preferences that conflict with those of other fans and the larger movie-going public. It is a model in which film-making is portrayed as a zero-sum game; and I reject this.

Well, I see both sides, but I'm biased, so I'm not the fairest party in this issue.

A better script is fine, I have no problem with that, but the movie going public and their money clearly prove our desires aren't even on the companies back burner, and more likely nowhere near the place to cook food.

Past a certain point, wishing and hoping do go to waste.

JOP wrote:I do agree with you that Hasbro, Paramount and their ilk are of a mercenary bent; however, this does not mean that they cannot - to stretch a metaphor - "Have their box office success cake and eat it too (with the spoon of critical success"). Now I can understand why, given the track record of such entities (as you suggest), it would be foolish to expect any better of them - but I don't understand why we can't at least hope for better.

"mercenary bent" I...like that. I really do. That's pretty good. We can hope all we want, there's nothing wrong with it, no laws against it, etc. My problem is, I hate to see so many people get their hopes up so high, only to have them dashed on the rocks below. And they will be dashed. HARD.

See, I read the leaked "scriptment" for the first film, in 2006, I still have it on my PC somewhere. I knew right then and there that if they went with it, it'd be a fun popcorn movie, but not a great TF movie. When the trailers and commercials lined up with what was in the leak, I started to put my hopes a little lower than I had them previously. I still wanted to see it, wasn't going to miss it, but my hopes were lowered.

I went to see it. I was wowed. I was overwhelmed. It was fantastic. What an experience and a joyride. ...then reality set in and multiple viewings showed me the flaws with a giant spotlight from Hell. The film was actually boring, the title characters weren't in it much, the human element was too much. Funny thing is, it was chock full of humans but had no humanity.

My hopes that were raised when the wow factor kicked in, were smashed on the rocks below. That set the mood and the tone for me, for future installments. I knew what to expect going in. ROTF came along and it had it's ludicrous G1 inspired plot, wall to wall action and more robot screen time. Admittedly, the humor didn't always work and the wow factor was gone, but it wasn't boring and it was fun. Granted, I went in with lowered expectations.

DOTM, changed all of that for me. It restored the hope I had for the first film, but actually delivered. It had it's zany G1 inspired storyline, but it had moments of humanity in it. It actually brought me to tears in some scenes. It did what the other two tried, but couldn't do. Wasn't perfect, but it dang sure tried.

JOP wrote:I understand where you are coming from, but but please consider this - Christopher Nolan, Jon Favreau and JJ Abrams have demonstrated (with The Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Star Trek respectively) that the traditional blockbuster movie can aspire for greatness beyond mere financial considerations.

I'm not aspirations are a waste, but in this case they seem rather pointless. Your comparison material is leaps and bounds above what TFs have ever offered.

Batman Begins/The Dark Knight: Always been a tour de force of emotions. Bruce watched his parents get murdered in front of him. It fractured his psyche. He runs around in a batsuit, scaring and beating the hell out of villains. I made it sound silly, but there's a very real dark component to it: Fear. What happened to Bruce can and does happen to people everyday, unfortunately. People want vengeance, people want their justice, even if it means taking it with their own two hands. That connects with us. It addresses a primal emotion.

Iron Man: A seemingly unloved alcoholic with too much money, too much ego and too much power is given a valuable lesson and shook to his core. Sees that his empire, his Father's legacy, has turned into a killing machine taking out innocent men, women and children. It fundamentally changes him and he uses his talents and gifts to change the world, little by little with what he has and is capable of doing. That also connects with us on a deep, emotional level. Most people want to embrace their inner good and do great works with it.

Star Trek: Uses alien species to show us that their is equality among the human race. It doesn't matter if you're White, Black, Purple, Green or whatever color you wish, you are part of the grand scheme and matter just as much as the rest. It was about tearing down the walls and uniting the peoples. Now, it's not just about color, but religion and sexual orientation. Everyone's an equal person in the Star Trek universe, which teaches us a lesson and along the way, we're wowed with special effects that are out of this world. (Pardon the pun.)

TransFormers: Giant robots have ripped their planet apart in civil war and crashed here by accident. We try to integrate them into our lives and adapt. We welcome them with open arms. (G1.) In the Bayverse, they come looking for the Allspark and need a pair of glasses, sighted on someone's eBay page, to help them locate it. Mass hysteria ensues, but not a single human dies during the final confrontation. (No realism there.) ROTF: Optimus dies, but comes back. DOTM: Actions have consequences. People DO die, people DO suffer, it's as real as it's going to get. DOTM should give you hope. It shows they're trying to branch out and go places they hadn't gone before, emotionally.

Michael Bay gave us some serious street cred when the movies ended up being profitable, but they weren't deep thinkers. Problem is, neither was the source material. Some stories were, but for the most part, this was a promotional item to sell toys. There's not a lot of work involved to do that. You make 'em flash, you make 'em loud and you make 'em exciting and that's exactly what the movies did and it worked.

I don't have a lot of emotional connection with the TransFormers. I know Optimus is capable of being a better person than his movieverse self, I know he's a big hero. Same with Bumblebee and the rest of the Autobots. But you can't always connect with alien robots. To a certain extent, you can, but only to a certain point.

You can connect with Bruce Wayne. You can share his fears and his pain. You can connect with Tony Stark. You can feel unloved and lost and then find out the truth and feel empowered and do something good with your gifts. You can connect with Kirk, Spock and especially Data. You can see there's more to attain to with being human and seeing there's only one race, that we're all human and while not perfect, we can help better each other if we give it a chance.

You can't connect all that much with alien robots that destroyed their planet with their stupidity, and now need a handout and a hand up. I mean, when it comes down to it, that's really what TransFormers boils down to.

Sure, you have your Christ figure with Optimus. Sure, you have your political and socioeconomic commentary with the Autobots VS the Decepticons, but... if not handled right, the former can be seen as offensive and heavy handed, and the latter can be seen as boring and heavy handed.

TransFormers stories have had depth before, they will again. But they're not well known for their "Wow. I just got that. How incredibly sad." moments. They're known for "WE WILL KILL THEM ALL!"

I knew this a long time ago, I know it now. I came to terms with it long ago. I'm fine with that. I love the toys, they're my foremost love when it comes to TransFormers, then comes the media tie ins that help sell it. Some of it's entertaining, some of it connects with you to some degree, but it's not deep thought material and never has been. The fact that we've been able to connect at all, is a miracle.

Maybe I'm too much of a realist, I don't know, but that's how I see it. What we've gotten so far has exceeded my expectations on some fronts, failed on others. It's just what I've come to expect.

JOP wrote:I could well be wrong, but that's very much the impression I took away from comments by RaH and 5150 Cruiser - that what we might think of as 'critical qualities' (excellence of script, narrative, dialogue) are no more than personal preferences; and preferences that conflict with those of other fans and the larger movie-going public. It is a model in which film-making is portrayed as a zero-sum game; and I reject this.

I can only speak for me and not RHA, but that's not what I was intending to say. My apologies if that's how you perceived it.
My point was more in lines of Autobot32's. I'm not in any way opposed to better writing, script etc. If they can make it work while still keeping the action then great. My point was while many felt the script, plot and story was lacking in the movies, I did not. As did many others. I felt for the most part they were just fine and did not only what they were supposed to, but exceeded. Bay & co. also really did cater too many of our requests. He brought in more mythos, more characters, better stories, and darker tones. But in the end, the fandom still wasn't happy.
As far as "better" writing and scripts go, the claim that we have gotten better though out the years is also largely subjective. There have been stories that I’ve read that I’ve considered good, while others ripped apart and vis. versa. And let’s be honest with ourselves... Yes, we have had some good stories over the years, but for the most part they haven't been great. They've suffered from the same script, narratives and dialogue that many complain the movies suffer from. And since there are some many flaws in most TF stories and what people like is largely subjective, that’s where I have a problem when someone says...
"We should have gotten the best".

Autobot032 wrote: Well, I see both sides, but I'm biased, so I'm not the fairest party in this issue.

A better script is fine, I have no problem with that, but the movie going public and their money clearly prove our desires aren't even on the companies back burner, and more likely nowhere near the place to cook food.

Past a certain point, wishing and hoping do go to waste.

JOP wrote:I do agree with you that Hasbro, Paramount and their ilk are of a mercenary bent; however, this does not mean that they cannot - to stretch a metaphor - "Have their box office success cake and eat it too (with the spoon of critical success"). Now I can understand why, given the track record of such entities (as you suggest), it would be foolish to expect any better of them - but I don't understand why we can't at least hope for better.

"mercenary bent" I...like that. I really do. That's pretty good. We can hope all we want, there's nothing wrong with it, no laws against it, etc. My problem is, I hate to see so many people get their hopes up so high, only to have them dashed on the rocks below. And they will be dashed. HARD.

See, I read the leaked "scriptment" for the first film, in 2006, I still have it on my PC somewhere. I knew right then and there that if they went with it, it'd be a fun popcorn movie, but not a great TF movie. When the trailers and commercials lined up with what was in the leak, I started to put my hopes a little lower than I had them previously. I still wanted to see it, wasn't going to miss it, but my hopes were lowered.

I went to see it. I was wowed. I was overwhelmed. It was fantastic. What an experience and a joyride. ...then reality set in and multiple viewings showed me the flaws with a giant spotlight from Hell. The film was actually boring, the title characters weren't in it much, the human element was too much. Funny thing is, it was chock full of humans but had no humanity.

My hopes that were raised when the wow factor kicked in, were smashed on the rocks below. That set the mood and the tone for me, for future installments. I knew what to expect going in. ROTF came along and it had it's ludicrous G1 inspired plot, wall to wall action and more robot screen time. Admittedly, the humor didn't always work and the wow factor was gone, but it wasn't boring and it was fun. Granted, I went in with lowered expectations.

DOTM, changed all of that for me. It restored the hope I had for the first film, but actually delivered. It had it's zany G1 inspired storyline, but it had moments of humanity in it. It actually brought me to tears in some scenes. It did what the other two tried, but couldn't do. Wasn't perfect, but it dang sure tried.

JOP wrote:I understand where you are coming from, but but please consider this - Christopher Nolan, Jon Favreau and JJ Abrams have demonstrated (with The Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Star Trek respectively) that the traditional blockbuster movie can aspire for greatness beyond mere financial considerations.

I'm not aspirations are a waste, but in this case they seem rather pointless. Your comparison material is leaps and bounds above what TFs have ever offered.

Batman Begins/The Dark Knight: Always been a tour de force of emotions. Bruce watched his parents get murdered in front of him. It fractured his psyche. He runs around in a batsuit, scaring and beating the hell out of villains. I made it sound silly, but there's a very real dark component to it: Fear. What happened to Bruce can and does happen to people everyday, unfortunately. People want vengeance, people want their justice, even if it means taking it with their own two hands. That connects with us. It addresses a primal emotion.

Iron Man: A seemingly unloved alcoholic with too much money, too much ego and too much power is given a valuable lesson and shook to his core. Sees that his empire, his Father's legacy, has turned into a killing machine taking out innocent men, women and children. It fundamentally changes him and he uses his talents and gifts to change the world, little by little with what he has and is capable of doing. That also connects with us on a deep, emotional level. Most people want to embrace their inner good and do great works with it.

Star Trek: Uses alien species to show us that their is equality among the human race. It doesn't matter if you're White, Black, Purple, Green or whatever color you wish, you are part of the grand scheme and matter just as much as the rest. It was about tearing down the walls and uniting the peoples. Now, it's not just about color, but religion and sexual orientation. Everyone's an equal person in the Star Trek universe, which teaches us a lesson and along the way, we're wowed with special effects that are out of this world. (Pardon the pun.)

TransFormers: Giant robots have ripped their planet apart in civil war and crashed here by accident. We try to integrate them into our lives and adapt. We welcome them with open arms. (G1.) In the Bayverse, they come looking for the Allspark and need a pair of glasses, sighted on someone's eBay page, to help them locate it. Mass hysteria ensues, but not a single human dies during the final confrontation. (No realism there.) ROTF: Optimus dies, but comes back. DOTM: Actions have consequences. People DO die, people DO suffer, it's as real as it's going to get. DOTM should give you hope. It shows they're trying to branch out and go places they hadn't gone before, emotionally.

Michael Bay gave us some serious street cred when the movies ended up being profitable, but they weren't deep thinkers. Problem is, neither was the source material. Some stories were, but for the most part, this was a promotional item to sell toys. There's not a lot of work involved to do that. You make 'em flash, you make 'em loud and you make 'em exciting and that's exactly what the movies did and it worked.

I don't have a lot of emotional connection with the TransFormers. I know Optimus is capable of being a better person than his movieverse self, I know he's a big hero. Same with Bumblebee and the rest of the Autobots. But you can't always connect with alien robots. To a certain extent, you can, but only to a certain point.

You can connect with Bruce Wayne. You can share his fears and his pain. You can connect with Tony Stark. You can feel unloved and lost and then find out the truth and feel empowered and do something good with your gifts. You can connect with Kirk, Spock and especially Data. You can see there's more to attain to with being human and seeing there's only one race, that we're all human and while not perfect, we can help better each other if we give it a chance.

You can't connect all that much with alien robots that destroyed their planet with their stupidity, and now need a handout and a hand up. I mean, when it comes down to it, that's really what TransFormers boils down to.

Sure, you have your Christ figure with Optimus. Sure, you have your political and socioeconomic commentary with the Autobots VS the Decepticons, but... if not handled right, the former can be seen as offensive and heavy handed, and the latter can be seen as boring and heavy handed.

TransFormers stories have had depth before, they will again. But they're not well known for their "Wow. I just got that. How incredibly sad." moments. They're known for "WE WILL KILL THEM ALL!"

I knew this a long time ago, I know it now. I came to terms with it long ago. I'm fine with that. I love the toys, they're my foremost love when it comes to TransFormers, then comes the media tie ins that help sell it. Some of it's entertaining, some of it connects with you to some degree, but it's not deep thought material and never has been. The fact that we've been able to connect at all, is a miracle.

Maybe I'm too much of a realist, I don't know, but that's how I see it. What we've gotten so far has exceeded my expectations on some fronts, failed on others. It's just what I've come to expect.

You sir..... Get the award for best post of 2012!!

ReDPATH wrote:Kevin Williamson - A movie within a movie

JOP wrote:I think we have very much clarified at this point that the one thing svk2K is not arguing is that he / she can dictate the expectations and desires of others.

again thankyou.

Autobot032 wrote:Michael Bay gave us some serious street cred when the movies ended up being profitable, but they weren't deep thinkers. Problem is, neither was the source material. Some stories were, but for the most part, this was a promotional item to sell toys.

See, thats where your wrong,The cartoon is not the true original "source material".

From the start, the tf fiction had more "depth" then just a toy add.Maybe not in the cartoon, but certainly in the comics, which came before the cartoon.And while the comic had its share of silly stories, it also had its share of material that appealed to the "deep thinkers".

And thats what this brand has in common with Batman.The character of Bruce Wayne/Batman has been depicted in many different ways over the years in the mediums of comics, live action and animated.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:Michael Bay gave us some serious street cred when the movies ended up being profitable, but they weren't deep thinkers. Problem is, neither was the source material. Some stories were, but for the most part, this was a promotional item to sell toys.

See, thats where your wrong,The cartoon is not the true original "source material".

From the start, the tf fiction had more "depth" then just a toy add.Maybe not in the cartoon, but certainly in the comics, which came before the cartoon.And while the comic had its share of silly stories, it also had its share of material that appealed to the "deep thinkers".

And thats what this brand has in common with Batman.The character of Bruce Wayne/Batman has been depicted in many different ways over the years in the mediums of comics, live action and animated.

Couple of things..
First, the whole problem with that aurgument is no one ever bring up the first comics for source material. Its always G1 and the stories of G1. And the fact that they weren't the orignal souce material is irrelevent as the point is the source material (whitch includes the comics)just wasn't very good in terms or stories, plot, dialogue and everything else many complain about the movies.
Second,.."Deep thinkers??" I'm sorry, but early TF comics were anything but that. And when exactly did they come out? According to what i could find out, they came out roughly the same time the series did.

Even if there were a couple good stories, and deep thinking, that's very little (if any) good material to take from. Thats like saying..
"Ya, i know we had a hundred or so bad, corny stories, but there were one or two really good ones. The movie writers should have taken material from those two stories."

Autobot32 is right. When it comes to source material, TF don't have alot to go by. (at least nothing swe inspiring).