Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Bowspearer wrote:In this case with Hound, take a good look at his tech spec for example:

Hound loves the natural wonders of Earth, prefers it to Cybertron. Brave, fearless, loyal. Secretly desires to be human. Uses turret gun as radar scope, infrared radiation collector. Tracks machines as well as humans. Hologram gun projects 3-dimensional grid laser-light topographical maps. Vulnerable to thermal and electromagnetic interference.

In other words, the core of the character is that he's an explorer in love with everything about the planet, including all its wildlife - to the point whee he secretly wishes he was human. On top of that, his powers are all based around being a scout.

First of all, these are two seperate characters. Same name, same franchise, two different guys. Why you think they need to be the exact same escapes me.

With your logic, every character ever named "Billy Bob" should have the same exact character as the first character named "Billy Bob," even if they're in two different fictions.

If so, then why isn't Outback from G.I Joe not a insubordinate like Outback from G1?

Why isn't Payload from Armada a pilot like Payload for G.I Joe? They totally screwed that guy up by making him a muscular mini-con.

What about Shockwave from G.I Joe? He's a S.W.A.T Specialist! WTF! You know that your Shockwaves are supposed to be one-eyed scientists!

Same distributor, right? They should be keeping their characters identical!

Not convinced yet? Here's some more examples...

1) Looks like we've got a new argument: RIRRIP (Rumble is Robot, Rumble is Pony).
2) How come Hot Spot is a Teen Titan? Shouldn't he be with the Protectobots?

I hope you realize how ridiculous comparing those completely separate characters sounds, because there's no incompatibility between the examples I just gave and G1 --> Movie characters, or G1 --> Any franchise afterwards. They're made under the same machine, but they are two different fictions.

Secondly, we've only seen the guy's vehicle mode. Sure, bruisers as big as him are often just tough guys, but look at Rescue Bots Boulder for example. He's a big guy who is incredibly fascinated by Earth customs and nature (just like Hound). They could take it in that direction. Though I personally doubt it, it is still a possibility.

Whether you like the way two characters are portrayed is up to you, and whether or not you want your favorite characters portrayed a certain way is your business, but I wouldn't go around here acting like it's the principal of the thing to keep all characters identical across multiple dimensions. Not only is that flipping a middle finger to the popularization of dimension interfacing, but it says to everyone else "I don't care if you're bored with the same old guy. I want my childhood raping reversed."

tl;dr:

In short your arguments here are utterly farcical.

This is where people fail to grasp how you measure how much of a fan someone is.

lol

If someone is just lapping up everything but feels no strong connection to any characters

You mean the characters that G1 showed us for a half a second just to sell toys? It's hard as hell (no pun intended) to feel a strong connection to a guy who's only had a strong role in a couple of episodes. G1 sucked at connecting characters with the audience.

or feels that characters they're not that attached to

Which was almost everyone in G1.

should be butchered in their portrayals,

I repeat...lol

then they're at best, a fairly casual fan.

Okay, I see. So, no matter how much I watch Transformers cartoons, read the (recent) comics, watch the movies, buy the toys, and defend misinterpreted facts (which I do a lot here) about Transformers plotlines, history, characterization, etc., I'm merely a casual fan.

Just because I think the G1 cartoon was a plague against cartoons in general doesn't mean I'm any less of a fan than anyone else here.

Hardcore fans on the other hand, are highly protective of the characters,

Hardcore fans....like...Geewunners...or general fans?

You can't tell me that there isn't a distinct level of difference in how much of a fan someone is between those two types of fans.

The fandom can be split into more than two categories, bro. We could go on for ages until we are an age of extinction about them.

I find it incredibly laughable that we're discussing Hounds character ... in a movie that hasn't even finished filming yet ... but apparently seeing his alt mode is enough to judge his entire character.

Oh and judging who's more of a fan than another person? Yeah ... how about we just bust out the tape measure and start measuring other things as well? Because both are irrelevant. There's no 50 Shades of Transformers here, you either like them, or you don't.

Seriously ... thanks for the laugh guys.

Burn wrote:I find it incredibly laughable that we're discussing Hounds character ... in a movie that hasn't even finished filming yet ... but apparently seeing his alt mode is enough to judge his entire character.

Oh and judging who's more of a fan than another person? Yeah ... how about we just bust out the tape measure and start measuring other things as well? Because both are irrelevant. There's no 50 Shades of Transformers here, you either like them, or you don't.

Seriously ... thanks for the laugh guys.

So we can't judge it on the basis of transformers undies

Bowspearer wrote:

njb902 wrote:

MR Optimus Prime wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

MR Optimus Prime wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:

Ultra Markus wrote:the fact remains that they cant please everybody and it looks like today isnt your day

At this point I'm pretty much indifferent. I still think it's a strong indication that nothing much will change with TF4, but at this point I've stopped emotionally investing in this movie and can just treat it like an easy pass- just as I have with the previous 3 movies.

Same here. People don't believe me when I say I only watch them because we don't get anything else. I hate the gold teeth, canes, humping, balls, and what not to no end. I honestly really could care less about any of the movies. Yes they had cool moments, like the 'More than meets the eye line', but for the most part I do not like them.

Also, what's wrong with gold teeth and canes? What, transformers aren't allowed to sport accessories or grow old?

It is absolutely not okay. I don't think you actually like TF, yours and other comments seem just like random pointless arguing.

To you perhaps, but that doesn't mean that SlyTF1 likes transformers any less than you.

This is where people fail to grasp how you measure how much of a fan someone is. If someone is just lapping up everything but feels no strong connection to any characters or feels that characters they're not that attached to should be butchered in their portrayals, then they're at best, a fairly casual fan. Hardcore fans on the other hand, are highly protective of the characters, feel strong connections to them and feel that all the characters, even those they don't feel a strong connection to, should be handled respectfully. You can't tell me that there isn't a distinct level of difference in how much of a fan someone is between those two types of fans.

I have a strong connection to the movie's characters, whom I am defending. I could give a damn less about what G1 characters were "ruined".

Bowspearer wrote:

Then you need to revise Hound's bio and reflect on the nature of scouts.

In this case with Hound, take a good look at his tech spec for example:

Hound loves the natural wonders of Earth, prefers it to Cybertron. Brave, fearless, loyal. Secretly desires to be human. Uses turret gun as radar scope, infrared radiation collector. Tracks machines as well as humans. Hologram gun projects 3-dimensional grid laser-light topographical maps. Vulnerable to thermal and electromagnetic interference.

In other words, the core of the character is that he's an explorer in love with everything about the planet, including all its wildlife - to the point whee he secretly wishes he was human. On top of that, his powers are all based around being a scout.

...So... Please explain, how this mean that he must be a jeep and nothing else? How is it that in the bio you posted, it suggests that his vehicle mode is limited to only being a Jeep? Especially when we had someone in the military already explain that in modern times his current movie alt mode is a more wildly used vehicle than Jeeps as scout vehicles?

Honestly its this type of mentality that gets the "hard core fans" voice not heard. You want to pass judgment based soley on an alt mode without seeing anything else.

Bowspearer wrote: This is where people fail to grasp how you measure how much of a fan someone is. If someone is just lapping up everything but feels no strong connection to any characters or feels that characters they're not that attached to should be butchered in their portrayals, then they're at best, a fairly casual fan. Hardcore fans on the other hand, are highly protective of the characters, feel strong connections to them and feel that all the characters, even those they don't feel a strong connection to, should be handled respectfully. You can't tell me that there isn't a distinct level of difference in how much of a fan someone is between those two types of fans.

Then that's your fault. Your the one who has chosen to invest as much time as you have in this hobby. Because if that's your mentality then your going to be let down alot more than pleased. Things have changed along before the movies came out, and they will continue to change long after their gone. Besides if your truly bragging on how much more of a "fan" you are than that's a bit sad. Because no matter how much you hope and wish, your thoughts are no better than mine. Your opinions are no better than that of the "casual fan". Your money doesn't take a prescience over that of the casual fan. But hey, I'll go with a split of the "fandom". Cause if everyone thought like you, this hobby would be an extremely boring place. With no diversity. No Change. Just the same 'ol in every franchise? No thank you.

Some of you guys are going to feel like real jerks when the movie comes out he ends up being called Bulkhead.

PrymeStriker wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:In this case with Hound, take a good look at his tech spec for example:

Hound loves the natural wonders of Earth, prefers it to Cybertron. Brave, fearless, loyal. Secretly desires to be human. Uses turret gun as radar scope, infrared radiation collector. Tracks machines as well as humans. Hologram gun projects 3-dimensional grid laser-light topographical maps. Vulnerable to thermal and electromagnetic interference.

In other words, the core of the character is that he's an explorer in love with everything about the planet, including all its wildlife - to the point whee he secretly wishes he was human. On top of that, his powers are all based around being a scout.

First of all, these are two seperate characters. Same name, same franchise, two different guys. Why you think they need to be the exact same escapes me.

With your logic, every character ever named "Billy Bob" should have the same exact character as the first character named "Billy Bob," even if they're in two different fictions.

If so, then why isn't Outback from G.I Joe not a insubordinate like Outback from G1?

Why isn't Payload from Armada a pilot like Payload for G.I Joe? They totally screwed that guy up by making him a muscular mini-con.

What about Shockwave from G.I Joe? He's a S.W.A.T Specialist! WTF! You know that your Shockwaves are supposed to be one-eyed scientists!

Same distributor, right? They should be keeping their characters identical!

Not convinced yet? Here's some more examples...

1) Looks like we've got a new argument: RIRRIP (Rumble is Robot, Rumble is Pony).
2) How come Hot Spot is a Teen Titan? Shouldn't he be with the Protectobots?

I hope you realize how ridiculous comparing those completely separate characters sounds, because there's no incompatibility between the examples I just gave and G1 --> Movie characters, or G1 --> Any franchise afterwards. They're made under the same machine, but they are two different fictions.

You're argument here is completely flawed. In fact the technical term for your fallacy here is a "prima facie". We're not talking about characters in completely different franchises here. What we're talking about is a character not only within the franchise, but as these movies have been sold as, based on G1. The fact that your argument fails to draw that distinction is where it completely falls apart.

PrymeStriker wrote:Secondly, we've only seen the guy's vehicle mode. Sure, bruisers as big as him are often just tough guys, but look at Rescue Bots Boulder for example. He's a big guy who is incredibly fascinated by Earth customs and nature (just like Hound). They could take it in that direction. Though I personally doubt it, it is still a possibility.

The alt mode is going to affect the physical attributes of a character. The fact is that a smaller offroad vehicle fits the portrayal of Hound who is not only a lower of earth, but as a scout, an explorer, far better that something that big that his exploring efforts would end in clumsiness.

PrymeStriker wrote:Whether you like the way two characters are portrayed is up to you, and whether or not you want your favorite characters portrayed a certain way is your business, but I wouldn't go around here acting like it's the principal of the thing to keep all characters identical across multiple dimensions. Not only is that flipping a middle finger to the popularization of dimension interfacing, but it says to everyone else "I don't care if you're bored with the same old guy. I want my childhood raping reversed."

Another baseless argument. It's highly convenient that you bring up the cartoon and completely ignore the comics as they completely turn your argument on its head. Buy your argument I must despise the IDW Dead-Furmanverse because it's not a carbon copy of the G1 cartoon, yet I love their take on it and much like Bayformers, it's supposedly based on G1. However Unlike Bayformers, that isn't just a hollow, tokenistic claim in the case of IDW. Own goal.

PrymeStriker wrote:tl;dr:

Automatic forfeit.

PrymeStriker wrote:

If someone is just lapping up everything but feels no strong connection to any characters

You mean the characters that G1 showed us for a half a second just to sell toys? It's hard as hell (no pun intended) to feel a strong connection to a guy who's only had a strong role in a couple of episodes. G1 sucked at connecting characters with the audience.

Firstly, Hound was very much a prominent character in the cartoon. Secondly, since when did the Marvel comic cease to exist?

PrymeStriker wrote:

or feels that characters they're not that attached to

Which was almost everyone in G1.

Again, read the Marvel comics and get back to me when you actually have an informed opinion.

PrymeStriker wrote:

then they're at best, a fairly casual fan.

Okay, I see. So, no matter how much I watch Transformers cartoons, read the (recent) comics, watch the movies, buy the toys, and defend misinterpreted facts (which I do a lot here) about Transformers plotlines, history, characterization, etc., I'm merely a casual fan.

Just because I think the G1 cartoon was a plague against cartoons in general doesn't mean I'm any less of a fan than anyone else here.

So in other words, you're basing your argument on never having read the original comics and apparently aren't that attached to the modern comics either (as the IDW stuff all bases its characterisations on G1) and letting your hatred for one serious cause you to view the very characters which are ultimately the franchise, with contempt? Do I even need to pooint out the elephant in the room there?

PrymeStriker wrote:

Hardcore fans on the other hand, are highly protective of the characters,

Hardcore fans....like...Geewunners...or general fans?

And almost on queue, the shaming trope which implies that I must want everything to be a carbon copy of the G1 cartoon. Of course the fact that the reason I have little time for the movies and love IDW is because unlike Bay, they actually managed to redux G1 the right way, just can't be true, now can it.

PrymeStriker wrote:

You can't tell me that there isn't a distinct level of difference in how much of a fan someone is between those two types of fans.

The fandom can be split into more than two categories, bro. We could go on for ages until we are an age of extinction about them.

People are always going to be interested in different things in the fandom and to different levels, however true fans will always respect the whole enough that even if it's not quite a part of the mythos they're heavily into, they'd want someone adapting it to at least take enough of the core premise of the story and grasp the essence of the character, enough to at least make a respectful adaptation.

I have no problem with new directions - in fact had we gotten with the movies what we got with the Dead Furmanverse, I'd have been over the moon. However the key difference is what that series knew to keep in and what it new to completely change. This situation with Hound is a classic example of that."

SlyTF1 wrote:I have a strong connection to the movie's characters, whom I am defending. I could give a damn less about what G1 characters were "ruined".

Which is fair enough, but here's the thing. If someone took characters with the same names, and completely ruined the essence of those characters, you'd be pretty pissed right?

That's the problem most of us who are fans of G1 have with the movie characterisations. The thing is that this movie series is supposed to be based on G1, yet you wind up with character names slapped on characters which are nothing like the original characters. Where I have nothing but contempt for these movies is where the likes of Bay et al, don't simply either look for a character whose essence lines up with the character they're going with and name them accordingly, or just simply give them a unique name to begin with.

If ROTF Skids wasn't named Skids, but given another name which was either original or more fitting, then beyond the PC crown having issues with the racist undertones of the character, most G1 fans wouldn't have half the issues with that characterisation that they do.

5150 Cruiser wrote:
...So... Please explain, how this mean that he must be a jeep and nothing else? How is it that in the bio you posted, it suggests that his vehicle mode is limited to only being a Jeep? Especially when we had someone in the military already explain that in modern times his current movie alt mode is a more wildly used vehicle than Jeeps as scout vehicles?

Honestly its this type of mentality that gets the "hard core fans" voice not heard. You want to pass judgment based solely on an alt mode without seeing anything else.

Talk about an own goal here. You accuse me of inflexibility when you're hung up on an aspect of his vehicle mode which generally speaking, did little to define his character. The fact is that when the military option was going to be incompatible with the essence of the character, it should have been dropped, in favour of simply giving his character a dark olive-green paintjob.

Secondly, I never said it HAD to be a jeep, although that's the obvious go to choice. What I am saying is that he needs to be a small rugged off-road vehicle. A 4WD for example, would have been a far better choice - or anything else which fits the bill for example. This vehicle mode might be rugged, but it's way too big for a scout by function and explorer by nature - which is very much what Hound is.

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Bowspearer wrote: This is where people fail to grasp how you measure how much of a fan someone is. If someone is just lapping up everything but feels no strong connection to any characters or feels that characters they're not that attached to should be butchered in their portrayals, then they're at best, a fairly casual fan. Hardcore fans on the other hand, are highly protective of the characters, feel strong connections to them and feel that all the characters, even those they don't feel a strong connection to, should be handled respectfully. You can't tell me that there isn't a distinct level of difference in how much of a fan someone is between those two types of fans.

Then that's your fault. Your the one who has chosen to invest as much time as you have in this hobby. Because if that's your mentality then your going to be let down alot more than pleased. Things have changed along before the movies came out, and they will continue to change long after their gone.

There's a difference between openly creating series in parallel universes, completely divorced from G1 on one hand, and claiming to base something on G1, only to take a giant dump on it, on the other hand.

5150 Cruiser wrote: Besides if your truly bragging on how much more of a "fan" you are than that's a bit sad. Because no matter how much you hope and wish, your thoughts are no better than mine. Your opinions are no better than that of the "casual fan". Your money doesn't take a prescience over that of the casual fan. But hey, I'll go with a split of the "fandom". Cause if everyone thought like you, this hobby would be an extremely boring place. With no diversity. No Change. Just the same 'ol in every franchise? No thank you.

Wow, another own goal from you. First off I was never bragging about how much of a fan I was. Someone made the ludicrous claim that someone who was indifferent about how respectfully characters of a fandon are treated is just as much of a fan (ie passionate about the franchise) as someone far more protective of those characters and the core of that mythology. That's not dick measuring, like you and Burn imply it is; that's just simply logic.

Then we get to your next fallacy - at no point have I said that money was a factor in determining how much of a fan someone is. In fact when someone asked me earlier in this thread if money was a factor, I all but came out and said it wasn't. If someone has no money to spend on something but is deeply passionate about the characters and wants to see them treated respectfully, then they're far more of a fan than someone who conversely throws money at a franchise, but at the same time is utterly indifferent to how disrespectfully the characters who make up that franchise are handled.

Ultimately that's sadly where Transformers has largely been let down by its own fan base. Instead of a fandom that insists on a redux where at the very least, the essence of the characters is maintained; we instead have a situation where countless people instead think we "should be grateful we're getting anything and telling other fans they need to just "switch off as a fan" and support a franchise which has done nothing but take a giant dump on so many characters which are the reason we're supposedly all here (and no I'm not talking about things like Prime being a long nosed semi-trailer instead of a Peterbilt). The character deserve far better from us.

Bowspearer wrote:What we're talking about is a character not only within the franchise, but as these movies have been sold as, based on G1.

No they're not.

Bowspearer wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I have a strong connection to the movie's characters, whom I am defending. I could give a damn less about what G1 characters were "ruined".

Which is fair enough, but here's the thing. If someone took characters with the same names, and completely ruined the essence of those characters, you'd be pretty pissed right?

That's the problem most of us who are fans of G1 have with the movie characterisations. The thing is that this movie series is supposed to be based on G1, yet you wind up with character names slapped on characters which are nothing like the original characters. Where I have nothing but contempt for these movies is where the likes of Bay et al, don't simply either look for a character whose essence lines up with the character they're going with and name them accordingly, or just simply give them a unique name to begin with.

If ROTF Skids wasn't named Skids, but given another name which was either original or more fitting, then beyond the PC crown having issues with the racist undertones of the character, most G1 fans wouldn't have half the issues with that characterisation that they do.

No. Not with something like Transformers, at least. Not when it's something that's subject to change as the years go by. Just look at Animated Optimus Prime. He's completely different from every other Optimus Prime to ever come into existence. With changes like that in the Transformers franchise, is Hound being a different vehicle really that big of a damn deal? Or any character who's personality is different in any other given universe? That's what people don't get; this is a completely different universe. The movies aren't based on G1. If they were based on G1, the first movie would have opened up with the Transformers escaping Cybertron and crash landing the Ark in a volcano billions of years ago. It's not supposed to be based on a damn thing other than the general idea of Transformers. These movies aren't based on G1, and they never will be.

Burn wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:What we're talking about is a character not only within the franchise, but as these movies have been sold as, based on G1.

No they're not.

Really, because DOTM says otherwise, not to mention what Desanto and Murphy said at the outset it was intended to be. Heck it was the whole reason the fans were asked for input on Don Murphy's forums if you recall.

SlyTF1 wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I have a strong connection to the movie's characters, whom I am defending. I could give a damn less about what G1 characters were "ruined".

Which is fair enough, but here's the thing. If someone took characters with the same names, and completely ruined the essence of those characters, you'd be pretty pissed right?

That's the problem most of us who are fans of G1 have with the movie characterisations. The thing is that this movie series is supposed to be based on G1, yet you wind up with character names slapped on characters which are nothing like the original characters. Where I have nothing but contempt for these movies is where the likes of Bay et al, don't simply either look for a character whose essence lines up with the character they're going with and name them accordingly, or just simply give them a unique name to begin with.

If ROTF Skids wasn't named Skids, but given another name which was either original or more fitting, then beyond the PC crown having issues with the racist undertones of the character, most G1 fans wouldn't have half the issues with that characterisation that they do.

No. Not with something like Transformers, at least. Not when it's something that's subject to change as the years go by. Just look at Animated Optimus Prime. He's completely different from every other Optimus Prime to ever come into existence. With changes like that in the Transformers franchise, is Hound being a different vehicle really that big of a damn deal? Or any character who's personality is different in any other given universe? That's what people don't get; this is a completely different universe. The movies aren't based on G1. If they were based on G1, the first movie would have opened up with the Transformers escaping Cybertron and crash landing the Ark in a volcano billions of years ago. It's not supposed to be based on a damn thing other than the general idea of Transformers. These movies aren't based on G1, and they never will be.

Several problems with this though. First off, Animated wasn't based on G1. It was its own universe with completely different characterisations. Secondly, you're being literalistic (and yes, I mean literalistic, not literal). This might be an alternate universe but much like the alternate universe of the Dead-Furmanverse for example, it's the same characters in an alternate universe so the essence of the characters is preserved. That's what was originally intended by Desanto and Murphy and you can see that with DOTM having the basis for the plot that it did.

Bowspearer wrote:We're not talking about characters in completely different franchises here.

Technically, we are. The Transformers are a brand while everything that springs off of it (Armada, Movies, G1) are separate franchises. Franchises of a franchise, if that makes sense to you.

The alt mode is going to affect the physical attributes of a character. The fact is that a smaller offroad vehicle fits the portrayal of Hound who is not only a lower of earth, but as a scout, an explorer, far better that something that big that his exploring efforts would end in clumsiness.

Someone said something about those big things being used for the likes of scouting nowadays, so it would be a modernized Hound in that regard. Otherwise, what you're complaining about is his incompatibility with his function rather than his character. In other words, the character is a lover of earth. Scouting is his job. Functions have changed for all of the characters across multiple continuities.

It's highly convenient that you bring up the cartoon and completely ignore the comics as they completely turn your argument on its head. Buy your argument I must despise the IDW Dead-Furmanverse because it's not a carbon copy of the G1 cartoon, yet I love their take on it and much like Bayformers, it's supposedly based on G1. However Unlike Bayformers, that isn't just a hollow, tokenistic claim in the case of IDW. Own goal.

Had you made mention to the comics before in this thread? If not, I was logically to assume you're referring to the cartoon.

Own goal is the unexpected score of point in soccer from what I recall. Are you using that correctly?

PrymeStriker wrote:tl;dr:

Automatic forfeit.

Are you so high up in thinking everyone's wrong and you're right, that you completely MISSED that the "tl;dr" was toward MY post, summarizing it with your quote, rather than directed at yours? It's proving that you're hardly reading or comprehending any one here.

Firstly, Hound was very much a prominent character in the cartoon.

Yeah..see how he nearly vanished by Season 2? What an important character!

Toy sales.

PrymeStriker wrote:

or feels that characters they're not that attached to

Which was almost everyone in G1.

Again, read the Marvel comics and get back to me when you actually have an informed opinion.

I was referring to the cartoon. My informed opinion came from that. I haven't read the original comics because they don't appeal to me. Ready to bodyslam me with "not a true fan?"

So in other words, you're basing your argument on never having read the original comics and apparently aren't that attached to the modern comics either (as the IDW stuff all bases its characterisations on G1)

I am very much fond of MTMTE, though I haven't read it all that recently.

and letting your hatred for one serious cause you to view the very characters which are ultimately the franchise, with contempt?

Analyze my post a little further, and you'll realize...

I hate the CARTOON'S portrayals of characters, and how many they dumped on us to sell toys, and as such, hate the whole cartoon in general. I said nothing anout the original comics, theatrical film, modern comics, original toys, updated toys, etc., which I am actually quite intrigued by. You seem to be making the same basis for accusations that you ridicule me for ignoring.

PrymeStriker wrote:

Hardcore fans on the other hand, are highly protective of the characters,

Hardcore fans....like...Geewunners...or general fans?

And almost on queue, the shaming trope which implies that I must want everything to be a carbon copy of the G1 cartoon. Of course the fact that the reason I have little time for the movies and love IDW is because unlike Bay, they actually managed to redux G1 the right way, just can't be true, now can it.

I was asking an honest question. I don't know why you responded with that kind of sarcasm.

People are always going to be interested in different things in the fandom and to different levels, however true fans will always respect the whole enough that even if it's not quite a part of the mythos they're heavily into, they'd want someone adapting it to at least take enough of the core premise of the story and grasp the essence of the character, enough to at least make a respectful adaptation.

See; here's the thing. The movies are all about the humans, and therefore the writers completely ignore the robots' personas. That said, I dislike the movies for their writing, and critique it based on its plot line and story/character development. Not whether of not a plot device is portrayed the "right" way - because there is no right way to portray a character. Hasbro has proven this time and time again.

But by your argument, you're not a true fan if you don't defend a character being portrayed one way or another. Personally, I let the movies be and focus on what actually interests me about this franchise. Well, I guess I'm not a true fan. I guess I'm just casually involved in Transformers, like you said, even though I've grown up deeply involved in the brand and avidly collect, watch, and read Transformers material.

What a load of horse puckey. Judging someone's "fandom" is highly offensive and snobbish. You make other fans feel lesser because they don't see things the way you do. When I said (to the effect of) "the fandom can be divided a lot thinner than that" was in hopes that you'd realize that your comparison is rubbish. Clearly, that doesn't seem to be the case. As Burn said: you either like Transformers or you don't.

Bowspearer wrote:Really, because DOTM says otherwise, not to mention what Desanto and Murphy said at the outset it was intended to be. Heck it was the whole reason the fans were asked for input on Don Murphy's forums if you recall.

Highlighted the operative word there for ya.

And how much of that fan input got used? How much fan input has been asked since?

Face it, the movies are based on the Transformers franchise which, shockingly, as the name of the franchise states, has transformed numerous times over the last 30 years.

This isn't G1, the idea for it to be may have been there but it was a short lived idea.

PrymeStriker wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:We're not talking about characters in completely different franchises here.

Technically, we are. The Transformers are a brand while everything that springs off of it (Armada, Movies, G1) are separate franchises. Franchises of a franchise, if that makes sense to you.

That's just it though, the movies were sold, and even as DOTM is eveidence of, were tokenistically in practice to some extent, in the exact same category as IDW's main storyline. Yes it's technically a separate continuity, but it's also intended to be based on G1. Ergo, there's a responsibility there to keep the essence of characters intactintact.

PrymeStriker wrote:

The alt mode is going to affect the physical attributes of a character. The fact is that a smaller offroad vehicle fits the portrayal of Hound who is not only a lower of earth, but as a scout, an explorer, far better that something that big that his exploring efforts would end in clumsiness.

Someone said something about those big things being used for the likes of scouting nowadays, so it would be a modernized Hound in that regard. Otherwise, what you're complaining about is his incompatibility with his function rather than his character. In other words, the character is a lover of earth. Scouting is his job. Functions have changed for all of the characters across multiple continuities.

Except that it's utterly fallacious to claim that you can divorce function from character when the function defines key passions which define a character.

Take another look at the first line of Hound's tech sppec for example:

Hound loves the natural wonders of Earth, prefers it to Cybertron.

In other words, he isn't a general earth lover, but a lover of nature. You combine that with someone who by trade is a scout and you logically have someone who is a passionate explorer of our wilderness.

That alt mode is far more likely to destroy the natural landscape he were to visit that effortlessly traverse it with minimal damage. Yes I know he's not exactly Beachcomber, but he's hardly Bulkhead either - who that alt mode would suit- same with Brawn (in fact had they picked Brawn for that alt mode, it would have been a perfect update).

PrymeStriker wrote:

It's highly convenient that you bring up the cartoon and completely ignore the comics as they completely turn your argument on its head. Buy your argument I must despise the IDW Dead-Furmanverse because it's not a carbon copy of the G1 cartoon, yet I love their take on it and much like Bayformers, it's supposedly based on G1. However Unlike Bayformers, that isn't just a hollow, tokenistic claim in the case of IDW. Own goal.

Had you made mention to the comics before in this thread? If not, I was logically to assume you're referring to the cartoon.

On the contrary, when I mentioned G1, at no point did I specify that I was only referring to the G1 cartoon. It was utterly illogical for you to assume that I was referring solely to the cartoon- especially when, to my knowledge, the production team met with Simon Furman on at least one occasion while TF1 was being made.

PrymeStriker wrote:Own goal is the unexpected score of point in soccer from what I recall. Are you using that correctly?

No, an own goal, refers to scoring a point in your own goal rather than the opponent's goal - to essentially shoot yourself in the foot. Quite poetically, I first encountered the term on Don Murphy's message board.

PrymeStriker wrote:

PrymeStriker wrote:tl;dr:

Automatic forfeit.

Are you so high up in thinking everyone's wrong and you're right, that you completely MISSED that the "tl;dr" was toward MY post, summarizing it with your quote, rather than directed at yours? It's proving that you're hardly reading or comprehending any one here.

Clearly you need to format your posts better then. Where you had that, it read as though you saying "Tl;dr" to two of my posts you conveniently grabbed the tail end of and responded with mockery to. Incoherency on your part does not equate to a failure in comprehension on my part.

PrymeStriker wrote:

Firstly, Hound was very much a prominent character in the cartoon.

Yeah..see how he nearly vanished by Season 2? What an important character!

Toy sales.

Even if we just go off the cartoon, you're still way off base here. Forgetting about non-speaking role appearances, Ken Sansom appears as Hound in the following Season 2 episodes:

• G1 1985: Episode #17 - Autobot Spike
• G1 1985: Episode #18 - Changing Gears
• G1 1985: Episode #19 - City Of Steel
• G1 1985: Episode #20 - Attack Of The Autobots
• G1 1985: Episode #22 - The Immobilizer
• G1 1985: Episode #23 - The Autobot Run
• G1 1985: Episode #24 - Atlantis, Arise!
• G1 1985: Episode #25 - Day Of The Machines
• G1 1985: Episode #26 - Enter The Nightbird
• G1 1985: Episode #27 - A Prime Problem
• G1 1985: Episode #28 - The Core
• G1 1985: Episode #29 - The Insecticon Syndrome
• G1 1985: Episode #30 - Dinobot Island Part 1
• G1 1985: Episode #31 - Dinobot Island Part 2
• G1 1985: Episode #35 - Megatron’s Master Plan Part 1
• G1 1985: Episode #36 - Megatron’s Master Plan Part 2
• G1 1985: Episode #37 - Desertion Of The Dinobots Part 1
• G1 1985: Episode #39 - Blaster Blues
• G1 1985: Episode #41 - The Golden Lagoon
• G1 1985: Episode #43 - Make Tracks
• G1 1985: Episode #61 - Cosmic Rust
• G1 1985: Episode #64 - Masquerade

By my count, that's 23 out of 45 episodes - a far cry from him "nearly vanishing" in Season 2 like you claim he did.

PrymeStriker wrote:

PrymeStriker wrote:

or feels that characters they're not that attached to

Which was almost everyone in G1.

Again, read the Marvel comics and get back to me when you actually have an informed opinion.

I was referring to the cartoon. My informed opinion came from that. I haven't read the original comics because they don't appeal to me. Ready to bodyslam me with "not a true fan?"

So in other words, you're arguing from a position of complete willful ignorance, driven by, as you implied previously and now openly and blatantly state a pathological hatred of everything that came before what you have today and is the reason for what you have today even existing. I'm not going to resort to the cheap tactic you mention, however I will say this. I find it interesting that on one hand you cite your fan credentials, and then openly admit to an utterly contemptuous disrespect of what came before and is the very reason you have the transformers you love today. The fact that you can't even respect it from that perspective and have a pathological hatred of the franchises foundations, truly speaks volumes.

PrymeStriker wrote:

So in other words, you're basing your argument on never having read the original comics and apparently aren't that attached to the modern comics either (as the IDW stuff all bases its characterisations on G1)

I am very much fond of MTMTE, though I haven't read it all that recently.

On the contrary, you've openly said that you have no interest in reading the original Marvel comic due to your pathological hatred of the G1 cartoon. As the IDW stuff heavily draws its inspiration from the original Marvel comics; he fact that you have very little interest in checking out the basis for them, says you can't be that attached to them. It's like someone claiming to be a huge Star Wars fan and claiming to either despise the 1940s Flash Gordon serial or have zero interest in ever watching it.

PrymeStriker wrote:

and letting your hatred for one serious cause you to view the very characters which are ultimately the franchise, with contempt?

Analyze my post a little further, and you'll realize...

I hate the CARTOON'S portrayals of characters, and how many they dumped on us to sell toys, and as such, hate the whole cartoon in general. I said nothing anout the original comics, theatrical film, modern comics, original toys, updated toys, etc., which I am actually quite intrigued by. You seem to be making the same basis for accusations that you ridicule me for ignoring.

On the contrary, your post practically dripped that visceral hatred through the monitor - to the point where you've even made claims which the facts simply don't back up (ie your claims about Hound's appearances in Season 2). Furthermore, Hasbro might have viewed it as a glorified ad, along with Griffin Bacal, but the writers of the shows were a very different story - where as Flint Dille once put it in an interview; they didn't write for kids, but for themselves. If you're not a fan, fair enough, but the fact that you cannot even respect it as the reason we have what we have today, really does speak volumes.

As for the original comics, either you're being misleading here or you were in an earlier statement. You claim here that you're quite intrigued by the original comics, yet earlier in this same post, you've said that the original comics have absolutely no appeal to you. Which of these statements is truthful and which isn't?

PrymeStriker wrote:

PrymeStriker wrote:

Hardcore fans on the other hand, are highly protective of the characters,

Hardcore fans....like...Geewunners...or general fans?

And almost on queue, the shaming trope which implies that I must want everything to be a carbon copy of the G1 cartoon. Of course the fact that the reason I have little time for the movies and love IDW is because unlike Bay, they actually managed to redux G1 the right way, just can't be true, now can it.

I was asking an honest question. I don't know why you responded with that kind of sarcasm.

Fair enough. Usually when "[rabid] Geewunner" comes up, it's generally speaking, used in a rhetorical sense. To give you an honest answer, I would say general fans. To give you an example, I'm not the biggest fan of Armada. However if Armada was being made into a live action movie, I'd be completely unimpressed if the characters from it were mishandled and would happily get behind anyone who was deeply attached to those characters and voicing their outrage over it.

PrymeStriker wrote:

People are always going to be interested in different things in the fandom and to different levels, however true fans will always respect the whole enough that even if it's not quite a part of the mythos they're heavily into, they'd want someone adapting it to at least take enough of the core premise of the story and grasp the essence of the character, enough to at least make a respectful adaptation.

See; here's the thing. The movies are all about the humans, and therefore the writers completely ignore the robots' personas. That said, I dislike the movies for their writing, and critique it based on its plot line and story/character development. Not whether of not a plot device is portrayed the "right" way - because there is no right way to portray a character. Hasbro has proven this time and time again.

We're not talking about plot devices though - we're talking about characters and the actual essence of the character portrayal itself. In fact when it comes to alt mode choices for Transformers in the live action movies, it's very much a casting issue, as it concerns the very look and feel of a character. Why is it that the net is allowed to go nuts over Ben Affleck being cast as the new Batman, but it's ludicrous to have the same concerns over a poorly chosen alt mode- when they're both the very same type of concern?

PrymeStriker wrote:But by your argument, you're not a true fan if you don't defend a character being portrayed one way or another.

Which, when you're basing a character off a certain franchise, is absolutely correct. The fact is that this movie marketed itself to fans based on G1 and tokenistically borrows from G1 constantly, to the point where DOTM might as well have been renamed "The Ultimate Doom". When you've got things in that context, then you're talking about taking the G1 characters and putting them in a new reality. Regardless of the backstory they might now have, the essence of the character is either still there or it's not.

PrymeStriker wrote: Personally, I let the movies be and focus on what actually interests me about this franchise. Well, I guess I'm not a true fan. I guess I'm just casually involved in Transformers, like you said, even though I've grown up deeply involved in the brand and avidly collect, watch, and read Transformers material.

On the contrary, I drew the line between hardcore and casual fans originally if you recall. And yes, considering that you have a burning contempt for the reason the brand is still here now- to the point where you can't even get your story straight about the original comics, calling you hardcore is questionable.

PrymeStriker wrote:When I said (to the effect of) "the fandom can be divided a lot thinner than that" was in hopes that you'd realize that your comparison is rubbish.

On the contrary, you're just in denial about the elephant in the room. Making a failed attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, doesn't change that.

PrymeStriker wrote:Clearly, that doesn't seem to be the case. As Burn said: you either like Transformers or you don't.

And if you love Transformers, then you care about how the characters are handled.

Someone summarise that for me in case I need to issue warnings or something.
#lazymodonholidays #weneedhashtags

Honestly, at this point, I'm done with the thread. I purely came into this in the hopes that maybe Bay was on the level and the alt mode choice would indicate a respectful character portrayal.

As it's clear that the new direction is essentially the same as the old direction, I'm done investing time and energy in either this thread or the new movie.

Oh goody, at least us lesser fans will still be here

I'm really looking forward to seeing Hound's robot mode. I wonder if he is going to be bulky like Bulkhead or taller and built like The Govenator?

So everybody glossed over the fact that Michael Bay has always used fake character names for the bots during filming and production....i don't think this ends up being Hound, I think he ends up being Bulkhead. Just a thought

Make way for the sportscars! Thanks to the "Global Cars Wanted" Facebook page, we have confirmation that the Camaro 2014 representing Bumblebee's newest disguise and the as-of-yet unnamed red Pagani Zonda have arrived in Hong Kong, China, to join the military vehicle representing Hound. More vehicles are to come to China as well!

That's a Huayra, not a Zonda, you can tell by the wing flaps on the front and the fact that it says Huayra on the front

Slayershoop wrote:That's a Huayra, not a Zonda, you can tell by the wing flaps on the front and the fact that it says Huayra on the front

Bah, I'm no automobile enthusiast. And I didn't even see that Huarya on the front until you spotted it. Will make a slight edit to reflect the correct name.

That Pagani looks slick. Knock Out?

I'm looking forward to the insecticon it will inevitably transform into. That is to say, the Bayverse robo's look like insecticons, one and all.

To our brothers in China... please, on behalf of those of us in the United States, accept our apologies for the new Camaro and kindly refer to still images from the original 2007 movie for an accurate depiction of what a newer Camaro looks like before it is over-tooled, over-designed and basically mangled into a hideous mess.

Yes, I'm basically saying that I think the 2014 Camaro looks like ass!

The Pagani looks sharp but I'm not a huge fan of vastly overpriced cars that serve no purpose other than to shout out to the rest of the world that the vehicles owner has a small penis and has to compensate by throwing ungodly amounts of money into an otherwise pointless bauble.

It's always the poor bastards that shouts the loudest. Sour grape, aren't we, t-maccksimus?

President-prime wrote:It's always the poor bastards that shouts the loudest. Sour grape, aren't we, t-maccksimus?

Don't even start it.

That Hyuara looks sick. I think it is sad anyone would insult a work of insane engineering and art that that is, JUST because of the money it costs and the fact that only the lucky and privledged will get to drive it. I'm sure actually driving it is a mind blowing experience, and not worthy of being considered just another expensive object, like an overpriced handbag or something that really is pointless.

That Camaro is so boring to look at.