Yet the others have the trademark "Transformers" and are supported by Hasbro (read: toys are released). Ergo, they (the series) are Transformers. I am sure many fans of Beastwars would be offended by your comment. But why is G1 Transformers and not everything else?
Beast Wars is my favourite TF fiction, tied with the later G1/G2 Marvel comics.
It's still not Transformers. It's Transformers: Beast Wars. Only G1, Transformers Classics which are pretty much a G1 continuation/update, and this movie are called vanilla "Transformers".
Imagine how much it would have sucked if they'd have made a Beast Wars movie and called it Transformers the Movie? But it would be cool, if now, they did Transformers: Beast Wars the movie. Names are important as they signify placeholders and intent(which is why Devestator upset people in the current movie).
It is based off G1 to a degree, but at the same time it's a 'reboot'. It was never said that it was trying to be G1, so don't get too upset if it fails in that department; kind of like saying one is upset with Batman Begins because it fails at capturing the comic or television series.
But BB is a lot more accurate to the original considering what it was. Sure, Scarecrow could have looked more like the original, but I don't think it's fair to say that the TFs need to be made more "realistic" in the way Bay and the designers made them just because of that. Batman Begins was a good movie, but I would consider it trying to make an often rather surreal and twisted series realistic.
However, Batman already got 2 great films that captured the comics. I really don't want to have to wait another 15 years for a decent Transformers movie, and I don't see it happening.
The looks of Ironhide, Ratchet, Megatron captured almost
nothing from the original characters, or any of the spin of characters(it's a bad idea to base a character off a spin off version unless that version is REALLY popular, and even then). Starscream's design betrayed the personality we've come to know him by, too.
I really don't feel that any other comic book movie has gone to these extents. A lot of X-men action had them in plainclothes or alternating suits in the comics anyway, as long as you get Wolverine's hair and claws, Storm's black skin and white head, Nightcrawler being blue with a tail, they look recognisable. The movie TFs do not look recognisable. Bumblebee is a decent design but only process of elimination would bring him up - though he probably resembles Hot Shot more due to the shape of his helmet. Ironhide looks an awful lot more like Clench, Ratchet doesn't really look like anyone thus far except maybe Roadbuster, Megatron looks more like a creepier monochromatic Thunderwing. Starscream looks more like Apeface or Jhiaxus at best.
When you have characters that look much, much more like the characters you've redesigned, then you've gone too far. There are no excuses for it. Source material includes the characters' looks - it's a huge part of a visual medium like comic books. Imagine the outrage if Spider-man looked nothing like he does? So why do we lap up what they do to some of our favourite characters?
That's a generalisation. I agree that some write a few lines as to why they like it, yet I've seen many posts explaining in detail why they like the movie. Yet, one should not have to write a lengthy post to validate their opinion.
I think they should, as it's the only way you know they're telling the truth. I have no doubt that a lot of people genuinely like it, but I would say that their half the number of those that claim to. The responses in this thread seem to back this up.
In that regard, a person who writes briefly, why they hate the movie, is no less entitled to their opinion that one who writes a lengthy post why they like it.
Really dislike this school of thought. An unbacked argument should not stand shoulder to shoulder with a backed argument. Considering the problem here to begin with is that people might not be thinking for themselves - it might not be "Their" opinion they're holding.
The purpose of an argument is to reach a conclusion through rational discourse. Pitting opinions against one another will fail to do that; opinions are too subjective and too personal for such discourse to occur.
Opinions, maybe, but arguments no. Pitting two arguments against one another is, er, the point of an argument. People will always claim "You're forcing your opinion on me" on arguments if they can't take the heat. If you can't back up your side of things, then it's more likely to be wrong. It might seem odd arguing as to whether people really like something or not, but it's necessary so we don't get hoodwinked into worshipping false gods, so to speak.
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
