Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

....considering you didn't understand it the first time? Hard to tell your original response was word salad.

I just want to interject here to clarify what's being said so we can all reach an understanding. AllNewSuperRobot, you aren't arguing against PushYouDown's position. You're arguing against a misinterpretation of their position. What you seem to believe their position is is "If Transformers aren't in relationships, they are just unfeeling automatons with no personality!" when in reality their position is "It makes sense that Transformers would develop bonds and relationships with one another given they aren't unfeeling automatons." This is an argument against the position that transformer relationships aren't valid because "they're robots" (aka they're putting chemicals in the energon to turn the friggin' robots gay). The argument that robot relationships don't make sense would hold water in media that use a more archetypical/realistic depiction of robots, but in Transformers they're essentially metal people and have pretty much always been depicted that way (I say pretty much always because this is a massive, long running franchise and I can't with confidence make the argument that Transformers have never been depicted as unfeeling automatons).

Just to put my two-cents in here, I really like Transformers relationships and think they make perfect sense for the fiction of the universe. Part of what makes this franchise great is the near uncountable number of characters with unique personalities, and seeing them play off one another. Mostly in epic giant robot pew pew fights, yes, but also in their interpersonal relationships. If something can hate, it can also love (as corny as that sounds). If you don't like that, if that's not what you come to Transformers for, then okay. That's your opinion, there's plenty of epic giant robot pew pew fights for you to look at. But to act like Transformers haven't been humanized in this way from the beginning is just absurd.

PushYouDown wrote:....considering you didn't understand it the first time? Hard to tell your original response was word salad.

This response makes more sense coming from me, and in the respect is 100% true. Instead of repeating the same spiel, with no goal in mind, the cognitive response would have been to ask what was meant and discuss like an adult from there.

Notimus Crime wrote:I just want to interject here to clarify what's being said so we can all reach an understanding. AllNewSuperRobot, you aren't arguing against PushYouDown's position. You're arguing against a misinterpretation of their position. What you seem to believe their position is is "If Transformers aren't in relationships, they are just unfeeling automatons with no personality!"

No, I was clarifying the misconception within paragraph that I quoted. I made no position on it, nor statement of belief. I have an English degree, I notice nuance like that.

It was misunderstood twice and as such is off topic enough to no longer be worthwhile to continue discussion.

Yikes.


"I have an English degree" reminds me of the Games of Thrones "I am the king!" exchange between Joffrey and Tywin.

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:No, I was clarifying the misconception within paragraph that I quoted. I made no position on it, nor statement of belief. I have an English degree, I notice nuance like that.

It was misunderstood twice and as such is off topic enough to no longer be worthwhile to continue discussion.

Except your clarification....entirely missed the point of the original argument made...and also very much took up a position.

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:This would suggest that in lieu of relations/sexualising Transformers, that they would be bereft of personality altogether? Remove IDWverse from the equation. Now pick a random popular character and reflect on how that is usually the inverse within Transformers as a whole.

The "clarification" you made posited a misconception in the original argument that wasn't there, and asked those reading to look at any popular transformers outside of the IDWverse to show the folly in it because of said misconception. The original argument contained no proposition that if Transformers had no relationships with one another they would be lacking personality or character. That interpretation might have some weight had there not been the clarifying statement directly after the sentence you bolded (and included in your quote);

PushYouDown wrote:They have personalities, they have wants and desires....of course they are going to form emotional bonds. We know this from EVERY continuity. We know they have romantic emotional bonds from every continuity.

I'm not sure if that last claim there is exactly true, that there are romantic bonds formed in every continuity (once again huge sprawling franchise with many different continuities) but still nonetheless the argument is, once again, that relationships between Transformers makes sense given that they are autonomous beings with personalities, wants and desires. This is an argument against the idea that Transformer relationships are preposterous since they're robots and robots are typically depicted as lifeless, emotionless automatons. It is not saying that Transformers can't be characterized outside of their relationships with one another, but rather that the presence of said relationships in universe makes sense.

If I am completely misunderstanding your point as you claim I have, then I implore you to clarify.

Fair--let's say EMOTIONAL bonds in every continuity. Bayverse might be void of romantic bonds? But even the TFwiki has stuff in that column. Jetfire refers to having a mom and dad?

You understand the point because the point is pretty clear. You don't need an English degree to understand.

Wait, are people saying the Bayverse rendition of Transformers as aliens is better than the G1 cartoon where they were basically metal human-like characters? I thought the Bayverse was reviled and G1 was the best, when did that flip?

ZeroWolf wrote:

william-james88 wrote:Wait, are people saying the Bayverse rendition of Transformers as aliens is better than the G1 cartoon where they were basically metal human-like characters? I thought the Bayverse was reviled and G1 was the best, when did that flip?

Since people decided that sentient and emotive robots having relationships with each other was a step too far.

Those relationships were around since G1. All that changed in the past 10 years was that those relationships dont necessarily have to be with fembots or female humans. Having an issue just now that it is presented is textbook homophobia. It's no different than if someone rejected the idea of marriage altogether now that same sex couples can also marry.
If Orion Pax can have a girlfriend, then Cyclonus can have a boyfriend.

ZeroWolf wrote:

william-james88 wrote:

ZeroWolf wrote:

william-james88 wrote:Wait, are people saying the Bayverse rendition of Transformers as aliens is better than the G1 cartoon where they were basically metal human-like characters? I thought the Bayverse was reviled and G1 was the best, when did that flip?

Since people decided that sentient and emotive robots having relationships with each other was a step too far.

Those relationships were around since G1. All that changed in the past 10 years was that those relationships dont necessarily have to be with fembots or female humans. Having an issue just now that it is presented is textbook homophobia. It's no different than if someone rejected the idea of marriage altogether now that same sex couples can also marry.
If Orion Pax can have a girlfriend, then Cyclonus can have a boyfriend.

Oh I agree completely. I really don't get the hate, or why it bothers people when they can choose to ignore it.

I know you agree, I was using your comments as a great jumping on point to further explain what I meant, so thanks fir your replies. Although I don't think they should ignore it, it's part of Transformers lore, just like robots coupling and having romantic feelings which has been there since the begining of the brand. Accepting it is the only way to confront one's own prejudices.

I don't think that pair bonding would be so important for TFs. Group bonding would be superior. In peace time, TFs would be fully telepathic and thus would form a global collective.

snavej wrote:I don't think that pair bonding would be so important for TFs. Group bonding would be superior. In peace time, TFs would be fully telepathic and thus would form a global collective.

An angle better for Transformers to explore via Gestalts or hive minds like Scourge and the Sweeps. Still vaguely covering the topic. But not in a human way.

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:

snavej wrote:I don't think that pair bonding would be so important for TFs. Group bonding would be superior. In peace time, TFs would be fully telepathic and thus would form a global collective.

An angle better for Transformers to explore via Gestalts or hive minds like Scourge and the Sweeps. Still vaguely covering the topic. But not in a human way.

Yes, they're not human.

Exactly. Unfortunately a lot of modern writers (and fans) seem to think Transformers only works if they are "relatable" to being human. Which only highlights a lack of imagination and/or creativity.

I think it's driven by money. Relatable TFs can be more lucrative than weird alien TFs who do weird alien things.

snavej wrote:I think it's driven by money. Relatable TFs can be more lucrative than weird alien TFs who do weird alien things.

Much like how diluted the MCU is from it's source material. Can't alienate the normies...