The Energon Pub

by **Phenotype** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:47 am

Okay, I'm getting a little tired of people saying the new movie didn't "represent" Transformers and that the 1986 movie is superior. Let's stop for a minute and think how the 1986 movie didn't represent Transformers very well AT ALL when it came out.

Sure we all love the 1986 movie because we grew up with it, have seen it a thousands times, and have all the words memorized. It's nostalgia, when we watch the movie it makes us feel like we're kids again. HOWEVER, the movie itself really doesn't "represent" Transformers very well. My points:

1. They KILLED Optimus Prime - yeah, that's not "representing" TF's too well when you kill the freakin' leader of the Autobots
2. They got rid of Megatron, sure he's Galvatron now but he was never the sadistic badass that Megs was
3. They killed off a ton of other major characters too
4. Wheelie
5. Dinobots as nothing more than comic relief - Not reppin'
6. Many plot inconsistancies
7. "****" - Doesn't bother me but it's not reppin' TF's
8. A slew of new characters introduced, older characters take a back seat and/or are not featured - That's not "represeting" TF's at all!
9. Daniel - could he be more irritating?
10. They fast forwarded the story ahead 20 years with no explanation as to what happened in that time

There's more but those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I do really love the animated movie and I always will but honestly when it came out it didn't "represent" Transformers very well at all. It's not fair to compare something you've just seen to something you've been watching for 20 years and feel very strongly about. Give the movie 20 years and then see how you feel about it.

News Credits: 1 · by **Flashback** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:04 am

... what? we're trying to discourage random acts of aggression here, and this looks alot like baiting people for no real reason. It sounds like a response to someone else's opinion, but if thats so, it should be in another thread...

News Credits: 4 · by **Briggs** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:13 am

Flashback wrote:... what? we're trying to discourage random acts of aggression here, and this looks alot like baiting people for no real reason. It sounds like a response to someone else's opinion, but if thats so, it should be in another thread...

I think the people he is talking about are the ones who are trying to bait people. They know their negative opinions will spark a debate, the same one over and over. They can easily not press the new post button also.

Even so, this guys post might also be a bait post, but, atleast I enjoy reading it, and it's all valid, instead of the "LOL optimus prime doesnt have flames, this movie sucks" over and over and over and over again!

Anyways, most peoples new posts are based off their opinion of someone elses.. this is nothing new.. lol

News Credits: 1 · by **Whisper** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:43 am

Phenotype wrote:1. They KILLED Optimus Prime - yeah, that's not "representing" TF's too well when you kill the freakin' leader of the Autobots
2. They got rid of Megatron, sure he's Galvatron now but he was never the sadistic badass that Megs was
3. They killed off a ton of other major characters too
4. Wheelie
5. Dinobots as nothing more than comic relief - Not reppin'
6. Many plot inconsistancies
7. "****" - Doesn't bother me but it's not reppin' TF's
8. A slew of new characters introduced, older characters take a back seat and/or are not featured - That's not "represeting" TF's at all!
9. Daniel - could he be more irritating?
10. They fast forwarded the story ahead 20 years with no explanation as to what happened in that time

#1,2,3, and 8 are easy to explain. Hasbro wanted to sell new toys, therefore they needed to get rid of the old ones first. As for the Megatron/Galvatron thing, put that down to shoddy writing in Season 3. Nimoy's Galvatron in the Movie is an altogether different animal, and definitely qualifies as 'badass' IMO.

#4. IMO,Wheelie's bad rep comes more from Season 3, as opposed to the Movie.

#5. Fighting Devastator excepted, the Dinobots were totally wasted in the original movie. That being said, this new movie has even worse comedy relief scenes, so we'll call this one a draw.

#6. The numerous plot holes are intrinsic to the entire G1 cartoon series, so plenty of representin' there!

#7. The language part was totally unnecessary, but if you were about to be pwn3d by a huge planet, I'm sure you would be saying something rather colourful too, as well as bricking yourself in the process. :grin:

#9. Daniel wasn't too bad in the movie itself. Season 3 made him irritating. Personally, I found Shia to be even more irritating from the outset.

#10. That never bothered me in the slightest. Besides, it gives us plenty of scope to use our imagination to work out what happened between Season 2 and the Movie. The narrator gave us a very quick rundown at the beginning anyway, but conveniently left out all the details...

by **Phenotype** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:12 am

Flashback wrote:... what? we're trying to discourage random acts of aggression here, and this looks alot like baiting people for no real reason. It sounds like a response to someone else's opinion, but if thats so, it should be in another thread...

I'm not trying to bait anyone, just making a very valid point. I've seen a lot of people on here saying the new movie didn't "represent" TF's and I'm just saying the 1986 movie didn't really represent them all that well either in some ways. Both films are a pretty big deviation and I love them both. I'm just trying to get people to think about things a bit, not trying to start trouble.

News Credits: 5 · by **decepticonjon** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:33 am

^ obviously someone's taking harsh criticism of the *new* movie to heart. the 1986 movie was a kids movie you retard. it wasn't about a boy and his car. if anything, it was about a boy and his exo-suit and alot of robots.
it was a cartoon, it never meant to be anything more than that, so stop trying to toss it in and out of the new movie. they have nothing to do with each other.

by **starhorse** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:53 am

Meh... who really cares what anyone else says about it, as long as you enjoy it. There's folks on these forums that are quite vocal about hating the film... why should you give a ****. Seriously, stop wasting so much time on a losing battle, trying to persuade those folks that they should like it too. Just focus on your own enjoyment of the film. You'll be much happier in the end...

News Credits: 1 · by **Asderiphel** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:35 am

starhorse wrote:Meh... who really cares what anyone else says about it, as long as you enjoy it. There's folks on these forums that are quite vocal about hating the film... why should you give a ****. Seriously, stop wasting so much time on a losing battle, trying to persuade those folks that they should like it too. Just focus on your own enjoyment of the film. You'll be much happier in the end...

I agree with the sentiment. I'd love if there was a thread where us 'haters' can go without being bombarded with "WTF? Teh mov is teh ROXXORZ!!! U suck GWHINER!" Every major criticism of the movie has been drug out in the public arena and viscously decried, so I didn't even post for a week cause I thought I'd get run off the boards. I'd love to have an actual pros and cons conversation about the movie, but there are some people who are so adamant in their defense, I'm afraid it brings out the worst in the rest.

by **Low Convoy** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:40 am

Asderiphel wrote:there are some people who are so adamant in their defense, I'm afraid it brings out the worst in the rest.

Just as there are some people who are so vitiriolic in their criticism that I'm afraid it brings out the worst in the rest? :-?

News Credits: 1 · by **Asderiphel** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:43 am

Low Convoy wrote:
Asderiphel wrote:there are some people who are so adamant in their defense, I'm afraid it brings out the worst in the rest.

Just as there are some people who are so vitiriolic in their criticism that I'm afraid it brings out the worst in the rest?

There certainly is that, too, no argument. But nobody, on either side of the debate, is actually debating...it seems more of a "You suck for having a different opinion" than anything else.

by **Koloth** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:46 am

Asderiphel wrote:it seems more of a "You suck for having a different opinion" than anything else.

That's about the gist of it.

Love it or hate it there seems no middle ground. Hell I don't even care and I still got drug into it. Not for defending the movie but for defending the fandom.

by **Phenotype** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:10 pm

decepticonjon wrote:^ obviously someone's taking harsh criticism of the *new* movie to heart. the 1986 movie was a kids movie you retard. it wasn't about a boy and his car. if anything, it was about a boy and his exo-suit and alot of robots.
it was a cartoon, it never meant to be anything more than that, so stop trying to toss it in and out of the new movie. they have nothing to do with each other.

There's no reason to be so harsh, I'm just pointing something out that seems lost on a lot of people, you included. You don't have to agree but your attitude is uncalled for, let's try to keep this discussion "adult" okay?

I'm not trying to change how anyone feels about the new film, if you hate it you're always going to hate it. I've been using message boards long enough to know you can't change anyone's mind over the internet, in fact you can rarely change someone's mind in person.

News Credits: 5 · by **decepticonjon** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:26 pm

semms to be lost?
what are you talking about?
:???:

by **Starscreams bad comedy** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:43 pm

86 movie acutally having the film be about the TF's, fight scenes that you can actually follow, much less forced humor, introduction of new characters that were more than just cannon fodder, unicron, prime & megatron fight was actually decent, etc. .....puts it above the 07 movie any day.

by **Jawnee** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:52 pm

Flashback wrote:... what? we're trying to discourage random acts of aggression here, and this looks alot like baiting people for no real reason. It sounds like a response to someone else's opinion, but if thats so, it should be in another thread...

I don't necessarily think the OP was baiting anyone...

News Credits: 1 · by **Flashback** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:09 pm

Jawnee wrote:
Flashback wrote:... what? we're trying to discourage random acts of aggression here, and this looks alot like baiting people for no real reason. It sounds like a response to someone else's opinion, but if thats so, it should be in another thread...

I don't necessarily think the OP was baiting anyone...

No probably not. But 'so the 2007 movie wasn't that good, well neither was the 86 movie' isn't much of an argument in favour of anything. Unless your point was 'Transformers isn't that good' which although might have some grounding in truth, seems a bit depressing for a site devoted to extolling the virtues of the brand.

I know we're not talking about 'good' or 'bad' in this post, it seems to be about representing transformers in general? Which... I dunno. I don't get it. The 86 movie offed a bunch of characters and intorduced a bunch of new ones with snazzy leg-warmers, this one introduced a bunch of new toys/characters that don't fit in any other continuity so THEORETICALLY their presence shouldn't irritate anyone.

by **Faceful of Kitchen** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:50 pm

bah, it deleted my post, so i'll make this short and sweet.

ROBOTS WITH PERSONALITY.

those three words are why i don't care about the new movie. that's what sets tf apart from the countless other robot-centered series out there, to me at least. it's the big (though far from only) thing that the new movie lacked, and the reason why the '86 movie will always better represent tfs than the new one as far as i'm concerned. sure, it was very different from the first two seasons, but at least the new robots had personalities beyond "good guy" or "bad guy."