Why are the movies so criticised for not being 'G1-accurate'?

[Magnus]

This is something I noticed in discussion threads talking about Prime 1 Studio's new Optimus statuette over a week ago: quite a few people said that that was what movieverse Optimus 'should have looked like.' Some were even typing their discontent with movie character colours: Ironhide wasn't red, Ratchet was green, etc. This is nine years after the first movie came out.

By the time the first movie came out, there were already several different iterations of Transformers, all of which varied from G1 in several ways, whether through designs, origins, overarching plot, or use of character names, so why was/is there a particular expectation that the movies be 'G1-accurate', and therefore they get criticised for it when they're not? I know about the 'trukk not munky' meme from Beast Wars, but did RiD, or the Unicron Trilogy, get this treatment of being criticised for not being 'G1 enough'? Did Animated or Prime, which came after the first movie, get it?

[Trent]

This is something I noticed in discussion threads talking about Prime 1 Studio's new Optimus statuette over a week ago: quite a few people said that that was what movieverse Optimus 'should have looked like.' Some were even typing their discontent with movie character colours: Ironhide wasn't red, Ratchet was green, etc. This is nine years after the first movie came out.

By the time the first movie came out, there were already several different iterations of Transformers, all of which varied from G1 in several ways, whether through designs, origins, overarching plot, or use of character names, so why was/is there a particular expectation that the movies be 'G1-accurate', and therefore they get criticised for it when they're not? I know about the 'trukk not munky' meme from Beast Wars, but did RiD, or the Unicron Trilogy, get this treatment of being criticised for not being 'G1 enough'? Did Animated or Prime, which came after the first movie, get it?

You've hit on one of the biggest ironies of the TF fanbase. For a franchise that is based on fictional alien robots whose entire existence is based around the fact that they are a race that is always changing, a large portion of its fans absolutely freak out if the formula is changed in anyway, shape or form. Trukk not munky is a top example. I mean, it's not even the same character and yet you still hear it thrown around, 20 years later!. One of the biggest laughs I've had recently was a guy on another board announcing he was going to sell his entire collection because Masterpiece Optimus Primal was announced. Apparently Masterpiece was for G1 characters only and with Primal's arrival, the line was no longer worth anything to him. What. The. Hell???

There are heaps of examples. It's why TFWiki has a dedicated entry for "Ruined Forever" because that expression it thrown around so often :rolleyes:

I don't not like the movies because they're not G1. I don't personally like the movie designs but it's purely an aesthetic preference on my part. I dislike the movies because I see them as an example Hollywood's laziness. But it has made the franchise over a billion dollars so I'm obviously in the minority and I don't begrudge anyone for liking them, I like plenty of terrible movies :p

But despite my personal preferences, I accept that the movie-verse is here to stay (at least for the medium term) and is doing great things for the franchise. Without the movies, I probably wouldn't be enjoying what I consider to be the best TF fiction ever created (MTMTE) and experiencing the golden age of TF toys.

So yeah, irony :)

[Paulbot]

so why was/is there a particular expectation that the movies be 'G1-accurate'

I think the reason was that people thought the movie should have been based on what they think Transformers "is", and for those fans Transformers is the G1 toys/cartoon.

And that's also true for a big chunk of the audience for the movie who wouldn't know what a maximal, vehicon, a mini-con or a cyber planet key was, but would go see the movie based on memories of G1.

The movie used lots of elements from G1 but very superficially in most cases. If the movie had used new character names those complaints that Ratchet was green or Barricade wasn't a purple race car (a huge stretch that one but people make it) would have gone away. Instead people would have complained that there were new characters it the movie instead of the characters they "knew". :rolleyes:

And yes it happened in other series too. Anytime a G1 name gets reused for a new toy or character people complain if it isn't a perfect G1 homage. See RID Grimlock, Aramda's Laserbeak, Wheeljack, Sideswipe, Energon's Mirage, and so on and so on.

[Bladestorm]

From what I see every Transformers show/movie gets hammered for characters not looking or acting like their original in G1. Transformers Prime Megatron got a lot of slack for being a jet despite the fact I think most people would agree in this day and age it is impractical and unreasonable for him to be portrayed as a gun. If you look on forums like TFW there are people constantly "discussing" what his alt mode should be.

For me it isn't necessarily about the look of a character.
I LOVE Peterbilt Optimus's design as much as his G1 design. I like the Western Star too although his robot mode has removed a bit too much of the truck detail.

The Prime 1 figure takes the G1 and adds elements of the movie designs so it's a nice mesh of what I imagine the original cartoon Optimus Frieghtliner would look like if the 80's character was created directly for a movie.

If they'd imaged Movie Prime as a sports car or a jet I would have had a harder time with it as to me he's a truck. It is logical to update his vehicle for a modern audience although the 80's truck probably wouldn't stick out as much as a flame paint job does on a robot IN DISGUISE. *HEH*

Aesthetically with the movies I dislike a lot of the robot facial designs but that's because I personally think they're ugly not because they don't represent the G1 likeness.

For me as someone who grew up with G1 I do hope that the characters I knew and love retain some of their personality traits in the movies and Bumblebee aside I think they kind of do. Movie Optimus might have a fetish for slicing heads in 1/2 but he's still the strong, humble, often vulnerable but determined leader from G1 - just more war hardened and less friendly.

[GoktimusPrime]

The movies totally need to be G1 accurate! Because Barricade should look more like this...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/bayformer_g1accubarricade_zpsd7apmosi.jpg

And Blackout needs to look more like this:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/bayformer_g1accublackout_zpslo3t15yz.jpg

G1 accuracy all tha way, bay-bee! :p #ruinedforever

----------------------------------------------------------

On a more serious note, I think that people will always compare adaptations of any material with the original source. However I think that most audiences are more forgiving and accepting of changes made to adaptations if it's actually good. An example are most of the movies based on Marvel Comic characters -- for the most part they are lauded by fans who have come to accept deviations from the original source. Wolverine shifted away from wearing yellow spandex to black leather and then to wearing whatever the damn hell he wants. ;)

Having said that, I think that it's arguably important for adapted characters to at least retain some semblance to the core spirit of the character. Even Peter Cullen has criticised the way that Optimus Prime has been portrayed as a more ruthless character in the Movieverse (especially AoE) and hopes that future films will portray Prime more like his G1 counterpart (which the first movie actually did pretty well). Deadpool's first cinematic appearance was not popular with a lot of fans not just because he lacked the iconic costume, but moreso because he utterly lacked his trademark personality, which in the film he actually had before be became Deadpool. He was actually pretty good as Wade Wilson, the merc with the mouth... until Striker went and removed it. That just killed the character off. So I think one of the tricky things about rebooting or adapting a franchise is to try and strike that balance between bringing something new/fresh to the character but also trying to stay true to the core spirit of that character.

Optimus Prime from the first movie struck that balance pretty well IMO. He was true to his core G1 character in terms of being the heroic messiah-like saviour archetype... willing to sacrifice himself to destroy the AllSpark, and even when Sam pushed the Cube into Megatron's chest he shouted, "No, Sam!" and then lamented over the death of Megatron saying, "You left me no choice, brother." This exemplifies the deep spring of compassion that we know G1 Optimus Prime for. But the new element that the movie brought to Optimus Prime was that he was not hesitant to quickly dispense of Decepticon combatants in battle, such as the way that he beheaded Bonecrusher on the highway. This was not done out of malice, anger or vengeance, but out of necessity (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few). Bonecrusher's attack was threatening the lives of human civilians -- a whole bus load of people were already dead. Optimus Prime had no choice but to kill Bonecrusher in order to save human lives. A more G1-accurate Optimus Prime would have been more likely to abstain from finishing off Bonecrusher, allowing him to escape and endanger (http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/transformers/images/b/ba/Rotf-buffalompv-film-1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100821222553) more lives (http://tfwiki.net/mediawiki/images2/c/c8/BuffaloMPVDecepticon.jpg). If you look at all the criticism that the first film received, nobody ever complains about the way that Optimus Prime was portrayed. Some people complain about his cosmetic looks, such as being a (http://toys.tfw2005.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2008/06/LeaderLaserOptimusPrime_1212932991.jpg) long nose truck (http://tfwiki.net/mediawiki/images2/f/f4/CombatheroPrime_toy.jpg) or a Prime with chopper flames (https://www.bigbadtoystore.com/images/products/out/large/TAK11138.jpg), but these are just superficial elements (much like Deadpool's costume). What really matters is his persona, which I think the first movie did pretty well (they kept it simple and it worked).

[Krayt]

By the time the first movie came out, there were already several different iterations of Transformers, all of which varied from G1 in several ways, whether through designs, origins, overarching plot, or use of character names, so why was/is there a particular expectation that the movies be 'G1-accurate', and therefore they get criticised for it when they're not? I know about the 'trukk not munky' meme from Beast Wars, but did RiD, or the Unicron Trilogy, get this treatment of being criticised for not being 'G1 enough'? Did Animated or Prime, which came after the first movie, get it?

I think the difference is that us long time fans have been through X number of different versions of Optimus Prime or Megatron or whoever.... but all the normal people who liked transformers in the 80's just rocked up to the movie and went "what the hell???""

so we were used to the changes.... but the rest of the population wasn't.

That said, The movie makers explanation for why is totally logical. They said that using a Cab Over truck for optimus just does not have enough mass... have you actually locked at a truck? they are Empty Boxes on a metal frame! How do you hide all the robot parts? Same for Ratchet.... Looked inside an ambulance? they are huge empty boxes!

For this reason, use the bulkiest vehicles you can and ad some realism to this imaginary made up universe!

[GoktimusPrime]

A fight between a G1-accurate live action Trailbreaker vs Megatron would look something like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iMChoDie78). ;)

[philby]

I was actually happy at some of the G1 nods in the first movie at least. The relationship between Starscream and Megatron is aluded to, 'one shall stand, one shall fall' being 2 that come to mind. For me though it isn't necessarily 'not enough G1' it's that I think a lot of aspects are just crap in general. Lingering shots of boobs and butt. Annoying characters and dialogue. Gimmicks like Bumblebee not talking. The overall alien/buggy and too complicated/busy aesthetic of some of the robot modes. I found the bot mode designs sometimes not distinct enough and I occasionally had trouble recognising who was who. Action that is hard to keep track of. Using old school character names but putting them on characters or designs that have anything to do with the original character.

Things like Optimus being a different truck I can handle although I admit yes I grumbled initially because the 80s model is stuck in my heart. I can't handle the flame designs though, it just looks ridiculous to me.

I think my overall feeling on the whole movie franchise is one of disappointment and missed opportunity. I'm not sure if I realised or even wanted to acknowledge at the time but it is a new movie and new series for a new time. I can handle some change and different things. Others I find are very negative and just make me angry haha.




Optimus Prime from the first movie struck that balance pretty well IMO. He was true to his core G1 character in terms of being the heroic messiah-like saviour archetype... willing to sacrifice himself to destroy the AllSpark, and even when Sam pushed the Cube into Megatron's chest he shouted, "No, Sam!" and then lamented over the death of Megatron saying, "You left me no choice, brother." This exemplifies the deep spring of compassion that we know G1 Optimus Prime for. But the new element that the movie brought to Optimus Prime was that he was not hesitant to quickly dispense of Decepticon combatants in battle, such as the way that he beheaded Bonecrusher on the highway. This was not done out of malice, anger or vengeance, but out of necessity (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few). Bonecrusher's attack was threatening the lives of human civilians -- a whole bus load of people were already dead. Optimus Prime had no choice but to kill Bonecrusher in order to save human lives. A more G1-accurate Optimus Prime would have been more likely to abstain from finishing off Bonecrusher, allowing him to escape and endanger (http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/transformers/images/b/ba/Rotf-buffalompv-film-1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100821222553) more lives (http://tfwiki.net/mediawiki/images2/c/c8/BuffaloMPVDecepticon.jpg). If you look at all the criticism that the first film received, nobody ever complains about the way that Optimus Prime was portrayed. Some people complain about his cosmetic looks, such as being a (http://toys.tfw2005.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2008/06/LeaderLaserOptimusPrime_1212932991.jpg) long nose truck (http://tfwiki.net/mediawiki/images2/f/f4/CombatheroPrime_toy.jpg) or a Prime with chopper flames (https://www.bigbadtoystore.com/images/products/out/large/TAK11138.jpg), but these are just superficial elements (much like Deadpool's costume). What really matters is his persona, which I think the first movie did pretty well (they kept it simple and it worked).

I'm gonna disagree with you a bit here GoktimusPrime. That scene where Optimus kills Bonecrusher definitely irks me. It's an action movie, they are gonna be fighting and killing and I get that. I get that it was probably necessary. It's just the, well, casualness with which he does it that seemed out of character for me and bugged me.

[GoktimusPrime]

I'm gonna disagree with you a bit here GoktimusPrime. That scene where Optimus kills Bonecrusher definitely irks me. It's an action movie, they are gonna be fighting and killing and I get that. I get that it was probably necessary. It's just the, well, casualness with which he does it that seemed out of character for me and bugged me.
Well, he is a soldier and if he's gonna freak out every time he has to kill an enemy combatant then he would really suck as a soldier! It's similar to how medical professionals don't get squeamish at the sight of blood and guts (I would :p), because you'd be a pretty crappy nurse or doctor if you did. Like Nick Riviera at medical school, "Oh no, blood!" :o

Optimus Prime didn't revel nor revile at killing Bonecrusher. It was something that was done in the heat of combat, much like the way you see a lot of the US military personnel behaving in the movie. Because most of those extras weren't actors but actual real US servicemen and women who were off-duty and hired as extras. Michael Bay often just threw scenarios at them and let them respond to the imaginary threat as per their training, a lot of it wasn't explicitly scripted. One of my favourite scenes in the first movie is this (https://youtu.be/pXkPWEIY8wM?t=218) - listen to what most of the extras are saying from 3:38 onwards. Ignore the dialogue from the main named characters like Epps etc., listen to the extras. There is no swearing, no emotive language, no fear, no excitement... just pure emotionally distanced professionalism. And this is similar to how Optimus Prime is portrayed in the first movie, as a professional combatant.

This is very, very different from the way that he's portrayed in the sequels where he is far more driven by anger, vengeance and hate. In RotF and DotM Optimus Prime executes prisoners of war... that's a war crime! In AoE he threatens to murder a human being (Attinger), although ultimately he does end up killing him in the heat of combat in order to save Cade Yeager. He even threatens Joshua Joyce (who defiantly dares Optimus Prime to carry out his threat). The sequels show an Optimus Prime who is willing to kill or consider killing others because of his rage and hate. Optimus Prime in the first movie was the antithesis of this, only killing when engaging enemy combatants (no executions of helpless individuals), and he explicitly showed lament and remorse for his actions later. There is no time to second-guess yourself in the middle of a fight, that'd just get you killed.

From a psychological POV the mind learns to adjust to doing things that would initially upset it. For example, if you work with kids or have kids of your own, there are times when you have to say things that upset them and may even make them upset - such as when you have to discipline the child. This is super hard when it's a toddler. It makes you upset and each time you discipline the child it tears you up inside and hurts you just as much as it hurts the child... but you know that you have to stay strong in order to avoid spoiling the child. So you hold those emotions back and put on a brave face, and eventually you get used to it. This doesn't mean that you've stopped caring, but it means that you've learnt how temper your emotions in order to perform your duties as a carer or parent more efficiently. I would imagine that it would be something similar in being a combatant. It doesn't mean that you don't care but just that you don't allow your emotions to cloud your judgement.

Even in Star Wars the Jedi can carve through enemy combatants without showing emotion. This doesn't mean they don't care, but they don't allow themselves to become emotionally attached (because emotional attachment is the path to the Dark Side).
e.g.
* Obi-Wan Kenobi killing Darth Maul
* Anakin Skywalker & Obi-Wan Kenobi killing enemy Geonosians (and those monsters that tried to eat them)
* Other Jedi killing enemy Geonosians, and Mace Windu killing Jango Fett
* The Jedi killing countless enemies (or leading their Clone army to do so) during the Clone Wars
* Luke Skywalker killing Imperial Stormtroopers (and helping the Rebels to kill civilian contractors working on the Second Death Star! :p)
* Rey and Finn helping the Resistance to kill First Order Stormtroopers
↑None of these actions were done in malice. Compare this with...
* Anakin Skywalker killing the entire village of Tuskens ("...I slaughtered them like animals!")
* Anakin Skywalker executing a helpless and defeated Count Dooku ("I shouldn't have done that, it's not the Jedi way.")
* Darth Vader killing Jedi at the Temple, including Younglings
* Darth Vader killing Nemoidian Separatist leaders on Mustafar
* Darth Vader killing a Rebel Trooper during an interrogation
* Kylo Ren killing Han Solo
↑These are acts of hate, and in Star Wars, the path of the Dark Side.
Notice another really important thing here. The first two atrocities were still committed by Anakin Skywalker, while the next 3 are by Darth Vader. Anakin and Vader both commit acts of murder, but the key difference is that Anakin cares. While he shows no emotion at the time of committing those acts, he does afterwards. He breaks down in tears with shame and guilt in front of Padmé when he confesses to murdering the Tuskens. He immediately expresses regret to Palpatine after killing Dooku, and then ignores Palpatine's suggestion to abandon Obi-Wan as he becomes more determined to stick to his Jedi principles, because he cares. Anakin's true descent to the Dark Side and becoming Darth Vader was when he allowed himself to stop caring. No longer expressing regret, Vader justifies his atrocities with his own twisted sense of righteousness. It is only through help from Luke that Anakin reawakens and kills Palpatine -- not through rage or hate, but because of his love for his children (knowing that Palpy's defeat would also save Leia). He had become a Jedi again (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_HFDAEiNMc0/maxresdefault.jpg). No, wait... that's better! (http://www.synicon.info/SW/jedi/an-yod-ben.jpg) :D

[BigTransformerTrev]

I just got really sick of when the first live action movie came out (and arguably the best movie the 4) people saying all over social media "They raped my childhood". What a stupid thing to say! :mad:

Yeah I reckon G1-based movies might have been better, in fact make that probably. But it's not the same universe. Transformer fiction exists in an ever expanding multiverse - people need to cope with it or bugger off.

I own about 70 different Optimus toys - if there was never any change I'd just own the one.

[Ralph Wiggum]

This is very, very different from the way that he's portrayed in the sequels where he is far more driven by anger, vengeance and hate. In RotF and DotM Optimus Prime executes prisoners of war... that's a war crime! In AoE he threatens to murder a human being (Attinger), although ultimately he does end up killing him in the heat of combat in order to save Cade Yeager. He even threatens Joshua Joyce (who defiantly dares Optimus Prime to carry out his threat). The sequels show an Optimus Prime who is willing to kill or consider killing others because of his rage and hate. Optimus Prime in the first movie was the antithesis of this, only killing when engaging enemy combatants (no executions of helpless individuals), and he explicitly showed lament and remorse for his actions later. There is no time to second-guess yourself in the middle of a fight, that'd just get you killed.

This is probably why I disliked OP's portrayal in the sequels. Seeing him transition to a yelly screamy "I'll kill you!" cold blooded executioner was a complete opposite to how he was portayed in the first movie and cartoons. I know the movies are meant to be more 'mature' and 'darker' but the sequels went way overboard and lost complete sight of the spirit of Transformers. The visual portrayal and designs of the characters was insignificant compared to the misfired characterisation of some of the characters.

I'm hopefully optimistic of The Last Knight as the previous writer (Ehren Kruger) will not return.

[drifand]

Is not about being g1 not g1 for me.

Is the load of unnecessary stuff that is added explaining what they are made off.
Poor character development other than prime and Megatron, humans get more focused than the bots.

For me is mainly the story telling isn't great after the first two movies, changing the actors played part of destroying the story as well.

When I watch the current marvel movies, they are all quite well done.

I have no issues with Megatron not bring a gun, I think that's fine.

[Magnus]

Trukk not munky is a top example. I mean, it's not even the same character and yet you still hear it thrown around, 20 years later!. One of the biggest laughs I've had recently was a guy on another board announcing he was going to sell his entire collection because Masterpiece Optimus Primal was announced. Apparently Masterpiece was for G1 characters only and with Primal's arrival, the line was no longer worth anything to him. What. The. Hell???

Was that guy trolling or otherwise being sarcastic? Because if he wasn't, that's kind of sad. Whatever happened to just not buying something you didn't want?


There are heaps of examples. It's why TFWiki has a dedicated entry for "Ruined Forever" because that expression it thrown around so often :rolleyes:


Good point - I've read that page on a few occasions :D


I think the reason was that people thought the movie should have been based on what they think Transformers "is", and for those fans Transformers is the G1 toys/cartoon.

And that's also true for a big chunk of the audience for the movie who wouldn't know what a maximal, vehicon, a mini-con or a cyber planet key was, but would go see the movie based on memories of G1.

The movie used lots of elements from G1 but very superficially in most cases. If the movie had used new character names those complaints that Ratchet was green or Barricade wasn't a purple race car (a huge stretch that one but people make it) would have gone away. Instead people would have complained that there were new characters it the movie instead of the characters they "knew". :rolleyes:


I think the difference is that us long time fans have been through X number of different versions of Optimus Prime or Megatron or whoever.... but all the normal people who liked transformers in the 80's just rocked up to the movie and went "what the hell???""

so we were used to the changes.... but the rest of the population wasn't.

To be fair, nostalgic thirty-somethings were a key part of the target audience; that's how Peter Cullen got cast as Optimus. Still, I can't help but wonder how many of them were active in the fan community and therefore would know that Transformers has already undergone several changes by then.

I think it was generally understood that the movies would be G1-inspired, but surely fans who had kept even a casual eye on Transformers would know that there would be changes.


And yes it happened in other series too. Anytime a G1 name gets reused for a new toy or character people complain if it isn't a perfect G1 homage. See RID Grimlock, Aramda's Laserbeak, Wheeljack, Sideswipe, Energon's Mirage, and so on and so on.

This is what I was wondering. I wasn't active in the fan community when these shows were out, so I had no idea if those shows were likewise criticised for their 'un-G1-ness'. Thanks for the answer!


That said, The movie makers explanation for why is totally logical. They said that using a Cab Over truck for optimus just does not have enough mass... have you actually locked at a truck? they are Empty Boxes on a metal frame! How do you hide all the robot parts? Same for Ratchet.... Looked inside an ambulance? they are huge empty boxes!

For this reason, use the bulkiest vehicles you can and ad some realism to this imaginary made up universe!

Yeah, that makes sense. Bigger truck = bigger robot.

It also explains why movieverse Starscream looks the way he does, with his wide chest: because an F-22A Raptor is bigger than any car, he has to fold and expand out so he's not ludicrously huge compared to the Autobots.

[CoRDS]

What irked me about it was that it was hard to tell who was who, there was just a mess of moving metal in many of the action scenes, i think it was the lack of hard colour from the way cartoons are drawn to how they decided to make them look on film. on film they really do look like giant robots with wires and gears and big chunks of metal all doing things. whereas in the cartoons were so simplistic in their depictions.

I am perfectly happy with every different existence of transformers being well different. that said if they made a live action G1 style movie id be all over it (only if they keep the characters personality's correct)

[Smint]

People just have a fondness for G1 because it started the craze and they grew up with G1. That's all really. Obviously if you're a old time fan you'd love to see a movie version of G1 Optimus but what we got with the movie and characters are so, so, so far from it.

I really dont mind if the transformers movies are not based on G1. I just want to watch a good movie. I'm just not someone that enjoys watching transformer testicles, transformers urinating and Ken Jeong acting like a psychopath. The way Bay pulls it off, it just comes off as juvenile but obviously there are fans of this stuff.

Honestly, there's more personality in Ken Jeong's character than 99% of the Transformers. That's sad.

[millhouse]

The biggest issue I have with the film series as, as noted above, the sheer amount of detail in robot modes, leaving every Transformer looking similarly messy and difficult to identify. Characters aren't particularly well developed and are so similar (given the fast moving scenes) that you can't really identify characters by style, design or traits, leaving things like their deaths (for example) undercooked.

[Ralph Wiggum]

I can understand the rationale behind the character designs truth be told: G1 designs were blocky and wouldn't translate to screen. The look was alien first, Earth based second.

Taken from Wiki:

The filmmakers created the size of each robot with the size of their vehicle mode in mind, supporting the Transformer's rationale for their choice of disguise on Earth. The concept of traveling protoforms was developed by Roberto Orci when he wondered why "aliens who moonlight as vehicles need other vehicles to travel". This reflected a desire to move to a more alien look, away from the "blocky" Generation 1 Transformers. Another major influence in the designs was samurai armor, returning full-circle to the Japanese origins of the toy line. The robots also had to look alien, or else they would have resembled other cinematic robots made in the image of man.

Also the whole "whatdafuq-is-happening-on-screen" problem was partly due to Bay's, imo, first-go at directing giant robots on screen. In Transformers 1, much of the action was filmed quite close, almost from the POV of the humans, which resulted in the bots filling up most of the screen and making things hard to work out. In subsequent movies, Bay utilizes a lot more wider frames to allow for full-body shots of the bots.

[Smint]

I can understand the rationale behind the character designs truth be told: G1 designs were blocky and wouldn't translate to screen. The look was alien first, Earth based second.


I hear this defense a lot but i dont accept it. As filmmakers they have the power to create the universe the characters inhabit. A good example of this is Brian Singer's Xmen and the Marvel movies. Colourful comic book Xmen wouldnt fit in Singer's movies because he created this "grounded, reality" movie version. Back in 2000 the excuse was the same: the costumes wouldnt translate to the screen (Ignoring the fact that Superman wore his costume in the 1970's movie).
Captain America's costume shouldnt work yet how can you imagine him without his costume now?

Singer built his universe and made a version of the XMen that fits in it. Marvel did it the other way around and molded the universe around the character, which i think is how to properly translate a comic or book to a movie.

If they can have the general audience accept the look of the alien proto form, which frankly looks awful, then theres no reason why they cant create a movie with the more traditional look. They just need the foresight and vision to do so which obviously seems lacking.

[GoktimusPrime]

The first movie was the one with most of the "blurry" action and that's because of the way that Bay shot the scenes - as Ralph Wiggum said, from the POV of humans watching giants fighting each other at high speed... yeah, it's gonna look blurry and messy. Real fights look messy, a real fight from a POV of an insect is going to look even more chaotic. While I understand that this can look confusing, it does lend a significant air of realism to the visual aesthetic of the fight scenes, and also importantly, a palatable reminder to the audience that these are "Giant Effing Robots." No other Transformers medium quite conveys this awesome sense of scale as Bay's movies can -- for all the flaws in the live action movies, one thing that I've got to give him credit for is that he does know how to make visual spectacles.

The action in the sequels are relatively less messy looking because that's when Bay started filming with IMAX and 3D cameras, which often encourage directors to use wider shots (in order to fill wider cinema screens). Although the sequels were progressively worse as stories, they were visually incredible. The forest battle in Revenge of the Fallen has got to be one of the most epic fight sequences ever choreographed in Transformers. The moment when Prime yells, "I'LL TAKE YOU ALL ON!" and goes to town on the unrelenting Decepticon assault gives me goosebumps! It's scenes like this which make Bay's movies feel like a cinematic roller coaster.

I think part of the reason why the Decepticons are hard to tell apart is because of the choice of alt modes which don't lend a wide palette of colours to work off. Military vehicles are, realistically, going to have a more limited range of colours. You're not going to get a jet in hot rod red or a tank in canary yellow etc. ;) The Constructicons had a more varied colour combination (and I actually prefer their colours over the G1 Constructicons; in essence their colours were more reminiscent of the spirit of Diaclone Devastator's colours). Age of Extinction's Decepticons were more distinctive as their colours were based on civilian vehicles.

What's that? Still can't tell the AoE Decepticons (and Dinobots) apart? Ah, now here comes the main reason why they're so hard to tell apart -- absolute lack of personalities. The Autobots don't have much personality in the films, mostly being shallow caricatures rather than characters, but most of the Decepticons are much worse as they're not even caricatures. They're set pieces. So were the Dinobots. :rolleyes: We know absolutely nothing about most of the Movieverse Decepticons as "people."

You can have near-identical characters that the audience can still emotionally link with if the character has a distinctive personality, and this is what most of the Bayformers lack. Look at "Sonny" from 'I, Robot.' He looks identical as other robots of the same make/model in the film (except when they go evil and switch eye colour :rolleyes:), but the audience is able to identify and relate to Sonny because of his distinctive personality. Heck, even Wall-E has loads more personality than most Bayformers and he hardly speaks!


People just have a fondness for G1 because it started the craze and they grew up with G1. That's all really. Obviously if you're a old time fan you'd love to see a movie version of G1 Optimus but what we got with the movie and characters are so, so, so far from it.

I really dont mind if the transformers movies are not based on G1. I just want to watch a good movie. I'm just not someone that enjoys watching transformer testicles, transformers urinating and Ken Jeong acting like a psychopath. The way Bay pulls it off, it just comes off as juvenile but obviously there are fans of this stuff.

Honestly, there's more personality in Ken Jeong's character than 99% of the Transformers. That's sad.
^This. :)

Fans may be initially hesitant when faced with a new concept, but if the concept is any good, then the majority of the fandom will come to accept and embrace it. Just look at Beast Wars. When BW first came out it faced a mountain of criticism and animosity from fans, with many crying, "Trukk Not Munky" and "Ruined Forever!" when news of it first came out. But soon fans started realising how awesome Beast Wars was. The toys proved to be amazing, and then when the show came out it gave us something completely spectacular and one of the best Transformers stories ever written. If I had to list the top 3 Transformers continuities, I would say:
1: IDW G1
2: Marvel G1
3: Beast Wars
That's how highly I would rate it. I wouldn't rate Bayformers anywhere near there. 20 years later many fans look back at Beast Wars with great fondness, and many more are eagerly anticipating the BW MP figures. How do Bayformer fans feel 9 years on?

Those of us who grew up with G1 in the 80s were in high school or uni when BW came out, so we were able immediately appreciate the more advanced story telling and adult humour embedded in the story. But I find it interesting when I hear younger fans talk about watching BW again as adults and noticing the higher levels of writing that flew over their heads as kids. This is what a good enduring quality story should look like. Not something that you just enjoy today, but something you'll continue to enjoy tomorrow. The live action movies really feel like they're not designed for any greater enjoyment other than being in the cinema. Michael Bay is an excellent "bums on seats" director... he draws massive crowds to flock to cinemas and each movie is a box office smash. But how do they fare after the box office run is finished? A good story is one that you never get sick of watching/reading (like say, the Original Star Wars Trilogy ;)). Watching the live action movies, especially the sequels, feels like a chore to me. I find them really hard to watch from start to finish without pause... and there are so many cringeworthy scenes that I just keep skipping through (like that stupid "Romeo & Juliet Law" scene in AoE... I wish that were it's own chapter on the DVD so that I could entirely skip it, but it's not, so I just hit fast forward every time it comes on).


I hear this defense a lot but i dont accept it. As filmmakers they have the power to create the universe the characters inhabit. A good example of this is Brian Singer's Xmen and the Marvel movies. Colourful comic book Xmen wouldnt fit in Singer's movies because he created this "grounded, reality" movie version. Back in 2000 the excuse was the same: the costumes wouldnt translate to the screen (Ignoring the fact that Superman wore his costume in the 1970's movie).
Captain America's costume shouldnt work yet how can you imagine him without his costume now?
Ever tried doing a Transformers Cosplay? Cos I gotta tell ya, those traditional blocky G1 designs are NOT easy to move around in! In a photorealistic movie, slavish G1 designs would make the Transformers look like Power Rangers Zords. :eek: Having said that, they didn't have to be that alien (and adding beards and other weird body/facial features flies against making the Transformers look alien). Perhaps something more like the general aesthetic of some of the Pacific Rim Jaegers might be better, as it seems to strike a better balance between Japanese Mecha & photorealism to me. Of course, the Jaegers were man made, so it would make more sense for the Transformers to look a bit more otherworldly. But yeah, some of the Transformers in the sequels looks just cartoonishly goofy... like Drift. :rolleyes:

[Jaxius._]

I for one enjoyed the first 3. If you go in not expecting your 100% Pure G1 accurate! Even Wheelie is a little orange sh*t you remember then they are good!

The fourth though was the weakest (well next to ROTF) and i was peeved that the Dinobots got little screentime :rolleyes:

[Ozgardian]

Design & messing with Transformer lore was the major flaw for me. Too many bits & pieces made them look like they were experiments grown in test energon cubes in Shockwaves lab. Didn't mind the vehicle modes so much but in robot mode none of them looked like they could handle a fight. If Meg's smashed Optimus in the chest I swear bits would fly everywhere. I get trying to establish a new look, but not a new look where it's obvious someones stapled the creative artists drawing arm to the the drawing board while they're looking through a kaleidoscope. Reminds me of when the G2 comics came out & most fans who wrote in wanted Manny Galan's head under Omega Supreme's foot when he took over from Derek Yaniger. Was so hoping some Autobot would just step on Frenzy & Wheelie. I think lore was the major problem for die hard fans. You cannot take a well loved franchise & rewrite the whole history the way you see fit! You're disrespecting the creators, the fans & anyone else that brought a contribution to the Transformers. After the G1 comic came out I think any fan would find it hard enough to draw up a Transformers timeline let alone all the other directions writers have taken Transformers & then this happens! Was open to a non G1 take (kinda expected it as we know movies are not made to cater to fans but are aimed at the general public) but I am not open to a hollow piece of crap. Overall this was just a bad movie. But I only pay out Bay & not the fans as each to their own. Hell, alot of fans hated Beast Wars & I love it. I must admit though, Bay had me at the beginning with Blackout's opening scene (How epic was that!?!), then the movie died for me. The only thing that kept me in the theater were the easter eggs & a bit of hope that the movie would get better. ...my 2 cents anyway.

[Smint]

Ever tried doing a Transformers Cosplay? Cos I gotta tell ya, those traditional blocky G1 designs are NOT easy to move around in! In a photorealistic movie, slavish G1 designs would make the Transformers look like Power Rangers Zords. :eek: Having said that, they didn't have to be that alien (and adding beards and other weird body/facial features flies against making the Transformers look alien). Perhaps something more like the general aesthetic of some of the Pacific Rim Jaegers might be better, as it seems to strike a better balance between Japanese Mecha & photorealism to me. Of course, the Jaegers were man made, so it would make more sense for the Transformers to look a bit more otherworldly. But yeah, some of the Transformers in the sequels looks just cartoonishly goofy... like Drift. :rolleyes:

Sure i can understand that but I still think it comes down to the filmmakers in how they approach the movie. I dont think a 1:1 translation of G1 is necessary for a faithful adaptation.

And yeah, if the writers went so far as to question the logic of alien transformers then how did we even get bearded, cigar smokingtransformers and samurai transformers with Japanese accents. Seems like there's zero logic to any of their design decisions other than for ones they bother to make excuses for.

[Magnus]

I can understand the rationale behind the character designs truth be told: G1 designs were blocky and wouldn't translate to screen. The look was alien first, Earth based second.


If they can have the general audience accept the look of the alien proto form, which frankly looks awful, then theres no reason why they cant create a movie with the more traditional look. They just need the foresight and vision to do so which obviously seems lacking.


Ever tried doing a Transformers Cosplay? Cos I gotta tell ya, those traditional blocky G1 designs are NOT easy to move around in! In a photorealistic movie, slavish G1 designs would make the Transformers look like Power Rangers Zords. :eek: Having said that, they didn't have to be that alien (and adding beards and other weird body/facial features flies against making the Transformers look alien). Perhaps something more like the general aesthetic of some of the Pacific Rim Jaegers might be better, as it seems to strike a better balance between Japanese Mecha & photorealism to me. Of course, the Jaegers were man made, so it would make more sense for the Transformers to look a bit more otherworldly. But yeah, some of the Transformers in the sequels looks just cartoonishly goofy... like Drift. :rolleyes:

If you look at the blocky, boxy, man-in-a-suit Marvel/Sunbow designs, they actually have terrible joint mobility. How many times have we seen joints 'floating' because the design doesn't allow the desired movement, or parts made of solid metal bend or stretch to allow a character to move? It's even more noticeable in Beast Wars. The complex movieverse designs allow for far greater freedom of movement.

As said before, the other problem with the G1 designs look far too terrestrial. That's why the movieverse Transformers have odd proportions, despite the humanoid layouts of their bodies; it emphasises their alien nature. Then again, I wonder if the slow evolution towards human features in the sequels was a response to initial feedback about the weird looks of the Transformers in the first movie.

[1AZRAEL1]

I enjoyed them for what they were. Giant robots blowing stuff up fighting each other. I didn't need character development for that. They are popcorn flicks that puts butts on seats and makes a lot of money. And all the money that has been generated has given Hasbro a lot of spending money for a lot of the toys we now have

[GoktimusPrime]

Design & messing with Transformer lore was the major flaw for me.
I think that significantly altering lore isn't as important as just telling a good story. IDW massively alters Transformers lore in their mainstream Neo-G1 series, like, a lot. But it's held in high regard by fans because it's basically just good story telling. Compare this with ReGeneration One and "What If?" story based on The Transformers The Movie (where Optimus doesn't die) - both of these stayed true to original G1 continuity, but I found ReGeneration One to be disappointing and the "What If?" story was one of the biggest steaming pieces of crap I've ever had the displeasure of reading.


Too many bits & pieces made them look like they were experiments grown in test energon cubes in Shockwaves lab. Didn't mind the vehicle modes so much but in robot mode none of them looked like they could handle a fight. If Meg's smashed Optimus in the chest I swear bits would fly everywhere. I get trying to establish a new look, but not a new look where it's obvious someones stapled the creative artists drawing arm to the the drawing board while they're looking through a kaleidoscope. Reminds me of when the G2 comics came out & most fans who wrote in wanted Manny Galan's head under Omega Supreme's foot when he took over from Derek Yaniger.
That's actually a fairly good analogy IMO. :)

[MayzaPrime]

I enjoyed them for what they were. Giant robots blowing stuff up fighting each other. I didn't need character development for that. They are popcorn flicks that puts butts on seats and makes a lot of money. And all the money that has been generated has given Hasbro a lot of spending money for a lot of the toys we now have

I wish there was a like button to like this post... couldn't agree more. I enjoy these movies cause I dont have to think, I can check my brain at the door. I want to be entertained when I see a movie, and for me I am easily entertained by things blowing up and giant bots tearing each other apart.

[Lord_Zed]

If the designs differing from G1 were the worst problem with the movies problems then I'd be happy, sadly there the least of it's problems.

And I think some of the IDW comics proved the movie designs could work ok, with a half decent story.

[Smint]

I enjoyed them for what they were. Giant robots blowing stuff up fighting each other. I didn't need character development for that. They are popcorn flicks that puts butts on seats and makes a lot of money. And all the money that has been generated has given Hasbro a lot of spending money for a lot of the toys we now have

Marvel movies are pretty good popcorn flicks. They make money AND rate well with critics and fans. Its actually possible to have a great story and great action.

[1AZRAEL1]

Marvel movies are pretty good popcorn flicks. They make money AND rate well with critics and fans. Its actually possible to have a great story and great action.

Personally I have no issue with the stories of the TF movies. All comes down to personal preference. And with Marvel movies, they've changed some things to make them fit with the more average moviegoer too. Only movie which I deem as being as close to their comicbook iteration was Dredd. Sadly that bombed at the box office because of crappy advertising done for it. But that movie nailed it

[Orten]

I just got really sick of when the first live action movie came out (and arguably the best movie the 4) people saying all over social media "They raped my childhood". What a stupid thing to say! :mad:

Yeah I reckon G1-based movies might have been better, in fact make that probably. But it's not the same universe. Transformer fiction exists in an ever expanding multiverse - people need to cope with it or bugger off.

I own about 70 different Optimus toys - if there was never any change I'd just own the one.

Agreed! But 70 Optimuses seem too much to mee.

[Magnus]

With the release of the design of a certain character for Transformers: The Last Knight, fans are once again in an uproar over character design.

Again, names have been reused and reassigned since Beast Wars, and character designs have likewise been changed over the years, so the idea of a name being used on a different-looking character shouldn't be such a big deal, yet it is for the movies. :confused:

[GoktimusPrime]

I don't care about the name reuse... I don't care so much about the design... what bugs me more is the apparent lack of imagination in the creation of the character^persona.

Look at Beast Wars Inferno. The name and design are nothing like his G1 namesake, but he's an awesome character in his own right. Fans can be forgiving of significant departures from the original source if the end result is actually good.

[Ozgardian]

I don't care about the name reuse... I don't care so much about the design... what bugs me more is the apparent lack of imagination in the creation of the character^persona.

Look at Beast Wars Inferno. The name and design are nothing like his G1 namesake, but he's an awesome character in his own right. Fans can be forgiving of significant departures from the original source if the end result is actually good.

Yes my Queen!:D

[Magnus]

I don't care about the name reuse... I don't care so much about the design... what bugs me more is the apparent lack of imagination in the creation of the character^persona.

Look at Beast Wars Inferno. The name and design are nothing like his G1 namesake, but he's an awesome character in his own right. Fans can be forgiving of significant departures from the original source if the end result is actually good.

The bulk of the complaints I've seen are about the design. In a recent discussion on Reddit, one reader even claimed that the movieverse Transformers weren't Transformers "because they look nothing like transformers," they "look nothing like the robots that transformers heralded for years" and that they have "no resemblence (sic) whatsoever to actual transformers."

If you're concerned about the persona/character, wouldn't it be best to wait until we get to see the character in the finished product? We've got barely a few sentences about the character's personality. I don't think it's fair to make an assessment on that alone.

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

If you're concerned about the persona/character, wouldn't it be best to wait until we get to see the character in the finished product?
Past experience indicates a LACK of personality and character in most of the Transformers Bay movies. Don't need to wait ;):D

[Magnus]

Past experience indicates a LACK of personality and character in most of the Transformers Bay movies. Don't need to wait ;):D

I've maintained that this is an issue with the writing, but between the trend of increasing robot screentime with each successive movie, and the new writing team coming out of the writer's room organised by Steven Spielberg and Akiva Goldsman, I'm actually hopeful :)

[GoktimusPrime]

Yes, but this issue has happened for four movies now. I'd say that the burden of proof now lies on Michael Bay to demonstrate that he can produce a good Transformer movie. I'm fully expecting The Last Knight to be a terrible film, but I'm MORE than happy for Bay to prove me wrong.

I dare him to prove me wrong.

I've been making this dare since 2009.

[Magnus]

Yes, but this issue has happened for four movies now. I'd say that the burden of proof now lies on Michael Bay to demonstrate that he can produce a good Transformer movie. I'm fully expecting The Last Knight to be a terrible film, but I'm MORE than happy for Bay to prove me wrong.

I dare him to prove me wrong.

I've been making this dare since 2009.

As I've said before, it's my suspicion that the issue is the writing, not Michael Bay's directing. Look at his other movies and you'll see no shortage of character moments if not development. What's different? The writing.

[GoktimusPrime]

Okay, I dare the writers to prove me wrong. I dare Paramount to prove me wrong. Whoever it is, I just want to see a decent Transformers film!!! And as director, Bay is like the captain of a sports team. If some of his players are underperforming, then he's going to brunt the criticism.

I haven't seen too many other Bay movies, my favourite non-TF Bay film would be Bad Boys, but that was cos I loved the performances by Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. Also I was a teenager when that film came out, and we know that Michael Bay's movies are a hit with teenage boys. I'm not sure how I'd feel about this film if I watched it now as an adult.

[drifand]

I double dare and because this topic is done to death, I am just going to agree with goki statements and reasons. I probably have a lot of negative to criticise about the latest ones but I rather not.

[kup]

I criticise the transformers movies because they are crap. That comes first and fully overshadows anything G1.

[GoktimusPrime]

Even a G1 faithful story that's rubbish is still rubbish. Like that IDW comic adaption of The Transformers The Movie where Optimus Prime never died. Utter garbage.