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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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 :)

Quote:

---

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.

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.

The movies totally need to be G1 accurate! Because Barricade should look more like this...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...psd7apmosi.jpg

And Blackout needs to look more like this:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...pslo3t15yz.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 more lives. 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 long nose truck or a Prime with chopper flames, 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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnus

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!

A fight between a G1-accurate live action Trailbreaker vs Megatron would look something like this. ;)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime

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 more lives. 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 long nose truck or a Prime with chopper flames, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philby

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 - 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. No, wait... that's better! :D

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.