Quantcast
Tor Forge

Science fiction. Fantasy. The universe. And related subjects.

Latest Posts

› archive

Latest Comments

› show all

Hot Bookmarks


Blog Archive


posted Wednesday June 24, 2009 04:28pm EDT

The Transformers Live-Action Movies, as they should have been.

Pablo Defendini

I’ve been told that there’s a new robots-in-disguise movie out today in the U.S., directed by explosion-meister Michael Bay. It’s heralded as the Next Great Vehicle For Toy Sales (no pun intended), and has so far been universally panned by critics, in no uncertain terms. In fact, I hear tell that it’s a sequel to 2007’s very successful summer blockbuster “robot movie event,” which I desisted from watching in the theater... and only got around to watching last year... and only because I was at a friend’s house, and he insisted on renting it (out of a sense of morbid curiosity, and at no expense to yours truly, thanks much). As you may have noticed, I’ve not been able to bring myself to call this movie series by its given name, as I think it’s a gross misnomer—when I saw the first installment, I came to the only possible conclusion my poor brain could muster: Michael Bay has made a fantastic GoBots movie, ’cause that sure as hell isn’t the Transformers I know and love, no matter how many times I’m told that Peter Cullen is doing Optimus Prime’s voice.

Am I being too stubborn? Too set in my ways? Possibly. Get off my lawn and all that. But the Transformers hold a very special place in my heart, and I’ll be damned if I’ll let some two-bit, summer-action-movie assplosion-peddler soil my memories of the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons. Michael Bay, go stand in the corner with Uwe Boll and Brett Ratner. Yes, the corner with the spinning, whirling pieces of sharp metal. You may or may not deserve much worse, but my imagination fails me right now because you’ve shat on my childhood. For the second time, no less.

I’m not usually one to second-guess an adaptation—I’m well aware that these things don’t need to hew as closely to the original source material as I would probably like them to in order to be good. But as I said, the Transformers hold a special place in my heart, so I’ll make an exception this time and bust out the snark. Putting aside Beast Wars and all the other perfectly acceptable permutations and evolutions of Takara/Hasbro’s original line of transforming robot toys, the initial, or “Generation 1,” Transformers still hold up to scrutiny in all the ways that count:

• Endearing characters (Bumblebee! Jazz! “Me Grimlock!”)
• Unbelievably well-crafted toys that actually behaved as advertised (the transforming mechanisms of the original cast-iron Takara/Hasbro toys were nothing short of a marvel of engineering, in my six-year-old opinion. They also made great blunt objects with which to try to bash your little brother’s head in—but I digress)
• A very simple premise which lent itself to endless plots from here to Cybertron and back again

But enough hate. I cringe at my own snark, and lament that so far I’ve not added anything positive to the conversation. I’ve long been an advocate for a live-action Transformers movie done right, and I’m now going to show you how great it could be. Hollywood: pay attention. Michael Bay: you stay in your damn corner, and don’t say a word. Don’t make me come over there and bust some Decepti-chops.

So, the following is what I’ve come to refer to as:

Pablo’s Unified Transformers Theory, or, A Master Plan for the Transformers Live Action Movies, Done Right

First, some aesthetic ground rules:

—Above all else, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Don’t reinvent just to assuage your own spiky, explodey ego. There’s no reason to mess with classic designs, especially designs that can work so well with today’s very convincing CGI. Case in point, this kickass proof-of-concept that’s been floating around the internet for a few years:

Now that’s a hell of an Optimus Prime (well, Ultra Magnus if you want to get technical, but everyone knows Ultra Magnus was just a repainted, lame version of Optimus Prime).

— Respect your source material. While I can understand updating the cars and jets to look like their modern iterations in the real world, I find the awkward shoehorning of General Motors product placement into the franchise to be in incredibly bad taste. Bumblebee transforms into a VW bug, dude, not a Camaro—it’s right there in his name: Bumblebee, or, if you prefer his “adult” incarnation, Goldbug. Jazz is a Porsche sports car. Anything less is an affront to the hip and freewheeling spirit of the character. The arbitrary re-jiggering of the robots’ designs into H.R. Giger-crossed-with-the-Terminator atrocities makes for confusing visuals and—frankly—ugly robots. The one bone I’ll throw Michael Bay is that he got rid of Megatron’s gun-mode—I always found it rather hard to believe that a giant robot would transform into a small handgun. But then again, this is a problem that was solved in the animated series as well, once Megatron was turned into Galvatron (who transforms into a big ol’ plasma canon. Shiny).

— Round up as many of the voice actors from the original 1986 animated movie as you can. After all, it’s hard to improve on such iconic voices as Leonard Nimoy, Eric Idle, Judd Nelson, Casey Casem, John Moschitta, Jr. (the fast-talking Micro Machines guy, remember him?), and of course, Peter Cullen as the Big Guy. Orson Welles and Scatman Cruthers are sadly deceased, but they played Unicron and Jazz, respectively, two characters who speak mostly in sound bites—maybe the old recordings can be remixed and re-used, or similar voice talent can be found.

Now, as to the plot of the movies, well, half the work has already been done, actually. It’s just a question of updating and fleshing out some areas. For starters, this should be a trilogy, which I’ve tentatively named as follows: Transformers 1: The Arrival, Transformers 2: The Movie, and Transformers 3: Origins.

Movie number one would be Transformers: The Arrival. The planet Cybertron, home of the Transformers, is wracked by civil war between the Autobots and the Decepticons, and depleted resources. An Autobot task force led by General Optimus Prime leaves the planet in search of energon, the Transformers’ energy source, followed closely by the Decepticons, led by Megatron. The Decepticons board the Autobots’ spaceship, the Ark, and the ensuing battle causes energon stores to be depleted to their minimum. This causes the Transformers to go into “sleep mode” and the Ark to crash land on Earth:

Sure it’s a bit cheesy, but the skeleton’s good!

The “sleeping” Transformers are buried under the Earth for four million years, until modern times, when a small earthquake/oil dig/hurricane/whatever brings the Ark back online, and it reformats and reactivates the Transformers. Megatron and his Decepticons decide that Earth is ripe for conquest as an energon source, and the Autobots befriend Spike Witwicky and his dad, and fight to stop Megatron from conquering the Earth. The first movie ends with the Decepticons defeated (but not destroyed!), and the Autobots establish a relationship with the human race, while reaching back for contact with their native Cybertron.

Roll credits.

After the credits, you can perhaps tease with the Decepticons regrouping in their old spaceship, Nemesis, which has conveniently crashed and settled on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

Movie number two is a very simple matter: adapt the 1986 animated feature, Transformers: The Movie. Period. You can try to rewrite, reinvent, or reimagine all you want, but that movie is a knockout. It’s a solid action movie, with a slightly darker tone than the show, and it’s got an awesome soundtrack. It’s got a relatively solid plot (ok, so maybe some nips and tucks here and there would be a good thing—we can probably do without Wheelie, for instance), and it shuffles up the status quo in a nice way.

In case you haven’t seen it, the movie opens with the creepy-ass giant Transformer Unicron devouring a planet of peace-loving scientists. Cut to Cybertron: Years have passed since the events of the first movie, and the Decepticons control the planet, but the Autobots control two of its moons. They’ve also established Autobot City back on Earth. During a supply run from one of the moons to Earth, the Decepticons attack, and a bunch of Autobots die. The attack force then mounts a surprise attack on Autobot City using the supply shuttle as a ruse, and in the ensuing battle, after a dramatic face-off, Megatron kills Optimus Prime, but not before taking on some lethal damage himself. Let’s take a break here and watch one of my favorite/saddest scenes from the movie:

Yes, a cartoon can make a grown man cry. Good stuff.

After the attack, Ultra Magnus ineptly takes over leadership of the Autobots (remember, he’s the repainted, lame version of Optimus Prime), despite some heavy-handed foreshadowing of Hot Rod’s impending leadership role, and the ever-treacherous Starscream jettisons a dying Megatron, along with some other weakened Decepticons, as he beats a hasty retreat into space. Starscream declares himself leader of the Decepticons.

Unicron finds Megatron and remakes him into the batshit-insane Galvatron, in return for a promise to destroy the Autobot Matrix of leadership. Galvatron promptly returns to the Decepticons to reclaim his rightful role as leader, literally vaporizing a newly-crowned Starscream in the process. Witness the birth of Galvatron and the death of Starscream:

That was cold, Starscream. Ice-cold. But I guess you got yours in the end, huh? Bad comedy, indeed.

The movie builds to a climax and a showdown as the Autobots fight to destroy Unicron when he threatens to devour Cybertron, defeating the Decepticons decisively in the process, and reclaiming Cybertron for themselves. In the process Hot Rod claims the Matrix of leadership for himself and becomes Rodimus Prime, the new leader of the Autobots:

’Nuff said. Roll credits.

The third movie, Transformers: Origins, would delve deeper into the mythology of the Transformers by bringing in elements—if not necessarily full plots—from the third and short-lived fourth season of the animated TV show, particularly the five-part “The Five Faces of Darkness.”

In this final installment, the Autobots have reclaimed Cybertron, and the Decepticons are reduced to hiding out in the nether-regions of space while they lick their wounds after the events of the previous movie. They forge an uneasy alliance with a mysterious race of bio-organic creatures called the Quintessons, who were introduced briefly in the previous movie.

The Quintessons turn out to be the creators of the original generation of Transformers, many eons before. They used Cybertron as a factory world to build two lines of robots: one for consumer goods and one for military hardware. After millions of years of torturous abuse by their Quintesson masters, the Cybertronians rebelled and drove the Quintessons off Cybertron. Afterwards, the Cybertronians split into Autobot and Decepticon factions and warred with each other for control of the planet, leading to the situation at the beginning of the first movie.

The Quintessons figure that they can use the Decepticons to defeat the much stronger Autobots and destroy the Matrix of leadership, which turns out to hold the Transformers’ primal genetic code which allows for sentience in fully robotic, silicon-based life-forms. Once the Quintessons have destroyed the Matrix and undone their work, they plan to turn on the Decepticons in order to complete their revenge and retake the planet Cybertron.

Galvatron stages a final assault on Cybertron, with the aid of Quintesson ships and firepower. Their plan, of course, falls short of victory, since they failed to account for the added military strength of the Autobots’ Human allies. By this time, humans command their own space navy, and ride in like the cavalry to aid the Autobots in the defense of their home planet in a nice counterpoint to the climax of the first movie. Galvatron and the Decepticons are decisively defeated for good, and the Quintessons are made to retreat back to the far reaches of the galaxy, where they’re from.

Roll Credits.

And there you have it: an approach to a live-action Transformers movie trilogy which respects the source material, does away with the ridiculous Michael Bay-helmed spiky robots and plotless explosion movie, and expands into a majestic space opera which touches on themes like the energy crisis, the ethics of creating artificial intelligence, and slavery. And big-ass robots beating the ever-loving crap out of each other, of course.

ReddIt Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg It Send via Mail
BOOKMARK
PRINT

categories: Comics, TV, Movies
tags: transformers, Transformers the movie, robots in disguise, Autobots, Decepticons, righteous nerd rage, Michael Bay needs to die, ideally bludgeoned to death with a cast-iron action figure of a transforming robot, robots beating the ever-loving crap out of each other, gimme a call Don Murphy-you've got my email-we'll make this happen.

35 comments
Bill Siegel
1.  ubxs113
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 24, 2009 04:49pm EDT
What delightful geeky goodness!
Samuel W
2.  Samuel W
Wednesday June 24, 2009 04:52pm EDT
This fanfiction is just bad. The real movies are fine except for an excess of toilet humor.
Pablo Defendini
3.  pablodefendini
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 24, 2009 05:03pm EDT
@ Samuel W
Ugh, I beg to differ. Say what you will about my half-assed attempts at fanfic, but those movies are an aberration.
James Jones
4.  jamesedjones
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 24, 2009 05:09pm EDT
Great stuff, Pablo. But don't forget, Galvatron wasn't batshit crazy until he was tossed into space by Rodimus Prime. He was just dark and evil seeking revenge on everyone, providing a great counter-point to the nothing-but-hunger motivated evil of Unicron.
Curtis Chen
5.  sparCKL
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 24, 2009 05:12pm EDT
I'd just start with the third movie. Let the original animated series and feature film stand, ignore everything that followed (implied retcon a la Superman Returns), and just continue the story.

Of course, it'll never happen, unless it's a fan film. Now there's an idea...
Pablo Defendini
6.  pablodefendini
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 24, 2009 05:16pm EDT
@ jamesdjones
That's a good catch. But I kind of like the concept of having the process of being transformed by Unicron, and particularly being subjected to that red "I compel you" energy/pain-beam stuff be the factor that contributes to Galvatron's insanity.

@sparCKL
As a visual person, I like the idea of having all three films share a unified aesthetic and a really tight plot structure. Plus, for better or for worse, there were some really cheesy bits to the animated show and movie. ;)
Karen Walters
7.  Wrenza
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 24, 2009 05:26pm EDT
as a mother to an 8 year old boy who went to see the film last weekend, I totally agree with you - there is little story, the effects are too quick and it goes on wayyyy to long, I prefer the orginal - HOWEVER - my son has watched the cartoons and nothing compares, for him, to the films.

So I'll go and watch the films and try to totally unplug my brain and let the next generation fall in love with their version.
Jason Henninger
8.  jasonhenninger
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 24, 2009 05:28pm EDT
"Yes, the corner with the spinning, whirling pieces of sharp metal."

Sir, I know fuck-all about Transformers, but I do love a good rant.
Samuel W
9.  Tony B.
Wednesday June 24, 2009 05:32pm EDT
While I too loved the old Transformers stuff I'm not convinced it would work to bring in NEW fans. Kids these days just want lots of explosions and shiny things. The old stuff was a little too plot driven (I can't believe I just said that since they were written so poorly, but they were written better than the new movies!).
Pablo Defendini
10.  pablodefendini
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 24, 2009 05:37pm EDT
Oh, I don't know, Tony B. Don't sell kids today short; they are sharp, sharp cookies. For every GoBots movie out there, there's an Avatar: The Last Airbender, or a Harry Potter series of books (which, say what you will about its other merits, has a relatively complex plot structure).
Samuel W
11.  Samuel W
Wednesday June 24, 2009 05:59pm EDT
Pablo, I'm not outright bashing your ideas, they'd be great on the small screen. I'm just saying that Bay's movies would perfectly alright with a little fine tuning: fewer characters with more motivation for the ones that are there, and cut the lowbrow comedy and cheap jokes. And you're totally right about underestimating kids, they can be a lot more savvy and sophisticated than they're given credit for.
randy gallegos
12.  gallegosart
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 24, 2009 07:00pm EDT
Props on the post, Pablo. Haven't seen the new one, but my main criticism of the visuals on the first, which you touched on, was that the design was too...baroque. The original designs were simple, and though more complex in the toys themselves than the cartoon, they were identifiable at a distance. If you had multiple toys out, or multiple characters on-screen, you could easily tell them apart. In the movie, I stopped trying to discern who was who. Meaningful silhouettes were gone, redesigned faces (some of which needed to be) looked like buckets of spare parts.

I know these movies are teen/college boy fodder, but I could really use a LOT LESS of Megan Fox in these films. Like I said, I haven't seen the new one, but given the commercials, I'd think it was heavy on Fox, light on robots. That's bad. I really don't think Transformers needs to be Maxim-ed out to be relevant and cool. Spider Man and Batman managed to go without such female characters, to their credit.
Samuel W
13.  SirKnifeALot
Wednesday June 24, 2009 08:01pm EDT
I was with you until you suggested a remake of the animated movie.

ALL OF THE FIRST GENERATION AUTOBOTS DIE! AT THE START OF THE MOVIE!

Hello?! Can you say, "Gee, we need to sell more toys, let's introduce them in the biggest kiddie draw of the year?!!!!"

Megatron shoots Ironhide in the Head as he struggles at his feet. You don't do that to Ironhide. Not Ironhide.

And f*#ck Rodimus. For getting Optimus shot by distracting him from his fight with Megs. To hell.

Next you'll be wanting Ratbat to lead the Cons like in the latter days of the comic.

Sheesh.
Richard Fife
14.  R.Fife
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 24, 2009 08:41pm EDT
OK, putting myself on the chopping block here, but I liked the GoBots2. Did I go to see original transformers? No. I didn't go to see Star Trek expecting to see honest-to-goodness Star Trek. In fact, I have pretty well given up on Hollywood to provide meaningful, plot-driven movies in the SFF realm. But they can put out a nice action flick, and if I could turn my brain off and enjoy the latest Die Hard, well, I could enjoy GoBots2.

Pablo, I would love to see the level of storytelling your "fanfic" would entail, but well, we have seen time and again that Hollywood wants to make money (as most successful businesses do) and Megan Fox eyecandy and explosions and back to back to back MoA moments sell quite a bit better than intellectual movies that engage you the same as a book. At least, as a bell curve. Why? Because creating amazingly engaging work is like hitting a home run, but the ball is a shot put and the bat is a wet noodle. Action movies its nice, slow pitch down the center with a real ball and you are Mark McGuire (yes, I'm from St. Louis, sue me).

Everything has to be perfect, or the suspension of disbelief is toasted and the movie leaves you going bleh. It is hard enough to pull off the feat in a non-SFF drama. Throw in having to "worry" about the SFF, and I think it becomes far too much for many directors/producers/screenwriters. When it works, it works amazingly, but when it doesn't, we get Chronicles of Riddick, DnD the movie, and The Golden Compass movie.

aside: hopefully District-9 will come through for SFF Story-telling, it is marketed nicely as more of a drama than a sci-fi. On the same token, the preview I saw tonight had an interrogation scene where the Government Agent Man is asking about their weapons. So, even though it is a Peter Jackson film and likely to be engaging, I still expect a bit of an overplay on big booms saving the day (or ruining it).
Arachne Jericho
15.  arachnejericho
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 24, 2009 10:35pm EDT
Roger Ebert has a review, but now he's also got an extended journal entry.

I love Roger Ebert so.
john massey
16.  subwoofer
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday June 25, 2009 08:41am EDT
Ahem, being a WoTer, the one similarity is that the comics were supposed to be a three issue limited series( or was it four?) and at the time I thought that WoT was going to be a trilogy. Both have since gone on forever due to popular demand.

I liked the movies, both the animated and the live action one. The animated cartoon series did not stand up well to the test of time as Teletoon Retro had a marathon on the other week and I was sorely disappointed. I remember Omega Supreme being so cool and Metroplex? vs Unicron. Not so much any more. And you forgot an important part of the original movie, the touch, which somehow cropped up in Boogie Nights later.

If they could of adapted the original movie to live action, that would of been great. Yes, they did bastardize the story line, and there is Shea- Megan Fox cancels him out- but all in all, I do remember saying when I saw the first trailer- Finally! Compared to Titanic or standing on its own, TtM isn't so bad, as to spark an armed revolt. Its kinda like the purist that were up in arms about the LotR movies. Some loved 'em, some didn't.
john massey
17.  subwoofer
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday June 25, 2009 09:56am EDT
Oooo- found it...interesting... that right by this blog is an advert for the movie.

Hi Pablo, great post:)
Samuel W
18.  strugglingwriter
Thursday June 25, 2009 10:30am EDT
I love you for writing this. Sums up my feelings so more eloquently than I could have written it.

I agree. Why mess with the look of the Transformers as robots?

I think these movies should be titled "Big Out-Of-Focus Robots Blowing Things Up Really Fast" instead because they could have called the robots anything. They are TINOs - Transformers In Name Only.
Samuel W
19.  SWS
Thursday June 25, 2009 11:00am EDT
I loved the first Transformers movie and will go see the second no matter how bad the reviews just to hear Prime say "Roll out!" I also love GM concept cars, am female so I can ignore Megan Fox and think Josh Dushamel works as eye candy.

I think if they tried to remake the original Transformers the Movie it would not work. It is too much a work of the eighties, and it would get messed up in translation. Just like the current movies.

Having said all that, I am fascinated by your movie #3 concept - I would love to go back to Cybertron on the big screen and bring some better plot.
James Jones
20.  jamesedjones
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday June 25, 2009 11:39am EDT
18 Strugglingwriter

TINO's! Perfect description!
M W
21.  toryx
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday June 25, 2009 11:53am EDT
As much as I'm a fan of the well written story line, strong plot arcs and a focus on characterization, I just can't apply it to the Transformers.

The cartoon series and the animated movie were all exactly what the live-action movie is: A device to market a toy.

I just don't think I could take a Transformers movie seriously no matter how much story they put in it because when push comes to shove, I'm watching a movie centered around a toy I enjoyed as a kid.

You just can't Shakespeare that. So give me the explosions, the nifty special effects, Peter Cullen's voice and especially Megan Fox. That's what the Transformers are supposed to be about, mindless action and entertainment. After all, it's AI beings who turn into cars (and guns and helicopters and whatever else you can think up). You just can't take that stuff seriously.

Although I will agree, it'd be that much better if they dropped the damned toilet humor.
Sara H
22.  LadyBelaine
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday June 25, 2009 12:45pm EDT
Well, I remain a total die-hard fan of the female Autobots, but not the excuse that was Arcee.

I want Chromia, Firestar and Moonracer, dammit. I mean Arcee turned into a dainty little PINK sportscar. Firestar was a fire truck (well, a Cybertronian fire rescue thingy), Moonracer was a sleek racy car and Chromia was a stolid, substantial SUV-type contraption.

The abomination that was Elita One, however - she was another hideous pink sporstcar.

I would like these characters to be included in your trilogy please. Add in a few more, and maybe throw in a few Deceptinettes too.
Samuel W
23.  PaunchStevenson
Thursday June 25, 2009 04:13pm EDT
You basically typed out our Transformers movie review and observations from a July 2007 episode of our podcast (including our "This wasn't a Transformers movie, it was a Gobots movie" remark):

The Paunch Stevenson Show episode 76

I guess our crying Autobot symbol from February 2008 inspired you, too:

The Paunch Stevenson Show crying Autobot symbol

Thanks for giving us credit.
Tess Laird
24.  thewindrose
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday June 25, 2009 04:22pm EDT
I saw the new movie last night with my 2 kids(8yr old boy and 6yr old girl). They ate it up. But, my son also likes the comics and they both like the animated movie you mentioned. I was turned off by the low brow comedy and cheap jokes. And, umm, why no plot?
True, that this is a vehicle to sell more toys, but I think Pablo's ideas could fit the bill and sound much more satisfying.
Pablo Defendini
25.  pablodefendini
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday June 25, 2009 04:28pm EDT · amended on Thursday June 25, 2009 04:30pm EDT
@PaunchStevenson
Wow, I'm floored. That was completely and totally unintentional and a huge coincidence. I wasn't even aware of your podcast until now. Apologies, I suppose. In my defense, it's not like the movie lends itself to much deeper criticism than the above; and I've been using and seeing the Gobots crack being used for a while now.
Simon Southey-Davis
26.  Glyph
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday June 25, 2009 04:29pm EDT
Heheh. That's a great rant, Pablo... but I'm afraid I have to take issue with some of your should-have-beens.

I mean, I love the '86 animated movie in spite of its faults, but I have to admit that they are many. It's a lazy rip-off of the Star Wars formula; the plotting and animation are inconsistent; the whole thing is based on the appearance of a previously-unseen Big Bad which can only be defeated by a previously-unseen character using a previously-unseen MacGuffin, all of which the writer basically pulls out of thin air; and it all goes to pot after the first 30 minutes (which do admittedly comprise perhaps the finest Transformers action sequence ever committed to film, blatant shelf-clearing be damned).

And seriously - Quintessons? You want to base a film on the justly-derided Five Faces of Darkness? I wonder: are you familiar at all with the Marvel comics run? I note that all your suggestions are heavily cartoon-centric, while the comic series (particularly the UK run, and the latter portion of the US run after the main players on the UK comic took over) are generally acknowledged to be vastly superior in terms of scope, characterisation and storytelling. The recent IDW reboot of the continuity was also excellent, at least until the story went off the rails a bit and had to be restarted about a year ago.

This may be a geographic thing: I've generally observed that Europeans tend to be much more familiar with the Marvel comics, while everyone else is primarily familiar with the Sunbow cartoon. If you're not familiar with them, may I recommend TFArchive's comic section as a starting point?

Still, give me a healthy dose of the Unicron / Primus mythology from the comic series over the lame-lame-lame Quintesson origin of the cartoon any day. :P (That said, I also tend to think Unicron-as-epic-villain is massively over-used and needs to be put back in the box for the foreseeable future.)

Turning to the Bay movies... I haven't seen RotF yet, though I'll probably end up watching it out of some perverse, masochistic fascination, but I couldn't agree more from the example of the first one. Idiotic plotting, sophomore humour, Bay's standard US-military-yay flag waving, appalling robot designs and 'characters' which bear no resemblance to their namesakes... bitter, moi?

On a related note, since you posted the Optimus / Ultra Magnus CG clip, have you seen the (better realised, IMO) clips on TheMichaelSmith.com? (They're the TransZ one at the top and the VW Transformer one some way down.)

OK, so now I've outed myself as a huge Transformers geek - in my first logged-in post, no less! - and vented my spleen somewhat, I guess I'd best go quietly back to my corner. Yes, the one where I can nurture a 25-year nostalgia and wax polemical against betrayals of my childhood dreams. Get off my lawn and all that. :)
Dru O'Higgins
27.  bellman
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday June 25, 2009 05:13pm EDT
Pablo, I really liked your ideas. I was impressed by the original tv show, not so much with the '86 movie. Just one question. Can Megan Fox be in your version? She doesn't have to say anything.
john massey
28.  subwoofer
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday June 25, 2009 10:35pm EDT
Also, some of the characters would be lost in translation. Like Sound Wave or Blaster, Ravage, Rumble etc.- Tape players in the year 2009, can't see it.

I think Toryx had it nailed down. It is a summer movie money maker, not an Oscar contender. This is not Lawrence of Arabia. As far as further differences from the original movie, I would like to see Devastator, Constructicon style. And the Dinos. The comics took that idea too far and it seemed like every other robot combined to make a bigger one.

In the end it could be worse. Jerry Bruckheimer could of been the one chosen.
M W
29.  toryx
VIEW ALL BY · Friday June 26, 2009 10:27am EDT
subwoofer @ 28:

In the end it could be worse. Jerry Bruckheimer could of been the one chosen.

So true!
Fred Coppersmith
30.  FCoppersmith
VIEW ALL BY · Friday June 26, 2009 12:01pm EDT · amended on Friday June 26, 2009 01:34pm EDT
An interesting article, and I'd certainly prefer these versions to what Michael Bay thinks passes for entertainment.

As it happens, just this morning, I posted an article from the first issue of Kaleidotrope about Transformers and its potential to be genuinely compelling science fiction, despite its obvious commercial origins. As Jim Cleaveland, its author writes:

Years later, as an adult, I went back and analyzed just what the show’s strong appeal had been for me, and I realized that, if you turn a blind eye for a moment to the franchise’s toyetic origins, The Transformers actually does have some wonderful concepts and science-fiction story potential. I don’t know how much of this the writers were consciously aware of at the time, but it’s certainly there, and I’d like to see it explored in a thoughtful manner.


The article was published back in October 2006, when Bay's first film was still just an oncoming threat, but I think it goes into a lot of what keeps people coming back to Transformers as a concept, even when they've long given up on the toys. There's a lot of potential there. Too bad, from all accounts, the new movie continues to squander that.
Chris Meadows
31.  Robotech_Master
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 28, 2009 05:32am EDT · amended on Sunday June 28, 2009 05:45am EDT
I'm probably a bigger Transformers fan than the next guy—I went to a couple of BotCon conventions back in the day they were fan-owned, before they turned into corporate-run outrageously-priced toy collector lovefests, and I even helped moderate rec.toys.transformers.moderated for a while (a Usenet newsgroup which turned out, in retrospect, to be a solution in search of a problem, and was recently removed).

But I have to admit that Bay probably made the right choice (or at least one of a number of possible choices that would be more right than the outline you lay out) in his approach to the films. Remember that there's a difference between what fans want and what the general audience wants—and moviemakers have to try to pitch their films to the lowest common denominator if they want to take in the highest common denominations (of bill).

Movies that try to appeal to fans rather than general audiences end up like Serenity (pitched at fans of a relatively obscure-at-the-time TV series that was shown out of order and then cancelled) or even Snakes on a Plane (whose entire production was geared at appealing to "fans" of a movie that hadn't even been made yet!): flops at the box office, and (in the case of Snakes) not even necessarily particularly good films. (Which is not to say that the BayFormers movies are necessarily "good films" but at least they hit their target demographic squarely between the eyes while critics like Ebert and Berardinelli splutter helplessly about the declining taste of audiences.) Even the venerable Lord of the Rings books were changed considerably when they were adapted for the screen.

A couple of points: what works in cartoons does not necessarily work terribly well in live-action. You can't really have cars that turn into what look for all the world like animated versions of people in rubber suits turn into what look like live versions of people in rubber suits. No matter how good the CGI is, people have seen enough monster movies to point and laugh and say, "Look! It's trying to be a person in a rubber suit! Godzilla did it better!"

(There's a quote from Bay to this effect on the Wikipedia page for the first Transformers movie, in fact: "I just didn't want to make the boxy characters. It's boring and it would look fake. By adding more doo-dads and stuff on the robots, more car parts, you can just make it more real.")

Bay's mechanistic treatment of the Transformers is not without precedent in the animated canon, either. Look at the CGI Beast Wars series (but don't bother with the subsequent Beast Machines, made by a different creative staff; it sucked). Story-wise, BW managed to cross a number of the good bits of the Transformers mythos with the good bits of Land of the Lost, creating an interesting, episodic tale that was only occasionally dragged down by the necessity of pandering to the kiddies.

Animation-of-transforming-technology-wise, it's a lot closer to Bay's treatment than the original cartoon. Lots of little mechanical moving parts. (In fact, if they'd had the budget, I expect Mainframe would have loved to do what Bay did.) They cheated a lot with CGI bits that changed size as they moved around, and bodies that could be made out of nanotech goo, whereas Bay shows you lots of little tiny robots hooking together and combining into a bigger one in ROTF, but the principle is the same.

And Bay came as close to the original show as he could. They tried modelling a transforming cab-over for Optimus, but weren't able to get it big enough to be visually impressive relative to the other robots. (Remember, the old show regularly cheated with regard to size and where parts went, often even assigning heads to characters whose toys didn't have them (Ratchet, I'm looking at you), whereas the movie had to conserve real-world mass. Heck, the toys for the original show weren't even made to the same scale as each other, because they were overstocked leftovers from three different Japanese toy lines with entirely unrelated stories.)

As for Bumblebee, there are a couple of different stories about why Bay went with a Camaro. One is that the role of a lovable yellow Volkswagen has already been thoroughly co-opted by a certain Disney character, whose franchise just keeps on getting "reloaded." It's just too easy a target for critics—especially since the original Love Bug movies well predate the original Transformers series.

Another story is that Volkswagen really doesn't want any of its vehicles depicted as war toys anymore—especially in as high-profile a movie as a Michael Bay summer blockbuster. Whether it was one or the other or both of these that was the deciding factor, I don't know, but things are always more complicated than "they should just film the cartoon."

And speaking of which, I'm going to speak blasphemy here, but the cartoon isn't even all that great, viewed with adult eyes. Ed Lieu talks about this at ToonZone.net in a review of the first-season boxed set. As someone up-thread said, it did have a lot of interesting science-fiction ideas, but it largely failed to expound upon them.

The same is true of its sister show G.I. Joe, which at its nadir featured Cobra trying to destroy the ozone layer with a giant shaving cream balloon (when in fact CFCs hadn't been in shaving cream cans for decades at that point) so they could make a killing in the suntan lotion market, but at its zenith offered up the brilliant 2-part mindf--k episode "Worlds Without End" which could have come right out of The Twilight Zone. (We'll come back to G.I. Joe in a moment.)

Liu suggests:

The only workable theory I can come up with is that the combination of the setting and the characters was compelling enough to jump-start the imagination of the kids watching, so much so that their natural sense of imagination took over and subconsciously filled in all the holes, gaps, and flaws. Rather than strip children of their sense of imagination, as claimed by many critics of toy-ads-as-entertainment like Transformers, this series may actually have encouraged it, although probably unintentionally. The warm, nostalgic feelings fans have for the show may not be about the show itself, but about the show that they constructed in their heads—"the show I thought I was seeing when I was a little kid," as James Tucker has phrased it in another context.

The TV show was originally intended to sell toys. Not even original toys, but toys that sold so poorly in Japan that the Japanese essentially threw them together in a baggie at discount rates like flea-market junk and said, "See what you can make out of these." That it is as highly regarded as it is (amid a sea of other eighties toy-merch tie-ins that fizzled and vanished) is partly a testament to the good elements that were there, and largely a testament to the imagination of the fans for bringing those elements out. You can't really say that the show was better storywise than Bay's explodoramas, unless you define "better" to mean "not as loud, and with less bathroom humor".

As for why there was so much US military involvement in the movies—apart from Bay being in good with the US military and, like any good director, making the fullest use of the resources he has to make his budget stretch farther—part of it is that there was a certain amount of US military involvement in the original Transformers storyline.

Not so much the cartoon version (though there was a direct crossover there in the 3rd-season episode "Only Human," featuring an old and decrepit Cobra Commander) but the comic books had several G.I. Joe vs. Transformers crossovers. (In the first one, in keeping with the tradition that when two comic book heroes meet, they have to fight, G.I. Joe blew up Bumblebee, and he got rebuilt as Goldbug.)

So Bay essentially went in and mined G.I. Joe for the military part of the movie. He had to file the serial numbers off, so as not to interfere with the G.I. Joe franchise movie scheduled for this year, but the traces are still there if you know where to look. (For instance, early in the first movie, Sgt. Epps makes the kind of rhyme that the G.I. Joes' Roadblock was known for doing.) Interestingly, rumor has it that at least one of the military characters from Bay's Transformers will cross over with the impending G.I. Joe movie.

As for the animated Transformers: The Movie, of course it has a "solid plot." That plot is called Star Wars: A New Hope. There are direct, one-to-one correspondences between many of the characters in TFTM and Star Wars. Hot Rod is Luke Skywalker, Optimus Prime is Ben Kenobi, Grimlock is Chewbacca, Perceptor is C-3P0, the Han Solo role is split between Kup and Springer (Kup is the cynical experienced veteran, but Springer eventually gets "Princess Leia"). For crying out loud, it even has a female robot with a Princess Leia hairdo!

And allowing for variations (such as grafting in the Forest Moon of Endor from Return of the Jedi in the form of the Planet of Junk, or putting the "trash compactor" scene late in the movie where Daniel rescues Spike), the story is also identical, right down to the voice of the young hero's dead mentor telling him to use a mystical force to destroy the evil planet-destroying battlestation.

(And there's the little matter of suddenly deciding to kill off practically the entire cast of the first two seasons of the show in the first five minutes of the film to make room for new toys. Wow, Hasbro, cynical much?)

The movie did have great animation and an awesome soundtrack by Stan Bush, Vince DiCola, and others (even if DiCola did win a Golden Raspberry for his work on the Rocky IV soundtrack). But with the rose-colored glasses removed, it's still a toy commercial.

At least Bay's movies are also movies in their own right. They have to make back their cost of creation out of ticket receipts; they're not being fully funded by a toy company trying to get around the restrictions on commercials in kids' TV. And if they're loud and explody and confusing…well, that's what the audience seems to want, judging by how fast they throw money at them.

There are really a lot of possibilities you could do with transforming robots on earth. The show-runners for Beast Wars once talked about wanting to do a live-action/CGI Transformers TV series in which the "robots in disguise" aspect was played up to its fullest potential, even more than in the animated series (where the pretense was actually dropped pretty early on, to the point of one cartoon episode having two of the giant robots appear as practical "special effects" in a science-fiction movie (which featured human actors who looked suspiciously like Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher)). What if the robots were under really deep cover in our world, and had been for a long time? (Revenge of the Fallen hinted at this possibility, but didn't actually do much with it.)

It would be nice to see some of these possibilities, and maybe eventually we will if Bay gets tired of making the films and the franchise passes into someone else's hands. It might even be rebooted again like Batman Begins. Maybe some good movies could be made out of it, or TV series. But complaining about the Bay movies because they're fluff compared to the original cartoon disregards that, in a lot of ways, the original cartoon was even fluffier.

Oh dear. I seem to have written a comment longer than your original blog entry. (I hope you actually bothered to read it all.)

I should get in bed.
Stephen Dunscombe
32.  cythraul
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 28, 2009 08:41am EDT
"Round up as many of the voice actors from the original 1986 animated movie as you can. After all, it’s hard to improve on such iconic voices as Leonard Nimoy, Eric Idle, Judd Nelson, Casey Casem, John Moschitta, Jr. (the fast-talking Micro Machines guy, remember him?), and of course, Peter Cullen as the Big Guy. Orson Welles and Scatman Cruthers are sadly deceased, but they played Unicron and Jazz, respectively, two characters who speak mostly in sound bites—maybe the old recordings can be remixed and re-used, or similar voice talent can be found."

For Heaven's sakes, why? Why insist on building the new movie out of the corpse of the old one?

If a character doesn't work with a new actor, then that character simply doesn't need remaking. Do you want to bring in 57-year-old Michael Keaton for the next Batman film? 80-year-old Adam West? Maybe dig up Lewis Wilson or Robert Lowery? Should they have stopped performing Hamlet after Richard Burbage died in 1619?

Let the dinosaurs die; let a new generation take their place. You can be faithful to the source material, or you can be trapped by it.
Simon Southey-Davis
33.  Glyph
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 28, 2009 09:15am EDT
Robotech_Master said: moviemakers have to try to pitch their films to the lowest common denominator if they want to take in the highest common denominations (of bill). ... Which is not to say that the BayFormers movies are necessarily "good films" but at least they hit their target demographic squarely between the eyes
I dunno... this comment gets thrown around an awful lot, but it seems (to me at least) that studios create the lowest common denominator at least as much as they pander to it. It's not impossible to make a film that's intelligent and successful - indeed, financial success may well be easier to achieve when you're not spending $300m on special effects at the expense of any kind of audience engagement.

That being said, I've long held the opinion (and have used it as a challenge to fellow Bayformer despisers) that the only way we'll get the type of movies the fandom wants to see is if the fandom itself creates them. This has been done before in other franchises, and Transformers is no stranger to fanfic and shared story.

Robotech_Master said: And Bay came as close to the original show as he could. ... the movie had to conserve real-world mass.
I'm sorry, but I can't credit the suggestion that Bay was somehow prevented from getting closer to the original ideas, and would have gotten closer if he could. Both movies are full of 'characters' (for want of a more pejorative term) which appropriate names from the original, but bear no resemblance either in design or characterisation to their namesakes. In other places, an entirely new character is invented where an existing one might have slotted in well. This doesn't really speak to 'getting as close to the original show as possible'.

On the design front... well, this is where my expectations for the movies plummetted, as soon as concept art started leaking out. Transformers has preserved a certain design aesthetic over a period of 25 years: my 3-year-old can see a Transformer from pretty much any of the series and name it for what it is, while using 'robot' for characters from other properties. The movie designs broadly ignored that aesthetic, choosing instead to follow the ILM-standard 'spindly skeleton with armour plates hanging off it' along with the Hollywood stock-in-trade 'good aliens are humanoid, evil aliens are insectoid'.

From a more personal and technical standpoint, they also got the design process backwards: in the original conception, Transformers are robots which disguise themselves as passable imitations of Earth vehicles. However, this is a disguise, and an external one; human characters were forever looking under the hood of an Autobot and being confounded by the lack of recognisable engine parts. (To detractors who point out things like "a car hood really makes a lousy armour plate", I respond that it's not a car hood but a piece of advanced alien armour disguised to look like a car hood.) For the new movies, the design teams appear to have started with a real car, with all its associated bits and pieces, and asked: "How can we make a robot out of this?" The thinking is backwards, and while the resulting robots are certainly complex and technically impressive, they're also ugly as sin.

Also, I'd accept the comment about conservaton of mass if Bay's movies weren't themselves riddled with scaling inconsistencies and other 'cheats' (nanotech, I'm looking at you).

Robotech_Master said: I'm going to speak blasphemy here, but the cartoon isn't even all that great, viewed with adult eyes. ... Ed Liu suggests: "The only workable theory I can come up with is that the combination of the setting and the characters was compelling enough to jump-start the imagination of the kids watching, so much so that their natural sense of imagination took over and subconsciously filled in all the holes, gaps, and flaws."
Here we are in complete agreement. The original cartoon is, in many parts, cringeworthy and simply unwatchable. It's perhaps notable that many of the best episodes are those which introduced no new characters, or introduced only characters with no toys attached. Now, the comic on the other hand...

Liu is completely correct, in my view. This is why I still name myself a hardened fan, 25 years and counting from the original concept: the story and the characters speak to my imagination. In this way, Transformers benefits from much the same situation as Star Wars: while the presentation is technically flawed, it admits the viewer into a rich imagined world and invites them to tell their own stories. Much like Star Wars, the concepts have birthed a shared universe which is greater than the series which originated it.

A commenter on Making Light, some time ago now, described fiction thus: "Written stories aren't, really; they're instructions for the reader to use to build a story in their head." Because Transformers engages that creative process, I'm willing and able to overlook flaws in the execution in a way that others (my wife, for example!) do not.

Robotech_Master said: As for the animated Transformers: The Movie, of course it has a "solid plot." That plot is called Star Wars: A New Hope.
I'm going to go out on a limb with my own theories here, but I would say that the reason TF:TM apes Star Wars so completely is simply that the latter is itself known to be built firmly on the foundation of a mythological archetype. I've long considered Transformers' imaginative appeal to be so strong precisely because it too references the same archetypal concepts: the young cavalier, the noble king, the wise counsellor, the overlord, the grand vizier, the paladin, the rogue, the chosen one, the hero's journey. All of them resonate with our collective inclination to myth-making.
Samuel W
34.  SWS
Monday June 29, 2009 11:29am EDT
Okay, finally saw the new movie, and you are right Pablo - Michael Bay goes right in the corner with Ratner, and he can take Orci with him. That movie was terrible. It wasn't just a bad movie about Transformers, it was a bad movie period.
Chris Meadows
35.  Robotech_Master
VIEW ALL BY · Monday June 29, 2009 02:13pm EDT
Yep. Totally terrible. But it's just so huge and overblown in its terrible badness that I can't help but love it. Kind of like a monster truck rally.

(I can't wait for the DVD to come out, so Rifftrax can have their way with it. Then ROTF will become ROTFL. :)

As I posted over on Ebert's blog defenestration of ROTF, for me it comes down to something similar to the sentiment expressed in this poem:

Tobacco is a dirty weed.
I like it.
It satisfies no normal need.
I like it.
It makes you thin, it makes you lean,
It takes the hair right off your bean
It's the worst darn stuff I've ever seen.
I like it.

~Graham Lee Hemminger, "Tobacco"

Revenge of the Fallen may not give me cancer, but it probably is—on any objective scale—"the worst darn stuff I've ever seen."

I like it.
POST A COMMENT Name: Email Address: Comment (bbCode allowed):