|
Post by metafeather on Aug 4, 2006 21:31:24 GMT -5
I disagree. G1 would translate perfectly with the "real world" and I am not certain why they didn't play it by the book. Note that I am using the word "perfectly" here. They don't have to translate the episodes of G1 - Keep the origin story & then write your own stuff after the point when the transformers awaken on Earth & encounter humans. BINGO! It's really not that hard to do! first of all physically if you keep the character g1 accuarate they would look like the original toys(which many looked like special olympic rejects) and not the characters in the show. the show used shrinking , growing, and disappearing parts. it didnt make physical sence and wouldnt go into a "real" movie at all. i also hope they dont foloow the g1 story to a T(lol). The idea of a ship crashing here millions of years ago and then being found is rediculous. i dont care what substance, what cybertronian aloy you made that ship out of it would be so badly degraded from envirmental forces it could not possibly do what it did in the cartoon. i modern meeting is much more likly. eh G1 was great when i was a kid but if it were introduced today as a new cartoon i wouldnt give it the light of day. just my two cents
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Aug 4, 2006 23:10:29 GMT -5
Oh because why? Archeologists are retired and useless now & don't manage to find anything? Please. It is totally doable.
I don't have G1 blinders on gunman - but it seems like these guys just don't even want to try. I don't really care about the size-changing element from the show.
I am definitely with you guys on the don murphy board. I can't even remember if I registered when it first got started, but I was really shocked at the general level of conversation over there. I hope those guys and gals don't take their own lives.
"Ck and Destro are at it again. ;D" - Dude. Destro and I are all about providing entertainment to Energon Station!
Destro - I guess I figured that there were other issues in the cartoon that were continuity issues greater than the Ark deal. All of it is extremely hard to point fingers at just because it felt so low budget at times. It's too bad they didn't have the QC back then that they did now. But even with G1's issues, the story on a whole is pretty good. (And apparently it is REALLY good since Six cartoon series later they keep stealing from it and rehashing)
Then the one time I *want* them to steal the story....they don't! Ahhhhhh!
Oh - the age of the people has varied. Some have been my age (guys and girls) and some have been my parents age. They remember buying those toys for their kids (our generation) because they were "so neat!" Heh heh.
|
|
|
Post by metafeather on Aug 5, 2006 0:34:06 GMT -5
what did that first line mean CK? retired? im not saying they would have to find it. I am saying that the ark would not be even nearly functional once found. All im saying is the G1 story is no longer relevent. It has to be new. this is not a movie made for the die hard fans, this is a movie made for the people who are like "hey transformers, i remember those."
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Aug 5, 2006 2:57:50 GMT -5
Yes. I agree on the demographic - but the G1 story being "no longer relevent" makes on sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by metafeather on Aug 5, 2006 10:01:54 GMT -5
What i mean by that is the story just wouldnt fly today. Just like most of the cartoons from back in the day there is no way they would succeed today. I mean i love em, but they all had so many plot holes and rush jobs that some of the epidodes didnt even make sence. Loke at thundercats, which i love, but it is almost painful to watch episodes now lol. This is all IMO thought and you may not view it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Aug 6, 2006 10:16:22 GMT -5
I can see meta's point; I don't want mass-shifting either, and I can see why bb looks the way he does, he's supposed to be futuristic. G1 bots were too blocky for that look now and would like kinda cheesy. If the bots crashland on Earth, present day, that'd be fine w/ me.
ck-yea, g1 was good for it's time, but so were gijoe, heman, etc. I still watch em, but, well, meta made the point already that they're a bit dated.
And you say your age and your rents' age..what about kids? They keep seeing tfs come to earth, present day, w/ megs as a few different things (never a gun, which they can't do anyway so I guess that's a moot point) and the bots are futuristic vehicles, for the most part. I will say that I think kids will like present day vehicles just fine, but I think this film must cater to them a bit as well in other respects.
I just wanna see a movie w/ awesome robot battles and a good storyline and characterisation. I want Prime, Megatron (a tank is fine w/ me), Starscream, etc. duking it out w/o much human interference.
oh, and I'm glad ck and I are able to entertain you guys w/ our..colorful arguments. There's a tip jar at the counter. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jo'Roq on Aug 6, 2006 14:33:09 GMT -5
ck-yea, g1 was good for it's time, but so were gijoe, heman, etc. I still watch em, but, well, meta made the point already that they're a bit dated. The argument is not that the movie should BE G1, but that it should recapture the original appeal of G1. Look at He-Man. The original show was extemely cheesy (trademark of the 80s), and the subsequent revival attempts were horrible until the latest incarnation. It took the original basis, updated it, modernized the format and created an awesome new show that had the appeal of the original while still establishing itself as a separate continuity. The same thing should be done with the new TF movie. Kids are not going to be able to support a brand new movie franchise - any movie written for kids has the audience outgrow it in a few years. In order to establish TF as a new movie franchise, the writers need to play as much to the older, nostalgia auience as the toy sales. Kids will go see anything that looks "cool" (Power Rangers, The Ewok movies, Jar Jar Binks, etc) - they don't have any understanding or appreciation of character development or plot, espeecially in a continuing series. The older audience will want a good story with believable characters and special effects in order to come back for more, and the majority of this supporting audience has G1 as their reference foundation. *drops in a five*
|
|
|
Post by Jo'Roq on Aug 6, 2006 14:48:28 GMT -5
Looking back over the pcture, this is probably one of two things:
1. The pre-Earth Cybertronian form - I kinda doubt this, but the "futuristic" argument could hold up.
2. The model used for the live shooting stand-in prop - I'm starting to think this for the following reasons:
- It matches the supposed Bumblebee prop shot from the location paparazzi pics. - There is not enough mass on that form to account for a Earth vehicle mode: no windshield, no hood, and no trunk (for examples) unless it all folds up extremely unbelievably tight. In which case the toy will not be able to resemble the character without a lot of removable pieces. - Creating a "skeletal" model would serve two purposes: to provide a consistent point of reference for the actors (especially when they need to look up at the head of a standing TF) in place of relying on each actor to pick a location, and to provide a point of reference for the CG effects to replace the model (showing the joints, innards, and reference point "panels" for the exterior) in the final production.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Aug 6, 2006 21:20:29 GMT -5
The same thing should be done with the new TF movie. Kids are not going to be able to support a brand new movie franchise - any movie written for kids has the audience outgrow it in a few years. In order to establish TF as a new movie franchise, the writers need to play as much to the older, nostalgia auience as the toy sales. Kids will go see anything that looks "cool" (Power Rangers, The Ewok movies, Jar Jar Binks, etc) - they don't have any understanding or appreciation of character development or plot, espeecially in a continuing series. The older audience will want a good story with believable characters and special effects in order to come back for more, and the majority of this supporting audience has G1 as their reference foundation. ck wants g1 redux, I think, and I'm against that, which is what I was arguing against (all just opinion of course, and not trying to put words in your mouth either ck ); I don't want g1-type bots, but, story-line wise I can get behind many of the ideas of g1; the john wayne-esque prime and the kid-friendly bumblebee being two of them. I'd rather have a more bw megs style bad guy, but of course that goes along w/ moving away from 80s cheese. One thing I'd really like to get away from, at least in this movie, is the powered-up versions of prime. Some have made for cool toys, but I'd like to see a prime that stands on his own, like g1 prime, w/o having to rely on someone else or a super mode. Prime that's "just Prime", nothing more, nothing less, and doesn't need to rely on a gimmick or extra help to get the job done. What you've said about audience I agree w/, but it of course needs the support of kids, not only for this movie and toyline, but for the future of tfs. Gracias. ;D
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Aug 6, 2006 21:49:28 GMT -5
I don't understand. You said you don't want G1 bots. Then you said you are fine on storyline part of G1.
At that point, I figured you just wanted different characters than the personalities in G1. But then you continue your sentence after "I can get behind many of the ideas of g1" with "the john wayne-esque prime and the kid-friendly bumblebee being two of them." which is not storyline related. It's character related. This contradicts your beginning of the sentence that says, "I don't want G1-type bots."
So now I am kinda unclear.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Aug 6, 2006 22:10:50 GMT -5
I don't understand. You said you don't want G1 bots. Then you said you are fine on storyline part of G1. At that point, I figured you just wanted different characters than the personalities in G1. But then you continue your sentence after "I can get behind many of the ideas of g1" with "the john wayne-esque prime and the kid-friendly bumblebee being two of them." which is not storyline related. It's character related. This contradicts your beginning of the sentence that says, "I don't want G1-type bots." So now I am kinda unclear. Yea, I can see how I could've worded that better; I don't want g1 bots as far as looks go; mass-shifting and blockiness. I would like to see some g1-type bots personality-wise (prime and bumbleebee). As long as we just don't get Prime and his unit of friends w/ unique speech impediments (warpath, blurr, wheelie, etc.). ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jo'Roq on Aug 7, 2006 18:41:21 GMT -5
I liked Blurr. And Warpath was fun (though also, I admit, annoying). Besides, there's always the best of the speech impediments - "Me, Grimlock, ...."
|
|