|
Post by Destro on Aug 31, 2006 23:40:49 GMT -5
I seriously doubt that any tf series or movie ever made will have absolutely no ties to g1; that said, references, name reuses, etc., do not make these other toons, toylines, etc., g1. That's my point. G1 laid the groundwork for tf's, just like the old gijoe show and toyline laid it for that universe, x-men, superman, etc. had their original sources, etc. You're not going to get away from that. The series/comic/whatever that laid the groundwork will not be ignored for obvious reasons; fan boy outcries, continuity issues, name recognition w/ average fans, etc. I fail to see how this doesn't make perfect sense.
ck, I've answered your question numerous times already, and it's getting tedious. You have my answer.
Jo'roq-I don't completely agree w/ the megatron point. A gun alt mode doesn't make much sense; I think a tank (or jet, or dragon..) makes much more, being another reason why megs was never a gun again.
Also, how can the tf story be changed much? They either came from space or were here and were awakened. Not much to work w/ there, imo.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Sept 1, 2006 0:21:41 GMT -5
Same argument every time. If you deny that this movie is not generation one, then you are ignoring all the facts - plain and simple. You have not answered my questions, really. You tend to backup opinions with other opinons & then when the going gets tough...you tell metafeather to come in and back you up. meta - I am not running in circles with my argument. Nobody can refute my claim & I have to keep repeating myself in order for people to listen. The traits are the same. The characteristics are the same. Nobody has yet to answer my question why the smallest Transformer is not the smallest Transformer. meta - yeah, it's not flaming. So long as we don't hit name-calling - I'm fine with everything. (bring it!)
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Sept 1, 2006 2:04:06 GMT -5
Same argument every time. If you deny that this movie is not generation one, then you are ignoring all the facts - plain and simple. Eh, I could use the same argument against you; I see the facts backing me. Saying "the facts back me" isn't a convincing argument that they do. Nor have you answered mine, or even attempted to for that matter. And yes, meta's just here to agree w/ me, he has no real opinion of his own. Because it's not g1! Have I mentioned that?
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Sept 1, 2006 23:47:20 GMT -5
I don't think you actually understand what G1 is. I think that is basically the problem here.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Sept 2, 2006 1:08:29 GMT -5
I don't think you actually understand what G1 is. I think that is basically the problem here. What's that ck? I'm having a hard time hearing you over your back pedalling (you still haven't addressed a single one of my points..). And I would think that w/ our numerous discussions it would be obvious that I know a few things about g1, but again you seem to be reaching for something that simply isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Sept 2, 2006 1:54:40 GMT -5
Actually, I am truly convinced that you have no idea what you are talking about & there are plenty of people here that agree with me.
I've put the facts down. I have presented absolutely killer evidence about Bumblebee and Jazz's parallel to G1. You continue to ignore the questions (which I am used to)
To make you happy - despite the fact you use no logic in your arguments, I will go through what you have said so far and prove just how wrong you really are.
WRONG! Why? Because there is more here than just name recognition. I addressed this. Reread (or read for the first time) my post about personality parallels (contains the tec spec pictures)
You already missed the point by your first post. I believe this was the main point of argument. Jazz is not supposed to be smaller than bumblebee. He is supposed to be taller. Don't agree with me? Throw out G1 for a second and read the description given for movie Bumblebee - He is supposed to be the smallest one.
Irrelevant. Again - you are trying to define everything as like...Generation One reincarnated as the movie word for word. You are missing the fundamentals - the characters. Do you think that Bumblebee should actually be taller than Jazz considering the parallel and the fact they state he is supposed to be smaller?
This was my favorite quote. It had me laughing quite a bit. Again - things go even deeper into Generation One than you think, and for good reason. Why?
This is not really a kids movie. What crowds are they going to shoot for? They are going to shoot for the high school, college, and adult crowd. You always target an audience that is going to bring you the money. So what do you do?
You have to write a movie that fits the current mold of movies in terms of technology, plot, characters, direction, etc.
So what do you do? Well you use G1 (the cartoon that is closest to the crowd you want to attract) as your basis and figure out what character types you need, what your conflict is going to be, how you are going to introduce people & bots, what the rising action will be, the climax, and conclusion (standard fare).
What about details? Well - they used details here as well.
Optimus Prime - Classic Prime type character. True hero of the Autobots. Bumblebee - Underdog type character. The scout. Smallest of the gang. (Spike mentioned) Jazz - Rock n' roll style character. Ratchet - New form. Emergency vehicle. Medical officer/Science officer. Repairs Transformers injured in battle. Ironhide - Optimus' oldest friend. Gritty
G1! Say it with me! "Ggggggg Onnnnnnnnne!" G1! It's ....yes....G1.
Decepticons: Megatron - Survival of fittest. Less idealistic version of humanity. Starscream - 2-faced. Secretly plotting to overthrow Megatron. Doesn't neccassarily want Megatron's duties, but wants to be leader. Bonecrusher - Closest to constructicon. Hates all other Decepticons except for Megatron
Another set of OBVIOUS G1 counterparts. The fact that practically all of the cartoons after G1 ripped a lot of this off is irrelevant.
Question and Answer Session:
Did you read that? If only I could "type it slower" to make it easier to understand.
Wanted to make sure the things they loved from G1 made it into movie
You're the english teacher, right? Why don't you diagram that sentence.
Owned! Once again, you are wrong. "Notice that Bumblebee will be very close to his original character." What character would that be? ERRRR....the original "G1" Bumblebee? Correct! What the heck more do you need? Do they have to come out and say, "He will be exactly like the original G1 Bumblebee! We're screwing over the legal department and illegally using a Volkswagon bug & OMG OMG OMG...I'm such a fanboy!!!!! Kiss kiss....Bumblebee is my hero!"
I think not.
OOooooo. That one hurts too, doesn't it?
----
I'm sorry, dude. But saying that this movie is not G1 is basically like my earlier post - Looking at a sandwich and continuing to say, "This is not a sandwich" might work for you.....but it doesn't work for me. It's still a sandwich. For you to call this movie anything else but a derivation of G1 is just outright denial.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Sept 2, 2006 2:48:13 GMT -5
Actually, I am truly convinced that you have no idea what you are talking about & there are plenty of people here that agree with me. Don't put words in other's mouths; it doesn't help your argument, it actually hurts it. And don't use the "ignores questions" argument; you've been ignoring them yourself throughout this whole thread, and in others as well. Alrighty here ya go then, straight from bay a few days ago: That's what I was talking about. While I wouldn't call this a kid's movie, the kid demographic is a factor; if kids want to see it, they'll drag their parents along, not to mention the obvious fact that the kids are the ones who will be buying the vast majority of the toys. Also, and I'm loathe to mention it bc it makes me feel old, but kids who grew up w/ bw are now in the demographic you mentioned and many haven't seen any of g1. I can see your point here, but I still believe that Prime has always been that way and the others (jazz, etc.) haven't been used since g1, so who else do they have to go off of? We're also getting a couple new characters. I believe it is relevant; megs and ss have had these traits in every series, so changing them makes no sense. Question and Answer Session: Oh, so they wanted prime in the movie? Oh joy, I'm glad they remembered to keep him! I can see that they wanted some g1 characteristics, but that a g1 movie does not make. Of course he is, he hasn't been used since g1. The major villain is going to insult? That must mean g1! While I agree that there are similarities, that doesn't mean the movie itself will be g1. I mean, take some of the current tf series; there are similar characteristics in them as in g1, but they are not g1. How is that not logical? G1 elements does not equal g1. I don't see why you can't wrap your mind around that concept. Also, if this movie is g1, why are so many g1 fans complaining so much about it? I keep hearing that the characters don't look like their g1 counterparts. Interesting, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by metafeather on Sept 2, 2006 7:47:01 GMT -5
Ok first of all the coment about me just backing destro up hints of flaming to me. I have opinions of my own, they just completly disagree with you CK. Secondly i dont post on here that often because i dont post on forums that often, i never cared to and that shows how much i usually liek this forum. So how about we leave our judgements of others in RL and dont type em.
I think there is an issue of continuality understanding here. To be G1 is to accually be G1, not be very similar to G1. It would accually have to follow the original story of come befor or after, that is G1. G1 is not some grand idea or concept, it is an accually cartoon. Just because somthing is very similar and inspired by it dosnt mean it is it. I Look alot like my dad, this does not make me my father.
I dont know if i have alittle easier time understanding this because i am a hugh X-men fan, and they do different continualities all the time. Take ultimate x-men for an example(for those that dont know what im talking about wiki it or read it lol) There is alot of stuff from the comic that is close to 616 x-men but some that is different, thus not the same. the ultimate x-men are not the original x-men(this is also what the movie was greatly based off of
So it seems to me that CK is thinking of G1 as an idea or ground rules, not just the cartoon, and this is where i believe he went wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Jo'Roq on Sept 2, 2006 10:23:13 GMT -5
While I wouldn't call this a kid's movie, the kid demographic is a factor; if kids want to see it, they'll drag their parents along, not to mention the obvious fact that the kids are the ones who will be buying the vast majority of the toys. They are expecting a PG-13 rating. Will people bring their kids? Most definitely yes. Should they? That remains to be seen, though I do not think at this moment that any kid under 10 (and thats pushing it) should see the movie - there will be presentations of attacks on real people, and the resulting deaths (note the multiple). It will be nothing like the cartoons where no one dies except as a plot point for the story. Given the plot points of a government cover-up and some of the other elements mentioned in Jeremy's spoilers thread, the story is written for an adult audience. Who buys the toys is simply a marketing gimmick to get more profits. Was The Incredible Hulk as kids show, when rated PG-13? Yet they produced toys, costumes, and other merchandise TARGETTED at kids under 7. The merchandising has for decades now not held any relation to a movie's intended audience. No, the movie will not be the animated G1. That has never been the point for the majority of fans. The basis of this being a G1 movie is that the producers and directors are using G1 specifically as the basis for the story, characters, and presentation. It is like a movie "based on the book by ....", where the movie is similar but not not identical to the original story. Granted, this movie is not as directly related to the original animated series as LotR was to the novels, but it is a matter of a shared style, theme, and presentation. *Edit* Thinking back on this, the perfect book parallel (that I have seen) is the movie version of Tom Clancy's Clear and Present Danger. It followed the book reasonably accurately until about halfway through, then took a left turn to tell a completely different ending. Why did X-Men comic fans complain about the X-movies? Some people just want it to be exactly as they remember and expect, and any variance, no matter how slight, is a sign of "DO0000OOM!!!!1111eleventy-one!". There will be no pleasing everyone without pleasing no-one. Doom-sayers and nitpickers will always exist, and their comments should not be used as the defining points for a discussion. So it seems to me that CK is thinking of G1 as an idea or ground rules, not just the cartoon, and this is where i believe he went wrong. That is indeed the crux of this disagreement, Ck and I both view the movie as G1 both thematically and stylistically. No one has said here that the movie is supposed to be a clone of More Than Meets The Eye. While the movie is obviously its own continuity, G1 is the only series that it has any strong resemblance with. Beast Wars at best can claim a partial nod with Scorponok. There are no mini-sized TFs or annoying pre-teen kids ("Hi, I'm Rad and I want to tell you about the Transformers!"), just transforming robots with accurate, RL alternate forms (excepting Scorponok, of course). It is G1 revisited, re-envisioned, and revised as a live-action presentation. Are remakes any less of the same thing for being a re-interpretation, or for having differences from the original?
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Sept 2, 2006 14:08:27 GMT -5
(Shaking head) Wow. I didn't even feel I needed to mention that the Witwickys are in the film. I thought what I said was already plenty. Okay - I submit that into evidence.
And that is what I am complaining about. It's a mistake. If they say Bumblebee should be the shortest character, than he should be the shortest character. Not to mention the fact that they are basically copying the G1 characters for those two. Hence the reason I am upset as well as my many other G1 people are upset about the film. There are several things they copied - and then altered - that don't make sense.
Guys, you can keep going with this if you want. But I am done. Finished. I have presented all of the facts. I feel that I am obviously right.
Jo pretty much took care of the "actually G1" argument. I have nothing more to add.
|
|
|
Post by metafeather on Sept 2, 2006 18:01:22 GMT -5
Very nice wording Jo. Thank you
All im trying to say in this whole thing is it dosnt matter if jazz is shorter. I dont care if they said bumblebee would be shorter, its thier movie and they changed thier minds. IMO thier hight really dosnt effect these character that much so so be.
CK for once we agree, this argument is over. And yes that is my own opinion
|
|
|
Post by s.marlinfan on Sept 4, 2006 18:44:09 GMT -5
Well I'm back, and it's nice to see we are all one big happy family around here. ;D ;D ;D
|
|