Less Than Meets The Eye?

If you mention Transformers to any old school fan, you’re likely to hear talk of the 80′s cartoon which served as a major tie-in to Hasbro’s toy line of the same name that featured the heroic Autobots and evil Decepticons from the planet Cybertron.  Back in the day this cartoon was a huge hit that spawned an animated movie called Transformers the Movie (1987).

Transformers has also been remade and revamped several times in animation.  For example, the Mainframe animated series Beast Wars, and later Beast Machines made direct references to the original Transformers animated series (often referred to as Generation 1 or G1). There were comic book tie-ins and alternate worlds/crossovers with Gi Joe (another Hasbro product with comics, animated show and toys).

Nostalgia aside, a look back at these Transformers brings forth a mix of joy and embarrassment. In many cases the plots were horrible, the characterization was often nonexistent.  The only more “solid’ characters were Optimus Prime, Megatron and Starscream.

Fast-forward to the 2000s and we have Transformers, a live action/CGI film that’s a full-on franchise with three box films to its credit and box office success.  The films were directed by Michael Bay, and stared Shia LaBeouf.

This brings us to our roundtable question today, which is: Did the Transformers movies really let us down? They were based on a toy line that we thought was cool, but looking back this was a poorly plotted cartoon. Why should the films be expected to be any better than the source material?

Emmet O’Cuana I think one angle on Bayformers is that it symbolises just how mainstream sf entertainment has become. All those years of social exclusion of sf nerds has led to this. Also consider the story of the schoolboys bullying the little girl who had a Star Wars merchandise lunchbox (it was a lunchbox, I believe) – because ‘that’s for boys’.

Emmet O’Cuana Star Wars and Bayformers – mainstream sf. Be careful what you wish for.

Ruairi Conneely In fairness, there have been plenty of pretty good Transformers comics. I think part of the problem is that the movies were intended to be effects-driven, with a pre-established audience, so why bother paying a decent writer? Hell, I went joyously to see the first one. I loved Transformers when I was a kid. Thought I was going to pull a muscle in my eyesocket watching it. In a way (inadvertently) it’s probably the most realistic movie about first contact with aliens ever, as half the time I didn’t know what the hell I was looking at or what the fuck it was doing.

Emmet O’Cuana But then Bay blamed the critical failure of the second film on the writer’s strike. I don’t understand how the film can be defended as good brainless fun and then any criticisms be responded to by an admission that there were problems with the script?

Emmet O’Cuana Of course this conversation reminds me of this piece from io9 – http://io9.com/5301898/michael-bay-finally-made-an-art-movie

Emmet O’Cuana “Since the days of Un Chien Andalou and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, filmmakers have reached beyond meaning. But with this summer’s biggest, loudest movie, Michael Bay takes us all the way inside Caligari’s cabinet. And once you enter, you can never emerge again. I saw this movie two days ago, and I’m still living inside it. Things are exploding wherever I look, household appliances are trying to kill me, and bizarre racial stereotypes are shouting at me.”

Jason Franks I have no problem with Big Dumb Fun, but I Big Dumb Fun is not an excuse to abandon even the pretense at having internal logic, not to mention the fundamentals of cinema art: pacing, editing, visual continuity, coherence. Bayformers (I only saw the first one) dispenses with all of that. Even worse–the ‘transformations’, for which the film is named, look like shit because Bay cheats them, using ridiculous edits to avoid showing them properly.

Jason Franks It’s insulting.

Emmet O’Cuana The problem faced by the market logic of films like Transformers is that they set up unsustainable expectations. Yes, Bay has hit upon a formula that has paid dividends – throw money at a production to the point were plot and narrative become irrelevant, because the expense directed at the SFX and explosions become the point. It’s almost like that old story off the audiences running out of an early cinema at the sight of an oncoming train on the big screen – the spectacle is the thing. But then the spectacle became less novel and audiences demanded more complexity, leading to the theatrical style of storytelling entering cinema. The importing of actors and directors from the stage mimicked the approaches of theatre, setting in motion the next development which was for film to gain the confidence to develop its own method of presenting narrative, combining spectacle and performance. Perhaps Bay has succeeded in setting back the clock, returning audiences to that original state of movie viewing. Maybe the next development is already coming – cinema adapting to the rapid-rate exchange of information particular to the internet would be my suggestion.

Emmet O’Cuana …..I think I just succeeded in arguing that Michael Bay is Darth Vader. He’s ‘restored balance’ to the cinematic artform with his scorched earth approach to storytelling.

Jason Franks I don’t buy the ‘too much money’ argument. The cheapest part of the film to develop is the script. I’m not asking for Citizen Kane; I just want to see some story logic.

Emmet O’Cuana It is a curious point for a multi-million costing production to make. I suspect it has a lot to do with the old William Goldman adage that writers are even lower on the rungs of the Hollywood ladder than the set security guard. If someone has to be judged too expensive, might as well be the guy working on the script. Can’t target the talent – they’re essential. Directors marginally less so if they’re a name, pliable if otherwise and therefore useful. The crew need to be kept happy or nothing will get done. So the poor writer becomes the patsy.

Jason Franks Transformers has five people with writing credits. Usually, more than one writer equates to a shit film. I have heard Patton Oswalt saying that he persuaded a studio that he was doing a lot of post-production punch-up work for to let him have the script before shooting, not afterwards, from the sheer business case of “it’s cheaper to get it right the first time.” But that’s comedy, where it has to be funny or it will fail.

S Raynard Haynes I was willing to suspend disbelief enough to see the first film, and it had major flaws from the sudden time jumps in scenery/time to the failed plot logic.By time the second film came around the awfulness intensified. Poor writing and some really ghetto ass Autobots (Skids/Mudflap). I loathed the experience of seeing this.Didn’t feel a need to see the third. People told me it’s far better than the second film and I’m sure it is, but I can’t make myself pay to see this film

S Raynard Haynes Did Bay make the Transformers films in the spirit of the animated series? It does seem more about the product and money than it is about the actual content.

Emmet O’Cuana Getting back to your original point – Transformers the cartoon was a piece of advertising. It was promoting a toyline. Famously the first animated movie killed off a number of characters in order to introduce their toyline replacements. In that sense Michael Bay was no doubt a perfect choice.

Emmet O’Cuana The problem is the first movie was promoted heavily with Spielberg’s name, who is credited with informing the onscreen relationship between Shia Le Beouf’s character and Bumblebee – and consequently the entire approach of Bay to the movie (“It’s about a boy and his car…”). This was a smokescreen for the movie’s intent, which like the original cartoon promoted these latest toy figures in transition to the department store shelves heavily – but also promoted every other product that was willing to sponsor the production! So the entire movie is just one long advertisement, with occasional breaks for ‘plot’.

Jason Franks Bay is on record as saying that he thinks he’s a pretty good comedy director, and that these films are supposed to be funny. This is the reason that the films are burdened with all of the plot-blocking teen drama and the lame jokes that constantly get in the way of the actual story that the audience wants to see: action. At least, that was how my friends convinced me to see TF 1: “Robots fighting tanks and fighter jets? How can you fuck that up?”

Jason Franks So I guess TF #1 serves as an object lesson. ow can you fuck up the unfuckupable and still make an obscene amount of money?

S Raynard Haynes Emmet,  The Transformers animated movie ironically killed off three of its most developed characters and replaced them with inferior ones. Bay mirrors this effect with the live action films perfectly. 80s properties have a high amout of silliness I didn’t see as a child, but to watch them grow into these killer franchise films is staggering.

Emmet O’Cuana I just remember my childhood self during the first Transformers movie (which was famously Orson Welles’ last performance..)”Optimus – No!!” Whereas with the Bay films the reaction was more like “Oh he’s dead again?…eh, he’ll be back.”

Emmet O’Cuana Actually Welles’ involvement is relevant, given that he himself described the role blithely as being part of a ‘toy commercial’.

S Raynard Haynes In the Live action film all Sam had to do is use the piece of the Allspark he was carrying around to revive Optimus which made that story even more useless. Still its so plotless and vapid one wonders why there is effort placed to make it, and why people would want to see a third installment.

Jason Franks http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/aug/28/mark-kermode-multiplex-blockbuster

Emmet O’Cuana I saw that. The video he did to promote his review were he just head-butted a camera was funny. Perhaps worth linking to Mr Haynes.