Live-Action Transformers: Fundamentally Broken?

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Let me just preface this by saying that this isn't about bashing on Michael Bay. In fact, it could almost be said to be defending him by observing that he's tackled an allegedly-impossible task, and has managed to get a semi-positive review out of MovieBob [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/9485-Transformers-Age-of-Extinction-Better-Than-The-First-Three?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all]. So here's something that probably should have occurred to me 3-movies-ago (or 4-movies-ago, depending on how you count): A live-action Transformers movie is something that fundamentally cannot work. Why not? Because making it into a live-action feature comes with the unwritten obligation to make the story about people; characters who have always played bit parts at best of times, and been obnoxious at the worst of times, even in the source material.

Let's face it, when we go see Transformers, we want to see Transformers. The problem is that a live-action Transformers creates a sort of contradiction. After-all, why bother to cast real people if they're going to be playing exclusively bit parts that no one cares about? On that note, why bother casting real people when most of the movie is going to be CG anyway? At that point, does it not make more sense to just do the entire movie with CG?

So what are your thoughts? Is it possible for a live-action Transformers to work? Admittedly, we haven't quite gotten one where the human side of the story was well told. Age of Extinction got close, but as Bob mentioned (and I noticed during my viewing before seeing his review), the story and characters are just too inconsistent. Perhaps it's possible that with a better story told through better characters, it'll be less of a big deal that the movie's namesake is a relatively minor part of the movie. On that note, perhaps with a better story, it'll make the action scenes that much more engaging when we actually care about what happens to the characters. After-all, the latest movie did come as close as any of them have come to making me care about the characters, and perhaps a story better told would have been enough to seal the deal.

I can say one thing for sure, it would be nice to see the movies passed on to a different director. Not meaning to bash on Bay, but I'm inclined to agree with Bob when he points-out that he seems to treat the Transformers movies as an excuse to show-off his directing chops, and doesn't care as much about whether or not the movie itself is any good. It's not that I don't think Bay is capable of making good movies (he is), I just don't think he cares enough about Transformers to make them into good movies.

 

[Foolery]

A live-action Transformers movie is something that fundamentally cannot work. Why not? Because making it into a live-action feature comes with the unwritten obligation to make the story about people; characters who have always played bit parts at best of times, and been obnoxious at the worst of times, even in the source material.

It can work. Just tone down the human bits. I've always went into the Transformers' movies, expecting big dumb robot fights, and that's generally what I got.

I don't get why people expect so much of these movies. It's based on a kid's cartoon show from the 80's meant to sell toys. And Michael Bay is known for style over substance. There isn't much depth to be found, so why keep looking? If you want more character developed Transformers, I'd advise reading All Hail Megatron from the IDW series or even the Highmoon video games.

 

[Itchi_da_killa]

Have you ever watched any of the Transformers in HD on a fast TV? The real people look like there interacting with their toys (the transformers).

I have always had problems with the world of comics, and cartoons being remade into live action movies. When you watch a live action movie, there is something tangible and realistic being created, and it doesn't work well for comic book, video game, and cartoons. In those settings anything can happen, so it acceptable. However when the same things are seen in a live action format, it becomes to hard to look past how silly it all is.

Example: To me, Aliens was an awesome movie, but crappy comic books and video games. Batman is awesome in animated movies, comic books and video games...but I hate every live action Batman movie.

The problem is when the mediums that these settings were created for get crossed. Presto uber-Cheeze!

 

[King Billi]

I personally think these movies should have been made more with kids in mind as the primary audience, especially considering the marketing is so clearly aimed at them. I don't hate these films(well the first one at least...) I just hate how "sleazy" they films are, for the lack of a better word. These films just aren't suitable for kids, plus I'm sure most the older Transformers fans would also have preferred a film with less teenage melodrama and crass humour.

Say what you will about that GI Joe film (the first one) at least that was something I wasn't hesitant to let my young nephews see, it was more suitable for all ages.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Heh and I thought the fundamental broken was about the whole style they went for the Autobot and Decepticon (some G1 fans wanted it to be G1 style while Bay justify that style was unrealistic in live action).

Anyway I guess maybe? I mean the whole idea of having a human among the non human cast was that human character serve as the surrogate as in projecting "us" as that character if it was real. Granted that character doesn't exactly react the same way we do.

I suppose you do make a point since at the moment I can't think of a good live action film that has a human who is when alien/ monster/ living machine or any other non human casts. Even then it also depend on the franchise aswell like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle has April and Cassey in the Turtle group.

 

[Dark Knifer]

I think the problem is its advertised as a big dumb action movie when its not. It's a loooong crass humour movie with some action scenes in it and way too many people and characters.

Just make it an hour and a half long, a few main military guys and an extended action scene to finish the movie then it wouldn't be bad, just the generic action movie people could tolerate.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I personally think these movies should have been made more with kids in mind as the primary audience, especially considering the marketing is so clearly aimed at them. I don't hate these films(well the first one at least...) I just hate how "sleazy" they films are, for the lack of a better word. These films just aren't suitable for kids, plus I'm sure most the older Transformers fans would also have preferred a film with less teenage melodrama and crass humour.

Yeah, second that, there's some weird vibes coming out of them.

...

Ok, OTOH, the original 80s cartoon movie featured screaming robot people being dropped by conveyor belts into a giant vat of acid, but it was still more kid friendly. There wasn't any crass humour.

 

[b.w.irenicus]

Anyway I guess maybe? I mean the whole idea of having a human among the non human cast was that human character serve as the surrogate as in projecting "us" as that character if it was real. Granted that character doesn't exactly react the same way we do.

I'm with Bob on this one. It's not like in Godzilla, where the monsters can't talk and you simply need a cast of human characters to have a story. The Transformers can talk, they have distinct personalities, they don't need surrogate characters. At the very least the movies shouldn't focus so much on the surrogates.

 

[Lieju]

I don't see any reason why it being live-action means we'd have to focus on human characters.

Except maybe that if it takes place in a 'real' world, it's obvious their actions would have an effect on humans, so not including some kind of human point of view feels odd.
And isn't the thing that makes the autobots 'good' that they care about human life?

But there's no reason why the spotlight should not be on the transformers, and that their character-arcs would not be the thing the movie focuses on.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Possible, just highly unlikely.

As demonstrated four times now, even with a massive budget and military partnerships out the wazoo, it is crazy difficult to create convincing live-action Transformers robots (and some folks still hate the designs). Every scene they're in will be far more expensive than anything involving human actors. A film that expensive can't be marketed to kids alone, regardless of director.

Like most 80s cartoon property reboots, even the most dedicated and talented creator who tried making such a thing would be torn between what the different audiences want- do you pander solely to the people who embraced the series as kids, or keep things more inclusive in hopes of drawing in new fans? Can you imagine how confused people would be if someone just did a live-action version of the animated movie with Unicron?

Even if they weren't, the fact remains it's just a repeat of a story we've already seen. The majority of the Transformers' memorable moments have come from specific episodes of the shows. It was designed to sell toys by gradually building the toys into well-rounded characters that people liked or liked the look of. Most of the moments on your average Transfan's top 10 best list came about with a great deal of buildup for the characters involved, which a 2.5-hour movie can't provide under most circumstances (the exception being anything involving Optimus Prime, who I'm pretty sure everyone knows). Also keep in mind that lot of those moments will be less impressive the second time around even if someone nailed it perfectly, since again the audience is older now.

I grew up on Beast Wars and I've enjoyed some of the recent Transformers Prime series. Maybe a fully-CGI movie would be (ironically) cheaper to produce and allow more room for developing the Transformers, but I maintain that some things just don't translate well into live-action movies for the costs involved.

And just to show I'm not completely against the prospect, I will mention one moment in the Bayformers I was really wowed by- the part in the first one where military jets are flying through the city looking for signs of the escaped 'NME1' and one of the jets suddenly shifts into Starscream, who has been using a fake transmission, blows up the real jets and shifts back into jet form before anyone notices. That was smooth.

 

[Tono Makt]

Wes Andersons' "Transformers", starring Bill Murray.

You KNOW that would work... okay, maybe "Work" is the wrong word. But you KNOW it would be a far more entertaining movie than the highlights of all of Bay's Transformers.

 

[Buizel91]

its made 300 million in its first weekend globally (US, China, etc) and it has yet to come to the UK yet...

Why change it when it is making ridiculous amounts of money

 

[Gennadios]

If Wall-E could get away with being a mostly robot-centric story, I'm sure a competently made transformers movie could as well.

Even those of my friends that liked the series enough to actually see all 3 movies in theaters admitted that they despised LaBeouf, and that Megan Fox is just eye candy that can't act. Would it have hurt the movies all that much if they just weren't there? Or at the very least faaaaaaaaar in the background?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Even those of my friends that liked the series enough to actually see all 3 movies in theaters admitted that they despised LaBeouf, and that Megan Fox is just eye candy that can't act. Would it have hurt the movies all that much if they just weren't there? Or at the very least faaaaaaaaar in the background?

As it was, I thought Megan Fox was one of the best things in the second film. I could always tell which one she was, and she wasn't Shia LeBouf. If the movie was about her and that transformer half her size going off and having wacky adventures or maybe a romance, the movie would have been much better. Also, she didn't try to be funny.

Most of the other transformers were very samey, jut lots of random metal bits flying around.

I also very much liked the Decepticon that tried to stab Shia Lebouf to death with a tail, because of the trying to stab Shia Lebouf to death with a tail thing. I can relate to that.

 

[Julius Terrell]

Well since I grew up in the 80s I watched transformers in its original form. Suffice to say if you're going to make a new generation Transformers movie fuck the humans. They don't call it transformers for nothing. The show is about the transformers.

Humans had minor roles in the original series, and that was that. I saw the first bay flick. I was horrified! It's like bay ripped out the soul of trasnformers and left a zombie look-a-like in its place. He probably could have saved himself a ton of money by doing a cgi film about the "Transformers". When I was watching the movie I was trying to figure out why I should care about the stupid humans that were on the screen. Anyway, I totally agree with the OP. Why don't these Hollywood directors actually ask people what kind of movies people want to see instead of just going off on their own whims and doing something they shouldn't be doing in the first place?

Edit: I think the live action medium just doesn't work for stuff like this. Too many restrictions. You need freedom and the ability not to let humans get involved if the story isn't about humans. Hollywood isn't good at that "AT ALL!"

 

[Maxtro]

I would really like to see a Transformers movie that didn't have any humans in it at all. If it did happen, odds are it will still make hundreds of millions of dollars.

With the way that Age of Extinction ended it does seem possible that the next movie could be done without humans if the story fallows Optimus.