#he looks like if they tried to do transformers animated style with beast wars technology

[oneheadedcerberus]

me seeing quintus prime live reaction

[britesparc]

Weekend Top Ten #359

Top Ten Future Transformers Spin-Offs

So I finally went to see Bumblebee, the delightful, charming, and utterly loveable Transformers spin-off/prequel from Travis Knight. It’s a great little film, on a much smaller scale than the other films in the series, offering some beautifully retro Amblin vibes whilst telling a more compelling and characterful story full of warmth, heart, and genuinely good performances. And as a great big Transformers fan (is there no Transformers equivalent of Trekkie or Browncoat I can adopt?) I got a huge thrill from the recreation of war-torn Cybertron, straight from the iconography of the classic ‘80s cartoon series. I spent the first ten minutes just cooing and bubbling, going “Look! Wheeljack! And Arcee! And Ratchet! And Soundwave! And Shockwave! And Ravage!” and so on.

Anyway, I think the film is all kinds of great, and captures the spirit of the brand and the stories much better (in my opinion) than the Michael Bay ones do. But if one spin-off could succeed where the “mainline” films failed, could that trick be repeated? And this got me thinking: what other stories and characters are ripe for the big-screen treatment? Where else can Transformers go cinematically, without doing any kind of real follow-up to The Last Knight?

Here, then, are ten suggestions. Rather than proposing any kind of reboot or reimagining of the property, I've tried to find stories that could exist within the loose canon of the movies (which, to be fair, is a fairly shifting proposition anyway, with several movies contradicting one another in large and small ways). So, inspired by my love of the original characters, and often by stories I’ve read in the meantime, and with the potentially large caveat that I’ve still not seen The Last Knight and therefore might actually be retreading story grooves already worn, here are ten suggestions for possible future Transformers spin-off movies.

Megatron: Dawn of the Decepticons: drawing heavily from both IDW’s Megatron: Origin and More Than Meets the Eye, this will be a biopic, essentially, of tyrannical baddie Big Megs. Although I know there’s a strong influence from The Fallen in Cinemegatron’s backstory, I don’t see how we can’t square this with the portrayal developed primarily by James Roberts. Megatron is a miner, struggling under a brutal regime on an off-world energon mine, who has the strength and smarts to lift himself and his co-workers out of bondage. But will he remain true to his principles or follow the advice of a mysterious old ‘bot (who turns out to be The Fallen)? Basically the tragic tale of a charismatic working-class leader breaking bad and becoming a monster. Could feature an Optimus Prime cameo – maybe as Orion Pax?

Last Stand of the Wreckers: a moderately-straight adaptation of the Nick Roche/James Roberts classic, one of the most beloved Transformers series of all time. Instead of Bumblebee’s delightful whimsy and Megatron’s tragic drama, this is a straight-up war movie. Obviously it’d have to be tweaked from the comic: no more Garrus-9 or Decepticon Purge. Perhaps tweak the last third to be a bit more like Rogue One or Seven Samurai; the Autobots decide to stay, and die, for a cause. I’d put some more mainstream ‘bots on the team, from the original cartoon and movie. Perhaps it could, like Bumblebee, even be set on Earth in the past, and end up being a story covered up by both the Autobots and Sector 7? That way you’d make it cheaper by having more humans and a little less CG. But the basic gist – an Autobot black ops squad is sent on a mission that goes very badly wrong and most if not all of them die whilst trying to work out what it means to be an Autobot in the midst of this war – should remain the same.

Windblade : whilst I don’t necessarily think the movieverse should adopt the “Thirteen Colonies” storyline from the comics – and I definitely don’t think they should adopt the “all the girls left” sausage-fest fudge that was required after Arcee was declared the “only” female Transformer, especially as Arcee herself and newcomer Shatter both feature in Bumblebee – I do  like the idea of Windblade as some kind of ambassador or diplomat, travelling the universe. Perhaps she left Cybertron before the war really escalated (with besties Chromia and Nautica too, natch) to pursue peace elsewhere? Part flashback to pre-war Cybertron, part  return-to-Earth narrative, it would be a great opportunity to focus on the often-sidelined female Transformers and  have a positive feminist message. I’d have them team up with a now-adult Charlie and her estranged daughter... Verity Carlo. The baddies should be combiners, to go with the “Combiner Hunters” toy set.

Beast Wars: at the risk of causing controversy, I wouldn’t make this a straight adaptation of the popular cartoon. Not unless they want to meddle in far-flung futures or alternate timelines (although, er, see below...). Rather, I’d introduce the concept of “Beast Modes” that mimic organic creatures perfectly (like the “pretender” Decepticon in Revenge of the Fallen that looks like a sexy human girl, because of course she does). So my pitch is this: a lonely Autobot scientist, on a research ship that has more-or-less escaped the war (let’s make him Perceptor, for kicks) has developed this “beast mode” technology that hides Transformers in organic shells. His ship is attacked by Decepticons, but he rockets his subjects into space where they follow Prime’s signal and eventually land on Earth, befriending a young boy (younger than Sam or Charlie; let’s say about 12). But Decepticon hunters (I’d go for Carnivac, Snarler and Catilla – who later has a change of heart – all of whom have inorganic beast modes) follow. So it would share similar tropes with Bumblebee and the first Transformers, but with three or four cute animals instead of robots. This would skew young, perhaps even younger than Bumblebee.

Rodimus Prime: I know Hot Rod is in The Last Knight, but from what I hear he isn’t really representative of the character of Hot Rod/Rodimus from across other aspects of Transformers fiction. Regardless, this film isn’t about him: it’s about Rodimus Prime. Set in the future, it tells a Next Generation-style story of a human/Autobot alliance. Very much a sci-fi space opera, it would feature Rodimus going on a quest to discover the roots of a mysterious force that is attacking human colonies, and its apart links to an ancient Transformer legend. But is he abandoning Earth at its darkest hour to go on a wild goose chase through space? Rodimus must battle his own self-doubt as a leader, as well as a growing number of humans and Transformers who question the alliance. It would have a similar tone to your average Star Wars movie.

Wreck-Gar: Transformers films often have funny moments, but you’d never call any of them a comedy. Wreck-Gar is a comedy, Deadpool-style (but without the filth). A severely-damaged Transformer who crashes to Earth no memory and manages to rebuild himself in a junkyard, Wreck-Gar is a crazy, pop-culture-spouting dervish who just trashes every room he’s in, even though he’s not malicious or a bad guy. Indeed, he is chased by a trio of Decepticons (Swindle, Brawl, and Vortex) who are cruel and unusual (and Swindle wants recompense for a deal gone wrong). An all-out wacky comedy is something not often attempted by big-budget action movies; I’d even go whole hog and get Ward and Miller on board to shepherd the humour to the screen.

Starscream: we’re always focusing on the good guys! Well, here you go: a story about a bot who’s born to be bad. Starscream would be set in the past (naturally, since he’s dead now) and follows Megatron’s least-reliable lieutenant as he heads to Earth to look for Megatron during the time when he was in stasis underneath the Hoover Dam. I can’t remember the chronology, but maybe this could even be set in the late 70s/early 80s, with Starscream  assuming a jet form more like his classic toy (and in that colour scheme, too). He’d be conniving, plotting, scheming, and essentially coming across like a giant metal version of Loki. Perhaps he’s playing a number of human “allies” off against one another, as well as some big Decepticons (Thunderwing? Tarn? Who haven’t we seen yet?) and even a troupe of Autobots he double-crosses. It could be darkly comic and incredible fun.

Hearts of Steel: Wild West Transformers! I mean, what’s not to love? Adapted from the IDW comic series (which was supposed to be out-of-continuity, but was so popular that writer John Barber retroactively incorporated it into the main Transformers timeline), this would need a bit of manipulation to change characters around (I don’t think Bumblebee should be in it, but given the often-contradictory nature of the movie timeline, I don’t see why we couldn’t bring back characters like Jazz, Ironhide, or maybe even Optimus himself). A rollicking steampunk adventure that hopefully would capture the freewheeling outback sci-fi tone of Back to the Future Part III, and hopefully not come across like another Wild Wild West.

Cybertron: I suppose this is a sort-of sequel to Megatron (see above). Set during the war, it’s a men-on-a-mission movie starring a young Optimus Prime (perhaps he could still be Orion Pax at this point). I don’t think we should worry too much about mythologies and intricacies of Transformer society the way James Roberts depicted it, but all the same they could do a lot worse than adapting his Shadowplay storyline, where Orion lead a team of misfit Autobots in an illegal heist to save the world. That kid of behind-enemy-lines vibe could give us a great Cybertronian war movie without wallowing in the grimdark explodey nature of Transformer combat. But especially if this was the movie where Orion earned his stripes and officially became Optimus, that might be nice. Like Megatron, of course, this would end up being an entirely CG affair.

Bumblebee 2: Energon Boogaloo? Look, the ending of the film – without wanting to give away spoilers – could be seen as neatly segueing into the 2007 Transformers film. One could imagine no additional adventurous meetings between Bumblebee and Charlie.  But on the other hand, let’s not rule it out. Perhaps Bumblebee has been on Earth, dicking around, since 1987, and during that time he got up to more mischief with his first best human friend. Some covert Decepticon invasion requires him to break cover, or he needs some kind of human contact to spy for him, and oh look he goes back to Charlie. I’d skip forward a little bit, to around ‘91 or ‘92, slap a bit of early grunge on the soundtrack. See what happens. Just bring back Travis Knight.

So there we are. My ideas for ten possible Transformers spin-off movies. I didn’t really intend for this to turn into ten pitches with little mini-synopses; it was really meant to just be a quick fun game of “stories or characters who’d make a cool movie” but then I thought about it too hard, as I tend to do where Transformers is concerned. Hey, look, some of these films could even tie together! Megatron and Cybertron especially, but you could scatter seeds of stories or references among the lot. Anyway. Wishful thinking. But hopefully a film like one of these will roll out before too long (see what I did there?).

[pullsarah]

10 Reasons Why I Disliked The New “Beauty and the Beast”

Ok, let’s start with warnings.  This may include spoilers.  This may also include a lot of opinion, which you are welcome to disagree with.  Here we go!

1. I did not like Emma Watson as Belle *gasp* *faint* *cling madly to collection of Harry Potter DVDs*  She has a good voice for a pop artist or in a more modern type of production, with a straight, clear tone and easy control; however, I did not think this suited the character of Belle and it was weirdly juxtaposed with a cast of actors who all had very different vocal abilities.  Some seemed to have operatic, chorally-trained voices while others had more lazy, jazzy voices...it just didn’t mesh well for me.  Mainly, though, I did not think that Emma Watson had the vocal power needed to really capture Belle’s character, especially when she runs onto the hillside, arms open, and (in an only slightly louder voice) sings, “I want adventure in the great, wide somewhere/I want it more than I can stand!”  That moment is a great example of what sets Belle apart from all the other sweet, cute girls in her town and should be a verse that gives an audience the chills.  I did not get the chills.  I wanted loud vibrato, or Broadway-style belting, or something really bold for that moment, but instead it fell flat.  In addition, Emma Watson looks really, really young, like 12-14 young, which threw me because Gaston (who is played by a 38-year-old man and looks like it) tries to convince Belle to marry him based on the argument that Belle will become a spinster.  Perhaps if she were older that argument would make more sense, but instead it just comes off as very child-molester-y...but I suppose that fits in with the whole theme of 18th-century France (when middle-aged men were still legally marrying children).

2. I did not see the movie in 3-D and it was obvious.  What I mean by that is that there were scenes which were obviously designed for the 3-D effects, so when they were shown in 2-D they ended up looking blurry and confusing.  The best example would be when Belle is first brought to her bedroom suite.  Based on the music and the characters’ dialogue, I could tell that the room was supposed to appear breathtaking, with painted ceilings and pure gold details.  Instead, it was mostly a blue blur with weird golden tentacles.  In addition, most of the CGI seemed oddly...flat.  The Beast’s face seemed very strange throughout the entire movie, perhaps because the details were better presented in the 3-D version, and the wolves looked all but realistic (and definitely not scary).  Speaking of the CGI...

3. What is the point of remaking an animated movie as a live-action movie if Disney still just used animation for most of the characters during most of the movie?  Ok, ok, I get it, CGI is much different than the old outline-and-color-in animation used in 1991...which is why I was horribly disappointed with the quality of the 2017 version.  In my opinion (which, remember, is what this all is) the CGI was TERRIBLE.  I could barely make out Lumiere’s face most of the time, which probably wouldn’t have mattered because Cogsworth and Mrs. Potts could be seen quite well and had little to no expression compared to...well anything other than a slightly-more-than-inanimate object!  The excellent voice acting done by the big name actors lassoed into this project (Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Ewan McGregor) was deflated because the characters appeared with flat affectations except for some eye movements.  But, wait, isn’t that because they were all slowly turning more and more into objects, therefore becoming less like people with each fallen petal?  Even if that were a good enough reason to have main characters devoid of facial expression (it is not) I’d still like to talk about that, too...

4. For those who have seen the stage production of Beauty and the Beast, there were clearly some ideas taken from it for the 2017 movie which were mashed together with the overall concept of the original animated movie.  In the stage production, the enchanted castle characters start off as real people and then s-l-o-w-l-y transform into objects, rather than just living as talking objects until the last petal falls.  This new movie makes a big deal about each petal falling - parts of the castle come crumbling down, the whole property rumbles, and one of those times Lumiere comments that “another petal has fallen.”  So why didn’t the characters start off with more human features, with an obvious transformation during each dramatic, petal-withering moment?  Why is the only reference that is made to this transformation a moment in which Lumiere comments that his “leg” is getting stiffer, rather than using the incredible technology of CGI to visually demonstrate to the audience the changes?  One of my writing teachers once gave some great advice, saying, “Show the reader what is happening with description rather than using narration or a character to just tell them.”  I wish I could have seen the human characters actually transforming into objects, rather than just hearing one of them mention it off-handedly one time. It felt like a cop-out - a missed opportunity - and I was disappointed.

5. Aaaaaaaand back to that music, because I have more to say about musical choices than just the people who were chosen to sing.  Did anybody else notice that some...well actually all...of the songs were just a bit different than you remembered?  Plus, there were all those new ones that got added.  Looks like this part of my critique is going to be two-fer.  First of all, the original songs from the 1991 animated movie were altered in some not-so-subtle ways.  The lyrics were changed (particularly in the song “Gaston,” sung by LeFou and Gaston) and even the phrasing - the actual measures and beats within the songs - were changed.  This meant that while I was tapping my toes and humming along to familiar songs that I have known for over 25 years, I would suddenly find myself lost or stumbling over lyrics.  It was jarring and confusing, and I honestly did not think the changes made the songs any better.  They were already wonderful before, plus they had the added nostalgic value for people like me who have known them since early childhood, so why change them? Secondly, several songs - if you could call the partial, singing segues “songs” - were added, but for what reason?  It seemed like the goal was to add depth to the characters and perhaps lengthen the movie, but the result was a smattering of yawn-worthy add-ins that left me wanting either more...or less.  Maurice’s little tune that he sings during his character introduction is sweet, so why did it not continue further?  If it was never meant to be more than just a simple verse, why have it at all?  It did not add enough to his character to be worthy of time in the movie, much like the Beast’s weird singing childhood memory of his mother dying.  Oh, that reminds me of another thing I did not like...

6. Why all the new backstory?  As with the added half-songs, I found myself yawning through most of the flashbacks.  Actually, I found myself yawning through a great deal of the movie (and it wasn’t even my bedtime).  First, there is Belle’s backstory about how her mother died.  I realized while watching these new scenes that never, not once, did I ever wonder what happened to Belle’s mother in the original movie.  She isn’t in the picture, it’s 18th-century France...she’s dead, right?  At least that’s what I always assumed.  And, I was right.  So, no need for a backstory, right?  I mean, maybe if Belle’s mother had abandoned the family, or ended up in a mental institution, or some other scenario that would have added more than what most of us already assumed, it would have created depth for Belle and Maurice.  But, I already assumed that Belle’s mother died, so it came as no surprise and made the movie longer than it needed to be.  Perhaps the only backstory I found remotely interesting were LeFou’s references to Gaston being a war-torn veteran, but those were presented as jokes and never developed much beyond that.  Belle’s dead mother was a very serious affair, the Beast’s dead mother was a very serious affair...but Gaston having witnessed death and destruction and then suffering from PTSD as a result was joke-worthy.  Hmm.

7. Moms keep dying, dads never die and make horrible parents, and servants who have been turned into teapots need to explain why they never chose to leave an enchanted castle.  Ok, Maurice isn’t a horrible parent (and his character was probably the only one I enjoyed and had nothing bad to say about).  But, why does Mrs. Potts need to explain why she and all the other servants stayed at the castle, caring for the Beast?  First of all, they were SERVANTS.  They never left before, during all the years when the Prince was a twat, because they were SERVANTS.  This wasn’t modern-day America, where Mrs. Potts could have used her skills to open a bed and breakfast and Lumiere could have applied at Taco Bell as a manager.  This was, again, 18th-century France, and they were SERVANTS who received food, housing, clothing, and employment working for a PRINCE in a CASTLE.  As if that weren’t enough, they got turned into coatracks, candlesticks, clocks, wardrobes...where is a talking feather duster going to find a place to live and work in the French countryside in 1720?  But, the explanation offered for why the servants never left is, instead, guilt.  That’s it.  The servants felt guilty that the Prince turned out to be a horrible person, so they stuck around to feed his grumpy ass and make him tea.  If Belle is going to be 12, and Gaston is 38, then let’s keep things historically accurate and just assume that the butlers and maids had no responsibility in raising the Prince into a decent human being and had little to no choice in life but to serve him until he, or they, died. No other explanation necessary.

8. LeFou is awkwardly gay (and do I need to mention that, in addition to being the only gay character, he is also the only human character whose name has a literal translation instead of being a real name, and it means “the fool,” so, in essence, the only gay character is also the only fool).  It’s great that Disney was like “Hey, let’s include a gay character!”  I like gay people.  I have no problem with the gayness.  For me, it was the weird way it was portrayed.  LeFou oscillates between being in love with Gaston and actually wanting to be like Gaston, so it was confusing because I had a hard time understanding where his affection for Gaston actually comes from.  I am not saying that someone couldn’t be in love with a person and, at the same time, want to be like them.  I am saying that the way it was presented, in little snippets, was actually more confusing than clarifying.  LeFou also bounces between seeming to try to win Gaston’s affection and diverting Gaston’s affection onto Belle and other women.  There weren’t enough scenes involving LeFou and Gaston for his character to be this complicated.  Then, at the end, he just suddenly decides (in the MIDDLE of a battle) that he no longer gives a flying fuck about Gaston.  So, LeFou has been Gaston’s best friend, has battled alongside him in war, and has had Gaston’s back for years, but then all of a sudden decides that he has had enough because Gaston is a jerk to him for, like, the 1,000th time?  It’s possible, but a long shot.  Again, if I had seen more of LeFou struggling to win Gaston’s affection and getting shut down over and over again, I might have believed it more.  

9. The gay guy and the transvestite end up dancing together (for two seconds) at the end.  How stereotypical!  It goes like this: an unnamed character that is given only two scenes beforehand makes his debut during the final battle when the wardrobe dresses him as a woman and *gasp* he’s happy about it!  Because mid-battle is a great time to realize life-long gender identity goals.  Then, the unnamed now-transvestite or possibly trans-gendered person ends up as a dancing partner with...the only other character who is revealed to have a sexuality that differs from the entire rest of the cast.  I am getting reeeeeeeally nit-picky here, but wouldn’t it be more realistic if LeFou and, say, Cogsworth (who is not at all pleased about being reunited with his wife) ended up together while the transvestite or possibly trans-gendered person joins the opera singer on stage?  Or, better yet, LeFou could have danced with anyone and the transvestite or possibly trans-gendered person could have danced with anyone because, if Disney really wants to tackle the gay AND transgender issue all in one movie, they could realize that being gay and/or trans-gendered doesn’t mean that you always end up hanging out with only other gays and/or trans-gendered folks during parties...

10.  When the Beast transforms back into a man, he’s actually old and ugly.  Ok, that’s a harsh exaggeration!  But, seriously, he looks to be about 15-20 years older than Belle and I wasn’t seeing much chemistry during that first kiss.  This is just personal preference, but when the big reveal happened and the Beast’s human form was finally unveiled, my husband and I both went “oh, yikes!”  Don’t get me wrong, Dan Stevens is a handsome fella (and that voice...oh that rich, baritone, rumbling, sexy voice) but he just looked weird and wrong for the part.  They never confirm his age in the 2017 movie (and perhaps that is on purpose) but I cannot forget the line from the 1991 animated version when the narrator explains that the last petal will fall on the Prince’s 21st birthday.  Dan Stevens is in his mid-30′s and looks it.  And, again, Emma Watson looks 12.  It was weird, seeing them kiss was weird, and thinking about them getting married later was weird.

There you have it, my scathing, overly-critical review of the 2017 version of “Beauty and the Beast.”  May your viewing experience of it forever be tainted.