thoughts on the Beast-era

[Onslaught Six]

What was McCarthy "preaching" exactly? What action was he urging readers to take? Oh wait, a call to action is not needed. Just having articulating an idea is preachy.

How do you get ideas to write about if someone articulating an idea is preachy?

This may be one of the best ways you've ever put this concept; it's a lot more clear than when you've done it in the past.

Also: A lot of the dumbass legions of TFW and suchlike, for some odd reason, just plain hate what IDW's doing now since AHM. They hold Furman's recent crap in such high praise that *anything* else is crap in comparison. And some people hate what IDW's doing so much that a bunch of them are actually calling Dreamwave good.

I had said that before. Yes. BW did save the franchise. But, saying it was the best TF series ever is setting the bar for the franchise really low. The well defined characters in BW were inconsistently portrayed over the course of the series, especially beginnings.

I'll even say that it's arguable that BW "saved" the franchise considering how many other 80s franchises popped back up around the millenium boom. MOTU, TMNT, GI Joe (to some extent--the "new sculpt" line got relaunched in 2002 alongside Armada) and a bunch of other 80s properties suddenly became in vogue to produce again, and I'm positive that, if it wasn't already doing so, TF would have been right alongside them.

-and ninjas are not as awesome as Sabertooth.

Oh God I forgot about that thing.

[SynjoDeonecros]

What was McCarthy "preaching" exactly? What action was he urging readers to take? Oh wait, a call to action is not needed. Just having articulating an idea is preachy.

How do you get ideas to write about if someone articulating an idea is preachy?

I, honestly, have never read the series, myself, so I can't confirm nor refute this, but from what I'm reading of the article, it's more his "toyhack" for G1 forcing a reverting of all of the characters back to their original G1 bodies instead of keeping with the more modern take that Furman used to distinguish it from classic G1. In other words, he took over the book, saw G1 characters not looking like G1 characters, and forced them to go back to their old-style G1 forms, because that's how he remembered them, and that's how he wanted them to be. According to the article, it disrupted quite a bit of the continuity Furman created, for the series, and threw off quite a few readers, as a result.

Articulating an idea isn't preachy, in and of itself, but it has to be SUBTLE to work and not bug people; I presented your take on story writing on Ken Penders' board, and his representative on there brought up Avatar as an example of how to do articulation of an idea right; it has an obvious environmentalism message to it, but it's articulated through the main character and his characterization - why he became the Na'vi's avatar, what drove him to that position, and how he changed from his previous position as one of the industrialist. The message is still present and still felt, but it has much more meaning because it's focused and filtered through the personal experiences of the main character, and it's his "humanizing" that allows us to relate to him and his decision, and allow us to understand the meaning of the message without having it shoved in our face and told outright what its meaning is.

That's why "humanizing" characters, and putting the focus of the story on them first, makes a better story than leaving the characters as tools to push the message: not only are we able to relate to and care about who we're watching and what's happening, but by having that message filtered and told through their emotions and actions instead of having their emotions and actions dictated by the message, the message comes off more realistically and credibly, and we're able to be more receptive to it.

As I said, at the very least, you cannot deny that, without Beast Wars, interest in Transformers would've died with Machine Wars, and none of the shows or toys we have, now, would exist.

I had said that before. Yes. BW did save the franchise. But, saying it was the best TF series ever is setting the bar for the franchise really low. The well defined characters in BW were inconsistently portrayed over the course of the series, especially beginnings.

Dom
-and ninjas are not as awesome as Sabertooth.

How were they inconsistently portrayed? Waspinator was always trying to get more respect and less blown up (and failing, miserably), Megatron was always a scheming, smooth Bond villain aiming for Predacon superiority, Dinobot was always struggling with his conflicted loyalties and desires as a Predacon-turned-traitor, Inferno was always an ant-brained sadomasochist drone, Rhinox was always the peaceful gear-head...what inconsistencies are you seeing, in their portrayal, in the series?

[Sparky Prime]

As stated elsewhere, making characters moral ends unto themselves is putting too much priority on them.

I really not sure what you mean by "moral ends unto themselves". I'm not saying the characters should be a "moral ends" though, just that it's an important part of a story to have well developed characters, and in the case of BM, to drastically have them characterized so differently from the previous series is jarring to the audience.

They are one part of the story. But, the story has to have them doing/reacting to things. They have to be someplace. And, setting can be as important as character in drawing a reader in.

Yes, but again, we follow the story itself through the characters. They are whom the larger audience is going to identify/relate to the most. People get emotionally invested in the characters. I mean, look at Dinobot, I've seen people comment they cried when he died in Beast Wars.

In the end though, characters are constructs that exist to serve the writers/copyright holders. Nothing more. Not writing something on the basis that it would not be in the characters's interests is foolish, (unless of course the story in question would harm the character in some editorial way, such as making Speedy a punch-line in any number of jokes).

I'd have to agree that ultimately it's up to the writers/copyright holder. However, this still doesn't make it 'right' to drastically change the characterization without some sort of transition to explain said changes. It doesn't make sense in terms of the story.

[Onslaught Six]

I, honestly, have never read the series, myself, so I can't confirm nor refute this, but from what I'm reading of the article, it's more his "toyhack" for G1 forcing a reverting of all of the characters back to their original G1 bodies instead of keeping with the more modern take that Furman used to distinguish it from classic G1. In other words, he took over the book, saw G1 characters not looking like G1 characters, and forced them to go back to their old-style G1 forms, because that's how he remembered them, and that's how he wanted them to be. According to the article, it disrupted quite a bit of the continuity Furman created, for the series, and threw off quite a few readers, as a result.

The bit about some of the bodies randomly changing is true, and there's never really a given explanation for it--but to be fair, I think this was editorial and can't be blamed on McCarthy. Plus, now IDW is on this crazyass "ARTISTS CAN DRAW TFS HOWEVER THEY WANT AND IT CAN BE INCONSISTANT" kick, so it's a moot point when guys are swapping how they look between different concurrent serieses. (Or, in some cases, alternate covers for the same issue of a single book. Most people would think it's a bad thing if Thundercracker had two different bodies, but not IDW!)

[andersonh1]

Articulating an idea isn't preachy, in and of itself, but it has to be SUBTLE to work and not bug people; I presented your take on story writing on Ken Penders' board, and his representative on there brought up Avatar as an example of how to do articulation of an idea right; it has an obvious environmentalism message to it, but it's articulated through the main character and his characterization - why he became the Na'vi's avatar, what drove him to that position, and how he changed from his previous position as one of the industrialist. The message is still present and still felt, but it has much more meaning because it's focused and filtered through the personal experiences of the main character, and it's his "humanizing" that allows us to relate to him and his decision, and allow us to understand the meaning of the message without having it shoved in our face and told outright what its meaning is.

This just goes to show how subjective this is. Watching Avatar was like being beat on the head with a sledgehammer while Cameron screamed his green philosphy in my ear. It was painful.

[SynjoDeonecros]

Articulating an idea isn't preachy, in and of itself, but it has to be SUBTLE to work and not bug people; I presented your take on story writing on Ken Penders' board, and his representative on there brought up Avatar as an example of how to do articulation of an idea right; it has an obvious environmentalism message to it, but it's articulated through the main character and his characterization - why he became the Na'vi's avatar, what drove him to that position, and how he changed from his previous position as one of the industrialist. The message is still present and still felt, but it has much more meaning because it's focused and filtered through the personal experiences of the main character, and it's his "humanizing" that allows us to relate to him and his decision, and allow us to understand the meaning of the message without having it shoved in our face and told outright what its meaning is.

This just goes to show how subjective this is. Watching Avatar was like being beat on the head with a sledgehammer while Cameron screamed his green philosphy in my ear. It was painful.

Eh, I'm just relaying what the guy said, I haven't watched it to form an opinion. On the other hand, your assessment perfectly illustrates my point that, even with good, articulated characters, a story can be preachy as hell, if you try to push the message you based the story around too far to make it heard.

[Dominic]

Also: A lot of the dumbass legions of TFW and suchlike, for some odd reason, just plain hate what IDW's doing now since AHM. They hold Furman's recent crap in such high praise that *anything* else is crap in comparison. And some people hate what IDW's doing so much that a bunch of them are actually calling Dreamwave good.

What parts of Furman's work are they holding in high regard? He did seem to learn from the drubbing he got in '06/'07.

Dreamwave was not all bad. People really are too hard on that company. All told, if I look at both runs, (and I will admit, DW had a shorter run that IDW), DW does better percentage wise.


BW saved the line in the 90s, no question.

And, I would argue that it actually primed (no pun intended) the market for TF to have staying power in '02. MOTU flundered, (though this is largely because Mattel screwed up so royally.) "GI Joe" coasted on brand recognition and older fans. If nothing else, I can think of plenty of other 80s properties that did not relaunch in '02. (At NEFX, somebody made a *really* good case for "Bravestar". I would actually lobby to see that one come back.)

At the very least, BW gave the fanchise enough time adapt and evolve in terms of engineering. G2 had some good ideas and some bad ideas. "GI Joe G2" (Sgt Savage) was at best holding the line, if not stepping backwards. By '02, Transformers were different toys from what they were in the 80s. GI Joes were the same damned thing. MOTU was improved from the 80s, but still a decade or so behind other figures.

The TF spent the latter part of the 90s evolving. And, BW is responsible for that.

honestly, have never read the series, myself, so I can't confirm nor refute this, but from what I'm reading of the article, it's more his "toyhack" for G1 forcing a reverting of all of the characters back to their original G1 bodies instead of keeping with the more modern take that Furman used to distinguish it from classic G1.

I am pretty sure the character models changed because of a Hasbro/Editorial edict. A couple of guys actually change over the course of the series. This could also be lazy artists not checking which models to use and inconsistent editing not catchng the mistakes.

Of course the real question I posed does not require you to have read AHM. Is articulating an idea, even without a call to action, preachy? And, how is somebody supposed to get new ideas, especially for the purposes of writing, when there are only so many character and setting templates, especially if those are the only things a story should be about? (Plots are arguably even more limited.)

but by having that message filtered and told through their emotions and actions instead of having their emotions and actions dictated by the message,

The writer controls the character, setting, plot and "message".

If the message is filtering through the characters, it is controlling them. Why would a writer ad an extraneous character that does not serve their purpose?

How were they inconsistently portrayed?

Skorponok went from being a loyalist goon, to a technician and then settled somewhere in the middle. Rattrap and Rhinox's ranks were inconsistent in early episodes. In first episode, Rattrap is ordering Rhinox around like Rhinox is just dumb muscle.

I've seen people comment they cried when he died in Beast Wars.

Never said I did not.
But, I am not going to give huge points to the show for that.

If nothing else, Dinobot's arc in BW, (right up through the last episode), was a tract on free-will.

I'd have to agree that ultimately it's up to the writers/copyright holder. However, this still doesn't make it 'right' to drastically change the characterization without some sort of transition to explain said changes. It doesn't make sense in terms of the story.

I am less worried about the explanation than I am about the change being worth it, and the real reason for the change.

For example, Speedy being a crack head was perfectly logical...and unintentionally hilarious on many levels. But, even though Speedy was a C-lister, was it really worth it to change him so severely? Say "Speedy " in a comic store, and listen for the giggles. Say "Sue Dibny", and you will likely get the same reaction.

And, if the change is going to happen purely for the story, then it is even more important that is stick. (But, this is another set of questions.)

"ARTISTS CAN DRAW TFS HOWEVER THEY WANT AND IT CAN BE INCONSISTANT" kick, so it's a moot point when guys are swapping how they look between different concurrent serieses.

This is common in many large/shared contexts though. Look at Marvel and DC. Characters are drawn wildly different. IDW takes a bit further, but the principle is the same.

This model could actually be a really good way for IDW to cultivate intellectual capital, and for Hasbro to get new design ideas. AHM completely blew this opportunity.

What they should do is segment the line a bit more. But, I am pretty sure IDW is going to be gun-shy about that, especially after the multiple level failure of "Hearts of Steel". Mosaic is a step in the right direction. But, it seems to falter more than it should.

Dom
-thinks Figueroa would be great on a prestige style book.

[SynjoDeonecros]

but by having that message filtered and told through their emotions and actions instead of having their emotions and actions dictated by the message,

The writer controls the character, setting, plot and "message".

If the message is filtering through the characters, it is controlling them. Why would a writer ad an extraneous character that does not serve their purpose?

How were they inconsistently portrayed?

Skorponok went from being a loyalist goon, to a technician and then settled somewhere in the middle. Rattrap and Rhinox's ranks were inconsistent in early episodes. In first episode, Rattrap is ordering Rhinox around like Rhinox is just dumb muscle.

I've seen people comment they cried when he died in Beast Wars.

Never said I did not.
But, I am not going to give huge points to the show for that.

If nothing else, Dinobot's arc in BW, (right up through the last episode), was a tract on free-will.

Dom
-thinks Figueroa would be great on a prestige style book.

...What? Not to start another flame with you, but I'm seriously starting to wonder if you're just making up stuff about Beast Wars to justify your dislike for it.

First of all, with the insconsistencies of the characters during the first few episodes...WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?! This was a new show with whole new characters, and they needed to get a feel for the kind of character interaction and dynamic to give them. They cannot instantly have all of their set character development and dynamics, right from the get-go. Just look at Star Trek: The Next Generation; most people consider the first season to be the worst, because they hadn't gotten all of the characters "right" in their niches, yet. Once they got a feel for how the characters would interact with each other, their strengths and weaknesses and whatnot, the show hit its stride and became the hit classic it is, today. And you've got to get the audience used to them, so of course they won't be as consistent when starting out as they will be, later on in the show. And they DID stabilize into the characters we all know and love, shortly into the first season, and remained constant in their depiction, from then on.

Second, I can't believe you hold Dinobot's storyline and death with such low regard. I just can't. Saying that it's "just a tract on free will" severely undermines the character development that lead up to it. It's not even accurate; he didn't go into his speech about free will until Megatron's plan with the Golden Disk was revealed. Let's look at the series of events that lead up to his death:

1. He discovers that the planet they crash-landed on wasn't their chosen destination (or so everyone thought) and challenged Megatron's leadership/left the Predacons because of what he perceived as Megatron's incompetence. No sign of destiny rambling, here.

2. During the episode "Victory", he declines a chance to return to Cybertron, because of his fear of being arrested as a criminal by the Maximal authorities, and ran back to them after he finds out the Predacons are still alive. This clearly demonstrates that, despite being against his old team, he still considers himself a Predacon, and still has Predacon sensibilities. Again, no trace of the destiny "tract" you say his story is about.

3. Once the planet was revealed to be Earth, he started questioning if Megs was right, resulting in him hiding the two disks from everyone, and then returning the Golden Disk back to Megatron. This shows less a conflict of free will vs. destiny, but a conflict of loyalties. In fact, his refusal to look into the future and see his actions seems less like he's concerned that he has no free will and his actions are dictated by destiny, but more like he's afraid his Predacon sensibilities would ultimately doom him to a path of villainy, and doesn't want to see if that ends up being true or not. He seems to be questioning himself, his place in the world, and his ability to define himself beyond his Predacon programming.

4. Eventually, he's called on his betrayal by Rattrap, who gets captured by Megs and used as a test to prove Dinobot's loyalty to the Predacons. As we all know, Dinobot doesn't go through with it, calling Megs insane and saying his mad ambition would kill them all. This shows him finally choosing a side to stick with, and has nothing to do with destiny.

5. During his death episode, we first see him chickening out of committing suicide - classic evidence that he still sees himself as a Predacon, at heart, and may have some reservations about betraying his group. Still nothing about destiny, here.

6. His speech about destiny really doesn't start until he starts questioning whether or not he could undo the damage he's caused by his betrayal of the Maximals; the whole "What's done cannot be undone, but may yet be mitigated" thing seems to indicate less "this is my destiny, I have to see if I can change it" and more "this is my responsibility, and if I can't undo the damage I've already caused, I have to see if I can prevent my actions from doing further damage".

7. Finally, before he goes into battle with Megs, he seemed to struggle with himself before jumping into the fray, almost as if he's still questioning what his place in the war is. The speech he gives seems a lot less like destiny than it is about his own standing; it seems less "the future isn't immutable, and I am not a pawn of fate", but more like "I am my own person, I can choose what to do instead of my actions being dictated by my upbringing, and I choose to fight".

At most, the author tract for this isn't about destiny, but about loyalty and whether who you are dictates who you'll become. And, if it was merely that, then Dinobot wouldn't be so goddamn conflicted throughout most of it.

I'll let someone else explain how ass-backwards the "filtering the message through the character is having the message controlling them" is, since I can't think of an adequate explanation, at the moment.

[Sparky Prime]

Never said I did not.
But, I am not going to give huge points to the show for that.

Whether you give it points or not isn't the point, rather it's the importance of the character that I'm getting at. The example I gave with Dinobot just goes to show how invested people can become in the characters, and like it or not, people loved the BW characters.

I am less worried about the explanation than I am about the change being worth it, and the real reason for the change.

If the change doesn't make sense in context to the story, isn't explained or transitioned, it's like a bump in the road that takes the audience out of the story.

And, if the change is going to happen purely for the story, then it is even more important that is stick. (But, this is another set of questions.)

If a change is going to happen purely for the story, it's more important the change makes sense in context to the story. Is it believable that Optimus Primal as a rational exploration ship captain would suddenly become an obsessive guru type with no transition into that role? Or that Rattrap as a resourceful thief would go begging to Megatron for weapons when his new body has none to offer? Not so much...

[Mako Crab]

You know, even though I really like BM, even I have to admit that the characters were portrayed incorrectly at times. And this is coming from a guy that came to accept Blackarachnia's moping about Silverbolt (I figured that people that had never been that in-love couldn't understand)! Rattrap going to Megatron for weapons should've played out more like this:

Rattrap: "Okay, I'll take the deal."
Megatron: "Very well."

*gives Rattrap big, hulking death mech*

Rattrap: "Awesome! Now I'm gonna' turn you into a smear on the ground and prove to my Maximal buddies that I still got it!"
Megatron: "But your honor!"
Rattrap: "So long, sucker!"

*BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!*

I still like that episode, but Rattrap was undeniably acting out of character. Rattrap did, however, blast Nightscream in the face for us, so I give him major props for that.