Is Transformers an emotionally-stunted franchise?

[JediTricks]

Yes, yes it is.

Oh, sorry, you wanted an explanation?

Dom and I were just talking about Rewind from MTMTE, he's bothered by the 'shipping going on between the character and Chromedome, he feels that the fact that they're a sexless gay couple is going too far. I countered that the meta stuff about 'shippers shouldn't matter, if it feels emotionally authentic or even just reasonable then the meta stuff is immaterial and the content should be able to stand on its own. But the thing of it is that a lot of TFans see any emotional closeness in the brand as a negative, as caving to slash fanfic needs... unless it's Arcee or Elita-One because, hey, they're gurls!

I fully disagree though, Transformers are an asexual species but they are still emotional beings, when they're not on the battlefield they are still presented as having personal feelings and interests. The idea that Transformers should not crave emotional closeness with others seems like an unhealthy attitude, everybody craves emotional closeness - whether or not it's sexual. Transformers as a franchise is... there's no other word for it, it's exceptionally chaste, it's a playland for little boys to stay little boys, it's Peter Pan without Wendy. But in these comics especially, there are larger truths being discussed, there are very grown up ideas like politics and betrayal and loss and grief - but how can you have grief if you don't have emotional connections?

If Transformers as a brand is to grow into a franchise that is more than just toys and 'toons, it needs to recognize that it is emotionally stunted... it's AUDIENCE needs to recognize that the franchise is stunted and needs to grow. That doesn't mean robo-boobs and hawt bot-on-bot action, those are common problems to comic books, mistaking sexuality for maturity. But it does mean accepting that people, whether man or machine, desperately need interpersonal connections; that the emotional truths in life mean that most people will crave sharing their life with others who are special to them. Relationships aren't meant to be feared, relationships are not the problem with franchises like this, it's only the way the fans (and by extension, the content-creators who cater to them) handle interpersonal relationships immaturely which should be avoided - and that applies to ANY fandom, not just Transformers.

[Onslaught Six]

I think a lot of that depends on Hasbro, and what they're willing to let IDW get away with, doesn't it?

Either way, I'm all for it.

[JediTricks]

I think a lot of that depends on Hasbro, and what they're willing to let IDW get away with, doesn't it?

Either way, I'm all for it.

Well, Hasbro let Rewind and Chromedome through, so I think that's a good sign. It doesn't need to be more than that level either, there doesn't need to be Cybertronian snogging or worse, it just needs to be emotionally mature writing is all.

I'm glad to hear you're for it, I was expecting a lot of push-back on the matter but I guess folks just aren't ready to touch this conversation in public yet, and they really should be. This is important to the franchise.

[andersonh1]

It's a property based off a children's toyline. It should be chaste, or at the very least, all-ages appropriate. When you open the door to anything tangentially related to sexuality and relationships, or excessive violence for that matter, you potentially make it unsuitable for the target audience. Just because we're adults reading the fiction doesn't mean we're the primary target demographic.

Would I let my 8 year old daughter read IDW's Transformers comics? Some of them, yes. We read Spotlight Trailcutter together the other day. Last Stand of the Wreckers? Not a chance.

If Transformers as a brand is to grow into a franchise that is more than just toys and 'toons,

Why does it need to do that? We're not talking deep, profound literature here, no matter the topics being explored. Transformers is escapist entertainment. There's no need for it to be anything else. There are plenty of other places to go for exploration and depiction of deep interpersonal relationships.

[Dominic]

Why does it need to do that? We're not talking deep, profound literature here, no matter the topics being explored. Transformers is escapist entertainment. There's no need for it to be anything else. There are plenty of other places to go for exploration and depiction of deep interpersonal relationships.

We certainly are pissing away a huge amount of time and money on escapism if we take your point.

I want well written comics and such. Yes, there are non-TF comics to read. (And, I read some of them.) But, that just means that TF needs to step up and keep up if I am going to stay interested.

Most of my pull-list would likely warrant a "PG", with a few getting in to "R" territory. (I am using movie ratings because we are all familiar with them. Of course, given what has made it to broadcast TV in the last decade (and what they would have been rated a decade or less earlier), what these ratings mean is exactly up for debate.

Unrestricted blood and boobs is not a sign of narrative maturity. But, overly sanitized narrative (such as "Archie" and the "Marvel Adventures" comics) are not really worth reading for anybody but kids (or habitual readers). Similarly, the Comics Code Authority got more permissive over time, and is mostly ignored. Books that would pass muster for the CCA's original standards would likely not be worth reading, even for a kid. (I have heard accounts of little kids being offended when offered crap like "Tiny Titans" because even they can smell crap when it is right in front of them.)

I'm glad to hear you're for it, I was expecting a lot of push-back on the matter but I guess folks just aren't ready to touch this conversation in public yet, and they really should be. This is important to the franchise.

For the record, I was not avoiding it. It just happened to come up in text. (And, you partook there at length before making it here to the forums to post this. You are just as guilty there.)

Is Transformers an emotionally-stunted franchise?

Yes and no.

From the beginning, the franchise has relied heavily on IP to sell itself. And, over the years, the content has covered a wide range of tone and quality.

The Sunbow G1 cartoon had episodes like "Auto-Berzerk", "The Burden Hardest to Bear", "Web World", "Sea Change" and others. Even "The Ultimate Doom" had its moments of real depth. These were of course aired alongside stuff like "BOT" and "Autobop", but you get the idea.

The comics had "Man of Iron", "Shooting Star", "Warrior School", "Crisis of Command" and the better points of Furman's run (both US and UK). But, it also had "Carwash of Doom", "Afterdeath" and the lower points of Furman's run (both US and UK_.

(I could do examples by era. But, most of us probably get the idea so lets move on.)

If Transformers as a brand is to grow into a franchise that is more than just toys and 'toons, it needs to recognize that it is emotionally stunted... it's AUDIENCE needs to recognize that the franchise is stunted and needs to grow.

In principle, I agree.

Transformers as a franchise is... there's no other word for it, it's exceptionally chaste,

In terms of sexless, well, yes. But, the title characters are from a species of alien robots where gender is....inconsistently portrayed at best.

The cartoon had some really disturbing implications about gender. The female Autobots seemed to be considered a different species (and were never shown to be biologically necessary) and were likely descended from a sub-line of the Quintesson "consumer goods" that eventually became the Autobots.

The comics were clear that gender was artificially introduced in "Prime's Rib".

IDW went so far as to say that gender was unnatural to the species with Arcee's origin.


Following from that, why not assume that TFs would handle social and emotional relationships differently? If anything, mandating that alien space robots be depicted as being as similar to people as possible roots "Transformers" even more firmly in the realm of soft sci-fi and thus stunts it even more.

Well, Hasbro let Rewind and Chromedome through, so I think that's a good sign.

Do not forget, there was also that cringe-worthy comment from a Hasbro rep about Knock-Out a few years ago. (From what I gather, the silence that followed was....impressive. Say what I might about the fandom as a whole, they are apparently free of any obvious prejudice on questions of gay rights.)

But in these comics especially, there are larger truths being discussed, there are very grown up ideas like politics and betrayal and loss and grief - but how can you have grief if you don't have emotional connections?

And, this is where I get meta.

At the end of the day, part of getting what the writers is saying is probably going to involve *why* they said it.

Costa did not "get" TFs. And, his writing incorporated that. TFs and people were not the same. They would have trouble trusting each other, and often with good reason. Similarly, Marvel played up the alien nature of TFs on more than one occassion by showing how they viewed a fundamental like death differently from people. (Furman went so far as to say that TFs generally lacked a concept of death.) The cartoon played with this in "The Burden Hardest to Bear".)

My problem with Rewind and Chromedome as written by Roberts comes down as much to why Roberts is writing it as what he is writing. MTMTE is bascially fan-fodder. (I have no desire to re-list all my issues with this book.) The Rewind and Chromedome thing is just another plot point by Roberts that plays in to the things that "the fans" (often emotionally stunted and self-indulgent) want. And, lets be honest, robot shipping is a textbook case of the sort fo thing that used to be associated exclusively with bad fanfic.

The Rewind and Chromedome thing was that last straw for me. (There are members of the fandom who will unblinkingly and unashamedly call MTMTE "tumbler bait" by virtue of the fact that it plays in to over-blown emotion for the sake of over-blown emotion.)

Relationships aren't meant to be feared, relationships are not the problem with franchises like this, it's only the way the fans (and by extension, the content-creators who cater to them) handle interpersonal relationships immaturely which should be avoided - and that applies to ANY fandom, not just Transformers.

I agree. But, I would argue that the motivation behind the depiction matters.

Some of my favourite scenes in Bendis' "Avengers" involved Cage and Jones. They were funny and were clearly written to depict a mature relationship and (allowing for the setting) showed the kinds of decisions people make about relationships and careers. (Granted, I did not keep this book on my pull-list, but that is because it lacked any really good high-concept.)

I was fine with gay Green Lantern in "Earth 2". I agree with John Byrne's assertion (from many years ago) that if we assume gay people are real then we would have to assume that some of them would be superhuman in a comicbook setting.


But, with TF there is the opportunity to do other things. And, if people want emotion and a consideration of the human emotional condition, then maybe it would be better to do that by playing people (which a good chunk of the fandom arguably does not understand) off against something fundamentally different, like a race of alien space robots.

Doctor Sumdac (in TFA) used alien technology to give himself a daughter. He used alien tech to deliver on a common human demand. In contrast, I am not sure that I can think of any new TF shown to be created as something other than a weapon, a soldier, some other useful role or by accident. In "The Key to Vector Sigma", Prime wanted the Aerialbots to be able to learn and grow over time. But, the reason they were being built in the first place was to counter the Stunticons.


TF has, for the most part, grown beyond the kiddie cartoon/comic/toy level. It arguably did that sometime in 1985. There are modern examples of shallow and stunted TF content, including the Bay movies. But, there are plenty of examples of TF content having depth that do not involve giving them relationships just like people have for the sake of delivering for fan-shippers.


Dom
-shipping is stunting.

[andersonh1]

And the Bay movies is where we'll end up. Megan Fox and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley parading all over the screen suggestively (not that I don't appreciate the beauty of both ladies, but is all the innuendo appropriate in a franchise like Transformers?). Jokes about masturbation and cherry-popping and "stay out of my bush" from the annoying parents. Sexy Decepticon pretenders crawling all over Sam. It's all the lowest common denominator, the very opposite of taste and maturity.

I agree with Dom that Rewind and Chromedome feels very much like something from bad fanfic. At least it was restrained and tastefully handled, for the most part.

Why does it need to do that? We're not talking deep, profound literature here, no matter the topics being explored. Transformers is escapist entertainment. There's no need for it to be anything else. There are plenty of other places to go for exploration and depiction of deep interpersonal relationships.

We certainly are pissing away a huge amount of time and money on escapism if we take your point.

What else would you consider it, if not escapism?

[Dominic]

There is a difference between fiction and escapism (a more specific type of fiction).

I would define "escapism" as being pitched on the lower side. In comics terms, "Marvel Adventures" would be high-grade escapism, with DC's kiddie books being (much) lower grade.

[Shockwave]

See, my whole thing against the "they're aliens and need to be realistically portrayed different than us" argument is that they're an analog for us. The robots are the characters we're supposed to identify with and care about and that are supposed to be carrying the story. Even in the best of writing where the author has something meaningful to say the robots are going to be ones to carry that story and those ideas and to do that they have to be humanly relatable. Which in turn is going to require them to be anthropromorphized to some degree. And part of that is inevitably going to be to involve interpersonal relationships. The fact that it's taken this long to see one as a prominent plot point and used to communicate larger ideals is impressive but does indicate a somewhat stunted franchise. And, this is also the main problem with the movies. The robots are the characters that are supposed to carry the ideas and plots for the movies but they can't because they're too alien and the audience can't see the human analog in them. And really, that's important to any narrative. You're telling a story and your audience has to be able to have some basis to relate to the characters as human on some level.

[Gomess]

For the most part I agree with the entirety of JT's first post. And again, I'm not sure where the Line is, Dom. You seem to be against TFs experiencing human-analogous emotions like romantic love (which, by the way guys, is a completely separate thing to sex, and thus shouldn't be considered inappropriate for a kids' franchise), saying that this is a restricting "soft sci-fi" element, but... again, sorry about this... they have noses.

Or would you- like me- prefer TF to not all have traditionally humanoid modes? I *loved* Laserbeak et al as a kid because their "robot" modes were animals. Fantastic.

But yes, if TFs are willing to speak with their mouths, shoot guns, have wars and live on a planet, they should be able to feel love. TF *is* "soft sci-fi", isn't it? And I'm wondering if it shouldn't stay that way, but at least grow and mature within those boundaries.

Admittedly, I'm not too familiar with the conventions of sci-fi.

[Dominic]

Lemmee tackle the sci-fi conventions question firse.

The difference between hard and soft sci-fi is more a spectrum than a binary, but the distinctions between them are pretty clear.

Hard sci-fi assumes advanced technology based on modern understandings of physics and other sciences as well as (and arguably more difficult to write) practical social needs. Soft sci-fi basically falls back on "anything goes so long as it has a kind of sciency sounding reason behind it". The level of technology allowable in hard sci-fi will change over time. And, as real tech progresses, former soft sci-fi McGuffins (such as wireless communications) may become a common basis for the next generation's hard sci-fi.

The tone is less important than the believability of the tech. For example, Bayformers are more likely to have a scene of great violence than any iteration of "Star Trek" (though one might debate that point regarding the recent Abrams movies). But, in relative terms, Star Trek is harder than TF by virtue of being more grounded. Similarly, "Star Trek" is generally harder than "Star Wars". But, in absolute terms, "Star Trek" is generally still on the softer side. (Guys like Card, Weber or Drake are generally considered "hard". "Jurassic Park" was relatively hard 20 years ago, though Critchton relies a little too much on hand waves.) 40K is violent and dark, but is considered soft given the technology the characters have on hand.

Generally, the easier it is to translate a ships and stars setting to a sword and sorcerty setting and back, the softer it is.


There is nothing inherently wrong with soft sci-fi. (I have found that a good deal of hard sci-fi is not as much fun to read as the writers are more concerned with writing about the workabilty of the tech and fand focus more on that than on other things.) But, ya know, we have to call it like it is.

The problem is that soft sci-fi (especially in popular media/properties) lends itself to lazy writing. (Clones and time travel are used to back-write and undo character deaths and such). Soft sci-fi is where we get the "bumpy headed alien" gimmick that is so cliched that the obvious parodies are cliche. ("This species of alien looks like people with some kind of cranial oddities and may or may not have some kind of obvious similarites to some human culture other than the target market.")

Or would you- like me- prefer TF to not all have traditionally humanoid modes? I *loved* Laserbeak et al as a kid because their "robot" modes were animals. Fantastic.

Even as a kid, I never quite got Laserbeak or the other critter-tapes. Laserbeak did not look like a bird on Cybertron, but he did have a boxy "storage" mode. The comics explained the Dinobots as being the result of the Ark malfunctioning when it rebuilt them. But, Laserbeak's form made less sense. (The less humanoid forms in "Beast Machines" made more sense to me, especially considering that they were designed to work on Cybertron rather than Earth.)

You seem to be against TFs experiencing human-analogous emotions like romantic love (which, by the way guys, is a completely separate thing to sex, and thus shouldn't be considered inappropriate for a kids' franchise),

Sorry, time to get meta again.

In social/cultural terms, some people would consider "close emotional relationships" to be out of bounds. This could be a healthy relationship between an older married couple, a younger couple, a Western style bromance or the "grown men holding each other's hands" bromance found in the Middle East and parts of Africa.

I am not conceptually against the writer assuming that aliens (including TFs) have some kind of social or even family structure. One of my favourite plot points in AHH is rooted in the assumption that the Decepticon planes share some kind of bond. Considering them "brothers" in the biological sense is kind of stupid. But, the term "brother" could be used in the Union sense of the word.

But, in the case of Rewind and Chromedome, we know that Roberts was not going for "close friends" or "robo-bromance". We know which segment of the fandom that MTMTE is aimed at. And, given the word choices used to describe the relationship between Rewind and Chromedome ("significant other") as well as the presentation of certain scenes between them, we know why Roberts is going this way with the characters. The whole thing stinks of fanfic and pandering to the shippers. And, that is a line that I am not willing to cross.

"Gay Space Robots" sounds like the kind of thing you would see in a stereotypically bad fanfic written by an emotionally unbalanced teenager with identity issues. Or, it sounds like a parody of that fanfic. It has no place in official content. espeically when it is there to appeal to the most backward parts of the fandom.

See, my whole thing against the "they're aliens and need to be realistically portrayed different than us" argument is that they're an analog for us. The robots are the characters we're supposed to identify with and care about and that are supposed to be carrying the story. Even in the best of writing where the author has something meaningful to say the robots are going to be ones to carry that story and those ideas and to do that they have to be humanly relatable.

It depends on the type of story being written. In the case of RiD, the TFs have some human traits. But, Barber is still playing up something of the alien nature of TFs. (People are happy to keep grudges going across generations, as evidenced by the sheer amount of human misery exported from the Balkans over the decades. But, in theory grudges can be forgotten over time due to natural attrition. But, for a species as long lived and hearty as Cybertronians, old grudges are even harder to bury.)

Generally though, if someobody is writing a soft sci-fi story, they have humans to be the people. The bumpy-headed gimmick alien cliche (which certainly applies to TFs) does have its place in terms of illustrating a given concept (putting behind a balkanizing war, the pros and cons of immortality, being wrongly considered the nuisance species, being rightly considered the nuisance species, whatever). If the writer wants to use aliens to illustrate humanity, then they may do better to use the aliens as a point of contrast rather than similarity.


Dom
-getting meta. What of it?