thoughts on the Beast-era

[SynjoDeonecros]

No, I'm not; if I was, do you think I'd be fucking bashing on CAPTAIN PLANET, so much, for its preachiness?

And without the characters, there is no story; every writer worth his salt knows that it's the characters that drive the story, not the other way around; with the former, you give yourself room to have the story expand and grow, along with the characters, not restricting yourself to a single plot. With the latter, the characters and what you can do with them is confined to the restrictions of the plot, which gives you less options on expanding either. That's why I hate shows that have a message or moral AS the plot, instead of being a SUPPLEMENT to it; as a supplement, you can take different looks at it and apply it to different characters and situations, as needed, allowing the characters' personalities and feelings, and the situation they're in, to guide and dictate how the message or moral is applied. That not only gives you more natural, believable, and "real" actions and reactions relating to the moral, but it also expands the number of stories you can do with that moral. As the plot itself, you're pretty much forcing every action, every word, every thought and feeling of the characters to conform to the message or moral, making for stilted, preachy dialog, repetitive and stagey actions, and yes, even villains and heroes that only do things to be bad or good, in order to show how their position in relation to the moral is wrong or right.The story doesn't flow, naturally, there's less options available on how to explore the topic at hand (as you're not relating the moral to any particular situation or character, but having the situation or characters conform to the moral), and it comes off as preachy and heavyhanded.

To be honest, your last statements make you sound a bit like the type of person who DOES like vapid, emotionless crap like Captain Planet, with the selfsame "stock" characters and "evil for the sake of evil" villains you claim to hate.

Whatever, I get it, you're Wrek-Gar, you dare to be stupid, I'm through with this debate.

Synjo
- Wishes he could put moderators on his ignore list...

[Onslaught Six]

Ignore Dom, and you ignore anywhere from half to a third of the forum's posts.

On top of that, as much as I like the guy, I disagree with Dom's position on character moving story (and how he thinks that's a load of crock) but I sort of understand it and definitely respect it.

Must say, though, that the more you continue to make pseudoenemies with people, the less you'll end up wanting to post. Civility is a key and it seems that you're far more passionate about your positions than some of us are, judging just by how much you can write about the subject. My posts are short because I don't actually give that much of a damn. TFViews is a diversion for me, it's not what I spend all my time doing. (Though I love the damned place to death.)

[Mirage]

Same here. I'm actually more in line with Synj and Sparky's opinions on the matters at hand, but this is turning into an argument of opinions, which is ultimately pointless.

At the risk of going all hippie (or God forbid preachy) this is what I actually love about Transformers-- there's something for everyone, whether you embrace the relatively mindless eye-candy of the live-action movies, the dynamism of Beast Wars, the archetypal characterization of the Unicron trilogy, or... whatever the hell Beast Machines was.

[Onslaught Six]

... whatever the hell Beast Machines was.

A) The Matrix but with Transformers. Come on, guys, this is the simplest answer to why it was all philosophical and also dark and had a bunch of ninja shit going on with the Maximals. They were trying to emulate The Matrix, because The Matrix was huuuuge when it came out.

B) An allegory for Internet arguments!

[SynjoDeonecros]

... whatever the hell Beast Machines was.

A) The Matrix but with Transformers. Come on, guys, this is the simplest answer to why it was all philosophical and also dark and had a bunch of ninja shit going on with the Maximals. They were trying to emulate The Matrix, because The Matrix was huuuuge when it came out.

B) An allegory for Internet arguments!

Was the Matrix out, when Beast Machines was produced? The similarities are quite striking...

I like answer B, better; Maximals represent Scientology, Vehicons represent 4Chan.

[Sparky Prime]

This is getting into the idea that characters need to be the priority in a story. I have said before, and will likely say again, that this idea is absurd. I do not care that much about most *real* people. And, I can see even less reason to put character before ideas. Character need to be defined in order to be useful. But, there is a difference between making characters useful and fetishing them.

While that's your right as an opinion, as many of us here have said, we find the idea of putting "ideas" before characters absurd. Putting the "idea" ahead, you completely undermine the "definition" of the characters. This is why so many people complain of mis-characterization in Beast Machines. They were forced to fit their roles of the 'idea' of the show rather than essentially to be themselves as they were established in BW. This is jarring to the audience and isn't the right way to handle characters.

Was the Matrix out, when Beast Machines was produced? The similarities are quite striking...

Yeah, Matrix came out at the end of March in 1999. Beast Machines started mid-September of the same year.

[Onslaught Six]

The Matrix hit in March of 1999, BM's first episode aired in September. That's not a lot of turnaround time, but considering how far apart BM's show and its toys diverged from the original concepts, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if The Matrix's atmosphere *didn't* have a lot of impact on BM.

EDIT: The first showing of BM was actually at Botcon '99 in July, so a little bit after, but still probably enough time for the general feel of the film to start creeping in. After all, it wasn't just The Matrix, there were a lot of films from around this time to have similar tone and style.

[Dominic]

While that's your right as an opinion, as many of us here have said, we find the idea of putting "ideas" before characters absurd. Putting the "idea" ahead, you completely undermine the "definition" of the characters. This is why so many people complain of mis-characterization in Beast Machines. They were forced to fit their roles of the 'idea' of the show rather than essentially to be themselves as they were established in BW. This is jarring to the audience and isn't the right way to handle characters.

I read arguements like this, and I cannot help but wonder if people are humanizing the characters too much.

Characters, like any tools, have to be defined to be useful. But, that use should not be hindered by slavishly adhering to one single use, or out of respect for the characters' integrity.

Dom

[SynjoDeonecros]

While that's your right as an opinion, as many of us here have said, we find the idea of putting "ideas" before characters absurd. Putting the "idea" ahead, you completely undermine the "definition" of the characters. This is why so many people complain of mis-characterization in Beast Machines. They were forced to fit their roles of the 'idea' of the show rather than essentially to be themselves as they were established in BW. This is jarring to the audience and isn't the right way to handle characters.

I read arguements like this, and I cannot help but wonder if people are humanizing the characters too much.

Characters, like any tools, have to be defined to be useful. But, that use should not be hindered by slavishly adhering to one single use, or out of respect for the characters' integrity.

Dom

... I do not get you. You have such a narrow, restrictive view of the roles of characters in a good story, considering them little more than pawns to move on a chessboard toward a certain goal, or mere mouthpieces to press the message that you so illogically insist a show should have, yet you outright condemn characters that fit that view like the Captain Planet villains, because they're not developed enough for you. The Eco-villains are stupid, because they pollute for no other reason or cause but to pollute, despite the fact that they're there to push the environmental message of the show, yet the Vehicons are fine, because they have the goal of "technological perfection" that they use to justify their evil, even though they're just as defined by their doing evil for that cause as the eco-villains are. Since the Vehicons have a "mission" they commit evil for, that makes them "flawed" enough to not be evil enough to tick you off, like the eco-villains are. Or maybe it's because the Vehicons end up mostly turning good, at the end, somehow making them "less evil" than the eco-villains, because they're "redeemable".

Your insane troll logic escapes me. How can you "over-humanize" a character by giving them their own needs, wants, and desires beyond the rhetoric dogma that they're supposed to be following as per the show's message? I guess the Joker makes the Batman comics too preachy for you, since he kills indiscriminately for no other reason except he can, despite all of the characterization and investigation into his psyche, the relationship he has with Batman, that makes him so loved as a villain. He's not killing people for some dogmic "higher purpose" that dictates the entire Batman series, so he's less "deep" than a faceless mook without personality or background that kills on orders from his master and the belief that it makes the world a better place. That's essentially what you're saying: the Predacons are stock, one-dimensional characters because they don't have any unifying belief or moral that they follow that dictates the story, despite their individual characterization and goals, whereas the Vehicons, who are little more than more animate drones defined solely by their blind, absolute loyalty to their master and his dogmic cause - a cause that is part of the philosophical debate that the show is based around - are better, more "flawed" and believeable characters.

You've lost all respect from me, with that comment. You have no concept of good writing or story structure, and it's clear from your statements on both this and the Oracle's Plan thread that you have very little, if any, respect for the franchise as a whole. I'm surprised you even got a moderator job, on here, with that lack of respect for the material or concept of literature reality. I pity you; you probably had a pretty pathetic childhood, unable to enjoy any of the media you were exposed to, with that kind of attitude toward how they should work. I have to wonder if you hold that same assertion with how people should act IRL; if they're not working toward some unifying spiritual goal and repressing their own inner ambitions and desires to do so, they're useless to you. How sad.

[Dominic]

I am a terrible person. Worse, I am a terrible fan.

of characters in a good story, considering them little more than pawns to move on a chessboard toward a certain goal, or mere mouthpieces to press the message that you so illogically insist a show should have, yet you outright condemn characters that fit that view like the Captain Planet villains,

Tools still need to be well-made. Cases still need to be well argued.

The problem with the characters on "Captain Planet" is that their motivations simply did not make sense unless one assumed tremendous petulance of the sort that would generally keep somebody from doing much of anything, (or being much of a threat to anything important). That sort of strawman is so easy to argue against that it is not worth making a case.

I give points when writers have something to say. But, they still need to make a good case one way or the other.

If the writer is just writing about fictional characters and events, what is the incentive to stay interested?

because they have the goal of "technological perfection" that they use to justify their evil,

As stated above, the different Vehicons had different goals, most of which illustrated some part of the free-will/subeversion themes mentioned elsewhere.

How can you "over-humanize" a character by giving them their own needs, wants, and desires beyond the rhetoric dogma that they're supposed to be following as per the show's message?

Characters are over-humanized when writers or fans start viewing them as ends unto themselves.

You have no concept of good writing or story structure, and it's clear from your statements on both this and the Oracle's Plan thread that you have very little, if any, respect for the franchise as a whole.

I will renounce my degree in English, (with an emphais on literature) as soon as I get home tonight.

I will destroy all of my TF comics and toys, even the ones I like. Good bye Sunstreaker. Good bye AHM. Good bye "Reign of Starscream". I am not worthy of them, and should not get any benefit for getting rid of them any other way than by destroying them. I am a terrible fan. Woe is I.

I'm surprised you even got a moderator job, on here, with that lack of respect for the material or concept of literature reality.

I am known for sending naughty pics of myself. I have sent some to JT as a "thank-you".

I have to wonder if you hold that same assertion with how people should act IRL; if they're not working toward some unifying spiritual goal and repressing their own inner ambitions and desires to do so, they're useless to you. How sad.

I do tend to associate with people who have some kind of understanding of principles and ideas. Why would I expect my friends to repress their ambitions? Why would I wish failure and misery upon my friends? Hell, I work in adult ed, contributing (if only in a small way) to people achieving their goals.


Clearly, I fail at this.

Dom
-might have to rethink his life!