LUCIDMEDIA

G Vs. B: Transformers

Written by Adam A. Donaldson Wednesday, 24 June 2009 08:50

In another bold experiment with cultural criticism, Lucid Forge is proud to bring you the first edition of “G Vs. B.” We take a movie of contentious characterization, one of our writers takes the “It’s Good” side or “G” and another takes the “It’s Bad” side or “B.” This time it’s Lisa M. Knapp versus Sebastian Frye about the merits of Michael Bay’s Transformers. Who wins? You decide.

Lisa M. Knapp: When I was a kid I remember my brother having the little Transformer figurines and watching the cartoons. My favourite character was always the kind and ambitious Bumblebee.

Now though, Bumblebee's been changed in the movie from being a Volkswagen beetle to being a Chevrolet Camaro. One reason is that it is stated in several places that Volkswagen will not allow any of their products to be associated with war or war toys. So the producers of the movie had to find a decent alternative for Bumblebee. GM came to them and wanted a good product placement in the movie and thus the movie paid greatly for it.

Considering this, the car is still yellow with black stripes and Bumblebee's character depicts the character from the old animated series extremely well considering the drastic but needed change. So although the change was made, there was good reason for it, and GM jumped in and caught the ball.

What are your thoughts Sebastian?

Sebastian Frye: An interesting point you bring up, and one of the reasons I dislike this film; it's acquiescence to product placement and reliance on nostalgia and product fetishism. The cars roll out and pause in that sublime car-advertisement way - where just enough dust kicks up and the car, displaying 'her' control, wobbles then stabilizes. Automobiles were only the vehicle - excuse the pun - for the alien entities to engage with earthlings. Aliens merge with cars, not the other way around.

The questions facing Transformers and Transformers 2, for me, are 'how cool can this possibly be?' Bumblebee’s change from a Beetle to a Camaro is not only a change on the surface; it's a complete change of tone. A Beetle can be painted down to look like a dud of a car, it can be unassuming and it can be light and humorous (see Herbie). But a Camaro, even when it's a junker represents muscle. For awesomeness, coolness - choose your adjective - the Camaro gets the part, but it makes one false assumption: the audience will want to root for the Camaro, when really, to grab our sympathy the wimpier Beetle is more suitable. This assumption begs another, even more important question, what is "cool" in the 21st century? Is it really Nickelback blasting from a yellow Camaro with Megan Fox riding shotgun?

Michael Bay, Dreamworks, Paramount, and Hasbro have updated the Transformers brand - call it what it is - but does it tread on precious memories? Did Mr. Bay forget to take of his muddy shoes before he walked into our house pointing fanatically at the window exclaiming "Did you see that? I blew it up!" Three words Mr. Bay: no shoes inside.

LK: You make some very valid points, however, is it not true that all movies have product placement for pretty well everything that is in the movie from cans of pop to clothing to cars?

See it is not at all unusual that movies have made a point of giving products to the actors and the movie productions in order to enhance their audience as well. It's really something that has been going on since television and movies first started. If you look back at television shows from the early days they used to do product placement right in the show, this is how the movie The Truman Show got its ideas. They don't stop the show for commercials, they simply put the commercials right in, and this is what movies do but in a much subtler way and it works.

It's all a part of the commercialistic society that we dwell. They advertise and we buy into it pretty well 99 per cent of the time, most times without even realizing it.

This brings to mind a commercial I saw the other day of two kids sitting in the living room watching television and their mother walks in as a commercial of the Dairy Queen Blizzard is playing... the mother stops in her tracks and says to the kids lets go to Dairy Queen... just what the kids wanted! They recorded the commercial and had it playing on purpose... a brilliant commercial if you ask me!

So it's not at all unusual that these cars were put in the movie for advertising purposes, because everything is put in movies for that very reason!

SF: A troubling perspective you have, simply because it is wrong. Movies are not elaborate moving billboards flashing products across time and space to give us just what we want, when we want it - like the Dairy Queen advertisement. If anything, the subtle - and also blatant - product placement is a calculated persuasion to coerce us into wanting something we probably don't. A well known mantra for design is "Don't give them what they want, give them what they never knew they needed."

Movies and product placement were never bedfellows. As I understand it, corporations witnessed how powerful moving images were and wanted space inside the film. Perhaps there was a time long ago when an actor could drink a Coke, smoke a Malboro, and sneeze into a Kleenex on film without paying a dime to the parties involved. But, hey! that's valuable marketing space! "Let's not only conquer the real world, let's infiltrate into viewer's fantasy worlds," thought the corporations. Thus a campaign began to not only capitalize whenever a copyrighted image was used, but also to proactively generate desire by placing products wherever they might be visible - sometimes at the expense of the film. (Remember Spider-Man 2 and the debacle behind the computer altered billboard?)

I'll say it again, the cinematic experience was never 'meant' to become a giant commercial. I can name hundreds of films which are true achievements in entertainment while remaining product-placement free, but I'll only throw out a few: Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman, The Seekers by John Ford, Brazil by Terry Gilliam, , The 39 Steps by Alfred Hitchcock, 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick, Night on Earth by Jim Jaramusch - the list could go on. (An argument can be made that these films 'advertise' the quality of the studios, but are we going to split hairs?)

Think about this: can you imagine Charlie Chaplin agreeing to wear a Stetson instead of a bowler because Stetson fronted the bill? What I'm an advocate of is artistic integrity, if we even know what that is anymore. I'm not saying Transformers is one giant - artificially monumental - advertisement. Sure, there must be some redeeming qualities to the film, but what are they?

LK: Wow very bluntly put that I'm wrong. There are many movies out there that have advertisements purposely in them in which would not make me wrong but maybe half wrong in accordance to your argument. I agree that yes movies are nostalgic in some aspects but advertisers such as Coke or Pepsi, for example, purposely give products in order to be ever so slightly put into the movie, this is called subliminal advertising. We don't even click in that it's there unless we are really looking for it.

But with all that argument set aside, the movie does have a brilliant storyline. If you were to compare the movie to the old Transformer cartoons there was an obvious storyline going on there. As you put it aliens merge with cars basically to get the humans aid in a situation that they can't seem to get themselves out of. Because the humans are put into the situation they are also at danger, but the robotic or alien beings are so powerful that they are like super machines that have the ability to do what no machine can do. The movie keeps the viewer interested, and excited. It almost makes you want to have bumblebee as your own car... imagine that! Having a super machine for your very own, every kids dream!

SF: Michael Bay can certainly make a great action flick; ones that can be pleasurably re-watched and even ones that are allotted space in the prestigious Criterion Collection. Without a doubt, The Rock was an exciting, smart, humorous movie; well cast with Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage; and with motivated villains we could feel sympathy for. Sure, Armageddon was a smash-hit complete with a best-selling soundtrack and another all-star cast. Heck, even Bad Boys and Bad Boys II were exciting movies combining a Dean and Jerry routine in Will Smith and Martin Lawrence surrounded by exploding transport trucks, lucrative smuggling deals, and California light.

However, I'm afraid Transformers is just a bunch of toys smashing each-other. The stakes just aren't high enough. End of the world? Armageddon played that card believably, because the climate at the time of its release was a paranoia concerning the new millennium. What fear is Transformers playing into? Giant Robots? Weapons of Mass Destruction maybe, but isn't that pushing it? It's safer to say, Transformers is a popcorn flick - not a timely commentary.

I wouldn't say the storyline is "brilliant" either, as you put it Lisa, but it was serviceable to the point of the film. What was the point of the film, aside from brand-power? Action, heaps of action.

So, what about this action, it was pretty good wasn't? No, I'm afraid: it was complex and poorly choreographed. My reasoning faculties overwhelmed my enjoyment causing me to wonder questions such as: "Who's going to pay for all this?", while extreme close-ups of gears, screws, sparks, and robotics were flying towards the screen in a disorienting flurry of metal and fire, causing irreparable damage to innocent city streets.

Bay clearly wants to get as close to the action as possible, but in Transformers it simply becomes confusing. Looking around the theatre as the film blasted through the speakers, I noticed everyone's heads pressed into their seats, staring half in amazement and half in disgust. What was this bizarre reaction I witnessed? It could only be the recoiling gesture of pure puzzlement.

Instead of being a captivating film, Transformers is an exercise in branding power, the marketing of nostalgia, and the overuse of CG violence. I am willing to be convinced of the merits of this film, but for now all I can see is a formulaic storyline, a lack of compelling character development, and confusion caused by in-your-face explosions. Transformers may have been ripe for revival, but was Michael Bay really the man for the job - I don't think so.

FINAL THOUGHTS

LK: With machines that are even more lifelike than any movie made up to this point, and characters that are even more like the machines they impact, Transformers gets my five stars. There have been movies out there that have artificial intelligence in them but Transformers seems to top them all with its level of reality vs. fiction. The characters are so well formed and the movie is so jam packed with action, love and special effects that it not only shocks the senses but it keeps the viewer so interested that going to the washroom is not an option, as you’ll defiantly miss something you don’t want to miss. The movie constantly moves, it’s energetic, fast moving and even gives the adrenaline rush that we all crave. The film really does not know where to stop; it even has a bit of comic relief built in give the viewer that little extra touch of everything wanted in a good movie.

SF: Special effects, computer animation, and art direction have come a long way since the days of Jason and the Argonauts and King Kong, but, Hollywood, you still can't fool me. Give me a thoughtful film which doesn't take for granted the intelligence of its audience, which doesn't use as its mantra “louder is better,” and which hasn't been poisoned by conventions any day over the eye-candy that is Transformers and its sequel. If the recent news that Michael Bay was disappointed with the marketing campaign of Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen - because it didn't hype the film enough - indicates anything, it’s that the Transformers brand has reached the apex of consumer fluff and the only reward it deserves is monetary. Forget art, forget entertainment, ignore culture, don't even bother calling this pop, Transformers is only worthy of pennies and adolescent drool.