TFW2005 Coverage Of Toy Fair 2017 Hasbro Investor Event

MartyFeeb

I just have a thing against fantasy nerds – they can be very self-important and arrogant about the entire subject.

You've just described every user here, including yourself, so the whole thing just falls apart with that line you felt the need to include. LordGigaIce is completely right and I'm stunned by how well he handled himself throughout this entire thing.

Transformers might be in the science fiction genre, but they also go into the realm of fantasy. The people writing them use their imaginations to help mold the characters and create the worlds. Some of the characters have powers and abilities you'd find in the fantasy genre.

Self-important arrogant nerds are what's kept this whole thing going for 30+ years and you say it like it's a bad thing. If you're ashamed of us, you should be ashamed of yourself. You talk about all of the fighting and strife on the boards, but then make comments like that. So, which is it? What is it that you really want? (Don't answer that. That's for you to think about, I don't care.)

I'm embarrassed by the entitlement issues the fandom has, yes.
I'm embarrassed by the crazy conspiracy theories of what's coming this year when they have facts going against what they're positing.
I'm embarrassed by how fans can be so cruel and bite the hand that feeds them.

But, we ARE a community, we ARE nerds and for the most part, a lot of us get along just fine without people saying things as you did here. I'm not ashamed of who I am and I won't let someone like you shame me, either. Maybe you should give that a whirl for yourself.

MartyFeeb

Anyway, I'm truly sorry for touching a nerve. This is far more personal to you than it is to me.

"I've conceding an argument so I'll use a backhanded insult on my way out" is a real shame. I honestly don't have a problem with the majority of what you've posted, but that bit bothers me.

No, this isn't personal to me. I just take issue when someone takes their opinion ("I don't like fantasy") and extrapolates it into fact without proof to back it up ("therefore not many people like fantasy").
So your dislike of fantasy, Tolkien, etc… doesn't bother me. It's how you presented your arguments and denigrated me and everyone who disagreed with you that bothers me.

Some people told me not to bother with you, that you're a troll and what not, but I've debated with you in good faith. And I have no ill will towards you other than the fact that you opted to end the discussion with "I guess you took this more personally than I did."
That's just passive aggressive. And I'm half Jewish, so I get enough of that from my family life  

MartyFeeb

I truly hate how this site has so much bickering and conflict. I think we can all be friends, even if we disagree. I would totally buy LordGigaIce a dragon TF I hated, for example, if we were good friends and I knew it made him happy. Cause that's what it's really about: being friends and enjoying the hobby together. Especially when you consider that the TF franchise is one of the few with continuing variety and growth.

I can skip the entire movie line, for example, and still have plenty of TF toys to buy (official and 3P). That's a good thing. I don't want to fight with anyone about their interest in dragons or medieval settings. What's the point?  

Amen. And I'd totally get you a TFer too  
Cheers.

Is there going to be another Transformers Toy Convention soon?

LordGigaIce

Thanks  

Congratulations! You beat him by virtue of endurance. I give you my pride.

LordGigaIce

Both the first Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter movies came out in 2001. Both series have spin-off films that, while not as critically acclaimed, were still commercially successful within the last five years. I would say that's pretty enduring. Game of Thrones will finish its run at eight seasons. Which is a pretty good run for a tv show.

First off…
Tolkien's four most well-known books, The Hobbit and the LotR trilogy, make up four of the top ten best selling works of fiction of all time. Tolkien is the only author to appear more than once on that list too. So I would say your assessment that people don't care about Tolkien, or that his books only appeal to some, is inaccurate. Sales figures don't lie. His stories are extremely popular, and have been for decades.
It's also worth noting that two other books, on that all time list, are fantasy. J.K. Rolling's first Harry Potter book and Antoine de Saint-Exupery's The Little Prince. So six of the top ten best selling works of fiction of all time are fantasy.

Secondly, no. I don't need to prove that the Lord of the Rings films are the most popular movies of all time to make my point. The entire series averages to $1 billion a film. That's more than enough to prove they're extremely popular. Star Trek, a hard sci-fi series, has never had a film sniff the $1 billion mark.
In fact LotR: The Two Towers went head to head with a Star Trek movie: Star Trek: Nemisis.
LotR: TTT made $926 million against a budget of $94 million.
Star Trek: Nemesis made $67.3 million against a budget of $60 million.
So there's that.

Alternatively you're not a fan of fantasy and will degenerate the genre and de-emphasise its popularity despite all the evidence and reasoning to the contrary.
I've provided ample evidence of fantasy's popularity. You've yet to provide a single piece of evidence or reasoning to the contrary.

I'm not exactly doing original research here. Star Wars' fantasy roots have been dissected and analyzed by far more qualified people than I. And I dare say I'm actually pretty qualified  
But hey. If George Lucas himself saying he gave the Jedi and Sith laser swords to harken back to knights of old fantasy tales, or he himself describing original trilogy Obi Wan and Palpatine as wizards, or his own admittance that he was inspired to write the films after reading Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces isn't enough for you? Then I don't know what to tell you.

Well you know what they say. Better not engage in a discussion you're not equipped to discuss.
You'll never see me chiming in when it comes to the ins and outs of Transformes toy engineering for example. I collect the toys, but I have no training or education in the engineering process. Why would I contribute to a discussion I'm not equipped for?
You though? You're insisting on putting your subjective uninformed opinions on par with the opinions of someone with a lot of knowledge in the area of discussion. And that's pretty gross.

AoE had Optimus comment that he and the Dinobots were part of an order of knights. The next movie is called The Last Knight and will even include an appearance from King Arthur. I think I'm going on a bit more than just saying "Optimus has a sword."

TL;DR
I've got a lot of actual, hard evidence to suggest that a) fantasy is very popular and b) Transformers has had a lot in common with fantasy since day one.
You have provided no evidence or counter evidence, and insist on treating your self-admittedly uninformed opinion as being on par with someone who is more qualified than you to comment on this stuff.

Forget it. YOU WIN.

I'm too tired (teething baby) to even understand what exactly we're arguing. I wrote a long counterpoint, but without the necessary data, you just write off everything I say and declare yourself an expert. Nice.

Well, I don't agree on your expertise, as data can paint any picture you like. I do suggest a solution: don't give me random numbers from ancient studies – go out and run your own survey if you want to prove something. Let's see recent numbers. That's the best way to address these disagreements. I don't think gathering sales figures for Tolkien necessarily proves fantasy is as popular as you think – I think those numbers represent the genre's popularity in LITERATURE – and we're not arguing literature. So this is easily sliding into other topics that were really not the point of my original statements.

But in recognition of your hard work and hard data, I'm giving you the victory. You put in some great arguments, so let's just say I agree with your opinion and call it a day. Also, I love your SN!  

MartyFeeb

Sadly, I'm not a fan of either (due to limited experience), but I still submit that a sudden wildfire by no means equals enduring popularity!

Both the first Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter movies came out in 2001. Both series have spin-off films that, while not as critically acclaimed, were still commercially successful within the last five years. I would say that's pretty enduring. Game of Thrones will finish its run at eight seasons. Which is a pretty good run for a tv show.

MartyFeeb

I am fully aware of how Tolkien stories are sooooo popular… to some. Because the fact is that a large majority of the population couldn't care less about Tolkien – by your recount, the LotR trilogy should be the highest grossing movies of ALL TIME. But they're not.

First off…
Tolkien's four most well-known books, The Hobbit and the LotR trilogy, make up four of the top ten best selling works of fiction of all time. Tolkien is the only author to appear more than once on that list too. So I would say your assessment that people don't care about Tolkien, or that his books only appeal to some, is inaccurate. Sales figures don't lie. His stories are extremely popular, and have been for decades.
It's also worth noting that two other books, on that all time list, are fantasy. J.K. Rolling's first Harry Potter book and Antoine de Saint-Exupery's The Little Prince. So six of the top ten best selling works of fiction of all time are fantasy.

Secondly, no. I don't need to prove that the Lord of the Rings films are the most popular movies of all time to make my point. The entire series averages to $1 billion a film. That's more than enough to prove they're extremely popular. Star Trek, a hard sci-fi series, has never had a film sniff the $1 billion mark.
In fact LotR: The Two Towers went head to head with a Star Trek movie: Star Trek: Nemisis.
LotR: TTT made $926 million against a budget of $94 million.
Star Trek: Nemesis made $67.3 million against a budget of $60 million.
So there's that.

MartyFeeb

And I understand: you're a fantasy fan. This means you will tend to over-emphasize the popularity and importance of this genre, even against opposing evidence or reasoning.

Alternatively you're not a fan of fantasy and will degenerate the genre and de-emphasise its popularity despite all the evidence and reasoning to the contrary.
I've provided ample evidence of fantasy's popularity. You've yet to provide a single piece of evidence or reasoning to the contrary.

MartyFeeb

Your analogy of SW being a large medieval epic with wizards? That's just ONE INTERPRETATION. Anyone with lightning powers is now a "wizard"? So if Iron Man blasts lightning from his repulsors, we should say he's derived from fantasy fiction?   Your examples are just full of opinions and subjective judgments, and I really wish you remembered to say it was your opinion – insinuating that these are facts is just silly. You can disagree with me, but I submit that similarities are not the same as plagiarism or copying. You can't just say that fantasy came first, so anything remotely similar is derived from fantasy… that's an incredibly limited view of human imagination.

I'm not exactly doing original research here. Star Wars' fantasy roots have been dissected and analyzed by far more qualified people than I. And I dare say I'm actually pretty qualified  
But hey. If George Lucas himself saying he gave the Jedi and Sith laser swords to harken back to knights of old fantasy tales, or he himself describing original trilogy Obi Wan and Palpatine as wizards, or his own admittance that he was inspired to write the films after reading Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces isn't enough for you? Then I don't know what to tell you.

MartyFeeb

Anyway, I clearly don't have your expertise in this matter, so I am not debating on equal grounds here (apologies!).

Well you know what they say. Better not engage in a discussion you're not equipped to discuss.
You'll never see me chiming in when it comes to the ins and outs of Transformes toy engineering for example. I collect the toys, but I have no training or education in the engineering process. Why would I contribute to a discussion I'm not equipped for?
You though? You're insisting on putting your subjective uninformed opinions on par with the opinions of someone with a lot of knowledge in the area of discussion. And that's pretty gross.

I just want to say this: you cannot call everything fantasy, just because they're similar. If Optimus wields a bloody sword, you cannot say he's a knight!
It takes more than that, but fantasy fans like to equate everything like it's simple math. It's not.

AoE had Optimus comment that he and the Dinobots were part of an order of knights. The next movie is called The Last Knight and will even include an appearance from King Arthur. I think I'm going on a bit more than just saying "Optimus has a sword."

TL;DR
I've got a lot of actual, hard evidence to suggest that a) fantasy is very popular and b) Transformers has had a lot in common with fantasy since day one.
You have provided no evidence or counter evidence, and insist on treating your self-admittedly uninformed opinion as being on par with someone who is more qualified than you to comment on this stuff.

Murasame

The one time something needed to be hollow  

lol right? XD

from looking at it, we still might be able to with some careful surgery under the top half of the head near the main jaw joint.

SpectrumBelle

Do you need to post a fucking essay about it? Chill, dude.

If you have issues with reading, scroll down.  

LordGigaIce

Well there's hard science fiction and then there's "science-fantasy."

Star Trek is hard science fiction. Or at least it tries to be (it's not a perfect example, but it's the closest mainstream example).
It's what you probably think of when you think "science fiction." All of the futuristic and speculative tech is supposed to be grounded in some sort of real science, or at least internal logic. There are entire episodes and plot threads dedicated to how transporters or warp drive work, for example.
Morals are also grey in these sorts of stories. Often a Star Trek episode sees the cast trying to find some sort of solution between two opposing groups that have legitimate points.
Other hard sci-fi will often follow suit, looking at ways to explore our own morally grey world through the lense of speculative storytelling.

Star Wars is science fantasy. This is basically fantasy storytelling in a sci-fi setting.
With Star Wars you have wizards, two groups of warrior knights that tap into divine power, laser swords, a fundemental conflict between good and evil, and the classic hero's journey.
Other science-fantasy works will follow suit, with mythical or divine elements at work, and an emphasis on narrative rather than tech.
I mean which Star Wars movie ever explained how light speed tech worlds? It isn't important, because the hard science isn't important in these types of stories. The tech is just a tool to tell the story.

So of these two examples which one would Transformers fall under?
Tech follows the science fantasy example. Who knows how transformation actually works aside from a broad stroke explanation about a transformation cog.
And Cybertronians posses faster than light travel, but how it works is never explained. Like light speed in Star Wars? The tech is just a means to tell a story. Not a part of the story.

In terms of narrative elements…Transformers has prophecy, a "chosen one," divine forces at work (be they the Matrix, Primus, the AllSpark, Realm of Primes, or just the Spark as a general analogue to a soul).
Morality can be a bit grey due to some fiction attempting to provide depth and understanding to the Decepticon cause, but even then those stories can only do so much because they ultimately need to become the unquestioned bad guys of the plot.

I would say that, on the whole, Transformers has more in common with science fantasy than "sci-fi." So in that context? Knights and dragons don't really bother me.

And as for your claim that fantasy isn't popular?
Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings books still top sales charts, the LotR movies were all huge commercial successes and Harry Potter was a cultural phenomenon. And one of the most acclaimed tv shows in recent years? Game of Thrones.

Hell, my thesis advisor for my MA once told me that twenty years ago? Universities couldn't find students who wanted to do graduate work in the field of medieval history. Now, thanks to the above works becoming extremely popular? Medieval history is more popular than ever.

So I would say your assessment that fantasy isn't popular is wildly inaccurate.

I wouldn't say "inaccurate" so much as "out-dated". Certainly, you have more recent examples of the fantasy genre becoming more popular, with Harry Potter and Game of Thrones being the big causes… Sadly, I'm not a fan of either (due to limited experience), but I still submit that a sudden wildfire by no means equals enduring popularity! I am fully aware of how Tolkien stories are sooooo popular… to some. Because the fact is that a large majority of the population couldn't care less about Tolkien – by your recount, the LotR trilogy should be the highest grossing movies of ALL TIME. But they're not. Because fantasy is not as ever-popular as you present it. And I understand: you're a fantasy fan. This means you will tend to over-emphasize the popularity and importance of this genre, even against opposing evidence or reasoning. And you have very good evidence, don't get me wrong (you clearly "know" about this stuff better than me). But when you start to dissect and attempt to categorize Sci-fi like that? Well, I disagree on your results… because they're largely opinions, not facts. You gauge the science of a program or story and then assess it a value of fantasy or science? That's a completely arbitrary scale, with no real measurements that have been established or accepted.

Your analogy of SW being a large medieval epic with wizards? That's just ONE INTERPRETATION. Anyone with lightning powers is now a "wizard"? So if Iron Man blasts lightning from his repulsors, we should say he's derived from fantasy fiction?   Your examples are just full of opinions and subjective judgments, and I really wish you remembered to say it was your opinion – insinuating that these are facts is just silly. You can disagree with me, but I submit that similarities are not the same as plagiarism or copying. You can't just say that fantasy came first, so anything remotely similar is derived from fantasy… that's an incredibly limited view of human imagination.

But again, "medieval history" being more popular is hardly evidence of fantasy being so amazing now. Without proper numbers, it's just hyperbole. Meaning, you can say the field picked up 300%, OR you could say 20,000 more students took to it… the former sounding like magic, the latter being a relatively small number when looking at the total of student studies. Ergo, I take all of your evidence with a grain of salt: you're a fan so you're going to skew the numbers, AND those same numbers can be misconstrued in such a way as to overemphasize the growth or popularity of the genre.

Anyway, I clearly don't have your expertise in this matter, so I am not debating on equal grounds here (apologies!). I just want to say this: you cannot call everything fantasy, just because they're similar. If Optimus wields a bloody sword, you cannot say he's a knight! It takes more than that, but fantasy fans like to equate everything like it's simple math. It's not. And sometimes, I think fantasy elements are too distinctive to really blend into the sci-fi that is TFs. Just my opinion. But I never was a fan of TFs fighting dragons. I feel it's like mixing your tea and coffee together because you like both of them. Sure, I get it. But don't mix them. That's kind of gross, imo.  

Dragonstone sounds cooler.

Alright-y then, folks. Time to move out of this Thread and into the big one.

Enjoy!  

News Post: Toy Fair 2017 Transformers Panel Coverage

Thread: TOY FAIR 2017 – HASBRO PRESENTATION COVERAGE BY TFW2005