Simon Furman Blog Update: Spotlight Arcee

Tie ins everywhere....my head hurts now...

Okay, but how tall is Maximus going to be? Small enough to butt heads with Galvatron, or will he be the detention facility itself?

Well, Fort Max DID have several detention facilities built into him...

Why are references to Arcee's being female put in quotation marks?

1337W422102 wrote:Why are references to Arcee's being female put in quotation marks?

I think that is Furman's way of getting around the "gender issues" in Transformers. He has stated he is not a fan, also references some of his Marvel UK stuff "Prime's Rib" in his blog article stated how awkward he is with the idea of Machines with no means of human like reproduction having genders.

It'll be nice to see "her" get some more depth. I'm interested to see what happens with "her"

I find myself hoping that Furman hasn't given Arcee a totally unique backstory given that we've already had a cameo from Elita-1 in Origin. It would be a shame if all this finely interwoven tapestry that we call the Furmanverse starts to unravel now that other people are being entrusted with writing elements of it.

waaaaghlord wrote:I find myself hoping that Furman hasn't given Arcee a totally unique backstory given that we've already had a cameo from Elita-1 in Origin. It would be a shame if all this finely interwoven tapestry that we call the Furmanverse starts to unravel now that other people are being entrusted with writing elements of it.

I'm hoping that Ryall and Taylor have enough of a grip on the editorial reigns to keep everything in check. Hoping.

Leonardo wrote:

waaaaghlord wrote:I find myself hoping that Furman hasn't given Arcee a totally unique backstory given that we've already had a cameo from Elita-1 in Origin. It would be a shame if all this finely interwoven tapestry that we call the Furmanverse starts to unravel now that other people are being entrusted with writing elements of it.

I'm hoping that Ryall and Taylor have enough of a grip on the editorial reigns to keep everything in check. Hoping.

It's all Taylor now, so editing should be more consistent.

i_amtrunks wrote:

1337W422102 wrote:Why are references to Arcee's being female put in quotation marks?

I think that is Furman's way of getting around the "gender issues" in Transformers. He has stated he is not a fan, also references some of his Marvel UK stuff "Prime's Rib" in his blog article stated how awkward he is with the idea of Machines with no means of human like reproduction having genders.

Does he do it to the "he"s, too, or are there male robots, but no female robots?

Well, that issue, judging by the sheer amount of information, sounds like it should be about 128 pages long! Looking forward to it, but not looking forward to a glossing over, or being introduced to more, and then having to wait longer...

Sounds...big.

I was going to pass on this one, but after reading that, how can I not pick it up? Too many secondary characters in it that I love.

Sarri wrote:

i_amtrunks wrote:

1337W422102 wrote:Why are references to Arcee's being female put in quotation marks?

I think that is Furman's way of getting around the "gender issues" in Transformers. He has stated he is not a fan, also references some of his Marvel UK stuff "Prime's Rib" in his blog article stated how awkward he is with the idea of Machines with no means of human like reproduction having genders.

Does he do it to the "he"s, too, or are there male robots, but no female robots?

Exactly.

Pretty sure most bots have a distinctly male voice and (aside from Soundwave) do not sound monotone, i.e. genderless. Plus Cybertronians tend to have two arms, two legs, often times humanoid faces and body structures with a distinctly male appearance. Let's not even get into their personalities...

"in his blog article stated how awkward he is with the idea of Machines with no means of human like reproduction having genders."

Setting aside ALL the other human aspects Transformers tend to have, with regards to the continuation of life, the fact there's more than just "human" methods of reproduction on our own world is enough for me to be able to deal with that concept.

Sarri wrote:Does he do it to the "he"s, too, or are there male robots, but no female robots?

I believe he uses "He", "his" and other male terms, but mainly to ease confusion about who is talking about whom, what etc. The other option would be to use "it", "that" or writing the characters name over and over again.

Wolfguard wrote:Pretty sure most bots have a distinctly male voice and (aside from Soundwave) do not sound monotone, i.e. genderless.

That is because when they are given voices, they are given human voice actors. It also helps to give the Transformers characters, if every transformer in every animated show was given flat monotonous voices it would be a dull dull show.

Wolfguard wrote:Plus Cybertronians tend to have two arms, two legs, often times humanoid faces and body structures with a distinctly male appearance. Let's not even get into their personalities...

"in his blog article stated how awkward he is with the idea of Machines with no means of human like reproduction having genders."

Setting aside ALL the other human aspects Transformers tend to have, with regards to the continuation of life, the fact there's more than just "human" methods of reproduction on our own world is enough for me to be able to deal with that concept.

I don't want to start another "Transformers Reproduction thread" because the last one ended up such a disgraceful mess.

Simon Furman has only stated that he is not at all comfortable with the idea of the Transformers having Gender's, and that he does not like the idea much. Since he is writing the series, whatever he thinks is what will happen. The main reason "gendered Transformers" has reared it's ugly head in the IDW series is because of Milne's art in the Megatron Origins series.

It's never been explained before in any other series (bar maybe the one shot "Primes Rib" that Furman wrote in TF Marvel UK, which was written as a joke). I feel that even though he does not like the concept, and is uncomfortable with it, Furman will be trying to explain it as a Jhiaxus experiment.

i_amtrunks wrote:

Wolfguard wrote:Pretty sure most bots have a distinctly male voice and (aside from Soundwave) do not sound monotone, i.e. genderless.

That is because when they are given voices, they are given human voice actors. It also helps to give the Transformers characters, if every transformer in every animated show was given flat monotonous voices it would be a dull dull show.

I'm well aware of that.

The baseline argument/discomfort with regards to having a robot that is female in nature is that it makes no sense since they are supposed to be genderless and vastly different than humans. My point is very simple: if you can accept all the other "human-like" nuances of Transformers, then why not one more, i.e. why make such a big deal over nothing?

Simon Furman has only stated that he is not at all comfortable with the idea of the Transformers having Gender's, and that he does not like the idea much. Since he is writing the series, whatever he thinks is what will happen.

Like anything else in life, when one states an opinion to the world or makes it known something is disliked, you're opening yourself up for someone else to disagree and give a counterpoint in return. I personally think he's a damn good writer, but in all honesty, the quotes seem rather petty, IMO. It's akin to a church bell on Sunday morning - yeah, it's Sunday. You want to remind people to go to church. Ding ding! Sunday!Church!Sunday! Ding ding! Sunday!Church!Sunday! - I get it already. Done.

i_amtrunks wrote:

Sarri wrote:Does he do it to the "he"s, too, or are there male robots, but no female robots?

I believe he uses "He", "his" and other male terms, but mainly to ease confusion about who is talking about whom, what etc. The other option would be to use "it", "that" or writing the characters name over and over again.

Since "it" is one the same grammatical level as "he" (third person singular) he should use that, if he doesn't want to have gendered robots. Particularly given English where the grammatical gender of a robot, a computer or a TV set is neutral.
It looks like Furman calls the Transformers "he" because they follow the human pattern of maleness. It will be interesting to see what pronoun he uses for Arcee, will Arcee be "he" (based on the fact that he calls all other Transformers "he"), will she be called an "it" or will she have to live with the quote-unquote "she" (being denied femaleness while all the other robots are allowed to be male).

In my opinion he should either call all of them "it" or should call them "s/he" based on the looks.
But that may just be the German in me, who has no problem with the real gender being different from the grammatical one (the girl in German is grammatical neutral, a PC is grammatical male, the sun is grammatically female).

Sarri, I've been thinking about the same thing for a while now. Why not call them all "it"? That would make sense to me.

I suppose one of the reasons for not doing so is that, rather than it being just a neutral term, it suggests a lack of personality or a lack of life (as we rarely use genders for non-living objects, with a few exceptions). I don't know. Certainly, it does seem odd to talk of a lack of gender in Cybertronian society but then call some robots "he".

If he called every tf It, then the characters would become nothing more than advanced robots. They would loose their character, that special spark that makes them more than mere machines. Like someone who calls their car a She. That car is special to that person, but to everyone who calls it an It, then it is just another bog standard run of the mill car.

I haven't explained myself properly, and I'm having trouble putting into words what I want to say, but I'm sure someone can get the jist of it and explain it better.

I understand what you mean. I was trying to say the same thing, that by calling them 'it' there's the possibility that it robs them of their personality.

Leonardo wrote:I understand what you mean. I was trying to say the same thing, that by calling them 'it' there's the possibility that it robs them of their personality.

Thats right. I was tempted to just say I agree with you, but I wanted to ramble. I rambled too much and got confused.

Leonardo wrote:I understand what you mean. I was trying to say the same thing, that by calling them 'it' there's the possibility that it robs them of their personality.

But calling Arcee a quote-unquote "she" does the same, and in a way is even worse, because it singles Arcee out of all the other Transformers who are allowed to have personalities without such a hubhub.

Furman might as well just used the male pronoun for Arcee, it's consistent with the rest of the Transformers pronouns and avoids the gender issue.

Sarri wrote:

Leonardo wrote:I understand what you mean. I was trying to say the same thing, that by calling them 'it' there's the possibility that it robs them of their personality.

But calling Arcee a quote-unquote "she" does the same, and in a way is even worse, because it singles Arcee out of all the other Transformers who are allowed to have personalities without such a hubhub.

Furman might as well just used the male pronoun for Arcee, is consistent with the rest of the Transformers pronouns and avoids is gender issue.

I concur, in a way. I think he should either call her a she without the quotation marks, call them all a he or call them all an it (which it might be too late for if he's already used the word 'he' in an actual comic).

Leonardo wrote:

Sarri wrote:

Leonardo wrote:I understand what you mean. I was trying to say the same thing, that by calling them 'it' there's the possibility that it robs them of their personality.

But calling Arcee a quote-unquote "she" does the same, and in a way is even worse, because it singles Arcee out of all the other Transformers who are allowed to have personalities without such a hubhub.

Furman might as well just used the male pronoun for Arcee, is consistent with the rest of the Transformers pronouns and avoids is gender issue.

I concur, in a way. I think he should either call her a she without the quotation marks, call them all a he or call them all an it (which it might be too late for if he's already used the word 'he' in an actual comic).

Agreed, it's too late, to use "it", as "he" has been used for the rest of the series.

I really think he will be using she (not "she") in the Spotlight though, not 100% sure on why, but I just have a feeling that we will be seeing gendered bots, and that is why Arcee is so ticked off.

Could also be a prelude to some self reproducing Transformers a la G2 style...

What if in the spotlight, Furman will avoid all of this by only refering to Arcee by name or someone saying "Bring me the head of that acursed Autobot!". If someone is going to be in a position to say he/she in reference to her, something will happen to cut them off, thus saving all of this hubub.

I wonder if he'll have to use a pronoun in the opening blurb on the inside front cover. If he does, I would take that as an official stance from IDW.

Leonardo wrote:I wonder if he'll have to use a pronoun in the opening blurb on the inside front cover. If he does, I would take that as an official stance from IDW.

He'll probably do something like

"There is one being so full of anger, hatred, one being with a vendetta to be called a female. That being is...

...Arcee".

Insurgent wrote:

Leonardo wrote:I wonder if he'll have to use a pronoun in the opening blurb on the inside front cover. If he does, I would take that as an official stance from IDW.

He'll probably do something like

"There is one being so full of anger, hatred, one being with a vendetta to be called a female. That being is...

...Arcee".

I think you are onto something here.