Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Court Jester wrote:.

Shadowman wrote:Really? It's a bunch of sports cars and military vehicles either way. The only difference is the decade the vehicles were produced.

Really? You're wrong again.

Not in this case.

In both G1 and the Bay formers what we got was real vehicle designs.The only real difference is the era of those vehicles

While everyone appreciates a critique of a post, the ones directed at my motivations for posting are for all intents and purposes inane in nature (as is the nature of opinion threads like these).

Look, I'm not attempting to convince anyone of my positions. But when one throws out erroneous statements to rebuke my perspective, I choose to laugh at such nonsensical actions. Why try to convince someone of anything when I know already from where they're coming. If it's about respect, one must give to receive. In this case, I have no interest in the transaction.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Not in this case.

In both G1 and the Bay formers what we got was real vehicle designs.The only real difference is the era of those vehicles

No, transformers were more than a bunch of sports cars and military vehicles. It may not be what he was trying to say, but the statement is still inaccurate.

Court Jester wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Not in this case.

In both G1 and the Bay formers what we got was real vehicle designs.The only real difference is the era of those vehicles

No, transformers were more than a bunch of sports cars and military vehicles. It may not be what he was trying to say, but the statement is still inaccurate.

And in the Bay films Transformers are more then just a bunch of sports cars and military vehicles.

look at the first film...Frenzy,Scopernork and Megatron....none of these were sports cars or military vehicles, and lets not forget the All spark created TF's that featured cell phones, a soda dispenser and an X-box

the second film featured [up to 9] construction vehicles,Alice a pretender ,Ravage a animal,
Wheelie a Remote Control Truck, the twins that were first an Ice cream truck,Soundwave a satellite,an Insecticon, a character[s] named Reedman who's altmode I cant really describe, Scalpel that transformered into some kind of microscope.

And also robots made from a blender, a toaster,a Microwave, a Cappuccino machine,a Garbage disposal, a food mixer,a Wireless Router and my personal fave a Dyson vacuum cleaner.

the last film featured Laserbeak an animal,Hatchet some kind of beast, a robot from a wrist watch and a few I cant describe.

So again, in an issue over alt modes, there isint a big difference between the 80's asnd the bay films.

In both we got a good variety of different alt modes.The only real difference is the era of those alt modes.

Face it bud, you are just flat wrong on that one.

Court Jester wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Cartoons are not superior to live action.

Yes they are.

In some cases, perhaps. Cartoons are capable of things you can't pull off in live action. However, cartoons have never been able to compete with the visual quality you get from a live action movie.

Court Jester wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Barely. I mean, the 1986 movie spends more time focusing on its plot, but when you really look at it, its plot isn't all that great. "new characters you've never heard of before have to get a Deus ex Machina you've never heard of before to defeat the villain you've never heard of before. Also we kill off the majority of the original cast."

Your opinion is wrong.

If that was an opinion, it is, by nature, not wrong. But it's not an opinion, it's exactly what happened.

Court Jester wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Really? It's a bunch of sports cars and military vehicles either way. The only difference is the decade the vehicles were produced.

Really? You're wrong again.

Um...no. Okay, there were construction vehicles, random objects, and some alien vehicles, but again, the only difference is the era the vehicles were produced.

Court Jester wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Except for Tracks who turned into a Chevy Corvette, Windcharger and Tailgate both turn into Pontiac Firebirds, so they all have ties to GM. Most of the Decepticons transform into US military vehicles. And there's ties to tons of other vehicle manufacturers.
As for political overtones, would you like to take a guess the first organization to use the Walther P38 Megatron transformed into? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the Allied Forces in World War II.

None of the Autobots you mention were officially branded.

Except that they were.

Court Jester wrote:The only politics from a using a Nazi weapon for the main antagonist, is to reinforce the evil "overtone(?)" undertone. I think we can all agree Nazis and Neo Nazis are the scum of the earth.

Just a moment ago you said you had a problem with GM's political undertones...

Court Jester wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Except for "Get the AllSpark so we can restore our homeworld, because we kind of destroyed our homeworld when Megatron tried to steal it for more power."

I said Decepticons. Reading is a waste of time if there is no comprehension.

And I was talking about the Decepticons. Comprendé?

Court Jester wrote:Fun "debate", but obviously you have an agenda with your posts; I'll let you get back to it. By the way, you're wrong - and your opinions don't matter as much as you think they do.

Funny, I could say the exact same to you. I won't, mostly because that's pretty dumb way to leave off an argument. But I could.

Court Jester wrote:But when one throws out erroneous statements to rebuke my perspective, I choose to laugh at such nonsensical actions.

The irony is, your perspective is loaded with erroneous statements, or statements you simply refuse to justify.

Court Jester wrote:Why try to convince someone of anything when I know already from where they're coming.

Try me. You'd be surprised.

Court Jester wrote:If it's about respect, one must give to receive. In this case, I have no interest in the transaction.

Then you'll receive none in return.

Autobot032 wrote:Before we begin....this was one of the worst cases of TL;DR, I've ever seen. I skimmed through all of it, but paid enough attention, or at least tried. Anyway, onto the show:

I'm not sure why people admit they "didn't read the whole thing," and then go on to make detailed posts trying to counter the arguments presented. Just seems like capitulating before you've even begun to me, but to each their own. It's like saying "I'm going to take this test, but I didn't study everything I should have," and then wondering why you scored poorly.

You definitely win this one for TransFormers 2007. However, ROTF certainly delivered on the robots, but needed work in spots. DOTM was very, very robot heavy and had a perfect mix of humans and TransFormers.

Perfect mix of humans in your opinion. The films, even DOTM could have done without plenty of the contrived human based comedic scenes. John Malkovich's character, while entertaining, was inconsequential to the film. You could have omitted him entirely and still been just fine. DOTM did improve on the balance a little bit, but Bay didn't really change the formulas of his movies at all, which is fine, because as I said, people still flocked to them like salmon upstream. And of course, you need the actors to do press work, etc. for the movies, so it's not as if I blame Bay for making the movies so human-centric. But a better equilibrium could have been reached.

Not entirely true. Some of the movie characters resonate with the audience. Just because Roger Ebert considers Optimus nothing more than an engine block, doesn't mean it's true for everyone. G1 never made me cry, let alone tear up.

The movies did. When Optimus tells Sam he owes him his life and Bumblebee asks to stay with him, I get choked up. Even my Dad does. It's a nice scene that's really sweet.

When Optimus says "Boy...you came back for me", it's one of those "Hell yeah!" moments.

When Bumblebee is on his knees, about to be executed and Sam and Carly have tears rolling down their faces, I get choked up.

Those moments always stick with me. They could have more of an emotional impact if given the chance.

That's feasible. If those movie scenes actually moved you, then I'll take your word for it. I didn't quite acquire the same level of emotional involvement because I personally didn't see enough examples from the films to derive a real sense of camaraderie between Sam and Optimus. But then again, Optimus and Bumblebee and Sam are characters that actually had effort put into their characterization in the films. My gripes in the article were more centered towards some of the other characters that were sort of left in the dark. I think I mentioned that point in the article anyways, but perhaps you missed it. No biggie.

Some points in here I can't argue with. However, this was striving for realism and how exactly do you make giant alien robots from a kid's toy line realistic? It's a miracle they were accepted as well as they were. I mean, I'm a long time fan and even I can see how incredibly SILLY the whole concept is. It's goofball corn with a side of eyerolling groans, yet the movies gave it serious cred. They came to use our technology to build an army. Obviously we had something they wanted more than just the Allspark. A gun will rip apart a car if the right caliber is used. These turn into cars. Why is it so crazy to think they'd be susceptible? No one's impervious.

Sentinel thought he was a God. The humans helped hand him his ass on a silver platter. Our weapons did him damage. That makes him mortal like the rest of us.

Again, this comes off more as opinion. You're going into a movie knowing that it's about giant alien robots from another planet. Right away, you have to suspend some disbelief going into the thing. You can't just say "Well, yeah it's a miracle they were accepted as they were," because that's the job of the film maker; unless it's going to be some full blown comedy or tongue in cheek affair, then it's the job of the filmmakers to make us believe that we are fully immersed in a world where such elements are real.

If you read the article more thoroughly, you'd see that I said "I don't want to see the Transformers shrugging off nukes or toppling buildings with finger wags," but these are technologically superior beings that are capable of accelerated travel through the cosmos.

If you want to go the realism angle, you would have to assume that machine-based beings would be able to evolve much faster than humans or similar biological creatures because they can more quickly correct their weaknesses through upgrades rather than wait for evolution to take its course over hundreds of years. Also, uou have to admit though that the durability of the Transformers displayed throughout the films was inconsistent. One minute Lennox is sliding around on scrap metal pumping a few machine gun rounds into a Transformer and killing it, the next Sam *SPOILER ALERT* punching the **** out of a main villain TF with robotic brass knucks. My main point is that I don't think the humans should have been such decisive constituents in killing off some of the baddies. A perfect example would be the Bay version of Devastator. (Killed off in seconds by an "offshore rail gun." That's just lazy writing.)

Black quota? That's... WTF man? Oh and “tight” and “phat” are used by Whites, Asians, etc. People of all races come from the Ghetto/Hood, that's just how they talk. It's not their skin color. A kid could be purple, live in the hood and still talk like them.

And where do you think different dialects and slang words come from? Other ethnic groups can come to use the terms too, but that doesn't mean they didn't derive said sayings from a different, sometimes single source. The United States itself is infused with different sounding dialects all throughout its boundaries. Does that mean I'm racist for saying that? Would I be incorrect in saying that people in the South use different words and have different accents than those in the North? Or racist for saying that the reason for said differences can be traced back to a somewhat common origin? I hope not.

I love how you had to remind us that the "chubby, caterwauling fat computer nerd" is black. We know what his skintone is. But what about all the White chubby, caterwauling fat computer nerds? The Asian ones too, for that matter. This one happened to be black. That's the long and short of it.

Oh and you forget to mention that the "chubby, caterwauling fat black computer nerd" actually helped save the day. He was intelligent. I truly didn't care for this part of your article.

That's fine. If you didn't enjoy this part of the article, that is your liberty. I admit that my sense of humor is not everyone. It's very lighthearted in nature, despite the way it might have come across to you. The reason I mentioned the computer nerd's skin color is because he's only in the movie for a fairly brief amount of time and I didn't feel like using the ten seconds it would take to find his name on Wikipedia. Sure, he accomplishes something in the film but what they really emphasize is his overexaggerated raucousness. But never once did I claim that the fact the character was black was of any detriment to him. Why didn't you get mad at me for calling him fat? What I was evoking was that the Bay movies are commercialized. This is evident. Although perhaps not as badly as everyone says, he makes movies that are more specifically inclined to do very well in the box office as opposed to winning awards for stimulating one's intellect. Therefore, he has to include elements that advertisers and execs know will incite said lucrative success, and this means appealing to many different demographics. So you've got the smoking hot chick computer nerd and the caterwauling computer nerd. Seems just a little bit forced.

I always find it funny that those who cry racism use racism (and usually say worse/make people uncomfortable) to make their point against it. The irony is so delicious, you could sell it in a super fancy boutique in NYC.

You need to re-read what I said. I never claimed that Skids or Mudflap were racist caricatures. Quite the contrary. I said that all the outcry against them was probably unjustified. But I did say they came across as annoying, dumb-ass characters regardless of what color they're supposed to be.

“We’re supposed to be African-American and our names are thinly veiled slang words for poop. Michael Bay doesn’t care about black people.”

You're crossing a line here. If Bay didn't care about Black people, why would he continually work with them and make them out to be heroes? No one said the twins are supposed to be African-American.[/quote]

You're really grasping for straws here and if you're not going to more thoroughly read what I wrote in the article then it just comes across as slander on your part. The quote you are referring to is a parody of Kanye West's "George Bush doesn't care about black people," outburst on live television. If you think I'm crossing the line here, then you may need a reality check.

Oh and what about G1's Seekers and Brothers? Slap a different coat of paint on and it's instantly a different character? To anyone on the outside looking in, they'd think G1 is just as visually confusing. The Dreads in DOTM shared the same alt mode, but each one's robot mode was vastly different. Kinda reaching here.

To deem something as more easily discernible than something else doesn't necessarily mean only by appearance in this case. Yes the Seekers are repaints of each other, but they are all infused with very distinctive personalities. You might confuse Starscream and Thundercracker by sight at first glance if their colors were off, but never by personality.

Sure the Dreads looked different but all they did was snarl in the same voice and chase after the Autobots. Nothing really memorable except looking cool during the highway chase scene. Nothing to differentiate them from one another in terms of personality.

...really? I can't even believe you wrote that. THAT should offend people. Hit your quota, eh?

I see this joke kind of went over your head. It's playing on the fact that Michael Bay includes things in his movies that are done to appeal in the lucrative sense, rather than what makes the most sense in terms of cogency in the movies themselves.

On par, if not better? The two don't even compare! A bunch of colored boxes can't even compete with hand drawn and animated CGI that looks so real you'd swear Shia and crew actually filmed with them. Your pov here just absolutely stuns me. This is a Captain Obvious moment.

Again, your opinion. You have to take into consideration that the original movie was made in 1986. And then think of the relative value of the animation when you first watched the Transformers animated movie in 1986. Yes, the animation was killer. Unicron looked amazing. The underwater scenes on Quintessa are beautiful. Etc. etc. Do you make fun of Casablanca because it doesn't look as good compared to today's standards? Relativity, friendo.

I don't see how this is a plus. I'd have been fine with a "normal" looking woman, as long as she's important to the story and can act. I didn't go to these movies for eye candy. Fortunately, Rosie did deliver on all fronts. She is pretty and she can act and she was actually an important piece of the story. Megan wasn't. They focused on that part of it a bit too much, I think.

Rosie really didn't do anything besides inexplicably taunt Megatron at the end of DOTM to spurn him into action. I don't see why she wasn't swatted away by Megatron anyways, but that's besides the point. And the fact you consider her a good actress is definitely opinion. I thought she was even worse than Megan Fox, and so do many others.

And of course your overall decision went to G1. You were biased from the get go and let it cloud your judgment. (Which is what I'm using to explain away the whole thing about Black people. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.)

I grew up with G1. Born in 80, I was there in 84 and Optimus Prime was my first TF ever. So I have been there from the beginning and I can't stand G1. I might be biased, but at least I'm willing to see both sides of the argument. You came at this slanted, from the beginning and stayed that way.

That's fine. We get it, you didn't like G1 that much. I on the other hand, did. That's what I was trying to express from the get go. Not that I was necessarily indisputably in favor of G1, but that I really loved Transformers growing up with them. Should I be condemned for having that much love for the series as a child and having fond memories?

I however, didn't let it cloud my judgement. Re-read the third article I wrote. I specifically stated that I wanted to be impartial, reconsider my initial thoughts, and reevaluate the three live action films with a clearer head. Which I did. I gave reasons for the originals being better and then conversely, for the films. If I came at it slanted and just stayed that way... why present arguments for the other enterprise at all? Your argument doesn't make sense here.

Swaying you is pointless for two reasons: 1.) You are entitled to your opinion. We all are. We don't have to agree, but we do have to respect it. I respect it for the most part, but some of your attention grabbers were disrespectful.

I'm not here to be swayed. I'm here to listen to your opinion because that's what this is all about. It would be boring if everyone just outright agreed with me. I like to hear other's opinions because I enjoy empathizing with other's viewpoints and enjoy seeing things from new and unique perspectives. Yours would fall under this category so I thank you for that. I'm sorry I came off as disrespectful, but I often put what I deem "humorous" maybe somewhat "jerkish" comments in my articles as a form of playfulness, lightheartedness. If I tried to write a dissertation lengthed article on a kid's cartoon advertising toys and live action films based on said kid's cartoon advertising toys then I would have gone crazy long ago. Writing in that way made it somewhat fun for me, so I apologize if they came off as disrespectful to anyone.

2.) You're the type who'll stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALAL CAN'T HEAR YOU!" so there's really no point.

Not sure where you got this idea from, but now you're just coming across as bitter and spiteful.

Thanks for your input, and thanks for reading!

Jester, you seem like an intelligent guy from what I can derive... but when your argument against Shadowman is just "You are wrong," without any evidence to back it up... it comes off across lacking.

plates wrote:To deem something as more easily discernible than something else doesn't necessarily mean only by appearance in this case. Yes the Seekers are repaints of each other, but they are all infused with very distinctive personalities. You might confuse Starscream and Thundercracker by sight at first glance if their colors were off, but never by personality.

Sure the Dreads looked different but all they did was snarl in the same voice and chase after the Autobots. Nothing really memorable except looking cool during the highway chase scene. Nothing to differentiate them from one another in terms of personality.

"distinctive personalities"??I'm sorry bud but thats an exaggeration.They may have had distinctive voices, but other then Starscream we never really saw much of the personalities of Thundercracker asnd Skywarp.

plates wrote:Jester, you seem like an intelligent guy from what I can derive... but when your argument against Shadowman is just "You are wrong," without any evidence to back it up... it comes off across lacking.

Lacking's a slight understatement. I'd put it as more arrogant than anything else.

Court Jester wrote:Reason 1: They were cartoons and not live action.

Wouldn't this just be based on opinion and thus can't actually be used to say one's better?

Reason 2: They achieved a cohesive narrative.

I don't really see how the movies were non-cohesive in dialogue and such. The stories in both series made sense to me.

Reason 3: The gimmick was brand new to me and my peers.

And...so were the movies to me and mine, I don't get how this is viable for one to be better than the other.

Reason 4: The alt modes were better.

Really? They were relatively the same, except for when they were Animals which sometimes turned out well, and sometimes turned out horrible. In my opinion the G1 Predacons were some of the worst looking TransFormers out there.

Reason 5: No ties to the US Military, Lockheed Martin, or GM & and their political undertones.

I don't see how this can automatically make something better. It didn't ruin the movies by having those specific alt-modes.

Reason 6: The Decepticons were given dimensionality - origin, motivations, expertise.

G1 was never written all that "deeply" (though it can easily be argued that neither were the movies) and the Movie Decepticons had their own origin. As for motivation, Megatron in G1 just wanted to rule the universe and get Energon (I could be mistaken but this is what I remember from the cartoon). As for expertise, the Decepticons lost in EVERY episode save for ones where it would result in Megatron dying. Only in the 86 Movie did they make any long lasting effect. The Movie Decepticons caused a lot more damage, but it doesn't really matter anyways since both sides lost in the end.

This is all in good fun and purely a thread directed at and consumed by only the most adamant of Transformers fanatics. But let's be clear. I can truly say the Bay TF franchise had a varied array of altmodes for the bots and cons. I would like to cite my source on the matter however. Take a look back and see what was posted. The alt modes are merely updated forms of the originals (the sentiment was for the most part). This is inaccurate. I never mentioned anything implying the absence of any other alt modes. Hell, these 6 reasons are mine. Which is why anyone who responds to threads like this should be (without attempting to troll or derail the conversation) in the mindset of pure individual taste. Poking holes in anyone's opinion is truly a matter up to the individual. Respectfully, eat me.

You know, I've been an ass hat this entire thread. I apologize.

Court Jester wrote:Poking holes in anyone's opinion is truly a matter up to the individual.

Didn't stop you from saying some opinions were outright wrong now did it?

Oh wait ...

Court Jester wrote:Respectfully, eat me.

Court Jester wrote:You know, I've been an ass hat this entire thread. I apologize.

hmmmm ... so you have your say, shoot others down, then decide you made a whoopsie and expect forgiveness. Nice ploy.

Seriously, it does come down to individual tastes. Some people are going to love the G1 cartoon over the modern movies and vice-versa. Both are perfect, both are imperfect, it's whatever the hell you want it to be to yourself.

So just go and watch whatever you like, and let's save the barbs for something else.

Court Jester wrote:This is all in good fun and purely a thread directed at and consumed by only the most adamant of Transformers fanatics. But let's be clear. I can truly say the Bay TF franchise had a varied array of altmodes for the bots and cons. I would like to cite my source on the matter however. Take a look back and see what was posted. The alt modes are merely updated forms of the originals (the sentiment was for the most part). This is inaccurate. I never mentioned anything implying the absence of any other alt modes.

I don't know what any of this means. Are you saying that I meant to imply that the alt modes are updates of the old ones? Because that would be inaccurate.

Court Jester wrote:Hell, these 6 reasons are mine. Which is why anyone who responds to threads like this should be (without attempting to troll or derail the conversation) in the mindset of pure individual taste. Poking holes in anyone's opinion is truly a matter up to the individual. Respectfully, eat me.

Here's the problem: You posted your opinions in a thread whose very purpose is to argue opinions. What did you think was going to happen?

now if only bay and greedberg could both aplogise from making crap transformers films and if only greedberg could apologise to megan fox about being so sodding touchy.......well... it would be nice

sadly i think this 2 morons will continue to make horrible transformer films with robots that have no charactistics, all look the same, crap plots, annoying humans, stupid reasonings and turd hole writters who clearly write the scripts in the coffee shop to LOOK cool without any actual effort put in

Swindle01 wrote:greedberg

You know, that you keep trying to claim how the Jewish guy is so greedy doesn't help disprove that antisemitism point I made earlier.

zenosaurus_x wrote:

Court Jester wrote:Reason 1: They were cartoons and not live action.

Wouldn't this just be based on opinion and thus can't actually be used to say one's better?

Your question seems rather pointless, the idea that any one thing is better then an other is an opinion based issue.

Court Jester wrote: This is inaccurate. I never mentioned anything implying the absence of any other alt modes.

actully you pretty much did with this statemernt.............

Court Jester wrote:No, transformers were more than a bunch of sports cars and military vehicles.

Thar statement is INDEED implying the absence of any other alt modes.

It may not be what you were was trying to say,but thats how it reads and the statement is still inaccurate.

Swindle01 wrote:now if only bay and greedberg could both aplogise from making crap transformers films and if only greedberg could apologise to megan fox about being so sodding touchy.......well... it would be nice

sadly i think this 2 morons will continue to make horrible transformer films with robots that have no charactistics, all look the same, crap plots, annoying humans, stupid reasonings and turd hole writters who clearly write the scripts in the coffee shop to LOOK cool without any actual effort put in

You have been outright offensive in every post I've read. You ruin it for the rest of us. You should be removed from the fandom.

I agree. Leave your stereotypical biases against a particular ethnicity out of the mix! (FYI, different ethnic groups(Japanese,American,Jewish,Filipino,African American,,Chinese,British,German etc) made the franchise successful).You're starting to sound like a Decepticon!

Anyway, simplifying this argument, G1 was the foundation while the Bayformers are..........(insert I really don't like the movies in general)I grudgingly admit help break it to mainstream( that's the nicest I can say about it). Both have their plus and minuses, let's all leave it at that then. The movies are over, finished, earned more than a billion$$$$.

Let's hope if they(Hasbro,DW,Paramount)make a reboot, it would be improved.

Autobot032 wrote:

Swindle01 wrote:now if only bay and greedberg could both aplogise from making crap transformers films and if only greedberg could apologise to megan fox about being so sodding touchy.......well... it would be nice

sadly i think this 2 morons will continue to make horrible transformer films with robots that have no charactistics, all look the same, crap plots, annoying humans, stupid reasonings and turd hole writters who clearly write the scripts in the coffee shop to LOOK cool without any actual effort put in

You have been outright offensive in every post I've read. You ruin it for the rest of us. You should be removed from the fandom.

Agreed. Also whoever stated Megan fox leaving the movies ruined them should be booted as well. I about blew a gasket when I first saw that post (forgot who put it up, may have been Swindle01)

SirSoundwaveIV wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

Swindle01 wrote:now if only bay and greedberg could both aplogise from making crap transformers films and if only greedberg could apologise to megan fox about being so sodding touchy.......well... it would be nice

sadly i think this 2 morons will continue to make horrible transformer films with robots that have no charactistics, all look the same, crap plots, annoying humans, stupid reasonings and turd hole writters who clearly write the scripts in the coffee shop to LOOK cool without any actual effort put in

You have been outright offensive in every post I've read. You ruin it for the rest of us. You should be removed from the fandom.

Agreed. Also whoever stated Megan fox leaving the movies ruined them should be booted as well. I about blew a gasket when I first saw that post (forgot who put it up, may have been Swindle01)

This post is approved by me.

Burn wrote:

Court Jester wrote:Poking holes in anyone's opinion is truly a matter up to the individual.

Didn't stop you from saying some opinions were outright wrong now did it?

Oh wait ...

Court Jester wrote:Respectfully, eat me.

Court Jester wrote:You know, I've been an ass hat this entire thread. I apologize.

hmmmm ... so you have your say, shoot others down, then decide you made a whoopsie and expect forgiveness. Nice ploy.

Seriously, it does come down to individual tastes. Some people are going to love the G1 cartoon over the modern movies and vice-versa. Both are perfect, both are imperfect, it's whatever the hell you want it to be to yourself.

So just go and watch whatever you like, and let's save the barbs for something else.

I will attempt to be civil and say, "Thanks, Burn, you're absolutely right."
We've never seen eye to eye, and I think its better that way.

Court Jester wrote:We've never seen eye to eye, and I think its better that way.

I have no idea who you even are.

This just might be the most hostile thread I've visited. I think I might be done with "G1 this and the movies suck that and vice versa" type threads.

But, I was nice! heeheehee!

Hey, Burn...time to lock this one down?