Lastjustice wrote:That's a poor arguement because then we start going well BoneCrusher's called Devastator too because they used that name in another country, despite being the same movie. That's how stupid going with techincalities gets. What was the intented name of the Character meant to be..Brawl. I see this as no different than an animation error in G1. (they regularly colored the other Seekers the wrong colors.) Just because Michael Bay was being hard ass about it doesn't change the intent. At the time they didn't know if they'd actually get a sequel, and Bay had little respect for the franchise at this point, and didn't see care what he named stuff.
Again, its not a technicality.
Intent is irrelevant in these issues, as it is with any continuity issue.The character in question went trew at least 3 names durring the production of the film [Devastator,Demolisher and Brawl] , at some point each name was "intended".
Writer intent is never a way to view issues within a story.
And keep in mind, if
Michael Bay was being hard ass , its his film.He "pretty much" had final say.And it was
HIS intent that the tank be named Devastator.And its what we got.
Addressed above. Bay is charge of the editing, doesn't change the intent [by Hasbro]
Again it was Bays film, and his intent to name the tank Devastator. He admitted he didn't care for franchise when he started this all in interviews, but loves it no
He admitted he didn't care for franchise when he started this all in interviews, but loves it now.(Though I doubt he'd ever edit the text box for Brawl. I won't be surprised if some point down the road some special editions of the movie do fix it.)
I really dont see how his like of dis-like for the series is relevent to this issue/
And if he fix's it in a future DVD release then at least it can be said we got a "retcon".
He clearly wanted to use a combiner named Devastator based off of G1 being fromed by the constructions. So regardless of a throw away line that was ignored Devastator was intented be a combiner, and Brawl was intented to be a tank in the first time. (which is name used in the video game, as they say it.)
He clearly wanted the tank in the first film to be named Devastator,the man himself said he felt it sounded kooler.It was his intent and he insured it was done in the film. So regardless of 2nd character in the 2nd film having the same name, the tank in the first film was named Devastator by Bay's intent.(which is name used in the Novel adaptation and the Titan movie comics, as they printed it.)
I mean so otherwise are you suggesting there's two Cons named Devastator?
I'm not "suggesting" that.I'm pointing out the FACT that Bay gave us two Cons named Devastator in his movie series.
and what's the point?
the point is that its a fact.
I say by them ignoring that throwaway, it's been retconned into it's intent(which brawl dead so his name being corrected doesn't get touched on.) I'd much rather view the Brawl mix up as an error and let Brawl be Brawl than insist on that. (I jokingly refer to him as Brawlvastator.)
ignoring a problem doesnt fix it, it doesnt retcon anything.Useing the name a 2nd time also doesnt fix or retcon the problem.
I say by them ignoring the problem left us with 2 different characters with the same name.They had the chance to retcon it and refused to do so.
I wish they had fixed it but they didnt.I cant look at it as an error because it was done by intent [Bay's],Its his film, its what he wanted, its what he got, its what he gave us.
I picked the word all instead of majority.(I was aware of that otherwise.) Again you're just nitpicking techinicalities which doesn't make you look smart...just makes you look petty. Would looking at the big picture of intent kill you? You seem incapable of that and get bogged down with minor details. It's tranformers not law; fandom doesn't need more red tape.
And useing "blanket terms" and the wrong words to convey your message doesnt make you look any smarter.
You said
"Brawl is the name used in every other instance of the character outside of the movie"And its not " nitpicking technicalities" to point out you were in error in that claim.If you were aware of the other examples you didnt make that clear, and you should have chosen your words more carefully.
Now you ask me view the "big picture of intent" but you dont seem to be doing that yourself.The "big picture" isint just about what Hasbro intended.
The "intent" in this case changed a few times.At 1 point it was intended to be one name and at an other it was changed.Whats intended changes all the time.Its the nature of writing and story telling.Not to mention that writer/creator intent doesnt always make it to the final product.
No less whats "intended" also changes with each person involved with the project.Hasbro may have intended on Brawl, but at some point some of the writers intended "Demolisher".And Bay intended Devastator.
How do we go by intent when intent was changed several times and by several of those involved in the film?How do we pick which and who's intent to follow?
This one of the reasons I always say and argue that "writer/creator intent is irrelevant when trying to figure out in story problems.
But hey, if I'm forced to pick who's intent holds more weight, I would have to say it falls to the person in charge of the project.
And in this case thats M.Bay.
Hasbro considers it a continuity error..Guess what that means.
Nothing.
Hasbro pointed out the issue before the film was released.The writers pointed out the issue before the film was released.
Bay still did what he wanted.
Hasbro claimed the DVD release would be corrected
The writers [or producers] said it would be corrected on the DVD
Bay refused to allow it.
Guess what that means........Bays word/intent holds more weight on the "continuity" of these films.