Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Red 50 wrote:The way I see it:

The tank is Brawl, he was just called Devastator in movie 1 because Michael Bay thought it sounded cooler, but officially he is Brawl.

And Que probably shares the same fate: he's called Que because it sounds cooler, but OFFICIALLY he's Wheeljack.

That's the best I got, take it or leave it.

So what your saying is that the movies arent official?

Hardly a technicality,Its just an other example of difference between different branch's of the franchise.

G1 originally had what?About 5 or 6 different branch's for their fictions continuity???

The movie franchise is the same.

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.

The fact that the sequels ignore the issue is not the same thing as a retcon.They had their chance to retcon the problem with the DVD release.Reports are that Bay refused to fix the issue.

Addressed above. Bay is charge of the editing, doesn't change the intent.(by Hasbro) 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.) 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.)

I mean so otherwise are you suggesting there's two Cons named Devastator? Because that's where you end up, and what's the point? 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.)

Your wrong about that as well.

He wasnt called Brawl in the Titan Magazines Transformers movie comics and was not Brawl in the novel of the first film.

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 on a final note.

■Working names for Brawl were Demolisher.[1] and "Devastator", the latter of which had also been a working name for Blackout at one point.[2] Even though Michael Bay confirmed in May of 2006 that "Devastator" was not the final name[3], screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman confirmed the final name to be "Brawl" in April 2006[4], and Hasbro used that name for all their toys based on the movie character, he identifies himself as "Devastator" in a subtitle in the movie itself (even though the garbled audio used for his voice sounds an awful lot as if he says "Brawl, reporting"). According to a fan who attended the Australian press conference, Bay had confirmed that he had decided to use that name "Devastator" because he had preferred it[5], while Hasbro considered the name in the movie a "continuity error"[6], and Orci even claimed that he and Kurtzman had pointed out said "error" in the editing room twice.[7] Despite rumors to the contrary, he is not credited in the film under either name.

Hasbro considers it a continuity error..Guess what that means.

Lastjustice wrote: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.

Hasbro considers it a continuity error..Guess what that means.

I wouldn't bother with him anymore. Let him believe what he wants. On a different note; we are going way off topic. The topic at hand is worn out anyway. -_-

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.

Gyrotron wrote:

Lastjustice wrote: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.

Hasbro considers it a continuity error..Guess what that means.

I wouldn't bother with him anymore. Let him believe what he wants. On a different note; we are going way off topic. The topic at hand is worn out anyway. -_-

I believe what was given to us on film.

Nothing.

Hasbro pointed out the issue before the film was released.The writers pointed out the issue before the film was released.

But since Michael actually reused the name Devastator(which by your own words is able to veto this.) ....wait for it...he concedes that intent as well. This is same continuity , it's not Megatron in G1, and Megatron 2 in beast wars...so they can't both be Devastator.

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.

When did they have chance to retcon it? They hadn't made the second movie yet, and had no idea what was going be in it.(or that there was going be sequel for sure, as it wasn't announced till a couple months after the first movie was out of theathers I believe.) In order for a retcon to happen something new has to be made. Given Brawl was dead, there was no need to rename him on screen. So they needed to rename a dead character for you to acknowledge the error....that would noly made it more confusing than just ignoring the throw away line in the first film.

This likely reason they didn't have a roll call in second film for the Cons...people can't mess up names of unnanmed minions heh. The majority of the Decepticons names were never mentioned during the film...Does that somehow mean they don't have names? I mean that's what Bay gave us. Is that how silly yuo want to get with this?

I believe what was given to us on film.

No, you just refuse to acknowledge contuity errors.

Take Xmen series, their contuity is all sorts of jacked up. The only explanion that makes a lick of sense is X3 and Wolverine can not have happened for First Class to have taken place.

If I go with this well the movie says so, and people can't change their minds or make mistakes stance you are there's two characters named Emma frost. Two different mutant experts named Hank Mccoy. Professor X regained use of his legs after he was shot, and somehow lost the ability to walk again after recruiting Cyclops and Jean. (and made amends briefly with Magneto to recruit Jean at the beginning of X3.)

So no this Movie is the highest canon, and errors can not be made is pure slag. If the powers that be, Hasbro the highest authority on Transformers say in the end it's an error, it's an error. The fact Bay himself allows the name to be reuse only reinforces this. (Though I don't think you'll ever hear him say I goofed up wasting the potential name on Brawl.This the closest you'd get to him admitting he was wrong..my father was same way.)

There's plenty of other errors with in the films Bay made, so Game Set and Match. Is really that hard to just say Brawl was mistakenly named in the first film ?

Lastjustice wrote:But since Michael actually reused the name Devastator(which by your own words is able to veto this.) ....wait for it...he concedes that intent as well. This is same continuity , it's not Megatron in G1, and Megatron 2 in beast wars...so they can't both be Devastator.

A] even if he [now] acknowledges the intent of Hasbro it doesnt change what he did in the film
B] who says they can't both be Devastator?

There have been other examples of 2 different characters with the same name in other TF continuities.

When did they have chance to retcon it?

First DVD release.

Not to mention that Hasbro,Archer and the writers said it would likely be fixed on the DVD release.It doesnt matter that the 2nd film wasnt made yet, if Bay felt it was a mistake that was his chance to fix it.

And by the time the first DVD was in production, he already knew he was going to make a 2nd film.

(or that there was going be sequel for sure, as it wasn't announced till a couple months after the first movie was out of theathers I believe.)

Actually the 2nd film was green lite within days of the premier.

In order for a retcon to happen something new has to be made. Given Brawl was dead, there was no need to rename him on screen.

A] the retcon could have been done on the DVD release
B] their could have been some mention of the character in the 2nd film.

The majority of the Decepticons names were never mentioned during the film...Does that somehow mean they don't have names?

It means no names were given on film.If you choose to use the toy or credit names thats up to you.

No, you just refuse to acknowledge contuity errors.

Not at all, but even continuity errors are in fact what we may have seen.

But differences in names arent really a "continuity error".

Take Xmen series, their contuity is all sorts of jacked up. The only explanion that makes a lick of sense is X3 and Wolverine can not have happened for First Class to have taken place.

If I go with this well the movie says so, and people can't change their minds or make mistakes stance you are there's two characters named Emma frost. Two different mutant experts named Hank Mccoy. Professor X regained use of his legs after he was shot, and somehow lost the ability to walk again after recruiting Cyclops and Jean. (and made amends briefly with Magneto to recruit Jean at the beginning of X3.)

I know the X-films have a few issues.But most of what people assume to be "continuity" errors in those films arent....I'll trey to explain.

Emma Frost
X-men origins Wolverine did not name a character "Emma Frost" in the film.

The only name given was "Emma", and she was the sister of Silverfox.Theres nothing in the story that says the "Emma" seen in the XoW film wasnt the daughter of Emma Frost we saw in FC.

Now true I doubt that it was intended that way,but it does allow for continuity to not be dented.

Hank McCoy
Why would there be a need for 2 Hank Mccoy???, because he went furry in FC and wasnt in the 2nd X-film?

Are you a fan of the character in the comics?

He has gone from "not furry", to furry and not furry and furry again several times in the comics.

That could very well be the case in the films continuity.

So again, not a continuity issue yet.

Professor X
Just as with Beast, in the comics Professor X did INDEED regained the use of his legs several times and lost it again.

At one point he was even given a cloned body.

I'm not saying I would like to see these explanations on film, but it does allow for "continuity" to go un-damaged if they see fit to introduce these story points into the film universe.

Bottom line, these arent continuity errors....yet.

The writers may explain them in a new or familiar way.

So no this Movie is the highest canon,

I never claimed or implied that the film was "the highest canon".

But it IS canon.

As are the the other medium,.But they are all seprate continuities, all equal in standing.

Which is why I particulkasr in saying "the film" in my original claim.

The tank was called Devestator in the film
The tank was called Brawl in the game.

What ever other mediums call him its that name.

No one continuity is higher then the other.

If the powers that be, Hasbro the highest authority on Transformers say in the end it's an error, it's an error.

Hasbro can say what it wants, but it doesnt change the facts of the issue.

Bay did it deliberately.That nullifies the "error" claim made by anyone after the fact.

Is really that hard to just say Brawl was mistakenly named in the first film ?

I cant call it a mistake when it was deliberately done.

"Game Set and Match"......your not even close.The fact that there are other mistakes in the film arent even on point with this issue.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Red 50 wrote:The way I see it:

The tank is Brawl, he was just called Devastator in movie 1 because Michael Bay thought it sounded cooler, but officially he is Brawl.

And Que probably shares the same fate: he's called Que because it sounds cooler, but OFFICIALLY he's Wheeljack.

That's the best I got, take it or leave it.

So what your saying is that the movies arent official?

No, what I'm saying is that in MOVIES certain characters had different names because the movies director found those other names cooler. What I meant is that these names in movies are more like nicknames. You know what I mean?

Let me put it this way...
Decepticon Brawl is nicknamed Devastator
Autobot Wheeljack is nicknamed Que

but in movies they used only nicknames of these characters (+ Dino, who is Mirage.) Kinda like Wheels is known only as Wheelie.

Savvy?

Red 50 wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Red 50 wrote:The way I see it:

The tank is Brawl, he was just called Devastator in movie 1 because Michael Bay thought it sounded cooler, but officially he is Brawl.

And Que probably shares the same fate: he's called Que because it sounds cooler, but OFFICIALLY he's Wheeljack.

That's the best I got, take it or leave it.

So what your saying is that the movies arent official?

No, what I'm saying is that in MOVIES certain characters had different names because the movies director found those other names cooler. What I meant is that these names in movies are more like nicknames. You know what I mean?

Let me put it this way...
Decepticon Brawl is nicknamed Devastator
Autobot Wheeljack is nicknamed Que

but in movies they used only nicknames of these characters (+ Dino, who is Mirage.) Kinda like Wheels is known only as Wheelie.

Savvy?

If thats how you want to see it, thats fine.Its your right,theres nothing wrong with it

But with out the names Wheeljack and Brawl ever being mentioned on screen I cant go for your "nick name" reasoning.

This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen.