Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

I wasn't sure Brawn was dead, as he'd just been shot in the shoulder. Prowl, on the other hand... anyway, after the shuttle exploded and they didn't turn up for the rest of the movie, I kinda put two and two together.


Transcendent, I commend you on your ambitious and noble goal, but be wary of the fierce intellects and supernatural insight of Sto and Sabrblade. The fanwank is strong in them.

To the topic: does fanon allow for the possibility of animation errors? I'm in the camp of the whole armada mess just being a hangover from the script's many rewrites and remaining holes (like Shrapnel reappearing after his supposed demise), and see no reason to care whether Skywarp or Bombshell became Cyclonus, because Cyclonus himself shows no sign of connection for either identity, unlike Galvatron with Megatron.

Animation errors occur, but does fanon explain them or politely ignore them? I don't generally assume that, say, during Starscream's Brigade, after being explicitly banished, Screamer returned to the ranks long enough to do a minor chore before resuming his trip to Cybertron and creation of the Combaticons back on Earth. It was either Thundercracker or Skywarp, who just happened to hit the light exactly right.

The armada is an animation error. The still-living Insecticons and Seekers in further shots in the movie are the animators crowdfilling the decimated Decepticon ranks. Season 3's multiple Cyclonuses and return of presumably dead characters and badly redecoed Shockwaves... well, AKOM is very, very cost efficient animation.


If I had to pick, I'd say there's only one Cyclonus, and he was Skywarp, and the Sweeps under Scourge's command were all former Insecticons, who retained their cloning abilities and created at least one copy of themselves, for a minimum of seven sweeps. Alternatively, Cyclonus was Bombshell, and used the same cloning ability to make multiples of himself during Five Faces of Darkness, and only two of the three Sweeps possessed cloning abilities, while the other could teleport. Really, if you want it to work, there are a lot of ways to put it.

Sinnertwin wrote:All narrative, comics, fanon aside, when you watched the movie, did you think that they were dead?

No.

I considered the possibility that they were dead/.dieing, but also took note that we had seen other characters survive similar damage.

Henry921 wrote:Transcendent, I commend you on your ambitious and noble goal, but be wary of the fierce intellects and supernatural insight of Sto and Sabrblade. The fanwank is strong in them.

To the topic: does fanon allow for the possibility of animation errors? I'm in the camp of the whole armada mess just being a hangover from the script's many rewrites

thats exactly what it was,

But evidence proves that Bvombshell was always intended to be Cyclonus.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Sinnertwin wrote:All narrative, comics, fanon aside, when you watched the movie, did you think that they were dead?

No.

I considered the possibility that they were dead/.dieing, but also took note that we had seen other characters survive similar damage.

Storyboards tell us otherwise:



Windcharger's dead as the floor he's laying on, yet still fully colored:



Considering the animation errors that plague the movie, I'm inclined to believe that they just forgot to color those two gray.

Sinnertwin wrote:
Storyboards tell us otherwise:

Sorry buddy, but useing story boards to try and prove a case is a mistake.Story boards tell us nothing but the creators intent.....which buy the way is completely and totally irrelevant in these kinds of debates.

To begin with...story boards are work product, which is subject to change after change.....which means they arent canon.They arent part of continuity.

The only thing the story boards can tell us is that the writers wanted to kill off Windcharger..............but that doesnt prove that he actually died.Because storys/plots and events change from the time they are written to the final production.

Your own storyboards proves my case.
Look at it again............

it say Windcharger and an other Autobot on floor dead

the image of the other Autobot is Smokescrean or Bluestreak.

But in the finished film who was laying on the ground next to Windcharger???????

It was WHEELJACK not Smokescrean or Bluestreak.

Windcharger's dead as the floor he's laying on, yet still fully colored:
Considering the animation errors that plague the movie, I'm inclined to believe that they just forgot to color those two gray.

you can believe what you want, but your story board example doesnt help prove your case, no less if you look up a few more story boards you will see that Wheeljack is alive and fighting later in the battle with Devestator.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sorry buddy, but useing story boards to try and prove a case is a mistake.Story boards tell us nothing but the creators intent.....which buy the way is completely and totally irrelevant in these kinds of debates.

To begin with...story boards are work product, which is subject to change after change.....which means they arent canon.They arent part of continuity.

Which leads me to my next point:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:But evidence proves that Bvombshell was always intended to be Cyclonus.

Using a storyboard to reinforce a point?

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:The only thing the story boards can tell us is that the writers wanted to kill off Windcharger..............but that doesnt prove that he actually died.

It clearly specifies Windcharger and another Autobot on the floor dead. I can't imagine them being clearer.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Your own storyboards proves my case.
Look at it again............

it say Windcharger and an other Autobot on floor dead

the image of the other Autobot is Smokescrean or Bluestreak.

But in the finished film who was laying on the ground next to Windcharger???????

It was WHEELJACK not Smokescrean or Bluestreak.

Irrespective of who's laying down next to Windcharger on the storyboards, Smokescreen, Bluestreak ... Windcharger is the common denominator. Compare the storyboard and the finished product, Windcharger's in all of the shots for that scene from conception to finished product.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:you can believe what you want, but your story board example doesnt help prove your case,

On the contrary, it's there in black and white, and on celluloid. They just forgot to paint them gray.

Sinnertwin wrote:Which leads me to my next point:
Using a storyboard to reinforce a point?

I really dont meen to sound rude, and believe me I know this will come off as rude and nasty.........so please forgive me in advanced.....

...but you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.You are confusing 2 different types of debates.

Henry921's post was a question on what the creators INTENDED for the film.So my reply to him is based on evidence from the films production phase.

Your question to me was not on creator intent but on what I thought I when I saw 2 robots lying on the ground in the finished film.So my reply to you is based on evidence on the finished film.

It clearly specifies Windcharger and another Autobot on the floor dead. I can't imagine them being clearer.

and yet it proves nothing when used in a debate about the finished film.

if you want to prove the character did in fact die, you need to find evidence from within the narrative, from within the universe...as if you were ,yourself, living inside their world.

No scripts, used or not used, no story boards, no interviews with directors, writers,creators animators.

The only evidence that can solve a story element must come from the actual finished story or an official squeals, in this case season 3.

Irrespective of who's laying down next to Windcharger on the storyboards, Smokescreen, Bluestreak ... Windcharger is the common denominator. Compare the storyboard and the finished product, Windcharger's in all of the shots for that scene from conception to finished product.

which again is irrelevant.

if any aspect of the story boards are change by trhe time it goes into production it makes all the boards as useless in debates about the finished product.

common denominator or not..... compare the storyboard and the finished film from conception to finished product..............a major change was made to this scene.

not to mention all the other changes made from storyboard to finished product.

On the contrary, it's there in black and white, and on celluloid. They just forgot to paint them gray.

On the contrary, its no where to be found in any evidence of value to this debate.,

so again I say.........you can believe what you want, but your story board example doesnt help prove your case.

Well, really my question is less about authorial intent and more about whether we accept animation errors as just that; or do we explain them? I went off on a tangent to explain Cyclonus's armada to make that very point. As aforementioned, I simply consider it an error that should be ignored.

And Sto, there's no need for formality- it's just 'Henry.' The added numbers are simply because my chosen appelation was taken.

Henry921 wrote:Well, really my question is less about authorial intent and more about whether we accept animation errors as just that; or do we explain them? I went off on a tangent to explain Cyclonus's armada to make that very point. As aforementioned, I simply consider it an error that should be ignored.

well ZI might have misunderstood your question a bit, but the only way to examine and determine a annswer to your question is to look up authorial intent.

As you say, you consider it an animation error, but how doe one determin what is or is not an animation error, you search foir evidence of intent.,

And Sto, there's no need for formality- it's just 'Henry.' The added numbers are simply because my chosen appelation was taken.

[/quote]

I'll try to renmember that...thanks

I think the true explanation is that the movie was a low point in the rather mediocre G1 series. People complain about ROTF, but damn...It's a freaking masterpiece compared to this movie.