Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

I see this in two ways.

1. In agreeance with others here that it has far too much fan wank to be real sence Bay seems to go out of his way to remove or alter anything fan related beyond fan recignition. Sam was given the nickname Spike and his Grandfather was called Sparkplug. Starscream had "Cobra" inprinted on his cocpit and was described to regain G1 coloring that I doubt he'll ever gain outside the toy line. The place where Sam grandfather lived was allso called "Powerglide".

Aside from the fan wank this allso seemed to be severly lacking in the human eliment that Bay seems to love. Namely if they did the whole engagement thing it would take the entire movie for either Sam to pop the question or for Mikala to answer it, it wouldn't happen as quickly as that script showed.

While the opening looked accurate with the first two movies they didn't have an accurate ending that fits meaning Optimus Prime's opening and closeing monologs.

2. Reasons it could be real. The amount of bad story telling and plot holes that fit the inconsistancys with the first two movies. Namely the return of Brawl, Ravage, and Frenzy who are all dead. Granted Ravage and Frenzy can be exsplained away as they show up in the past and therefore haven't died yet but Brawl was part of the Combaticons in the future after his death.

Basically threwout reading I felt that the characters seemed to all change between 2 or 3 different personalitys. That of their G1 counterparts, personalitys that are actully consistant with the movie and personalitys that just seemed to be pulled from the ass of whoever wrote the thing. Sam in the begining for example the words "wise beyond his years" caught me as the first clue this was fake because that doesn't sound like either Sam or Spike and non of his actions passed that point seemed to fit that description.

Now the main reason this has got to be fake is the main plot. Time travel. Non of the abouve really proves anything as it's all just opinion and speculation but the fact that the whole plot revolves around traveling to the past is a dead give away that this is fake. Why because of the contract with GMC. For all intents and purpuses the live action movies have changed Transformers from being a toy commercial to being a car commercial. GMC uses Transformers to advertise their new vehicles that haven't been relised yet and all the Transformers in this are takeing on the forms of old vehicles. There's nothing new for GMC to advertise in that script hence it can't be a real script.

Rial Vestro wrote:2. Reasons it could be real. The amount of bad story telling and plot holes that fit the inconsistancys with the first two movies. Namely the return of Brawl, Ravage, and Frenzy who are all dead. Granted Ravage and Frenzy can be exsplained away as they show up in the past and therefore haven't died yet but Brawl was part of the Combaticons in the future after his death.

Brawl can be explain quite easily.

He never died because he was never seen in the first 2 films.

Dont forget that the tank seen in the first film was named "Devestator".

And lets not rehash the "it was a mistake" debate because its insulting.

It wasnt a mistake, Bay chose that name for the tank deliberately because he felt it sounded cooler.

And anything done deliberately is not a mistake.

I do agree with the rest of your words

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Brawl can be explain quite easily.

He never died because he was never seen in the first 2 films.

Dont forget that the tank seen in the first film was named "Devestator".

Nope Devestator first appeared in the second movie and was killed on top of the pyrimid. BRAWL who was originally going to be called Devestator WAS the tank in the first movie.

And lets not rehash the "it was a mistake" debate because its insulting.

It wasnt a mistake, Bay chose that name for the tank deliberately because he felt it sounded cooler.

And anything done deliberately is not a mistake.

I do agree with the rest of your words

If Bay did it delibratly and changed the name BACK to Devestator then exsplain how the toy line, the wrighters, and everything else all call him BRAWL. The only thing I see that says Devestator is a little bit of text that was left in the movie from an OLD SCRIPT and wasn't ment to be there as part of the finnal draft.

I still don't even know where this whole "Bay says it's Devestator" comes from when everything and everyone else says Brawl.

Simply Put Brawl is as much Devastator as Frenzy is Soundwave and Blackout is Vortex.

Rial Vestro wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Brawl can be explain quite easily.

He never died because he was never seen in the first 2 films.

Dont forget that the tank seen in the first film was named "Devestator".

Nope Devestator first appeared in the second movie and was killed on top of the pyrimid. BRAWL who was originally going to be called Devestator WAS the tank in the first movie.

NOPE

Devestator first appeared in the First movie.

I have already proven that ,this pic will continue to prove it till the end of time.

If Bay did it delibratly and changed the name BACK to Devestator then exsplain how the toy line, the wrighters, and everything else all call him BRAWL.:

Bay did it deliberately.

And I proved that to you 2 years ago when I posted an interview he gave on saying that he liked the name Devastator better and to him the tank was Devastator.I also posted to you his own words on his web site message boards where he addressed the issue.

And I dont have to explain the toyline because its a different continuity....as all toylines have been with the shows and or comics.Events in the toyline do not always jive with whats seen on the shows.

And no, not "Everything" else called him Brawl as trhe official Novelization of the first film also called him Devestator as did the UK comics based on the movie.

And BTW.

I thing the story about the writers saying he was Brawl was a excuse they used.

Because the same 2 writters pulled the same "miss nameing" trick on the Star Trek film they wrote.

The only thing I see that says Devestator is a little bit of text that was left in the movie from an OLD SCRIPT and wasn't ment to be there as part of the finnal draft.

I suggest you look at the special features on the DVD then.

I still don't even know where this whole "Bay says it's Devestator" comes from when everything and everyone else says Brawl.

Like I said above, I proved it to you 2 years ago when I posted the interview.

I'm sure you'll claim you dont remember it but regardless I posted it and I wont be bothered to do so again.

If it was a mistake they would have fixed it on the DVD.

Simply Put Brawl is as much Devastator as Frenzy is Soundwave and Blackout is Vortex.

Simply put........The tank in the first film was named Devestator.

Its seen on film,Its on the DVD, its in the special features of the DVD.

Denying that is wrong.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Denying that is wrong.

I'm not Denying anything. I'm just stateing a fact. He was called Devestator in an old draft of the script but when the wrighters announced who would be in the movie they called him BRAWL hence the finnal version of the character is BRAWL. Devestator is a rough draft version of the same character not the finnal version. The real Devestator is the monkey in ROTF.

Rial Vestro wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Denying that is wrong.

I'm not Denying anything. I'm just stateing a fact. He was called Devestator in an old draft of the script but when the wrighters announced who would be in the movie they called him BRAWL hence the finnal version of the character is BRAWL. Devestator is a rough draft version of the same character not the finnal version. The real Devestator is the monkey in ROTF.

No what your doing is denying facts.

The final version of any character is the one that ends up in the final product....in other words the final version of the character is the one that appears in the finished film.

He was called Devestator in the final product which was the film that was seen on screens all over the U.S., not to mention around the world.What the writers announced is irrelevant because the final product shows different.The finished film is what we saw, hence the finial version of the character that we see on film is called is Devestator.

This would not be the first time that a writers intention differed from the final product.And in each of those cases whats actully seen or heard on film is the official version of events.

So no matter what the drafts or the writters say, it doesnt change what was seen and or heard on the final product.

So tell me what did you see on screen??????

Bay's TF universe has 2 Devastators.

As I said before, if it was a mistake they would have fixed it on the DVD.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:if it was a mistake they would have fixed it on the DVD.

Did the Armada DVD sets fix any of the mistakes in that series. I doubt it. Sparkplug was constantly refered to by Optimus Prime as Leader-1 and I belive there was only 1 time in the entire series he was actully refered to by his correct name. Same thing with several other characters threwout the Unicron Trilligy mostly in Armada. Brawl's nameing is no different. If the finnal name was truely Devestator why doesn't his toy reflect that. Surely Hasbro would be informed of this change in time to change it on toy packageing.

And allso by that reasoning the robot who is killed at the start of ROTF is actully called Wheelbot not Scavenger or Demolishor as the toys would sugest as he was called Wheelbot in the credits of the movie. Why is it you insist on calling Brawl Devestator but at the same time the character credited as Wheelbot is widely belived to be Demolishor. That's a double standard don't you think. One character you insist has the name that appears in the movie but other characters such as Wheelbot and Leader-1 you make no argument that thoughs are their names even though they allso appear on screen.

Your main and really only ligitimate argument is that his name is Devestator because it appears in the movie. Therefore by that argument you must allso belive that the bot killed at the begineing of ROTF is named Wheelbot for the same reason and even more confusing several characters from Armada have 2 or 3 entirely different names that have all been used on screen.

Optimus Prime's mini-con is both Sparkplug and Leader-1.

The annoying girl's mini-con parner is Sureshock, Grindor, and I belive was even called Sparkplug once.

I'm not going to bother to list all of it but I've made my point. Just because it appears on screen and hasn't been fixed doesn't mean it's not a mistake. His name, offically, by the wrighters and by Hasbro, is in fact BRAWL despite what appears in the film or what name Bay likes better. And Hasbro owns the rights to the character not Bay so if Hasbro says his name is Brawl then it's Brawl.

You know, you two debating is getting really old. More often than not you're both too stubborn to accept the others opinion and you end up dragging the thread off topic.

You can not accept each others opinion as much as you like (because you actually do it in a semi-civil way), but let's not drag things off topic all the time ...

Rial Vestro wrote:Did the Armada DVD sets fix any of the mistakes in that series. I doubt it.

Did the writers or creators of the Armada series say the mistake would be fixed on the DVD release????

No they didnt.

But the producers of the first Bay film did make that claime about the "miss nameing".....but it never happened.

Besides I really cant believe your comparing the production of a cartoon to a major motion picture.

Besides, Bay allowed some corrections on the ROTF DVD release.So again I repeat....if it was a mistake Bay would have corrected it on the DVD release.

Your argument doesnt have a leg got stand on.

Brawl's nameing is no different.

The nameing of the tank is very different.

The producers/creators of the Unicron trilogy have admited trhey made mistakes.

The Director of the first film said he preferred the name Devastator and wanted the name to be used.

If the finnal name was truely Devestator why doesn't his toy reflect that. Surely Hasbro would be informed of this change in time to change it on toy packageing.

Excuse me???

Are you that uninformed???

The packing of the toys were created months before the final cut of the film was ready.

And allso by that reasoning the robot who is killed at the start of ROTF is actully called Wheelbot not Scavenger or Demolishor as the toys would sugest as he was called Wheelbot in the credits of the movie.

Stretching things arent you???

Credits are not "canon" within the story.

What was the character called on film????

Thats your answer to what the final version of a character is named.

Why is it you insist on calling Brawl Devestator but at the same time the character credited as Wheelbot is widely belived to be Demolishor. That's a double standard don't you think.

Its no double standard since I never made that argument.

Credits are not canon, they arent part of the story.

What was the name given to the character within the story???If he/she/it was given a name.

Thats your answer to the characters real name.

One character you insist has the name that appears in the movie but other characters such as Wheelbot and Leader-1 you make no argument that thoughs are their names even though they allso appear on screen.

I repeat.

Credits are not part of the story.

And I addressed the Armada issue above.

Your main and really only ligitimate argument is that his name is Devestator because it appears in the movie. Therefore by that argument you must allso belive that the bot killed at the begineing of ROTF is named Wheelbot

Sorry but no.

Was "Wheelbot" ever uttered in the film????

for the same reason and even more confusing several characters from Armada have 2 or 3 entirely different names that have all been used on screen.

Admitted multiple mistakes in a cartoon dont messure up to the delibrate actions of the director.

Think about it this way.

If you and a group of friends are playing baseball , you hit the ball and it flys wild and the ball breaks a car window its a mistake.

But if you take the bat and walk up to a car and deliberately swing at the windo and break it....its no mistake.

And thats the perfect analogy here.

The guys producing the A/E/C cartoons made a few mistakes and have admitted it was a mistake because they were pressed for time.

Michel Bay admitted he preferred the name "Devastator", he said he thought it sounded cooler, he said in his eyes the tank was always "Devestator".

Hasbro said its an "error",the writers claimed that they both pointed out said "error" in the editing room twice......but it still got trew the editing prossus....2 public pre-screaming's, a directer and cast pre screening.....its in the Novel and the UK comics based on the film.

Face it, its no mistake.

Bay wanted the tank to be called "Devastator" and the writers and Hasbro be damed he got what he wanted.

I'm not going to bother to list all of it but I've made my point.

Theres a difference between an admitted mistake and a delibrate action.

The creators of A/E/C admited to making mistakes.

Bay pretty much admitted to deliberately useing the name "Devestator" for the tank by saying he prefered it and that to him its the characters name.

Bay refused to let Paramount correct the issue on the DVD release but he had no problem correcting other mistales on ROTH's DVD release.

Just because it appears on screen and hasn't been fixed doesn't mean it's not a mistake. His name, offically, by the wrighters and by Hasbro, is in fact BRAWL despite what appears in the film or what name Bay likes better. And Hasbro owns the rights to the character not Bay so if Hasbro says his name is Brawl then it's Brawl.

Wrong.

If it appears on screen and is backed by the chief creator of the film then it is official.

Bay was given full control of the characters names and appearance within very little limitations.If Hasbro wanted to they could have fixed it or forced Bay to make the correction....they didnt because they could not.

Bay was given control and he exercised that control by nameing the tank as he saw fit.

So if Bay says the character is "Devastator" and it appears on film then the name of the tank in the film is "Devestator".

And like I said, I dont think the writewrs are completely innocent on the "mis-nameing" issue because they pulled the same trick in the Star trek film.

Burn wrote:You know, you two debating is getting really old. More often than not you're both too stubborn to accept the others opinion and you end up dragging the thread off topic.

You can not accept each others opinion as much as you like (because you actually do it in a semi-civil way), but let's not drag things off topic all the time ...

I'll do my best not to further drag things off topic.

Sorry I replied to his last post before noticing your post here.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

If the finnal name was truely Devestator why doesn't his toy reflect that. Surely Hasbro would be informed of this change in time to change it on toy packageing.

Excuse me???

Are you that uninformed???

The packing of the toys were created months before the final cut of the film was ready.

When the toy packageing was made has absolutly nothing to do with what I just said. Read more carefully. I was sugesting changeing the packageing. They could of done the same thing they did with Armada Sideways but with the packageing insted of the toy. Sideways was originally sold with the heads activateing the wrong symbols, probly because the toy was made before the character was animated. Some time after his appeared in the show they rerelised the toy with the show accurate symbols. For Brawl once they realized his name was going to be Devestator they could of rerelised his toys with the name Devestator but no he has no toys with that name therefore that is not his name.

And allso by that reasoning the robot who is killed at the start of ROTF is actully called Wheelbot not Scavenger or Demolishor as the toys would sugest as he was called Wheelbot in the credits of the movie.

Stretching things arent you???

Credits are not "canon" within the story.

What was the character called on film????

Thats your answer to what the final version of a character is named.

That character was never never named on film, only in the credits and any named character in the credits is cannon with the story.

Why is it you insist on calling Brawl Devestator but at the same time the character credited as Wheelbot is widely belived to be Demolishor. That's a double standard don't you think.

Its no double standard since I never made that argument.

Credits are not canon, they arent part of the story.

What was the name given to the character within the story???If he/she/it was given a name.

Thats your answer to the characters real name.

Again, Wheelbot was never named on screen and the credits are just as much cannon as the little bit of text that says Devestator. The tank in the first film never had a spoken name, only the text and one bit of text is just as much cannon as any other. If you want to claim him name is Devestator that's fine but then you allso have to accept that the construction vehicle killed in the start of ROTF is named Wheelbot.

Your main and really only ligitimate argument is that his name is Devestator because it appears in the movie. Therefore by that argument you must allso belive that the bot killed at the begineing of ROTF is named Wheelbot

Sorry but no.

Was "Wheelbot" ever uttered in the film????

Nope but neither was Devestator. His name was said, it was wrighten which makes it just as ligitimate as the credits. Technically Wheelbot was never given a name on screen except for the credits so now you're sugesting that he has no name which is true for some characters.

Just because it appears on screen and hasn't been fixed doesn't mean it's not a mistake. His name, offically, by the wrighters and by Hasbro, is in fact BRAWL despite what appears in the film or what name Bay likes better. And Hasbro owns the rights to the character not Bay so if Hasbro says his name is Brawl then it's Brawl.

Wrong.

If it appears on screen and is backed by the chief creator of the film then it is official.

Bay is not the chief creator of the film. He's the Director and he does have some say so in sertain matters but ultimately Hasbro still owns all the rights to it. There are people higher up the latter than the Director. To put it in Star Fleet terms Bay is a Captain which is a preddy high ranking position but they are outranked by Admirals. Guess who the Admirals are, Hasbro.

Bay was given full control of the characters names and appearance within very little limitations.If Hasbro wanted to they could have fixed it or forced Bay to make the correction....they didnt because they could not.

Bay was given control and he exercised that control by nameing the tank as he saw fit.

You talk as if you know every detail of their contract with Hasbro which quite frankly, you don't. You really have no idea how much creative controll Bay actully has and just like most people you give him more creadit than he actully deservs. Yes Bay does have a large amount of controll as the Director but he does not own the rights nore did he do everything himself. There are other people involved whos names I do not know that contributed to the movies. For one thing you said Bay had controll over what the characters looked like which is not entirely true. He didn't design any of them, there are a team of people at ILM who did all that, Bay only approved them. That's not exactly controll over their apearance if you didn't design them yourself.

And given that I've spent my entire life studying this subject, and I don't even have a full understanding over everything Bay dose but I do have enough understanding to know he's not in complete controll over everything that happens as you are sugesting.

Oh and I am quite done here as well. I'm afraid I'll put myself at risk if I read any replys to this as the last portion can be easily used to piss me off and someone allways does but right now I need to avoid getting angry due to my returning multiple personality dissorder.

Rial Vestro wrote:Debate Stuff

Did you miss the post where Burn specifically asked you not to carry on this argument?

Rial Vestro wrote:Lots of stuff.

I'll just say this since it sums things up neatly.

As per the box'es....If you were trying to say something else you should have chosen your words more carfully.

As for the characers names......If the character was never named then offical he has no name in the story.So you can personally accept any name you wish for him from any source but he was never given a name on screen.

Sub-titals are part of the offical story, they were usded to "translate" the made up Cybertronion language.They are part of the story.They are canon.

The credits are not part of the story, they are part of the production materials of a film , like scripts,storyboards and are not canon.Credits sometimes contain info from and about characters that never appear in the film.

Oh and I am quite done here as well. I'm afraid I'll put myself at risk if I read any replys to this as the last portion can be easily used to piss me off and someone allways does but right now I need to avoid getting angry due to my returning multiple personality dissorder.

Hope you feel better.

Definitely too many G1 references. And time travel? Seriously? That was an awful idea, in my opinion. Regardless of your own views of the Bay movies, I couldn't see him even incorporating that into the film. Not to mention I find the story to be a real mess and unsatisfying.

Just my two cents.

Wolfguard wrote:

Noideaforaname wrote:They travel back in time (UGH!), try to become G1 (UGH!!), something about Area 51 (UGH!!!), a bunch of dead Decepticons inexplicably return (UGH!!!!), Decepticons suffer key losses while Autobots suffer none (UGH!!!!!), a whole lot of scrolling through Sam "Spike" (UGH)/Mikayla/Leo dialogue (UGH!!!!!!), cliffhanger ending (UGH!!!!!!!).

ugh

...and the girls caress me down

ugh

that's the lovin' sound...

By far "THEE" best quote in this entire thread. Hands down.

I don't care if it's old, it's still the best quote.
Heh....

Just to stay on topic though, has there been any announcement on the Writer dubbed to work on the script treatment? Have any names arisen, things like this? Speilberg had it over to good ol' Lucas for a script treatment being Lu has a thing for aliens? Anything?

Just wonderin'
Josh

Where do you go after Megatron says "No more disguises" and as for ships... isn't the Nemisis a vessel used by the Transformers. still alot of fun to read... "Transformers CAN be anything you want it to be"

I hope that this is for real cuz the Aerialbots and the combaticons are in this, pleazzzzz let this be real