Possible Confirmation of 'Knight Megatron'

Very intriguing. Maybe there's other letters on other characters or objects that could be decoded.

JazZeke wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Emerje wrote:Kinda exaggerating how small that text is aren't we? It's perfectly readable even on that small image.

Emerje

It's also a stilled image, permanently keeping the text visible onscreen long enough for it to be read. Rewatching the scene it appears in, unless one knows that its coming, when, and for how long, it is very easy to miss if one isn't prepared to read the text.

And, really, aside from those who watch subtitled media and Star Wars-esque text scrolls, who actually watches movie entertainment wanting to read text on the screen?

Brings the intro of this episode to mind...

That is hilarious.

Emerje wrote:I watch a sickening amount of subtitled anime so maybe my eyes just train on screen text quicker than most?

Emerje

Maybe. And the movie really isn't made for the kind of niche audience who watches subbed anime, as it's meant for mass audience consumption, so guys like us nerds who watch subs are more likely to catch stuff like that, but not every average moviegoer will.

Deadput wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

And, honestly, man, why are you trying to defend the legitimate shortcomings of the movie? Refuting the ridiculous Geewhiner complaints is one thing, but the valid criticisms too? Come on, you're better than that.

I'm not?

Maybe I am I don't got any pills to check my temper any more since my family just lost our benefits recently but anyways in this case I'm just pointing out that his name while not said was acknowledge by the movie.

In a rather half-baked method that barely even gets its point across considering how brief said name text appears onscreen.


It all just goes to show how the filmmakers prioritized less important things (spectacle elements) over more important things (storytelling elements). Even writer Ehren Kruger once admitted that these are less like movies and more like theme park rides and openly stated that things like "logical sense" and "narrative structure" are casually and willing tossed out the window. While that might work for theme park rides, these aren't rides, they're movies. Apples and bagels. These movies are trying to be something else entirely that they aren't, rather than trying to be what they are: movies.


Now, onto this new "Megatron Knight" news:

Hellscream9999 wrote:Which might confirm that the head revealed is indeed Megatron, and that he might be the titular 'Last Knight'. So what do you make of this? Let us know in the comments below.

Megatron being one of the knights would be an... unexpected turn of events. Though, I'd have thought the titular "Last Knight" would be Optimus, given what happened in the previous movie.

Sabrblade wrote:Now, onto this new "Megatron Knight" news:

Hellscream9999 wrote:Which might confirm that the head revealed is indeed Megatron, and that he might be the titular 'Last Knight'. So what do you make of this? Let us know in the comments below.

Megatron being one of the knights would be an... unexpected turn of events. Though, I'd have thought the titular "Last Knight" would be Optimus, given what happened in the previous movie.

It'd be a nice way to circle back to their rivlary that they glossed over, I'm all for it

I saw this the other day. Maybe Galvatron follows Optimus to the Creators, and they revert him back to Megatron, granting him the title of "Knight."

It's not like the titles have ever been anything more than clever word plays anyway. In Dark of the Moon the moon was just a way to set up the movie, not far into it the moon didn't matter much. In Age of Extinction it was just a clever dinosaur reference, but nothing actually went extinct.

However, let's not forget that there's two ways to read "last". The first is as "final" which could refer to Optimus, but what if it actually meant "previous" and was referring to the knight before Optimus, maybe Megatron?

Emerje

now megatron is a knight. lol oh boy are thee movies broken.

JazZeke wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Emerje wrote:Kinda exaggerating how small that text is aren't we? It's perfectly readable even on that small image.

Emerje

It's also a stilled image, permanently keeping the text visible onscreen long enough for it to be read. Rewatching the scene it appears in, unless one knows that its coming, when, and for how long, it is very easy to miss if one isn't prepared to read the text.

And, really, aside from those who watch subtitled media and Star Wars-esque text scrolls, who actually watches movie entertainment wanting to read text on the screen?

Brings the intro of this episode to mind...

I saw this comment while looking at the news post so the video didn't show up but I already knew which one you were talking about

I salute you sir! Now excuse me I need to get some smoked kipper for breakfast

Anyway, looks like my already shaky Rom theory isn't working out so far but what if, bare with me for a moment, what if part of the movie deals with the creation of cybertron and this is how Megs originally looked when he first awoke? So we would have a story thread set in the past with Knight Prime and Knight Megatron and then the present day stuff with Prime and Galvatron and the rest.

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Probably because they have a rough story drafted out for the trilogy

And yes, it builds character, explains his ethos and actions, and can bridge the need to have exhaustive exposition, it could've been summed up in a sentence or two, but it wasn't, and that's terrible screenwriting

SlyTF1 wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Probably because they have a rough story drafted out for the trilogy

And yes, it builds character, explains his ethos and actions, and can bridge the need to have exhaustive exposition, it could've been summed up in a sentence or two, but it wasn't, and that's terrible screenwriting

There was literally no need for it. The movie would have in no way been enhanced with that piece of information. He never even did anything indicative of a Decepticon. Who was the focus of the movie? Cade, Tessa, Optimus, and Joshua. Those characters had plenty of characterization. Why does a supporting character absolutely HAVE to have his past brought up when there's literally nothing he did in the movie that would call for that explanation to be needed?

Because its a GODD@MN TRANSFORMERS MOVIE, that they aren't the main characters is the first in a very long list of obvious and basic flaws these movies have always had - and don't give me that crap about how it's to have the audience relate to them. If it's done correctly you can care about anything, I relate more to a robot from the future that turns into a giant rat than any of the imbecilic humans portrayed in these movies (with the excepion of epps and lennox, they somehow managed to avoid getting screwed over by the consistently sh|t writing)

And you're right, adding drifts backstory would have done nothing because the writing was so atrocious in the first place he wasn't even a character, just a set piece, a non-entity; but it would have helped drag the movie up a little

RevTibe wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

JazZeke wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Kurona wrote:Well yes, but the point is that it's a point not addressed in the movie itself - hence most viewers will not know of it. You have to dig into extra material to know this particular character trait.

That's what I like about the movies. You have to work for answers.

And I consider that the essence of bad storytelling. A movie should provide all the relevant information to the audience within itself; audiences should not be expected to do homework or buy tie-in material to understand what is going on. When I buy a movie ticket, I expect to be paying for a whole story, not just part of a story.

Especially if said tie-in material isn't even written by the screenwriters, but left to other writers to clear up. That is the very definition of laziness.

Then why do so many people like the Force Awakens? Drift's past wasn't even essential to the story, so how is leaving it out detrimental to anything?

Probably because they have a rough story drafted out for the trilogy

And yes, it builds character, explains his ethos and actions, and can bridge the need to have exhaustive exposition, it could've been summed up in a sentence or two, but it wasn't, and that's terrible screenwriting

Yup - we could have had a line or three about him having once fought for the other side, then he counters w/ 'nyah nyah I'm still more honorable than you' or something, and we get a more fleshed out look into the character. But hey, age of consent jokes are waaaaay more engaging than that.

He could have even said it to crosshairs, thus building character for both characters, but that's smart/clever screenwriting