Astrotrain87 wrote:"I want them to be in the movie just name it some thing else" is not a good counter point.
Sure it is. They did it all the time in the first movie. A character that looked like Vortex was Blackout. The original Blackout was half a micromaster spy plane. A character that barely resembled Soundwave due to alt mode only was called Frenzy, but it was never said so everybody assumed it was Soundwave.
Names don't matter. They were gonna call Blackout "Soundwave" at one point. We were following the prepoduction of the movie on this site. Then it was gonna be Vortex for a while. Hell, they called a character that looked and acted just like Brawl "Devastator"! The fact that they didn't fix that should be enough to convince you that names don't really matter.
Astrotrain87 wrote:You named it "some worries about TF2" when its all about why you want your favorites in the movie.Maybe your favorites are different from others?
It's not about why I want my favorites. It's about why I want certain characters who have staying power and value to the overall franchise, and why people shouldn't dog on them for old cartoon reasons. One of my favorites, Scorponok, was already in the first movie. The other, Fort Max, I'm not pushing for, though it would be cool if they named Bay's aircraft carrier bot Fort Max, but I'd rather see other things.
Astrotrain87 wrote:Dark Zarak wrote:Among other things, I make the statement that they don't have to merge into Devastator. They just combine into some kind of general robot. Or how about the idea that it's one character that transforms into several different construction vehicles?
What's wrong with that?
that doesn't draw from the fact that their 6 of the same types of vehicles
and combiners have a major hole in their existence in the fact why don't they just STAY combined until they complete their objective?Its messy and won't make sense in the 2009 movie.
Don't have to be 6. There could be 3 or even 2. It's not messy to have a single character that splits off into 2 or 3 seperate vehicles. Not any more messy than the first movie already was.
Astrotrain87 wrote:you used G1 to draw an example of Astrotrain.Does that mean your hung up on G1? if I made a thread ranting that I wanted Persecptor
in the movie,wouldn't you draw examples from G1 to rebut this?
Perceptor would be cool, and I would not draw on G1, because any alt mode is better than a microscope for this movie.
I used G1 to talk about Astrotrain because like Swerve said, what else can he be but his G1 mode with a name like that? I find it hard to understand why you think a triplechanger that goes from a train to a shuttle (with or without mass shifting) is less messy than a character that splits off into 2 or 3 vehicles when he transforms.
Astrotrain87 wrote:I noticed you avoided the fact that 6 CGI models will take away from the cast of 'cons.
If devastator is in TF 2 we ONLY get devastator CGI takes time and money and I don't see this movie getting an unlimited budget to
make sure all the fan favorites make it in there
That is a good point, but they did make more models than what actually made it into the first movie, such as Arcee, and Shockwave in the game.
Also, I see them having a larger budget this time around, considering that they greenlighted TF2 before the first movie was even released officially. The public's hype alone was enough to get egg all over the studio execs' faces who had turned down Murphy and DeSanto so many times before.
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
