sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Actully it can go both ways.
Sto, I've said this before. Read the whole statement before you respond to it.
Saber Prime wrote:depending on the range of ages in the play and the level of the school, like in High School there could be a mix of people playing parts either younger or older than they really are.
Which I don't think is the case with Galaxy Force/Cybertron. They may of said that Cybertron was in the same continuity as Armada and Energon while Galaxy Force is a seperate continuity from Micro Legends and Super Link but Cybertron is honestly just WAY too different from Armada/Energon to really even be called a sequill to them.
Jetfire, Wing Saber, and several other characters in Cybertron are entirely different from their name sakes in the previous series. No one even trusted Cybertron Wing Saber and his character backround exsplaining why no one trusted him had absolutly nothing to do with Energon Wing Saber. They're entirely different characters. Jetfire they wrote off on the web site why he had the accent but what was even the point of that? Wouldn't it of made more sence just to use the same voice actor and not even wright a backround for a new voice that we've never heard before and never even gets mentioned in the series itself.
Other than the offical word from Hasbro and the extra info from the web site there was really nothing in the series to let the general audience know it was the same continuity. To most people Cybertron is still a seperate continuity from Armada/Energon.
I cant actually speak to the contents of the shows since I watched very little of all 3 shows but I can say this.......
The offical word is that all 3 were connected, there was content of the scripts of Galixy force that was omitted or altered to connect the last show to the other 2 for Hasbros markets.
And again the "changed" Material are as fundamental to the story as the fundamental difference between Nitro Convoy and Override.
Theres a big fundamental difference between introducing a "So called" new universe and a connecting one with pre-established history.Even if they did a bad job of it.
Could you rephraise the bold statement please. I'm not sure I know what you're talking about.
As for the rest of it. Maybe you should actully watch the so called Trilligy and judge for yourself rather than trusting whatever little bits of it and rumors others have said about it. Quite honestly I think if you took the time to watch the trilligy all the way through you'd understand more of what I was talking about in regards to Cybertron being a stand alone universe despite what Hasbro's intentions for it were.
There really isn't much of anything conecting Cybertron with Armada and Energon. It has as much in common with thoughs series as it does any other Transformers universe. The names and likeness of characters are used but the story and personalitys of thoughs characters are entirely too different to be the same.
Simply because Hasbro was useing Japanese footage and redubbing it there's no possible way they can take a series that was originally ment to be a stand alone series and make it fit to a pre-exsisting universe. The only way Hasbro could of done this would be to remake Cybertron from scratch insted if just redubbing Galaxy Force.
BTW By redubbing I'm not talking about translating. I mean that what ever new dialog they add, replace, or take away, what the characters are saying still has to match what they are doing. Right from the begining of Cybertron the Transformers are trying to hide on Earth simply because that's the only thing that makes sence for the actions in the episode but it does not make sence for a continuity where Earth should allready know about them.
Hasbro no doubt wanted to make Cybertron the squill to Energon but simply for that reason they never had any hope of accomplishing this. Hasbro's intentions for Cybertron were never made apperent in the series, hence Cybertron is still as far as I'm conserned no different than Galaxy Force. Both can and do stand on their own. Cybertron did not have any of the major changes from Galaxy Force nessisary to really tie the story in with Armada and Energon. If you think it did, than please by all means tell me exactly how that's possible when...
A. Humans and Cybertronian are allready WELL aware of eachother in Energon yet in Cybertron it's made apperent in the first episode this is the first time they have ever interacted with eachother.
B. Why are characters like Cybertron Jetfire, Wing Saber, Sideways, and so many others so drastically different from their Armada and Energon counterparts. And how can there even be a Cybertron Sideways when he died in Armada.
I really don't think there's an exsplination for any of this therefor can't be the same continuity.
Hasbro intended it to be the same continuity but it's obvious in the American dub that the series was never intended to be in the same continuity by Takara. Takara made the Animation and allthough it's not a straight translation Cybertron still isn't all that different from Galaxy Force simply because they use the same animation.
I don't know how many ways I can say this. Takara set out to make a new series with Galaxy Force. Hasbro set out to continue an existing series with Cybertron. Sence Hasbro was useing the Galaxy Force footage to make Cybertron they never had a chance to do what they wanted.
If the oppisite were true and Cybertron were made first then Takara would have no choice but to set Galaxy Force in the same continuity as Micro Legend and Super Link and maybe both shows would be better that way but sence it didn't happen that way who knows.
There really isn't alot you can change when you're forced to match dialog with a spicific action. Hasbro would of had better luck cutting any scenes that showed Transformers hideing on Earth sence in Energon everyone on Earth allready knows about them so there's no reason for them to hide in Cybertron if it's the same continuity.
And Jetfire's character change, well that wasn't even a dubbing thing, that was just poor judgement. Why the hell would they think ententionally changing Jetfire's character would make the shows more belivable as the same universe? Keeping the original voice actor playing the same Jetfire from Armada and Energon would of help the connect the new universe. They could of spliced in footage from Energon to retell Wing Saber's origin insted of useing his new one but they didn't. They could of made up a scene to exsplain Sideways returning but they didn't.
Any of these things could of actully helped to make Cybertron a completly different series from Galaxy Force but Hasbro didn't do any of them. As far as I can tell Cybertron is not what Hasbro intended it to be but rather is what Takara intended Galaxy Force to be. A new continuity. Whatever changes were made between the two are minor compaired to the changes that should of been made to actully make Cybertron fit as a sequill to Energon.
You just can't fit a square peg into a round hole... unless of course you cut the corrners off.
Now given that they are OFFICALLY the same continuity that would make all the Cybertron characters the same characters as their name sakes from Armada and Energon.
Not necessarily.
while it make make it easier on the fans, theres nothing precluding the possibility that more then 1 TF having the same names.
Allso given that Cybertron is nothing more than a redub of Galaxy Force all the characters would be same characters as the Galaxy Force versions who share the same mold and coloring. (have to specify coloring due the repaints.)
Are you missing some quote tags? I'm preddy sure that last line was me but it looks like you said it.
At any rate. I've mentioned this before, while in real life it's not uncommon for multiple people to have the same name in fiction there has to be some in story reason for 2 or more characters to share the same name within the same continuity. It's just too confusing for the general audience otherwise.
Fictional characters offten don't even have last names or are seldom heard of and it just becomes easier to refer to them by first name and the fiction they're from. Haveing multiple characters in the same fiction with the same name would just be too hard for fans to talk about in conversation.
Now when the same names are used, there is allways some reason for it. Maybe a group of kids who all share the same name but then to tell them apart they'd all be given a letter, possibly a last innital to easily tell them apart in conversation.
In Beast Wars it was actully said within the dialog of the series who was a G1 character and who was just named after an ancestor. (Starscream and Ravage really being the only G1 characters to interact with BW characters without being uncontious. Not counting the comics of course which include Rattrap's aunt Arcee and probly many others.)
Yes it is, because the two characters missing from the movie really didn't add anything to the main story. They had little sub plots going on that were cut from the movie and thus the characters had no reason to exsist.
The main story remains the same without them.
No its not because no matter how little the 2 missing character contributed to the story their conten and roles were removed\altered.
And that alters the story from its original source material.
Plain and simple ,its a changed story based on the original.
How is it a change in the story when thoughs characters had NO EFFECT on the story. Their little sub plots had NOTHING, NOTTA, ZERO involvement in the main story line. They just happen to be whores who were liveing in that house but other than that nothing they ever did had any effect on the plot.
In other words... they did NOT contribute to the story. They had their OWN story lines that were never told in the movie. The stories of the 2 characters in question never even made a connection with the main plot. You could rewright the whole thing and have their story told first then put the movie version as a sequill and both storys would remain the same other than happening slightly out of order.
Not really. The only way you could really change the story is with a significant character addition or subtraction.
Any change to the source matrial is a change.
Any adding or removing of characters and their plots is a change to the story.
It doesnt matter if you think its a "significant addition or subtraction" because whats "SIGNIFICANT" is a highly subjective and abstract.
What you see as "Significant" to the story I may not, and the director may have an other view all together.
And lets not forget the opinion of the writter, who wrote the character in for some reason.
"Significant is in the eyes of its beholders"....it differs from one person to the next.
Change is change.
Any change to the story can be viewed as significant to someone.
And any change to the source changes the story.
Not true.
If a character has absolutly ZERO impact on a story there is no possible way removing that character can change the story. And when I say ZERO impact that's not a matter of opinion I mean the character quite literally never did one damn thing to drive the plot.
For example. Say I wright a scene where a character tries to stop a bank robbery and gets killed. Now take into account that this character has never been seen before, and obviously will never be seen again. Someone else comes in a desides they don't want to add a character to the scene who just dies and replaces the new character with someone who the audience would have allready seen in a previous scene. Character number 2 is likewise a small part that was only in another scene to deliver pizza. How in the same hell does makeing thoughs 2 insignificant characters into the same character do ANYTHING to change the overall story. Neither one of them contributed anything to the plot, they're just there. The only important thing is that someone be at the bank to try and stop a robbery and get killed. And it has to be someone who otherwise isn't important. He's just there as an extra who dies and nothing more. It doesn't even have to be a man, they could kill a woman. Nothing about the character except for his death has any importance what so ever to the story.
On the other hand if it was changed so the character didn't die at all or was killed on accident when the robber is supose to intentinally shoot them it would either make the character a main part of the story because they would then be the hero who allmost died rather than the corpse no one cares about or change the character of the robber from being a die hard criminal into someone who really isn't all that evil and never intended to hurt anyone.
What matters as a significant change is not "in the eye of the beholder" but rather how much that change alters the overall plot.
As long as can change or cut a scene or character without haveing to change the entire story it's minor. But if you make a change that effects the entire story that would be a major change.
I'll use Star Wars as an example. (456) The newer versions all have large city scapes and things in the backround that weren't in the original relises. Did any of thoughs changes effect the story? No not at all. Scenes were added to Star Wars that were never even incuded in the original versions, did they change the overall story, nope not at all. The changes were only ment to add to the realisum of Star Wars not to change the story.
How much did it change the story to actully show the snow beast? Non. How much did it change the story to show giant worm creatures comming out of the holes in the ground rather than just trowing them in the holes to some unseen creature at the bottom? None.
These are all changes that were made to the original Star Wars movies and non of them did anything to change the plot of the movies.
Like I exsplained abouve. In some cases dialog can be passed off to other characters who are more important to the story as long is it makes sence for that character to say that particular line.
Which also changes the story and that other character.
No it doesn't.
Here's another example.
Original version...
Ed Eral: I'm going to call Miss. Mona up at the ranch and let her know what's going on.
Altered version...
Deputy: You gonna call Miss. Mona up at that ranch and let her know what's going on?
Ed Eral: Yeah, give me some privay would you.
How does that change the story? He still makes the call and the line is still there just said by a different character and it's not even an important line. He could just make the call without saying anything before hand. Nothing said there has any importance to the story what so ever. The only thing that's important about the scene is that he needs to make a phone call.
Here's another one.
(Knock at the door)
Me: I hope that's the pizza I ordered. (answers the door)
Alternate scene
(Knock at the door)
You: (answers the door) Did you order a pizza?
Either way we know my character wanted pizza so what has changed in the story? Absolutly nothing, if this were a scene in a bigger story this scene wouldn't even be important to the overall story so why should it matter who mentions the pizza first or who answers the door? It doesn't.
You make it sound as if every single little thing has to be done exactly the same way word for word, character for character or it's not the same story.
Some times changes are made because they HAVE to be made.
For example Sweeney Todd the original set design called for a 2 story set where the bodies of Sweeney's Victums would be droped through the stage floor. In our production due to limitations with the stage space we could not build the original Sweeney Todd set and Denis Jones the director designed his own version. The story remained the same but the corpses went backwards through 2 large double doors and the chair would re emerge empty rather than dropping them through the floor.
According to you however this simple change in stage direction would then change the ENTIRE story line even though the stage direction has nothing to do with the plot.
I once preformed a scene for drama class and then preformed the SAME scene on a smaller stage at a profecinal theater and guess what, simply because of the change in stage space, my blocking changed. Did the change in blocking change the story? Absolutly not. But again according to you, it has to be done EXACTLY the same way EVERY time or it's an ENTIRELY new story which just is not in any way even remotely true.
Hell if that were true in theater the audiance would be watching a new story every night but they don't watch a new story, they're watching a different preformance of the same exact show.
There's been times when we have cut songs simply because the actress playing that role is sick that day and can't hit the right notes. Now if we had an understudy for every actor which we don't, can't afford it. That would still then be a change.
No matter how you look at it, change is allways going to happen one way or another either for the sake of ditching a character who adds nothing to the overall plot, ditching a line that doesn't help the plot, or just plain because the director's an idiot and doesn't know what the hell he's doing. *cough*Micheal*cough*Bay*cough*
Hell Wrighters rarely even have any say in who gets to play the parts of the characters they wrote. Casting is Director's job so who's to say even that an original performance is not what the wrighters intended the show to be?
The original version of something if you really think about it, is not the original product. It's whatever the creator intended that product to be. Back to Star Wars, the newer version of 456 is what George Lucas orginally intended in the first place so technically the new relice is the original, not the original relice if that makes any sence.
If not a better exsplination would be that the original version of Star Wars relised to the Public was the best George Lucas could do with the technoligy avalible to him at the time. Years later he made changes to it to really bring HIS original concept to life. His original concept is the original version not the original version that we saw.
Stepping away from Batman, didn't you post a link on another topic before showing a Japanese Spider-man? That's kinda what I was talking about with Batman. They had a Japanese actor playing that part because they didn't have any white people to play the part. Now if the series had been made in the US and all they had to do redub it than Spider-man could of actully been what he is here in the US. Or sence you never see his face under the mask they could do what they did for Power Rangers. Use all the costumed footage from over seas but refilm a new secret identity origin for the character.
I'm not sure what kind of compareison your trying to make.
Yes I posted a link once to a Japanese Spiderman show, but the Spiderman in that series was a competly different character.
I'm not even sure if he was bit by a Spider, but his character boar no resemblance to Peter Parcker....and I'm not talking about appearance.
I'm talking about the difference between just re-dubbing and actully makeing a whole new series.
Cybertron was a redub of Galaxy Force. It used all the same footage with all the same characters. They could have removed, added, or replaced footage in episodes that didn't make any sence for it being a sequill but they didn't.
Power Rangers was a whole new story. Different actors playing different characters. Any footage of the original actors out of costume wasn't used at all. They didn't just make a change as simple as changeing the yellow rangers gender, they changed her personality, race, origin, EVERYTHING and not just her. Non of the Power Ranger had anything what so ever to do with their Japanese counterparts in the same costumes. In fact the costumes and zords are the ONLY things that stay the same.
Cybertron and Galaxy Force really, what's different between the two of them? Galaxy Force never tried to be a sequill and Nito Convoy is a male. Cybertron tried to be a sequill, failed in the first episode, and Override is a girl. I really don't see how changeing that one character makes any difference to the series.
Power Rangers and Go-Bots changed every single aspect of their series from the Japanese shows who use the same likeness of thoughs characters.
Cybertron changed one character. Or at least that one character is all anyone ever talks about. If there's more to it than that then please let me know what the changes in the plots where. I really don't see how there can be any plot changes when they're useing the same footage.
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
