The Energon Pub

Imperious Prime wrote:Changing a character, does change the story ... even if it is slight, but it usually does not effect the plot.

Plot = Story If one changes so does the other.

Even a retelling of the story from movie to musical is different. I just finished Disney's Beauty & the Beast, and while they are based on the same Disney characters and story, they are two different animals. Characters have different backstories, songs are added, things are added or changed ... but the plot is the same. You can not call Cogsworth from the show the same as Cogworth from the movie ... one is slowly turning into a clock, the other one has already become a clock. While this doesn't seem to make a big difference, the dialogue is changed to reflect this ... so an entire new scene had to be added to explain what is going on, which was a new take on the sub-storyline of the original show. Plot stayed the same (Beast must find love or forever be cursed, etc.) but interactions and reasons for things happening most certainly changed.

Sence this is a show I'm familiar with I can respond to it easier than the Randy vs Randi thing.

The change you talked about here does actully change the plot. In the animated movie they allready are furniture and they just want to be human again. In the play they're slowly turning into furniture and when they completly change they won't change back. (cursed forever)

There seemed to be a time limit in the play that wasn't in the movie because of them wanting to break a curse that could become perminate rather than just becomming human again. Haveing that change actully changes the plot.

I think the problem that people are having here is that story and plot are being used to mean the same thing. The plot may or may not change in the case of a retelling/retranslation - but the story most certainly will. So changing a characters gender or age does not effect the plot, but it does change the story - so you can not say they are equal.

But they are equill. There are many different versions of simular plots or storys but not all are the same.

There's a story that's been completly rewrighten multiple times for Goosebumps, Are You Afraid of the Dark, Twilight Zone, and several other things along the same lines. The basic outline is that a character either finds or is given a camera that takes pictures of future events. That is to say that when you look at the photograph insted of seeing what you took a picture of you'll see the future of the person or people in the picture.

Even though all the storys or plots are about a camera that takes pictures of the future no 2 versions of it are anywhere near the same beyond that. In one version the characters in the story figured out that there was a little demon in the camera causeing all the bad things to happen. The pictures that came out not only told the future but they allso had an image of a small little demon on every single picture. This was something that was added that completly changed the plot. Every version how the main character got the camera, who he or she was, everything surounding this camera changed which all changes the plot.

One version of the story the main character could be a photographer buying a new camera. This character could be takeing pictures of people he doesn't even know. Another version, a mother buys the camera for her daughter for her birthday. The daughter character would then be takeing pictures of her family and friends.

Changes that big actully change what the plot is. There's a huge difference between a man takeing pictures of straingers and a girl takeing pictures of family and friends. The man depending on his character could use the camera to his advantage and once it realizes what it can do, use it on people he doesn't like. The girl, once she realizes what the camera can do would then try to prevent whatever accident was shown in the pictures she took.

Now if you make a change as simple as replaceing the man with a woman then nothing really changes. It's just like replaceing an actor, they're still playing the same part, nothing about the character's personality changes.

If the story changes, the plot changes and vice versa. Just changeing blocking or a character slightly won't change the story that's being told.

A slight change is one that doesn't start a domino effect. Meaning if this changes then this this and this allso have to change or the first change won't make any sence.

A good example would be, the color of a dress.

In one production, maybe the original version had a character wearing a red dress. In another preduction of the same show they could put that character in a blue dress. Now if the script is a story about a woman in a red dress this change would then change the plot but if the script never called for her to be wearing a red dress in the first place then it's easily changeable with other colors without changeing the story. It all depends on how much that story relys on haveing a woman in a red dress.

Plot and story are not equal.

To quote a book an screen writing:

In a story, you get "The king died. Then the queen died." If you've got plot, it goes something like "The king died. Then the queen died of grief." So to thicken your story, add plot, which is basically just a cool word for feelings, depth, and motivation for why the characters do what they do.

As for the Beauty and the Beast thing:

The change you talked about here does actully change the plot. In the animated movie they allready are furniture and they just want to be human again. In the play they're slowly turning into furniture and when they completly change they won't change back. (cursed forever)

There seemed to be a time limit in the play that wasn't in the movie because of them wanting to break a curse that could become perminate rather than just becomming human again. Haveing that change actully changes the plot.

The show and the movie have the exact same restrictions on the time period ... before the last rose petal falls. Only in the movie it is before his 21st birthday, in the show it is an unspecified amount of time so the Beast/Prince could be of any age. So this changes the characters and the story ... not the plot. The plot of the movie and the show stay the same.



I will have to agree to disagree with you on the fact that you claim changing the story changes the plot ... I will take your example of dress color.

Story
Example Red - A girl in a red dress walks into a bar and orders a drink, meets a man, she falls in love ... hilarity ensures.

Example Blue - A girl in a blue dress walks into a bar and orders a drink, meets a man, she falls in love ... hilarity ensures.

The plot of both these stories is "A girl walks into a bar and orders a drink, meets a man, she falls in love ... hilarity ensures."

Plot
Example Tick, Tick Boom - "The green green dress" is a song which requires the character to be wearing a green dress so another male character can comment on how beauty she is in it as a plot device - not a story device. If she wasn't wearing the green dress the rest of the show wouldn't happen. if they had her in a blue dress for that scene ... it would change the entire outcome of the show.

Plot and story are not equal ... you can change pieces to a story without changing the overall plot ... which is where there are several versions of certain stories - especially children's tales. Look up your favorite fairy tale one of these days ... there will be several versions with differences ... but most, if not all will still have the same plot.

So to sum it up:

Story = the telling of events

Plot = why the events happen

Rial Vestro wrote:But it wasn't. There is no exsplination for it in the series.

But it was possible to do so.

Rial Vestro wrote:That exsplination would work for the Humans who have shorter life spans but not for the transformers.

It could still be made to wprk with the right re-writes.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Being that Galaxy Convoy is not the same character as Grand Convoy or whatever the hell Armada/Energon Optimus Prime was called in Japan he would have no knowlage of the human race. Trying to get us to belive that the American version of Cybertron Optimus Prime is the same character as Armada/Energon Optimus Prime just doesn't work because even Cybertron Optimus Prime kept Galaxy Convoy's persona of "oh this is the first time I've seen a human."

Again it could have been explained with the right re-writes.

Rial Vestro wrote:Again, this was never exsplained in story. With the way Transformers age they could verry well be the same characters if it wasn't for the character differences.

And even if they were how would a character who's from Planet X end up with the name of Unicron's herold? (Refering to Cybertron Sideways and Armada Sideways) How would the name even be known in order for the Cybertron character to have it.

Not a single one of the issues you keep bringing up could not have been delt with if they had done a better job with the re-writes.

Rial Vestro wrote:Sorry but no. They are as much the same continuity as their Japanese counterparts.

Sorry but YES.

They are the same continuity because the owner of the brand says so.

It hardly matters if it makes sence or not.

Rial Vestro wrote:Like?

At least 3 issues have already been pointed out.

I see no reason to repeat them.

Rial Vestro wrote:Name one situation where that's not the case. Everything I've seen there's allways some reason for multiple characters to share the same name and there's allways some way to easily seperate the characters when talking about them in conversation.

The reason would be simple, their different characters.

There are cases in all kinds of fictions of characters that share the same names.

Do you know how many different "Super-woman's" DC has had over the years, or how many "Nightwings".

Hell they even had to completely different "Huntress's" running around at the same time.

The explanation is simple......they are different characters.

Even in G1 there are characters that share the same name.

There are 2 Autobots in G1 that share the name "Skyhigh".
http://www.tfu.info/1988/Autobot/SkyHigh/skyhigh.htm
http://www.tfu.info/1990/Autobot/SkyHigh/skyhigh.htm

And yes theres a way to tell them apart but no explanation was ever given.No mention of the other one is mentioned in either's bios.

Rial Vestro wrote:We're talking about the effect of the content in the story.

No we're not.

The "EFFECT" of a story is yet an other abstract and highly subjective issue.Its open to interpertation.

Not everyone is going to see the same "EFFECT" from a story.

Rial Vestro wrote:To change the story you have to change the content.

Exactly.

So any change to the content of a story changes the story itself.

Rial Vestro wrote:Any change that does not effect the plot does not change the plot. Plain and simple.

You can still change a story with out changing the basic plot.

Rial Vestro wrote:
The way you're putting it. Any change wheater it effects the plot or not, changes the plot.

I said nothing about plots till this post.

Rial Vestro wrote:Which has absolutly nothing to do with the conversation.

It absolutely does.

Rial Vestro wrote:You said that any change in chatacters or dialog would change the story. I pointed out where two characters were not involved in a story to begine with and were wrighten out of it and yet you still insist that not haveing them changes a story that they were never involved in the begine with.

Because they were part of the original story, they were written in by the author.The characters and their roles had some significance to the over all story according to the stories creator.

No fine, a director or producer has the right to make any changes he\she wants.

But dont delude your self into thinking removing a character doesnt alter the content.

"change is change"

If I had a dozen apples on a table and remove 2 of them I no longer have a dozen.

I made a change.

If I replace 2 of those apples with 2 other apples I may still have a dozen apples but I no longer have "THE SAME DOZEN" apples.

Its a different dozen because I made a change, because I made a switch.

Rial Vestro wrote:Not entirely true.

Yes it is.

Rial Vestro wrote: I just said that any changes made would have to be approved by me. This is to make sure than any changes made don't mess with their original back storys.

No what you said was that any changes had to be "MADE" by you.

You said you would not allow an other person to make any changes to their stories.

Rial Vestro wrote:
For example, was Batman's parrents killed by.

A. A random mugger.

B. The Joker.

C. Mr. Freeze.

or

D. Any of the abouve depending on which continuity you're watching.

No to derail the convo but I dont recall a continuity where MR.Freez killed Batmans parents.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Changeing Batman's costume has never made any difference to his story but changeing his backround has.

Any change that doesn't effect the story does not change the story.

The difference here is were not talking about a change in costume, your talking about the removal of characters.

And removing a character does change a story.

Foe Example, after Batmans parents were killed he was rasied by:

A]uncle Phil
B]social services
C]Alfred
D]looked after by the mother of his parents killer.

And each one of these has been the story at one point or the other.

And each time one of these aspects or characters has been removed or added it changed the story.

Because 1 change leads to an other, and so on and so on........

there was even a time when Bruce wayne had a brother, that stayed home the day their parents were killed and went nuts after finding out.

Rial Vestro wrote: But if you go and change how his parrents died it's not the same anymore. Same Batman but different arch villain.

How does that change the arch villain???

Rial Vestro wrote: His original goal has allways been vengence for his parrents death

No it wasnt.

Batmans goal was "JUSTICE" for his parents death not vengence.

Rial Vestro wrote: allthough that goal changes later in his career which is why it allways made a great story line to have Joker kill them being that he's the villain Batman deals with the most.

Makeing it Mr. Freeze really ruined the story and the two never had the same hatred for eachother like Batman and the Joker do.

I never agreed with having the Joker kill his parents like was done in Burtens Batman.

And to date thats been the only place it was done that way.

And again I ask...when has Freeze killed his parents???

Rial Vestro wrote:No it doesn't.

Yes it does

If its altered from its original telling its been changed.

Rial Vestro wrote:There's little difference in the two.

Nonsence.

Not everyone is going to precieve the story the same way.

How its precieved differers from each person reading it.

But the content of the story remains absolute, it's exactly the same, unless its been changed.

Rial Vestro wrote:Dialog does not a story make. It helps to move a story along but there were thoughs days of silent films where storys were made without any dialog.

Thats not exactly true.

Dialog was written for the scripts.

Dialog gives the actor motivation, it tells him what his part is.

Dialog does make the story....wether or not the dialog is heard or not is unimportant.

Rial Vestro wrote:But it's still the same story.

No it is a story "based" on an other.

Rial Vestro wrote: Changeing 1 word in script does not change the entire story.

If the word is being "swapped" for 1 that is synonyms I agree........if new content is being added or content removed to a character then I disagree.

Rial Vestro wrote:We're not talking about it being different from the source material, we're talking about it being a different story.

STORY = source material

If the story is different from the source matrial then it is a changed story.

Rial Vestro wrote:Blocking refers to the actions you preform. Any action is blocking and no changing the blocking does not change the story.

Then I'm not even sure why you brought it up.

I never said that changing how many times you lift your right leg would change a story.

But if your part called for you to have a converstation with a other character, and that chaacter was written out....that does change the story.

Rial Vestro wrote:
In fact, I was following the blocking that was wrighten in the script with some minor alterations to adjest for the differences in stage space. Hence I was supose to be in an apartment and my apartment shrank the second time I preformed it.

Same dialog, same actions, but there were changes that had to be made due to space.

My high school stage included off stage wings where I could enter the scene as my character was just arriveing home. I was taking off a tie and jacket as directed in the scrip, turning on a radio, adjusting lights, and pooring champaine all as directed in the script both times I did this. The second time was in a much smaller box theater. These are theaters that not only have an audience in front of the stage but to each side as well so there were no back stage wings in fact the only back stage space was the one and only dressing room so rather than entering like I did at school I entered directly from the only place I could enter which not only made the apart smaller but allso made my blocking backwards.

Insted of entering right I had to enter left so from then on everything I did was on the oppisite side of the stage.

I don't know how well you know stage direction but basically there's the center of the stage with is called Stage Center or SC. Now if you're standing SC faceing the audience everything on your right is Stage Right or SR and everything on your Left is SL. If you go out into the audience than everything is from their point of view not yours. So the Audieance allso called the House, Your Stage Right is allso House Left and Stage Left is House Right. Now if you move towards the audience you are going Down Stage and away from the Audience is Up Stage. So you can basicaly seperate the entirel theater into a grid that looks like this.

High School Stage

UR UC UL
SR C SL
DR DC DL

HL HC HR

Box Theater.

HL UR UC UL HR
HL SR C SL HR
HL DR DC DL HR
HL HC HC HC HR

So in high school I would enter SR, cross SL, DR, and whatever else I did. In the box theater I would enter UL, cross UR, DL and whatever else I did.

Interesting

Rial Vestro wrote:Than everything is different sence nothing is presented in it's original form.

There you go.

Rial Vestro wrote:Brought up yes, exsplained, no.

An "explanation" wasnt what we were talking about.

Rial Vestro wrote: All that's been said is that there are suposidly fundimental differences between the two but no one has said what thoughs difference are.

Yes we have.

I explained 2 of the "fundamentals" myself.

Imperious Prime wrote:Changing a character, does change the story ... even if it is slight,

Thank you.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Plot = Story If one changes so does the other.

Nonsense.

Plot and story are 2 different things.

You can have 2 different story and yet still have the same plot.

Imperious Prime wrote:Plot and story are not equal.

To quote a book an screen writing:

In a story, you get "The king died. Then the queen died." If you've got plot, it goes something like "The king died. Then the queen died of grief." So to thicken your story, add plot, which is basically just a cool word for feelings, depth, and motivation for why the characters do what they do.

And again thanks.

Imperious Prime wrote:
Plot and story are not equal ... you can change pieces to a story without changing the overall plot ... which is where there are several versions of certain stories - especially children's tales. Look up your favorite fairy tale one of these days ... there will be several versions with differences ... but most, if not all will still have the same plot.

You can allso change an entire story and still keep the same basic plot.

Imperious Prime wrote:
So to sum it up:

Story = the telling of events

Plot = why the events happen

Great way to sum it up.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Not a single one of the issues you keep bringing up could not have been delt with if they had done a better job with the re-writes.

Rather than repeating myself over and over again I can reply to this one statement and everything you said before it with one easy reply.

I never said that any of that stuff COULD not be delt with. I said that it WAS not delt with.

They COULD have done alot of things to tie Cybertron togeather with Armada and Energon but the fact still remains that they didn't.

The way Cybertron IS I just don't see how it can be called a sequil to Energon.

The way Cybertron COULD HAVE BEEN really doesn't mean much.

Rial Vestro wrote:Sorry but no. They are as much the same continuity as their Japanese counterparts.

Sorry but YES.

They are the same continuity because the owner of the brand says so.

It hardly matters if it makes sence or not.

When exactly did Hasbro say that it was a sequil? Before or After the series was made?

I'm preddy sure it was made in some announcement before the series even came out which would make the statement an "intention" but not what they actully produced.

In other words Cybertron was intended to be a sequil but ended up as a new continuity.

Now if they said it was a sequil after the series was made that would be a different story. Still doesn't make any sence though.

Rial Vestro wrote:Name one situation where that's not the case. Everything I've seen there's allways some reason for multiple characters to share the same name and there's allways some way to easily seperate the characters when talking about them in conversation.

The reason would be simple, their different characters.

That's not a reason, that's just a fact.

There are cases in all kinds of fictions of characters that share the same names.

Do you know how many different "Super-woman's" DC has had over the years, or how many "Nightwings".

Hell they even had to completely different "Huntress's" running around at the same time.

The explanation is simple......they are different characters.

Again, that's not the reason or the exsplination, that's just the fact.

The REASON for haveing a second Robins for example is that the FIRST Robin left Gotham City and changed his name to Nightwing. And the REASON for haveing a third Robin is because the second Robin who only appeared in 1 issue of the comics was killed.

Thoughs are REASONS for haveing multiple Robins. The 3 of them are different characters is not a reason for them haveing the same name, it's just a fact.

More to the point them being different characters has nothing to do with why they're all called Robin. A reason is an answer to why they all have the same name. They're different characters does not answer the question "Why are they all Robin?"

Rial Vestro wrote:You said that any change in chatacters or dialog would change the story. I pointed out where two characters were not involved in a story to begine with and were wrighten out of it and yet you still insist that not haveing them changes a story that they were never involved in the begine with.

Because they were part of the original story, they were written in by the author.The characters and their roles had some significance to the over all story according to the stories creator.

Ug, look at it this way. Some plays and movies tell multiple different storys within the same story. These are sub-plots. Even though they may exsist within the same universe one does not effect the other in any way shape or form.

In real world terms lets say that in one universe some guy in China gets a job as a car salesman. In another universe he's a homelass man. In either universe I have never met this guy and never will so how does the story of his life change anything in the story of my life?

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the second book titled "Resturant at the End of the Universe" was used as the story for last 2 episodes of the TV series that use to be on BBC. Parts of the book were cut from the series that focused on Zaphod, Tillian, and Marvin but all the parts Focusing on Arthur and Ford remained EXACTLY the same. The 2 storys exsisted within the same book but did not cross into eachother so nothing changed in one story would effect the other.

Just because a character is in a book doesn't mean that character has any importance to every story being told in the same book.

Look at shows like Twilight Zone. Every episode tells a different story about different people. Changeing 1 episode would not have any change on the entire series. The multiple different storys never intertwine with eachother.

Rial Vestro wrote: I just said that any changes made would have to be approved by me. This is to make sure than any changes made don't mess with their original back storys.

No what you said was that any changes had to be "MADE" by you.

You said you would not allow an other person to make any changes to their stories.

Nope.

You sent me a message asking if you could draw some of my characters. I sent a reply back saying I needed to know WHO you were drawing so I could give you spicific details that had to be included with thoughs characters. That would mean that I was allowing someone else, you, to make changes to my characters. They were changes that were approved by me, not made by me.

So by what you just said, you're denying that I ever gave you premition to draw any of my characters and if I wanted to I could take that confession and sue you for drawing them without premition. But of course I won't because that would be a lie.

Remember some of my characters you can't change their appearance without changeing this back stories. Like if you draw Adventureman with 2 normal arms he would no longer be the character I created. His right arm is robotic, his evil counterpart from another dimention cut off his right arm.

Mystery Phantom is a burn victum, and drawing him looking perferfectly normal would again change his back story.

Rial Vestro wrote:For example, was Batman's parrents killed by.

A. A random mugger.

B. The Joker.

C. Mr. Freeze.

or

D. Any of the abouve depending on which continuity you're watching.

No to derail the convo but I dont recall a continuity where MR.Freez killed Batmans parents.

I've metioned it in past conversations. The not so recent anymore series "TheBatman" changed the backroud of every single character on the show and in most chases characters didn't even have origins but rather just appeared randomly and without any motives to speak of. The series was majorly horrible because of this and I personally think people only watched it because Adam West did the voice of the Mayor. Anyway, in that series Batgirl was introduced BEFORE Robin, Robin randomly appeared later on without a back story, and Mr. Freeze killed Bruce Wayne's parrents.

The story for Victor Freeze in the series was that he was a jewel thief originally. He robbed the Waynes and later in life was chaced by TheBatman into an abondoned cryogenics lab where one of the chambers exsploded and cased him to turn into his icy alter ego. This version of Mr. Freeze was allso alot harder to fight sence his helmet was made of ice, not glass, and he didn't have a freeze gun but insted could shoot ice from his hands. In other words his body wasn't just cold but he could actully generate the ice himself.

If you want I can link you to a more detailed description of this version of Mr. Freeze.

Foe Example, after Batmans parents were killed he was rasied by:

A]uncle Phil
B]social services
C]Alfred
D]looked after by the mother of his parents killer.

I'm only familiar with C.

Rial Vestro wrote: But if you go and change how his parrents died it's not the same anymore. Same Batman but different arch villain.

How does that change the arch villain???

I exsplained that in the next paragraph. I'm not going to repeat what I've allready said.

Rial Vestro wrote: His original goal has allways been vengence for his parrents death

No it wasnt.

Batmans goal was "JUSTICE" for his parents death not vengence.

That's not untill later in life or I guess that would depend on which version of the character.

Some versions of Batman, yes his ORIGINAL goal is vengence but he grows up and realizes vengence isn't the answer... eventually.

Look at the movie version for example. Batman Forever, Dick Grayson talks about REVENGE not Justice. Bruce Wayne trys to talk him out of it because by this time he is about Justice not vengence. But as Bruce is talking he's talking about his own exsperiece as Batman to Dick Grayson who wants to be his partner. Allthough it's not clearly said, being that Forever is still in the same continuity as the Micheal Keaton movies, he seems to be talking about his life after the Joker died.

Basically Dick wanted to kill Two-Face for killing his parrents. Bruce made the speach about "what happens after he's dead." That Batman allready exsperienced Vengence with the death of Joker in the first movie.

He allso hinted at the murder of his own parrents without comming right out and telling Dick "My parrents were murdered too." and that seems to be a constant with Batman, at least in the versions I'm familiar with. He never just comes right out and says "My parrents were murdered" other characters are forced to figure that out on their own.

Characters like Dick Greyson and Terry Magentice didn't even realize that Bruce knew exactly how they felt because he never told them his parrents were murdered.

Rial Vestro wrote:Dialog does not a story make. It helps to move a story along but there were thoughs days of silent films where storys were made without any dialog.

Thats not exactly true.

Dialog was written for the scripts.

Dialog gives the actor motivation, it tells him what his part is.

Dialog does make the story....wether or not the dialog is heard or not is unimportant.

Dialog isn't the motivator, not allways. Action can be a motivation. Backround can be a motivation. Anything can motivate a character and the motivation will change depending on the character and the actor playing the part.

Batman's motivation is his parrent's murder.

Superman... well I never really understood what his motivation was.

Spider-man can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways. His uncle's murder. The phraise his uncle allways said to him. His aunt. Mary Jane.

A character can even have different motivations for different situations and it rarely has to do with dialog.

Marty McFly was motivated by dialog in the form of calling him chicken.

Rial Vestro wrote: Changeing 1 word in script does not change the entire story.

If the word is being "swapped" for 1 that is synonyms I agree........if new content is being added or content removed to a character then I disagree.

Congradulations you finally get it.

Rial Vestro wrote:Blocking refers to the actions you preform. Any action is blocking and no changing the blocking does not change the story.

Then I'm not even sure why you brought it up.

I never said that changing how many times you lift your right leg would change a story.

But if your part called for you to have a converstation with a other character, and that chaacter was written out....that does change the story.

Actully you did. You said that ANY change no matter how small it was would change the story. Changeing your blocking is a small change so by your original statement changeing how many times you lift your right leg WOULD change a story.

You didn't say that changeing the source material had to restricted to characters and dialog, you only said "change is change" and any change to the blocking would fall into that catigory.

Depending on the auther and the scene some scripts do have verry detailed descriptions of what the set looks like and how each character moves on that set. However not every stage can accomidate for every set piece that was originally intended to be in the show and if the wrighter wanted a fire place and there's just no place to put a fire place and there's no practicle reason to have a fire place there isn't going to be a fire place. Now if the fire is actully important to the story then some way or other if there's no room for one the director is going to try to make room or redesign it to fit the stage space he or she is working with.

This is all change and not all of it changes the story.

Rial Vestro wrote:Brought up yes, exsplained, no.

An "explanation" wasnt what we were talking about.

Then why talk about it at all? Seems rather pointless to even bring it up if no one is going to exsplain it.

Not to sound like a prick, but can we drop batman school plays and everything else that taking things way past the argument at hand?

Hasbro and the company doing the localization for Cybertron stated point blank when they started the process of bringing it over that they were making it part of the current timeline. News post from Oct 2004

The show was altered in dialog, character names and bios.
The toys were released with bios that reflect that they are indeed continuations of Prime, Hot Shot, Megatron, and many others.
The comic that Dreamwave had in the works was also intended to follow Energon.

You can prattle and troll all day and find whatever sorry excuse you want to use, but these fact are a point of record. Hell look at the last episode of cybertron. Hasbro in order to help tie the shows together, commissioned extra artwork to be dropped in so images of the Armada kids (with their mini-cons) and Kicker (with Hot Shot's Energon style) were there at the launch of the Space Bridge Mission. These images were never in Galaxy Force.


Even Takara ret-conned their timelines to make cybertron part of the the previous series, after Hasbro firmly set the 3 series as a separate micro-continuity.

If you don't like it, you are not alone. and you can use whatever personal canon you want that make you happy, but if you want to debate the matter, we do have all the facts backing us up, If you would be bothered to look up the characters on TFwiki, read the bios on the US packages, or go back and look at the news articles from that time frame you can find all the information you seem to think doesn't exist.

Yes, the story's really don't mix well.
Yes, the writing was poorly handled. (look at poor Misha and the multiple changes to her name (even within the same episodes))
Yes, Many things don't make sence.

But they are there. Hasbro choose to disregard the Galaxy Force storyline and make wholesale changes. The poor saps at the studio doing the work were messed up trying to salvage what they could of the original scripts while making all the changes Hasbro requested and the product is flawed because of it.

Make your personal canon your own, but don't belittle those of us who are aware of the circumstances behind the shows we ourselves have watched, simply because you don't like the answers.

Editor has spoken!!

And it true. I personally loved that episode.
The wink to the kids from the first two series made me smile. I loved it.

Rial Vestro wrote:Rather than repeating myself over and over again I can reply to this one statement and everything you said before it with one easy reply.

Really???
Lets see how far you get with out me having to correct you......

Rial Vestro wrote:I never said that any of that stuff COULD not be delt with.

WOW.........1 sentence in and you come off as wrong.

Actually you did say that stuff could not be delt with..

Rial Vestro wrote: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.

See....you did say it could not be delt with by re-writes.

As for the rest of this passage........what they failed to do is irrelivent.

Its their brand and they can call it and connected it to what ever they want.

Rial Vestro wrote:When exactly did Hasbro say that it was a sequil? Before or After the series was made?

They said it before...durring and after.

Their still saying it.

Rial Vestro wrote:In other words Cybertron was intended to be a sequil but ended up as a new continuity.

Nope.

Hasbro still maintains that all 3 shows are 1 continuity.

Rial Vestro wrote:Now if they said it was a sequil after the series was made that would be a different story. Still doesn't make any sence though.

Well since they have we should be done now.

Rial Vestro wrote:That's not a reason, that's just a fact.

That fact that they are different characters is the reason they can share the same name.

Because theres no connection between the characters.

Rial Vestro wrote:Again, that's not the reason or the exsplination, that's just the fact.

See above.

Rial Vestro wrote:The REASON for haveing a second Robins for example is that the FIRST Robin left Gotham City and changed his name to Nightwing.

Technically incorrect.

The 2nd Robin appeared before the first Robin changed his name to Nightwing.

Rial Vestro wrote: And the REASON for haveing a third Robin is because the second Robin who only appeared in 1 issue of the comics was killed.

Boy you have no clue.

Jason Todd the 2ndRobin made his first appearance in Batman#357 in 1983.He appeared regularly in all of Batmans titles as well as making appearances in Teten Titans,Justice League ans Superman comics from time to time for over 5 years.

Simple put the 2nd robin made hundreds of appearances.

Rial Vestro wrote:Thoughs are REASONS for haveing multiple Robins.

Your confusing "Reason" with "Explanation".

And no they arent the same thing.

And funny how you skipped my G1 example.

Rial Vestro wrote:Ug, look at it this way. Some plays and movies tell multiple different storys within the same story. These are sub-plots. Even though they may exsist within the same universe one does not effect the other in any way shape or form.

In real world terms lets say that in one universe some guy in China gets a job as a car salesman. In another universe he's a homelass man. In either universe I have never met this guy and never will so how does the story of his life change anything in the story of my life?

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the second book titled "Resturant at the End of the Universe" was used as the story for last 2 episodes of the TV series that use to be on BBC. Parts of the book were cut from the series that focused on Zaphod, Tillian, and Marvin but all the parts Focusing on Arthur and Ford remained EXACTLY the same. The 2 storys exsisted within the same book but did not cross into eachother so nothing changed in one story would effect the other.

Just because a character is in a book doesn't mean that character has any importance to every story being told in the same book.

None of which effect anything I said.

If you alter of change anythin from the source material you have changed the story.

Plots and story are 2 different things.If you remove a "sub-plot from a story then you have removed part of the story.

How much that sub-plot contributes is irrelevant.The story has been changed.

Rial Vestro wrote:Look at shows like Twilight Zone. Every episode tells a different story about different people. Changeing 1 episode would not have any change on the entire series. The multiple different storys never intertwine with eachother.

As a "series" TZ is not "A" story but a series of stories.

Your trying to compare 1 apple to a bag of oranges.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Nope.

Yep.

Rial Vestro wrote:You sent me a message asking if you could draw some of my characters. I sent a reply back saying I needed to know WHO you were drawing so I could give you spicific details that had to be included with thoughs characters. That would mean that I was allowing someone else, you, to make changes to my characters. They were changes that were approved by me, not made by me.

Now your talking appearance???

We were talking about changes in their story not what they look like.

Stay focus.

Rial Vestro wrote:I've metioned it in past conversations. The not so recent anymore series "TheBatman" changed the backroud of every single character on the show and in most chases characters didn't even have origins but rather just appeared randomly and without any motives to speak of. The series was majorly horrible because of this and I personally think people only watched it because Adam West did the voice of the Mayor.

The show did get better twards the end.

Rial Vestro wrote: Anyway, in that series Batgirl was introduced BEFORE Robin,

Thats been done in the comics before.

Rial Vestro wrote: Robin randomly appeared later on without a back story,

What do you mean???They did give him a "origin" episode.He was introduced just as he was in the comics.

Rial Vestro wrote: and Mr. Freeze killed Bruce Wayne's parrents.

Are you sure about that???.

Rial Vestro wrote:TIf you want I can link you to a more detailed description of this version of Mr. Freeze.

Yes please.

Because everything I found on him doesnot tell the part of killing the waynes.

Rial Vestro wrote:I'm only familiar with C.

Not a shock....its the most modern telling.

Rial Vestro wrote:I exsplained that in the next paragraph. I'm not going to repeat what I've allready said.

No you didnt.

The only time in Batman history that the killer of the Waynes was Batmans arch enemy was in Tim Burtons film.

The Joker.

In every other telling with different people being the killer.

Joe Chill
Mettalo [yes from Superman]
Some Crime Boss [cant remember the name now]
Some mugger
or even MR Freeze [if your right

none of those guys were his arch enemy.

So even if you change how or who killed his parents you dont change the arch enemy [except in 1 case]

Rial Vestro wrote:That's not untill later in life or I guess that would depend on which version of the character.

No that was at the start...particulary in the version your most fimilar with.

The only version of Batman that was out for vengeance was the one in the comice in the 1940's.

That Batman carries a gun and killed.

Batman has been about Justice since the 50's.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Some versions of Batman, yes his ORIGINAL goal is vengence but he grows up and realizes vengence isn't the answer... eventually.

I dont mean to sound rude but you know very little about the character of Batman

Rial Vestro wrote:Look at the movie version for example. Batman Forever, Dick Grayson talks about REVENGE not Justice. Bruce Wayne trys to talk him out of it because by this time he is about Justice not vengence. But as Bruce is talking he's talking about his own exsperiece as Batman to Dick Grayson who wants to be his partner. Allthough it's not clearly said, being that Forever is still in the same continuity as the Micheal Keaton movies, he seems to be talking about his life after the Joker died.

I disagree.

He seemed to be talking from a position of wisdom not because of his experience with the Joker.

He didnt try to kill the Joker out of vengeance.

But those filmsall suffered from bad writting for the character and directors that thought they understood the character.

Its impossible to derive any insight into the character from those films.

Rial Vestro wrote:He allso hinted at the murder of his own parrents without comming right out and telling Dick "My parrents were murdered too."

He did a hell of a lot more then "hint" at it.

Rial Vestro wrote:Superman... well I never really understood what his motivation was.

The desire to help

Rial Vestro wrote:A character can even have different motivations for different situations and it rarely has to do with dialog.

What I ment as "dialog" was the written script that they read from.

Rial Vestro wrote:Congradulations you finally get it.

What did I get????

Your point still has nothing to do with what I said.Your still talking about dropping characters and thats a changed story.

Rial Vestro wrote:Actully you did.

No I didnt......

Rial Vestro wrote: You said that ANY change no matter how small it was would change the story.

How many times you lift your finger is hardly an eliment of the story.So if you do it once in one preformance of 12 times in the next it doest change the story.

"Actions" arenot alys an eliment to the story.

But if the script tells you to jump 12 times and you only jump 6 times you have changed the story from how it was written.

Not that it would matter but it would still be a change.

Rial Vestro wrote: You didn't say that changeing the source material had to restricted to characters and dialog, you only said "change is change" and any change to the blocking would fall into that catigory.

Hardly because most stories dont add "actions" like the lifting of a leg for their characters.

Rial Vestro wrote:Then why talk about it at all? Seems rather pointless to even bring it up if no one is going to exsplain it.

No one asked for an expatiation here....not even you.

And the kind your looking for anyway needs to come from Hasbro anyway.

Editor wrote:A whole lot of stuff proving my point

Thanks for the back up

I'm with you, LBM. Simple answer is that if the Fallen has the devotion of Megatron (and perhaps something else that hinders him from either being a Prime or realizing he is one)... then the Fallen only has to fear Optimus. After all, Megatron and Optimus ruled Cybertron for a time side by side as equals.

Now, if by some oddity that Michael Bay is allowing the crazy "Alien" movie thing (Hatchlings? What the hell!?) then yes, I suppose I can see how Optimus is a Prime and Megatron is not, but depends I suppose.

Hound the ones who wrote the script to the movie... since they came up with this stuff.



~Lady B

Editor wrote:Not to sound like a prick, but can we drop batman school plays and everything else that taking things way past the argument at hand?

Hasbro and the company doing the localization for Cybertron stated point blank when they started the process of bringing it over that they were making it part of the current timeline. News post from Oct 2004

The show was altered in dialog, character names and bios.
The toys were released with bios that reflect that they are indeed continuations of Prime, Hot Shot, Megatron, and many others.
The comic that Dreamwave had in the works was also intended to follow Energon.

You can prattle and troll all day and find whatever sorry excuse you want to use, but these fact are a point of record. Hell look at the last episode of cybertron. Hasbro in order to help tie the shows together, commissioned extra artwork to be dropped in so images of the Armada kids (with their mini-cons) and Kicker (with Hot Shot's Energon style) were there at the launch of the Space Bridge Mission. These images were never in Galaxy Force.

I would say that these images were never in Cybertron either. How is that I've seen all of Cybertron yet this is the first time I've ever seen thoughs images?

Even Takara ret-conned their timelines to make cybertron part of the the previous series, after Hasbro firmly set the 3 series as a separate micro-continuity.

If you don't like it, you are not alone. and you can use whatever personal canon you want that make you happy, but if you want to debate the matter, we do have all the facts backing us up, If you would be bothered to look up the characters on TFwiki, read the bios on the US packages, or go back and look at the news articles from that time frame you can find all the information you seem to think doesn't exist.

I never said that information didn't exsist. What I did say was that while outside the series back storys were righten for the characters to tie them in with their Armada/Energon Name sakes and yes Hasbro did say it was ment to be sequill but non of that showed up in the actual series.

Cybertron's story line just does not follow Energon no matter what Hasbro has said about it in the real world the story just does not fit.

It doesn't matter how much information is avalible calling Cybertron a sequil. The fact still remains that there are far too many unexsplained inconsistancys in the series itself to call it a sequil.

Plain and simple a sequil follows another story, Cybertron did not do this. Cybertron starts off with humans and cybertronians meeting for the first time Energon humans and cybertronians are allready fully aware of eachother. It's as simple as that. It's a major story eliment that wasn't exsplained and dissallows the two to be part of the same continuity.

In any case while may be "offically" a sequil just because Hasbro said so, as an actual continuing story is far from it.

Make your personal canon your own, but don't belittle those of us who are aware of the circumstances behind the shows we ourselves have watched, simply because you don't like the answers.

You have missread an missjudged me a great deal. I'm well aware of what Hasbro has said but I'm allso well aware of what it means to be a "sequil" a continuation of an exsisting story line. All I said was that no amout of Hasbro says it is will ever make Cybertron a continuation of Energon, the story lines just do not mix. Hasbro can say it's a sequil all they want but unless they're useing some new defination of the word sequil that I'm not aware of it's still not a sequil.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:That's not a reason, that's just a fact.

That fact that they are different characters is the reason they can share the same name.

Because theres no connection between the characters.

Again, no, that's not the reason they share the same name. I've allready exsplained the reason they share the same name and it has nothing to do with being different characters.

Rial Vestro wrote:The REASON for haveing a second Robins for example is that the FIRST Robin left Gotham City and changed his name to Nightwing.

Technically incorrect.

The 2nd Robin appeared before the first Robin changed his name to Nightwing.

Whatever, he still appeared as a replacement for a Robin who was no longer Batman's partner.

Rial Vestro wrote: And the REASON for haveing a third Robin is because the second Robin who only appeared in 1 issue of the comics was killed.

Boy you have no clue.

Jason Todd the 2ndRobin made his first appearance in Batman#357 in 1983.He appeared regularly in all of Batmans titles as well as making appearances in Teten Titans,Justice League ans Superman comics from time to time for over 5 years.

Simple put the 2nd robin made hundreds of appearances.

Um... if I'm wrong about this one then either my memory is majorly horrible or you lied to me in an earlier conversation because I got that information directly from you.

What I was told by you as I recall is that fans hated the Jason Todd character and he got killed off by the Joker in the verry next issue after his first appearance.

I am now going to go shoot myself if I'm remembering events that never happened again.

Rial Vestro wrote:Thoughs are REASONS for haveing multiple Robins.

Your confusing "Reason" with "Explanation".

And no they arent the same thing.

And funny how you skipped my G1 example.

Yes they are and I skipped it because it was just easier to use Robin as the only example.

Rial Vestro wrote:Ug, look at it this way. Some plays and movies tell multiple different storys within the same story. These are sub-plots. Even though they may exsist within the same universe one does not effect the other in any way shape or form.

In real world terms lets say that in one universe some guy in China gets a job as a car salesman. In another universe he's a homelass man. In either universe I have never met this guy and never will so how does the story of his life change anything in the story of my life?

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the second book titled "Resturant at the End of the Universe" was used as the story for last 2 episodes of the TV series that use to be on BBC. Parts of the book were cut from the series that focused on Zaphod, Tillian, and Marvin but all the parts Focusing on Arthur and Ford remained EXACTLY the same. The 2 storys exsisted within the same book but did not cross into eachother so nothing changed in one story would effect the other.

Just because a character is in a book doesn't mean that character has any importance to every story being told in the same book.

None of which effect anything I said.

If you alter of change anythin from the source material you have changed the story.

Plots and story are 2 different things.If you remove a "sub-plot from a story then you have removed part of the story.

How much that sub-plot contributes is irrelevant.The story has been changed.

Arg, lets put this in easier terms.

If you change something in the story "Cat in the Hat" does it change the story "The Grinch who Stole Christmas"? No because they are 2 entirely different storys. One does not change the other.

Rial Vestro wrote:Look at shows like Twilight Zone. Every episode tells a different story about different people. Changeing 1 episode would not have any change on the entire series. The multiple different storys never intertwine with eachother.

As a "series" TZ is not "A" story but a series of stories.

Your trying to compare 1 apple to a bag of oranges.

No I'm makeing a point. The characters who were removed from "Best Little Whore House in Texas" were not in the story to begine with, they had their OWN story line. It's exactly the same as Twilight Zone. Best Little Whore House in Texas was not 1 story in the play, it was 2 storys. One story was removed for the movie.

Rial Vestro wrote:You sent me a message asking if you could draw some of my characters. I sent a reply back saying I needed to know WHO you were drawing so I could give you spicific details that had to be included with thoughs characters. That would mean that I was allowing someone else, you, to make changes to my characters. They were changes that were approved by me, not made by me.

Now your talking appearance???

We were talking about changes in their story not what they look like.

Stay focus.

As I exsplained in the next paragraph changeing the character's appearance would change their story. A guy with one robitic arm is not going to have the same backround as a guy with 2 normal arms.

Heck there are alot of Super Hero and villain characters who have to have sertain costume parts for story reasons. Green Lanturn's ring, Thor's Hammer, Joker has to look like a clown, ect.

Rial Vestro wrote: Robin randomly appeared later on without a back story,

What do you mean???They did give him a "origin" episode.He was introduced just as he was in the comics.

Yes but the episodes aired out of order for some reason so his origin wasn't shown till after the character had allready been introduced.

Rial Vestro wrote: and Mr. Freeze killed Bruce Wayne's parrents.

Are you sure about that???.

Yup... It was shown in Mr. Freeze's first appearance on the series along with his origin.

Rial Vestro wrote:TIf you want I can link you to a more detailed description of this version of Mr. Freeze.

Yes please.

Because everything I found on him doesnot tell the part of killing the waynes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZBhEGmz ... playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLh4VXR ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI3uRklS ... re=related

In the episode Bruce has a dream about the night his parrents were murdered and the murderer is shown to be Mr. Freeze.

Rial Vestro wrote:I exsplained that in the next paragraph. I'm not going to repeat what I've allready said.

No you didnt.

The only time in Batman history that the killer of the Waynes was Batmans arch enemy was in Tim Burtons film.

The Joker.

In every other telling with different people being the killer.

Joe Chill
Mettalo [yes from Superman]
Some Crime Boss [cant remember the name now]
Some mugger
or even MR Freeze [if your right

none of those guys were his arch enemy.

So even if you change how or who killed his parents you dont change the arch enemy [except in 1 case]

Given that his parrent's murder is the reason he is Batman changeing that character does change the arch villain. Joker isn't an arch villain simply because he's the one Batman most offten deals with. The arch villain is the driveing force of the hero. At least that's how it is for Batman.

Superman for example. He most offten deals with Lex Luthor but I would hardly call his the arch villain. That would be someone more along the lines of Bizzaro or Brainiac. Someone who actully has a conection to Superman's past or is equil in power. (Brainic in the animated series being a Krytonian computer connects him to Superman's past and yes I realize there are other versions of the character that aren't connected to his past.)

Its impossible to derive any insight into the character from those films.

That's not true... except in Batman and Robin, gawd I hate George Clooney.

Rial Vestro wrote:He allso hinted at the murder of his own parrents without comming right out and telling Dick "My parrents were murdered too."

He did a hell of a lot more then "hint" at it.

Well he didn't just come right out and say it. So I would call that a "hint".

Rial Vestro wrote:Superman... well I never really understood what his motivation was.

The desire to help.

That's not a motivation. Why does he desire? Answer that question then you'll have a motivation.

Rial Vestro wrote:A character can even have different motivations for different situations and it rarely has to do with dialog.

What I ment as "dialog" was the written script that they read from.

Dialog is the words characters say on film. In silent movies however they didn't say anything allthough there were offten little prases wrighten out on screen that for the time could have been considered dialog.

Not everything in a script is dialog, some of it is stage direction/blocking, and useually short character descriptions are in the verry begining of the script. That would allso be where if the author has desided to wright one, the set description would be.

Rial Vestro wrote: You said that ANY change no matter how small it was would change the story.

How many times you lift your finger is hardly an eliment of the story.So if you do it once in one preformance of 12 times in the next it doest change the story.

"Actions" arenot alys an eliment to the story.

But if the script tells you to jump 12 times and you only jump 6 times you have changed the story from how it was written.

Not that it would matter but it would still be a change.

This has been the point I've been trying to get at. That's what you finally got.

Characters aren't allways eliments to the story either. Some times it might be more important what the character does not who he is. It all depends on the story.

Rial Vestro wrote: You didn't say that changeing the source material had to restricted to characters and dialog, you only said "change is change" and any change to the blocking would fall into that catigory.

Hardly because most stories dont add "actions" like the lifting of a leg for their characters.

Have you ever read a script? Alot of scripts do have the actions of each character wrighten out in them.

If the script says to take a 5 steps to the left and you only take 4, that's a change. But does that change even matter? Does it change the story? Not in the least little bit.

Lets say the story is about pirates. The script says (reading treasure map) take 6 pases east. Not only are you saying the line but you allso have to do the action. Well depending on stage space you either have to take smaller steps or cut a few steps on smaller stages. But if you cut a few steps you allso have to change the line. But does it change the story? No.

Rial Vestro wrote:

Editor wrote:

I would say that these images were never in Cybertron either. How is that I've seen all of Cybertron yet this is the first time I've ever seen thoughs images?

I am going to use this quote because it best shows your problem.

The images come directly from the episode 'Beginning' of the series. Yes they aren't on the screen for long, but they are there.

see episode information here or here.

If you were taking part in this thread as a means of discussing the matters after seeing those images you could have posted:
"I haven't seen those before."

Instead you post:
"I would say that these images were never in Cybertron either."

Your statement there, is blatantly insulting, And I am taking it as a personal attack, as you are effectively calling me a liar. I don't care less that you didn't see them. They ARE there. Playing devil's advocate as you are doesn't change the reality. I saw them, Siren saw them, the people updating the wiki sights saw them. You might want to check this page as well. Not only does it hit on a number of point being debated here from the point of view of the Hasbro execs working on the show. It also clearly states that the image of Kicker above was not only in the show, but it was done at the request of Aaron Archer.

Their existence is a matter of public record. Your negativity and selfish responses in a vain pursuit to be right, is eroding any credibility you may have had. Please keep this mind before you respond, 'cause believe me or not, for some reason I am actually saying this to try and help you.

Rial Vestro wrote:I would say that these images were never in Cybertron either.

I would say your wrong.

Rial Vestro wrote: How is that I've seen all of Cybertron yet this is the first time I've ever seen thoughs images?

My quess would be 1 of the following........

A] your memory is failing you as usual.
B] you weren't paying attention
C] you really didnt see the episode
D] you dont know what your talking about

Fact is you get into a lot of these kinds of arguments in which you rely far to much on your memory and never do the research.

And considering how often your proven wrong in these cases its a wonder that you dont double check your facts before you make these incorrect posts.

Hell even I remember those images from the final episode, what I didn't know was that they weren't in Galaxy Force.And I bearly watched the last episode.

Not to mention that I remember those images being posted here on this site in one of the many the TF:Cybertron threads....and if I'm not mistaken you were a member back then and I believe you participated in those threads.

So I dont see how you can claim ignorance in the seeing of those images....but fine maybe you dont remember seeing them on the show and maybe you dont remember seeing them here, but none of that indicates that you couldnt have done the research to see it they really appeared on the show or not.

You know I hate useing and "Wiki" page in an argument but even the TF Wiki page on thise particular episode of Cybertron has mention of these images.......and it only took me a minute to find it.

http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Beginning

Toward the end of the episode, Rad White, Carlos Lopez, Alexis and Kicker are all watching the starships take off, with images of characters from the series they appeared in behind them—the Street Action Mini-Con Team for the former three, and Hot Shot, in his Energon body, with Kicker (despite the fact that Ironhide would have been a more logical choice). These scenes were not present in the original Galaxy Force airing of the episode and were specifically added for the Cybertron dub to tie it closer to the previous series of the Unicron Trilogy. This is most obvious when looking at Kicker, whose new design to represent his aging doesn't exactly jive with the other human characters in this series.

And if you would rather see them for your self here...
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/categ ... 03q9RptDZT

Time frame starting at 20:40

In the future remember do some research.

Rial Vestro wrote:and yes Hasbro did say it was ment to be sequill but non of that showed up in the actual series.

"Editor" and my self just proved it did.

Rial Vestro wrote:It doesn't matter how much information is avalible calling Cybertron a sequil. The fact still remains that there are far too many unexsplained inconsistancys in the series itself to call it a sequil.

Inconsistencies are nothing new to cartoons or TV shows in general.

Rial Vestro wrote:Plain and simple a sequil follows another story, Cybertron did not do this. Cybertron starts off with humans and cybertronians meeting for the first time Energon humans and cybertronians are allready fully aware of eachother. It's as simple as that. It's a major story eliment that wasn't exsplained and dissallows the two to be part of the same continuity.

Unexplained elements is nothing new to cartoons or TV shows in general.

Rial Vestro wrote:You have missread an missjudged me a great deal. I'm well aware of what Hasbro has said but I'm allso well aware of what it means to be a "sequil" a continuation of an exsisting story line. All I said was that no amout of Hasbro says it is will ever make Cybertron a continuation of Energon, the story lines just do not mix. Hasbro can say it's a sequil all they want but unless they're useing some new defination of the word sequil that I'm not aware of it's still not a sequil.

If they say its a sequil its a sequil.

Rial Vestro wrote:Again, no,

Again ,yes

Rial Vestro wrote: that's not the reason they share the same name.

yes it is

Rial Vestro wrote: I've allready exsplained the reason they share the same name and it has nothing to do with being different characters.

And I alread "explained" that your confusing the "in story explaniation" with the "real world reason" as to why they share the same name.

Some of these characters have no connection to each other inside of the story.

Rial Vestro wrote:Whatever,

You were wrong.

Rial Vestro wrote: Um... if I'm wrong about this one then either my memory is majorly horrible or you lied to me in an earlier conversation because I got that information directly from you.

As corny as this sounds......I never lie to anyone other then my wife or the cops.

I just dont think its worth the effort.

Your memory is faulty because I would have never said that the 2nd Robin only made 1 appearance.

As a matter of fact the 2nd Robin has returned from the dead in the comics.

Rial Vestro wrote:What I was told by you as I recall is that fans hated the Jason Todd character and he got killed off by the Joker in the verry next issue after his first appearance.

Half right.

The fans hated Jason Todd for years, DC set up a 1-900 call number to get public opinion and the fans voted him killed so it was done in a special minin story arc.

But Jason was around for quite some time.

Rial Vestro wrote:I am now going to go shoot myself if I'm remembering events that never happened again.

Dont do that.........it will leave a mess

Rial Vestro wrote:Yes they are and I skipped it because it was just easier to use Robin as the only example.

Translation:::::you cant counter the argument.

Rial Vestro wrote:Arg, lets put this in easier terms.

If you change something in the story "Cat in the Hat" does it change the story "The Grinch who Stole Christmas"? No because they are 2 entirely different storys. One does not change the other.

Boy your going off track.

I never said the changing of one story effects an other.

But the changing of 1 character in a story can effect other characters and events.

As proven with the new Star Trek story.

Rial Vestro wrote:
No I'm makeing a point.

And your failing to do so.

Rial Vestro wrote: The characters who were removed from "Best Little Whore House in Texas" were not in the story to begine with, they had their OWN story line. It's exactly the same as Twilight Zone. Best Little Whore House in Texas was not 1 story in the play, it was 2 storys. One story was removed for the movie.

Its completly different.

Each episode of the Twilight Zone is a stand alone episodes with no connections what so ever.

Basicly each episode takes place in its own world,its own universe as it were.

All the story plots of "Best little whore house in Texas" take place in 1 world.Those sub-plots were written in for a reason.They were ment to take place in one universe.

Removing them or giving their content to other characters was a change to the original way it was writtem.

Rial Vestro wrote:As I exsplained in the next paragraph changeing the character's appearance would change their story.

Hardly.......but thats a different argument.

One I dont want to be part of right now.

Rial Vestro wrote:Yes but the episodes aired out of order for some reason so his origin wasn't shown till after the character had allready been introduced.

Even if that were true [BTW its not, more after these few words ] and they aired the episodes out of order your statement was wrong.You said they gave no back story and they did.Its not uncommon for things to be out of order or for them to reveal info in flash backs.

The point is they did give the character a back story.

And as I said above your wrong.

Robin in "The Batman" made his first appearance in the episode "A matter of family" and that episode was the first episode to air of season 4.

For the record that episode first aired on 9/23/06.

So either you missed it the first time it aired or your remembering it wrong again.

Rial Vestro wrote:Yup... It was shown in Mr. Freeze's first appearance on the series along with his origin.

Rial Vestro wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZBhEGmz6Os&feature=PlayList&p=BB55D9BFAD56190C&index=0&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLh4VXR ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI3uRklS ... re=related

In the episode Bruce has a dream about the night his parrents were murdered and the murderer is shown to be Mr. Freeze.

Sorry dude but........


That was a dream that was ment to be interpretive.It was ment to motivate Batman by reminding him that Freeze was a criminal just like the one that killed his parents.

Look at the figure in shadow in his dream, be fore it was "transformed" into Freeze.

Fat,sloppy,long hair, it looked nothing like Victor Freeze the theif who was thin and short haired.

On the other hand the image looked just like Joe Chill is normally presented.

No less looking at how old Victor looked before he was transformed he would have been about 15 when Bruce parents were killed.

No less there's nothing else in the episode to back the idea up.

Bruce nevers says anything to Victor about it when he encounters him againn.....Now fine, saying something to Freeze "MIGHT" reveal his identity but he certinly would have mentioned it to Alfred.

Or at least said something out loud like "he killed my parents"

All I can say is........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9Jcpagfieg

Rial Vestro wrote:Given that his parrent's murder is the reason he is Batman changeing that character does change the arch villain.

No it doesnt.

While I admit Batman has a number of arch enemies, Joe Chill and most of the guys that have killed his parents in different tellings havent been counted among the catagory of "arch enemy".

Rial Vestro wrote: Joker isn't an arch villain simply because he's the one Batman most offten deals with.

No he's one of Batmans arch enemies because he's one of Batmans most dangerous ones.

Rial Vestro wrote: The arch villain is the driveing force of the hero. At least that's how it is for Batman.

Totally incorrect.

Rial Vestro wrote:Superman for example. He most offten deals with Lex Luthor but I would hardly call his the arch villain. That would be someone more along the lines of Bizzaro or Brainiac.

Completly and totally incorrect.

Rial Vestro wrote: Someone who actully has a conection to Superman's past or is equil in power. (Brainic in the animated series being a Krytonian computer connects him to Superman's past and yes I realize there are other versions of the character that aren't connected to his past.)

You just dont have any clue about these characters.

What makes an arch enemy is the danger level they present and\or how often they come into conflict with the hero.

Lex is far more dangerous then Bariniac or Bizaro and his been in more fights with Superman then any other bad guy.

Rial Vestro wrote:That's not true... except in Batman and Robin, gawd I hate George Clooney.

The hell it aint.

As enjoyable as some of those films were, there's hardly an aspect of the true characters in those films.

Rial Vestro wrote:Well he didn't just come right out and say it.

Yes he did.

Dick said [ not exact words] "you dont understand....your parents werent killed by some maniac"

Bruce replied "yes they were".

So yes he did say words to the effect "my parents were killed too"

Rial Vestro wrote: So I would call that a "hint".

Your wrong.

Rial Vestro wrote:That's not a motivation.

Nonsence.

desires and other emotions are motivators for all sorts of people to do what they do.

Rial Vestro wrote: Why does he desire? Answer that question then you'll have a motivation.

Because he was raised to believe that if you have the power and ability to help others its your responsibility to do so.

Rial Vestro wrote:This has been the point I've been trying to get at. That's what you finally got.

Characters aren't allways eliments to the story either. Some times it might be more important what the character does not who he is. It all depends on the story.

Either way...remove/add a character, one with a part not an extra, and you've changed the story

Rial Vestro wrote:Have you ever read a script?

Plenty

Rial Vestro wrote: Alot of scripts do have the actions of each character wrighten out in them.

Which are ways to "tell" the story but are not "part" of the story.

Editor wrote:Your statement there, is blatantly insulting, And I am taking it as a personal attack, as you are effectively calling me a liar.

That was not my intent, just a poor choice of words on my part and I appoligise for the missunderstanding.

You seem to have been a member here for quite a while but it seems like you've only been posting recently. Your joined date says 2006 but I don't think I've seen you around before.

In any case weather you're new or just a returning member who hasn't been active in a while. Some verry important things you should know about me to avoid further missunderstandings.

1. I will never intentionally insult you unless provoked. (You insult me first.) Offten times I don't realize that the things I say can be interpreted in a different way than I intended. Even though I've been made aware of this and it happens less offten than it use to I still don't catch every mistake I make with how I word things. When it happens please let me know but try not to take it personally.

2. I offten don't sleep. Once I start something I have to finish it or I'll never get any sleep till I simply pass out from exhastion. So even though I probly shouldn't even post at 1 am due to increasing typos and wording issues, I offten do just so I can sleep.

3. I have alot of mental problems includeing parrinoia, multiple personality dissorder, depression, and simply lack of memory. Despite the memory issue I'm some how still able to hold a job in theater for over 5 years. In any rate I offten remember things wrong and even things that never happened to begine with. As Sto said, I rely too much on memory but given my job I kinda have to. Most of the time I'm posting out of memory just as a way to test myself and the rest of the time just because I'm lazy and sleep deprived.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:And I alread "explained" that your confusing the "in story explaniation" with the "real world reason" as to why they share the same name.

Um, how am I the one who's confusing thoughs two. I'm the one who brought the subject up in the first place and I never said anything about real world reasons.

A real world reason is that muliple people do in fact have the same name. But we're not talking about the real world we're talking about fiction.

As I stated before there's allways an in story reason for the characters to share the same name. You're the one who's confused sence you obviously didn't have a clue what I was talking about.

Rial Vestro wrote: Um... if I'm wrong about this one then either my memory is majorly horrible or you lied to me in an earlier conversation because I got that information directly from you.

As corny as this sounds......I never lie to anyone other then my wife or the cops.

I just dont think its worth the effort.

Your memory is faulty because I would have never said that the 2nd Robin only made 1 appearance.

As a matter of fact the 2nd Robin has returned from the dead in the comics.

Maybe it was true for the time I got the information but being that I don't follow the comics I wouldn't of know about his ressurection. Whatever the case, he was still replaced after his death... I think...

Rial Vestro wrote:Yes they are and I skipped it because it was just easier to use Robin as the only example.

Translation:::::you cant counter the argument.

No translation, I was being lazy, tiard, and I wrote the post at like 1 am. You know I'm sleep deprived.

Rial Vestro wrote:Arg, lets put this in easier terms.

If you change something in the story "Cat in the Hat" does it change the story "The Grinch who Stole Christmas"? No because they are 2 entirely different storys. One does not change the other.

Boy your going off track.

I never said the changing of one story effects an other.

Actully you did. Even after I told you the 2 characters who were removed from Best Little Whore House in Texas weren't part of the main story you still insisted that them not being there changed it.

Rial Vestro wrote: The characters who were removed from "Best Little Whore House in Texas" were not in the story to begine with, they had their OWN story line. It's exactly the same as Twilight Zone. Best Little Whore House in Texas was not 1 story in the play, it was 2 storys. One story was removed for the movie.

Its completly different.

Really? How so?

Each episode of the Twilight Zone is a stand alone episodes with no connections what so ever.

Basicly each episode takes place in its own world,its own universe as it were.

All the story plots of "Best little whore house in Texas" take place in 1 world.Those sub-plots were written in for a reason.They were ment to take place in one universe.

Removing them or giving their content to other characters was a change to the original way it was writtem.

That's not entirely accurate. Twilight Zone was all one verry weird universe. It's true that changeing one episode would not change another because the characters never interact with eachother but there is one character who does exsist in every episode. While normally other characters aren't even aware of him he's still a character that ties all the episodes togeather into one big universe. (and there was at least one episode where a character was actully aware of his presence. A wrighter with the odd ability to bring characters he created to life and it turned out at the end that he created the announcer for each episode.)

Rial Vestro wrote:Yes but the episodes aired out of order for some reason so his origin wasn't shown till after the character had allready been introduced.

Even if that were true [BTW its not, more after these few words ] and they aired the episodes out of order your statement was wrong.You said they gave no back story and they did.

No I said they introduced him without a back story. Big difference there.

Robin in "The Batman" made his first appearance in the episode "A matter of family" and that episode was the first episode to air of season 4.

For the record that episode first aired on 9/23/06.

So either you missed it the first time it aired or your remembering it wrong again.

The way I saw, "Team Penguine" when Robin and Batgirl first meet aired as Robin's first appearance. A week later I saw "A Matter of Family" along with commercials that showed all morning leading up to it calling it a new episode. So if I missed it's original air date then the commercials were lieing about it being new. Allthough that's not uncommon. Cartoon Network advertises new episodes of "King of Hill" and "Family Guy" all the time but the fact is by the time Cartoon Network gets thoughs episodes they've allready been aired on Fox so they're not new.

Rial Vestro wrote:Yup... It was shown in Mr. Freeze's first appearance on the series along with his origin.

Rial Vestro wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZBhEGmz6Os&feature=PlayList&p=BB55D9BFAD56190C&index=0&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLh4VXR ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI3uRklS ... re=related

In the episode Bruce has a dream about the night his parrents were murdered and the murderer is shown to be Mr. Freeze.

Sorry dude but........


That was a dream that was ment to be interpretive.It was ment to motivate Batman by reminding him that Freeze was a criminal just like the one that killed his parents.

Look at the figure in shadow in his dream, be fore it was "transformed" into Freeze.

Fat,sloppy,long hair, it looked nothing like Victor Freeze the theif who was thin and short haired.

On the other hand the image looked just like Joe Chill is normally presented.

No less looking at how old Victor looked before he was transformed he would have been about 15 when Bruce parents were killed.

No less there's nothing else in the episode to back the idea up.

Bruce nevers says anything to Victor about it when he encounters him againn.....Now fine, saying something to Freeze "MIGHT" reveal his identity but he certinly would have mentioned it to Alfred.

Or at least said something out loud like "he killed my parents"

All I can say is........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9Jcpagfieg

Maybe, but a dream sequence was used in the movie to show who the murder was. It's really not that uncommon for Batman to realize who the murder is by reliveing that memory in a dream.

Rial Vestro wrote: Joker isn't an arch villain simply because he's the one Batman most offten deals with.

No he's one of Batmans arch enemies because he's one of Batmans most dangerous ones.

That could be considered a reason but I still like the idea of his arch enemy being the reason he became Batman in the first place.

Rial Vestro wrote: Someone who actully has a conection to Superman's past or is equil in power. (Brainic in the animated series being a Krytonian computer connects him to Superman's past and yes I realize there are other versions of the character that aren't connected to his past.)

You just dont have any clue about these characters.

What makes an arch enemy is the danger level they present and\or how often they come into conflict with the hero.

Lex is far more dangerous then Bariniac or Bizaro and his been in more fights with Superman then any other bad guy.

Which is laughable. Lex doesn't even have any super powers. The only things that make him a threat are his wealth and inteligence. Depending on the continuity and time period there are even cases where Lex is no longer in controll of his company and has spent time in prison or is still in prison. In most cases though he's seen by the city as a hero, only few people are aware of his true motives and without evidence he can't legally be touched.

On level of power, in an actual fight Lex is only able to stand as a threat with the aid of Kryptonite.

Most of the time Lex does not even fight his own battles with Superman, he hiers people with more physical power than him to do the dirty work.

In one incarnation Lex and Brainiac have actully joined togeather and it's really only with Brainiac's assistance that I've ever seen Lex as any real threat.

He's just a normal person. He's no threat without aid.

Bizzaro on the other hand all on his own is a threat to Superman. Brainiac on his own is a threat to Superman. Hell any super villain Superman has ever faced is more of a threat than Lex simply because just about anyone else besides Lex can actully stand in a 1 on 1 fight with the guy without any aid.

Rial Vestro wrote:That's not true... except in Batman and Robin, gawd I hate George Clooney.

The hell it aint.

As enjoyable as some of those films were, there's hardly an aspect of the true characters in those films.

The way you phraised it sounded like you were saying there was no depth to thoughs versions of the characters not that they were different from their original versions.

Rial Vestro wrote:Well he didn't just come right out and say it.

Yes he did.

Dick said [ not exact words] "you dont understand....your parents werent killed by some maniac"

Bruce replied "yes they were".

So yes he did say words to the effect "my parents were killed too"

This was after he made the big long speach. And he had to be motivated by Dick to say it so no he didn't just come right out and say it. That would require him to say something right away before Dick even had a chance to get all angry and say "you just don't understand."

The "hint" was in the speach not the responce he gave to Dick after the speach.

Rial Vestro wrote: Why does he desire? Answer that question then you'll have a motivation.

Because he was raised to believe that if you have the power and ability to help others its your responsibility to do so.

Well now he sounds like Spider-man but I'll take it.

Rial Vestro wrote: Alot of scripts do have the actions of each character wrighten out in them.

Which are ways to "tell" the story but are not "part" of the story.

Well, if a character is not part of a story then why should it change the story to remove that character?

Imperious Prime wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:

Editor wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:You do realize that the number of Japanese characters named Convoy is far greater than US characters with the name Prime. By your logic every single Convoy to come out of Japan should be a Prime. So who do you figure these characters should be called?

Cybertron Evac

Cybertron Override

Cybertron Metroplex

Cybertron Scourge

All of these characters and I'm sure there are more but Seibertron seems to be missing some of it's old search functions, are called Convoy in Japan yet non of them are Primes in the US.

I allso ran a search on Prime and found several of them who are not Convoys in Japan.

Vector Prime

Leo Prime

Nemesis Prime

Sentinel Prime

Shockwave/Longarm Prime

I don't see where the reasoning lies that Convoy = Prime so RID Scourge/CR Black Convoy must be Nemesis Prime.
.

In the first case of Convoy=Prime ... it depends on the continuity ... for the Cybertron/Galaxy Force cartoon, Convoy meant "leader" (which I guess you could say meant "Prime" to Cybertronias). Every person you list from the Cybertron cartoon is the leader of that specific planet - Earth, Speed, Giant, Jungle. it's why their toys have the gold Cyber Planet Key ... because in the cartoon they were the ones who held/protected the real physical key for that planet. I'm sure in the US if they didn't have to worry about keeping names for Trademark purposes, they would have found plenty of "Prime" names to call them.

As for Vector Prime, I do not know what he is called in Japan, but I will assume he is still a Convoy of some sort there.

Leo Prime is Lio Convoy in Japan ... so yes, he is a Prime.

Nemesis Prime is Black Convoy in Japan, and evil Prime/clone.

As for Sentinel Prime/Longarm Prime has Animated aired in Japan yet? If it hasn't it is safe to assume that they will be Convoys ... just not in the G1 meaning of the word.

And to let you know, the reason there are more Japanese Convoys than American Primes is because in Japan, the Beast Wars "Primal" or leader title is considered the same as Prime (Beast Convoy, Lio Convoy, Big Convoy) and the G1 cartoon lasted longer over in Japan (Star Convoy .. etc.) So I would say considering we are about even on the amount of Primes using the "G1" title ... for all the other continuities, that depends on writers/translations.

Star Convoy??

No that was in a Japanese comic book Battlestars: Return of Convoy

As far as the Japanese continuity goes, Convoy = Optimus Prime.

In TF2000, a protoform scanning error created Black Convoy.

Also in the japanese continuum, Not all leaders bared the name prime. Masterforce, the leader was both Metalhawk and God Ginrai. Victory had Star Sabre, and Zone has Dai Atlus.

But since the continuity came form the US first, then Prime it shall be.

I don't think Megatron was a prime, the referrence to brother could be just to this, "like-kind".

If humans were fighting against another lifeform, perhaps maybe humans would shre a sort of kindred, or bond. Hence why I would call another human "brother" whether they were my brother or not.

Rial Vestro wrote:

Editor wrote:Your statement there, is blatantly insulting, And I am taking it as a personal attack, as you are effectively calling me a liar.

That was not my intent, just a poor choice of words on my part and I appoligise for the missunderstanding.

You seem to have been a member here for quite a while but it seems like you've only been posting recently. Your joined date says 2006 but I don't think I've seen you around before.

In any case weather you're new or just a returning member who hasn't been active in a while. Some verry important things you should know about me to avoid further missunderstandings.

1. I will never intentionally insult you unless provoked. (You insult me first.) Offten times I don't realize that the things I say can be interpreted in a different way than I intended. Even though I've been made aware of this and it happens less offten than it use to I still don't catch every mistake I make with how I word things. When it happens please let me know but try not to take it personally.

2. I offten don't sleep. Once I start something I have to finish it or I'll never get any sleep till I simply pass out from exhastion. So even though I probly shouldn't even post at 1 am due to increasing typos and wording issues, I offten do just so I can sleep.

3. I have alot of mental problems includeing parrinoia, multiple personality dissorder, depression, and simply lack of memory. Despite the memory issue I'm some how still able to hold a job in theater for over 5 years. In any rate I offten remember things wrong and even things that never happened to begine with. As Sto said, I rely too much on memory but given my job I kinda have to. Most of the time I'm posting out of memory just as a way to test myself and the rest of the time just because I'm lazy and sleep deprived.

a) As far as your apology, I'll take your word that you didn't mean it, but for your own sake think before you post.
b) I am going to assume that you are not trying to insult me again, but dude, I have been a somewhat regular poster for ages, and since late 07, this is pretty much 1 of 2 forums i use on a daily basis. Just because you haven't dealt with me before does not mean i have not been around, and for the record I know enough about you from other threads whether you realize I have view or posted in them.
c) Those explanations are simply excuses. Sorry but they are. I say this from the position that I grew up with learning disabilities and had issue while growing up, but I have never used them as an excuse. I commend you that you are trying to work from memory as a means to better yourself, but there is a reason I don't rush to hit the submit button. If I find myself in a situation like these I also tend to work from memory, but I am most likely to double check for sources to make sure I don't make an ass of myself. I also spell check and reread almost everything I post as not only am I prone to misspelling, but when I type i have a bad habit of typing the wrong word. These are no excuses, It is what I live with. Trust me I work with Family and it drives them nuts sometimes.

As for the posting while half asleep, yes I have done that as well, and it usually shows when I do, but I also have the common scene sometimes to just go back a page step away from the keyboard and go to bed. You can always respond in the morning.

Now then, with that out of the way, I can't help but point out that in my post that I had a bit more than just the insult, and you have, once again completely ignored the facts that were posted, and skipped to picking apart the Klingons post.

As far as Robin goes from memory,
Dick Grayson was the first Robin, his parents the Flying Graysons were murdered and Bruce took Dick in.
Jason Todd was the second Robin, a street kid who took over as Dick looked to become his own man outside of the cloak of the Bat. Jason was killed by the Joker in "The Killing Game" His character became part of the current stories during the Hush storyline.
Tim Drake was the current holder of the Robin name, his parents had not been murdered when he figured out the secret of Batman.
Stephanie Brown, aka the Spoiler, Daughter of a two-bit villian held the role for a while but was killed by Black Mask.
Damian Wayne is the holder after the events of the current series.
The notable extra would be Carrie Kelly from TDKR, who simply kicks ass, and later adopted the Catgirl persona.

jup Sto Vo Kor, hows my memory for those.

Rial Vestro wrote:Um, how am I the one who's confusing thoughs two. I'm the one who brought the subject up in the first place and I never said anything about real world reasons.

The fact that you brought up a subject does not automatically mean that you know what your talking about.

Rial Vestro wrote:A real world reason is that muliple people do in fact have the same name. But we're not talking about the real world we're talking about fiction.

And again your getting things confused.

I'm not talking about a real world explanation why people have the same names.

Follow......

Rial Vestro wrote:As I stated before there's allways an in story reason for the characters to share the same name.

And as I said before, thats not true.

As I pointed out there are cases of characters within the same universe that share the same name that have no connection to each other.

And no "story reason" for how they came to use the same name as an other character.

And theres no reason to expect on.

Its very likely that the characters in Cybertron, that you claimed were so different, could have been new characters useing old names.

Now it would be nice to get a in story reason but theres no reason to expect it.

Rial Vestro wrote: You're the one who's confused sence you obviously didn't have a clue what I was talking about.

I understood you fine.

Rial Vestro wrote:Maybe it was true for the time I got the information but being that I don't follow the comics I wouldn't of know about his ressurection. Whatever the case, he was still replaced after his death... I think...

Either way, I never told you he died 1 issue after his first appearance.

And yes Jason Todd was replaced a few years later by Tim Drake [Now Tim Wayne]

Tim was later replaced by his sometime girlfriend Stephanie Brown.

Stephanie was injured and her death faked so Tim returned.

Now that Batman is dead, Dick Grayson has taken the job of Batman and Tim has been replaced again by Damian al Ghul

Rial Vestro wrote:No translation, I was being lazy, tiard, and I wrote the post at like 1 am. You know I'm sleep deprived.

Sure

Rial Vestro wrote:Actully you did. Even after I told you the 2 characters who were removed from Best Little Whore House in Texas weren't part of the main story you still insisted that them not being there changed it.

No I never did.

Wether those 2 characters were part of the main plot or not they were still part of the over all story that was written.

So removing any character or plot point from "Little House" changed "Little House".

The same would be said if you removed 1 character or plot point from "The Cat in the hat".

But removing a character or plot point from "The Cat in the hat" will not effect "Green Eggs and ham".

Rial Vestro wrote:Really? How so?

The characters removed from the movie version of "Little house" were part of the original story as written.

The story of "little house" had multi plot lines, but it was one story.

From start to finish it was one story with different plot points.

Removing or making any changes the story as it was intended.

Rial Vestro wrote:That's not entirely accurate.

Oh yes it is.

Rial Vestro wrote: Twilight Zone was all one verry weird universe.

No it wasnt.

There were episodes that every one looked like pigs,others were the world had been destroyed.

If one universe those things would be a constant threw out the series.

What we had with TZ was our first glimpse into a multiverse, where the events of one universe had no bearing on the next.

Rial Vestro wrote:but there is one character who does exsist in every episode. While normally other characters aren't even aware of him he's still a character that ties all the episodes togeather into one big universe. (and there was at least one episode where a character was actully aware of his presence. A wrighter with the odd ability to bring characters he created to life and it turned out at the end that he created the announcer for each episode.)

The character Rod Sterling portraied never interacted with the universes being shown from what I remember.

But either way, he was an "Omnipresence" type of character.He wasnt "liner".He existed outside of time and the universe being shown.

His presence in every universe binds the series as a multiverse not as 1 universe.

Rial Vestro wrote:
No I said they introduced him without a back story. Big difference there.

Thats not how it read.......but either way you were wrong.

Rial Vestro wrote:
The way I saw, "Team Penguine" when Robin and Batgirl first meet aired as Robin's first appearance. A week later I saw "A Matter of Family" along with commercials that showed all morning leading up to it calling it a new episode. So if I missed it's original air date then the commercials were lieing about it being new.

I seriously doubt that you, and yes I mean "YOU", remember it that well.

And the fact is the evidence proves you wrong.

Rial Vestro wrote: Allthough that's not uncommon. Cartoon Network advertises new episodes of "King of Hill" and "Family Guy" all the time but the fact is by the time Cartoon Network gets thoughs episodes they've allready been aired on Fox so they're not new.

"NEW" to CN still qualifies as new.

Rial Vestro wrote:Maybe,

Not maybe.

Rial Vestro wrote: but a dream sequence was used in the movie to show who the murder was. It's really not that uncommon for Batman to realize who the murder is by reliveing that memory in a dream.

And in that film they made subsequent connections.

The figure in the dream was dressed to look like the older Jack, he spoke the same catch phrase, his partner was made to look like a younger Bob.

None of that was done in "The Batman"

Sorry but I believe your imagination got ahead of you this time.

Rial Vestro wrote:That could be considered a reason

No that is the reason, as stated by Batmans creator and those in charge of DC.

Rial Vestro wrote: but I still like the idea of his arch enemy being the reason he became Batman in the first place.

Well your idea is not the case since never in Batmans 60 years of publication history has the Joker, or any of his named "Arch enemies" been responceble for the death of his parents.

It was done in Burton's Batman and kind of in Nolan's Batman Begins.

Rial Vestro wrote:Which is laughable.

Whats laughable is the idea that you think you know what your talking about.

Rial Vestro wrote: Lex doesn't even have any super powers. The only things that make him a threat are his wealth and inteligence.

And?????

The Joke, and many of Batmans "Arch Enemies" done have power or money and they are still the arch enemies of Batman.

Powers have nothing to do with it, all that matters is capabilities, and none of Supermans enemies have proven to be more capable then Lex.

Rial Vestro wrote: On level of power, in an actual fight Lex is only able to stand as a threat with the aid of Kryptonite.

Incorrect.

But since you know so little about Lex I wont bother with examples.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Most of the time Lex does not even fight his own battles with Superman, he hiers people with more physical power than him to do the dirty work.

Which is a tactic.That only proves his cabable.

Rial Vestro wrote:He's just a normal person. He's no threat without aid.

He's as much as a threat as Batman is.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Bizzaro on the other hand all on his own is a threat to Superman.

Bizzaro only exsist because of Lex.

Thanks for proving my point

Rial Vestro wrote: Brainiac on his own is a threat to Superman. Hell any super villain Superman has ever faced is more of a threat than Lex simply because just about anyone else besides Lex can actully stand in a 1 on 1 fight with the guy without any aid.

Your ignorance would be entertaining if it wasnt so pitiful.

Rial Vestro wrote:The way you phraised it sounded like you were saying there was no depth to thoughs versions of the characters not that they were different from their original versions.

I dont see how you took it that way but fine.

Rial Vestro wrote:This was after he made the big long speach.

No it wasnt.

It was when he gave the speach.

Rial Vestro wrote: so no he didn't just come right out and say it.

yes he did.

Rial Vestro wrote: That would require him to say something right away before Dick even had a chance to get all angry and say "you just don't understand."

Nonsence.

Stop trying to save face.

In a 2 way converstation its not uncommon for 1 person to say something that motivates the other to reveal something.

Dick was upset and Batman tried to let him know he wasnt alone in his grief.

He came out and said the words of his free will, he wasnt tricked or manipulated

Rial Vestro wrote:
The "hint" was in the speach not the responce he gave to Dick after the speach.

There was no more "hint" in any speech.

Rial Vestro wrote:Well now he sounds like Spider-man but I'll take it.

Rial Vestro wrote:Well, if a character is not part of a story then why should it change the story to remove that character?

It the character is written into a story then he is part of the story.

Editor wrote:As far as Robin goes from memory,
Dick Grayson was the first Robin, his parents the Flying Graysons were murdered and Bruce took Dick in.
Jason Todd was the second Robin, a street kid who took over as Dick looked to become his own man outside of the cloak of the Bat. Jason was killed by the Joker in "The Killing Game" His character became part of the current stories during the Hush storyline.
Tim Drake was the current holder of the Robin name, his parents had not been murdered when he figured out the secret of Batman.
Stephanie Brown, aka the Spoiler, Daughter of a two-bit villian held the role for a while but was killed by Black Mask.
Damian Wayne is the holder after the events of the current series.
The notable extra would be Carrie Kelly from TDKR, who simply kicks ass, and later adopted the Catgirl persona.

jup Sto Vo Kor, hows my memory for those.

Pretty good actuality.

Just a few points.

Dick was the first Robin but in some "retcons" Bruce actully wore the costume as a child detective.These stories have been removed from the modern telling.

Jason [Robin 2] was killed by the Joker in "A death in the family"

"The Killing JOKE" was when the Joker crippled Barbra Gordan [Batgirl]

Stephanie Brown's death was faked by Lesly Thompson.

Editor wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:

Editor wrote:Your statement there, is blatantly insulting, And I am taking it as a personal attack, as you are effectively calling me a liar.

That was not my intent, just a poor choice of words on my part and I appoligise for the missunderstanding.

You seem to have been a member here for quite a while but it seems like you've only been posting recently. Your joined date says 2006 but I don't think I've seen you around before.

In any case weather you're new or just a returning member who hasn't been active in a while. Some verry important things you should know about me to avoid further missunderstandings.

1. I will never intentionally insult you unless provoked. (You insult me first.) Offten times I don't realize that the things I say can be interpreted in a different way than I intended. Even though I've been made aware of this and it happens less offten than it use to I still don't catch every mistake I make with how I word things. When it happens please let me know but try not to take it personally.

2. I offten don't sleep. Once I start something I have to finish it or I'll never get any sleep till I simply pass out from exhastion. So even though I probly shouldn't even post at 1 am due to increasing typos and wording issues, I offten do just so I can sleep.

3. I have alot of mental problems includeing parrinoia, multiple personality dissorder, depression, and simply lack of memory. Despite the memory issue I'm some how still able to hold a job in theater for over 5 years. In any rate I offten remember things wrong and even things that never happened to begine with. As Sto said, I rely too much on memory but given my job I kinda have to. Most of the time I'm posting out of memory just as a way to test myself and the rest of the time just because I'm lazy and sleep deprived.

a) As far as your apology, I'll take your word that you didn't mean it, but for your own sake think before you post.
b) I am going to assume that you are not trying to insult me again, but dude, I have been a somewhat regular poster for ages, and since late 07, this is pretty much 1 of 2 forums i use on a daily basis. Just because you haven't dealt with me before does not mean i have not been around, and for the record I know enough about you from other threads whether you realize I have view or posted in them.
c) Those explanations are simply excuses. Sorry but they are. I say this from the position that I grew up with learning disabilities and had issue while growing up, but I have never used them as an excuse. I commend you that you are trying to work from memory as a means to better yourself, but there is a reason I don't rush to hit the submit button. If I find myself in a situation like these I also tend to work from memory, but I am most likely to double check for sources to make sure I don't make an ass of myself. I also spell check and reread almost everything I post as not only am I prone to misspelling, but when I type i have a bad habit of typing the wrong word. These are no excuses, It is what I live with. Trust me I work with Family and it drives them nuts sometimes.

To be perfectly honest, I don't belive in excuses. That and "talking back" just never made any sence to me. There just doesn't seem to be any significant difference in "excuses" and "reason" or in "talking back" and "responding". But I've come from a backround where I've constantly been accused of things I've had no controll over. One example being in high school we went hikeing down a trail that I'd never been on before, I'm rather slow and lost the group and basically got completly lost. I got yelled at when I was late getting back to the school and told this was an "excuse". Yeah like I really wanted to get totally lost and miss half my lunch period.

As for the posting while half asleep, yes I have done that as well, and it usually shows when I do, but I also have the common scene sometimes to just go back a page step away from the keyboard and go to bed. You can always respond in the morning.

I'm aware of this, but as I allready exsplained, I can't get to sleep unless I actully finish a project. This includes posting. When I'm able to I end up going back to edit posts I know have suffered from this but that's rather rare.

It's nearly impossible to get any sleep when my mind is thinking about multiple things simultaiously all at once. I just don't have the ability to clear my head so anything that I can do to get something off my mind I will do. Simply put, if I read a post I'm going to respond to it. Basically the only thing I can do to not be up at 1 am posting is not to check the web site and I useually don't check the site after a sertain hour unless I have something else on my mind that I can't take care of keeping me awake.

Now then, with that out of the way, I can't help but point out that in my post that I had a bit more than just the insult, and you have, once again completely ignored the facts that were posted, and skipped to picking apart the Klingons post.

I figured it was the best thing to do at the time. Allthough from this statement...

I am going to assume that you are not trying to insult me again, but dude, I have been a somewhat regular poster for ages, and since late 07, this is pretty much 1 of 2 forums i use on a daily basis. Just because you haven't dealt with me before does not mean i have not been around, and for the record I know enough about you from other threads whether you realize I have view or posted in them.

It appears I did what I was trying to avoid doing by not responding to the rest right away and that was unintentionally insulting you further while trying to appoligise for the first remark.

If you need me I'll be in my corner.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:Um, how am I the one who's confusing thoughs two. I'm the one who brought the subject up in the first place and I never said anything about real world reasons.

The fact that you brought up a subject does not automatically mean that you know what your talking about.

I'm preddy sure it does, at least in this case. Allthough I will addmit there are other times when I have no idea what the hell I'm saying, know what I'm trying to say but just can't get the right words out.

Rial Vestro wrote:A real world reason is that muliple people do in fact have the same name. But we're not talking about the real world we're talking about fiction.

And again your getting things confused.

I'm not talking about a real world explanation why people have the same names.

Follow......

If you're not talking about real world exsplination then why did you say...

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:And I alread "explained" that your confusing the "in story explaniation" with the "real world reason" as to why they share the same name.

Looks like you're talking about it to me. I've even quoted you as saying you were. It's right there in bold.

Rial Vestro wrote:As I stated before there's allways an in story reason for the characters to share the same name.

And as I said before, thats not true.

As I pointed out there are cases of characters within the same universe that share the same name that have no connection to each other.

And no "story reason" for how they came to use the same name as an other character.

And theres no reason to expect on.

Its very likely that the characters in Cybertron, that you claimed were so different, could have been new characters useing old names.

Now it would be nice to get a in story reason but theres no reason to expect it.

There's plenty of reason to exspect it, it's common practice.

Even beast wars has an in story exsplination for why character share the same names and G1 characters.

Even the examples you pointed out before as I showed with Robin do have in story exsplinations for why they share the same name.

Rial Vestro wrote:Actully you did. Even after I told you the 2 characters who were removed from Best Little Whore House in Texas weren't part of the main story you still insisted that them not being there changed it.

No I never did.

You want to repeat that statement. I can go back in this topic and quote you at least 6 times saying what you're now claiming to have never said. But I want to get some sleep so I'm not going to spend time right now looking for quotes.

Wether those 2 characters were part of the main plot or not they were still part of the over all story that was written.

So removing any character or plot point from "Little House" changed "Little House".

Well hey as it turns out I don't even have to look for quotes you just said it again right after saying you never said it. I will dub the, "Controdictionman!"

Rial Vestro wrote:Really? How so?

The characters removed from the movie version of "Little house" were part of the original story as written.

The story of "little house" had multi plot lines, but it was one story.

From start to finish it was one story with different plot points.

Removing or making any changes the story as it was intended.

2 storys.

Rial Vestro wrote: Twilight Zone was all one verry weird universe.

No it wasnt.

There were episodes that every one looked like pigs,others were the world had been destroyed.

If one universe those things would be a constant threw out the series.

What we had with TZ was our first glimpse into a multiverse, where the events of one universe had no bearing on the next.

Give a listen to the opening dialog of each episode some time.

"There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone."

"You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead — your next stop, the Twilight Zone."

"You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination — Next stop, the Twilight Zone."

"You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas; you've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone."

4 alternate versions of the opening dialog from the first 4 seasons. Sure seems to describe one universe.

Rial Vestro wrote:but there is one character who does exsist in every episode. While normally other characters aren't even aware of him he's still a character that ties all the episodes togeather into one big universe. (and there was at least one episode where a character was actully aware of his presence. A wrighter with the odd ability to bring characters he created to life and it turned out at the end that he created the announcer for each episode.)

The character Rod Sterling portraied never interacted with the universes being shown from what I remember.

I didn't even see the full episode I'm refering to, only the ending but I did manage to find the episode on Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_World_of_His_Own

And I found the episode on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sBebDVL ... playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XHYUVGs ... 2C&index=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp4FMzgF ... 2C&index=2

Rial Vestro wrote: Lex doesn't even have any super powers. The only things that make him a threat are his wealth and inteligence.

And?????

The Joke, and many of Batmans "Arch Enemies" done have power or money and they are still the arch enemies of Batman.

That's a piss poor comparison. Batman doesn't have powers either. What is a threat to him is not going to be an equill threat to Superman.

If you think about it, Lex is actully more of a match to Batman than to Superman. Both Lex and Batman are rich, intelligent, and resourcefull.

Powers have nothing to do with it, all that matters is capabilities, and none of Supermans enemies have proven to be more capable then Lex.

That's just plain wrong. All of Superman's foes have been more capable of killing him than Lex. Alot of them have worked for Lex at one time or another. Like I said before, Lex doesn't really do much of anything. He's not capable of any more than any other human.

Hell Smallville actully created the most threating Superman villain. The only villain I know of ever smart enough to actully make kyptonight bullets. That's right, bullets carved out of pure kryptonight. And guess what, it wasn't Lex.

Rial Vestro wrote: On level of power, in an actual fight Lex is only able to stand as a threat with the aid of Kryptonite.

Incorrect.

But since you know so little about Lex I wont bother with examples.

Um... how is that incorrect? Superman is invulnerable, Lex isn't. It not a matter of knowing anything about Lex. The only thing that I need to know is that Lex is mearly human and all humans without super powers are inferior to Superman in every way.

Saying otherwise is like trying to get me to belive that a normal 6 year old girl can lift up a 600 ton tractor. It simply isn't possible without some kind of aid like a hydrolic lift. The girl on her own simply can not lift that much on her own.

Lex simply would not last in a fight with Superman without some kind of aid.

Rial Vestro wrote:Most of the time Lex does not even fight his own battles with Superman, he hiers people with more physical power than him to do the dirty work.

Which is a tactic.That only proves his cabable.

That doesn't prove anything. I'm talking about physical power which Lex does not have. No amount of money or inteligence will ever make Lex as dangerious as Bizzaro.

Rial Vestro wrote:He's just a normal person. He's no threat without aid.

He's as much as a threat as Batman is.

That much is true. And even Batman uses aids to help him when needed. But he's not fighting super powered enemys ALL the time.

Rial Vestro wrote:Bizzaro on the other hand all on his own is a threat to Superman.

Bizzaro only exsist because of Lex.

Thanks for proving my point

That doesn't prove your point, it proves mine.

Lex wouldn't of needed Bizzaro if he could take out Superman on his own.

And BTW it depends on continuity. Smallvills Bizzaro wasn't created by Lex.

Rial Vestro wrote: Brainiac on his own is a threat to Superman. Hell any super villain Superman has ever faced is more of a threat than Lex simply because just about anyone else besides Lex can actully stand in a 1 on 1 fight with the guy without any aid.

Your ignorance would be entertaining if it wasnt so pitiful.

I'm not the one who thinks Lex is actully a threat to a guy who could kill him just by looking at him if he wanted to.

Rial Vestro wrote:This was after he made the big long speach.

No it wasnt.

It was when he gave the speach.

Yes it was.

Speach

Robin gets angry and says you don't understand

Batman says yes I do.

Rial Vestro wrote: That would require him to say something right away before Dick even had a chance to get all angry and say "you just don't understand."

In a 2 way converstation its not uncommon for 1 person to say something that motivates the other to reveal something.

Dick was upset and Batman tried to let him know he wasnt alone in his grief.

He came out and said the words of his free will, he wasnt tricked or manipulated

Why would Dick have to say anything to motivate Bruce? Bruce allready knew that both their parrents were killed. He could of come right out and told him at any time.

"Dick, I know what you're going through right now. My parrents were murdered too. You probly don't want to talk about it right now but when you are, you know where to find me."

Something like that could of been said the moment Dick moved into the mansion but it wasn't.

That information wasn't given out to make Dick feel better, it was given out because Dick wrongly accused Bruce of not knowing what it's like to see your parrents killed.

Rial Vestro wrote:Well, if a character is not part of a story then why should it change the story to remove that character?

It the character is written into a story then he is part of the story.

Basically what I'm getting is you can change an action that's part of a story without changeing the story but you can't change a character who isn't part of a story without changeing a story?

You're not makeing alot of sence.

It would be pretty pointless asking you lot to drag this back onto topic wouldn't it?

And Rial, seriously, pm Cyber Bishop about your account. Make an effort to sort it out, it's part of his job so he won't mind being hounded.

Rial Vestro wrote:If you need me I'll be in my corner.

This made me laugh.

Rial Vestro wrote:I'm preddy sure it does, at least in this case.

I'm damn sure it doesnt in most cases dealing with you, and particulary in this case.

Sorry if that sounded like an insult but you have to admit you have a bad habit of getting into debates and arguments useing bad info and making incorrect posts.

Rial Vestro wrote:Looks like you're talking about it to me. I've even quoted you as saying you were. It's right there in bold.

"REAL WORLD REASON" as to why "CHARACTERS" have the same name not "PEOPLE".
'

Rial Vestro wrote:There's plenty of reason to exspect it,

Really????

Rial Vestro wrote: it's common practice.

No its not.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Even beast wars has an in story exsplination for why character share the same names and G1 characters.

Beast wars did, not every fiction does.

Rial Vestro wrote:Even the examples you pointed out before as I showed with Robin do have in story exsplinations for why they share the same name.

Robin does, Huntress did not.

Point being is that whats true in one case is not for the next.

Rial Vestro wrote: I can go back in this topic and quote you at least 6 times saying what you're now claiming to have never said.

No you can not.

Wether the 2 characters that were removed from "Little House" were part of 2 different plots is irrelevant.

They were part of 1 over all story.

Plot does not = story.

So removing them and their plot changes the story, even if it does not change the other plot.

Removing characters from 1 story wont evvect an other story.

But removing characters from 1 plot in a story of mulible plots will change the story.

Rial Vestro wrote:Well hey as it turns out I don't even have to look for quotes you just said it again right after saying you never said it. I will dub the, "Controdictionman!"

Again no because your getting Plot confuesd with story.

They are 2 different things.

"Little House" was 1 story with mulible plot points in it.

Remove characters and plots and you have changed the story.

Rial Vestro wrote:2 storys.

Was it 2 books???

was it 2 scripts???

If not it was 1 story from cover to cover with 2 plots.

Rial Vestro wrote:4 alternate versions of the opening dialog from the first 4 seasons. Sure seems to describe one universe.

How do you figure???

None of that supports your claim.

dimension does not = universe

As a matter of fact "Dimensions" contain different universes with in it.

Nothing you said proves 1 universe, as a matter of fact it indicates a muiltiverse was in play.

Rial Vestro wrote:I didn't even see the full episode I'm refering to, only the ending but I did manage to find the episode on Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_World_of_His_Own

And I found the episode on YouTube.

Thank you.

Doesnt prove your claim thou

Rial Vestro wrote:That's a piss poor comparison.

No its the perfect comparison.

Rial Vestro wrote: Batman doesn't have powers either.

That doent matter.

Batman has plenty of villains with powers, some that could give Superman pause, but Batmans most dangerous and notible arch enemys are the Joker and Ras, both having no powers.

Rial Vestro wrote: What is a threat to him is not going to be an equill threat to Superman.

That doesnt matter 1 bit.

The Joker has proven to be more then a cerdible threat to Superman as well.

Rial Vestro wrote:If you think about it, Lex is actully more of a match to Batman than to Superman. Both Lex and Batman are rich, intelligent, and resourcefull.

And what does that have to do with it???

Fact is none of Supermans enemies have brought superman to he nees as often as Lex has.

Rial Vestro wrote:That's just plain wrong.

No your just plain wrong.

Rial Vestro wrote:All of Superman's foes have been more capable of killing him than Lex.

Funny that none of them have gotton as close as Lex has, besides Doomsday, which even with that Lex had a hand in.

Rial Vestro wrote:Hell Smallville actully created the most threating Superman villain. The only villain I know of ever smart enough to actully make kyptonight bullets. That's right, bullets carved out of pure kryptonight. And guess what, it wasn't Lex.

Total fail bud.

Smallville wasnt the first story to feature a krytonite bullets, and in the first it was Lex that made them.

No less in the episode your talking about the bad guy just happened to find out about Clarks weakness, no shock that he chose to make bullets out of the stuff.

Rial Vestro wrote:Um... how is that incorrect?

There have been times that Lex has fought Superman toe to toe with out the help of Kryptonite.

Rial Vestro wrote: Superman is invulnerable,

Near invulnerable.

Rial Vestro wrote: Lex isn't. It not a matter of knowing anything about Lex. The only thing that I need to know is that Lex is mearly human and all humans without super powers are inferior to Superman in every way.

No the only think you need to know is that you dont know what your talking about.

Rial Vestro wrote:Lex simply would not last in a fight with Superman without some kind of aid.

Who said he didnt have some kind of "aid"

Rial Vestro wrote:That doesn't prove anything.

Sure it does.

Rial Vestro wrote: I'm talking about physical power

Physical power is not the sole method by witch a "arch enemy" is categorized.

One could have ultimate power but if he doesnt have the intelligence or the drive he's going to amount to nothing more then a nuisance.

Rial Vestro wrote: which Lex does not have. No amount of money or inteligence will ever make Lex as dangerious as Bizzaro.

You have no clue.

Even Superman has said Bizzaro is not much more then a simple nuisance,

He has called Lex his most dangerous enemy.

Rial Vestro wrote:That much is true.

And Batan is the most dangeros person to Superman in the DCU.

Rial Vestro wrote: And even Batman uses aids to help him when needed. But he's not fighting super powered enemys ALL the time.

But he has beat Superman as well.

And useing "aids" doesnt mean a thing.It actully mskes him more of a threat.

Rial Vestro wrote:That doesn't prove your point, it proves mine.

No it proves mine.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Lex wouldn't of needed Bizzaro if he could take out Superman on his own.

And???

Dont you get it.

Lex is smart enough to make millions of Bizzaros.

A threat is no merresed by how much damage 1 person can create with his hands, but by how much damage the man can inspire, by what ever means.

The fact that he can create and control the means to fight Superman makes him a greater threat

Rial Vestro wrote:And BTW it depends on continuity. Smallvills Bizzaro wasn't created by Lex.

Even that one is tied to Lex.

It was in the Phantom Zone till it got out, due in part to Lex and his plans.

Rial Vestro wrote:I'm not the one who thinks Lex is actully a threat to a guy who could kill him just by looking at him if he wanted to.

Because he is.

And what Superman "could" do is far from what he "would" do.

Superman has the power to do such a thing but its not in his character to actully do it.

He doesnt have the will.

Your confusing his abilities with his capabilities.

Fact is its been said time and again that Lex is Supermans most arch enemy.

Your ignorance is not going to change that.

Rial Vestro wrote:Yes it was.

No it wasnt.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Speach

Robin gets angry and says you don't understand

Batman says yes I do.

It was all part of one conversation between 2 characters.

Rial Vestro wrote:Why would Dick have to say anything to motivate Bruce?

That is what you implied.

Rial Vestro wrote: That information wasn't given out to make Dick feel better, it was given out because Dick wrongly accused Bruce of not knowing what it's like to see your parrents killed.

So your suggesting Batman said it to prove a point????

Nonsence, Bruce told him to try to show him he wasnt alone, yes Bruce could have done so before that point, but the Director chose to go a different route.

Rial Vestro wrote:Basically what I'm getting is you can change an action that's part of a story without changeing the story but you can't change a character who isn't part of a story without changeing a story?

Actions are not always part of the story.

If the character is a runner, and a scene is writter that he's running a race, and that is removed, then you have changed the story.

But if the writter of a script wrote in an action for a character, said that he was running down the streat , that is not nessesaraly part of the story.

Actions are sometimes a way to tell the story but are not part of the story.

It really isn't nice to ignore a Mod's request, disrespectful infact.