The Energon Pub

married with 3 daughters, then you debate for a career, no fair competing with us amatures

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:They weren't all G1 names in the movie. All the Autobots were but some of the Decepticons were newer characters.

Boy your wrong again.

And I cant believe you made this mistake Again.

When the Movie was first released we had this same argument....dont you remember????

Every TF character in Bay's movie had a G1 counterpart with the same name.

And I repeat every single one.As you pointed out all the Autobots were G1 names.

But so were all the Decepticons.

You really should do a little research before you post things.

G1 Barricade
http://www.tfu.info/1990/Decepticon/Bar ... ricade.htm

G1 Blackout
http://www.tfu.info/1990/Decepticon/Bla ... ackout.htm

and you should kow the rest of the G1 names.

So tell me how was I wrong???

Two reasons.

1. You said it was Bay that made sure only G1 names were used. It wasn't, that was the writer's choice.

2. Even if you hadn't said Bay it'd still be wrong. If you'd seen the web cast announcing the characters you'd know the characters of Blackout and Barricade have no G1 counterparts.

A better way to put it, the characters in the movie were not in any way based on the two characters you linked. According to the interview the wrighters created thoughs characters as new characters for the movie. The fact that they share names with pre-exsisting characters is coincidence, they had no idea thoughs guys even exsisted before.

Blackout was given that name because of his EMP ability seen in the opening scene.

Barricade is a refrence to his alt mode. A police barricade.

I didn't make any mistake. Maybe you did with your wording but not all the characters were intentionally given G1 names.

Saber Prime wrote: It was the writers who decided to use G1 names in the script long before Bay was even hired but it was allso the writers who hired Bay in the first place.

Yes the writters wanted to use G1 names on some drafts but on others they changed some of the names because of copyrights issues.

One of the names the writters wanted to use for Blackout was "Vortex" since he was a G1 helicopter but the name could not be used because of copyright issues.So Bay told then to look for any G1 name that would fit.

And a simular thing accrued with a few different characters.

So Bay did insist that G1 names be used.He just didnt care much about which G1 names were chosen.

Where did you hear this from? Because I was on the movie's web site durring the whole production process and this is the first I've heard of this.

According to Robberto Orchi the name changes in the script had more to do with getting names that better fit the characters. Frenzy for example was originally going to be Soundwave but as they were wrighting the character they eventually decided Frenzy would be a much more suitible name.

And again "Blackout" was a refrence to his EMP generator and again was a more suitible name than "Vortex", it had nothing to do with Trade Marks, nothing to do with Bay, and they didn't even know about G1 Blackout.

Besides that Blackout and Barricade were toys, they weren't in the cartoon. When they were writing the script they were looking at the G1 cartoon for insperation on how the characters should be, not their toys. (even though they still managed to screw them up.)

Saber Prime wrote:The wrighters said when they first announced who was in the movie that they wrote the movie as fans of Transformers. They approched Bay with the first copy of the script and he turned the job down saying he didn't want to do "a stupid toy commercial". They then rewote the script and pitched the idea to him again. Like I keep saying why did they go back to this guy when he turned it down the first time.

None of this was part of our converstaion but since you brought it up....I dont put much faith in weather all of that is completly accurate.

And its not you that I'm doubting...it how the writters claim they wrote the first draft for G1 Tf fans.

These are the same writters that massacred the Star Trek continuity for the new film all the wile saying they were writting that film for true Trekies and sticking with continuity.

I dont trust them one bit.

I really don't blame you. Roberto Orchi lied to me personally about the movie. There was a Q&A topic on their fourms and I asked him some questions about the leaked script. One had to do with the fact that Transformers could repair on their own so it didn't make sence to have Ratchet around. He told me the self repair systems were removed from the latest script but they still appeared in the finished film.

Pluse all the BS about keeping the G1 characters in mind yet non of them were anything like their G1 counterparts.

So yeah, I don't belive they were fans as they claimed to be or they wouldn't of went back to Bay. But I do belive Bay saying he didn't want to do a toy commercial when he was first offered the job.

Saber Prime wrote:So it was not Bay that insisted on useing G1 names as you said, he hadn't even been hired yet when that discision was made.

As I said above he was the one to insist on useing G1 names when the ones originally chosen werent capable of being used for copyright reasons.

Copyright had nothing to do with it. The names were changed to better fit the characters.

Come to think of it, Blackout was renamed twice. His leaked concept art showed his name was Incinerator and he was Vortex in the leaked script.

Saber Prime wrote:the simple fact that he was in power in was a Sith goes agenst the statement that "the Sith had no political power" It doesn't matter how or why he got into power all that matters is that he was in power and was a Sith.

And again it was not "The Sith" that had the power.

So you're saying Palpatine is not a Sith Lord and you are wrong.

Untill he was given the special powers by the senate all the real power was still with the senate.

Palpatine was a member of the Senate as a Senetor/Chancelor.

Saber Prime wrote:When you said the Droids belong to the Trade Federation.

They did.

Viceroy Nute Gunray was the leader of the trade federation and the leader of the droid army's.

Have you forgotten about this guy???.....
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Nute_Gunray

He's an ally of the Sith.

Saber Prime wrote:Now here's your version.

Is he a Sith? Yes! Is he in a position of political power? Yes! Do the Sith have political power? No!

How does yes + yes = no?

Its the same with out government.

The President may be a catholic but that does not give the catholic church political power.

The political power resides with the man not the organization he belong too.

At least in a democracy.

Which the Senate was till episode 3.

That's a different matter. I'd rather not get into real life politics and religion so I'll just say this. Palpatine was not just any old member of the Sith, he was the leader. That would be like haveing the Pope as President in your analigy.

It would be impossible for the Church and Goverment to be kept seperate if the Pope was the President.

Saber Prime wrote:Here I'll put it another way. You're saying the Sith don't have any power because they don't know he's a Sith. Well do you know how much money is in my bank account? Did you know I even have a bank account? By you're reasoning if you don't know I have money in my bank account then I must not have any money and if you didn't know I had a bank account then I don't have a bank account. But wait, I do in fact have over $2,000 dollars in my non-exstant bank account, how does that work?

I'm sorry but I dont understand your analogy.

What's not to understand? You're saying the Sith has no political power simply because no one knows that the Sith Lord is their Senitor/Chancelor. So by that reasoning if you don't know how much money I have then I must not have any.

Just because the public doesn't know something doesn't mean it's not happening. So weather or not anyone knows it, Palpatine as a Sith Lord does have a position of Political power and therefore the Sith as a group (him being their leader) have political power. He manipulated his way into the power yes, but he does have it regardless of how or who knows about it.

Saber Prime wrote: but it's not that's exactly what you're saying. That just because they didn't know there was a Sith in Political power that there wasn't a Sith in political power.

See thats where you getting mixed up.

I'm not saying that there wasnt a Sith in political power, what I'm saying is that the Sith as an orginization has no polotical power.

Try to see it in the real world.

Just because there is one member of a minority group with political power does not mean that the minority group as a whole has political power.

Political power within a senate comes from numbers.The more members of that minority group that is within the senate the political power the group holds.

But while there's only one member of that group in the senate that group holds little to no political power.

I never said the Sith had alot of power. I just said they do have political power. And as I exsplained abouve it would be different for a normal group member but for the groups leader to have that position it gives the entire group power.

To put it another way, if it was Dooku who was in office insted of Palpatine that's just a Sith Apprentice in office. Or better yet in real life terms. It's like the difference between an average church goer being Mayor and a priest at that same church being Mayor.

Just being Cathlic you can't really do much to influance a town to attend church more but if the Mayor is allso your priest it might cause some people to attend church more even if he's not intentinally perswading them. Just being in thoughs two positions one is allways going to influance the other.

Saber Prime wrote:I don't use sarcasum when I'm typeing. I hate that. I thought you knew that allready.

Sometimes your little jokes come off like sarcazem.

I wasn't jokeing. If I was this guy would be there. ->

Saber Prime wrote:Allso why I kept bringing up serverl characters from the first movie who would want revenge but you ignored that every time.

I'm not ignoring it, its irrelivent to the case in hand.

What case would that be?

It doesnt matter if there are better candidates for wanting revenge if Bay decides to go with The Fallen as a character.

So why should I touch on what you feel is a better choice????

Thats your opinion and I respect it.

But your not making the movie and what were debating it the merit of the title if Bay goes with the character from the comics.

You lost me. Are we talking about Bay's opinions or our own? Because I thought this was about speculating what might happen not tossing out "Bay will do what Bay wants... exsplosions!"

Saber Prime wrote:I do give detailed replys exsplaining thoughs one liners you allways get stuck on but you never seem to read them.

Because your explanations dont address the rute of your "one liners".

Having other characters that want revenge has nothing to do with weither the title is valid for "The Fallen" as a character.

It has everything to do with that. It's allready been said that the title may be refering fallen as another word for "defeated" group or character. So saying the title may be refering to Megatron, Starscream, or just the Decepticons as a whole is a perfectly valid argument.

Granted it may be part of the faulse information being intentially leaked out but we really don't know that. The character Fallen is just as likely to be faulse information.

All I'm saying is that one makes more sence than the other.

Saber Prime wrote:Wrong. Both movies were in fact about Batman. They were "just featureing" The Joker, Penguin, and Catwoman.

Hell no they werent.

Go ask and die hard Batman nut and they'll agree with me.

I asked myself and I don't agree... What you said to go ask a die hard Batman nut and I am one.

Hell Jack Nickilson got top billing in the first film.

That doesn't mean the movie was all about the Joker. Jack Nickelson was allready a well know actor at the time while Micheal Keaton didn't become as famous till after the movies were made.

The characterization of Batman was wrong and Tim, like in most of his films, put more work into the "Freaks" in the film.

In the words of the Joker, Batman is a freak. And what was "wrong" with his characterization? Batman was great up untill Batman and Robin when he turned into that goofy nut ball who didn't seem to care about the fact that 3 of his loved ones were dead and another was dieing.

Saber Prime wrote:But we didnt see it.

Doesn't matter. It was the first movie not a sequill. It's not like we saw Bumblebee speaking in one movie then in the next he was mute and we didn't know why. So again, poor analigy.

So as an anolgy....If "The Fallen" cant seek revenge in the 2nd film because he wasnt in the first film, Then Bumblebee should be able to speak because we didnt see his voics box get damage in the first film.

The point is this universe and its characters are going to have some history.

We cant expect to see all of it.

I'm not saying I'm not saying the characters don't have a long history or that we should exspect to see all of it. You're the one saying that we should see all their history.

All I'm saying is the sequill should actully follow the story set forth by the first movie insted of starting a new one.

Saber Prime wrote: We're talking about speculation not what will and will not happen.

Actually this conversation was not about speculation.

It was about how you said it made no sence if Bay was useing the character known as "The Fallen" in his film because he would have no reason for revenge.

If you want to start a speculation conversation I'm game.

This was a speculation conversation. What you read was my reasons for why I though that the Title wasn't about the Fallen. Obviously you didn't agree with my reasoning but that is was the conversation started out as.

Saber Prime wrote: The simple fact that there are characters and reasons for thoughs characters to seek revenge in the first movie is verry good reason to belive that the Fallen has nothing to do with the Character "Fallen" but rather the "fallen characters" as in "defeated" from the first movie.

With that I agree

If you agree then why the heck have you been debating it all this time?

Name_Violation wrote:married with 3 daughters, then you debate for a career, no fair competing with us amatures

Ha

Saber Prime wrote:Two reasons.

Really??? Lets see.......

Saber Prime wrote:1. You said it was Bay that made sure only G1 names were used. It wasn't, that was the writer's choice.

As I said....

The writters originally had G1 names on their first draft but the names they chose were denied due to copyright issues.

Bay directed them to find other G1 names no matter how obscure.

So again tell me how I'm wrong???

Saber Prime wrote:2. Even if you hadn't said Bay it'd still be wrong. If you'd seen the web cast announcing the characters you'd know the characters of Blackout and Barricade have no G1 counterparts.

I did see/here it and we talked about it at leanght [dont you remember anything??]

And that fact is irrelevant since I never spoke about their counterparts.

I only said that each name used was a G1 name and thats a fact.

So your wrong for saying other wise.

Saber Prime wrote:They weren't all G1 names in the movie.All the Autobots were but some of the Decepticons were newer characters.

So again tell me how I was wrong????

Saber Prime wrote:A better way to put it, the characters in the movie were not in any way based on the two characters you linked. According to the interview the wrighters created thoughs characters as new characters for the movie.

Actually according to the writters they wrote those characters with the idea of useing different G1 names then they ended out with.

The helicopter was originally named "Soundwave" and when they decided that name didnt fit they went for "Vortex" but that name was denied because of copyright issues.

A simular assurance happened with the nameing of barricade.

It seem that they wrote the plots with the idea of interchangeable names......which is pretty much a proven theroy since the name "Soundwave" was also on one of the early drafts for the character that ended up as FRENZY.

Saber Prime wrote: The fact that they share names with pre-exsisting characters is coincidence,

Thats 100% BULL$H!+!!!!!!!!

You expect me/us to believe that the writters just happened to stumble on 2 G1 names that just happened to be....

1] Both Decepticons in G1
2] Both released in the same year [1990]
3] Both part of the same Sub-Group [both micromasters]
4] Both had alt-modes that fuctioned in the same enviorments as the movie characters.
[G1 & Movie Barricade functioned on land,G1 & movie Blackout both fuctioned in the air]

You really expect me to believe "ALL" thats a coincidence??????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!


Boy you'll try to sell anything to save face.

I'll give you creid for sticking to your guns but thats a total fail.

Saber Prime wrote: they had no idea thoughs guys even exsisted before.

They most likely didnt.But they were told to find G1 names for the characters that would fit and they did.

Saber Prime wrote:I didn't make any mistake.

You did when you said that they werent G1 names.

Saber Prime wrote: Maybe you did with your wording

Nope because I said all the names were G1 not their characters.

Saber Prime wrote: but not all the characters were intentionally given G1 names.

Yes they were.

Saber Prime wrote:Where did you hear this from?

It was widely reported on these and other boards in the months leading up till the character names release.

Even the writters confirmed the many different names they had on differt drafts.

Saber Prime wrote: Because I was on the movie's web site durring the whole production process and this is the first I've heard of this.

Or you dont remember of dismised it as rummer.

You do tend to do things like that.

Saber Prime wrote:According to Robberto Orchi the name changes in the script had more to do with getting names that better fit the characters.

That was the case with Frenzy [from Soundwave] and with Vortex [also from Soundwave] but the change from Vortex to Blackout had to do with the fact that Hasbro could not copyright the name Vortex.

Saber Prime wrote: Frenzy for example was originally going to be Soundwave but as they were wrighting the character they eventually decided Frenzy would be a much more suitible name.

See above.

Saber Prime wrote:And again "Blackout" was a refrence to his EMP generator and again was a more suitible name than "Vortex",

The EMP generator was a re-write.

The draft written with the name "Vortex" had the character useing his helicopter blades to created a vortex at the military base attack scene.

And no not a cheezzy Sci-fi vortex but the real kind.When the name change had to be done and the settled on "Blackout" for the characters name they re-wrote his ability into a EMP generator.

Saber Prime wrote: it had nothing to do with Trade Marks,

Yes it did...as a matter of fact Hasbro has been trying to use the name since Armada.

Saber Prime wrote: nothing to do with Bay,

See way above

Saber Prime wrote: and they didn't even know about G1 Blackout.

See not so way above

Saber Prime wrote:Besides that Blackout and Barricade were toys, they weren't in the cartoon.

That doent change the fact that their G1 names.

Almost half of the G1 toyline never made it to the cartoon.

And you tried this argument before and you failed then as you are now.

G1 was not just a cartoon.

Saber Prime wrote: When they were writing the script they were looking at the G1 cartoon for insperation on how the characters should be,

Thats what they started out trying to do.But they had to look else where because of copyright issues.

Saber Prime wrote: not their toys.

Obviously they did ended up looking at the toyline.

Saber Prime wrote: (even though they still managed to screw them up.)

That I can agree with.

Saber Prime wrote:I really don't blame you. Roberto Orchi lied to me personally about the movie. There was a Q&A topic on their fourms and I asked him some questions about the leaked script. One had to do with the fact that Transformers could repair on their own so it didn't make sence to have Ratchet around. He told me the self repair systems were removed from the latest script but they still appeared in the finished film.

Pluse all the BS about keeping the G1 characters in mind yet non of them were anything like their G1 counterparts.

So yeah, I don't belive they were fans as they claimed to be or they wouldn't of went back to Bay. But I do belive Bay saying he didn't want to do a toy commercial when he was first offered the job.

I believe that even if they were true fans they sold out for the money.

Saber Prime wrote:Copyright had nothing to do with it.

It did and still does.

Saber Prime wrote: The names were changed to better fit the characters.

Not in each case.

Saber Prime wrote:Come to think of it, Blackout was renamed twice. His leaked concept art showed his name was Incinerator and he was Vortex in the leaked script.

3 times if your right about Incinerator.

At one point Blackout was named Soundwave....altho I think it was just to try and have him in the movie.

Saber Prime wrote:So you're saying Palpatine is not a Sith Lord and you are wrong.

No I'm saying that the Sith as an organization did not have political power.

Do you even understand how politics work in an open society???

Saber Prime wrote:Palpatine was a member of the Senate as a Senetor/Chancelor.

Yes he was but he was not representing the Sith.He was the senator from Naboo and later became Chancellor of the entire senate.

But it was Palpatine that had political power not the Sith.

The Sith had no standing as a member of the Senate.

Saber Prime wrote:He's an ally of the Sith.

He was a tool for the Sith....but the Droid army belonged to him and his group not the Sith.

Saber Prime wrote:That's a different matter.

No its not because the Galatic senate works like our senate.

Instead of State Senators its planet Senators.And the political power structure is bascily the same.

To have political power within the Senete you must be recognized and have open representation within the senate .

The Sith as an organization had non of this.

Saber Prime wrote: I'd rather not get into real life politics and religion so I'll just say this. Palpatine was not just any old member of the Sith, he was the leader. That would be like haveing the Pope as President in your analigy.

Not exactly....only if the Pope wanted to become a dictator and hid his identity and enetered the presidential race.

Saber Prime wrote:It would be impossible for the Church and Goverment to be kept seperate if the Pope was the President.

Which is why Palaptine infiltrated the senate to take it over from within.

But again it wasnt the Sith that had political power......it was the man [Palpatine] who used that political power to further his personal cause.

To gain Revenge on the Jedi and to once again rule the Galaxy.

Saber Prime wrote:What's not to understand? You're saying the Sith has no political power simply because no one knows that the Sith Lord is their Senitor/Chancelor.

No the Sith have no political power because they are not a recognized member of the senate.

If I wasnt clear I'm sorry.

Saber Prime wrote:Just because the public doesn't know something doesn't mean it's not happening. So weather or not anyone knows it, Palpatine as a Sith Lord does have a position of Political power and therefore the Sith as a group (him being their leader) have political power.

Only in retrospect not in pratrice.

Simply put if it were public knowledge that he was a Sith lord he would have never been elected to his position.

So within the governmental structure, the Sith as an organization have no Political power while the man himself does.

Saber Prime wrote:I never said the Sith had alot of power. I just said they do have political power. And as I exsplained abouve it would be different for a normal group member but for the groups leader to have that position it gives the entire group power.

I dont feel like repeating the same thing again.

We got different views on how politics work....I suggest we drop it before this gets shut down like most politic debates end up getting.

Saber Prime wrote:What case would that be?

Weather its aperoeriate to name the movie "Revenge of the Fallen" if its in refrance to the character of the same name.

Dont tell my you for got that????

Saber Prime wrote:You lost me. Are we talking about Bay's opinions or our own? Because I thought this was about speculating what might happen not tossing out "Bay will do what Bay wants... exsplosions!"

We werent speculating....you were saying its wrong to use the title [Revenge of the Fallen" if its about the Fallen from the comics.

And I said the title would still fit even if it is about the character from the books.

We went from there....obviously in 2 directions

Saber Prime wrote:It has everything to do with that. It's allready been said that the title may be refering fallen as another word for "defeated" group or character. So saying the title may be refering to Megatron, Starscream, or just the Decepticons as a whole is a perfectly valid argument.

It is a valid argument....if thats what the argument was about.

Remember I said I wasnt taking sides on what the title might mean.All I questioned was wether it would be wrong if it was about the character known as The Fallen".

That was my only debate....wether the Title could be used as regfrance to the character by the same name.

Saber Prime wrote:I asked myself and I don't agree... What you said to go ask a die hard Batman nut and I am one.

Sorry but a die hard fan is a fan of every medium that the characters appear in and as you have told me many many times....you dont read the comics.

You like the cartoon [and not all of them] and you like the movies.

The greater bulk of Batmans history as a character is in the comics.

You dont qulify as a "Die Hard Nut"

Saber Prime wrote:That doesn't mean the movie was all about the Joker.

True but the Joke had a much greater pressence in the film.

Saber Prime wrote: Jack Nickelson was allready a well know actor at the time

True

Saber Prime wrote: while Micheal Keaton didn't become as famous till after the movies were made.

BS

Micheal Keaton was already a well known comidic actor from his roles in...

Night Shift 1982
Mr. Mom 1983
Johnny Dangerously 1984
Gung Ho 1986
She's Having a Baby 1988
Beetlejuice 1988
The Dream Team 1989

And a good number of other movies.

He was so well known that when he was casted as Batman it caused an uproar with fan boys that would rival yours with Michal bay.

No fan wanted him as Batman before the first film....he was short,balding and a bit pudgie looking since he tend to dress like a slob in most of his films.

But he was well known as an actor, even thou he wasnt as respected as Jack.

But back in the 80's it was unheard of that the title characters actor did not get top billing in a film.

As a matter of fact Siskel & Ebert , famus movie critics from back then, talked about this when they reviwed the film.

Saber Prime wrote:In the words of the Joker, Batman is a freak.

And your point is??????

Saber Prime wrote: And what was "wrong" with his characterization?

Batman killed in Tims movies

Saber Prime wrote: Batman was great up untill Batman and Robin when he turned into that goofy nut ball who didn't seem to care about the fact that 3 of his loved ones were dead and another was dieing.

Who was dead??????

And I'm not defending that film, I've already told you how much it sucked, but the simple truth is that Batman and Robin was the only one of those Batman films in which batman did not kill someone.

Saber Prime wrote:I'm not saying I'm not saying the characters don't have a long history or that we should exspect to see all of it.

You did imply it when you said the character of "The Fallen" had nothing to seak revenge for.

Saber Prime wrote: You're the one saying that we should see all their history.

When the hell did I say that????

Saber Prime wrote:All I'm saying is the sequill should actully follow the story set forth by the first movie insted of starting a new one.

Maybe it should....but that doesnt not make the use of the title wrong as you suggested in your first post.

Saber Prime wrote:This was a speculation conversation.

It wasnt.

I started the conversation by questioning your statement that its wrong to use the title if its about a new character.

I did not question your other guesses or theories about what the title could mean.

Saber Prime wrote: What you read was my reasons for why I though that the Title wasn't about the Fallen.

Thats what I qouted and questioned.

Thats what I replied to, not the rest.

Saber Prime wrote:If you agree then why the heck have you been debating it all this time?

That it would be wrong to use the title if it was about a new character.

Look at my first reply to you....

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:2. I read somewhere that "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" was a title refering to a fallen character or group and actully has nothing to do with the character of "The Fallen" from the comics.

I guess you havent been keeping up with all the current news.

I'm not saying its a fact but theres plenty of "signs" that indicate that "The Fallen" is in refrance to the character from the comics.

Saber Prime wrote: And that actully makes alot more sence because if you think about it how can there be a "Revenge of the Fallen" when they've never introduced "the Fallen" in the first place. He has to first appear in a movie before he can have a revenge movie.

No he doent.

The first movie established that they are a long lived race with plenty of history and have been at war for millions of years.

All they really have to do is show us what he's pissed about.

As you can see I didnt touch on your theroy about the first movie characters other then to inform you about current events.

What I questioned and debated was your statement that "The Fallen", as a new character, would have to have been in the first film to seek revenge.

ooh ooh ooh, its a reference to scorpinok, who "fell" off blackouts back. he's getting revenge for his tail getting lopped off