The Energon Pub

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
1 cyclones attacks from the front.

and then pass's above

the 2nd cyclonus attacks from the side and underneath.

Nah, like with the Wheeljack discussion, its circumstancial at best. During the escape from autobot city through the end of the movie, as best as I can tell, two Cyclonus never share screen time except during formatting from Unicron. It can easily be said the Cyclonus goes off screen and loops back into the second shot.

Again, I'll concede 5 Faces of Darkness. The screen shot is sufficient. However, that can easily be chalked up to standard G1 animation/continuity errors. We witness the creation of two Cycloni(?) during the meeting with Unicron yet in 5FOD there's all of the sudden 5 of them? Sure one of them could possibly be Skywarp but then one of them could have magically appeared just as the other three did.

joesaysso wrote:
Nah, like with the Wheeljack discussion, its circumstancial at best.

Its really not.

Watch the film again if you like.

It can easily be said the Cyclonus goes off screen and loops back into the second shot.

I slowed the scene down.Between that and the angle the second "cyclonus" comes in at its not really possible that it was the first looping back.

unless you want to argue "movie magic"

Again, I'll concede 5 Faces of Darkness. The screen shot is sufficient. However, that can easily be chalked up to standard G1 animation/continuity errors.

ohh its an error, but not on the animation.

The episode was produced at a time when it was intended for Cyclonus to have a group of clones like the sweeps.

The idea was dropped but that was done after 5 faces was already produced.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Its really not.

Watch the film again if you like.



I slowed the scene down.Between that and the angle the second "cyclonus" comes in at its not really possible that it was the first looping back.

unless you want to argue "movie magic"

I actually did watch the scene again. With G1's animation history, any such error certainly does not have to be movie magic. What is seen one screen is one Cyclonus exit off screen to the upper right and then enter again from the lower right. I really don't think that airplane physics of flight and angle of attack should really come into play given the source material.

What matters is whats on the screen, just as the basis for your "Wheeljack could possibly not be dead because what you saw on the screen" discussion. What was seen on the screen was one Cyclonus. Unicron created two Cyclonus but when the armada left Unicron there was only one. Two Cyclonus were not seen on screen again apparently until 5FOD.

joesaysso wrote:
I actually did watch the scene again. With G1's animation history, any such error certainly does not have to be movie magic.

this is true to an extent.

But either way, error or by intent, its evidence of a 2nd cyclonus in the shot.

What is seen one screen is one Cyclonus exit off screen to the upper right and then enter again from the lower right. I really don't think that airplane physics of flight and angle of attack should really come into play given the source material.

you might not want to consider it, but it is a valid point.

What matters is whats on the screen,

and wehats on screen appares to be 2 cyclonus coming in from different angles.

just as the basis for your "Wheeljack could possibly not be dead because what you saw on the screen" discussion. What was seen on the screen was one Cyclonus.

What was seen 1 one per shot.

But looking at the movement of the first, its un likely the 2nd was the same one.

Unicron created two Cyclonus but when the armada left Unicron there was only one. Two Cyclonus were not seen on screen again apparently until 5FOD.

Covered above.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:this is true to an extent. But either way, error or by intent, its evidence of a 2nd cyclonus in the shot.

Sure. As they say, circumstancial at best.

you might not want to consider it, but it is a valid point.

I would argue the extent of its validity. If you think physics and angle of attack were on the minds of the animators at the time. So be it. Its an opinion that won't be changed regardless and you're entitled to it.

and wehats on screen appares to be 2 cyclonus coming in from different angles.

Unfortunately, in this case what appears to be on the screen and what is actually on the screen are different. Whats is actually on the screen is one Cyclonus.

What was seen 1 one per shot.

But looking at the movement of the first, its un likely the 2nd was the same one.

Also, see above. In a series that has more animation errors than it does characters, I question the validity of such things as angles and perceived movements. But we are all entitled to our opinions.

joesaysso wrote:Sure. As they say, circumstancial at best.

your opinion, which your welcome to.

But it is evidence that suggest he didnt completely disappear.

I would argue the extent of its validity.

you could, and I'm sure we can both cite a number of times where logic and basic physics are ignored.

But I can then point out that for a series as a whole, they did attempt to follow basic physics more offten then ignore it.

and wehats on screen appares to be 2 cyclonus coming in from different angles.

Unfortunately, in this case what appears to be on the screen and what is actually on the screen are different. Whats is actually on the screen is one Cyclonus.[/quote]

thats not not the case, it can be augured sure, but you cant prove it beyond a doubt.

It may very well be true that the animators werent concerned with physics and angle of attack, as you suggest, and if they werent then theres only 1.

But if it was on their minds, then what I suggest is true, that its 2 of them and is as it appears.

The evidence we have swings both ways.

Also, see above.

likewise

In a series that has more animation errors than it does characters, I question the validity of such things as angles and perceived movements.

As manmy animation errors as the series has, what they did corfrectly far out weights the amount of errors.

Simplely put, we cant use the fact of confirmed animation errors to explain every thing in the series.

Its no different then does that try to argue that the scene showing Bombshell in the foreground was an animation error.You cant point to other animatyion errors and say that they prove this is an error.

Sure, it may very well be, but theres no independent evidence to suggest it is.

Sabrblade wrote:About the Wheeljack thing, while he may not be shown to turn gray on screen in the film, there is a part where he is colored differently from normal.



Just wanted to throw that in here.

Seem to be a "trow back" to the storyboard that had Smokescrean in the shot and not Wheeljack.

Sabrblade wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Seem to be a "trow back" to the storyboard that had Smokescrean in the shot and not Wheeljack.

That's what I originally thought to. though, the leg color might say otherwise.

Either way, tis an animation error.

Considering the shot wasnt very detailed, the coloring on the legs isint that far off.

SM had red and blue legs.

But it was an error.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:As manmy animation errors as the series has, what they did corfrectly far out weights the amount of errors.

Simplely put, we cant use the fact of confirmed animation errors to explain every thing in the series.

Indeed to all points. Law of averages says that not everything done on screen ever was a mistake. Most of what appeared on the screen was intended to be there, no question.

However, I think there is enough animation errors in the series' history to cast reasonable doubt on certain fishy situations. The fact that only one Cyclonus left unicron and only one cyclonus appeared for the rest of the movie with the exception of the one alleged appearance in question certainly puts it into one of these situations. Its certainly plausible that the second cyclonus appearance was either an animation error or not an error exactly but just poorly drawn from the start.

Its also possible that indeed, it is Cyclonus looping back and that is exactly what the animaters wanted. This could have been an attempt to demonstrate the aerial capabilities of Cyclonus who was being pushed as a very formidable decepticon.

Honestly, I doubt there is even a real answer. TF fans have had nearly 25 years to analyze and disect every portion of the movie. Far more time than the writers or animaters ever did. Most of these fan raised issues concerning the movie were most likely never even considered by the people responsible for creating it.

joesaysso wrote:Indeed to all points. Law of averages says that not everything done on screen ever was a mistake. Most of what appeared on the screen was intended to be there, no question.

However, I think there is enough animation errors in the series' history to cast reasonable doubt on certain fishy situations.

I agree theres reason to doubt........but reason to doubt and your earlier claim are 2 different things.

Its certainly plausible that the second cyclonus appearance was either an animation error or not an error exactly but just poorly drawn from the start.

Just as its certainly plausible that the second cyclonus appearance was indeed a 2nd Cyclonus[Armada]

Honestly, I doubt there is even a real answer. [/qwuote

With that I agree 100%

TF fans have had nearly 25 years to analyze and disect every portion of the movie. Far more time than the writers or animaters ever did. Most of these fan raised issues concerning the movie were most likely never even considered by the people responsible for creating it.

very true

those feet and hands are grey! whoever that miscoloured Wheeljack looking bot was, he ended up quadriplegic!

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

decepta-scott wrote: Im only going to respond to the comments I need to. You proved nothing. You are literally frame by framing things here? LOL!!

Respond or dont, I proved everything I claimed.

Your denying it wont change that.

prowl dose not turn grey. He is clearly seen lying on the floor with all color on him as the cons fly to operate the arc. Not sure why he was grey for TWO FRAMES but he isnt grey later.

So, now your contradicting yourself.Your argument has failed.

That "flyby" shot only shows his bacvk, and he is already black and white.The close up shot is m,ore important, and if you look at his horns they go from red to gray.

Sorry but you are wrong........... Butt head

So, an insult again?

Shows how childish and foolish you are.

As it stands, you have been proven wrong...learn to accept it.

I didnt even bother reading past the first couple lines of your response. I didnt need to as I knew what youd say. Any points you may make go down the toilet as soon as you start talking any way. Use some tact and respect next time.
You are obviously so stuck on yourself, even to the point of adding peoples comments on how "great" your opinions are that you cant let anything through your hard head that goes against what youve told yourself is true.
Face it man. Those bots are DEAD!! This isnt even funny anymore. You just sound ridiculous. They get blown to bits and arent seen again. The shot of megs and co flying over the fallen autobots shows all of them WITH COLOR!!! Even prowl has a red light bar on his back. As far as that arm you posted, whos to say its ratchets arm? It could be prowl and judging by the last seen placement of the fallen bodys (which changes EVERY TIME YOU SEE THEM) it could be prowl. Are you really trying to argue that iron hide survived? REALLY?!? He takes four blasts to the chest and a point blank blast to the face by megatrons fusion cannon. Not to mention the crash of the arc. This is just getting sad.
The evidence lies heavily over the idea that those bots are dead. No matter how hard you try or how many straws you grasp at no matter how much you fancy yourself an intelectual or a professional arguementologist you arent going to change that. Youve proven NOTHING. Sadly noone who counts has come forward and said "yes! those bots are friggen dead! We thought that would have been fairly obvious what with the blown to bits bodys and the fact that they arent seen again We didnt know some would put so much emphasis on a few frames of a character turning or not turning grey. Especially in a movie riddled with color and animation errors." They were ment to be dead why cant you accept that?.
As far as me being "childish" goes, lets not forget who started acting like a donkey over this. I dont let your type get me riled up enough to get mad and truley throw insults. It was meant as comic releif. Ya know, like those pics of yourself you have posted next to all the extreemely "cool" quotes people have said about you that you keep around to remind others as well as yourself how awesome and incapable of being wrong you are.
I will end by saying that I can see why some of the die hard fans of gen 1 bots are so pissed that all their favs got blown away that they would look for any evidence to support the idea that they were not dead. As I stated before I am one of those fans. I hated that they killed off my favs. I cried for a week and had bad dreams. It messed me up bad for awhile. As you concider the evidence however it becomes clear that all those bots in question are gone. I do respect other members right to their own opinion and encourage them to express it in a civil way. As I have stated many times before though if you disrespect me or others for no reason as you did Im gonna break your balls right back.
Dont like it? Kiss my asstrotrain..........Butt head.

Sabrblade wrote:About the Wheeljack thing, while he may not be shown to turn gray on screen in the film, there is a part where he is colored differently from normal.



Just wanted to throw that in here.

Oh I was talking about the toon pal. What is that shot from though? Is that the story of the battle of autobot city on earth as told by the comics?
I saw the storyboards in the dvd of the animated movie I own and the war is missing a few important scenes. I wonder does the comic you have there incorperate the missing movie scenes into the comic?
I have been wanting to get my hands on some transformers comics as of late. The fans on this sight have told me they are graphic and completely awesome.
I have been unable to procure any yet. Do you know if Im going to have to shell out mass quantitys of cash to own a few comics?

craggy wrote:those feet and hands are grey!

thank you

decepta-scott wrote: Oh I was talking about the toon pal. What is that shot from though?

That is from the movie.

This is the reason I claimed earlier you need to check your facts.

I'm going to try to keep this short since you insist on disrespecting me by claiming you dont need to read it...

decepta-scott wrote: Use some tact and respect next time.

You issue insults at me and then tell me to use tact and respect??Take your own advise.

The shot of megs and co flying over the fallen autobots shows all of them WITH COLOR!!!Even prowl has a red light bar on his back

You can debate and deny the significance of turning gray, but you cant deny it happened.

To do so is deliberate ignorance.

As stated before,the close up shots show him slowly fading to gray, the close up shots are more significant then the flyby or a far away shot.

As for the light bar.....its glass, I wouldnt expect it to fade.

As far as that arm you posted, whos to say its ratchets arm? It could be prowl

PROWL HAS A WHITE HAND AND BLACK ARM.


it cant be Prowl.Prowl was closer to Brawn.The arm in question is near Ironhide and near the front of the ship.only Ratchet was in that potion

Are you really trying to argue that iron hide survived? REALLY?!?

Who argued that?I never made any such claim.I said we never saw his body in death....and we didnt.

Not to mention the crash of the arc. This is just getting sad.

Sad for you.

A] that ship want called the Ark.
B]theres no evidence the ship crashed.

Youve proven NOTHING.

I proved Optimus wasnt the only one to turn gray, which is the only fact I claimed.

thought that would have been fairly obvious

Nothing is "obvious" about life and death for these robots.And we did see some of them again.

They were ment to be dead why cant you accept that?

What was or wasnt "ment" is not an issue of my debate.Whats "ment" is a writers intent issue, and what a writers intent is does not always make it to film.

As I said a few times already, and if you had been paying attention you would know, is that I like to think they all died.But, there is no solid evidence from within the narrative that they died.What was "ment" is irrelevant because just like many things that are ment, they dont always show to be facts.

As far as me being "childish" goes, lets not forget who started acting like a donkey over this.

A] fine , we can forget the insult, I dont hold grudges
B]those pics arent me, they are of Star trek characters.
C] I'm not incapable of being wrong, and have happily admitted being wrong on many cases.....when someone has proven their case.

Have you been here longer you would know that, so since your new I'll over look your judgment as being ignorant of the facts.

As I have stated many times before though if you disrespect me or others for no reason as you did Im gonna break your balls right back.

Point is I never disrespected you.You claimed that it was a UNDENIABLY FACT that they were dead.You even attempted to be condescending when you suggested I could misse it if I "BLINKED".

So if anyone disrespected someone it was you that did so to me.

I posted that in 26 years I have asked for anyone who claims its a FACT, to provide evidence from within the narrative needed to back up the claim of FACT.

And I'm still waiting.

You have failed to provide any solid evidence from within the narrative.If you dont like it????Please prove your case with solid evidence from within the narrative and not your perception of the events.

decepta-scott wrote: As I have stated many times before though if you disrespect me or others for no reason as you did Im gonna break your balls right back.
Dont like it? Kiss my asstrotrain..........Butt head.

Stop using insults mate, there is no need for that childish behavior whatsover. It is possible to debate without insulting other members.

Sto_vo_kor_2000 did prove you wrong on a couple of points, Prowl and Ratchet turned to Grey when shot.

Remember when a Transformer scans an alt mode, he projects the colour of the scanned item onto his outer surface. It makes sense that when they die, that colour would fade

ScoutSi wrote:

decepta-scott wrote: As I have stated many times before though if you disrespect me or others for no reason as you did Im gonna break your balls right back.
Dont like it? Kiss my asstrotrain..........Butt head.

Stop using insults mate, there is no need for that childish behavior whatsover. It is possible to debate without insulting other members.

Sto_vo_kor_2000 did prove you wrong on a couple of points, Prowl and Ratchet turned to Grey when shot.

Remember when a Transformer scans an alt mode, he projects the colour of the scanned item onto his outer surface. It makes sense that when they die, that colour would fade

Thank you very much.

And good point

ScoutSi wrote:
Remember when a Transformer scans an alt mode, he projects the colour of the scanned item onto his outer surface. It makes sense that when they die, that colour would fade

This IS a good point however, I think it might be mixing up different continuities slightly. Yes, they did do this in the live action movie. However, there is no proof that this is true in G1. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. When Teletran 1 awakens after the ark crashes More Than Meets the Eye part 1, it scans a totally blue jet and then formats Skywarp, who obviously, did NOT assume the colors of an all blue alt mode.

It is a good rationalization for the fade to gray upon death but its not quite right. Under the circumstances, I don't think it can be applied towards the "Wheeljack is/is not dead" debate.

Right, so this is how it's going to be.

If you think someone's being rude and insulting, you use the "Report this post" button, then you don't reply to that person. You know what happens when you reply? You make the situation worse.

decepta-scott, your insults were not needed. Please read up on the Forum Rules. You're not getting a warning this time, but if you keep it up you will be.

What I just posted is also not open for discussion. The only reply to what I said that I want to see is an acknowledgement and hopefully an apology or two. Otherwise, no more bickering. 'kay?

Burn wrote:Right, so this is how it's going to be.

If you think someone's being rude and insulting, you use the "Report this post" button, then you don't reply to that person. You know what happens when you reply? You make the situation worse.

decepta-scott, your insults were not needed. Please read up on the Forum Rules. You're not getting a warning this time, but if you keep it up you will be.

What I just posted is also not open for discussion. The only reply to what I said that I want to see is an acknowledgement and hopefully an apology or two. Otherwise, no more bickering. 'kay?

Acknowledge captain.

Apologies from me

What about the characters that allegedly died off screen, Red Alert for example, where do we stand with them? We never saw them die so again there is no way of knowing whether they turned gray or not.

Is there no official list of those 'bots who met their maker?