The Energon Pub

If The Fallen's gonna appear in the sequel, is there a chance Unicron will too?

Not a chance. If a aircraft carrier was deemed to expensive to animate I doubt they would do a planet.

I wouldnt want Unicron near Earth anyway and nor would I trust Bay with him. Im afraid he would get the "Galactus" treatment from FF4:ROTSS

MYoung23 wrote:Not a chance. If a aircraft carrier was deemed to expensive to animate I doubt they would do a planet.

I wouldnt want Unicron near Earth anyway and nor would I trust Bay with him. Im afraid he would get the "Galactus" treatment from FF4:ROTSS

A 74,231 robot gestalt. What a concept!

MYoung23 wrote:Not a chance. If a aircraft carrier was deemed to expensive to animate I doubt they would do a planet.

He wouldn't have to be a planet, though. He could be something like Cybertron Unicron.

Maybe as a teaser? at the end a cgi planet coming near earth would be cool. a long run movie would probably be un feasable, unless this movie does EPIC in the box office. the junkions would be cool, like the all spark comes into a junkyard.

MYoung23 wrote:Not a chance. If a aircraft carrier was deemed to expensive to animate I doubt they would do a planet.

I wouldnt want Unicron near Earth anyway and nor would I trust Bay with him. Im afraid he would get the "Galactus" treatment from FF4:ROTSS

That's my fear about a live action Unicron. Hollywood frakked up Galactius, I's hate how they would frak up a planet sized TF.

Leonardo wrote:

MYoung23 wrote:Not a chance. If a aircraft carrier was deemed to expensive to animate I doubt they would do a planet.

He wouldn't have to be a planet, though. He could be something like Cybertron Unicron.

For God's sake, I hope not. I hated that.

To have Unicron in the movie, he would look pretty ridicilous(spell check!), but then again having Prime combine with Jetfire would look ridicolous too

Give the big guy a rest, I mean he was badly used in the UT I think he has suffered enough embaressment for now. Wait till Animated then he can come back.

A mention is all I need. Or something like "Unicron is a myth." However, since this Fallen is the one from the Comics, he may have the same backstory where he serves Unicron. Other than that, maybe he just needs the right oportunity to be worked in right, like Soundwave did.

Decepticlone Soundwave wrote:A mention is all I need. Or something like "Unicron is a myth." However, since this Fallen is the one from the Comics, he may have the same backstory where he serves Unicron. Other than that, maybe he just needs the right oportunity to be worked in right, like Soundwave did.

The Fallen from the movie is The Fallen from the Movie. Just like Prime, Bumblebee, Megatron and the rest. Previous continuity doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what they decide to put in the film. And, thinking about it, The Fallen in the comics was pretty underdeveloped, so I dread to think what it'll be in the movieverse.

Two things.

1. This is the wrong section to even be talking about this. There's an entire section of the fourms spicifically for movie related news and rumors.

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. 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. With all the confusion and contaversy that title is causeing they should change the title to either "Revenge of the Decepticons" or "Revenge of Megatron" allthoug the Megatron title probly won't be used because they probly don't want anyone knowing he's not really dead even though people (or maybe just me) are probly exspecting the Cube to change him into Galvatron.

TheSoundwaveGuy wrote: but then again having Prime combine with Jetfire would look ridicolous too

Well they've done it in other serries.

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.

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.

Oh I'm not saying that as a fact that's why I contued with my reasons for belive it rather than actully trying to find a link to the article. It may verry well be a rumor but it makes sence.

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.

Yes he does.

The first movie allso established that they were a dyeing race because of Megatron. They don't even know how many Transformers are left alive. But they established nothing about any character called "The Fallen".

And that's something they would normally show in the first movie before making the Revenge Movie.

Simply put they could show what he's pissed about in the movie but "Revenge" would still not fit the title. Typically they only use that title when it refers to something the Audience has allready seen so the title would only work if we allready knew why he pissed. Have you ever seen a movie with revenge in the title and not known what they were getting revenge for? If they were really going to introduce the Fallen in this movie a much more fitting title would be "Rise of the Fallen" allthough with Transformers Animated useing that simular title about 3 times now fans are probly tired of seeing it.

Saber Prime wrote:Yes he does.

Ok lets go back to pre-school.....

No he doesnt.

Saber Prime wrote:The first movie allso established that they were a dyeing race because of Megatron.

Which is irrelevant because the Fallen in the comics, and maybe in the movie, pre-dates Megatron.

So what ever "The Fallen" might be pissed about may take place years before Megatron turned on Cybertron.

Saber Prime wrote: They don't even know how many Transformers are left alive.

Also irrelevant.

The Fallen of the comics was one of the original 13 transformers created and was exiled from Cybertron, and its universe, long before Megatron came into power.

Saber Prime wrote: But they established nothing about any character called "The Fallen".

And did establish that they may be other Cybertronions alive in the universe.

Primes message at the end of the first film did that.

And The Fallen fits into that catagory.

Saber Prime wrote:And that's something they would normally show in the first movie before making the Revenge Movie.

Normally.....if they thought they would make it to a next film.

Bay said he didnt think the movie would go over as well as it did.I would say he wasnt thinking about a "Part 2" when he started work on the first film.

Saber Prime wrote:Simply put they could show what he's pissed about in the movie but "Revenge" would still not fit the title.

Sure it does.

Saber Prime wrote: Typically they only use that title when it refers to something the Audience has allready seen so the title would only work if we allready knew why he pissed.

Nonsense.

Saber Prime wrote: Have you ever seen a movie with revenge in the title and not known what they were getting revenge for?

"Revenge" staring Kevin Costner 1990
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100485/
No one knew what he wanted revenge for.

"Revenge of the Nerds" 1984
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088000/
Altho its eazy to guess what they may have wanted revenge for we didnt "KNOW" it.

"Revenge" 1999
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165928/
a serril killer is looking for revenge but we dont "KNOW" why.

"Revenge" 1971
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067248/
A family plots to take its revenge on the man who raped and murdered their daughter but we as the viewers didnt "KNOW" that before we saw the film.

"Payback" 1990 [payback is synonymous with revenge]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095840/
What was the character getting "Payback" for???We certainly did not know before seeing the film.

I could go on or I could list tv show episodes with the title "Revenge" in them in which we didnt know what the "Revenge" was for before seeing them but I think I proved my point.

Even in "Star Wars episode 3 Revenge of the Sith" we really dont know what the Sith are getting revenge for.

They may have talked about it but they didnt show it in any of the 2 movies before.

Saber Prime wrote: If they were really going to introduce the Fallen in this movie a much more fitting title would be "Rise of the Fallen" allthough with Transformers Animated useing that simular title about 3 times now fans are probly tired of seeing it.

Not a bad suggestion.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:"Revenge of the Nerds" 1984
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088000/
Altho its eazy to guess what they may have wanted revenge for we didnt "KNOW" it.

Nonsence, the movie is titled "Revenge of the Nerds" Have you even been paying attention to my post.

The Fallen has not even been introduced yet so how can he get revenge for anything.

Everyone knows what a Nerd is so how can you not know what they're getting revenge for? That's a preddy obvious plot title. You don't really need to be introduced to the Nerds first, you allready know who they are.

The Fallen we know nothing about. And BTW stop useing his comic incarnation as evidence, that's a completly different universe. Even if he is in the movie he may not even be one of the original 13 Transformers, and may not of Predated Megatron at all. He may end up just being a Lugnut type character who's pissed that Megatron is dead and Starscream is the leader. The comic book interpretation is not evidence of anything that will or will not be in the movie. You might as well be useing G1 Soundwave to prove that Animated Soundwave is Megatron's most loyal Decepticon.

Even in "Star Wars episode 3 Revenge of the Sith" we really dont know what the Sith are getting revenge for.

They may have talked about it but they didnt show it in any of the 2 movies before.

OK you're on drugs. What the heck are you talking about we don't know what they want Revenge for? How about because the Jedi killed Darth Maul in the first movie. Or because the Jedi destroyed thousands of Battle Droids that cost a fortune to build. You know what, watch the first two movies again and take your pick. The Jedi have caused ALOT of trouble for the Sith all throughout the first two movies and you don't know why they want revenge?

Allso again. Sith are allready a well established group, we know what they are and yes we do know what they want Revenge for.

I've never even heard of the other titles you mentioned but all of them were just "Revenge" I asked for movies "with revenge IN the title" not "Revenge AS the title." and yes there is a difference.

We're talking about Revenge titles that include an character or group. And every title includes an established character or group the audience is allready familiar with. I've never heard of any movie title that reads "Revenge of <Title Character no one has ever heard of>" or "Revenge of the <group of people no one has ever heard of>"

Revenge is something people are allready familiar with. If you see a movie called Revenge you know what it's about just not who.

You see a movie called Revenge of the Fallen then you're first reaction is not what does he want revenge for but rather who the heck is the Fallen in the first place. That's why I've been saying they can't have a Revenge of the Fallen, because there is no Fallen to get any Revenge. They've never introduced him.

The fact that he may exsist and may want Revenge for something that predates the movie is irrelivent. Where's the entertainment value in a character we've never seen or heard of getting revenge some something we don't know ever happened?

These are things that get brought up in a first movie. "Revenge of the Fallen" is a sequill title for a character that never exsisted and how can you have a sequill for someone who doesn't exsist? "Revenge" states that we allready know this character. More to the point this is actully a sequill, it follows the first movie, so the only thing that "the Fallen" can get revenge for is what happened in the first movie.

Simply put, why would you make a sequill of something the audience has never seen insted of makeing a sequill of something they allready know about?

The audience allready knows why the Decepticons want revenge or why Megatron wants revenge so the movie therefore has to be about them and can't be about the Fallen because he's never been intoduced and therefore can't seek revenge for any reason.

Allso I've done some digging and it appears the Fallen character has never been confermed or denied as being in the movie. Several things have been said about the Movie by the people involved alot of which is verry contridicting and apperently it's been done intentinally to prevent anything from being leaked out. Some information is real and some is fake but there's no way of telling what's real and what's fake.

One example of contridicting leaked information is about the Fallen and Megatron. One interview said that "The Fallen" was indeed refering to the fallen decepticon leader, Megatron. Another interview said Megatron would not be in the movie and that the comic book Fallen would be in the movie with a face resembleing the Decepticon symbol.

That last part could be a clue because there's allso rumors of Soundwave being in the movie and we all know he's the one who looks like the Decepticon symbol. Of course this could just be a fake clue to throw us off. At any rate I really wouldn't call any information given out to be "offical" as Bay himself has addmit to leaking faulse information about the movie and the conflicting leaks are more than enough proof to know that's true. Basically half of everything you hear is a lie. Good luck figureing out which half.

Saber Prime wrote:Nonsence, the movie is titled "Revenge of the Nerds" Have you even been paying attention to my post.

The Fallen has not even been introduced yet so how can he get revenge for anything.

Everyone knows what a Nerd is so how can you not know what they're getting revenge for?

The point is you cant know exactly.

A Nerd can get revenge for a great number of things but your statement was:

Saber Prime wrote:Typically they only use that title when it refers to something the Audience has allready seen so the title would only work if we allready knew why he pissed. Have you ever seen a movie with revenge in the title and not known what they were getting revenge for?

"Revenge of the Nerds" disproves your statement.

There were no "Nerd" movies before "Revenge of the Nerds" so there was nothing for the Audience to have already seen.

Saber Prime wrote: That's a preddy obvious plot title.

Obvious does not equil a known fact.

Saber Prime wrote: You don't really need to be introduced to the Nerds first, you allready know who they are.

And we dont need to be introduced to "The Fallen" as long as the characters are aware of who he is.

Saber Prime wrote:The Fallen we know nothing about.

You may not but those that read the comics do.

Saber Prime wrote: And BTW stop useing his comic incarnation as evidence, that's a completly different universe.

I didnt use it as evidence I used it as refrance material and for that its valid since its what got Bay interested in the character.

Saber Prime wrote: Even if he is in the movie he may not even be one of the original 13 Transformers, and may not of Predated Megatron at all.

Again following the leaked news and the movie poster suggest that he does predate Megatron.

As a matter of fact it almost suggest that The Fallen is the "FIRST" Decepticon.

Saber Prime wrote: He may end up just being a Lugnut type character who's pissed that Megatron is dead and Starscream is the leader. The comic book interpretation is not evidence of anything that will or will not be in the movie.

As I said.....I didnt use it as evidence I used it as refrance material and for that its valid since its what got Bay interested in the character.

And BTW the comic interpretation of the character would fit into this movie universe....and since we're talking about the possibilities I can inject any idea that is logical.

Saber Prime wrote:#-o OK you're on drugs.

We both know I am....but whats your excuse????

Saber Prime wrote: What the heck are you talking about we don't know what they want Revenge for?

We dont....I have a pretty good idea but we just dont know what the real reason is.

Saber Prime wrote: How about because the Jedi killed Darth Maul in the first movie.

They were not seeking revenge before that.

As a matter of fact even one of Darth Mauls only lines was "at last we will have our revenge".


The Sith were seeking revenge long before Maul was killed and the title of the 3rd episode had nothing to do with Mauls death.

So your wrong

Saber Prime wrote: Or because the Jedi destroyed thousands of Battle Droids that cost a fortune to build.

Which did not belong to the Sith.

They belonged to the separatist and the Trade federation....which the Sith was trying to destroy and finely did.

So your wrong again.

Saber Prime wrote: You know what, watch the first two movies again and take your pick. The Jedi have caused ALOT of trouble for the Sith all throughout the first two movies and you don't know why they want revenge?

Looks like your the one who needs to watch them again since the Sith were seeking revenge before the start of the first film.

So try telling me an other one.

Saber Prime wrote:Allso again. Sith are allready a well established group,

Actually their not.

Before episode 3 we only ever saw 3 members of the Sith in a live action story.

And 3 hardly constitutes a "Well Established Group".

Further more unless you were a Star Wars freak that read the novels and comics you didnt even know what a "Sith" was before episode 1.

Saber Prime wrote: we know what they are and yes we do know what they want Revenge for.

So what did they want revenge for again????

Because so far your reasons have failed.

I have a good idea as to what it was for but, it was mentioned in one of the films, it looks like your Star Wars knowledge is lacking.

Saber Prime wrote:I've never even heard of the other titles you mentioned

Ignorance is no defence

Saber Prime wrote: but all of them were just "Revenge" I asked for movies "with revenge IN the title" not "Revenge AS the title." and yes there is a difference.

In the title or the title itself my point is made.

And your just trying to save face again like always.

Saber Prime wrote:We're talking about Revenge titles that include an character or group. And every title includes an established character or group the audience is allready familiar with. I've never heard of any movie title that reads "Revenge of <Title Character no one has ever heard of>" or "Revenge of the <group of people no one has ever heard of>"

Fine you want to look even more foolish its fine by me.....

Revenge of the Dragon (1972)

Day of the Woman:"The Rape and Revenge of Jennifer Hill" {1978}....better known by its re-release name "I spit on your grave"

"Gamera: Revenge of Iris" [1999]

"Revenge of the Ninja Warrior" [1985]

"Revenge of a Kabuki Actor" [1963]

Andrea:"The Revenge of the Spirit"

Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge (1989)

Revenge of the Radioactive Reporter (1990)

Each of these movies have "Revenge titles" that include a character or group and "NONE" of those characters are established characters.

No go ahead and tell me "you've never even heard of the these movie titles I just mentioned mentioned"

And I'll tell you the same think...."Ignorance is not an excuse"

Plain and simple there are movies with the word "Revenge" in the title and it does not pretain to any information the viewers would have had before watching the film in question.

Saber Prime wrote:Revenge is something people are allready familiar with.

Disproven above.

Saber Prime wrote:You see a movie called Revenge of the Fallen then you're first reaction is not what does he want revenge for but rather who the heck is the Fallen in the first place.

That may be but it doesnt change the fact that its been done before.

Besides its not like its the most misleading title I've ever heard.

Have you ever heard of a movie called "Lenard part 6".

There was never any parts 1 threw 5 but that didnt stop Part 6 from being made.

Saber Prime wrote: That's why I've been saying they can't have a Revenge of the Fallen, because there is no Fallen to get any Revenge. They've never introduced him.

Obviously they can and its been done plenty of times before.

Saber Prime wrote:The fact that he may exsist and may want Revenge for something that predates the movie is irrelivent.

Actually it seems to be the back bone of the script.

And thats hardly irrelevant.

Saber Prime wrote: Where's the entertainment value in a character we've never seen or heard of getting revenge some something we don't know ever happened?

About the same value as it was in the other films I mentioned.

Saber Prime wrote:These are things that get brought up in a first movie. "Revenge of the Fallen" is a sequill title for a character that never exsisted and how can you have a sequill for someone who doesn't exsist?

The sequel is for the movie not the character.

Saber Prime wrote: "Revenge" states that we allready know this character.

Revenge only states that the title character is seeking revenge not that we know him.

Saber Prime wrote: More to the point this is actully a sequill, it follows the first movie, so the only thing that "the Fallen" can get revenge for is what happened in the first movie.

Nonsense......As the list I posted above proves.

Further more since the first movie established that the characters had a full life before coming to earth and that there may be more characters in that universe that we never met any one of the characters in that universe could be seeking revenge for anything that has ever happened to them in their long lives.

Saber Prime wrote:Simply put, why would you make a sequill of something the audience has never seen insted of makeing a sequill of something they allready know about?

As I pointed out its been done plenty of times before.

Saber Prime wrote:The audience allready knows why the Decepticons want revenge or why Megatron wants revenge so the movie therefore has to be about them

It doesnt "HAVE" to be about anything other then what Bay wants it to be.

Saber Prime wrote: and can't be about the Fallen because he's never been intoduced and therefore can't seek revenge for any reason.

Already addressed above.

Saber Prime wrote:Allso I've done some digging and it appears the Fallen character has never been confermed or denied as being in the movie. Several things have been said about the Movie by the people involved alot of which is verry contridicting and apperently it's been done intentinally to prevent anything from being leaked out. Some information is real and some is fake but there's no way of telling what's real and what's fake.

Dig some more.

Saber Prime wrote:One example of contridicting leaked information is about the Fallen and Megatron. One interview said that "The Fallen" was indeed refering to the fallen decepticon leader, Megatron. Another interview said Megatron would not be in the movie and that the comic book Fallen would be in the movie with a face resembleing the Decepticon symbol.

Bay likes his dis-information campaign.

Saber Prime wrote:That last part could be a clue because there's allso rumors of Soundwave being in the movie and we all know he's the one who looks like the Decepticon symbol.

Sort of anyway.

Saber Prime wrote: Of course this could just be a fake clue to throw us off. At any rate I really wouldn't call any information given out to be "offical" as Bay himself has addmit to leaking faulse information about the movie and the conflicting leaks are more than enough proof to know that's true. Basically half of everything you hear is a lie. Good luck figureing out which half.

I'm not really trying to nor am I placing much faith in what I hear,see or read.

My only point in this debate is that their are no ground rules in the useing of "Revenge of the" what ever in a movie title.

It has been used in a great number of movies before and had no connection to any pre-established characters or groups.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:Typically they only use that title when it refers to something the Audience has allready seen so the title would only work if we allready knew why he pissed. Have you ever seen a movie with revenge in the title and not known what they were getting revenge for?

"Revenge of the Nerds" disproves your statement.

There were no "Nerd" movies before "Revenge of the Nerds" so there was nothing for the Audience to have already seen.

No it doesn't because as I said last time a nerd IS something the "audience has allready seen".

Revenge of the Nerds suports my statement.

Again as I said before there didn't have to be a "Nerds" movie because the movie was based apon REAL LIFE. Everyone allready knows what a Nerd is so why would they need an introduction movie?

Saber Prime wrote: You don't really need to be introduced to the Nerds first, you allready know who they are.

And we dont need to be introduced to "The Fallen" as long as the characters are aware of who he is.

That's a preddy one sided and ignorant comment to make. How does the Characters knowing who the Fallen is help the audience watching the movie understand what the hell is going on? That's like listening to one end of a phone conversation. Sure the guy on the phone knows who he's talking to and what they're talking about but do you?

You can't just have a character appear and exspect the audience to know who he is just because the characters in the movie know him. You have to actully introduce the character to the audience first so THEY know who he is and so THEY can understand what the hell is going on in the movie.

Saber Prime wrote:The Fallen we know nothing about.

You may not but those that read the comics do.

Again, the comic has no barring on what the character will be in the movie. They're not going to target the movie at the small amout of fans that actully read about the Fallen in the comics. They didn't even target the first movie at Transformers fans. The target audience are people who have never been introduced to The Fallen.

They could make him exactly his comic book name sake, they could have him seeking revenge for something that happened in the comic. But if they did that the movie would be a huge flop because only the small hand full of comic book readers can understand what the plot was about. They're not going to do that.

Saber Prime wrote: How about because the Jedi killed Darth Maul in the first movie.

They were not seeking revenge before that.

That line doesn't even make sence and seems rather random.

Saber Prime wrote: Or because the Jedi destroyed thousands of Battle Droids that cost a fortune to build.

Which did not belong to the Sith.

They belonged to the separatist and the Trade federation....which the Sith was trying to destroy and finely did.

So your wrong again.

The droid army not only DOES belong to the Sith but they in fact fund their construction.

The Trade Federation which the Jedi are working to protect? If the Battle Droids belong to them then why would they be fighting their own droids? Why would the Battle Droids be following orders from Palpatine, Darth Maul, Count Dooku, and General Grevious if the droids are not property of the Sith. Why would Jedi being destroying their own droid army if they belong to the Trade Federation?

You're not only wrong, you make absolutly no sence.

Saber Prime wrote: You know what, watch the first two movies again and take your pick. The Jedi have caused ALOT of trouble for the Sith all throughout the first two movies and you don't know why they want revenge?

Looks like your the one who needs to watch them again since the Sith were seeking revenge before the start of the first film.

So try telling me an other one.

If that's so then why wasn't the first film title "Revenge of the Sith" they weren't seeking revenge yet, nothing had happened yet. They weren't even offically at war yet.

Saber Prime wrote:Allso again. Sith are allready a well established group,

Actually their not.

Before episode 3 we only ever saw 3 members of the Sith in a live action story.

And 3 hardly constitutes a "Well Established Group".

Further more unless you were a Star Wars freak that read the novels and comics you didnt even know what a "Sith" was before episode 1.

Number doesn't make a difference and that last part is total bull. Any Star Wars fan knows what a Sith is. It was verry clearly exsplained in the first 3 movies as the Dark Side of the Force and yes, that is technically before episode 1 because we're going by movie relice so don't try anything like "but that hasn't happened till years later" doesn't matter because we're not talking about the characters, we're talking about the fan base and everyone knew who the Sith were before wathing episode 1. They knew it from the first 3 movies, 4, 5, and 6.

Revenge of the Dragon (1972)

Everyone knows what a Dragon is. Fail.

Day of the Woman:"The Rape and Revenge of Jennifer Hill" {1978}....better known by its re-release name "I spit on your grave"

It has the reason for wanting revenge in the title. Hello she was raped. Fail.

"Gamera: Revenge of Iris" [1999]

Who the hell is Iris? Pass.

"Revenge of the Ninja Warrior" [1985]

Everyone knows what a Ninja is. Fail.

"Revenge of a Kabuki Actor" [1963]

Everyone knows what an Actor is but may not know what Kabuki is.

Andrea:"The Revenge of the Spirit"

Everyone knows what a Spirit is and I can tell you why it wants revenge. The spitit wants revenge for his or her own murder. Not hard to figure out. Fail.

Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge (1989)

Who the heck is Eric? Pass.

Revenge of the Radioactive Reporter (1990)

Everyone knows what radioactive is and everyone knows what a Reporter is. Fail.

Each of these movies have "Revenge titles" that include a character or group and "NONE" of those characters are established characters.

Only two of them weren't established.

No go ahead and tell me "you've never even heard of the these movie titles I just mentioned mentioned"

You allways get hung up on stupid little things like that don't you. I wasn't saying that to suport anything I just said it because it's true. I have never heard of any of the title you just gave me and most of them I at least know what the title is refering to because they are in fact known groups and people.

The spirit title I not only know what a spitit is and again I've never heard of the movie but I bet you what I said about the movie's plot is true. The movie is about a ghost/spirit seeking revenge for it's own murder. That's just an epic fail right there.

Plain and simple there are movies with the word "Revenge" in the title and it does not pretain to any information the viewers would have had before watching the film in question.[/qupte]

Plain and simple there are movies with the word Revenge in the title and it does pertain to information the viewers do have before watching the film in question.

Saber Prime wrote:Revenge is something people are allready familiar with.

Disproven above.

When did you prove people don't know what revenge means? When was that even an argument?

Saber Prime wrote:You see a movie called Revenge of the Fallen then you're first reaction is not what does he want revenge for but rather who the heck is the Fallen in the first place.

That may be but it doesnt change the fact that its been done before.

Besides its not like its the most misleading title I've ever heard.

Have you ever heard of a movie called "Lenard part 6".

There was never any parts 1 threw 5 but that didnt stop Part 6 from being made.

Maybe there was a 1-5 and you just didn't know about them? I never heard of Transporter till I saw the preview for Transporter 2.

Allso look at the Star Wars movies. They came out 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3.

Saber Prime wrote: That's why I've been saying they can't have a Revenge of the Fallen, because there is no Fallen to get any Revenge. They've never introduced him.

Obviously they can and its been done plenty of times before.

Tell me, how many of the titles you gave were sequills? Maybe Gamera and that was probly the only one. OK who was the character getting revenge? Iris? Did that character ever appear in Gamera movie before Revenge?

Simply put "Revenge of the Fallen" is the sequill to Transformers. People who have allready seen the movie don't know who the Fallen is. How can he have a sequill without being in the first movie?

Fans who are just joining on the second movie are going to go back and watch the first movie and they're going to be looking to see what the Fallen is wanting revenge for.

Basically they're makeing a sequill to a movie they haven't even made (a movie about the Fallen) insted of following the story they allready started. (a movie about Starscream and the possible return of Megatron.) So why would they make a sequill to something that hasn't happened yet?

Saber Prime wrote:These are things that get brought up in a first movie. "Revenge of the Fallen" is a sequill title for a character that never exsisted and how can you have a sequill for someone who doesn't exsist?

The sequel is for the movie not the character.

Exactly my point. The movie Transformers never had the Fallen in it so he can't seek revenge because he doesn't exsist in this universe yet.

Starscream can seek revenge, Megatron can seek revenge, any surviving Decepticons or Megatron if the cube reformats him has reason to seek revenge for the events of first Transformers movie.

The Fallen never appeared in the first movie, therefore has nothing to seek revenge for.

The title "Revenge of the Fallen" is a sequill to Transformers and there are plenty of revenge seeking characters in that movie, non of whome are the Fallen.

How many different ways can I word this before you understand why the Fallen can't be seeking revenge as a sequil to a movie he was never in.

Saber Prime wrote: More to the point this is actully a sequill, it follows the first movie, so the only thing that "the Fallen" can get revenge for is what happened in the first movie.

Nonsense......As the list I posted above proves.

Further more since the first movie established that the characters had a full life before coming to earth and that there may be more characters in that universe that we never met any one of the characters in that universe could be seeking revenge for anything that has ever happened to them in their long lives.

And that equills nothing the audience will actully understand because they don't know anything about the characters before comming to Earth and don't know who the Fallen is.

Here's a great example for you.

They could introduce the Fallen, show what he wants revenge for but if they do that then the movie is just all about the Fallen. Has nothing to do with the first movie and then we get the same thing that happened it the first film. The entire movie focuses on one Transformer and no one else gets any real screen pluse they don't get any time to continue the story from the first movie. Or they still try to queeze in a continuation of the first story and both storys get made too short. Either way it turns out as a verry crappy movie that is either just as bad as the first one or worse.

Or they could be refering to a the fallen as a defeated character or group that's returning which makes alot more sence. How did the first movie end? Starscream was seen flying out into space, this could mean he's comming back with more troops. It's allso possible that the AllSpark Cube didn't actully kill Megatron but rather temporarily overloaded his circuits and he's being reformated by it so he can use the Cube's power. This is the makeings of a good movie that follows an allready established story line. A verry bad story line but still a story line non the less. This way they could inprove on some of the mistakes that were made in the first movie.

Saber Prime wrote:The audience allready knows why the Decepticons want revenge or why Megatron wants revenge so the movie therefore has to be about them

It doesnt "HAVE" to be about anything other then what Bay wants it to be.

If Bay had his way it wouldn't be about about anything at all. Bay just wants a bunch of exsplosions and doesn't even care about story.

Saber Prime wrote: Of course this could just be a fake clue to throw us off. At any rate I really wouldn't call any information given out to be "offical" as Bay himself has addmit to leaking faulse information about the movie and the conflicting leaks are more than enough proof to know that's true. Basically half of everything you hear is a lie. Good luck figureing out which half.

I'm not really trying to nor am I placing much faith in what I hear,see or read.

My only point in this debate is that their are no ground rules in the useing of "Revenge of the" what ever in a movie title.

It has been used in a great number of movies before and had no connection to any pre-established characters or groups.

2 bad movies does not qualify as "a great number".

Saber Prime wrote:No it doesn't because as I said last time a nerd IS something the "audience has allready seen".

Not in the context of a movie thats connected to the "NERD" serries of films.You said that to have a "Revenge" story they must establish something about the character[s] in the first film.

And according to what you said earlier:

Saber Prime wrote:And that's something they would normally show in the first movie before making the Revenge Movie.

Now granted we as adults may know what a "NERD" may be pissed about in general but as for what in particular these characters wanted revenge for, we had no clue.

Saber Prime wrote:Revenge of the Nerds suports my statement.

No it doesnt.

Saber Prime wrote:Again as I said before there didn't have to be a "Nerds" movie because the movie was based apon REAL LIFE. Everyone allready knows what a Nerd is so why would they need an introduction movie?

Siply following the critria you set forth.

It was you who said that a "Revenge" movie has to be connected to characters in a previous film.

Saber Prime wrote:That's a preddy one sided and ignorant comment to make.

Hardly.

Saber Prime wrote: How does the Characters knowing who the Fallen is help the audience watching the movie understand what the hell is going on?

This wouldnt be the first time someone from a characters past in introduced into a on going serries.

The audience is made to understand by the unfolding story.

Granted Bay has issues with telling good stories but the concept is not a failed one.

Saber Prime wrote: That's like listening to one end of a phone conversation. Sure the guy on the phone knows who he's talking to and what they're talking about but do you?

Very bad analogy.

Saber Prime wrote:You can't just have a character appear and exspect the audience to know who he is just because the characters in the movie know him.

Who expects the audience to know anything???

Its for the audience to learn and discover who the character is.

Whats imporant, since its a Revenge story is that the other characters know who the Fallen is.

Saber Prime wrote:
Again, the comic has no barring on what the character will be in the movie.

A] you dont know for a fact that the comic's story is not the basces for the character in the movie

B] if "The Fallen" is a character then the comic is of significance even if they dont go with the same history.

Saber Prime wrote: They're not going to target the movie at the small amout of fans that actully read about the Fallen in the comics.

Again you cant know that.

Saber Prime wrote: They didn't even target the first movie at Transformers fans.

Nonsense.

The very naming of the movie "Transformers" targets TF fans.

Saber Prime wrote: The target audience are people who have never been introduced to The Fallen.

We'll see.

Saber Prime wrote:They could make him exactly his comic book name sake, they could have him seeking revenge for something that happened in the comic. But if they did that the movie would be a huge flop because only the small hand full of comic book readers can understand what the plot was about. They're not going to do that.

Again we'll see.

And they could make changes to "The Fallens motivation and could still be based on the comic character.

Saber Prime wrote:

They were not seeking revenge before that.

That line doesn't even make sence and seems rather random.

Sorry that was supposed to read...."They were seeking revenge before that".

Saber Prime wrote:The droid army not only DOES belong to the Sith but they in fact fund their construction.

The Trade Federation which the Jedi are working to protect? If the Battle Droids belong to them then why would they be fighting their own droids? Why would the Battle Droids be following orders from Palpatine, Darth Maul, Count Dooku, and General Grevious if the droids are not property of the Sith. Why would Jedi being destroying their own droid army if they belong to the Trade Federation?

You're not only wrong, you make absolutly no sence.

Boy the whole plot of Episodes 1,2 and 3 were totally lost on you.

Thats so sad.

The Sith did not own anything.

They had no properties or political power.The Jedi took that from them Generations ago.

The Trade federation originally were members of the Galatic senate.Wanting more power the turned to Darth Sedious for help not knowing he was also Palpatine.

What Paloatine did was start a civil war between the humanoid and non-humanoid races in the senate.

And his reasons were just like that of the Nazis.He was trying to rid the senate of all non human races.

Palpatine promised great powers and privileges to the leaders of the Trade fedeiration and the other non human races if the joined with him.

And as soon as he didnt need them any more he had them killed by Vader.

All of this is obviouly seen in the films and has been confirmed by Lucus.

So your not only wrong.....but you dont even know how to follow a sub-plot.

Saber Prime wrote:If that's so then why wasn't the first film title "Revenge of the Sith" they weren't seeking revenge yet, nothing had happened yet. They weren't even offically at war yet.

They had been at war with the Jedi for 100's of years before episode 1.The Jedi all but wiped out the Sith long before the first film.

You really cant tell me that you have forgotten that from the films.

Here see for yourself, Darth Maul talking about getting revenge on the Jedi in episode 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kr2XP0RCtI

Saber Prime wrote:Number doesn't make a difference and that last part is total bull. Any Star Wars fan knows what a Sith is. It was verry clearly exsplained in the first 3 movies as the Dark Side of the Force and yes, that is technically before episode 1 because we're going by movie relice so don't try anything like "but that hasn't happened till years later" doesn't matter because we're not talking about the characters, we're talking about the fan base and everyone knew who the Sith were before wathing episode 1. They knew it from the first 3 movies, 4, 5, and 6.

And not one in Episodes 4 5 or 6 was the name "Sith" ever used on screen.....at least not that I can remember

The name "Dark Lord of the Sith" was first made open to the fan base in a comic or a novel not in the movies.

Unless I've forgotten something.

Saber Prime wrote:

Revenge of the Dragon (1972)

Everyone knows what a Dragon is. Fail.

But not what its wanting "Revenge" for.

And besides its not a Dragon of myth that the movie is talking about.

So no fail

Saber Prime wrote:

Day of the Woman:"The Rape and Revenge of Jennifer Hill" {1978}....better known by its re-release name "I spit on your grave"

It has the reason for wanting revenge in the title. Hello she was raped. Fail.

I'll give you that one

Saber Prime wrote:

"Gamera: Revenge of Iris" [1999]

Who the hell is Iris? Pass.

A character in the movie not un-like "The Fallen".

She wanted Revenge on Gamara for the death of either her cat or parents or both [I cant really remember any more] But she was unknown to the serries and wasnted revenge on the main character.

Much like the Fallen [if he's a character] and like I said its an example of a "Revenge" title being used as it might be with "The Fallen"

Saber Prime wrote:

"Revenge of the Ninja Warrior" [1985]

Everyone knows what a Ninja is. Fail.

But not what he/she might want revenge for.

And you claimed that any "revenge" should have a pre-established reason for revenge.

So no fail

Saber Prime wrote:

"Revenge of a Kabuki Actor" [1963]

Everyone knows what an Actor is but may not know what Kabuki is.

Which is irrelivent because what he/she is ,is not the point but what he/she wants revenge for.

And it can not be determined by the title and is an examle of a "revenge" title being used as "revenge of the Fallen" might be being used.

Saber Prime wrote:

Andrea:"The Revenge of the Spirit"

Everyone knows what a Spirit is and I can tell you why it wants revenge. The spitit wants revenge for his or her own murder. Not hard to figure out. Fail.

If its not so hard to figure out then how come did you get it wrong?????

The movie is based on a true story from the Dominican Republic, a young girl unleashes a spirit after removing a cross on a sacred holy ground cemetery. The spirit terrorizes Andrea and her family because her final resting place was desecrated.

So no fail for me and a big "FAIL for you"

Saber Prime wrote:

Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge (1989)

Who the heck is Eric? Pass.

Which was my original responce to the film.

BTW you keep passing on all the films that proves my point.

All of these films are just like "Revenge of the Fallen" if its in refrance to a character.

Saber Prime wrote:

Revenge of the Radioactive Reporter (1990)

Everyone knows what radioactive is and everyone knows what a Reporter is. Fail.

And not what or why he wants Revenge for.

Again no fail

Saber Prime wrote:

Each of these movies have "Revenge titles" that include a character or group and "NONE" of those characters are established characters.

Only two of them weren't established.

None of them were established characters.

And those that we may have known what type of character they were, Nija spirt, we still didnt know what they wanted revenge fore.

You only proved 1 as a fail.

Saber Prime wrote:The spirit title I not only know what a spitit is and again I've never heard of the movie but I bet you what I said about the movie's plot is true.

Well you were wrong about the plot

Saber Prime wrote: The movie is about a ghost/spirit seeking revenge for it's own murder.

Nope

Saber Prime wrote: That's just an epic fail right there.

On your part.

But I'll bet you'll try to find a way to save face again.

Saber Prime wrote:Plain and simple there are movies with the word Revenge in the title and it does pertain to information the viewers do have before watching the film in question.

Only in one case and thats was with the "Rape".

You got the rest wrong.

Saber Prime wrote:When did you prove people don't know what revenge means? When was that even an argument?

I ment "Revenge as it pretains to the movies in question".

Saber Prime wrote:Maybe there was a 1-5 and you just didn't know about them?

Nope they never made a part 1 threw 5.

Saber Prime wrote:Tell me, how many of the titles you gave were sequills?

Only 1

Saber Prime wrote: Maybe Gamera and that was probly the only one.

Yep

Saber Prime wrote: OK who was the character getting revenge? Iris? Did that character ever appear in Gamera movie before Revenge?

Nope

Saber Prime wrote:
Simply put "Revenge of the Fallen" is the sequill to Transformers. People who have allready seen the movie don't know who the Fallen is. How can he have a sequill without being in the first movie?

Just like in Gamara Revenge of Issis.

Her story was told in flash back

Saber Prime wrote:Fans who are just joining on the second movie are going to go back and watch the first movie and they're going to be looking to see what the Fallen is wanting revenge for.

Basically they're makeing a sequill to a movie they haven't even made (a movie about the Fallen) insted of following the story they allready started. (a movie about Starscream and the possible return of Megatron.) So why would they make a sequill to something that hasn't happened yet?

The movie isint just about the Fallen but its about all the Transformers as a race.

So its a sequil to Transformers guest staring or featuring the character of "The Fallen"....if he's a character.

Saber Prime wrote:Exactly my point. The movie Transformers never had the Fallen in it so he can't seek revenge because he doesn't exsist in this universe yet.

They have established that other characters have already exsisted and died before they ever came to earth.

The Fallen would be one of those many characters.

Saber Prime wrote:
Starscream can seek revenge, Megatron can seek revenge, any surviving Decepticons or Megatron if the cube reformats him has reason to seek revenge for the events of first Transformers movie.

The Fallen never appeared in the first movie, therefore has nothing to seek revenge for.

Thats like saying Bumble bee should have been able to talk since we didnt see the scene where Megatron damages his voice box.

We dont have to see every thing in there past to understand that someone may want revenge for something in the TF's long lives.

Saber Prime wrote:How many different ways can I word this before you understand why the Fallen can't be seeking revenge as a sequil to a movie he was never in.

You'er not explaining yourself at all.

As I pointed out with many of the movies I posted we dont have to know the character or what he wants revenge for to believe that a race of characters that live for so long might have enemys that want revenge.

Saber Prime wrote:And that equills nothing the audience will actully understand because they don't know anything about the characters before comming to Earth and don't know who the Fallen is.

And how does that differ form the first movie....or any movie for that matter thasts based on a serries.

Granted the fan base may have known who Optimus Prime and Autobots were but many of the general public did not before seeing the first film.

So bringing in an other character that they dont know about is really no different.

And yes there are a great number of people that will tell you they have no clue what or who Optimus Prime is.

Saber Prime wrote:Here's a great example for you.

They could introduce the Fallen, show what he wants revenge for but if they do that then the movie is just all about the Fallen. Has nothing to do with the first movie

I can think of a few ways to tie the 2 together.

Saber Prime wrote: and then we get the same thing that happened it the first film. The entire movie focuses on one Transformer and no one else gets any real screen pluse they don't get any time to continue the story from the first movie.

Did you really expect any more???

Its a Bay movie...which means lots of explosions and no character.

Why would you expect and different???

Saber Prime wrote: Or they still try to queeze in a continuation of the first story and both storys get made too short. Either way it turns out as a verry crappy movie that is either just as bad as the first one or worse.

See above

Saber Prime wrote:
Or they could be refering to a the fallen as a defeated character or group that's returning which makes alot more sence. How did the first movie end? Starscream was seen flying out into space, this could mean he's comming back with more troops. It's allso possible that the AllSpark Cube didn't actully kill Megatron but rather temporarily overloaded his circuits and he's being reformated by it so he can use the Cube's power. This is the makeings of a good movie that follows an allready established story line. A verry bad story line but still a story line non the less. This way they could inprove on some of the mistakes that were made in the first movie.

And to expect Bay to improve is funny

Saber Prime wrote:If Bay had his way it wouldn't be about about anything at all.

You just made my point

Saber Prime wrote: Bay just wants a bunch of exsplosions and doesn't even care about story.

Characters need not apply

Saber Prime wrote:2 bad movies does not qualify as "a great number".

You only pointed out 1 of mine to be in error....the rest you either passed on or didnt address all the points.

Even knowing what a Ninja or a spirt is you couldnt tell what they wanted revenge for from the titles.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote: They're not going to target the movie at the small amout of fans that actully read about the Fallen in the comics.

Again you cant know that.

Saber Prime wrote: They didn't even target the first movie at Transformers fans.

Nonsense.

The very naming of the movie "Transformers" targets TF fans.

Apperently you missed a few interviews. Bay himself has said that the movie was never targeted at the fans. He knew they'd come see it just because of the title but that doesn't mean it was targeted at them. He was trying to make the movie for people who were never Transformers fans like himself.

Bay's an idiot for doing that but yeah, he said it. The Transformers movie was never targeted at exsisting fans.

Saber Prime wrote:They could make him exactly his comic book name sake, they could have him seeking revenge for something that happened in the comic. But if they did that the movie would be a huge flop because only the small hand full of comic book readers can understand what the plot was about. They're not going to do that.

Again we'll see.

And they could make changes to "The Fallens motivation and could still be based on the comic character.

No they couldn't and most importantly as long as Bay is controlling the movie they most sertainly won't.

We're lucky to have even gotten the fan nod to the original Bumblebee in the first movie. At most there might be another fan nod to the original Fallen in the movie but the character will not be anything like that Fallen.

Saber Prime wrote:The droid army not only DOES belong to the Sith but they in fact fund their construction.

The Trade Federation which the Jedi are working to protect? If the Battle Droids belong to them then why would they be fighting their own droids? Why would the Battle Droids be following orders from Palpatine, Darth Maul, Count Dooku, and General Grevious if the droids are not property of the Sith. Why would Jedi being destroying their own droid army if they belong to the Trade Federation?

You're not only wrong, you make absolutly no sence.

Boy the whole plot of Episodes 1,2 and 3 were totally lost on you.

Thats so sad.

The Sith did not own anything.

They had no properties or political power.The Jedi took that from them Generations ago.

No political power? What do you call Senetor Palpatine, later Chancelor Palpatine, and finally Emporer Palpatine? He was allready in office in the first movie so how exactly does he have no political power?

One two and 3 showed Anikin's decent into the Dark Side and the rise of Palpatine's power from Senitor to Emporer.

Did you forget that Palpatine is the leader of the Sith and was maskerading as one of the good guys for the entire first 2 movies. It was revieled in Episode 3 that Palpatine and Darth Sidious were the same person of course from episode 6 we allready knew that.

Wait... I just read you're bit about the movie, so if you know all that how is it you don't know the Droid army was on the same side as the Sith?

Not only did you just confirm I'm right you oddly are trying to say the Droid army belong to the Jedi side which makes absolutly no sence... as allways.

Here's a short recap of everything you've said.

The Sith have NO political power. Darth Sidious/Palpatine is in the senate. Like allways you're contridicting yourself because that's a position of political power.

Non of what you said proves the Sith don't controll the droid army and once more nothing you said has anything to do with the droid army. It has alot to do with politics and why the war started but non of exsplains the droid army so how does that by any means prove anything?

It's as simple as this. Droid Army is under Sith Command, Clones are temporarily (untill the betrayal in episode 3) under Jedi command.

Saber Prime wrote:If that's so then why wasn't the first film title "Revenge of the Sith" they weren't seeking revenge yet, nothing had happened yet. They weren't even offically at war yet.

They had been at war with the Jedi for 100's of years before episode 1.The Jedi all but wiped out the Sith long before the first film.

That was a different war, one that ended centuries ago. The war that "hasn't started yet" was that of the Clone Wars. The same war Ben mentioned in Episode 4, that started in Episode 2.

Saber Prime wrote:Number doesn't make a difference and that last part is total bull. Any Star Wars fan knows what a Sith is. It was verry clearly exsplained in the first 3 movies as the Dark Side of the Force and yes, that is technically before episode 1 because we're going by movie relice so don't try anything like "but that hasn't happened till years later" doesn't matter because we're not talking about the characters, we're talking about the fan base and everyone knew who the Sith were before wathing episode 1. They knew it from the first 3 movies, 4, 5, and 6.

And not one in Episodes 4 5 or 6 was the name "Sith" ever used on screen.....at least not that I can remember

The name "Dark Lord of the Sith" was first made open to the fan base in a comic or a novel not in the movies.

Unless I've forgotten something.

You've forgotten Something because they've allways been know as the Sith. You might as well be saying the term Jedi was never used in the movies.

Saber Prime wrote:

Andrea:"The Revenge of the Spirit"

Everyone knows what a Spirit is and I can tell you why it wants revenge. The spitit wants revenge for his or her own murder. Not hard to figure out. Fail.

If its not so hard to figure out then how come did you get it wrong?????

The movie is based on a true story from the Dominican Republic, a young girl unleashes a spirit after removing a cross on a sacred holy ground cemetery. The spirit terrorizes Andrea and her family because her final resting place was desecrated.

So no fail for me and a big "FAIL for you"

Are you serious? That's a true story? And yet so many people still don't belive in ghosts.

Saber Prime wrote:

Revenge of the Radioactive Reporter (1990)

Everyone knows what radioactive is and everyone knows what a Reporter is. Fail.

And not what or why he wants Revenge for.

Again no fail

It's in the title. Who's fault was it that he became radioactive?

Saber Prime wrote:Plain and simple there are movies with the word Revenge in the title and it does pertain to information the viewers do have before watching the film in question.

Only in one case and thats was with the "Rape".

You got the rest wrong.

Nope, again you're only reading little bits of what I'm saying and ignoreing the rest to twist my words around.

The point isn't that the audience should why they want revenge but that they should be familiar with what the title is about. As I said before everyone knows what revenge is but you just ignored that didn't you?

Every title you gave was about someone or something everyone was allready familiar with except for 2. 1 had a woman I've never heard of in the title but it allso had the reason for her revenge in the title and pluse it sounded like a life time movie based on a true story.

Saber Prime wrote:Fans who are just joining on the second movie are going to go back and watch the first movie and they're going to be looking to see what the Fallen is wanting revenge for.

Basically they're makeing a sequill to a movie they haven't even made (a movie about the Fallen) insted of following the story they allready started. (a movie about Starscream and the possible return of Megatron.) So why would they make a sequill to something that hasn't happened yet?

The movie isint just about the Fallen but its about all the Transformers as a race.

So its a sequil to Transformers guest staring or featuring the character of "The Fallen"....if he's a character.

If he's a character than the movie is in fact all about him. You know any movies that aren't about the title character? Or are just featureing the title character?

Sweeney Todd is about Sweeney Todd, Nicholas Nickolby is about Nicholas Nickolby.

Lets try some TV show titles. The Drew Carey Show, about Drew Carey. Clarrisa Exsplains it all, about Clarrisa (that one even changed the title of the show for an episode she wasn't in), Sabrina the Teenage Witch, about Sabrina.

Saber Prime wrote:Starscream can seek revenge, Megatron can seek revenge, any surviving Decepticons or Megatron if the cube reformats him has reason to seek revenge for the events of first Transformers movie.

The Fallen never appeared in the first movie, therefore has nothing to seek revenge for.

Thats like saying Bumble bee should have been able to talk since we didnt see the scene where Megatron damages his voice box.

Now that's a poor analigy. And it wasn't said that Megatron was the one who did it. Ratchet only said his voice box was damaged in their last battle on Cybertron, he never said exactly how it was damaged or by who.

Saber Prime wrote:How many different ways can I word this before you understand why the Fallen can't be seeking revenge as a sequil to a movie he was never in.

You'er not explaining yourself at all.

As I pointed out with many of the movies I posted we dont have to know the character or what he wants revenge for to believe that a race of characters that live for so long might have enemys that want revenge.

I am exsplaining myself, multiple ways, you're just failing to grasp a simple concept.

It's a sequill movie. A movie about someone wanting revenge. There are several characters in the first movie who would want to seek revenge for the events of the first movie. Introduceing a new character seeking revenge for something we don't even know about would only introduce more story that can't be covered in a single movie without turning out like crap.

They can either continue the exsisting story as a sequill is ment to do or they can introduce this Fallen character and a new story about his past but they can not do both and still make either story any good. (they've tried several times with other movies and it allways fails.) Even if they do stick to one story I have serious doubts it's going to be any good with Bay directing. If they try to tell multiple stories in one movie I just know it's going to fail because it's happened several times allready.

I'll be camping outside Bay's house with a sniper when he makes another exsplosion fest with little plot and calls it a movie.

Saber Prime wrote:And that equills nothing the audience will actully understand because they don't know anything about the characters before comming to Earth and don't know who the Fallen is.

And how does that differ form the first movie....or any movie for that matter thasts based on a serries.

The first movie was just about introduceing people to Transformers. They didn't have to know what a Transformer was because that's the entire point of the first movie.

In a sequill they should allready what's going on from the first movie and introduceing a new story that has nothing to do with how the first one ended is not a good way to make a sequill.

Hey if they wanna do a reboot and reintroduce the characters rather than continueing what little story there was in the first movie that's fine by me.

Granted the fan base may have known who Optimus Prime and Autobots were but many of the general public did not before seeing the first film.

So bringing in an other character that they dont know about is really no different.

It is different, because it's a sequill, not an introduction.

Saber Prime wrote: and then we get the same thing that happened it the first film. The entire movie focuses on one Transformer and no one else gets any real screen pluse they don't get any time to continue the story from the first movie.

Did you really expect any more???

Its a Bay movie...which means lots of explosions and no character.

Why would you expect and different???

Honestly I'm allready exspecting the movie to be awfull, but I'm at least hoping for an inprovement on the first movie. They said the Transformers would get more screen time with the bigger budget but we'll see.

Why did they rehire that guy anyway? I really wish they would of got a different director when he turned the job down the first time insted of rerighting the script for him till he took the job.

Saber Prime wrote:Or they could be refering to a the fallen as a defeated character or group that's returning which makes alot more sence. How did the first movie end? Starscream was seen flying out into space, this could mean he's comming back with more troops. It's allso possible that the AllSpark Cube didn't actully kill Megatron but rather temporarily overloaded his circuits and he's being reformated by it so he can use the Cube's power. This is the makeings of a good movie that follows an allready established story line. A verry bad story line but still a story line non the less. This way they could inprove on some of the mistakes that were made in the first movie.

And to expect Bay to improve is funny

I don't exspect him to change but he's not the only one involved in the movie and I do exspect someone to punch him in the face.

EDIT: I'm on my way to the big "H" and might not be back for a day or more.

So maybe its better if you PM the reply

Saber Prime wrote:Apperently you missed a few interviews. Bay himself has said that the movie was never targeted at the fans. He knew they'd come see it just because of the title but that doesn't mean it was targeted at them. He was trying to make the movie for people who were never Transformers fans like himself.

Bay's an idiot for doing that but yeah, he said it. The Transformers movie was never targeted at exsisting fans.

I didnt miss anything......What he said was that he didnt target the movie "ONLY" at TF fans.

But again simply naming it Transformers and useing only G1 names for the characters is targeting TF fans in a very strong way.Regardless of what he may or may not have said in an interview.

And it was Bay the insisted that all the names used have a G1 counterpart....which I saw as pointless since he made sure that most of their characterizations did not matched up with their G1 counterparts.

And BTW if your going to tell me that you put faith on what Bay says in any interview that you already lost this argument.

Bay has confirmed that The Fallen is a separate character in Empire Magazine.
http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/ ... ons/14843/

But maybe he lied

Saber Prime wrote:No they couldn't and most importantly as long as Bay is controlling the movie they most sertainly won't.

Excuse me???

Maybe you miss-understood me.

I'm saying that Bay could chose to use the character "The Fallen" from the comics, change some details about the character, and he could still be based on the comic character.

And the simple fact is they "COULD".

But now we get into the "would Bay do it debate".

And to be honest I see a strong argument for saying he might.

If you knew anything about the character then you would know that if there is any character in any TF universe that would appeal to Bay, any character that he might be interested in,any character in any TF story that seems tailored made for Bay it would be "The Fallen".

He's a Demi-God like TF that turns into a tank thats always on fire and constantly haveing small explosion about and within himself.

Thats got to sound like a "God Send" to Bay.

Now I'm not saying that Bay will use him but can you think of a better TF character for Bay to want to bring to life in his movie???

Saber Prime wrote:We're lucky to have even gotten the fan nod to the original Bumblebee in the first movie. At most there might be another fan nod to the original Fallen in the movie but the character will not be anything like that Fallen.

There were more then 1 "fan nods" in the first film.

I cant remember them all buy there was a thread about it here once over in the movie section.

Saber Prime wrote:No political power? What do you call Senetor Palpatine, later Chancelor Palpatine, and finally Emporer Palpatine? He was allready in office in the first movie so how exactly does he have no political power?

No one knew he was a Sith.No one knew he and Darth Sedious were one and the same.

He snuck into power their the way many say the Anti-Christ will.

If it were publicly known that he was a Sith he would not have been allowed to come to power.Thats why he had to use such a underhanded scheme to get it.

The Sith as an organization had no power.

Saber Prime wrote:Did you forget that Palpatine is the leader of the Sith and was maskerading as one of the good guys for the entire first 2 movies. It was revieled in Episode 3 that Palpatine and Darth Sidious were the same person of course from episode 6 we allready knew that.

I didnt forget it but you seem to have forgotten the reason for his sharade.

The Sith as an organization had no power, no wealth,no ships, no means as to start a war and take power.

If they had tried a direct apporch they would have been destroyed.

So Palpatine manipulated a war from within.

Saber Prime wrote:Wait... I just read you're bit about the movie, so if you know all that how is it you don't know the Droid army was on the same side as the Sith?

I didnt say they werent on the same side...I said they didnt "Belong" to the Sith....that they werent property of the Sith and the Sit wouldnt want "REVENGE" for the destruction of any Trade Federation properties.

The Droid Army was a tool for the Sith and nothing more.Just like the Clone army was...ultimately.

Saber Prime wrote:Not only did you just confirm I'm right

Nope

Saber Prime wrote: you oddly are trying to say the Droid army belong to the Jedi side which makes absolutly no sence... as allways.

Where did I say that????

As always your mis-reading everything.

As I said the Trade Federation were originally members of the Galactic Senate.They wanted more powers and territories so under the assurance of the Sith Lord, who they believed had influence in the Senate, they anixed Naboo.

But they were being manipulated by the Sith Lord into starting a war between the humanoid races and the non-humanoid races in the Senate.

Saber Prime wrote:Here's a short recap of everything you've said.

The Sith have NO political power.

And as an organization they didnt.

Saber Prime wrote: Darth Sidious/Palpatine is in the senate. Like allways you're contridicting yourself because that's a position of political power.

Its no contradiction....its not known he's a Sith and he wouldnt have been elected to his position if it were public knowledge.

Saber Prime wrote:Non of what you said proves the Sith don't controll the droid army and once more nothing you said has anything to do with the droid army.

They controlled by manipulation and the promises of power not by ownership.

Saber Prime wrote:It's as simple as this. Droid Army is under Sith Command,

Again "Command" yes but not ownership.

and Simply put the Sith would have never wanted "Revenge" for the destruction of what they felt were "TOOLS" being used to bring them to power.

They had no feelings of loyalty or value twards the Droid Armies....they were canon fodder, they were tools to be used to reach the level of power they once had before the Jedi all but destroyed them many years earlier.

A fact all proven by how the leaders of the Trade federation and its allies were all killed after the war ended.

Saber Prime wrote:That was a different war, one that ended centuries ago. The war that "hasn't started yet" was that of the Clone Wars. The same war Ben mentioned in Episode 4, that started in Episode 2.

It may have been a different war but it was what the Sith wanted "Revenge" for.

The Sith were once the rulers of an ancient interstellar empire over 7000 before the events of Episode 1.Infighting was the real cause of their fall from power but they blamed The Jedi order for their fall.

The Sith blamed the Jedi for the lost of their original empire and wanted Revenge for that.

Saber Prime wrote:You've forgotten Something because they've allways been know as the Sith. You might as well be saying the term Jedi was never used in the movies.

So what have I forgotten.

When was the term "Dark lord of the Sith" or just "The Sith" ever used in episodes 4,5 or 6???

Because if you cant back it up your talking out of your @$$.

Again as far as I know it was first said in eith a book or a comic....I also believe it was in the original script but I dont remember hearing it ever mentioned in episodes 4,5 and 6.

I could be wrong but please prove me so.

Saber Prime wrote:Are you serious? That's a true story?And yet so many people still don't belive in ghosts.

"Based on a true story" is the term and I'm not sure if the rest of that was sarcazem or not.

But to tell the truth it would be hard to prove that the young girl wasnt just crazy.

Saber Prime wrote:It's in the title. Who's fault was it that he became radioactive?

Actually its not in the title.He wanted revenge for the killing of his wife if I'm right.

I'm not sure if those that made him radioactive were also responsible for her death.

Saber Prime wrote:Nope, again you're only reading little bits of what I'm saying and ignoreing the rest to twist my words around.

Am I?????

Saber Prime wrote:The point isn't that the audience should why they want revenge but that they should be familiar with what the title is about.

Maybe they should be famiuar but its not a pre-requisite for naming a movie "Revenge of".

Saber Prime wrote: As I said before everyone knows what revenge is but you just ignored that didn't you?

Did you ignore my explaintion for that mix up.

I said it in my last post....

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I ment "Revenge as it pretains to the movies in question".

Saber Prime wrote:Every title you gave was about someone or something everyone was allready familiar with except for 2. 1 had a woman I've never heard of in the title but it allso had the reason for her revenge in the title and pluse it sounded like a life time movie based on a true story.

Only one of the movies I listed had its reason for "Revenge" in the title.

The rest did not.You may have been aware of what or how the characters were but you had no idea why they wanted revenge.

And according to you for a movie to be called "Revenge of" the audience MUST know "Why" or "WHAT" the character wants revenge for.

All the movies I listed [except 1 with "Rape", maybe 2 with "Radioactive"] proves you wrong.

And by that I mean that knowing why or what the revenge is for is not a "MUST" for the audience before seeing the film.

Yes we can guess but as seen with the ghost story I listed your guess was wrong.

And we could come up with a 1000 guesses for why a Ninja or Edie or the Actor might want revenge but we still wouldnt know till we saw the film.

The simple fact is that its common practice for a film to be called "Revenge of" while the audience knows nothing about who or why they want revenge.

I'm not saying I agree with the practice or that I think it serves the audience well.... but its been done.

Saber Prime wrote:If he's a character than the movie is in fact all about him.

Only if he's the only character which we know he wouldnt be.

Its a film with many characters and how they interact together.

Revenge of the Sith wasnt only all about the Sith.

It was about all the characters.

Saber Prime wrote: You know any movies that aren't about the title character?

I just listed one and I could name plenty.

But I really only have to name one and I'm shocked you asked this question because I remember your argument on how a similar topic.

Bays Transformers movie was more about the human characters, namely Sam, then it was about Transformers.

And there are a good number of films that seem to add more focus to characters not in the title.

Both of Tim Burttons Batman movies focused more on the Bat guys then it did Batman.

Saber Prime wrote: Or are just featureing the title character?

Sweeney Todd is about Sweeney Todd, Nicholas Nickolby is about Nicholas Nickolby.

The Titanic is about a love story and not about the ship.And yes the Titanic can bee seen as a character for this film.

Gone with the wind also about about love and not the wind

The Naked Gun

Again Tim Burttons Batman films were more about the Joker,Penguin and Catwoman then they were about Batman.

This will get us nowhere.

Saber Prime wrote:
Lets try some TV show titles. The Drew Carey Show, about Drew Carey. Clarrisa Exsplains it all, about Clarrisa (that one even changed the title of the show for an episode she wasn't in), Sabrina the Teenage Witch, about Sabrina.

You seem to be picking all the eazy ones with character names in the title.

How about shows that imply something about the show that is never seen in the show????

Saber Prime wrote:Now that's a poor analigy.

Not by the critria your setting forth.

According to you the Fallen cant seek revenge for anything because we never saw him.

So then Bumblebee should speak since we never saw Megatron damage his voice box.

The fact is these characters and others in their universe have had rich long lives long before we were intruduced to them in the first film.

And any character may be mad or seeking revenge for a great number of things that we're just not awear of.

How many times have we seen a character want revenge on a hero for something the heroes father did?????

I can think of a good one...General Zod and Jor El.General Zod wanted revenge on Superman for the things Jor El did.

Granted they didnt name the movie "General Zods revenge" but it was still part of the main plot.

the old saying....."The sins of the father will be visited upon the sons".... comes to mind here.

Theres really no reason why the audience "MUST" know about the character or why he wants revenge before seeing the movie.

Hell there really isint any reason for the other characters to know who "The Fallen" might be and why he wants revenge.

As long as its explained in the movie then the title fits.

What I find disturbing is that, if it is the Fallen from the comics then Bay has let a key plot point open for every one to see.

Saber Prime wrote: And it wasn't said that Megatron was the one who did it. Ratchet only said his voice box was damaged in their last battle on Cybertron, he never said exactly how it was damaged or by who.

You might be right about that.I might be getting things from the novel mixed with the film.

Saber Prime wrote:I am exsplaining myself, multiple ways, you're just failing to grasp a simple concept.

Your not because your basic premis is wrong.

Its not un-heard of for a film to be called "Revenge of" and the audience has no idea of "who" the character is or "why" they want revenge.

Saber Prime wrote:It's a sequill movie. A movie about someone wanting revenge. There are several characters in the first movie who would want to seek revenge for the events of the first movie.

Which would be irrelevant if Bay decided to use the Fallen from the comics as a new character.

Saber Prime wrote: Introduceing a new character seeking revenge for something we don't even know about would only introduce more story that can't be covered in a single movie without turning out like crap.

Sounds like something Bay might do

Saber Prime wrote:They can either continue the exsisting story as a sequill is ment to do or they can introduce this Fallen character and a new story about his past but they can not do both and still make either story any good.

When has making a good story been what Bay's movies are about????

Saber Prime wrote: (they've tried several times with other movies and it allways fails.)

And why would that stop Bay from trying????

Saber Prime wrote: Even if they do stick to one story I have serious doubts it's going to be any good with Bay directing.

I have doubts that "ANY STORY" would be great under Bay as a director.

Saber Prime wrote:
I'll be camping outside Bay's house with a sniper when he makes another exsplosion fest with little plot and calls it a movie.

I'll send you a mug of hot coco to keep warm....consider it my contribution to the mission.

Saber Prime wrote:The first movie was just about introduceing people to Transformers. They didn't have to know what a Transformer was because that's the entire point of the first movie.

In a sequill they should allready what's going on from the first movie and introduceing a new story that has nothing to do with how the first one ended is not a good way to make a sequill.

You really cant use the word "GOOD" in describing hoe Bay makes a film.

Saber Prime wrote:It is different, because it's a sequill, not an introduction.

Plenty of sequels introduce new characters, and sometimes those characters are from the main characters past.

This would be no different.

Saber Prime wrote:Honestly I'm allready exspecting the movie to be awfull, but I'm at least hoping for an inprovement on the first movie. They said the Transformers would get more screen time with the bigger budget but we'll see.

We can hope

Saber Prime wrote:Why did they rehire that guy anyway?

He brought in the money and in hollywood that is the defining rule in wether a film is good or not.

Saber Prime wrote:
I don't exspect him to change but he's not the only one involved in the movie and I do exspect someone to punch him in the face.

Hehe

In reguards to bay using g1 names. its not targeting the true fans, its targeting people with vague memories of their childhood.
going for a "hey i remember that guy", rather than "i know optimus prime, he died gave the matrix to magnus, came back, died, got the matrix back from rodimus, died," ect

Name_Violation wrote:In reguards to bay using g1 names. its not targeting the true fans, its targeting people with vague memories of their childhood.
going for a "hey i remember that guy", rather than "i know optimus prime, he died gave the matrix to magnus, came back, died, got the matrix back from rodimus, died," ect

That would make sence if all the names were eazy to remember.

But 2 of the Decepticons's had G1 counterparts that werent even in the G1 cartoon,were barly in the G1 comics from Marvel and were released in the toy line durring TF's less popular years.

Only TF nerds would know that Barricade and Blackout were G1 names and that they were micromasters.

A fact proven time and time again in almost every thread about the first move before it was released.

Only a small handful of us on this site were aware of the fact that they were originally G1 characters.

So I highly doubt that their names were used to elitist a "hey i remember that guy" response to the use of the name.

And I dont think I said anything about "True fans".....if such a think really exists.

Wow, wrong on all accounts.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I didnt miss anything......What he said was that he didnt target the movie "ONLY" at TF fans.

I don't remember his exact wording but I do remember being pissed off by that interview after he said it so I highly doubt "not ONLY for exsistng fans" was ever said. The way he talked it honested sounded like he did not give a **** about any exsisting fans therefor he must of been saying they were NOT his target audience. Allso the same thing was said in video and on the fourms on their web site.

But again simply naming it Transformers and useing only G1 names for the characters is targeting TF fans in a very strong way.Regardless of what he may or may not have said in an interview.

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

And it was Bay the insisted that all the names used have a G1 counterpart....which I saw as pointless since he made sure that most of their characterizations did not matched up with their G1 counterparts.

Non of that has anything to do with Bay. Honestly he had the most to do with why the movie turned out so bad but he was not the only one screwing things up. 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.

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.

There's been several interviews were Bay has either insulted the fans or the franchise itself, he doesn't really care about how G1 it is.

The wrighters did that, they used the G1 names, they wrote the script with G1 characters in mind, and they tried to keep it as true to the source material as possible. But they didn't do a verry good job.

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.

Saber Prime wrote:No they couldn't and most importantly as long as Bay is controlling the movie they most sertainly won't.

Excuse me???

Maybe you miss-understood me.

I'm saying that Bay could chose to use the character "The Fallen" from the comics, change some details about the character, and he could still be based on the comic character.

And the simple fact is they "COULD".

But now we get into the "would Bay do it debate".

And to be honest I see a strong argument for saying he might.

If you knew anything about the character then you would know that if there is any character in any TF universe that would appeal to Bay, any character that he might be interested in,any character in any TF story that seems tailored made for Bay it would be "The Fallen".

He's a Demi-God like TF that turns into a tank thats always on fire and constantly haveing small explosion about and within himself.

Thats got to sound like a "God Send" to Bay.

Now I'm not saying that Bay will use him but can you think of a better TF character for Bay to want to bring to life in his movie???

Good point, but how is going to work thoughs constant exsplosions? I could see their entire movie budget going to the pyrotechnics alone.

Saber Prime wrote:No political power? What do you call Senetor Palpatine, later Chancelor Palpatine, and finally Emporer Palpatine? He was allready in office in the first movie so how exactly does he have no political power?

No one knew he was a Sith.No one knew he and Darth Sedious were one and the same.

He snuck into power their the way many say the Anti-Christ will.

If it were publicly known that he was a Sith he would not have been allowed to come to power.Thats why he had to use such a underhanded scheme to get it.

The Sith as an organization had no power.

Doesn't matter if they knew it or not, 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.

Saber Prime wrote:Did you forget that Palpatine is the leader of the Sith and was maskerading as one of the good guys for the entire first 2 movies. It was revieled in Episode 3 that Palpatine and Darth Sidious were the same person of course from episode 6 we allready knew that.

I didnt forget it but you seem to have forgotten the reason for his sharade.

The Sith as an organization had no power, no wealth,no ships, no means as to start a war and take power.

If they had tried a direct apporch they would have been destroyed.

So Palpatine manipulated a war from within.

You seem to be confused. Power is power no matter how you get it. To say that the Sith had no political power is like saying the movies never happened in the first place. He couldn't of manipulated a war from within if he had no Political power.

What you're saying, plain and simple, is a contridiction.

If the Sith have no Political Power then Palpatine was never a Senitor, never a Chancelor, and never became Emporer. The entire plot of the movies falls apart.

However sence Palpatine was in a political office for the each movie that means that the Sith did have political power regardless of how they got it or who didn't know about it.

Saber Prime wrote: you oddly are trying to say the Droid army belong to the Jedi side which makes absolutly no sence... as allways.

Where did I say that????

When you said the Droids belong to the Trade Federation.

Would it make it easier for you if I just said the good side and evil side?

Droids army belongs to the evil side.

You're saying they belong to the good side therefore everyone is attacking their own troops. I've said several times that doesn't make any sence and you've said nothing to exsplain why the good guy side would be fighting eachother.

So if the Droid Army is property of the good guys why aren't they attacking the bad guys insted of takeing orders from the bad guys.

As I said the Trade Federation were originally members of the Galactic Senate.They wanted more powers and territories so under the assurance of the Sith Lord, who they believed had influence in the Senate, they anixed Naboo.

But they were being manipulated by the Sith Lord into starting a war between the humanoid races and the non-humanoid races in the Senate.

Yeah that's great, but what does that have to do with the Droid Army? You're really not saying anything about why guys you're saying are good take orders from the bad.

Saber Prime wrote:Here's a short recap of everything you've said.

The Sith have NO political power.

And as an organization they didnt.

Saber Prime wrote: Darth Sidious/Palpatine is in the senate. Like allways you're contridicting yourself because that's a position of political power.

Its no contradiction....its not known he's a Sith and he wouldnt have been elected to his position if it were public knowledge.

It is as exsplained above it doesn't matter if it's known. All that matters is two things.

Is he a Sith? Yes! Is he in a position of political power? Yes! Do the Sith have political power? Yes!

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?

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?

You're probly going to chime in with bad annaligy 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.

Basically you're suporting ignorance. They didn't know so it wasn't true.

Saber Prime wrote:Non of what you said proves the Sith don't controll the droid army and once more nothing you said has anything to do with the droid army.

They controlled by manipulation and the promises of power not by ownership.

Whoever controlls, owns. Plain and simple. Kinda like the rule of possession. They certainly weren't borrowing the droids.

Saber Prime wrote:Are you serious? That's a true story?And yet so many people still don't belive in ghosts.

"Based on a true story" is the term and I'm not sure if the rest of that was sarcazem or not.

But to tell the truth it would be hard to prove that the young girl wasnt just crazy.

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

Saber Prime wrote:Every title you gave was about someone or something everyone was allready familiar with except for 2. 1 had a woman I've never heard of in the title but it allso had the reason for her revenge in the title and pluse it sounded like a life time movie based on a true story.

Only one of the movies I listed had its reason for "Revenge" in the title.

The rest did not.[/quote]

I just said that...

And according to you for a movie to be called "Revenge of" the audience MUST know "Why" or "WHAT" the character wants revenge for.

That's not what I said. What I said was most revenge titles are something people are allready familiar with and only 2 of your titles went agenst that. Only one of them was even a sequill to another movie.

I allso said if they're going to title a sequill revenge that the movie should be about something that happened in the previous movie hence there can't be a Revenge of the Fallen because there was no Fallen in the previous movie. Allso why I kept bringing up serverl characters from the first movie who would want revenge but you ignored that every time.

It seems like every time you missread my posts you get stuck on a single line and ignore the following exsplination. Kinda like reading only the subject lines in a newspaper and thinking you know what the article is about.

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

Saber Prime wrote:If he's a character than the movie is in fact all about him.

Only if he's the only character which we know he wouldnt be.

Its a film with many characters and how they interact together.

Revenge of the Sith wasnt only all about the Sith.

It was about all the characters.

Again, you missunderstand. Yes there are other characters in the movie but that doesn't mean the movie is about thoughs characters.

When a movie is "about" a spicfic character that means they're the main focus of the movie not that they're only character. Nothing I said sugested that the title character was the ONLY character in the movie. All I said was that they were the main focus.

The first Transformers movie some people (mainly me) refer to as the Bumblebee movie because he was the main focus of the movie. Yeah there was other Transformers in the movie but Bumblebee had the most screen time.

Saber Prime wrote: You know any movies that aren't about the title character?

I just listed one and I could name plenty.

No you didn't, Revenge of the Sith is in fact about the Sith. The movie's main focus was on Anikin becoming Darth Vader and Palpatine becomeing Emporer.

Saber Prime wrote: Or are just featureing the title character?

Sweeney Todd is about Sweeney Todd, Nicholas Nickolby is about Nicholas Nickolby.

The Titanic is about a love story and not about the ship.And yes the Titanic can bee seen as a character for this film.

Titanic is about the Titanic. The love story was just a sub plot and it takes place on... THE TITANIC!

Now if the movie took place on an entirely different ship and we only saw the Titanic in saw one scene then then heard about it sinking later in the movie that would be a movie "just featureing" the title ship rather than "about" the title ship.

Again Tim Burttons Batman films were more about the Joker,Penguin and Catwoman then they were about Batman.

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

Saber Prime wrote:Now that's a poor analigy.

Not by the critria your setting forth.

You mean the criteria you set forth.

According to you the Fallen cant seek revenge for anything because we never saw him.

In the first movie.

So then Bumblebee should speak since we never saw Megatron damage his voice box.

That was the first movie.

Saber Prime wrote:It's a sequill movie. A movie about someone wanting revenge. There are several characters in the first movie who would want to seek revenge for the events of the first movie.

Which would be irrelevant if Bay decided to use the Fallen from the comics as a new character.

No it is verry relivant. We're talking about speculation not what will and will not happen.

Bay may end up useing the Fallen but it won't be the same comic Fallen just like Optimus Prime in the movie is not any of the preexsisting Optimus Primes. He has the same voice actor as G1 but he is not G1 Prime. Bumblebee is not G1 Bumblebee so on and so fourth.

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.

There's allso the two conflicting reports as part of the faulse leak campaine where one states the Fallen is in the movie and the other states the Fallen is refering a defeated enemy in the first film.

Basically I wasn't saying it was impossible for the Fallen to appear just that it makes more sence that he wouldn't.

Saber Prime wrote:
I'll be camping outside Bay's house with a sniper when he makes another exsplosion fest with little plot and calls it a movie.

I'll send you a mug of hot coco to keep warm....consider it my contribution to the mission.

not that i'm not enjoying it, but WOW YOU TWO LOVE LONG WINDED SPEACHS

we're both of you on the debate team or somethin

Saber Prime wrote:Wow, wrong on all accounts.

Really lets see.....

Saber Prime wrote:I don't remember his exact wording but I do remember being pissed off by that interview after he said it so I highly doubt "not ONLY for exsistng fans" was ever said. The way he talked it honested sounded like he did not give a **** about any exsisting fans therefor he must of been saying they were NOT his target audience. Allso the same thing was said in video and on the fourms on their web site.

What he sounded like and what he said are almost always two different things.

I've read and heard plenty of his interviews in which he stated he was targeting a much wider audience that the TF fanbase.

That the film was not being written soly for G1 or TF fan but for every movie goer.

But non of that changes the fact that The movie was still targeted at TF fans as well.Simply naming it Transformers and having every TF character name for a G1 character is targeting the TF fanbase.

So how am I wrong???

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???

Saber Prime wrote:Non of that has anything to do with Bay. Honestly he had the most to do with why the movie turned out so bad but he was not the only one screwing things up.

I dont think the topic was about whos to blame for how bad or good the film was.

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.

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.

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.

Saber Prime wrote:Good point, but how is going to work thoughs constant exsplosions? I could see their entire movie budget going to the pyrotechnics alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRS90V8BQGo

Saber Prime wrote:Doesn't matter if they knew it or not

Yes it does.

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.

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

The Sith may have secretly been in control but they had no publicly viewed political power as a whole.

I'll admit this one cam be a bit murcy to understand but try to understand it this way.

Each planet and organization had a representative in the senate.Even the Jedi consul had a representative with the senate.

The Sith did not.

Saber Prime wrote:You seem to be confused. Power is power no matter how you get it. To say that the Sith had no political power is like saying the movies never happened in the first place. He couldn't of manipulated a war from within if he had no Political power.

See above for most of this.

But it was by plotting that he gained that power.So while Palpatine was a Sith and a senator the Sith was not a recognized organization by the senate and as an organization had no political power.

Saber Prime wrote:
What you're saying, plain and simple, is a contridiction.

Its not

Saber Prime wrote:
If the Sith have no Political Power then Palpatine was never a Senitor, never a Chancelor, and never became Emporer. The entire plot of the movies falls apart.

See above

Saber Prime wrote:
However sence Palpatine was in a political office for the each movie that means that the Sith did have political power regardless of how they got it or who didn't know about it.

Again

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

Saber Prime wrote:Would it make it easier for you if I just said the good side and evil side?

Droids army belongs to the evil side.

The Trade federation was plotting with the Sith....what would you call them?????

Saber Prime wrote:You're saying they belong to the good side therefore everyone is attacking their own troops.

I didnt say that.

I saide the Trade fediration were originally members in good standing with the senate....untill they got greedy and started ploting with the Sith for more power and territories.

They then used "THEIR" droid armies to attack Naboo....or have you forgotten all of that????

Saber Prime wrote:Yeah that's great, but what does that have to do with the Droid Army?

Boy you really need to get your memory checked.

The Trade Fediration were the major contributors to the Separatist Droid Army.They constructed most of them and they were in command of the first ones we saw.

Here are the first 2 lines we saw
Battle Droid

Destroyer droid

Saber Prime wrote:It is as exsplained above it doesn't matter if it's known. All that matters is two things.

Is he a Sith? Yes! Is he in a position of political power? Yes! Do the Sith have political power? Yes!

I explained this above.

As an origination the Sith had no power within the Senate.They could not speak openly nor could their views be open to the public forum for consideration like any of the other organizations in the senate.

That means as an organization the Sith had no power.

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.

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.

Saber Prime wrote:
You're probly going to chime in with bad annaligy

Not this time because I couldnt follow it so I cant call it bad.

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.

Saber Prime wrote:Basically you're suporting ignorance. They didn't know so it wasn't true.

Actually I'm just talking simple politics within a democracy..

Saber Prime wrote:Whoever controlls, owns. Plain and simple. Kinda like the rule of possession. They certainly weren't borrowing the droids.

The owners of the droid armys were the Trade Federation and the rest of the Separatist.

And they were being manipulated by the Sith.

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.

Saber Prime wrote:That's not what I said.

Well thats how it read.

Saber Prime wrote:
I allso said if they're going to title a sequill revenge that the movie should be about something that happened in the previous movie

"Should" is subjective.

And while i would agree it would be good practice to have a sequil with Revenge in the title be about something familur to the fans its not a pre-requisite.

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.

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.

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.

Saber Prime wrote:Again, you missunderstand.

If so its because of the way it was worded....but forget it.

Saber Prime wrote: No you didn't, Revenge of the Sith is in fact about the Sith. The movie's main focus was on Anikin becoming Darth Vader and Palpatine becomeing Emporer.

I ment "Only" about but forget it...were misunderstanding each other.

Saber Prime wrote:Titanic is about the Titanic. The love story was just a sub plot and it takes place on... THE TITANIC!

Sorry buddy but TITANIC was about a love story that just happened to take place on the Titanic.

The movie was almost 2 and a 1/2 hours long but the sinking of the ship only took a 3rd of the entire running time.

And the rest of the story could have taken place at a Burger King and it wouldnt have changed the movie.... much.

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.

Hell Jack Nickilson got top billing in the first film.

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

Batman had the title role but both movies were stolen by the Bad guys.

Saber Prime wrote:You mean the criteria you set forth.

I wasnt the one that said it should have been seen in a first film.

Saber Prime wrote:.

So then Bumblebee should speak since we never saw Megatron damage his voice box.

That was the first movie.

But we didnt see it.

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.

Saber Prime wrote:No it is verry relivant.

No its not to this debate.

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.

Saber Prime wrote:Bay may end up useing the Fallen but it won't be the same comic Fallen

I never said "The Same As The Comic Character".

I've said "Based on the Comic character".

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

Saber Prime wrote:Basically I wasn't saying it was impossible for the Fallen to appear just that it makes more sence that he wouldn't.

Well your first post read to me as the opposite.

Name_Violation wrote:not that i'm not enjoying it, but WOW YOU TWO LOVE LONG WINDED SPEACHS

Yeah we have fun with this

Name_Violation wrote:we're both of you on the debate team or somethin

Nope but I'm married with 3 daughters.