Page 1 of 1
Devastator or "Devastator"?

Posted:
Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:21 pm
by Swipestreaker
Will they have the Constructicons in the next movie?

Posted:
Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:36 pm
by autobot commander
maybe

Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:31 am
by Nightracer GT
You joined right after the closing of the big debate on that very topic.
The arguements for against were pretty weak, I'd say. "The name was already used." "Construction vehicles are boring, whereas military vehicles blow **** up." "Six is too many." "Bonecrusher's dead."
But why can't they just have them form a big unnamed robot?
Why can't there be one robot with a personality who splits off into a bunch of different vehicles?
Why can't they just call it a different name?
Construction vehicles are huge and can cause lots of damage. Ore trucks and giant earth movers are much more exicting in terms of destruction than another tank or jet.
Why do there have to be six? Because that's cartoon canon?
Why do they have to have all the characters in the team? Why can't they just have some, or even mix and match? Some construction, some military. Some military, some sports cars. It's all robots in the end. Why maintain an alt mode motif that has no bearing on the giant robot itself?
As you can see, it's very easy and doable to have the Constructicons in the movie. Doesn't mean they will, but they easily could.

Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:17 pm
by Abilor
I think even more broadly, people take Devastator to mean a Gestalt-o-bot in general. People want to see something form voltr- I mean Devastator, but there's Superion, Bruticus, etc. It's the gestalt theme in general that's appealing, and Devastator was just first.
My bet is you will some form of the gestalt transformation. It's ambitious, it's appealing to fanboys and general audiences alike... perfect sequel fodder, "bigger and better" in every way.
I just can't wait for my KO devastator to arrive from China...

Posted:
Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:25 pm
by Insurgent
I give you the kind of damage a construction vehicle could do. And this is just one. Imagine what a whole team could do.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=24n77GgRtrwhttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA

Posted:
Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:37 pm
by Jazz Reborn
Dark Zarak wrote:You joined right after the closing of the big debate on that very topic.
The arguements for against were pretty weak, I'd say. "The name was already used." "Construction vehicles are boring, whereas military vehicles blow **** up." "Six is too many." "Bonecrusher's dead."
But why can't they just have them form a big unnamed robot?
Why can't there be one robot with a personality who splits off into a bunch of different vehicles?
Why can't they just call it a different name?
Construction vehicles are huge and can cause lots of damage. Ore trucks and giant earth movers are much more exicting in terms of destruction than another tank or jet.
Why do there have to be six? Because that's cartoon canon?
Why do they have to have all the characters in the team? Why can't they just have some, or even mix and match? Some construction, some military. Some military, some sports cars. It's all robots in the end. Why maintain an alt mode motif that has no bearing on the giant robot itself?
As you can see, it's very easy and doable to have the Constructicons in the movie. Doesn't mean they will, but they easily could.
exsactly what i thought.

Posted:
Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:59 am
by Starscream's Brigade
Maybe I'm biased

but I think Bruticus would be perfect. They already have Brawl, then they can use Blackout for Whirlwind and then introduce the rest. If I remember correctly, Brawl and Blackout are killed in the movie so the storyline can be they were repaired and given this new combining feature in the process


Posted:
Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:50 pm
by Satomiblood
Starscream's Brigade wrote:Maybe I'm biased

but I think Bruticus would be perfect. They already have Brawl, then they can use Blackout for Whirlwind and then introduce the rest. If I remember correctly, Brawl and Blackout are killed in the movie so the storyline can be they were repaired and given this new combining feature in the process

There's no way this can happen.
Heh//////

Posted:
Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:01 pm
by Mighty Scorponok
technicality..........But if Cons would have a Combiner, then it automaticly put Autobots on disadvantage, then they would have to have a Gestalt on their own, and the dilema starts again. Who would be that gestalt?.And then Bay woul be accussed of copying the Episodes, which he doesnt want to be accused of.

Posted:
Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:40 pm
by Insurgent
That could be the big, grand finale epic fight. The bots without any combiners of their own, must take down the ultimate con weapon. A combiner. Rather than have two giants go at it, I would prefer just to have the one combiner on screen, with the smaller bots running around, trying to take him down.

Posted:
Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:26 pm
by doomboy536
Insurgent wrote:That could be the big, grand finale epic fight. The bots without any combiners of their own, must take down the ultimate con weapon. A combiner. Rather than have two giants go at it, I would prefer just to have the one combiner on screen, with the smaller bots running around, trying to take him down.
That sounds like it would be better tbh

Posted:
Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:28 pm
by Starscream's Brigade
Satomiblood wrote:There's no way this can happen.


Posted:
Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:31 pm
by Abilor
Insurgent wrote:That could be the big, grand finale epic fight. The bots without any combiners of their own, must take down the ultimate con weapon. A combiner. Rather than have two giants go at it, I would prefer just to have the one combiner on screen, with the smaller bots running around, trying to take him down.
I can already see it... Nice!

Posted:
Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:42 pm
by -Barricade-
I personally, would like to see Navy ships that can turn into one big TF.

Posted:
Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:39 pm
by Forward
Insurgent wrote:That could be the big, grand finale epic fight. The bots without any combiners of their own, must take down the ultimate con weapon. A combiner. Rather than have two giants go at it, I would prefer just to have the one combiner on screen, with the smaller bots running around, trying to take him down.
I like that idea more, yes.
Re: Devastator or "Devastator"?

Posted:
Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:13 pm
by Kortex
OF COURSE CONSTRUCTICONS SHOULD...THEY WILL FIGHT DINOBOTS IN THE FINAL BATTLE OF THE SEQUEL.....
Re: Devastator or "Devastator"?

Posted:
Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:20 pm
by y2jfreak
seeing as the 1st movie had alot of blowing stuff up (i.e Blackout at the beginning) that was impressive, its entirely possible for Devastator to practically make TF2 by itself. Imagine Devastator in TF2 realistically very tall, smashing down buildings, cars, roads and such. the onscreen carnage would be so awesome, if a little expensive to do.
I like the idea of the 'Bots fighting Devastator towards the end of the film, he'd be a big, clumsy target to take out and they could kill off some more characters on the way, I'd personally love to see Ironhide have his arms torn off.
Note: Seeing as TF1 we all know Brawl to be, well, Brawl, has anyone noticed the fact that they used the name Devastator in the subtitle before Hoover Dam? That might throw Devastator Gestalt out the window for the next film...
Re: Devastator or "Devastator"?

Posted:
Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:16 pm
by Abilor
Even if "Devastator" was still up for grabs, there are probably a lot of reasons why they wouldn't use it as the name. I still think they'll roll all the gestalts into one for the movies as a composite character, like Eric from Lovejoy, which I'm sure everyone here knows and loves... I am fairly certain it will be decepticon though, have something to do with megatron's new powers post all-spark, and be enabled by a decepticon newcomer, possibly shockwave.
Re: Devastator or "Devastator"?

Posted:
Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:29 pm
by Savage
What can take down Devastator?
The Dinobots, of course.

Re: Devastator or "Devastator"?

Posted:
Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:21 pm
by Auto Bot
Using the name "Devastator", making him from construction vehicles, and having 6, or at least 5, in the group, have some fun factors in it.
It pays homage to the old canon. It will tickle and excite old fans.
Taking all these 3 factors into the Movie Devastator, does not necessarily mean you'll have to design him exactly like the G1 toy or character. The robot can look very much different from the classic toy. Or its power and weakness can be different. There's a lot of thing you can change with the characters. And yet, retain a few basic homage to the original.
It will be fun.

Re: Devastator or "Devastator"?

Posted:
Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:42 pm
by dragons
correct me if im wrong but didnt the new devastor from one oof the new seres of trransformes only has 4 or 5 combiners maybe in tranformers cybertron?
they may be able to do the same if they decide to have bruticos or devastoatr in the sequel i would like to see personally one combinor in the next film have combinors would make it to cartoony close to the animated series
her are some ideas i think may work if they where to have bruticus
http://tri.army.mil/LC/cs/csa/ah64rtv.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Bell_222a.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Pt-91_armyrecognition_poland_021.jpg/300px-Pt-91_armyrecognition_poland_021.jpg
Re: Devastator or "Devastator"?

Posted:
Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:09 am
by Auto Bot
Yup. That was one of the worst Devastator iteration.