The Energon Pub

F Prime wrote:And do we care what Bay was trying to express? I understand that is important, but when it comes to my personal enjoyment of the film I have no problem with "alternate explanations". This is nothing new to TF. I mean, how else do we reconcile Heavy Metal War and The Secret of Omega Supreme?

Actually its quite easy to reconcile Heavy Metal War and The Secret of Omega Supreme.........because there was never any solid contradiction between the two.

The so called contradiction was always based on the perceptions of the fan base.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

F Prime wrote:And do we care what Bay was trying to express? I understand that is important, but when it comes to my personal enjoyment of the film I have no problem with "alternate explanations". This is nothing new to TF. I mean, how else do we reconcile Heavy Metal War and The Secret of Omega Supreme?

Actually its quite easy to reconcile Heavy Metal War and The Secret of Omega Supreme.........because there was never any solid contradiction between the two.

The so called contradiction was always based on the perceptions of the fan base.

I disagree. Megatron states that the Constructicons were "worth the time we spent building them in these caverns." This implies pretty heavily that the Constructicons were built in the carverns on Earth. However, we get clear evidence in two episodes (Master Builders and Secret of Omega Supreme) that the Constructicons existed on Cybertron and were not decepticons originally (although they had the insignias.)

The most common explanation is that the Constructicons were RE-built in the carverns. But I don't think that is at all what the original dialogue implied. (Also, it was revealed later that David Wise was working under the assumption that the Constructicons had no explained origin prior to The Secret of Omega Supreme.)

What are you using to say the contradiction was due to fan perception? If it is that Megatron never directly stated "We built them for the first time here on Earth, in these caverns" I would say that is a stretch. Saying they were "built", and not "rebuilt", implies, to me, that they were initially built on Earth.

F Prime wrote:
I disagree. Megatron states that the Constructicons were "worth the time we spent building them in these caverns." This implies pretty heavily that the Constructicons were built in the carverns on Earth.

Right, but let me ask you this....

what supportive statement in that dialog, or any where else in that episode, defines what he ment by "building" them???

Answer is............Nothing.

Megatrons words were vague an not definitive.Yes, he claimed they "built" them, but did they say they built them from scratch, or built them new bodies??

Theres nothing in the episode to suggest they were "created" as new life.

built is not always synonymous with newly created.

Only the humans and the Dinobots reacted as if they never met the Constructicons before.

The most common explanation is that the Constructicons were RE-built in the carverns. But I don't think that is at all what the original dialogue implied.

What it implied is going to differ depended on the viewer.

But, the pre-production bible does say they werent to get a origin story when introduced, that they would get one in a later instalment.

So, it seems theoriginal dialog was intended to be vague, which it was.

What are you using to say the contradiction was due to fan perception? If it is that Megatron never directly stated "We built them for the first time here on Earth, in these caverns" I would say that is a stretch. Saying they were "built", and not "rebuilt", implies, to me, that they were initially built on Earth.

They were new to the fan base, so when the fan base heard the dialog, we assumed it ment "newly built"....but the dialog never makes that claim definitively.

And the bible indicates the intent was to be as vague as possible.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

F Prime wrote:
I disagree. Megatron states that the Constructicons were "worth the time we spent building them in these caverns." This implies pretty heavily that the Constructicons were built in the carverns on Earth.

Right, but let me ask you this....

what supportive statement in that dialog, or any where else in that episode, defines what he ment by "building" them???

Answer is............Nothing.

I think the common interpretation/meaning of the word takes care of that. However, you are correct, technically I don't *know* they meant built-from-scratch. But I do feel that if I tell someone I build Harleys when I really mean I RE-build Harleys, it would be my fault that they misinterpreted. I doubt many of them would care much for my explanation of "I never said I built them from scratch."

Only the humans and the Dinobots reacted as if they never met the Constructicons before.

Interesting. They seemed indifferent to me...neither familiar nor unfamiliar. I don't think we can conclude that they HAD seen them before from what we were shown. To paraphrase you, what supportive statement in the dialog or anywhere else in that episode implies they were familiar with them?

They were new to the fan base, so when the fan base heard the dialog, we assumed it ment "newly built"....but the dialog never makes that claim definitively.

No, I did not make that assumption because they were new to me. You may have, but I made that assumption based on the common usage of the word "built". I would still make that assumption even had the episode occurred after Rebirth.


Technically, you are correct. Personally, I find your explanation requires too many non-intuitive assumptions for me. But, it seems like my interpretation requires too many assumptions for you. So I guess we are where we are.

F Prime wrote:I think the common interpretation/meaning of the word takes care of that.

Problem is there is no way to say what the most common interpretation/meaning of the word is.

Whats most common fall between the lines for each person.

For me, the most common use of the word referes to putting something together, not building it fro m scrach.

However, you are correct, technically I don't *know* they meant built-from-scratch. But I do feel that if I tell someone I build Harleys when I really mean I RE-build Harleys, it would be my fault that they misinterpreted.

But, I would assume someone is still not going to think you built every peace from scratch.

You would still be putting it together from prefabricated parts.

I agree, the dialog was misleading, but I feel its because they were trying to be vague.

Interesting. They seemed indifferent to me...neither familiar nor unfamiliar. I don't think we can conclude that they HAD seen them before from what we were shown.

Indifferent to a point.

But, Optimus's taking 1 shot to dissemble Devestator can be taken 2 ways.

1] he was lucky
or
2] he knew them and their possible weak point.

To paraphrase you, what supportive statement in the dialog or anywhere else in that episode implies they were familiar with them?

See above.

Granted its not solid, but it is suggestive, even more so in a accumulative effect.

No, I did not make that assumption because they were new to me. You may have, but I made that assumption based on the common usage of the word "built". I would still make that assumption even had the episode occurred after Rebirth.

Thats just it, there is no real "common" usage of the word.

It gets blurred between the lines of life experience, how you were raised.

Since childhood, I have always built plastic models, but from pre-fabricated kits.Hearing Megatrons dialog, the possibility that he did something similar was always in the back of my head.

Now maybe it was because I was a bit older then most kids into TF's at the time, and I realised how ludicrous the idea was that Megatron and his crew were capable of creating new TF life, but couldnt build a power transferring devise??

Think about it, why would Megatron need to create a team, to design and build a devise, when it would be simpler and less time consuming to do it himself?

The engendering skills needed to create TF life must be greator then those needed to build a power transferring devise.

Technically, you are correct. Personally, I find your explanation requires too many non-intuitive assumptions for me. But, it seems like my interpretation requires too many assumptions for you. So I guess we are where we are.

True enough.

But for me it breaks down to 1 thing.

The dialog was vague.When the dialog is vague one must look to other evidence to determine intent.

And in this case, the bible indicates that they werent to get an origin.

Odd, I suggest that Sentinel offline = dead and he argues with me. He suggests in a post that Sam getting turned off = dead to him. Interesting.

Anyway, you guys can't take him so serious. He's acknowledged before he's simply an arguer. It's quite likely if you took the stand that the sky is blue and grass is green, he'd argue it because... he wants to. It's just his character on these forums, look back at other threads.

Pontimax 01 wrote:Odd, I suggest that Sentinel offline = dead and he argues with me. He suggests in a post that Sam getting turned off = dead to him. Interesting.

When did I argue that Sentinal wasnt dead?

What I said was that even if he was dead, the ghost of the Primes were wrong is saying Optimus was the last, because at the time, Optimus was dead as well.

Try following whats been posted bud.

Anyway, you guys can't take him so serious. He's acknowledged before he's simply an arguer.

When did I say that??

Dont try to straighten your weak argument by making things up and turning things personal.

If you cant stay on topic then let it go.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:But, Optimus's taking 1 shot to disasemble Devestator can be taken 2 ways.

1] he was lucky
or
2] he knew them and their possible weak point.

If this was a weak spot Optimus knew about why did he *never* use it again or mention it at all? That would seem to be a pretty big thing for him to know and then not use.

Transformers are not this consistent. Plenty of bots are taken out with one shot one episode and then nigh invincible on the next encounter. (As an example, look at how the Stunticons mowed the 'Bots over in The Key to Vector Sigma II. They were never that powerful again.)

Think about it, why would Megatron need to create a team, to design and build a devise, when it would be simpler and less time consuming to do it himself?

This doesn't work...we can't apply regular human logic to the machinations of Megatron to garner information about the writer's intents. How many times did Megatron do things that seemed just plain stupid/illogical?

Or, more accurately, how often did the Decepticons ALMOST win with a plan only to never try it again? (City of Steel (taking over NY was child's play), A Prime Problem (build more clones....and for more autobots), The Core (I would have build 1 drill each year), Heavy Metal War (specifically the Power Chip Rectifier), Revenge of Bruticus (it seemed pretty easy for Onslaught to jury rig a device capable of moving the Earth).)

Sure, after each of these we could assume they only had enough of whatever magical element they needed that episode to build one device, but that is a little too easy.

The bots and cons often took the long way around problems.

F Prime wrote:
If this was a weak spot Optimus knew about why did he *never* use it again or mention it at all?

I said possible weak spot.And I would assume that they tried to correct it or protected it.It may not have been an easy spot to hit.

And I would say useing it negate the need to mention it.

Also, Perceptor seems to have hit the same spot in season 3.

Transformers are not this consistent. Plenty of bots are taken out with one shot one episode and then nigh invincible on the next encounter. (As an example, look at how the Stunticons mowed the 'Bots over in The Key to Vector Sigma II. They were never that powerful again.)

true enough

This doesn't work...

It does when you look at the entire issue.

But your right, applying regular logic to this might be a mistake, as is assuming what would or should be the common use of the word "built" to the dialog used.

Much less how the word would be defined by an alien race.

i do not see sams revival as diffinative proof of the supernatural.

I do in this case because no one was working on him at the time.

Unless you want to consider Mikalas crying and talking to him as working on him.

But then its the power of love that saved him. [/quote]


this, definately this. the power of love, hah! i think i will always hear Queen in my head whenever i watch ROTF from now on. after all 90% of all anime cant be wrong!

hey on a wildly off topic tangent do they ever explain the differrence in klingon appearance across the series? i remember a noncomital vague reference in generations but nothing concrete. and if you tell me it was god robots...

shadowynne wrote:
this, definately this. the power of love, hah! i think i will always hear Queen in my head whenever i watch ROTF from now on. after all 90% of all anime cant be wrong!

Sorry I dont get the "Queen" comment.

hey on a wildly off topic tangent do they ever explain the differrence in klingon appearance across the series? i remember a noncomital vague reference in generations but nothing concrete. and if you tell me it was god robots...

Actually as far as I know there was no refrance made in the film "Generations", althu one comical comment was made in a Deep space 9 episode.

But yes, the series "Enterprise" finally explained the issue.Its a combination between genetic engineering and a viral mutation.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Shows how weak your argument really is.


*when your argument challenged your result to childish insults

1) For the record, I finally agree with a presence of 'magic' in the film: Mikaelas love for Sam.Even tho it, too, works along the principles of physics,and again involves projection and an embedded message,I'll pay it as magic on the grounds that it's still seen as that today.Don't assume for a second however that I treat love as a miracle that comes from outside the sender through some complicated ritual or is dispensed to us via some artefact.
I still don't see any magic in TF tech.

2)No.Apart from knowing what I'm talking about,I argued because you accused me of twisting without acknowledging that you're twisting,not because my opinion isn't malleable by those of others.I don't have to accept my education being scapegoated for you to pawn off an idea that's 200 years out of date.Nor do I have to put up with you accusing me of 'twisting' to snake your own say-so by when we're supposed to be coming into this subject on the pretense of working together & sharing opinions.When you're right,you'll see me assigning to your lead.When you're not,you won't.

When are y'all gonna fold this back into the title subject? I've been waiting to see where you'll go with it.

Autobot Smoketreader wrote:1) For the record, I finally agree with a presence of 'magic' in the film: Mikaelas love for Sam.Even tho it, too, works along the principles of physics,and again involves projection and an embedded message,I'll pay it as magic on the grounds that it's still seen as that today.Don't assume for a second however that I treat love as a miracle that comes from outside the sender through some complicated ritual or is dispensed to us via some artefact.

ok

I still don't see any magic in TF tech.

Ignoring it is your right.

But even Bay admitted it was a mistake to go to the mystical/magical route.So, its there weter or not you chose to acknowledge it.

2)No.Apart from knowing what I'm talking about,I argued because you accused me of twisting without acknowledging that you're twisting,not because my opinion isn't malleable by those of others.I don't have to accept my education being scapegoated for you to pawn off an idea that's 200 years out of date.Nor do I have to put up with you accusing me of 'twisting' to snake your own say-so by when we're supposed to be coming into this subject on the pretense of working together & sharing opinions.When you're right,you'll see me assigning to your lead.When you're not,you won't.

The issue is you didnt state it as "opinion", you presented it as "fact.

And in that, you were twisting what was seen on film.Thats not to say it wasnt well thought out, creative and well done.Truth be told I liked your fan fic on the topic.But it wasnt what was presented in the film.

So, it wasnt fact.

If you dont want to be accused of "twisting", then I suggest next time you present your story idea as a alternative, or a possible way to look at it other then presenting it as a fact.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Pontimax 01 wrote:Odd, I suggest that Sentinel offline = dead and he argues with me. He suggests in a post that Sam getting turned off = dead to him. Interesting.

When did I argue that Sentinal wasnt dead?

What I said was that even if he was dead, the ghost of the Primes were wrong is saying Optimus was the last, because at the time, Optimus was dead as well.

Try following whats been posted bud.

Anyway, you guys can't take him so serious. He's acknowledged before he's simply an arguer.

When did I say that??

Dont try to straighten your weak argument by making things up and turning things personal.

If you cant stay on topic then let it go.

First off, call someone else bud.

Second off, I wasn't getting personal. You argue. It's mainly all you do here. And my reference came from another argument from awhile back that you had with shadow. If you found negative connotations to this, well...... why don't you read what's posted.... BUD.

Anyway, I could give two shits about your views, your arguments, or your posts at this point. You always assume your assumptions are set in fact, like you wrote the movies or scripts yourself and you can tell us exactly what everything means. But you can take any two people and show them exactly the same story and both can walk away with two very different but equally correct perspectives. But it seems you don't handle that aspect of humanity well because you assume everyone should see your point of view.

Anyway, I'm done talking to you. When you start giving me whiney woo about it being personal, you're a complete write off to me.

Pontimax 01 wrote:First off, call someone else bud.

I called you "bud" because its a friendly way to refer to people.Most people here are friendly.

If you dont like it then maybe you joined the wrong site.

Second off, I wasn't getting personal.

Making public judgments about others is taking it to a personal level.

You argue. It's mainly all you do here.

No, I like a good debate, there is a difference.

I also like playing devils advocate.

And my reference came from another argument from awhile back that you had with shadow.

Which would be an error on your part.

Why would you want to carry over eliments from an other argument on a different topic and carry it over to this one is beyond me.

It seems rather childish.Its like your holding a grudge, which seems even more odd since you just claimed you werent part of that debate.

If your going to argue with me here, why not base it on things said herer .... BUD??

Anyway, I could give two shits about your views, your arguments, or your posts at this point. You always assume your assumptions are set in fact, like you wrote the movies or scripts yourself and you can tell us exactly what everything means. But you can take any two people and show them exactly the same story and both can walk away with two very different but equally correct perspectives. But it seems you don't handle that aspect of humanity well because you assume everyone should see your point of view.

Passing more judgments....seems you do give more then 2 $hits.

What ever.

Anyway, I'm done talking to you. When you start giving me whiney woo about it being personal, you're a complete write off to me.

nothing whiney about it.,

Its just infantile behavior on your part.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

But even Bay admitted it was a mistake to go to the mystical/magical route.So, its there weter or not you chose to acknowledge it.

The issue is you didnt state it as "opinion", you presented it as "fact.
And in that, you were twisting what was seen on film.Thats not to say it wasnt well thought out, creative and well done.Truth be told I liked your fan fic on the topic.But it wasnt what was presented in the film.

So, it wasnt fact.

If you dont want to be accused of "twisting", then I suggest next time you present your story idea as a alternative, or a possible way to look at it other then presenting it as a fact.

Bay doesn't have a lifestyle or background lifestyle that permits him to publically exhibit Mysticism without complications to his social status, even tho it would have been considered a spiritual strength on his part, at least by me, if he stuck to his final product and backed it 100% as one should. His opinion is imposed.
What the writers did and didn't do was propably an ambiguous angle by desire and then fortunate coincedence. Their school teaches them to set up the story to explain itself.If they don't, bad luck, they're still expected to by their peers,and also by us.

I presented a working model,and applied references to where the tech is established,as I am expected to by my peers.You publically dismissed it for your own sakes.I stepped up to it.You don't know what direction I was gonna take.

Well, I'm grateful you liked my fan 'fic' on the topic,and as I've said, I will and DO look for your info, as I do with others'.Being accused of 'twisting' in a conversation about a plothole is a given:a plothole is a plothole, but being accused of twisting by someone who expects me to build a bridge for them without meeting me halfway in the construction? I'm not your gimp.Build your own bridge or watch me fly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACK ON TOPIC:
Now,we have established an agreement that Mikaela uses the magic of love to bring Sam back,either from death by Energon (Megz blast radiation),massive concussion,internal impact damage that the Matrix repairs within moments,a quick 'soul theft' by the Primes or an out of body experience, either to Heaven,Robot Heaven,guided Shamanic flight/Medicine walk to Robot Heaven or gSF/MW to the Primes' location in Prehistory. Amongst others,I've remarked that the walk/flight smacks of OBE.(In fact, the whole "It's not your time yet:you have a mission.Go back" is STANDARD obe).SLYTF1 has remarked elsewhere,with others,that the writers studied religion and culture before the film was written.You've stated it's there for a Mystical/paranormal slant.I've supplied a consideration that Humans in the movieverse are misinterpreting TF cultural phenomena as Human religious events due to protracted exposure to said.Shadow has supplied that Human medical science is already touch-and-go before Alien damage inducement technology gets a hand on Human health parameters.
The Matrix is either self aware or controllable by the Primes.

How will this fold back into the introduction of Sentinel Prime? And any potential Rodimus,Vector and company?
I'm repeating my take:
As long as the Primes don't 'twitter' to anyone after Sam in Rotf,and provided they kill themselves immediately after 'The Twittering' in Rotf, a plothole can be avoided in DOTM regarding the 6 Primes knowledge about Sentinel,PROVIDED he (Sentinel) is not online at an Earth realtime moment between the Primes'last twittering (circa upper Paleolithic to early Neolithic is my current educated WILD guess) to Sams twittering experience in 2009 A.D.
BARRING the fact that the Primes state (if I remember correctly) that they are watching Sam his whole life,which implies that:
*They have catalogued his 'Psychic' signature and can link to him at any time IN HIS LIFE (without it affecting their own order-of-action-by-time-frame to do a 'systems check' on his status (necessary if you consider that the 6 Primes need him to continue the Autobot lineage but he doesn't want a continued involvement with the A/bots at least in rotf)
OR
*They can see through the Matrix as we see though a Webcam or Spy Camera.

If this happens,and the Primes see Sentinel in DotM,the plothole is an unsalvageable write off.

The above needs more combing out by others who are following this topic.It is incomplete as a recap.

And this time,I WILL call it 'Twisting',just to get more people involved.

I have had a perfectly friendly debate with sto_vo_kor_2000, but this debate turned ugly when the term "fan wank" was tossed out and things escalated to the personal. There may have been an earlier personal attack (I only read from page 6 on), but that one seemed to be the catalyst.

Despite some participants' claims otherwise, this debate seems to be tenuously clinging to "facts" that also depend a great deal on interpretation. If the attempt is to put all personal interpretations aside and use only blatant facts from RotF then no one is going to convince anyone. Both explanations given hold water since they never explicitly stated anything regarding the supernatural. Again, if we want to allow some personal interpretation and acceptance (or debate) of commonly defined words this gets different and the debate can be more than "you didn't watch closely enough, here is what happened (insert scene from movie clouded by interpretation)."

All we really know is that Sam was lying on the ground surrounded by military people and paramedics and then saw things.

We are reaching the point where we have to say "Well, different opinions". Hopefully this will be my last Devastator post, but we'll see.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

F Prime wrote:
If this was a weak spot Optimus knew about why did he *never* use it again or mention it at all?

I said possible weak spot.And I would assume that they tried to correct it or protected it.It may not have been an easy spot to hit.

And I would say useing it negate the need to mention it.

I don't think them using it negates the need for them to mention it, especially given the numerous possible explanations. If we were to presuppose the existence of a weakness perhaps. If we are really going to base this only on what was said/happened on-screen I don't think there is much evidence that the writer's intended this to be a weakness for Devastator. (But there is no "proof" otherwise....)

As another example, if we go only by what we are shown and anything not directly mentioned is open for debate, then the Stunticons were most likely super-powerful because Megs gave them a super-fuel while off-screen in The Key II. Luckily, the super fuel was available on Cybertron so the Aerialbots had it too. The Autobots and Decepticons didn't use it because their reconfiguration on Earth made it unusable by them.

Sure, this is possible and it could explain their ability to trash all autobots, but which is more likely: The writers had elaborate off-screen plots that the fans were supposed to figure out OR the writers wanted to wrap up a story?

And yes, I realize that there is no "proof" for either explanation and therefore, on *some* levels (ignoring the notion that the simplest explanation requiring the fewest additional assumptions is generally given more credit that others) these two explanations are equally plausible.

The real debate regards which of us is making more assumptions. That is where I don't think either of us will be conclusively correct.

Much less how the word would be defined by an alien race.

You can posit otherwise, but I don't think the intent of the writers was ever for the Transformers to be struggling with English or using the words in ways any different than Earthlings. However, I realize that your stance is to not discard any explanation that is not directly contradicted, so maybe they were taking adult-ed classes while not fighting the cons.

Autobot Smoketreader wrote:Bay doesn't have a lifestyle or background lifestyle that permits him to publically exhibit Mysticism without complications to his social status, even tho it would have been considered a spiritual strength on his part, at least by me, if he stuck to his final product and backed it 100% as one should. His opinion is imposed.
What the writers did and didn't do was propably an ambiguous angle by desire and then fortunate coincedence. Their school teaches them to set up the story to explain itself.If they don't, bad luck, they're still expected to by their peers,and also by us.

I agree, but none of that changes the facts of the issue.

Wether or not the writers and Bay have the experience or background to tell a adequate spiritual story really isint the point.

They tried to either way.

I presented a working model,and applied references to where the tech is established,as I am expected to by my peers.You publically dismissed it for your own sakes.I stepped up to it.You don't know what direction I was gonna take.

You presented your "working model" as fact not as an alternative, I didnt dismiss it, I called it for what it appared.You took that personally which wasnt my intent so for that I apologize, but the fact is its your personal take on what you saw and that equals fan fic.

F Prime wrote:I have had a perfectly friendly debate with sto_vo_kor_2000, but this debate turned ugly when the term "fan wank" was tossed out and things escalated to the personal.

yes, that was a mistake on my part.

F Prime wrote:We are reaching the point where we have to say "Well, different opinions". Hopefully this will be my last Devastator post, but we'll see.

I don't think them using it negates the need for them to mention it, especially given the numerous possible explanations. If we were to presuppose the existence of a weakness perhaps. If we are really going to base this only on what was said/happened on-screen I don't think there is much evidence that the writer's intended this to be a weakness for Devastator. (But there is no "proof" otherwise....)

true enough, but it wouldnt be the first time a weakness was showcased in some fashion and never mentioned again.

Remember the 3 dots on Bruticus's back?

As another example, if we go only by what we are shown and anything not directly mentioned is open for debate, then the Stunticons were most likely super-powerful because Megs gave them a super-fuel while off-screen in The Key II. Luckily, the super fuel was available on Cybertron so the Aerialbots had it too. The Autobots and Decepticons didn't use it because their reconfiguration on Earth made it unusable by them.

I dont think the super fuel =ed super powerful.

The real debate regards which of us is making more assumptions. That is where I don't think either of us will be conclusively correct.

Well for "conclusively correct" you need only look at the evidence.

You can posit otherwise, but I don't think the intent of the writers was ever for the Transformers to be struggling with English or using the words in ways any different than Earthlings.

I dont think it was their intent either.But as I've said, theres really no way to determine what was ment by the dialog.

The idea of a "common use" for the word is a fallacy.The definition of the word always depends on the context of the sentence its spoken in.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
true enough, but it wouldnt be the first time a weakness was showcased in some fashion and never mentioned again.

Remember the 3 dots on Bruticus's back?

Ha! I sure do. But that seems to back up my point that they would specifically let the fans know when something like this was occurring.

I dont think the super fuel =ed super powerful.

No no...you must be thinking of a different type of superfuel. The one I am thinking about DOES make them super strong. I don't think you have any conclusive evidence to suggest superfuel doesn't equal super powerful in this case. Whatever fuel you are thinking of, I will just claim it is a different superfuel that is unexplained and administered off-screen.


*To make this clear, I do *not* believe this is the case. Just making a point.

Well for "conclusively correct" you need only look at the evidence.

You make it sound so easy! But I think you see where this gets us. If every word is open to interpretation there is no evidence that is not also open to interpretation. Just look at our discussion. There is no "evidence" to dispute my claim that Optimus meant "destroyed" every time he said "energon" because aliens use the word differently. (Ok, in *this* case I am sure there is evidence, but that is not my point.)

There is no "conclusively correct" in any field or study on the planet with the assumption that the words I use can never be assumed to mean what I intended and are always open to interpretation. Every explanation I give, no matter how clear I try to be, will be open to the same critique and the cycle will never end.

The idea of a "common use" for the word is a fallacy.

I kind of agree with this. I think I know the point you are making, but I feel like you are taking it to the extreme and invalidating any form of written/spoken word by saying it depends on context. There is no argument against that because every argument could claim the speaker was misinterpreting words.

Communication breaks down entirely if we don't concede to some words having an accepted meaning. Maybe FailBlog is all about wins because they are failing at failing? We don't know what they mean by failing, but I think we all kind of accept what they are trying to get across.

F Prime wrote:
Ha! I sure do. But that seems to back up my point that they would specifically let the fans know when something like this was occurring.

And to continue that logic, if they intended for the fans to have the idea that the Constructicons were created as new life on Earth, "they would specifically let the fans know" by being definitive and not vague.

No no...you must be thinking of a different type of superfuel. The one I am thinking about DOES make them super strong. I don't think you have any conclusive evidence to suggest superfuel doesn't equal super powerful in this case.

You mean other then the fact that it wasnt depicted that way??

*To make this clear, I do *not* believe this is the case. Just making a point.

Shockingly enough I did get that

You make it sound so easy!

It is, at least in this case.

A] the dialog used was vague and not defintive
B] if they intended a earth origin they would have made it clear
C] the per-production bible says they arent to get a origin

But I think you see where this gets us. If every word is open to interpretation there is no evidence that is not also open to interpretation.
Just look at our discussion. There is no "evidence" to dispute my claim that Optimus meant "destroyed" every time he said "energon" because aliens use the word differently. (Ok, in *this* case I am sure there is evidence, but that is not my point.)

Hardly.

Yes there are times that words are open to interpretation.Particularly when the words are vague, not supported by other dialog or actions or a metaphoric.

For example "then one faithful night...Megatron was born"

That line is open to interpretation because a literal use of the word can not apply to G1 toon transformers.

"Built" is one of those words ,that alone in a statement, is open to interpretation.

There is no "conclusively correct" in any field or study on the planet with the assumption that the words I use can never be assumed to mean what I intended and are always open to interpretation. Every explanation I give, no matter how clear I try to be, will be open to the same critique and the cycle will never end.

It may be open to the same critique but we can come to a conclusion about what you ment.

We either ask you or look to the evidence of your work and intent on the topic.

The bible of the show is evidence of the intent behind the dialog used.

I kind of agree with this. I think I know the point you are making, but I feel like you are taking it to the extreme and invalidating any form of written/spoken word by saying it depends on context. There is no argument against that because every argument could claim the speaker was misinterpreting words.

Communication breaks down entirely if we don't concede to some words having an accepted meaning. Maybe FailBlog is all about wins because they are failing at failing? We don't know what they mean by failing, but I think we all kind of accept what they are trying to get across.

I agree in general, but there are just some words whos definitions are just to broad to label with 1 accepted meaning.

Built is one of them.

Your own example shows that.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

shadowynne wrote:
this, definately this. the power of love, hah! i think i will always hear Queen in my head whenever i watch ROTF from now on. after all 90% of all anime cant be wrong!

Sorry I dont get the "Queen" comment.

hey on a wildly off topic tangent do they ever explain the differrence in klingon appearance across the series? i remember a noncomital vague reference in generations but nothing concrete. and if you tell me it was god robots...

Actually as far as I know there was no refrance made in the film "Generations", althu one comical comment was made in a Deep space 9 episode.

But yes, the series "Enterprise" finally explained the issue.Its a combination between genetic engineering and a viral mutation.

heh sorry i said queen but meant frankie goes to hollywood... the power of love is a song...

and yep sorry your right its ds9 it was the fact that i remember warf saying something along the lines of "we dont talk about it" it was warf that made me think generation. i never caught much enterprise. what little i did i thought was cool though. man the theme song always set me into fits of giggles...

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

F Prime wrote:
No no...you must be thinking of a different type of superfuel. The one I am thinking about DOES make them super strong. I don't think you have any conclusive evidence to suggest superfuel doesn't equal super powerful in this case.

You mean other then the fact that it wasnt depicted that way??

Whoops. I wasn't clear enough. I was using super-fuel as a general description of a super-powerful fuel. I was not referring to the superfuel from the series. (My lack-of-hyphen caused a little "eats shoots and leaves" situation.)

You are quite correct regarding the example of "destroyed" versus "built". It was certainly extreme.

I meant (and failed) to make the point that I can understand the differing interpretations of "built" and accept either as making sense/being intended in Heavy Metal. However, I don't think we should start suggesting that the alien usages are different regarding terms like 'built'....that would make the dialog very difficult to follow and we would be reduced to second-guessing almost everything.

shadowynne wrote:
heh sorry i said queen but meant frankie goes to hollywood... the power of love is a song...

and yep sorry your right its ds9 it was the fact that i remember warf saying something along the lines of "we dont talk about it" it was warf that made me think generation. i never caught much enterprise. what little i did i thought was cool though. man the theme song always set me into fits of giggles...

Franki go's to Hollywood I get

Enterprise gets more flack then it deserves.

F Prime wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

F Prime wrote:
No no...you must be thinking of a different type of superfuel. The one I am thinking about DOES make them super strong. I don't think you have any conclusive evidence to suggest superfuel doesn't equal super powerful in this case.

You mean other then the fact that it wasnt depicted that way??

Whoops. I wasn't clear enough. I was using super-fuel as a general description of a super-powerful fuel. I was not referring to the superfuel from the series. (My lack-of-hyphen caused a little "eats shoots and leaves" situation.)

You are quite correct regarding the example of "destroyed" versus "built". It was certainly extreme.

I meant (and failed) to make the point that I can understand the differing interpretations of "built" and accept either as making sense/being intended in Heavy Metal. However, I don't think we should start suggesting that the alien usages are different regarding terms like 'built'....that would make the dialog very difficult to follow and we would be reduced to second-guessing almost everything.

I get ya now.