Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store

Details subject to change. See listing for latest price and availability.
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?
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
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.
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.
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 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.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
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.
Only the humans and the Dinobots reacted as if they never met the Constructicons before.
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.
F Prime wrote: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.
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?
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.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
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.
Anyway, you guys can't take him so serious. He's acknowledged before he's simply an arguer.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
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.
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?
F Prime wrote:
If this was a weak spot Optimus knew about why did he *never* use it again or mention it at all?
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.)
This doesn't work...
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
i do not see sams revival as diffinative proof of the supernatural.
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!
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...
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Shows how weak your argument really is.
*when your argument challenged your result to childish insults
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.
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.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
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.
Pontimax 01 wrote: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.
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.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
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.
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.
Much less how the word would be defined by an alien race.
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 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.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
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.
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....)
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.
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.
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.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
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?
I dont think the super fuel =ed super powerful.
Well for "conclusively correct" you need only look at the evidence.
The idea of a "common use" for the word is a fallacy.
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.
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.
*To make this clear, I do *not* believe this is the case. Just making a point.
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.
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.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
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.
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??
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...
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.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
Return to Transformers Live Action Film Forum
Registered users: Bing [Bot], figureguy, Glyph, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], JMH, Maikeruu, MSN [Bot], Perceptor1996, Spider5800, Yahoo [Bot]