Discussion in 'Transformers General Discussion' started by wilzatron, Jul 21, 2007.
the constructicons should be in transformers two
do any of u agree
Not sure what will happen since Devastator was already used in the first one.
Hear it was an accident, but it's still in there.
Hopefully they'll fix the dvd version and forget that name goof ever happened
Dude, people aren't going to reply one minute after your thread starts.
BTW, I don't agree. They should focus more on idividual characters than combiners, which I gotta say, won't look to good on the big screen. (tooo power rangers/voltron) Plus, there's physics, something they paid close attention to in the first movie. I'd much rather see Soundwave or other 'cons/'Bots in the sequels.
I want Masterpiece Constucticons that merge into DEVASTATOR!
That would be cool
And I heard that Mr. Bay liked the name Devastator for a tank rather than Brawl. So he just didn't change it.
Nah i agree with Split lip, they should only use 'single' transformers..............Bring on Jetfire
I definitely agree on the need to focus on individual characters. They lacked that for the robots which were the main showcase for the movie. If they're going to make a second movie, they need to characterize the robots better.
me want Grimlock
Devastator would be awesome. But they should save him till the end before they merge.
i too, would like constructicons.
like, right now.
Eh, I think they really need to focus more on the individual Transformers and such rather than try to introduce a whole team of combiners. Besides, if you've ever seen the first power rangers movie you'll know what I'm talking about when I say that the combination sequence looked goofy as hell on the big screen. There are ways to do it, but they'd have to be really careful.
Like, say if they were to have them all merge on the ground and than have Devastator sit up from a laying position instead of having the constructicons merge into an already standing position. This might work.
Best way to do it would be to use less then six(or five technically since BC is doa) bots and have them combine more like how the BW combiners do. Instead of just each one making a limb, have each one make up a portion of the overall body. It could easily be done with just three, one makes up the hips and legs, one makes up the shoulders and arms and the third is the torso and head.
And characterization could be done by introducing each bot one at a time as Starscream awakens each one. Then when they gather together have them merge together to start kicking the 'bots around.
A three 'con Devastator would result in a decently sized robot, while leaving room in the movie for other cons *cough*soundwaveandminions*cough* and characterization for all involved. Or at least imo.
Didn't the producers already claim they were looking for ways to bring in the Dinobots and Constructicons? I think there's a chance they WILL be in the sequel.
As for the argument of "focus on individual characters," after how much screen time the Decepticons got in the first movie, do you honestly expect them to have personalities in the second movie? I dont, so I say if you're gonna go for visual flair over personality, then go all the friggin way.
Before the movie came out and its supporters were saying to its haters "havent you waited 20 years to see real life Transformers?" My answer to that question was "no, not particularly," but I would LOVE to see Devastator combining on the big screen, towering over everyone else. That would be THE money shot.
I would rather have the Dinobots myself. I was never a huge fan of the Constructicons.
I think the producers are looking for fan favorite characters to put in the next film as long as they make sense and can do them justice.
That's a viable idea as well. Honestly though, after the first movie, I'm not expecting the Decepticons to get any major characterization outside of one or two characters. Let's face it... most of them were cannon fodder.
Still, Constructicons would be awesome if we're just going for a visual.
Separate names with a comma.