Scavenger = Demolisher or Demolisher = Constructicon #7?

Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by diablien, Feb 16, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. diablien

    diablien Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Posts:
    1,354
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +3
    Ebay:
    It seems fairly plausible that the renaming of the Devastator version of Demolisher to Scavenger is not a Hasbro mistake.

    I believe that Demolisher as seen in the preview and the toy we've seen is a stand-alone constructicon. He is seen in Hong Kong or where ever he is supposed to be destroying the bridge and factory, and we all have surmised that Devastator shows up in Egypt.

    I believe that Optimus and the Autobots take out Demolisher earlier on in the movie and he never becomes part of the "constructicon team" to create Devastator.

    This could also be the reason that we have heard that there are 7 constructicons, but now only have 6 that make Devastator.

    Can someone bring up the list of vehicles that were supposed to make up the Constructicons? I believe that there were two big digger vehicles listed and this would also give weight to Demolisher and Scavenger being two distinct characters in the movie.

    Sorry if this discussion all ready exists, but I didn't see one.
     
  2. REDLINE

    REDLINE longer days, plz? Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Posts:
    27,867
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    296
    Likes:
    +3
    only one "digger". you're mistaking a front-loader with a "digger" I do believe. :)  the other four are a crane, bulldozer, cement mixer, and a dump truck.
     
  3. Kenji

    Kenji Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Posts:
    267
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Likes:
    +0
    Demolisher makes up the torso of Devastator I believe. Well thats what I could see in the pictures
     
  4. Alienbot

    Alienbot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Posts:
    2,063
    News Credits:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +21
  5. Starscreamer95

    Starscreamer95 'Civil' Nintendo Fanboy

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Posts:
    9,205
    News Credits:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Likes:
    +7
    I agree with all of the above.
     
  6. Wheeljack_Prime

    Wheeljack_Prime Don't eat me

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Posts:
    11,360
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +41
    by the way, it's demolishOr
     
  7. transmetal2dinobot

    transmetal2dinobot Sub-Commander

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    Posts:
    2,788
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
    Ebay:
    fairly sure demolishor makes up the torso, but yeah, from the devastator pics we've seen i can only pick out six vehicles. unless one is the pelvis and i'm just not seeing it.
     
  8. Bottom Out

    Bottom Out Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Posts:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +0
    one is the right arm
    one is the left arm
    one is the right let
    one is the left leg
    one is the head
    and one is the body
    the last one is most likely attached to the back or combines with the torso to add connections for the two arms thats the only thing i can think of, either that or it splits into two pieces and forms shoulders/biceps for both arms
     
  9. Bottom Out

    Bottom Out Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Posts:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +0
    one is the right arm
    one is the left arm
    one is the right let
    one is the left leg
    one is the head
    and one is the body
    the last one is most likely attached to the back or combines with the torso to add connections for the two arms thats the only thing i can think of, either that or it splits into two pieces and forms shoulders/biceps for both arms
     
  10. DieMaus

    DieMaus is blawesome

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Posts:
    831
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +4
    I've gotta tell you, this Devastator situation has got me confused six ways from Sunday; I've been looking at all the different accounts and versions of the Constructicon breakdown, and for all the different theories, I still can't come to a solution. :confused: 

    Here are the three main bits of evidence we have: the TFW Insider's list from way back when:

    "O&K/Terex RH400 - Hydraulic Mining Excavator - (red)
    Caterpillar 992G - Wheel Loader - (yellow)
    Caterpillar 773B - Dump Truck - (green)
    Mack Cement Mixer - (silver/white)
    Komatsu HD465-7 - Articulated Dump Truck - (red)
    Kobelco CK2500 - Truss Crane - (yellow)
    Caterpillar D9L - Bulldozer - (beige)"


    The ILM Devastator render:

    [​IMG]

    And the Supreme Devastator giftset:

    [​IMG]

    As you can see, there's not much ambiguity about the limbs: left arm is Hightower, the yellow truss crane; right arm is Scrapper, the yellow wheel/scoop loader; left leg is Rampage, the beige-yellow bulldozer; right leg is Long Haul, the green dump truck; head is Mixmaster, the silver-white cement mixer.

    Where it gets tricky is the body. Clearly, at least part of the torso is formed by the red mining excavator, who is named either Demolishor or Scavenger. That much is obvious; we can see the RH400 markings on the ILM render's shoulder, and the schematic in the background clearly reads "Excavator - Torso". As far as the toy's concerned, that's it; the excavator forms the whole torso, and that's the end of it.

    However, that still leaves the seventh Constructicon unaccounted for, the one identified by the Insider as a red Komatsu HD465-7 articulated dump truck:

    [​IMG]

    Assuming that this vehicle is a part of the finished Devastator design, it's logical to assume that it's been incorporated into the torso, which would explain a lot; its red colour and relatively small size are most likely making it unnoticeable among the excavator parts, which is probably why Hasbro deemed it an unnecessary inclusion on the Supreme toy.

    However, this does not take into account the silhouette of the seventh vehicle on the ILM render's background:

    [​IMG]

    This confuses the hell out of me once again. Not only does the silhouette there look nothing like the articulated dump truck, it also has some semi-obscured text reading "BACK" next to it. That could simply be referring to the part of Devastator's body it forms - which would make sense - but at the same time it definitely looks like there's an "E" on the end of the word, which would suggest the full word is "BACKHOE".

    [​IMG]

    So is the seventh Constructicon a backhoe loader? True, it would contradict the Insider, who got all the rest of the vehicles exactly correct down to the make, but not only would that vehicle mode match the silhouette on the schematic a lot better, it would also seem like a pretty comfortable fit for the name Scavenger...

    Like I said, I still don't have any answers to this. Are there six or seven Constructicons? What are they? Who's Demolishor? Who's Scavenger? Will they be in the film? Will they get individual toys if they're not in the giftset?

    If this all turns out to be part of the misinformation campaign, then let me tell you: mission accomplished. :drunk 
     
  11. diablien

    diablien Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Posts:
    1,354
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +3
    Ebay:
    I know how many parts make up Devastator.

    What I am saying is that I don't think Demolisher is part of devastator. The molds are quite different. The devastator digger has the treads completely under the upper section, while the demolishor mold has the treads hanging outside of the upper section. This could just be due to the different needs of the transformation of the toys instead of a realistic representation of the vehicles. If this were true, it would mean that the "scavenger" digger is much larger in size than demolishor.

    The fact that they are both the maroon color leads the debate more towards the side that they are both the same character. Considering that the official images given to tfw and seibertron by Hasbro had names on each file, and one was scavenger while they other was demolishor would lend itself to mean that they are separate.

    I don't think a mistake in naming between two characters would happen at this point in Hasbro's involvement with the movie. The only problem like this before was Brawl / Devastator and that was the movie staff's mistake, not the toys.

    There is no concrete evidence to the say that these aren't too separate characters other than assumption. I could definitely be proven wrong in the near future, but for now it is definitely a possibility.
     
  12. diablien

    diablien Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Posts:
    1,354
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +3
    Ebay:
    whoa. You're right there is a 7th silhouette... but I think it's fairly safe to assume that there are only the 6 currently featured vehicles that make up Devastator.

    I don't think there is a figure missing, like a back hoe. I just don't think the guy we've seen in the trailer is actually part of devastator.
     
  13. Alienbot

    Alienbot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Posts:
    2,063
    News Credits:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +21
    There are not two Terex RH400s in the film. Now the reason I believe the toy only has six components is because it's not show accurate, and most of the 'Con names come from TFormers who assumed most of them would have their G1 names.
     
  14. Squints

    Squints Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Posts:
    577
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +0
    I like your idea because it fuels my denial...I'll explain.

    I've been excited for as long as I've known about it for the fabled super-detailed $100 Devastator set that has seven fully articulate Constructicons that transform into individual robots and combine into Devastator. The news from Toy Fair seemed to quash that idea. But if what you say is right, that means two things:

    1) I don't know how literally you meant it when you said "Supreme" Devastator, but I'm going to take it to literally be an estimation of size/price point (so take this point with a grain of salt). If indeed our "incomplete" Devastator is a Supreme and substantially under 2 feet tall in robot mode (which he appears to be, in all honesty), then he's going to cost $50 and thus not be the $100 set we've heard about.

    2) Part of what crushed my hopes was seeing how the legs attach--to the joint in Demolishor's bucket arm. I looked at the Voyager Demolishor and saw no such attachment point, and lost some hope. But if indeed there is a seventh Constructicon that fills in the torso, one who was simply omitted from the Devastator toy for cost and design reasons, then there's a chance that the (red) articulated dump truck fills in for the (also red) excavator arm that forms the Devastator toy's crotch, which in turn means that the Voyager Devastator toy doesn't need the joints on the excavator arm, which in turn means maybe it does combine into some form of Devastator. Plus, it would carry on the proud tradition of Devastator having a dump truck crotch.

    Surgeon General's Warning: Prolonged exposure to this post may lead it to seem plausible, even probable. For that reason I suggest scrolling it offscreen as soon as it is read.
     
  15. Jizz

    Jizz Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Posts:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Likes:
    +0

    Wow, your attention to detail is impressive. The 7th constructicon,....hmmm


    The problem I have is with Devestators face. Bay F'd it up again.
     
  16. shroobmaster

    shroobmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Posts:
    13,629
    News Credits:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    201
    Likes:
    +30
    He did? I find a monster face for a monster extremely fitting.

    Or did you want some 80's handsome male with red sunglasses face?
     
  17. Jizz

    Jizz Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Posts:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Likes:
    +0
    actually yes. I want the TF's to look at least close to the 80's. not some god forsaken alien monstrosity that looks ugly as sin.
     
  18. transmetal2dinobot

    transmetal2dinobot Sub-Commander

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    Posts:
    2,788
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
    Ebay:
    GEEEEEEEEWHUNNNNN
    nah, i'd like to see a more 80s style devastator. but a god forsaken alien monstrosity that looks ugly as sin is what we're getting. i want to see the actual cgi models though, rather than the promos and the toys which never do the genuine models justice.
     
  19. Fit For natalie

    Fit For natalie tfwiki nerd

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Posts:
    7,223
    News Credits:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +11
    Is it just me or the background of the Devastator render look like something that doesn't belong to the picture? Stock renders are usually presented on a white, neutral background.

    Please don't directly link off of our website :( 
     
  20. shroobmaster

    shroobmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Posts:
    13,629
    News Credits:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    201
    Likes:
    +30
    That god forsaken alien monstrosity that looks ugly as sin actualy looks menacing, which is needed for somebody called Devastator.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page