Quote:
Originally Posted by Duximus Prime  Either way, would you agree that the scene in question is an artifact of an abandoned character concept? If so, it thus cannot be taken to be canon or in-continuity with the rest of what your argument is based on. |
Yes I agree that "the scene in question is an artifact of an abandoned character concept".
But "YES" it can be taken to be canon and in-continuity.....because they gave us an out for the character.
Because theres a very simple "in story" reason for why the rest of the group are never seen again after "% faces of darkness".
They were destroyed.
Quote:
|
Even if that episode was being animated before TF '86, IIRC, that was never seen again in any other Season 3/4/HM episodes. That being said, I think the number of episodes that don't have Cyclonus clones outweighs the ones that do by a fair margin and can be taken as canon that the character's presence, at least in the cartoon and other G1-related media, was non-existant.
|
I wouldnt agree for the same reason I posted above.
Yes the "Cyclonus clones" were only seen in the series in "5 faces of darkness" but if you recall the final episode of that story you should remember that the Decepticons launched an all out assault trying to retake Cybertron.
And during that attack we can see the "Clones" in question, being fired upon....heavily.Its very likely that they didnt survive the assault.
Quote:
|
I take it you are going by the tech specs?
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
I think it is fairly common knowledge that the representation of the characters on the tech specs versus their cartoon appearance, at the very least, has a disconnect.
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
Many of the stats, especially the early ones, were created by Budiansky before the production of S1, and/or the characters were portrayed differently. I can try to find some discrepancies if you like, but I'm too lazy right now.
|
No need.I'm quit aware of the issue.
Quote:
|
I think most people would consider the Insecticons and their clones to be more minor characters than the seekers, especially given the fact that the clones were designed to be foot soldiers/fodder.
|
I disagree and no many that feel the same.
Granted the Insecticons were "in a sence" minor characters but so were the seekers in the toon.
Starscream was the only major character among them.
Quote:
The rank of Skywarp against Thundercracker as portrayed in media is debateable.However, the episode with the Ruby Crystal comes to mind where Megatron instructs TC to keep watch, and Skywarp to fly off and hunt down 'Screamer. A little flimsy of support, I know. Skywarp just feels "cooler" to me.  |
Debatable?????In the comics maybe but in the toon they never gaveany indication which of the 2 had higher rank.
And the example you gave, only indicated to me that Megatron felt Skywarp was more capable of tracking or handling Starscream.
But yes, Skywarp was way cool.
He's my fav seeker.
Quote:
|
I'm also not suggesting rank has anything to do with who Unicron chose, merely that from a parity standpoint, it makes more sense to reincarnate the higher-ranking, fan favorites into suitably high ranking, second-to-Galvatron characters.
|
But at the time whos to say was a bigger fan fav???
I know most of the friends I had at the time preferred the Insecticons to the original seekers [minus Starscream]
Quote:
|
Okay, now you're just being nitpicky.
|
Not at all.
Quote:
|
Technically Scourge is listed as a "cybertronic air skiff" on TF Wiki.
|
That listing is done in "retrospect".
Quote:
I wouldn't cal him a hovercraft either, as hovercrafts have a skirt used to direct their thrust downward for, well, hovering. Scourge's thrusters are horizontal, and he has been seen capable of atmospheric and/or interstellar flight, meaning he was doing more than just "hovering"  .
|
When the toy and character designs were created they were told to create/design a "futuristic" hover craft.
And that was in 1985.Scourge's skirt less design , horizontal thrusters and interstellar flight capabilities are all a reflection of the belief of what such a vehicle would be capable of in 20 years with the influence of an advanced alien tech.
Quote:
|
The ambiguous nature of cybertronian alt modes makes it difficult to classify him, but I think it can be said his alt mode accomplishes the same role as an 'intersteller jet,' similiar to the function of Cyclonus' alt mode..
|
I would agree, if their modes were originally going to be Cybertronic alt modes.
But neither Cyclonus,Scourge or even Blur,Kup or Hotrod were intended to be Cybertronic alt modes as their "updated" bios tend to suggest.
They were what the shows creators believed cars,planes ect, would look like in the future.
Quote:
|
It makes sense to reformat the larger jets into similar cybertronian jet alt modes .
|
As above, Scourge and Cyclonus werent cybertronian jets
Quote:
|
Glad you didn't take offense to my sometimes 'matter-of-fact' tone. |
Nahhh
I have one of those myself
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superquad7 While the identity may be part of this discussion, it's not the core discussion. They really are two separate topics.
As long as people are civil about discussing both, I, for one, certainly don't have a problem with them both being discussed here. However, one discussion is based on favorable/unfavorable opinions, while the other is more of analyzing and debating a case presented. Though there may be reasons as to why this character is popular, it's a bit less objective than "this is who he is based on these points: . . . ."  |
Kool.
