There are mammals that lay eggs too. Insects & arachnids as well. So I guess they're Mammalsecnidtile-like Machinians?
Look, while I could fairly easily pick apart most of your individual points, and will do so if pressed, it shouldn't be necessary because I think you're completely mistaking my point. I am not attacking your opinion. I am questioning the logic of the path on which you try to lead us to your opinion. To a lesser extent than you, I actually somewhat agree with your complaint about having too many generic enemies, but that's got nothing to do with what I've been trying to get across. Clearly, "hatchlings" are not a concept envisioned in Marvel or Sunbow G1. Almost as clearly it does seem to be borrowed or derived from DreamWave's ideas on protoforms, as that's where they got The Fallen in the first place. It does not logically follow, however, that because there are groups of similar or identical Decepticons, this necessarily has anything to do with whether or not the Decepticons are growing hatchlings. We can and have seen hordes of similar and identical Decepticons before now. We don't have to see them all onscreen simultaneously to know there are lots of them. We don't have any indication that they were grown in pods. How Megatron chooses to use his identical soldiers from one story to another has no necessary connection to how the soldiers were made. There is no concrete evidence in the movie that the reuse of robot and vehicle modes has anything to do with whether Decepticons are being grown in pods on the Nemesis, so using one as evidence of something about the other doesn't make a good logical statement. The topic is about "hatchlings," not troop builders, so let's try to get back on topic.
Then pick away because (A) I'd care to see how & (B) it's my feeling that you took someone's preference for an attack in general to the whole deal of Decepticon Clones and are now attempting to make it into something different since my point is crystal clear. There's nothing to "easily pick apart" without ignoring THE point being made, period. Oh, don't say that, because you were. Not in some rage filled post, but certainly you were. I note first & foremost within the topic that its all "just a Bayformers movieverse take on budding/protoform hatcheries/clone tech", then go on to state my personal opinion, putting my preference into words, and top it off by saying I don't care for the way it was done. Did I ever say there's never been protoforms, or clones, or anything of similar in Transformers media prior? No. No I certainly did not. If I did, kindly quote it specifically. As I tend to say; Quote it, don't claim it. I know, you keep coming back to that word 'logic'. Well, tell me this. When there is a film based on something and within that film there's a specific item an individual doesn't care for in the way it was implimented, is it logical for another person to begin a campaign intended to use points of the something the movie its based on as reasons why that prior individual shouldn't have any issue with said specific item at all? Because, however you may wish to push this, that's exactly what's happening here. At least we agree on the facts in that respect. Yikes. So, even though the only creation hints we've received from the movies are (A) The Allspark created Transformer life (the Primes the Fallen broke from, apparently) & (B) Decepticons grow Con Clones by the loads, seeing identical Constructicons (Cons who are quite clearly the same as one another, and have been on Earth long enough to take on Alt Modes) in multiple places during the battle and identical Generic Con Clones (newly arrived Clones grown on the Nemesis), we're to presume neither within the Bayformers universe has something to do with the other? I don't think I could take that point of view in either fictional canon sense or in a movie-making sense, and I doubt the makers did either. Yeah, I'm going to have to call you on trying to slip 'similar' & 'identical' in the same sentence. For all the similarities visually in design between Coneheads & original Seekers, they have their own designs quirks in some cases, their own voices & personalities, their own individual colors. And, yes, I'm pushing that "at the time" view again, as well as the "retroactive application is a personal choice, not a fact" line. No argument there. Clones are clones and it matters not if you wish to say one is exclusive from the other, I don't prefer the way they did it. Did I say there was? Please, enough with the setting up of strawmen to knock them down. Again, everything I'm expressing is in the point of I don't care for the way Bay used the hatchling bit & Clone fodder in RotF. You can state all the facts, implications, theories, and history you like, that does not change. There you go. Wrap it all up with a statement that because of this n'that my view is illogical, then say (after carrying on for a couple of pages) that we should get back on topic.
Apparently it was not crystal clear. Let's get to that in a moment. You said... I'm suspecting now that you perhaps chose your words poorly here. "One would like to think" generally implies that things a not as one "would like to think". The implication is stronger when that's followed by a "but..." statement, which you did. The implication there would be that you do not think that what we saw on the Nemesis is the movieverse version of, for instance, a protoform hatchery--which it seems you're now saying it is. It appears that because of your choice of words, your premise was taken for the opposite of what you meant, and our misunderstanding stems from there. Fair enough? The rest of this is probably pointless now, but whatever... It's not, I assure you. What was happening here was my saying that if you're going to use G1 et al. to support your opinion (which it seems now you may not have been doing) then it needs to make sense and not be a double-standard. You're making several leaps and assumptions here. Nothing we saw on the Nemesis indicates the hatchlings are identical. Nothing indicates the new TFs we see on Earth are all hatchlings from the Nemesis. We know Starscream has been trying to grow an army there. He also tells Megatron that the "hatchlings" are dying due to lack of energon. There's no clear indication that he's been able to successfully grow an army as he intended. There's also no indication that "hatchlings" are not used in normal Transformer creation (in this universe) when not creating an army of similar robots. On any of those points, we can only speculate one way or the other until we get an official answer. Actually, that's in there because some of the Decepticons you're complaining about are themselves not identical. Grindor is a different color from Blackout. The "two Rampages" are different colors. Barricade and Sideways are only very similar and not even identical alt-modes. I'm not talking about the actual seeker characters that were given their own voices and personalities. I'm talking about the extra "filler" seekers that were used whenever they needed to fill out the Decepticon ranks on screen. The ones that have absolutely no characterization whatsoever unless someone retroactively creates one as an e-Hobby exclusive or a Classics repaint. The ones that were occasionally different colors, but usually just lavender and teal. The ones Hasbro names simply "Decepticon" in the Heroes of Cybertron line. Would it really have made you feel any better if the generic grey RoTF troops in the background had painted themselves different colors?
Granted. I will give you that particular reading of the statement. Perhaps a "just" tossed in there would have saved this headache. The implication was that one could just up & assume this was all the Bayformers brand of protoforms and Transformers reproduction, nothing especially new in function so no big deal either way on it, the 'but' statement is the item that has been read poorly, not written badly. What follows the 'but' is what explains my stance and that stance states not an iota of argument for any validity on the general existance of Protoforms, or occasional Transformer cloning methods, or Seekers, or any number of the other topics this all has managed to hit and shall hit again I'm sure. The stance states clear an expression, a personal opinion, a preference as an individual TF fan on how I dislike the manner in which and the way the movie implimented cookie cutter Constructicon masses and generic Con Clones. You then swoop in to argue that based on a lack of logic for holding that position. The rest of this ensues. Actually, it feels as though now you're making the leaps & assumptions. Sure, while RotF tried to pack in so much stuff, what is present can certainly be used to discern what the intent is of all we're shown. No Transformer seen in the movie was there or appeared as they did by accident. Each was rendered with intent. So given the passage of time, the fact there is a hatchery, the frail & dying Clone spilled from his sack and his clear color and similar design to the fully developed Clones we see in the end battlefield sequence, I certainly think we have quite a bit to gather who's a Clone and where they came from. But, fine, Megatron nor the Fallen yelled out, "Send in the Clones!" during the battle sequence, so if the lack of that doesn't allow you a difinitive enough answer, I'll drop the matter when it comes to conversations between you & I. I just tend to take what can be learned from the media itself, rather than some commentary later by, say, a writer. If the intent was meant, it should be clear onscreen. Well now, you pretty much got me there. While I never compared Barricade to Sideways, and I already covered Blackout & Grindor as I cared to, you do have a point with the add on of the Rampages. That said, another tally mark of color for an individual Con in the multitudes of Clones & such doesn't change my preference in not liking the way such items were done in the film. I realize, and I acknowledged them, and I acknowledged that point, and I used them and that point myself, and - yes - I additionally threw in those in similar design that actual got face time. We've both used those Seeker-like-generics with various colors, some with coneheads some not, et cetera, in our lines of examples. Well, yeah. That wouldn't completely eliminate my full on gripe forged in personal preference. But a different face here, a slightly different limb design there, varying weapons between the lot of them, and certainly various coloring. It gives the sense that even though these fairly similar looking Cons are Clones, there's still individuality implied, that there's at least an attempt for them not to be the entirely blatant cannon fodder they are. It adds character visually, since there are no names or conversations to be had. Though, having mentioned the word 'conversations', it does make a guy miss the banter on the battlefield, especially with the Cons. I'll give as I get every time, but I really don't think this particular back & forth is needed. I've made the best possible case that my view on the hatchling clones is a personal opinion and not based in any prior TF continuity. With all this done, can we have a truce?
