In G1, if real shops were used, would it stop the safety of good's (the Autobot's) waiting for trouble science?

 

I'll enhance the question: would the Autobot's presumption, of moral meaning of waiting for trouble be put under scrutiny, were the show to have used real shop logos, in the town's and city's areas?

 

Is it just me, because English is not my native language, or does the question not make any sense? I know what the words mean, but in this order and context I don't get what the question is

 

It's not just you. I am more convinced than ever that this is some sort of performance art piece/troll job because these posts and threads are getting progressively more incoherent as time goes on. And I choose to believe that someone earnestly committing to this sort of trumped up faux philosophical/intellectual bent as a means of trying to look and sound smart would at least be smart enough to recognize when their word salad commentary halfway approximates real deep thoughts and when it's just big, fancy word-of-the-day-calendar terms tossed together because "big words = smrt"

This thread, more than any of his previous efforts, is absolutely the latter.

 

Lets try to break this thing down piece by piece:

ok. The G1 era. Got it.

Now here's where I start getting confused. What exactly is meant by "shops"? I mean. I definitely understand what the word means, but what does it mean in this question?

And now I'm just 100% lost.

 

Based on his second post, maybe he asks if the morality of Autobots waiting/looking for trouble be questioned irl if real shop logos were used in towns/cities in the show instead, presumably because it would root the cartoon world in reality more? Because fake logos distance the show's world further from reality?

This is the best I could come up with. But yeah he is probably just trolling.

 

I have no idea how unsolicited product placement would dilute the morality of the Autobots.

 

Actually, you hit the nail right on the head, when saying about fake logos distancing the show's world further.

The science, presumably, behind this nature, is the disintegration of the macro fictional universe's mother nature uniformity

 

Are you just pressing the middle button of the word prediction in your phones keyboard? Or are you using Google Translate? DeepL works a lot better for translations.

 

The problem is, if they wrote the Autobots as going out looking for Decepticons, whether they're hunting in Silicon Valley or at Amazon HQ or at CERN or in fictional locations, they have a harder time portraying the Autobots as peaceful. Now they're behaving like an army. It's not realistic for one side of a conflict to just sit around waiting for their antagonists to pop up and cause trouble, but as a cartoon aimed at kids, particularly American kids, they were trying to present a very simplistic perspective that kids would connect with. Officially, our position is that we won't attack unless our enemies attack us first (of course as more knowledgeable adults we know there's a lot more going on that we're never aware of), and that's mirrored in the Autobots' behavior.

Even so we'd occasionally get real-world locations (the Soviet Union in Prime Target, Istanbul in Trans-Europe Express, New York in City of Steel, Washington DC in Atlantis Arise, Burma in the premiere, I'm sure there are others) but featuring real-world companies in the cartoon would require permissions and probable portrayal requests (even now a lot of car companies don't want their cars to be bad guys), and it wasn't worth it.

 

You sir, have managed to take a giant mound of bullshit & craft it into an actual discussion. You are truly a wizard.  

To your point, this is why episodes like “The Agenda” stand out, because for the first time in like 40 episodes, the Maximals went on the offensive (but it took Ravage’s appearance to make it happen, so the aggression can still be chalked up partially to a bad guy). We’ve gotten more of the good guys making the first move since then, but it’s still kind of a rarity.

 

Absolutely

 

The invocation, of reality companies (Amazon HQ, CERN, Silicon Valley) induced in my mind the inability to imagine the pattern of the cartoon. So from this perspective, the question works.
Indeed however: you make a very valid point, about kids needing the absence of the pre-emptive strike reality logic, although, that being said, tremors in my memory are about the notion that Autobots were depicted as being occasionally on the look out; even if the Deceptions weren't the target, of the occasion, the intrinsic effect is solid anyway: the macro ideology, of the absence logic required for kids gets disintegrated.

 

Translation to normal:

'I can't make the pattern the cartoons followed fit with a setting with the real companies you mentioned. So, as I see it, my question stands.
You make a good point however, about there being a desire to not show the heroes as aggressors to kids, even if that might be a better strategic approach. That being said, I'm remembering that sometimes the Autobots were sometimes on the lookout, even if the Decepticons weren't a direct target at that moment. So the overall effect remains, that even when the Decepticons weren't around, kids didn't see the Autobots 'at peace', they were still in a war.'


Ultimately, we've seen that real companies don't want their IPs associated with Transforming 'war toys', so we can infer that having more real world ties in the livery of giant robots duking it out is at least perceived to make their conflict more 'realistic' to the audience, and that this is negative to the brand image at least some of those companies want to project. This isn't a big surprise to me, since a lot of real world companies make military tech (GE makes lightbulbs AND miniguns, for example), but tend not to promote the weapons and military technology in their brand identity unless it's their core.

 

  Yeah, I don't know if I've been reading too many of his posts or not, but this one seemed just coherent enough to make a slight bit of sense out of.

Anyway, contrast the G1 cartoon with the opening scene of Revenge of the Fallen, which is exactly the Autobots going out hunting for Decepticons in hiding, and see the incongruity it created for fans. Optimus Prime straight-up executes Demolishor as he lies (dying?) on the expressway, and it was endless comments of "Optimus wasn't like this in the cartoon"/"Autobots shouldn't act this way." But the live-action films were trying to present a more realistic picture of the war, and in reality the Autobots absolutely would act this way (as for executing a fallen opponent, as an alien species we probably shouldn't try to impose our morality on them, for all we know Demolishor was already fatally wounded and Optimus was mercy-killing him; if this was Star Trek and Demolishor was a Klingon, he would absolutely insist upon being killed on the battlefield rather than being taken prisoner, so the whole "live-action Optimus is a bloodthirsty murderer" claims never fully rang true to me given the more realistic context).

 

The paraphrase quote you make, of the fan culture, was received by myself as a refreshing overwhelm; the psychological context, of this overwhelm, was the desire to hunt after the publication - the theoretical publication, related to the logistic sanity of morality being the pre-emptive trader of the capitalist society.

It's deeply ironic: the cartoon from the 80s, of the Reagan/Thatcher/Gorbochav era ideology of lassez-faire capitalism, presumably represented by the carton depiction of happy workers and professional businessmen (of course, the exception to the rule being Sean Burger), ostensibly, then, a depiction of morality being the pre-emptive striker, is in fact the user of the opposite game theory.

The long and short of it: the 80s continuity is meant to be a bastion for the pre-emptiveness logic of smart trade/smart domination, ergo Rambo and Commando films; however, as you yourself describe, the reality of the cartoons is the political advocacy of the opposite, the political of the description deriving from the show's refusal/the writer's refusal to be open with their ideological depiction.

 

It does totally come down to being an idealized perspective we present to our children of what we wish life was really like: peace, security, financial prosperity, all just magically existing without any mechanisms behind the scenes creating them. Sure, there are enemies out there, but they are invariably weaker than we are in our superior morality and technological and commercial sophistication. Even Shawn Burger's episode, in which the Decepticons "win," gets neatly undone at the end with no lasting consequences for either side, a re-imposition of a status quo eternally favorable to the "good guys."

It's a child's view of the world, aimed at children. It's disconcerting enough for us to eventually learn, as we grow up, that our peace and security and financial prosperity was built on centuries of opportunism and oppression of the less advanced, that there truly are no "good guys" and "bad guys," just different ideologies. But trying to accurately present that in a children's cartoon? Might do more harm than good.

 

Dude, in the (exceedingly) off chance you're not doing this on purpose, absolutely NO ONE can ever understand what you're trying to say. To the rest of us, it just seems like you're taking random big words and putting them together without any real thought to as to how it would sound or mean. So much so that pretty much everyone here thinks you're either some sort of strange AI or (much likelier) just trolling. Hell, even with trolls the main goal is to get a rise out of and/or anger people. All you ever do is confuse people with completely random word salad.

That being said: I don't see this thread lasting for much longer.