All Hail Megatron Discussion thread

[Shockwave]

My perspective is less valid when I can barely articulate it myself.

Meh, I understood it so it's valid to me.

I blame the fact that my girlfriend's father just passed away, and I'm condolencing her from two hours away. (Well, she's actually taking it rather well, but that's a different story. My girlfriend is crazy and I love it.)

You're consoling from range. And apparently succeeding, so kudos on that. I tried consoling my last gf in person after losing both her grandma and her dog and it didn't go well. Ok, it actually didn't go well because there were a lot of other issues not relating to either the grandma or the dog, but that's a story for another day.

[Sparky Prime]

This is largely what I mean by a book needing to have an idea. For example, a story about a near immortal robot, (as I assume Robo can still die under the right circumstances), can show the robot adapating (or not) through history, and even get into why the robot adapts or not. At a basic level, yesterday's hero might be today's menace. At a more advanced level, the writer could try to address how and why this would happen.

You realize how the character adapts would be part of their characterization right? That isn't an "idea" the writer is trying to get across, it's part of the elements of writing any story.

But, it should be less about characterization and more about the idea. The writer uses the character to say what needs to be said. But, they are not saying something as a reason to use the character. Frankly, I do not care about Optimus Prime, or Megatron, or Sunstreaker. I care if a writer has something to say and happens to use them.

Wow. It's no wonder you judge so many good stories so negatively with that kind of standard. But if you don't care about the characters, why should you care about anything that happens to them? Why should you care about the writer using those characters for anything? Why should you care about the story at all? And once again, you're implying that the writer is preaching some message, and that isn't a necessary component to tell an entertaining/interesting story.

Skywarp is civil. But, he also gives the impression that he is kind of sneaking off to see Ramjet, (as being seen with ol's RJ might not be such a hot idea). Skywarp even points out that RJ is in the dog-house after "the incident". And, Skywarp is chuckling along with everybody else on the last page.

Skywarp is civil. Interesting for being the guy who shoots Thundercracker for doing the honorable thing. And I still don't see how this equates to "everybody hates Ramjet" when, again, it seems that Skywap was going out of his way to warn him not to cross Megatron. If anything, the others might be avoiding Ramjet because they know he's up to something and want to avoid Megatron's wrath by not associating with him. But again, that doesn't mean everyone hates him.

How stupid are we assuming the Decepticons are? If Megatron says, "okay guys, lets uh, randomly split up.... Me and all the guys who I can trust are going ....uh.....to the story, yeah, that works....and Starscream and his guys can stay here, and um.....well, just wait here. Be right back!", before a bomb falls, a few of the suriviving Decepticons are likely to figure out something was up. This would not boost morale unless all of the guys Megatron takes with him are *reallY* stupid.

It might work if Megatron said "Okay, everybody, lets all go for a walk/fly away from the city for a bit. Meet back here for dinner in about 8 hours." Then, after everybody leaves, the bomb falls. Megatron could then say, "Wow. Can you believe they tried to do that to us? Lets get 'em."

You still aren't taking all factors into account. If Megatron were to order a "retreat and regroup", who do you think would be following him? Those rebelling against him or those that are staying loyal to him? Also, keep in mind who was leading the rebellion. Do you think Starscream, with his ego, could pass up the opportunity to gloat about forcing the mighty Megatron to pull back? As for the surviving Decepticons, again, they'd still be under the impression the humans were behind it. There's no reason for them to suspect Megatron was behind it in that scenario.

[Onslaught Six]

You're consoling from range. And apparently succeeding, so kudos on that. I tried consoling my last gf in person after losing both her grandma and her dog and it didn't go well. Ok, it actually didn't go well because there were a lot of other issues not relating to either the grandma or the dog, but that's a story for another day.

Like I said, it's moreover that her relationship with her father wasn't that great to begin with.

[Dominic]

So you'd rather read something that sucks with a point than something that's good that's just fun?

But what is good? Are fictional characters really that interesting unto themselves? I get *very* bored very quickly with "and then this happens" type stories.

And, there is a huge difference between recognizing/understanding a point and agreeing with it. Grant Morrison is a good example of this principle. I can see what he is saying in "Final Crisis", but as he is in a position to do something about bad comics, he should do more than write a performance complaint.

My perspective is less valid when I can barely articulate it myself.

I can see what O6 is saying. If he can barely articulate an idea, how well does he understand it? And, even if he understands the idea, it is still only as useful as he can make it by distributing it.

You realize how the character adapts would be part of their characterization right? That isn't an "idea" the writer is trying to get across, it's part of the elements of writing any story.

But, the point of having the character adapt and change should not be to showcase their characterization. it should be to illustrate what they are adapating/changing in response to.

A character has to be defined in order to be useful. But, the character should never be the reason for the story.

But if you don't care about the characters, why should you care about anything that happens to them? Why should you care about the writer using those characters for anything? Why should you care about the story at all?

I do not care what happens to the characters beyond it impacting how useful they are.

I care if the writer has something interesting/intelligent to say. And, again, it is not a question of wanting the writer to preach. I want the writer to demonstrate that they understand something and are worth reading.

Skywarp is civil. Interesting for being the guy who shoots Thundercracker for doing the honorable thing. And I still don't see how this equates to "everybody hates Ramjet" when, again, it seems that Skywap was going out of his way to warn him not to cross Megatron. If anything, the others might be avoiding Ramjet because they know he's up to something and want to avoid Megatron's wrath by not associating with him. But again, that doesn't mean everyone hates him.

"Hate" might be a strong word. But, as you point out, nobody wants to be seen with Ramjet, nor do they like him enough to chance it.

There is nothing odd about Skywarp's behavior. With Ramjet, he is basically being civil to a guy he has presumably worked with in the past. The warning is just courtesy. In the case of Thundercracker, Skywarp is reactiong to a guy who just broke ranks. Skywarp is not a thinker. He can understand why/what Ramjet is trying to do. (Taking power makes sense for Skywarp.) But, Skywarp is not going to see/understand that Megatron's actions and words do not match.

When Thundercracker made a moral decision to stop the bomb from falling, the higher reasons were lost on Skywarp. He just saw, and understood, Thundercracker undermining the boss' plans.


Dom
-hopes Morrison does not take over "Transformers".

[Onslaught Six]

I can see what O6 is saying. If he can barely articulate an idea, how well does he understand it? And, even if he understands the idea, it is still only as useful as he can make it by distributing it.

Interestingly, that brings up a point about...a writer having something to say! Looking back, several of my recent posts are mostly posts for the sake of posting. "Okay, they said something, now it's my turn to--even though right now I don't have anything to really add or argue because of other matters."

And then this happens.

A character has to be defined in order to be useful. But, the character should never be the reason for the story.

Indeed. Going back to Atomic Robo, it more has stories for the sake of exploiting historical elements or having really cool things happen. In one issue in the first TPB, Robo fights giant radioactive ants. The reason the giant radioactive ants are there, from a meta perspective, is mostly so Robo can crack a joke about how "You can't have giant ants. They'd crush themselves." (This is actually a recurring theme--someone will postulate something that sounds vaguely reasonable in soft sci-fi comic terms, such as giant radioactive ants, and Robo points out how this isn't 'possible' by any stretch of logic or real science. And yet, there they are! Giant radioactive ants!)

I care if the writer has something interesting/intelligent to say. And, again, it is not a question of wanting the writer to preach. I want the writer to demonstrate that they understand something and are worth reading.

I've been listening to the new album by The Protomen, and also the first one they did, a whole lot recently, and it's got a lot of themery and points buried in it. Sure, it's a rock opera about Mega Man, but there's important stuff in there.

The important thing Dom is trying to get at--you should always be asking Why when you read a story. "Why is Spiderman doing that?" And the writer should answer, "Because of this," and then you go, "Oh, well, okay then."

In the case of Thundercracker, Skywarp is reactiong to a guy who just broke ranks.

Not just any guy, but Thundercracker, his big brother role model. (Several bits in AHM edge towards this.)

When Thundercracker made a moral decision to stop the bomb from falling, the higher reasons were lost on Skywarp. He just saw, and understood, Thundercracker undermining the boss' plans.

As above, I don't think it's just that. I don't think Skywarp would have had as strong reaction if, say, Astrotrain had stopped the bomb. Skywarp idealizes Megatron and everything he (supposedly) stands for--the Decepticons *are* Megatron to Skywarp. Thundercracker, his brother and role model, is going against Megatron, and that pushes him over the edge.

[Shockwave]

So you'd rather read something that sucks with a point than something that's good that's just fun?

But what is good?

Oh, no we're not going there. Nice try though. "Good" is subjective to everyone individually and one person cannot define what another deems as "good". Besides, that didn't answer my question.

Are fictional characters really that interesting unto themselves?

Yes. At least they should be. And if they're not then the story isn't worth reading. It's ALL about the characters. I don't really care what "point" writers are trying to make, I care about the characters.

I get *very* bored very quickly with "and then this happens" type stories.

What? I don't understand this. "And then this happens" is pretty much the definition of plot.

And, there is a huge difference between recognizing/understanding a point and agreeing with it.

True. I can usually recognize and understand a point when it's presented even though it's not the reason I'm reading the story. If there is a message behind a story that's the icing on the cake. It's not the cake itself.

You realize how the character adapts would be part of their characterization right? That isn't an "idea" the writer is trying to get across, it's part of the elements of writing any story.

But, the point of having the character adapt and change should not be to showcase their characterization. it should be to illustrate what they are adapating/changing in response to.

A character has to be defined in order to be useful. But, the character should never be the reason for the story.

No, the plot should be the reason for the story and it should be something fun and entertaining and interesting first and foremost. If there's a point to it as well, great but that shouldn't be the reason for the story either.

But if you don't care about the characters, why should you care about anything that happens to them? Why should you care about the writer using those characters for anything? Why should you care about the story at all?

I do not care what happens to the characters beyond it impacting how useful they are.

I care if the writer has something interesting/intelligent to say. And, again, it is not a question of wanting the writer to preach. I want the writer to demonstrate that they understand something and are worth reading.

We're using the term "preach" not in the pulpit sense but to define the writer simply writing to get some larger "point" across. See, I get extremely irritated by stories that are simply using characters to preach some larger point. Especially since, MOST of the time (there are exceptions) the characters used wind up doing things that are out of character just for the sole purpose of serving the writer's point. I'm not interested in what a writer has to say, I'm interested in seeing interesting characters do interesting things. And those characters have to stay in character or the story doesn't work on any level.

Dom
-hopes Morrison does not take over "Transformers".

Shockwave
-hopes this too if it means he's just going to use the characters to make a point.

[Sparky Prime]

But, the point of having the character adapt and change should not be to showcase their characterization. it should be to illustrate what they are adapating/changing in response to.

A character has to be defined in order to be useful. But, the character should never be the reason for the story.

Characterization is but one element to telling a story. Obviously the characters are going to be changing/adapting based on what happens to them according to the plot of the story.

To define a character you have to characterize them, giving them back story, both elements of how to tell a story. And I never said the character should be the reason for the story, again, writing involves many elements in which characters are just a part of a larger whole.

And as Shockwave points out, the writers "idea" (if they include one) shouldn't be the reason for the story either. It too should be just a part of a greater whole.

I do not care what happens to the characters beyond it impacting how useful they are.

I care if the writer has something interesting/intelligent to say. And, again, it is not a question of wanting the writer to preach. I want the writer to demonstrate that they understand something and are worth reading.

Characters are supposed to be more that just something that impacts usefulness. The story/plot happens to them and sometimes they drive the story. Characters aren't just useful, they are essential.

Again again, the way you word this makes it sound like you want the writer preaching some underlying message. As Shockwave puts it, we're using the term "preach" here to convey the idea that the writer has some point they want to get across. More or less a moral to the story. And again, I say that isn't necessary for a good story. Like Shockwave, what makes something worth reading to me is an interesting/entertaining story. It's the story elements that need to be well constructed, not the "idea" the writer has to say.

The important thing Dom is trying to get at--you should always be asking Why when you read a story.

No, what Dom has been talking about is what the writer has to "say", that they "demonstrate that they understand something". The "why" is something else altogether. The why is part of the story itself, not what the writer is saying.

"Hate" might be a strong word. But, as you point out, nobody wants to be seen with Ramjet, nor do they like him enough to chance it.

Again, knowing Ramjet was up to something and not wanting to risk sharing his fate by association don't mean they don't like Ramjet. It just means they are smart enough to know Ramjet's plans aren't going to work and care for their own Spark's enough not to throw them away.

There is nothing odd about Skywarp's behavior.

I don't agree. He's "civil" enough in one situation to warn Ramjet not to go behind Megatron's back with a plan to knock him off, but lets him carry out the plan anyway, in which Megatron deals with Ramjet himself. But when Thundercracker diverts a nuke for Decepticon honor, Skywarp doesn't even allow him a chance to explain, shooting him point blank himself. This is a huge contrast in reactions for Skywarp.

[Dominic]

Onslaught already explained the Thundercracker thing. Skywarp's gut reaction was more powerful in that case. And, his question about why something happens in a story was a question of "why is it important beyond the story?", not to the story.

I agree that having the characters be too fluid is a bad thing. (See my rant about "Identity Crisis" in the comics thread.) That also diminishes their use. That god-awful Batman story where Leslie Thompkins lets a kid die to teach Batman a lesson is a good example. (Later retcons aside, I cannot understand how that one got published.)

But, is it reasonable to care about characters as ends unto themselves?


Dom
-is pretty sure Morrison's point would that TFs suck.

[Sparky Prime]

Onslaught already explained the Thundercracker thing. Skywarp's gut reaction was more powerful in that case. And, his question about why something happens in a story was a question of "why is it important beyond the story?", not to the story.

And I still don't agree... If Skywarp really sees Thundercracker as a 'big brother' type role, then why wouldn't he wait for Thundercracker to at least try to explain himself first? Seems to me that's a justification for making it a "why would you betray us brother?!" type moment. Instead he just accuses him of betrayal and blasts him. Not a very "civil" nor "brotherly" reaction, even assuming he was "pushed to the edge". Again, Skywarp went out of his way to warn Ramjet not to betray Megatron, only to allow him to continue his plans anyway. I don't see the situation with Thundercracker being that much different. So again, it seems off character that Skywarp wouldn't give Thundercracker a chance first. As for O6's comment, based on the example he used, it was more along the lines of "why did this happen in the story", not "why is this important beyond the story".

But, is it reasonable to care about characters as ends unto themselves?

I don't see why not. I'm sure there are plenty of people who read stories specifically for the character(s) they care about, regardless of any other factors.

[Shockwave]

I don't see why not. I'm sure there are plenty of people who read stories specifically for the character(s) they care about, regardless of any other factors.

Well, to a point. My comic shop has reported that there are people that will go in and buy absolutely anything with Wolverine on it just because it has Wolverine on it, even if he's not in the story. Now, I've never cared about a character that much. Even Shockwave. I like Shockwave because of what's been done with the character and how he's been established over the years. But I wouldn't go see ROTF just because I heard Shockwave shows up as an easter egg on a newspaper.