Shane McCarthy interview

[Sparky Prime]

The focus of the shot is Skywarp (and his killing), not Thundercracker (and his dying). Skywarp is the focus of the closure. Thundercracker is just there to die for it.

Seeing a gun go off is not closure or a true indication of a character actually being killed, just the implications. With out actually seeing anything beyond the gun going off, it's left open and ambiguous.

[donosaur]

The focus of the shot is Skywarp (and his killing), not Thundercracker (and his dying). Skywarp is the focus of the closure. Thundercracker is just there to die for it.

Man, that totally counters my point in the other thread. Post this there, too.

[Onslaught Six]

I think Dom meant to and just messed up, since there was no active discussion on that point in this thread.

Also, has anyone thought to contact McCarthy about it? He seems open enough to discuss this kind of thing with a simple "Yes, Thundercracker is dead," or "No, he probably could have survived."

[Dominic]

Erg. I know he gives his contact info in the video, which I cannot justify watching as I am at work, and there are clients around. (Mind you, none are mine, and I have nothing to do. But, ya know....)

Dom

[Onslaught Six]

It's bound to be around his site. Which I just found by looking at his Twitter.
http://www.smactalk.com.au/

(And just for S&Gs, I went ahead and asked via Twitter, too.)

[Dominic]

Wow, an actual use for Twitter.

Dom

[Onslaught Six]

http://twitter.com/Shane_McCarthy/status/2566734242

The question asked was, of course, "Is Thundercracker dead now?"

I'm guessing the ambiguous answer is either a "I intended him to be dead, but I dunno how the future writers are going to treat that," or "I do know how the future writers are going to treat that, and I can't tell you yet."

[Sparky Prime]

Looks like his answer was "His fate is now out of my hands..." Which is seemingly suggesting it was meant to be ambiguous for a future writer to decide if he's dead or not.

[138 Scourge]

Pffht. Whutevah, Skywarp, Starscream, Thundercracker, and a few other dudes have all been dead since Transformers #19. And boy howdy did they ever stay that way. I'll never forget when Grimlock was killed and stayed dead in Transformers #50. Let's not forget how the hell dead Optimus Prime stayed after the movie. Man, was he ever so dead. Blitzwing, too, saw the body, don't know how he's showed up anywhere else.

So Thundercracker's as dead as the next comic you read with him in it says he is. For real, why the debate here?

[Dominic]

I am just hoping the post-AHM TF comics have a bit more thought put into them, and manage to avoid bad cliches like temporary death.
Granted, tempoary death is more forgivable in idea based stories. But, AHM is anomalous in being idea based. The vast majority of TF stories are more event based, meaning the events depicted should stick.

Dom-hopes McCarthy meant, "I could not bring him back even if I wanted to because he is fucking dead!"