TF Views

Yeah, I mostly agree with you. *But* my point is that, for the purposes of that scene itself, the intent is that Skywarp Kills Thundercracker.

Obviously it was Skywarp's intent to kill the 'traitor' but with out seeing anything beyond his weapon going off... It implies Skywarp shot Thundercracker, but with out actually see it, the intent of the scene leaves it open to debate. We simply don't know what happened to Thundercracker for sure.

Yet. We've still got Coda, so there's no use jumping the gun and assuming things.

Plus, even though this is comic books, IDW has generally been good about dead characters staying dead. We haven't seen Outback show up yet, after all.

Onslaught Six wrote:Yet. We've still got Coda, so there's no use jumping the gun and assuming things.

That's actually kinda what I'm saying. We can't assume Thundercracker is dead based on what they show (or lack there of) in AHM. And again, Coda was only added afterwords mainly to bridge gaps AHM caused in the continuity.

Plus, even though this is comic books, IDW has generally been good about dead characters staying dead. We haven't seen Outback show up yet, after all.

And in that case we actually saw Outback's body to confirm he was dead. We don't see anything with Thundercracker, not even if Skywarp actually hit him.

When Prowl was talking about the intent of the panel, I am pretty sure he meant "intent of the writer and artist", not the characters in the panel.

I am going to guess Thundercracker is dead, if only based on the context of the panel, rather than assume a bad genre cliche'.

Y'know what's interesting? Skywarp's actions parallel Ironhide's thrashing of Mirage half a series ago. But Skywarp's attack on Thundercracker doesn't come across nearly as shocking as what Ironhide did, mainly because we kind of *expect* this sort of thing from the 'Cons. Which might've been the entire point. Christ I love this series.

Dominic wrote:When Prowl was talking about the intent of the panel, I am pretty sure he meant "intent of the writer and artist", not the characters in the panel.

I am going to guess Thundercracker is dead, if only based on the context of the panel, rather than assume a bad genre cliche'.

Seems to me the intent of the writer/artist is to leave it wide open for someone else to fill in the blank given the lack of actually showing anything.

I am pretty sure McCarthy did not intend for us to fill-in a way TC could have survived. Not every act of violence needs to be shown in graphic detail.



I disagree with Prowl. Skywarp killing Thundercracker was less shocking than Ironhide beating Mirsge, but not because Skywarp is a bad guy. Skywarp did have grounds to shoot Thundercracker. Operationally, Thundercracker did betray the Decepticons.

Thundercracker was right about Megatron deviating from (publicly stated) principles. But, operationally, he deviated from the Decepticons in the middle of a fight.

Dominic wrote:I am pretty sure McCarthy did not intend for us to fill-in a way TC could have survived. Not every act of violence needs to be shown in graphic detail.

Just showing us Skywarp's weapon discharging isn't enough. We don't need to see all the detail's but this is an ambiguous ending at best. Shows often use this exact type of a thing for cliffhangers... The gun goes off and you're left wondering for 3 months what happens to the character. So until they actually confirm what happened to Thundercracker, I see it as still being wide open.

Yes, it is entirely open for other writers to explore--much in the same way that Kup eventually getting better was open for other writers to explore. But until AHM, we were led to assume that Kup was wasted Forever.