TF Views

Onslaught Six wrote: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.

As I recall, Spotlight: Kup ended with it being unknown if he could recover mentally/physically. Spotlight: Optimus Prime made mention that Kup's physical injuries had been repaired, presumably because as we find out in Spotlight: Drift, Perceptor built him a new body, but his mental state was still in question. Finally we see in Spotlight: Drift, Kup's mental state was back to the point he could return to duty, although Perceptor was still following him to make sure everything was back to normal and any other technical glitches were worked out.

Well, Spotlight: Drift is part of the AHM restructuring, so of course it's going to lay that into place.

I'm not sure what we're arguing, here. The intent is clearly for Skywarp to kill Thundercracker. Maybe that won't happen, but that is obviously McCarthy's intent, and until we see otherwise, that's what we're working with.

Onslaught Six wrote:Well, Spotlight: Drift is part of the AHM restructuring, so of course it's going to lay that into place.

As early as Spotlight: Optimus Prime we're given an indication of Kup being on the road to recovery having had his physical injuries reported as having been repaired and still working on his mental state. Spotlight: Drift just establishes when Kup was back to being fit for duty again.

I'm not sure what we're arguing, here. The intent is clearly for Skywarp to kill Thundercracker. Maybe that won't happen, but that is obviously McCarthy's intent, and until we see otherwise, that's what we're working with.

That's what I'm disagreeing with. The scene implies Skywarp kills Thundercracker, but the intent of the scene leaves that open given a lack of confirming evidence.

Mind, I'll go ahead and put it out there that, until everyone else said "Yeah, Skywarp kills Thundy," I was under the impression that Thundy could possibly survive, but would probably be horribly screwed up.

I am sticking with the intent of the scene being that TC is dead. It would be thematically consistent, and McCarthy seems to avoid having drawn out reactions, (characters declaring each-other's deaths and such).

As pointed out above, Kup's repairs were largely a function of AHM. Unless IDW's changes direction again, TC is likely to stay dead.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that when McCarthy was writing the scene, he went "Okay, and here Skywarp's gonna fly up, and get so pissed off at Thundercracker that he kills him." as opposed to "Skywarp's gonna shoot Thundercracker, but he'll survive except we won't see that until some other writer picks the story up three months later." Y'see what we're saying here, Sparky?

BWprowl wrote:Y'see what we're saying here, Sparky?

I know where you're coming from, but I just don't see McCarthy's writing being that direct. Since he ended it at "Skywarp's weapon discharges..." with out any sort of follow up to indicate "...and kills him", it seems to me McCarthy intentionally meant for it to be a little ambiguous. And even if he didn't, the scene still comes off as being fuzzy as to whether or not Thundercracker could have survived.

This is Shane McCarthy, not Grant Morrison, whose writing tends to be deliberately hard to read and frustrating. . (And, even Morrison is pretty clear on stuff like this.) AHM is neither that hard, nor frustrating to follow unless one expects/demands bad genre cliches as plot points.

If somebody is going to discharge a weapon in the direction of another's head, (and point-blank range), then it is a safe bet that they are trying (and succeeding) at shooting the other party's noggin.

I do not see how the scene is "fuzzy". Skywarp is positioned to kill Thundercracker, which he presumably intends to do. He is likely successful in this plan, unless we assume another bad cliche in the form of incredibly poor marksmanship by the bad guys. Yes, lethality in TF tends to be a bit more fluid than in other properties. But, in this case, it makes sense in context for Thundercracker to be dead. It was the end of a story, and the resolution of a sub-plot that fit in with the over-all idea of the series. So yeah, Thundercracker is dead. Where is the ambiguity in this?

(And, if post-Furman TF starts doing that too often, I am dropping the book. Mind you, that will pretty much mean I am out of comics.)

Do we really need a page of reaction shots and "nnnnnoooooooooo" from other characters to understand that a character died?

I have not read this (just the wiki and this intense thread) but it seems like the ambiguity comes from "why didn't they just show the body or something?" The shot has no closure, which doesn't mean there's any reason for him to be alive, but it does lead one to wonder.

Dominic wrote:This is Shane McCarthy, not Grant Morrison, whose writing tends to be deliberately hard to read and frustrating. . (And, even Morrison is pretty clear on stuff like this.) AHM is neither that hard, nor frustrating to follow unless one expects/demands bad genre cliches as plot points.

Not that frustrating to follow? McCarthy might not have done it deliberately but much of his writing in AHM seemed rather jumbled and lacked any sort of focus as well as explanations/follow up on many points. Something painfully obvious is that he did a terrible job addressing continuity and radically changing characters with little to no explanation. The Coda issues wouldn't have been necessary if he'd done a proper job there. And going back to the Matrix, he brings it up as a pretty big plot point, yet he didn't actually go anywhere with it or explain anything about why Megatron would want it or take it now. Optimus goes from the brink of death with Ratchet saying the procedure (that he wants help with no less) could kill him, back to giving inspirational speeches a few pages later like nothing happened. And I could go on...

Do we really need a page of reaction shots and "nnnnnoooooooooo" from other characters to understand that a character died?

Something certainly would help. Just seeing a gun go off doesn't actually tell us anything.

donosaur wrote:The shot has no closure, which doesn't mean there's any reason for him to be alive, but it does lead one to wonder.

Exactly my point.