All Hail Megatron Discussion thread

[Onslaught Six]

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.

No closure is shit like a guy randomly appearing, who happens to look like a guy who died in the last movie, has no dialogue, and has no explanation, and then dying. No closure is a group of robots who happen to look exactly like another group of robots who are doing something else over there. No closure is Prime shooting the MacGuffin that was supposedly really really important and then never mentioning it again. No closure is not explaining what the FUCK was up with Fallen's face.

In contrast, Skywarp holding his armguns to Thundercracker's head and then a shot of the guns 'exploding' is much less ambiguous.

For another example, let's throw out TFTM. Ironhide's all crippled, and he grabs Megs's leg and is all NOOOOO and Megs is all Such Heroic Nonsense and then he shoots him in the face. We never see Ironhide's body. Nobody ever mentions that he's dead. Nobody says anything. All that's there is the ending scream from Instruments of Destruction. But Ironhide is still dead.

[Sparky Prime]

No closure is shit like a guy randomly appearing, who happens to look like a guy who died in the last movie, has no dialogue, and has no explanation, and then dying. No closure is a group of robots who happen to look exactly like another group of robots who are doing something else over there. No closure is Prime shooting the MacGuffin that was supposedly really really important and then never mentioning it again. No closure is not explaining what the FUCK was up with Fallen's face.

Characters that happen to look the same as other characters with no explanation is hardly an example of a lack of closure or is anything new to Transformers. The various Seeker and Reflector clones that randomly appear in G1 for example. At least here we do see more Decepticons arriving on Earth to explain their presence. Beyond that, they're just characters that happen to look the same.

I'd agree, they should have given closure to the Matrix.

What about the Fallen's face? That was just supposed to be a cool scene of Prime killing the bad guy.

And what's any of this got to do with the lack of closure in AHM?

For another example, let's throw out TFTM. Ironhide's all crippled, and he grabs Megs's leg and is all NOOOOO and Megs is all Such Heroic Nonsense and then he shoots him in the face. We never see Ironhide's body. Nobody ever mentions that he's dead. Nobody says anything. All that's there is the ending scream from Instruments of Destruction. But Ironhide is still dead.

That's a completely different situation. There, we quite graphically saw the Decepticons shooting those Autobots several times and killing them. Then Ironhide, badly damaged, barely hanging on, using the last of his strength to grab Megatron's leg in a last feeble attempt to fight back gets shot point blank by Megatron. The Decepticons then travel unabated to Earth. There is no question in that scene that none of those Autobots survived.

Thundercracker's situation on the other hand, we see that he isn't badly damaged. In fact, he appears to be in peek condition. Then he apparently gets shot point blank in the head (hard to say since we don't actually ever see him get shot), something we've seen isn't necessarily fatal to Transformers in the first place but we get absolutely no indication of the level of damaged caused to Thundercracker either way, let alone if the one shot killed him.

[donosaur]

Thundercracker gave Skywarp his face?

[Dominic]

And, you think Thundercracker being shot in the face/head would not be messy along the lines of what happened to Brawn and co on the shuttle in TFTM?

By that logic, Brawn and Prowl are still allive because we never see their bodies completely destroyed? (Yes, I know animation mistakes give grounds to assume everybody on the shuttle, and one or two guys from Autobot City, survived. But, that is another set of questions.)

Along similar lines, by that same logic, Thundercracker is dead because McCarthy did not use the genre cliche of showing a battered Thundercracker, lying where ever he would have landed, coughing and swearing "rrrreeeevenge" on Skywarp.


We know that the intent of the character firing the gun, (Skywarp), was to kill the other guy (Thundercracker). Given the tone, theme, and direction of the story, why is it so difficult to simply infer (sans "nnnnnooooooo" reaction shots) that Thundercracker is dead? Why assune that he survived?

Are the worse elements of the genre now demanded in TF?

Dom

[Sparky Prime]

And, you think Thundercracker being shot in the face/head would not be messy along the lines of what happened to Brawn and co on the shuttle in TFTM?

I never said it wouldn't be messy, what I'm said is that Brawn and co weren't killed that easily. They were hit by several shots before they went down.

We know that the intent of the character firing the gun, (Skywarp), was to kill the other guy (Thundercracker). Given the tone, theme, and direction of the story, why is it so difficult to simply infer (sans "nnnnnooooooo" reaction shots) that Thundercracker is dead? Why assune that he survived?

Are the worse elements of the genre now demanded in TF?

You make a simple suggestion... Look all I'm saying is that we shouldn't just jump to the conclusion he's dead based on what little they show. Granted, the scene does imply he's dead, but it also leaves open a possible window that he isn't.

[Dominic]

Monetizing the damage, (shot several times at some range v/s once in the face point-blank, before falling some distance), is tough.

And, yes, there is a chance that Thundercracker could comeback. The most likely path back would be through some incredibly badly written story. Even having a body with clearly depicted trauma is not an obstacle to returning. Norman Osborne has died terribly at least twice. The Spider-Clone (later Ben Reilly) was incinerated post-morten in the 70s.

After the end of "Countdown", I have to admit that there is no character who can never, ever, ever come back. (Jason Todd and Bucky Barnes were bad enough. But, Barry Allen's return effectively renders *all* events in all of the Big 2''s comics meaningless in context, and does not help much out of context)

But, neither IDW as a company nor McCarthy as a writer have given me cause to set the bar that low. I am willing to assume they will not use bad "he is not really dead, just asleep" cliches.

So, yeah, somebody being shot in the face=sensibly reached conclusion that somebody is dead.

[Sparky Prime]

So, yeah, somebody being shot in the face=sensibly reached conclusion that somebody is dead.

No, these are robots we're talking about here and we've seen through IDW's comics that they can survive a great deal of physical damage (Kup for example). Heck, Megatron in this same issue gets a sniper hit directly to the forehead. Granted it isn't point blank, but still... Just getting shot in the head does not automatically mean death to a Transformer.

[Dominic]

In context, any number of things could explain differences in injuries that TFs sustain.

In real terms, context and writer intent are important. And, based on those factors, why not just assume Thundercracker is dead? Is it really soooooo important that the character survive?

Dom
-well, at least nobody is saying "hunter 0n10n iz ahlyv!!!111!!!!"

[Onslaught Six]

hay guys i think hunter ohneon is a cool guy, eh is a headmaster and doesn't afraid of anything

[Dominic]

Conbutticons am teh suk.

Dom
-oh, so you wanna play?