TF Views

Jeditricks wrote:It is clear, that's why I said previously that Conan Doyle had to retcon a fantastic tale of survival by the character to bring him back. We don't "only know that from what he said", we know that from the content and context of the story. Have you read it? I re-read it about 6 months ago, it still is plainly clear what was being conveyed by the author. He intended no loopholes, he later states he wanted to be done with the character for good, there's even a letter he wrote his mother from prior expressing that very sentiment when he felt unfulfilled by merely writing the stories, and his personal diary has shown expressing the same sentiments. It took him 8 years to return to Holmes, and even then it was in pre-death flashback stories, it took a whole decade to finally retcon Holmes' death. You are actually trying to retcon history with your argument.

I have read it, and no, it isn't clear as you are suggesting it is at all. If he wanted to be done with the character, he did not have to write another story. There is no way the fans could force him to write more. Some part of him must have wanted to continue writing Holmes. I'm not trying to retcon history at all here. The proof is in the stories. Holmes explains he never went over the falls when he returns. A loophole in the story present from his death, as Watson did not see him go over, he only assumed he had. Even you aren't denying that. It wasn't so fanstastic to bring him back and really didn't retcon anything. And that is the point here, which you are trying to muddy by leaving details out or embelishing them, while trying to focus on this point Sir Doyal wanted to be done writing the character at one point in time which really doesn't matter seeing as he did continue writing it eventually anyway.

Just for the sake of completeness, here's the AHM #12 sequence followed by ONgoing #4. To me, it's a pretty seamless narrative.

If he wanted to be done with the character, he did not have to write another story. There is no way the fans could force him to write more.

Money drives people to do things they might not otherwise do.

andersonh1 wrote:Just for the sake of completeness, here's the AHM #12 sequence followed by ONgoing #4. To me, it's a pretty seamless narrative.

I completely agree with you.

Onslaught Six wrote:Money drives people to do things they might not otherwise do.

As even Jeditricks mentioned at one point, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had published some Sherlock Holmes stories during those years between "The Final Problem" and "The Return of Sherlock Holmes", obviously taking place before the events of "The Final Problem". So he didn't have to bring the character back. Where are you getting this idea money had anything to do with him continuing to write Holmes from? Because I have never seen anything so much as suggest that. The only thing I have ever seen was simply because fans kept asking him for it.

andersonh1 wrote:Just for the sake of completeness, here's the AHM #12 sequence followed by ONgoing #4. To me, it's a pretty seamless narrative.

http://tfwiki.net/mediawiki/images2/2/2 ... trayer.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img534/7982/tran ... songoi.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img707/7982/tran ... songoi.jpg

Skywarp sports a flamethrower weapon that causes Thundercracker to drop from the sky? Also, how does Skywarp have the authority to strip him of rank? And his injuries appear to all come from hitting the soft earth of the park, what up with that? Rotorstorm gets shot in the head and he dies. Rung gets shot in the head and the majority of his head gets disintegrated. Swerve looks down the barrel of a blaster and his whole face is gone. Thundercracker gets shot in head and his body catches fire. Doesn't seem particularly seamless to me. Also I hate the art in those Ongoing panels, yuck.

Honestly, at this point I think you're nitpicking a bit.

JediTricks wrote:Skywarp sports a flamethrower weapon that causes Thundercracker to drop from the sky?

Not at all. Thundercracker is burning because he's damaged badly from being shot. Maybe all that Energon that bursts from Transformers by the bucketload caught fire when he was wounded. Maybe that's his internal components burning due to being shot at close range.

Also, how does Skywarp have the authority to strip him of rank?

Who says he does? We're getting Thundercracker's subjective point of view on what happened. Megatron shot Starscream almost in half as punishment. Maybe Skywarp had the same thing in mind with Thundercracker.

By the way, isn't it strange that Skywarp participated with Thundercracker in rebelling against Megatron back in Infiltration, but now suddenly it's a betrayal to do so? Talk about hypocrisy on Skywarp's part. Obviously betrayal is a horrible thing, unless he's in on it. In which case it's A-ok.

And his injuries appear to all come from hitting the soft earth of the park, what up with that?

Now you're really reaching. He's clearly already injured as he's falling out of the sky. He certainly takes more damage when he hits the ground. Jump out of an airplane without a parachute and tell me how soft the ground is! But no, the impact is NOT the source of all his injuries.

Rotorstorm gets shot in the head and he dies. Rung gets shot in the head and the majority of his head gets disintegrated. Swerve looks down the barrel of a blaster and his whole face is gone.

I would point out that Rung and Swerve survive.

In real life, humans can get shot in the head and survive. It all depends on where they get hit and where the bullet goes. I'm not too fussed about a fictional giant robot from outer space living through a headshot. In any case, see my next point.

Thundercracker gets shot in head and his body catches fire.

Show me the piece of artwork that shows Thundercracker taking the shot in the face. It doesn't exist. Just because Skywarp was aiming at his head doesn't mean he hit it.

Doesn't seem particularly seamless to me. Also I hate the art in those Ongoing panels, yuck.

Well, valid opinion of course, but not really relevant to the narrative.

andersonh1 wrote:Honestly, at this point I think you're nitpicking a bit.

I don't think so, the whole reason we were talking about Thundercracker getting shot was to discuss the author's intention of survivability in TF comics of a headshot, remember?

JediTricks wrote:Skywarp sports a flamethrower weapon that causes Thundercracker to drop from the sky?

Not at all. Thundercracker is burning because he's damaged badly from being shot. Maybe all that Energon that bursts from Transformers by the bucketload caught fire when he was wounded. Maybe that's his internal components burning due to being shot at close range.

When he's falling, he's not showing any external damage except fire and smoke, oh and his guns have entirely disappeared. The chest and boot thrusters at least make sense to your "internal components burning" argument, but smoke is belching out of his knees, and flame is spewing from his right wing, right elevator on his boot and left palm, which is weird.

Also, how does Skywarp have the authority to strip him of rank?

Who says he does? We're getting Thundercracker's subjective point of view on what happened. Megatron shot Starscream almost in half as punishment. Maybe Skywarp had the same thing in mind with Thundercracker.

Thundercracker says it, and the last person he talked to on that or any matter was Skywarp. Megatron has rank over Starscream to punish and strip rank as he sees fit, Skywarp has no rank to do so, they are equals.

By the way, isn't it strange that Skywarp participated with Thundercracker in rebelling against Megatron back in Infiltration, but now suddenly it's a betrayal to do so? Talk about hypocrisy on Skywarp's part. Obviously betrayal is a horrible thing, unless he's in on it. In which case it's A-ok.

I'm not sure I even finished Infiltration. I started it, I remember the first issue pretty clearly and the second and third a little as well. I looked over the Wiki and didn't see a mention in Infiltration, but there is something along those lines in Escalation #2.

And his injuries appear to all come from hitting the soft earth of the park, what up with that?

Now you're really reaching. He's clearly already injured as he's falling out of the sky. He certainly takes more damage when he hits the ground. Jump out of an airplane without a parachute and tell me how soft the ground is! But no, the impact is NOT the source of all his injuries.

Look again, the panel where he's falling his body isn't all dented to hell or broken up, he's just on fire. The first panel we see extensive denting and broken parts is after he's in the earth.

And we're not flying robot aliens so your failing parachute metaphor is dubious (not to mention, some people have survived those falls) or how hard mud is to them.

Rotorstorm gets shot in the head and he dies. Rung gets shot in the head and the majority of his head gets disintegrated. Swerve looks down the barrel of a blaster and his whole face is gone.

I would point out that Rung and Swerve survive.

Not talking about the survivability in this case, I'm talking about the cause and effect issue. They get shot in the head and there's immediate physical trauma, but Thundercracker gets shot in the head and his head is intact, just dented.

Thundercracker gets shot in head and his body catches fire.

Show me the piece of artwork that shows Thundercracker taking the shot in the face. It doesn't exist. Just because Skywarp was aiming at his head doesn't mean he hit it.

First off, the gun is in his eye, not just his head but his eye - see my previous argument of "nobody fucking misses when they have a gun in your face like that" for more. And then in Ongoing 2 there, the image from Thundercracker's memory has the fire coming right at the panel in the same corresponding angle as he would have seen it from when he had a gun jammed in his face in AHM 12 with SW slightly above TC. To say he wasn't shot in the head is dishonest to the context the foundational content, hence: retcon.

Doesn't seem particularly seamless to me. Also I hate the art in those Ongoing panels, yuck.

Well, valid opinion of course, but not really relevant to the narrative.

None of this is relevant anymore to the fact that there's a ton of headshots lately that are magically survivable, and that almost nobody of importance in the IDW continuity has died and stayed dead. I mean, what's your point in all of this? That maybe Thundercracker got shot somewhere else? Doesn't really change the point that AHM 12 was suggesting Skywarp was intending to execute Thundercracker, that Thundercracker stayed off the page for a year (3 years of in-universe time), and then just stood up and shook off that whole "executed" thing.

Skywarp sports a flamethrower weapon that causes Thundercracker to drop from the sky? Also, how does Skywarp have the authority to strip him of rank? And his injuries appear to all come from hitting the soft earth of the park, what up with that? Rotorstorm gets shot in the head and he dies. Rung gets shot in the head and the majority of his head gets disintegrated. Swerve looks down the barrel of a blaster and his whole face is gone. Thundercracker gets shot in head and his body catches fire. Doesn't seem particularly seamless to me.

Getting shot by one's colleague would reasonably imply that some body is off the team.

That said, this is not "seamless" narrative. Showing the original sequence alongside the sequence that was part of the back-write is not seamless narrative. It is like trying to use an arguement (the back-write) the prove itself.

Also I hate the art in those Ongoing panels, yuck.

Shut your damned mouth.

By the way, isn't it strange that Skywarp participated with Thundercracker in rebelling against Megatron back in Infiltration, but now suddenly it's a betrayal to do so? Talk about hypocrisy on Skywarp's part. Obviously betrayal is a horrible thing, unless he's in on it. In which case it's A-ok.

Real reason: Editorial stopped caring about Furman's "ation" books and related plot points by the end of "Devastation".

Likely in fiction reason: There are different degrees of treason. Rebelling against Megatron for the purposes of advancing one's position is one thing, provided that the parties are otherwise acting consistently as Decepticons. But, betraying the Decepticons (as an organization) during battle and (arguably) undermining Decepticon principles is a much more serious issue.


Dom
-not sure how one can use a back write to support that something was not back written.

Likely in fiction reason: There are different degrees of treason. Rebelling against Megatron for the purposes of advancing one's position is one thing, provided that the parties are otherwise acting consistently as Decepticons. But, betraying the Decepticons (as an organization) during battle and (arguably) undermining Decepticon principles is a much more serious issue.

Ayup.

Shut your damned mouth.

He's not the only one. I dropped the ongoing as soon as I saw the art. Fuck, I dropped it as soon as I saw Don Fig doing it in AHM #13 or whatever.

Dominic wrote:That said, this is not "seamless" narrative. Showing the original sequence alongside the sequence that was part of the back-write is not seamless narrative. It is like trying to use an arguement (the back-write) the prove itself.

This arguement makes no sense Dom. Showing the two parts together doesn't make it a seamless narritive? How do you come to that conclusion? You're trying to claim it doesn't work because of a back-write, but that isn't any reason why it can't be seamless, given what we do and don't see between the two scenes. That said, it's only your opinion that it is a back-write in the first place. Because we don't see what happens to Thundercracker in AHM, and Costa literally picks up were that left off, it isn't a back-write.