Page 465 of 1041 FirstFirst ... 445455460461462463464465466467468469470475485 ... LastLast
Results 4,641 to 4,650 of 10404

Thread: Transformers questions by newbies, and not-so-newbies

  1. #4641
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    37,635

    Default

    Scourge was Thundercracker. The initial Sweeps were forged from Shrapnel and Kickback.

    Cyclonus was either Bombshell or Skywarp - there have been conflicting retcons, but the law of retroactive continuity says that the latest version is the most correct... so Skywarp.

  2. #4642
    Cat's Avatar
    Cat is offline Rank 6 - Dedicated Member
    Join Date
    16th Aug 2011
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Not an essay, but that's what I mean.

    'Law Of Retro-Active Continuity'.

    Come on.

    That's ludicrous.

    It's been retconned back and forth so many times, it's up to the individual.

    To claim a 'law' like that is utterly ridiculous.

    Law....lmao....

  3. #4643
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    37,635

    Default

    That's just how retcon works; the most recent version is the most officially correct. Individual fans can choose to ignore retcons if they like but as far as official continuity is concerned, the most recent version is the most correct.

    And sure, the Bombshell/Skywarp thing has been retconned back and forth a LOT and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if future official material reverts it back to Bombshell. But the fact is that Cyclonus has been Bombshell or Skywarp depending on different retcons - but the most recent retcon (2011) says it Skywarp. But if someone would rather believe it's Bombshell then go for it.

  4. #4644
    Join Date
    9th Sep 2011
    Location
    Guildford/Perth
    Posts
    2,006

    Default

    Thanks for the answers. . Bombshell = Cyclonus seems like quite an upgrade.

    but ultimately Scourge Cyclonus and sweeps = bombshell, kickback, shrapnel t-cracker and skywarp.. Damn i really like all those guys and now???.. to know that they never existed together.... i'll have to re-adjust my plans for display. I can't even have cyclonus and the insecticons together:....
    I WISH I'D NEVER BEEN BORN!
    me chucking a wobbly

  5. #4645
    Join Date
    9th Sep 2011
    Location
    Guildford/Perth
    Posts
    2,006

    Default

    actually. were there 2 or 3 sweeps.... 3 yeah?

  6. #4646
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Chadstone, Vic
    Posts
    15,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geigerrock-2 View Post
    Thanks for the answers. . Bombshell = Cyclonus seems like quite an upgrade.

    but ultimately Scourge Cyclonus and sweeps = bombshell, kickback, shrapnel t-cracker and skywarp.. Damn i really like all those guys and now???.. to know that they never existed together.... i'll have to re-adjust my plans for display. I can't even have cyclonus and the insecticons together:....
    I WISH I'D NEVER BEEN BORN!
    me chucking a wobbly
    Learn to love the IDW comics. Cyclonus, Scourge and the Sweeps (and Galvatron) weren't anybody.

    Or watch TFTM again: Shrapnel and Thundercracker (and I'm not sure of the others) appear after Unicron creates Scourge and Cyclonus and the Sweeps.

    Or remember that Cyclonus and Scourge travelled back in time in the UK comics and could have met those characters then.

    There was some discussion of Sweep numbers here that might enlighten/confuse.

  7. #4647
    Join Date
    9th Sep 2011
    Location
    Guildford/Perth
    Posts
    2,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paulbot View Post
    Learn to love the IDW comics. Cyclonus, Scourge and the Sweeps (and Galvatron) weren't anybody.

    Or watch TFTM again: Shrapnel and Thundercracker (and I'm not sure of the others) appear after Unicron creates Scourge and Cyclonus and the Sweeps.

    Or remember that Cyclonus and Scourge travelled back in time in the UK comics and could have met those characters then.

    There was some discussion of Sweep numbers here that might enlighten/confuse.
    Um yeah.. that stuffs me around a bit. I only remember the movie. So unicron only created 2 sweeps, Scourge, Cyc and Gavintron. 5 beings from 6 beings. (i'm happy that they travel through time and all)
    . wait. thundercracker ,shrapnel and the other insecticons (i'm guessing) appear with hang on.
    O.K. So maybe unicron creates them from seekers and insects. but the damaged tf's continue floating off into space, only to return?
    But galvatron was definitely megatron.... yeah?

  8. #4648
    Join Date
    27th Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    37,635

    Default

    In Transformers The Movie we see Unicron rebuild Thundercracker, Shrapnel and Kickback into Scourge and two Sweeps respectively. He also rebuilds Skywarp and Bombshell into Cyclonus and his armada (of one ). In the next shot we see only Cyclonus fly into the Decepticon ship and Scourge is followed by three Sweeps! We never ever see that "armada Cyclonus" ever again.

    So some people believe that Bombshell or Skywarp (whichever you believe isn't Cyclonus) became that third Sweep and chalk down "armada Cyclonus" as an error. Either that or maybe he became Cyclonus II (aka Krunix)

  9. #4649
    Join Date
    19th Dec 2008
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    3,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geigerrock-2 View Post
    Um yeah.. that stuffs me around a bit. I only remember the movie. So unicron only created 2 sweeps, Scourge, Cyc and Gavintron. 5 beings from 6 beings. (i'm happy that they travel through time and all)
    . wait. thundercracker ,shrapnel and the other insecticons (i'm guessing) appear with hang on.
    O.K. So maybe unicron creates them from seekers and insects. but the damaged tf's continue floating off into space, only to return?
    But galvatron was definitely megatron.... yeah?
    Galvatron was definitely Megatron in TFTM. After that it all gets a bit iffy.
    I prefer Skywarp as Cyclonus personally, mostly because the Sweeps and Cyclonus' armada numbers make more sense to me as a reformatting of the Inscticons' cloning abilities, but really...it's a massive can of worms you're better off just ignoring and going with whatever you want. Bombshell is foregrounded as Cyclonus in the reformatting shot which suggests Cyclonus was Bombshell, the latest retcon (which does have priority for official canon) has Skywarp as pre-Cyclonus. Then the Insecticons and both Skywarp and Thundercracker show up in the coronation scene right after their bodies have supposedly been reformatted into Scourge and Cyclonus and/or their followers.

    So yeah, you can put pretty much any of them into a display together and it'll have just as much fictional continuity as TFTM.
    EDIT...
    Quote Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime View Post
    In Transformers The Movie we see Unicron rebuild Thundercracker, Shrapnel and Kickback into Scourge and two Sweeps respectively. He also rebuilds Skywarp and Bombshell into Cyclonus and his armada (of one ). In the next shot we see only Cyclonus fly into the Decepticon ship and Scourge is followed by three Sweeps! We never ever see that "armada Cyclonus" ever again.

    So some people believe that Bombshell or Skywarp (whichever you believe isn't Cyclonus) became that third Sweep and chalk down "armada Cyclonus" as an error. Either that or maybe he became Cyclonus II (aka Krunix)
    Sorta.
    There is Dirgeclonus/this guy, and IIRC (which is a bit iffy) there's another Cyclonus clone who get destroyed in Five Faces of Darkness. There may even be one who gets destroyed by the Dinobots as they're not boarding the shuttle in TFTM, though again my memory's a bit fuzzy.
    Either way, thanks to the wonders of AKOM animation errors there's a certain amount of leeway there for poor 'Armada'.

    EDIT #2: Yep, here we go...5 Cyclonus clones. Maybe they were just really shy most of the time, or Galvatron killed them in a fit of insane rage between 5FoD and The Killing Jar.

  10. #4650
    Join Date
    24th May 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    38,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cat View Post
    Not an essay, but that's what I mean.

    'Law Of Retro-Active Continuity'.

    Come on.

    That's ludicrous.

    It's been retconned back and forth so many times, it's up to the individual.

    To claim a 'law' like that is utterly ridiculous.

    Law....lmao....
    I don't see how it is a ridiculous term. If anything, it was more "tongue in cheek" at the contradictory nature of canon, which itself, is supposed to be as reliable/enforceable as laws.
    Concepts like, the Transformers coming from Cybertron, or crashing on Earth in the Ark, or even Megatron being the leader of the Decepticons instead of the Autobots - these are "set in stone", undeniable "laws" of the TFs Gen1 Universe... it may sound like a lame term, but it's technically an accurate description of what Canon (even re-worked or retroactive canon) *should be*.
    Otherwise, how can we rely on or agree on certain fundamentals if there was no canon to fall back on?

    The less important elements though are more of a frustration, but can also be a way for more fans to enjoy Transformers, or their collections... by having an alternative canon they prefer or like better than a new or old version.

    Like, for me, I hate the way they keep changing the "canonical" colours of Rumble/Frenzy (IDW just changed it again last year). I might support one version (Frenzy being blue), but many others who grew up on the cartoon instead of the toys, would be happy to have the new/current canon of Frenzy being red. Both are technically correct... which means fans of both can enjoy what they prefer.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •