original movie script

[Dominic]

I only got about a 3rd of the way through, (end of the Battle for Autobot City).

This really does not solve any of the movie's problems though. It is an early, and very different, script. I just assume that some Autobots look similar to each other, not unlike all of those nameless Decepticon jets in the first two seasons. (Or, I more realistically assume that the animators were lazy.)

[Onslaught Six]

Nah, everyone definitively dies in the movie. No generics are ever harmed, there's always distinct bodies. Remember the storyboarded scene where Mirage and Red Alert and co die fighting Devastator?

[Dominic]

Well, Sunstreaker is in two places at once in the finished movie. The easiest way to reconcile that, (short of just complaining about lax animators), is to assume that 2 or more Autobots have the same general appearance.

Red Alert dies fighting the Constructicons. Mirage is killed by Megatron though. (I only read about 1/3 of the script so far.) There is story-boarding for Trailbreaker dying during the battle, but the script that is up has him surviving the battle.


Dom
-finds cut scenese are easier to count when they do not contradict each other, let alone the movie.

[Onslaught Six]

Well, the storyboard would be later than the script, presumably, so that's the one closer to "canon," as it were. I'm obviously not going to use this script to try and justify Wheeljack surviving in G1, that'd be plain stupid.

[Dominic]

I was actually talking about your favorite character of all, Trailbreaker. I know how much you love Trail-breaker.

Wheeljack was story-boarded to survive. And, if you really want to argue the point, "Head Masters" provides plenty of justification for assuming he was repaired.


Dom
-realizing how bad the original cartoon really was.

[Gomess]

realizing how bad the original cartoon really was.

OMG IT'S NOT TRYING TO BE CITIZEN KANE

Heck, I'm still holding out for Season 4. ;]

[Dominic]

Dude, "Citizen Kane" is over-rated.

Either way, "not trying" is an excuse for mediocrity, not being terrible.


Dom
-does not get the "the badness is excused because...." logic.

[Gomess]

does not get the "the badness is excused because...." logic.

No, me neither. The Internet- killing irony since 1997!

That said, I think it's a little off to criticise an 80s kids' cartoon like it's a modern adult novel. I don't do One Rule For All.

[Dominic]

Sorry. I have heard that arguement so many times in the past that I have to assume it is not sarcastic.


It is easier, and more fair, to just use one standard. After all, why should one writer be judged on a harsher curve than another because of the medium he delivers in? (In other words, why should a novelist be held to a higher standard than a cartoonist?)


Dom

[Gomess]

Yeah, I should've known, having had it many times myself (from your side of the fence).

As for One Rule For All, I feel that as long as media have certain associations in the mainstream that ignore what they're actually presenting (cartoons and video games are for kids, novels are for adults, etc.), it's a critic's responsibility to at least acknowledge those associations... even if they don't agree with them. It's more than likely that the creators of the G1 cartoon thought "we're creating for stupid kids, so let's make it for stupid kids". It would be unfair to ignore that AUTHOR INTENT (uh-oh) when criticising. To me, it's the equivalent of lampooning a song solely on the basis that it lacks narrative. Some songs have narrative, and benefit from it, sure, but the majority realise music doesn't HAVE to have one, and most of it is created without one.

I hope I don't sound like I'm saying BOW TO CONFORMITY. I just think you need to go on one knee to it, but keep one eye open. Man, I really shouldn't make posts like this after 9pm, I've already forgotten what I was saying. =p

TL;DR: If a cartoon is created by unimaginative hacks to pander to kids' basest instincts, we should just *say that* but then judge it as an unimaginative hack, not a selfless work of art.