CQ Essay: Megatron and Starscream
Raksha
Here's the latest CQ essay, being posted (hopefully) to both ATT and ATTCM. As
usual I'm interested in people's responses, but please be aware that I will
only reply to this thread on ATTCM, so if you want me to see it, be sure
both groups remain in the header. Alternately, e-mail me, but be aware that it
could take me a while to get back to you.....
This one is on a theory I've held for many many years, almost since the
very beginning of my involvement with the TFs, and is one of the things that made
the whole concept so engaging for me -- seeing as there were not only great
characters involved, but complex interactions between them. Pretty good for
a half-hour toy commercial, hm? ;) Anyway, onward.....
Raksha's Rantings ... from Issue 23, Spring 1998
MEGATRON AND STARSCREAM:
A WORLD OF SECOND CHANCES
I have long found Starscream to be the single most interesting
and multi-faceted character among the Transformers. Not my very favorite,
mind you, there's a difference - and while he certainly makes my top-five list
by now, I must admit that at first I actively *dis*liked him. Here was
someone who was constantly trying to undermine the imminently qualified
leader whom I thought very highly of, and under the rules of "my friend's
enemy is my enemy," I had Starscream pegged early as a contemptible and
power-hungry jerk. Fortunately I didn't shut my mind completely and
dismiss him after that negative first impression, because if I had, I'd have
missed out on what is perhaps the most fascinating interpersonal relationship
in the entire Transformers mythology, far more engaging than any
one-dimensional Decepticon/Autobot conflict simmering in the background.
If we look at the interactions between the two characters, a most
curious pattern emerges. They snap and snarl at each other. They insult each
other. They've even, on rare occasions, fired on and physically damaged
each other. But, when either one of them has had the opportunity to finish
the job and finally *kill* the other, they drew back. There was a line they
wouldn't cross, much as they claimed to despise one another.
Starscream, let's be honest, has done some pretty unforgivable
things to Megatron. At the top of the list would surely be shooting Nightbird
in the back, and his actions in "Starscream's Brigade" - but really it's an
ongoing barrage of trouble-making, mouthing-off, undermining of authority,
and generating additional distraction and tension that a commander fighting
a war could surely do without. It's baffling, if you think about it, that
Megatron has every single time forgiven him, when anyone else who acted
that way, would have been a pile of molten scrap after the second
warning. The question is, Why?
I've heard a good number of attempted explanations for the
continued tolerance between Starscream and Megatron, ranging from the
extreme "Starscream was once Megatron's lover" to the banal "the
characters couldn't be written out of the show as long as the toys were
still on the shelves." It's also often been suggested that Starscream's
flying skills were simply so exceptional and valuable that Megatron
couldn't afford to kill him, but I don't buy that for an instant. Starscream's
flying and battle skills are beyond question, but they hardly outweigh all
the problems he made, and threatened to make. A single Starscream
could be replaced by a few additional jets from Cybertron - not as
efficient, perhaps, but in the end equally functional. There's something
more personal at stake. Which leads me to a conclusion of my own,
one that I find no less likely than any of the others, given all the
evidence.
Quite simply, my contention is that Starscream and Megatron
were once good friends. The episode that handed me the full-blown
realization of this, remains one of my favorites to this day: "War of
the Dinobots." As is typical of character-development for Decepticons,
it's the most fleeting of scenes, and you have to look sharp and listen
close, but there it is: at the end of the episode, where the meteorite is
about to explode, Starscream takes note of it and warns Megatron to
get out of the way. I'll repeat that again, because it's so significant:
rather than simply taking to the sky and leaving Megatron in the blast
range, Starscream *warns* him. It was at that point that something
clicked in my mind; there was more going on here, if you'll forgive
the cliche, than meets the eye.
And then there are all those odd little scenes and snippets:
Starscream's exuberant running commentary during the fight in
"Heavy Metal War," full of pride and admiration for Megatron's fighting
skills; "Divide and Conquer," where Starscream was honestly seeking
Megatron's approval for a mission well-led, and was clearly hurt upon
not receiving it ("Surely you wish to commend me for my efforts...?");
and numerous other examples.
I would guess that Starscream once idolized Megatron as "the
leader who could do no wrong," and Megatron was pleased with the
idealistic and highly skilled young warrior who so looked up to him,
and from that they built a companionship, a friendship, a mutual trust.
All of that has long since gotten buried in the endless cycle of verbal
attacks and counter-attacks and testing of boundaries and punishment
and ritualized forgiveness which we see on the show, but enticing glimpses
of it remain. We can only wonder what may have happened to destroy
the friendship that was once so firmly in place that neither wants to entirely
let it go. My suspicion is that even the best of commanders isn't unfailingly
perfect, and some drastic, inadvertent error on Megatron's part was such
a disillusion to Starscream that he felt compelled to "get even." And what
better way to get even, than to try to take from Megatron the one thing
that meant most to him, that was most closely tied to his identity - namely,
his command position? Nevertheless, when it came to actually putting a
gun to Megatron's head and pulling the trigger (he might easily have done
so near the beginning of "Starscream's Brigade," for instance), he couldn't
bring himself to do it.
How much of this "failure to finish the job", on both sides, was
conscious, and how much was subconscious, is open to question, of course.
For my part, I see Megatron as the more "enlightened" of the two, for all that
he surely feels betrayed by Starscream's turnabout, while Starscream seems
blindly caught in the grip of his own inner turmoil. Perhaps Starscream too
realizes somewhere within himself that Megatron is still trying to give him a
chance (Starscream could wallpaper his quarters with the number of "final
warnings" he's received!), but I don't believe he dares examine the notion
too closely. As a result he cannot clearly assess his situation - but the
subconscious forces tugging at him are too powerful to be totally invisible
to his team-mates.
I came to see Starscream as someone who had been terribly
wounded by his disillusionment, and as a result was lashing out at the rest
of the world and those around him - which of course made the situation
even worse for him. He'd painted himself into a corner. In a way he very
much *wanted* to be accepted and liked by the others, but his arrogant
and hostile behavior patterns had been so well established by now, that he
didn't know how to break the vicious circle, and feared that any attempt at
doing so, would look like weakness. So he watched the others share in
their companionship and hated them for it (notice that he was always most
hostile toward those whom Megatron thought especially highly of), because
underneath all his bristling he was excruciatingly lonely ... and maybe
Megatron was well aware of it, and maybe *that's* why he was forever
giving Starscream second chances. Because if Starscream were someday
to seek reconciliation, Megatron would almost certainly accept. Old friends
can't make up their differences if one of them is dead.
In the endless dance of internal tension and resolution between two
fascinating and strong-willed characters, it was ultimately the *lack* of conflict,
the reconciliations, the cooperations, the forgiveness, which far overshadowed
the superficial power struggle and made the interaction truly captivating.
Most intriguing of all, to me personally, is the notion of one day seeing those
differences settled, and it's this hope that keeps the Megatron/Starscream interaction
eternally mesmerizing.
--Raksha the Plumed Serpent
ATTCM lives!
--------------------------------------------------------
"I am the Plumed Serpent, I strike and I soar!"
--------------------------------------------------------
All-time favorite Transformer: Soundwave ("The secrets
of the Universe reveal themselves to those who listen.")
--------------------------------------------------------
jk...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu | Dept. of Zoology
David "Walky" Willis
>Here's the latest CQ essay, being posted (hopefully) to both ATT and ATTCM.
As
>usual I'm interested in people's responses, but please be aware that I will
>only reply to this thread on ATTCM, so if you want me to see it, be sure
>both groups remain in the header. Alternately, e-mail me, but be aware
that it
>could take me a while to get back to you.....
I *do* have ATTCM on my parents' newsfeed here at home (no more college
for me until fall....bummer), but as I mention BW here and there, I think
this would probably be rejected. And as I wanna offer these points up
to general discussion instead of just directly to Raksha, I'll post this
to ATT instead of merely emailing it.
Here we go...
Hmm. I'd beg to differ on that. Off the top of my head, I can think
of Prowl/Grimlock at the end of the G1 comic run, Optimus Prime/Grimlock
in Furman's run, and several others that don't really require watching over
small bits and pieces along the way to find the "hidden" relationship.
> If we look at the interactions between the two characters, a most
>curious pattern emerges. They snap and snarl at each other. They insult
each
>other. They've even, on rare occasions, fired on and physically damaged
>each other. But, when either one of them has had the opportunity to finish
>the job and finally *kill* the other, they drew back. There was a line
they
>wouldn't cross, much as they claimed to despise one another.
Yeah, but I figgered that was because of sloppy writing. No *real*
character development was made between them. Megatron would never cross
that line and kill Starscream because they had to keep the series'
status quo. Plus Starscream was too much a coward to do much anything
anyway.
> Starscream, let's be honest, has done some pretty unforgivable
>things to Megatron. At the top of the list would surely be shooting
Nightbird
>in the back, and his actions in "Starscream's Brigade" - but really it's an
>ongoing barrage of trouble-making, mouthing-off, undermining of authority,
>and generating additional distraction and tension that a commander fighting
>a war could surely do without. It's baffling, if you think about it, that
>Megatron has every single time forgiven him, when anyone else who acted
>that way, would have been a pile of molten scrap after the second
>warning. The question is, Why?
Megatron is a moron? :D Starscream poses no real threat? :D It's the
eternal archetype of kid cartoons for the bad side to have some fool who
wants to take over the bad guys himself? :D
> I've heard a good number of attempted explanations for the
>continued tolerance between Starscream and Megatron, ranging from the
>extreme "Starscream was once Megatron's lover" to the banal "the
>characters couldn't be written out of the show as long as the toys were
>still on the shelves." It's also often been suggested that Starscream's
>flying skills were simply so exceptional and valuable that Megatron
>couldn't afford to kill him, but I don't buy that for an instant.
Actually, I have a rather different idea. As Starscream is a scientist,
and BW states that he has an eternal spark, I'd wager that Starscream
conducted experiments on himself, ensuring that he'd live forever. Megatron
knows this, and figures it pointless to try to kill him. Finally, in TF:TM,
he loses his cool and takes it out on poor Screamer. Screamer, of course,
is none worse for wear.
Starscream's
>flying and battle skills are beyond question, but they hardly outweigh all
>the problems he made, and threatened to make. A single Starscream
>could be replaced by a few additional jets from Cybertron - not as
>efficient, perhaps, but in the end equally functional. There's something
>more personal at stake. Which leads me to a conclusion of my own,
>one that I find no less likely than any of the others, given all the
>evidence.
> Quite simply, my contention is that Starscream and Megatron
>were once good friends. The episode that handed me the full-blown
>realization of this, remains one of my favorites to this day: "War of
>the Dinobots." As is typical of character-development for Decepticons,
>it's the most fleeting of scenes, and you have to look sharp and listen
>close, but there it is: at the end of the episode, where the meteorite is
>about to explode, Starscream takes note of it and warns Megatron to
>get out of the way. I'll repeat that again, because it's so significant:
>rather than simply taking to the sky and leaving Megatron in the blast
>range, Starscream *warns* him. It was at that point that something
>clicked in my mind; there was more going on here, if you'll forgive
>the cliche, than meets the eye.
Inconsistent writing. Or Megatron owed Screamer money.
> And then there are all those odd little scenes and snippets:
>Starscream's exuberant running commentary during the fight in
>"Heavy Metal War," full of pride and admiration for Megatron's fighting
>skills; "Divide and Conquer," where Starscream was honestly seeking
>Megatron's approval for a mission well-led, and was clearly hurt upon
>not receiving it ("Surely you wish to commend me for my efforts...?");
>and numerous other examples.
So he's a suck-up. :D
> I would guess that Starscream once idolized Megatron as "the
>leader who could do no wrong," and Megatron was pleased with the
>idealistic and highly skilled young warrior who so looked up to him,
>and from that they built a companionship, a friendship, a mutual trust.
>All of that has long since gotten buried in the endless cycle of verbal
>attacks and counter-attacks and testing of boundaries and punishment
>and ritualized forgiveness which we see on the show, but enticing glimpses
>of it remain. We can only wonder what may have happened to destroy
>the friendship that was once so firmly in place that neither wants to
entirely
>let it go. My suspicion is that even the best of commanders isn't
unfailingly
>perfect, and some drastic, inadvertent error on Megatron's part was such
>a disillusion to Starscream that he felt compelled to "get even." And what
>better way to get even, than to try to take from Megatron the one thing
>that meant most to him, that was most closely tied to his identity -
namely,
>his command position? Nevertheless, when it came to actually putting a
>gun to Megatron's head and pulling the trigger (he might easily have done
>so near the beginning of "Starscream's Brigade," for instance), he couldn't
>bring himself to do it.
Hmmm. Did they actually have Starscream put his gun to Megatron's head
and refuse to fire, or is this just conjecture? Rattrap and Dinobot
went through this very thing in "Maximal No More." Heck, they have a
similar "pretends to be enemy but is really a friend" motif here. But
there's is sorta obvious. You hafta read between the lines for
Megs/Screamer's. :P
Or do Rattrap and Dinobot not really count because not only are they
"good guys," but they're also Beast Wars? I mean, if the Screamer/Megs
thing is true as you describe it, I'd imagine Rattrap/Dinobot would be
the "pretends to be enemy but is really a friend" motif done *better.*
> How much of this "failure to finish the job", on both sides, was
>conscious, and how much was subconscious, is open to question, of course.
>For my part, I see Megatron as the more "enlightened" of the two, for all
that
>he surely feels betrayed by Starscream's turnabout, while Starscream seems
>blindly caught in the grip of his own inner turmoil. Perhaps Starscream too
>realizes somewhere within himself that Megatron is still trying to give him
a
>chance (Starscream could wallpaper his quarters with the number of "final
>warnings" he's received!), but I don't believe he dares examine the notion
>too closely. As a result he cannot clearly assess his situation - but the
>subconscious forces tugging at him are too powerful to be totally invisible
>to his team-mates.
..... If you say so.
Aw, but I like my idea better. :)
Well, I doubt this'll get through, as my newsfeed is pretty much slag,
but here goes nothin'.
--David Willis
aka Walky "Wii gii!!"
Co-moderator of Rec.toys.transformers.moderated! "Venit. Vidit.
Cacatat."
http://members.xoom.com/WiiGii
G+++ FR FW+ M- #200 D+++ AA+ N+++ W++ B++ OP++ MUSH-- BC+++ CN++ OM P332
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You know, that was crazy." --Rattrap
"Sometimes crazy works." --Optimus Primal
***
"Good work, Nightbeat, but perhaps cutting it a tad close?" --Siren
"Isn't that what makes it all worthwhile?" --Nightbeat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Brogden
On Sat, 16 May 1998 19:37:45 EST, Raksha
<jk...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> Starscream, let's be honest, has done some pretty unforgivable
>things to Megatron. At the top of the list would surely be shooting Nightbird
>in the back, and his actions in "Starscream's Brigade" - but really it's an
>ongoing barrage of trouble-making, mouthing-off, undermining of authority,
>and generating additional distraction and tension that a commander fighting
>a war could surely do without. It's baffling, if you think about it, that
>Megatron has every single time forgiven him, when anyone else who acted
>that way, would have been a pile of molten scrap after the second
>warning. The question is, Why?
I hardly ever watch TV anymore, so it was strange for me to catch an
episode of 'Friends'. But I'm glad that I did, because it added a
whole new possibility to the Megatron-Starscream battle of wits.
In the 'Friends' episode, Monica is a manager and is having a rough
time trying to keep control of her staff. So Joey comes up with a plan
- Monica'll employ him, he'll misbehave and then get fired by Monica
in front of the other staff. This way, they'll develop respect for
Monica.
It made me wonder if that's what Megatron and Starscream were up to
all along. Perhaps Starscream and Megatron were friends and Starscream
was actually helping Megatron keep his authority? There are even
occasions on record when Starscream has helped Megatron without having
to shoot him first. ;-) Of course, I'd never have picked Megatron as
someone who needed to resort to these sorts of tricks to maintain
authority, but I expect Megatron knows what is going on and that's why
he's reluctant to kill Starscream.
> I've heard a good number of attempted explanations for the
>continued tolerance between Starscream and Megatron, ranging from the
>extreme "Starscream was once Megatron's lover" to the banal "the
>characters couldn't be written out of the show as long as the toys were
>still on the shelves."
I think Starscream was once a femme. I'm joking of course, but I have
managed to come up with some 'proof'.
· In the French dub of the Classic cartoons, Starscream is voiced by a
women.
· The constant stream of 'Starscream is gay' posts. Sounds like
people are picking up on some sexual tension in Megatron and
Starscream's relationship! ;-)
· The way Starscream and Megatron are always touching (e.g. Starscream
tried to cuddle Megatron in "A Decepticon In King Arthur's Court").
· The way Starscream shot Nightbird instead of trying to win her over
to his side. A touch of jealousy perhaps?
Isn't it obvious now? ;-) Starscream was once female, but was rebuilt
as a male by Megatron's orders after being badly damaged in an Autobot
attack. She wasn't happy about the rebuild and she's been giving
Megatron a hard (or should that be difficult?) time ever since. ;-)
. / ****CHARLOTTE BROGDEN****
((()) . /--, / cbro...@s054.aone.net.au
(((())) <') =<
))6.6(( \__/ \ Find 1000+ Transformers fanfics
((( v ))) //\ author interviews and more at:
))) (((\ // CHARL'S TRANSFORMERS FANFIC PAGE
/(() ()))\// http://www.home.aone.net.au/charl/charl.htm
//))) ((('\/
//(((^^^)))|\ /| CO-MODERATOR OF ATTCM. Enjoy Classic
// ))^^^(( \\\/// fanfic and discussion in a spam and flame
// (('\^^^)) \\// free environment - request alt.toys.
' )) '\^^'\_/^/ transformers.classic.moderated today!
( '\^^^~^/ Write to: postmaster@<your provider's address>
'~~~' or news@<your provider's address> to request ATTCM.
Charlotte Brogden
On 17 May 1998 06:30:08 GMT, kai...@aol.com (Kaickul) wrote:
>This has got to be one of the most thought out essay that I have ever read!!
>Raksha seems to catch all the details and declares them in a way that is
>intriguing and tantilizing. Pardon me if this sounds like a review, but this
>guy has the midnight oil burning!!
Raksha is a girl actually. :-) It IS easy to assume every Transfan is
a boy, especially if their real name or nick isn't clearly female (or
even if it is - I got called 'Carl' the other day! ;-) but there are
plenty of female Transfans out there.
>The Starscream/Megatron ordeal throughout
>the series is a burning issue and judging by the way these snipits are laid
>out, we may have one of the best possible senarios that could have lead to a
>fallout of friends, close at once and still close but not so at the same time.
>Thanks for a thoughtfully done piece of work!
>Kai...@aol.com
The Starscream and Megatron ordeal is indeed fascinating. Talking to
fans about it is also fascinating, because everyone has a different
idea. Some blame the whole thing on sloppy writing, others say
Megatron and Starscream were simply enemies, others note the way they
spare each other, or even protect each other at times and wonder if
there wasn't a little more to the conflict than meets the eye.
Blue-Jackal
In article <6jl7vl$s...@examiner.concentric.net>, Raksha
<jk...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes
> MEGATRON AND STARSCREAM:
> A WORLD OF SECOND CHANCES
Raksha, I would say that you are spot on!
I can think of several things to justify this.
I'd say that Megatron was once Starscreams mentor for sure.
I remember seeing the scene in "Megatrons master plan" where Megs and
Screamer are walking through the powerplant (or whatever it is) and
Megatron says "Have you ever seen so much energy Starscream?".
I always thought that they were unusually seeming like friends there
because I think that scene looks like Megatron is trying to teach
Starscream and is treating him like a protege(sp?).
I remember several occasions where Megatron would transform into a gun
and let Starscream catch him. I don't think he would do that if there
hadn't been some trust between them.
I'm asuming everyone remembers the scene early in the movie when, after
Laserbeak has returned, Megatron says "Unlike some of my other warriors
you never fail me".
Watch Starscream at that point, the way he turns round as if to say
"Hey!!!!", because he just knows the remark was meant for him.
I've always seen that as if Megatron was verbally prodding Starscream to
wind him up.
Another way of looking at that bit is that Megatron wasn't directing the
remark at any particular individual but Starscream takes it personally
because he's come ot expect insults by now.
I thouroughly agree with all you said about neither one of them wanting
to finish the job whenever they had a chance. I think this is especially
clear in the movie when Galvatron blows away Starscream:(
I think Starscream was truly amazed when Galvatron appeared.
He seems furious when 'somebody' shows up and he yells "Who disrupts my
coronation!", but when he figures out who it is he sounds to me like he
reverts back to sounding like the childish brat he was in the pilot ep.
"Megatron is that you?".
I think Starscream hoped againts hope that as it was Megatron he'd just
get shot a little, maybe get slightly wounded, go fix himself and be
back out with the 'cons in half an hour with Megatron as leader as
usual.
But I don't think that there's much of Megatron in Galvatron.
I think he has Meg's memories etc but not his personality.
Also, I don't think Galvatron would have taken any crap from Starscream.
I think Starscreams demise at the hands of Galvatron was because he was
no longer useful and the potential friendship no longer existed in this
new personality that was Galvatron.
Cyclonus was now the most skilled Jet warrior and he seems like he
posesses as much scientific knowledge as Screamer did (See Rebirth when
Cyclonus fixes Scourge in mere seconds) and he is loyal.
--
Blue-Jackal
"POP goes the hamster...and other great microwave games."
- Nick Abbot - Talk Radio UK
Remove "123" from reply addy to contact me!
Robert L S
>>The Starscream/Megatron ordeal throughout
>>the series is a burning issue and judging by the way these snipits are
laid
>>out, we may have one of the best possible senarios that could have lead to
a
>>fallout of friends, close at once and still close but not so at the same
time.
>>Thanks for a thoughtfully done piece of work!
>>Kai...@aol.com
>
>The Starscream and Megatron ordeal is indeed fascinating. Talking to
>fans about it is also fascinating, because everyone has a different
>idea. Some blame the whole thing on sloppy writing, others say
>Megatron and Starscream were simply enemies, others note the way they
>spare each other, or even protect each other at times and wonder if
>there wasn't a little more to the conflict than meets the eye.
>
> . / ****CHARLOTTE BROGDEN****
> ((()) . /--, / cbro...@s054.aone.net.au
I think that there are those rebellious ones who don't like authority.
Because of their ego, they think that they can be leaders, but neglect the
responsibilities of leadership, as Hot Rod found out: It's one of the
greatest burdens to bare.
Volvocon
And *sigh*, you just have to admit that Megs and Screamer just look so
darn spankin' cute together!
Well done Raksha, you're a wonderful writer. I've read two of your fanfics
so far, and they're awesome.
--
Volvocon: Decepticon Scientist and Volvo 240GL
Mdart...@yahoo.com
First of all, I loved your essay! It's well thought and written, and it's
obvious you really love both Megatron and Starscream, since you've drawn some
logic conclusions about their relationship.
Anyway, I have a couple of comments on it, so I'll snip most of the essay for
bandwidth's sake.
In article <6jl7vl$s...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Raksha <jk...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> This one is on a theory I've held for many many years, almost since the
> very beginning of my involvement with the TFs, and is one of the things that made
> the whole concept so engaging for me -- seeing as there were not only great
> characters involved, but complex interactions between them. Pretty good for
> a half-hour toy commercial, hm? ;)
Well, if we aren't here for the characters, why are we here then? (I mean,
there have been many good toy lines, but I don't know many that have won so
much loyalty from the fans).
> Quite simply, my contention is that Starscream and Megatron
> were once good friends.
Agreed. Megatron is too strong a character to stand a threat like Starscream
if he hadn't a really good reason. I guess the "official" viewpoint of
portraying the decepticons as evil sometimes blinds some of us to the fact
that they are characters capable of having the same feelings and emotions than
the autobots. And yes, I talk of my personal case. Fortunately, I'm starting
to change that :)
Now, may I add my own theory on the Megs-Screamer relationship? Megatron has
always been an intelligent commander. He knows he's fighting a war, and that
such struggle might claim his life if he's willing to defend his ideas. He
doesn't want his conquests to be lost if he should die. He needed someone who
would take his place, who is intelligent, lethal and loves his cause.
Shockwave, of course, would be the best option, but he's a bit too logic-
driven to have the instinct a real commander should trust. Starscream appears
then as the second best option. Megatron teaches him everything he knows,
preparing him to take his place should something happen to him, and due to the
apparent age difference, maybe learns to love him as a son. Starscream, on the
other hand, knows he owes everything he is to Megatron.
> We can only wonder what may have happened to destroy
> the friendship that was once so firmly in place that neither wants to entirely
> let it go. My suspicion is that even the best of commanders isn't unfailingly
> perfect, and some drastic, inadvertent error on Megatron's part was such
> a disillusion to Starscream that he felt compelled to "get even." And what
> better way to get even, than to try to take from Megatron the one thing
> that meant most to him, that was most closely tied to his identity - namely,
> his command position?
The theory continues: Starscream realizes Megatron is not winning the war. OK,
he's keeping it even, but has not won it yet. Simply, he knows where Iacon is,
but hasn't destroyed it. Megatron, of course, is prudent enough to know
Cybertron is running out of energy. Starscream thinks they should attack first
and then worry about energy. Starscream, then, thinks that unless he leads and
takes more decisive action, their cause might be lost. And the only way of
"properly" claiming leadership is if Megatron dies (a la Lion King).
Only that Starscream is too hotheaded to conceal his intentions —maybe he
wants someone else to stop him?
Or maybe I drank a lot of coffee today? :)
> Nevertheless, when it came to actually putting a
> gun to Megatron's head and pulling the trigger (he might easily have done
> so near the beginning of "Starscream's Brigade," for instance), he couldn't
> bring himself to do it.
The best example: in the Movie, Starscream doesn't kill Megatron, since Prime
has already damaged him beyond repair. Yes, he threw him to space, but he
wouldn't get his hands any dirtier.
Any more thoughts?
Misbehave!
Marijose
The Fifth Musketeer
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Skyflight
In alt.toys.transformers.classic.moderated David \"Walky\" Willis <walk...@geocities.com> wrote:
:>in the entire Transformers mythology, far more engaging than any
:>one-dimensional Decepticon/Autobot conflict simmering in the background.
: Hmm. I'd beg to differ on that. Off the top of my head, I can think
: of Prowl/Grimlock at the end of the G1 comic run, Optimus Prime/Grimlock
: in Furman's run, and several others that don't really require watching over
Those are all relationships between Autobots. Raksha was (I think) referring
to "Decepticon/Autobot conflict" meaning the fighting and the reasons for
it.
: small bits and pieces along the way to find the "hidden" relationship.
That's just the point. It WASN'T hidden, merely not dealt with extensively.
You saw what was going on, and knew it had meaning, but not the cause of the
actions. More on that later.
: Yeah, but I figgered that was because of sloppy writing. No *real*
: character development was made between them. Megatron would never cross
: that line and kill Starscream because they had to keep the series'
: status quo. Plus Starscream was too much a coward to do much anything
: anyway.
This is my very favorite arguement to hear. "Sloppy writing".. Just what
does that mean? Why does it have *ANY* bearing whatsoever on this issue?
They showed what they showed. It matters not one tiny bit whether it was
produced by a brillent science fiction writer or a thousand monkeys typing
random letters for five years. THEY SHOWED WHAT THEY SHOWED. I don't know
how to make it any clearer. The motivations of the characters is
all-important. The motivations of the WRITER for providing those motivations
matters not at all.
I don't know how to be more clear about it. What happened on the cartoon
HAPPENED ON THE CARTOON. The "sloppy writing" silliness is just a way of
dismissing the things that one doesn't agree with. Hey, couldn't I simply
dismiss "The Secret of Omega Supreme" as sloppy writing? No, because I
happen to think THEY SHOWED WHAT THEY SHOWED. Now, I may debate the accuracy
of Omega's memory, but I'm not going to simply say "It didn't happen and
isn't cannon because it was poorly written.". (It's interesting how many
times I hear that Decepticon fans "throw out the cannon" and then those same
people haul this "sloppy writing" excuse out. Who's throwing away the
cannon? [Not Walky per se, but others])
: Megatron is a moron? :D Starscream poses no real threat? :D It's the
: eternal archetype of kid cartoons for the bad side to have some fool who
: wants to take over the bad guys himself? :D
Megatron has been shown to be a highly intellegent warrior time and again.
Starscream caused Nightbird to be imprisoned, and thus poses a very real
threat just on that basis. And so what if it is the "eternal archetype"? They
showed what they showed, and simply pointing out there are writers with
external motivations behind the creation of something does mean the creation
itself is invalid.
: Hmmm. Did they actually have Starscream put his gun to Megatron's head
: and refuse to fire, or is this just conjecture?
He had ample opportunity to do it more than once. He did not actually get so
far as putting the gun up to Megatron's head and then refusing to pull the
trigger. But if he had wanted to kill Megatron, he could have, several
times. He didn't take those opportunities, and neither did Megatron when HE
had the chance. Now, you can call it "sloppy writing" and comfortably
dismiss what they showed, or you can think about what that might mean, and
come up with your own ideas.
: You hafta read between the lines for Megs/Screamer's. :P
And this is bad or invalid.. why? Don't you have to read between the lines
for a lot of Shakespeare's stuff? Isn't that in fact the mark of a good
story, something that has depth, that you can look at again and pick up
something further from it? Yeah, as a kid, I would watch the stuff blow up,
and listen to Soundwave's compelling voice, and cheer when Megatron
transformed and starting blowing things up. But now I can go BACK to it
and start to think just what Megatron and Starscream's relationship was
all about, and the stuff we didn't see about the begining of the war, and
the morality issues brought up by the show, etc etc.
In short, you can dismiss the show as a mere kid's cartoon, and the result
of "sloppy writing" if you wish. But that is a very poor basis for arguing
about what they showed on the cartoon. Rather, you seem to be arguing that
the show itself sucks, rather than what they showed in it. And that's just a
totally useless thing to debate, because it's a matter of personal opinion
what one likes.
--
Skyflight, ATTCM co-moderator and Anti-Spam crusader
walk...@geocities.com
> :>in the entire Transformers mythology, far more engaging than any
> :>one-dimensional Decepticon/Autobot conflict simmering in the background.
>
> : Hmm. I'd beg to differ on that. Off the top of my head, I can think
> : of Prowl/Grimlock at the end of the G1 comic run, Optimus Prime/Grimlock
> : in Furman's run, and several others that don't really require watching
over
>
> Those are all relationships between Autobots. Raksha was (I think) referring
> to "Decepticon/Autobot conflict" meaning the fighting and the reasons for
> it.
Yeah, but why aren't Autobots valid for the discussion of
the most engaging relationship in Transformer mythos? I didn't see
anywhere where Raksha said "Decepticons only"....
>
> : small bits and pieces along the way to find the "hidden" relationship.
>
> That's just the point. It WASN'T hidden, merely not dealt with extensively.
> You saw what was going on, and knew it had meaning, but not the cause of the
> actions. More on that later.
'Kay.
>
> : Yeah, but I figgered that was because of sloppy writing. No *real*
> : character development was made between them. Megatron would never cross
> : that line and kill Starscream because they had to keep the series'
> : status quo. Plus Starscream was too much a coward to do much anything
> : anyway.
>
> This is my very favorite arguement to hear. "Sloppy writing".. Just what
> does that mean? Why does it have *ANY* bearing whatsoever on this issue?
Because if it were written terribly, then that means the show is terrible,
no matter what reading between the lines anyone can do.
For example: Power Rangers stinks. There's zero character development,
the plots are recycled, and is really unsophisticated. But, say whoever
happens to be the Pink Ranger that season says something that *could*
be twisted to mean she had a past relationship with Mr. Blue Ranger?
(isn't he a kid now?....ick...) Does that suddenly make their relationship
deep? Sure, you can fanfic whatever stuff you want into the Power Rangers
mythos, or use vague blink-or-you-miss-it sentences that could support most
any thesis, but that doesn't make the relationship interesting unless your
individual imagination is considered canon.
> They showed what they showed. It matters not one tiny bit whether it was
> produced by a brillent science fiction writer or a thousand monkeys typing
> random letters for five years. THEY SHOWED WHAT THEY SHOWED. I don't know
> how to make it any clearer. The motivations of the characters is
> all-important. The motivations of the WRITER for providing those motivations
> matters not at all.
It doesn't? So, basically, any trash some hack writes up is automatically
a literary classic if somebody comes around and fills in the blanks for him.
I'm of the opinion that the motivations of the writer DO count. My
motivations in this discussion are to debate a topic and have fun, and
even hopefully learn something by the end (then again, does this topic
*ever* end?:). So if you came along and reinterpreted all my stuff and
added little comments between the lines, does that make my argument any
different? Darnit, if I write a space-epic where absolute evil exists, I
want it to be a space-epic where absolute evil exists.
>
> I don't know how to be more clear about it. What happened on the cartoon
> HAPPENED ON THE CARTOON. The "sloppy writing" silliness is just a way of
> dismissing the things that one doesn't agree with. Hey, couldn't I simply
> dismiss "The Secret of Omega Supreme" as sloppy writing? No, because I
> happen to think THEY SHOWED WHAT THEY SHOWED.
Sure. They showed what the showed. It's sloppy writing. But that just means
that if the episode happened to be terribly written by someone who didn't
particularly care and pretty much just pulled the whole story outta his butt
so's he could get a paycheck, that means that there won't be much depth
to that story. Any little quirks that you find that you like are probably
accidental. Completely random.
Now, I may debate the accuracy
> of Omega's memory, but I'm not going to simply say "It didn't happen and
> isn't cannon because it was poorly written.". (It's interesting how many
> times I hear that Decepticon fans "throw out the cannon" and then those same
> people haul this "sloppy writing" excuse out. Who's throwing away the
> cannon? [Not Walky per se, but others])
Hey, I'm not throwing *anything* outta the canon because it's written poorly.
Heck, we wouldn't be left with much canon, now, would we? :) I'm just stating
that nothing *truly* significant can be found in a crap story. You can make
your own stuff up, but it doesn't change the story.
>
> : Megatron is a moron? :D Starscream poses no real threat? :D It's the
> : eternal archetype of kid cartoons for the bad side to have some fool who
> : wants to take over the bad guys himself? :D
>
> Megatron has been shown to be a highly intellegent warrior time and again.
> Starscream caused Nightbird to be imprisoned, and thus poses a very real
> threat just on that basis. And so what if it is the "eternal archetype"?
They
> showed what they showed, and simply pointing out there are writers with
> external motivations behind the creation of something does mean the creation
> itself is invalid.
I assume that's a "doesn't mean the creation of..." there. The inherent
quality of a literary work, IMO, depends on how much care is put into the
story as well as how much skill the writer possesses. Quality doesn't depend
on if some random joe can make the story into something it isn't, yet fits
his/her own lifestyle.
>
> : Hmmm. Did they actually have Starscream put his gun to Megatron's head
> : and refuse to fire, or is this just conjecture?
>
> He had ample opportunity to do it more than once. He did not actually get so
> far as putting the gun up to Megatron's head and then refusing to pull the
> trigger. But if he had wanted to kill Megatron, he could have, several
> times. He didn't take those opportunities, and neither did Megatron when HE
> had the chance. Now, you can call it "sloppy writing" and comfortably
> dismiss what they showed, or you can think about what that might mean, and
> come up with your own ideas.
Like I said, I don't dismiss it. :) I see it as sloppy writing and accept
it as that. I may write up little ideas on how to explain it, but that still
doesn't change the original work.
>
> : You hafta read between the lines for Megs/Screamer's. :P
>
> And this is bad or invalid.. why? Don't you have to read between the lines
> for a lot of Shakespeare's stuff? Isn't that in fact the mark of a good
> story, something that has depth, that you can look at again and pick up
> something further from it? Yeah, as a kid, I would watch the stuff blow up,
> and listen to Soundwave's compelling voice, and cheer when Megatron
> transformed and starting blowing things up. But now I can go BACK to it
> and start to think just what Megatron and Starscream's relationship was
> all about, and the stuff we didn't see about the begining of the war, and
> the morality issues brought up by the show, etc etc.
I think there's a difference between Shakespeare and Transformers, now. For
one, Shakespeare actually had a little integrity to back his work. He
produced meaningful, sophisticated stories *without* having to read between
the lines. You can do that, but that's all extra.
>
> In short, you can dismiss the show as a mere kid's cartoon, and the result
> of "sloppy writing" if you wish. But that is a very poor basis for arguing
> about what they showed on the cartoon. Rather, you seem to be arguing that
> the show itself sucks, rather than what they showed in it. And that's just a
> totally useless thing to debate, because it's a matter of personal opinion
> what one likes.
Yes, taste is subjective. Any BW/G1 argument'll teach ya that real quick.
But, I do think there is *something* close to a universal definition of
"good" writing. And I believe that has something to do with the amount of
effort and skill put into a work.
To end it, I doubt the writers of the G1 cartoon ever meant to imply that
Starscream and Megatron were friends in the past. Any speculation that this
may or may not be true is just that. Speculation. While that may make the
stories a little more digestible for our more sophisticated tastes (as opposed
to when we were kids), it doesn't change the fact that the original work may
or may not be poorly written.
--David "Walky" Willis
http://members.xoom.com/WiiGii
>
> --
> Skyflight, ATTCM co-moderator and Anti-Spam crusader
>
>
Ultima
Raksha wrote:
[SLASH]
What the hell? I'm bored. This is all one big waste of time, but what
the hey...
> This one is on a theory I've held for many many years, almost since the very beginning of my involvement with the TFs, and is one of the things that made the whole concept so engaging for me -- seeing as there were not only great characters involved, but complex interactions between them. Pretty good for a half-hour toy commercial, hm? ;)
Yeah. Much too good. Which means that it's highly unlikely... Not that
that's ever stopped you before, but...
> MEGATRON AND STARSCREAM:
> A WORLD OF SECOND CHANCES
>
> I have long found Starscream to be the single most interesting
> and multi-faceted character among the Transformers. Not my very favorite, mind you, there's a difference - and while he certainly makes my top-five list by now, I must admit that at first I actively *dis*liked him. Here was someone who was constantly trying to undermine the imminently qualified leader whom I thought very highly of, and under the rules of "my friend's enemy is my enemy," I had Starscream pegged early as a contemptible and power-hungry jerk.
Before I go on, you ever stopped to think that maybe he WAS a
contemptible and power-hungry jerk? There are times (many times) when
what's on the surface IS what's underneathe, especially when dealing
with a children's show where complex writing of characters got in the
way of action (or at least, that's what they would lead us to believe,
judging from 95% of all cartoons I've ever watched in my lifetime,
including TFs).
[slash]
> If we look at the interactions between the two characters, a most curious pattern emerges. They snap and snarl at each other. They insult each other. They've even, on rare occasions, fired on and physically damaged each other. But, when either one of them has had the opportunity to finish the job and finally *kill* the other, they drew back. There was a line they wouldn't cross, much as they claimed to despise one another. Starscream, let's be honest, has done some pretty unforgivable
> things to Megatron. At the top of the list would surely be shooting Nightbird in the back,
Actually I'd place that somewhere near the bottom of the list. If Megs
really wanted to, I figure he could have just built another Nightbird...
> and his actions in "Starscream's Brigade" - but really it's an
> ongoing barrage of trouble-making, mouthing-off, undermining of authority, and generating additional distraction and tension that a commander fighting a war could surely do without. It's baffling, if you think about it, that Megatron has every single time forgiven him, when anyone else who acted that way, would have been a pile of molten scrap after the second warning. The question is, Why?
> I've heard a good number of attempted explanations for the
> continued tolerance between Starscream and Megatron, ranging from the
> extreme "Starscream was once Megatron's lover"
Before I read on, I almost came to that conclusion based on what I've
read here actually...
> to the banal "the characters couldn't be written out of the show as long as the toys were still on the shelves."
You call it banal. I call it "highly likely", since it was toys that
drove the show, not the writing (essentially).
More to the point: Starscream was never destroyed because that would
have been equivalent to killing a life (since the show harped from the
beginning that TFs could "think and feel"), and to my knowledge, no
american-made cartoon series for the projected audience that TFs did has
EVER shown death (at least none that was reasonably popular). THAT'S why
they never killed Starcsream off in the show. Robotech obviously had
many deaths, but that was a Japanese (well, three Japanese) series to
begin with. Voltron had quite a few deaths as well, but again, Japanese.
DragonBallZ (another Japanese show) has a LOT of deaths, but in the
dubbing all deaths are referred to as being transported to another
dimension. Uh huh.
In fact, name one TF who actually died in the series itself (that is
Cconfirmed that is). The Movie to my knowlegde is the only time when TFs
actually died that we were able to see, and that was okay because a) it
was a movie, and they had to make room for the new toys, so they had to
dump some oldies (plus, they needed to drive home the point that the
Decepticons are the evil marauders they're supposed to be, instead of
the watered-down generic bad guys they are on the regular series). They
only ended up killing about 7 characters anyway, when there could have
been (and realistically, should have been) a hell of a lot more.
Oh no wait: Call of the Primitives, but that doesn't count since
everyone got brought back to life in the end... Bleah... That's
storytelling for you... >:(
> It's also often been suggested that Starscream's flying skills were simply so exceptional and valuable that Megatron couldn't afford to kill him, but I don't buy that for an instant.
Too simplistic eh? That was probbaly the "official" cartoon explanation,
but we know better, right? Bleah...
> Starscream's flying and battle skills are beyond question, but they hardly outweigh all the problems he made, and threatened to make. A single Starscream could be replaced by a few additional jets from Cybertron - not as efficient, perhaps, but in the end equally functional. There's something more personal at stake. Which leads me to a conclusion of my own, one that I find no less likely than any of the others, given all the evidence. Quite simply, my contention is that Starscream and Megatron were once good friends.
Possible. If it were anything BUT a kiddie cartoon show, I'd believe it.
But because it IS a kiddie cartoon show, I'd say the obvious is more
likely: The can't show death, even with big robots. Let them get blown
apart or whatever, as long as they get put back together again in the
end a la Humpty Dumpty.
> The episode that handed me the full-blown realization of this, remains one of my favorites to this day: "War of the Dinobots." As is typical of character-development for Decepticons, it's the most fleeting of scenes, and you have to look sharp and listen close,
Translation: You have to look sharp and listen close, and when that
doesn't work, fabricate.
> but there it is: at the end of the episode, where the meteorite is
> about to explode, Starscream takes note of it and warns Megatron to
> get out of the way. I'll repeat that again, because it's so significant: rather than simply taking to the sky and leaving Megatron in the blast range, Starscream *warns* him. It was at that point that something clicked in my mind; there was more going on here, if you'll forgive the cliche, than meets the eye.
An anomaly. Either that, or Starscream was in his other role (besides
power-hungry jerk): Cowardly egotistical toady. "If I warn Megatron,
he'll look upon me with favour as his number one Decepticon." Whenevr
Starscresam wasn't trying to be Number One Decepticon, he was trying to
be Number Two at least...
> And then there are all those odd little scenes and snippets:
> Starscream's exuberant running commentary during the fight in
> "Heavy Metal War," full of pride and admiration for Megatron's fighting
> skills;
Been a long while sinc I've seen that episode. I'll get back to you on
that one.
> "Divide and Conquer," where Starscream was honestly seeking
> Megatron's approval for a mission well-led, and was clearly hurt upon
> not receiving it ("Surely you wish to commend me for my efforts...?");
> and numerous other examples.
This is the same as the above. Screamer's ego was kicking in there:
"Surely you don't wish to commend ME for MY efforts." He likes to hear
himself be praised...
> I would guess that Starscream once idolized Megatron as "the
> leader who could do no wrong," and Megatron was pleased with the
> idealistic and highly skilled young warrior who so looked up to him,
> and from that they built a companionship, a friendship, a mutual trust.
Like I said, it's possible. I wouldn't mind if that was really the case
before, but somehow I doubted such a scene ever sprang into the minds of
the people who wrote this show. Such a scene is far more likely in the
comic continuity...
> All of that has long since gotten buried in the endless cycle of verbal
> attacks and counter-attacks and testing of boundaries and punishment
> and ritualized forgiveness which we see on the show, but enticing glimpses of it remain. We can only wonder what may have happened to destroy the friendship that was once so firmly in place that neither wants to entirely let it go.
Assuming if it was ever there in the first place, which I'd say it
isn't.
> My suspicion is that even the best of commanders isn't unfailingly perfect, and some drastic, inadvertent error on Megatron's part was such
> a disillusion to Starscream that he felt compelled to "get even."
Or maybe because Screamer's a power-hungry, egotistical jerk who wants
to run the entire show himself...
> And what better way to get even, than to try to take from Megatron the one thing that meant most to him, that was most closely tied to his identity - namely, his command position? Nevertheless, when it came to actually putting a gun to Megatron's head and pulling the trigger (he might easily have done so near the beginning of "Starscream's Brigade," for instance), he couldn't bring himself to do it.
> How much of this "failure to finish the job", on both sides, was
> conscious, and how much was subconscious, is open to question, of course.
Rather, how much of this was the writers being unable to actually finish
off a character? Most likely, all of it.
> For my part, I see Megatron as the more "enlightened" of the two, for all that he surely feels betrayed by Starscream's turnabout, while Starscream seems blindly caught in the grip of his own inner turmoil. Perhaps Starscream too realizes somewhere within himself that Megatron is still trying to give him a chance (Starscream could wallpaper his quarters with the number of "final warnings" he's received!),
Which lends itself more to the obvious.
[snip]
> I came to see Starscream as someone who had been terribly
> wounded by his disillusionment, and as a result was lashing out at the rest of the world and those around him - which of course made the situation even worse for him. He'd painted himself into a corner. In a way he very much *wanted* to be accepted and liked by the others, but his arrogant and hostile behavior patterns had been so well established by now, that he didn't know how to break the vicious circle, and feared that any attempt at doing so, would look like weakness. So he watched the others share in their companionship and hated them for it (notice that he was always most hostile toward those whom Megatron thought especially highly of),
Can't remember.. Did Starscream ever act unusally hostile towards
Soundwave? Rumble yes, because he could pick on him. Soundwave was
bigger and, highly likely, stronger than Screamer, so no major hostility
there. Skywarp and Thundercraker are his peers, but weaker in firepower.
So in short, Screamer was only _really_ hostile towards those whom he
could get away with beging hostile with (Megatron being the main
exception, and even then, I've never seen Screamer aim a gun at Megs'
head from the front or when Megs wasn't comprimised in some way).
HOwever, I'm sure there's probably an exception or two to this, so I'm
not going to stick to this point if it's proven otherwise...
> because underneath all his bristling he was excruciatingly lonely ...
"I'll rule the universe, even if I'm the only one IN the universe" -
Sounds like Screamer didn't mind being lonely, as long as he was in
charge...
[snip]
> Old friends can't make up their differences if one of them is dead.
Well, even with one of them destroyed, and subsequent return
(Starscream's Ghost, or do you ignore everything that occured in the
movie and afterwards as well?), Megatron (well, Galvatron) didn't seem
to please to see his "old friend". I suppose you could say that
Galvatron is not Megatron, but the main personality was the same...
> In the endless dance of internal tension and resolution between two
> fascinating and strong-willed characters, it was ultimately the *lack* of conflict, the reconciliations, the cooperations, the forgiveness, which far overshadowed the superficial power struggle and made the interaction truly captivating.
> Most intriguing of all, to me personally, is the notion of one day seeing those differences settled, and it's this hope that keeps the Megatron/Starscream interaction eternally mesmerizing.
And yet, how does all of this come into play when Galvatron simply
obliterated Starscream without hesitation, now that he was able to do so
freely? It's not as if Starscream hadn't tried to destroy him or leave
him for dead before, so why now did Megs finally decide enough was
enough? And that was before he went insane...
I also note that Galvatron's cannon didn't destroy anyone like that
after the movie.. I wonder why..? >:(
--
Ultima
http://www.concentric.net/~Ultima1 - Street Fighter RPG, Final
Fantasy VII, Fan art, and miscellaneous rambling...
SFCode Ver 5.0:
{V+ MB+ Rl+ Cr+[SFA2] I[III]+ Ax[I,III]+}
[ac- +cc+(!ccRl&MB) ch- cn- c m+ 2+ n++ os+ p+ r@++ sp- st ta--
t(t+SCR) tm-- tr-:- th--@- v+(v++SFA2)]
"If you were stuck on a deserted island, and you could only
choose between MK and SF to be stuck with, and you choose MK,
then you deserve to be on that island" - Slasher Quan
"If an arcade doesn't contain some version of SF or SS in it,
then's it's not an arcade"
Skyflight
In alt.toys.transformers.classic.moderated walk...@geocities.com wrote:
: Yeah, but why aren't Autobots valid for the discussion of
: the most engaging relationship in Transformer mythos? I didn't see
: anywhere where Raksha said "Decepticons only"....
Oh, ok, I see. I thought you were saying that the relationships you
mentioned were examples of interesting Autobot/Decepticon conflict.
: Because if it were written terribly, then that means the show is terrible,
: no matter what reading between the lines anyone can do.
It's not reading between the lines to say "I observed such and such an
action or line of dialogue in the cartoon." Now, if I go on to say "I think
it *MEANS* X and Y", then I am interpretting. But the actions or lines
themselves exist. If you don't choose to see them as significant, that's
your choice. But that's just as much of a decision as thinking those lines or
actions have meaning.
People that argue this topic always seem to think they're watching the
cartoon "as is", and those of us that point to things they didn't pick up on
are making something out of nothing. But that's just silly, IMHO. We all
have to make a choice about what we think is important. Ok, this is a very
extreme example, but let's say in one episode Elita-One gave Ironhide a very
passionate kiss. Now, I can choose to think this has meaning, that something
is going on there. Or I can say "So what? It doesn't mean anything."
: happens to be the Pink Ranger that season says something that *could*
: be twisted to mean she had a past relationship with Mr. Blue Ranger?
It depends on just what happens, and the degree that you call something
being "twisted". Again, this assumption that there is a "right" way to view
and weigh every action and piece of dialogue, and everything else is just
fantasty.
: (isn't he a kid now?....ick...) Does that suddenly make their relationship
: deep? Sure, you can fanfic whatever stuff you want into the Power Rangers
: mythos, or use vague blink-or-you-miss-it sentences that could support most
: any thesis, but that doesn't make the relationship interesting unless your
: individual imagination is considered canon.
Well, again, this assumes that there is a "right" way to view things, and
everyone else is wrong, or they are imagining things. Well, when I see
Megatron stroke Starscream's arm in a very familiar (I would say almost
intimate) way in "Divide and Conquer" that *IS NOT* using my imagination. I
saw it happen, and so can anyone else that watches the episode. Now, I can
dismiss it as bad writing, an animation flub, etc etc etc. But the fact is,
they showed what they showed. The whole point of these things is to treat
the cartoon as if we are actually there observing, and treat it like real
life. The whole point of watching and discussing is to suspend our disbelief
and try to sort things out as if we had seen these things in real life. And
you can't say to your buddy Dan "Sorry you lost your wife man, but it's just
bad writing, so it doesn't mean anything.". That's why I don't give any
weight to that excuse, because it's external. I'm trying to look at the show
itself, not the process behind the show.
: It doesn't? So, basically, any trash some hack writes up is automatically
: a literary classic if somebody comes around and fills in the blanks for him.
Again, if I say I *SAW* X and Y happen on the show, it's NOT filling in the
blanks. If I go on to say "It means X and Y" then yes, I am interpretting
what I think is the most likely explanation for what I see. But the very
things that make me stop and think and interpret is what MAKES it good
writing. If it was as bad as you suggest, I wouldn't bother with it.
: I'm of the opinion that the motivations of the writer DO count. My
: motivations in this discussion are to debate a topic and have fun, and
: even hopefully learn something by the end (then again, does this topic
: *ever* end?:). So if you came along and reinterpreted all my stuff and
: added little comments between the lines, does that make my argument any
: different? Darnit, if I write a space-epic where absolute evil exists, I
: want it to be a space-epic where absolute evil exists.
But if you, as the writer, create characters that you feel are the absolute
embodiment of absolute evil, that doesn't mean I have to agree. I will
recognize that was your intention, but I may identify with those characters.
Your motivation as a writer matters only in that you create. What I choose
to think about what you have created might be different than you intend. You
might think telling me I'm a great deal like Optimus is a compliment. I
might not see it that way.
: Sure. They showed what the showed. It's sloppy writing. But that just means
: that if the episode happened to be terribly written by someone who didn't
: particularly care and pretty much just pulled the whole story outta his butt
: so's he could get a paycheck, that means that there won't be much depth
: to that story.
The writer might not have INTENDED to put in depth. S/He may not have known
that we'd latch on to what s/he consider throw-away lines. But the fact
still remains - They showed what they showed. Talking about a fictional
universe, it's quite easy to just dismiss things because you know they are
works of fiction. But, if you treat them as if you had observed it yourself,
then you have to come up with something a little better.
Example - In the whole essay, Raksha uses examples from the cartoon, and
speculates on what it means. She could just as easily have said "Starscream
and Megatron were former friends, because the writers obviously wrote it
that way, and you can't prove me wrong, so nyah." But she didn't, and
neither do I when I write about issues involving the cartoon. If you can't
use the reasoning in real life, it's not valid to me. Because we're trying
to suspend our disbelief and look at this universe on its own terms, not
bring in external considerations.
: Any little quirks that you find that you like are probably
: accidental. Completely random.
Then why are they so consistent?
: Hey, I'm not throwing *anything* outta the canon because it's written poorly.
: Heck, we wouldn't be left with much canon, now, would we? :) I'm just stating
: that nothing *truly* significant can be found in a crap story. You can make
: your own stuff up, but it doesn't change the story.
Walky.. Well, 1.) I don't consider the stories to be crap. 2.) It's not
"making stuff up" to say I SAW this happen. The simple fact that there are
CONSISTENT character elements that I can point to means they are NOT random.
: They
:> showed what they showed, and simply pointing out there are writers with
:> external motivations behind the creation of something does mean the creation
:> itself is invalid.
: I assume that's a "doesn't mean the creation of..." there. The inherent
Well, that's what I meant to say, yes. :)
: quality of a literary work, IMO, depends on how much care is put into the
: story as well as how much skill the writer possesses. Quality doesn't depend
: on if some random joe can make the story into something it isn't, yet fits
: his/her own lifestyle.
I won't beat the dead horse again about making stuff up versus what they
showed. But I will point out that you don't KNOW how much care was put into
the G1 series. Have you talked to all the G1 writers at length? Have you
read their notes, watched video tapes of them working? How do YOU know how
much care they put into it?
(Ah, I can sense my favourite answer coming up : "It's so obvious!!")
: Like I said, I don't dismiss it. :) I see it as sloppy writing and accept
: it as that. I may write up little ideas on how to explain it, but that still
: doesn't change the original work.
That is dismissing it. You're using an external excuse to avoid the problem.
If you can't use the explanation in real life, it doesn't fit into a serious
discussion of fiction. "Hey Bob, don't worry that your house is on fire,
it's just bad writing, so it's not important."
: But, I do think there is *something* close to a universal definition of
: "good" writing. And I believe that has something to do with the amount of
: effort and skill put into a work.
Sure, it will matter as far as it affects the end product. But you can't
discuss the end product by bringing in external factors. THAT is making
stuff up IMHO, becasue it didn't happen in the story.
: To end it, I doubt the writers of the G1 cartoon ever meant to imply that
: Starscream and Megatron were friends in the past. Any speculation that this
: may or may not be true is just that. Speculation. While that may make the
: stories a little more digestible for our more sophisticated tastes (as opposed
: to when we were kids), it doesn't change the fact that the original work may
: or may not be poorly written.
So what if they did mean to imply it or not? They showed scenes that makes
some people think along those lines. That's enough. That's *ALL* we're talking
about. We're talking about the motivations of the CHARACTERS, not the
writer's motivations. If I see a so-called modern art sculpture that looks
like a bunch of twisted pieces of metal painted blue, and is the ugliest
thing I've ever laid eyes on, it wouldn't move me one little bit to hear the
artist spent five years on it, lovingly crafting each piece. Likewise, if I
see a breathtaking painting that I think is beautiful, it's not going to
matter to me to hear the artist knocked it off in two hours while talking on
the phone, and doesn't even remember painting it. I still will like it for
what it is.
Steve R. Stonebraker
Skyflight (Bea...@cris.com) writes:
> In alt.toys.transformers.classic.moderated David \"Walky\" Willis <walk...@geocities.com> wrote:
> : Yeah, but I figgered that was because of sloppy writing.
>
> does that mean? Why does it have *ANY* bearing whatsoever on this issue?
> They showed what they showed. It matters not one tiny bit whether it was
> produced by a brillent science fiction writer or a thousand monkeys typing
> random letters for five years. THEY SHOWED WHAT THEY SHOWED. I don't know
> how to make it any clearer. The motivations of the characters is
> all-important. The motivations of the WRITER for providing those motivations
> matters not at all.
Hrmmm... I know "sloppy writing" is similar to the "the box says they're evil"
argument that I discounted yesterday in that it steps outside the fiction
for its answers, but I really believe that sometimes that is the best way
to solve a dilemna. There are some events in the TF mythos that honestly
were written in because someone wasn't paying attention, or didn't care.
A lot of these are things that we, as fans, can justify within the mythos
and satisfy ourselves, sometimes even add a new and interesting dimension
to the TFU. But sometimes..
Imagine, hypothetically, that there had been an episode of the cartoon in
which a Transformer tells the story of their war to a human, but tells it
differently than you have ever heard it before... big differences that
just can't be reconciled, like that the Great War started because of a
misunderstanding at first contact between the home planets of the Bots and
Cons. And all the teammates of this character sit around nodding their
agreement. Or even better, if the *narrator* tells this story, so it
can't be an issue of mass hallucinations or just a big joke they're
playing on the fleshling. You wouldn't let something like that slip by as
a mistake by the episode's writer?
Sometimes, IMHO, the only explanations for things that were shown that
stay within the fiction are completely unacceptable... they make no sense,
or put a huge fracture in the stability of the mythos as a whole. The
origin of the Constructicons is very near this point in my mind, but the
horribly contrived sequence of events which would make it all "okay" is
*just* within my suspension of disbelief. What about things like the
million and one goofs in "Carnage in C-Minor"? Do those count as canon,
too? Characters speaking with the wrong voices, fighting alongside their
enemies, gestalt components standing next to the gestalts they form? I
think some things are just too ridiculous to try to incorporate into the
mythos.
--
--Steve
Steve Stonebraker | alt.toys.transformers FAQ Keeper | Help end email spam!
srst...@cc.owu.edu | http://cc.owu.edu/~srstoneb/ | http://www.cauce.org
walk...@geocities.com
> Oh, ok, I see. I thought you were saying that the relationships you
> mentioned were examples of interesting Autobot/Decepticon conflict.
Ah. Well, to run in that direction for no reason, a few A/D conflicts I
always though were interesting include Ratchet/Megatron in the comics, as
well as Optimus Prime and Scorpinok 'round the Unicron issues.
>
> : Because if it were written terribly, then that means the show is terrible,
> : no matter what reading between the lines anyone can do.
>
> It's not reading between the lines to say "I observed such and such an
> action or line of dialogue in the cartoon." Now, if I go on to say "I think
> it *MEANS* X and Y", then I am interpretting. But the actions or lines
> themselves exist. If you don't choose to see them as significant, that's
> your choice. But that's just as much of a decision as thinking those lines
or
> actions have meaning.
>
> People that argue this topic always seem to think they're watching the
> cartoon "as is", and those of us that point to things they didn't pick up on
> are making something out of nothing. But that's just silly, IMHO. We all
> have to make a choice about what we think is important. Ok, this is a very
> extreme example, but let's say in one episode Elita-One gave Ironhide a very
> passionate kiss. Now, I can choose to think this has meaning, that something
> is going on there. Or I can say "So what? It doesn't mean anything."
Well, for one, it means Ironhide's gonna *lose* his hide if Optimus finds
out, but that's something easily more major than Starscream sneaking a glance
to the left or right and making something of that. Just as long as you can
admit that the possibility exists that it probably means nothing, I can hope
to try to see your point of view.
It's just that it's hard for me to find a greater meaning in a children's
cartoon that was written by so many different people with so few cohesive
elements to draw from that they managed three separate Constructicon origins.
Yes, I know, it can be explained away, and it sounds reasonable enough,
but the very fact that you *can* (barely) explain the error away doesn't make
the original story any better.
My original reason for responding to this thread was because I took issue
with the idea that Starscream and Megatron have the most dynamic
intrafactional relationship, based on several small insignificant (to me)
pieces of dialogue. I thought, well, gee.... If the best character
relationship ever *ever* in the TF mythos was fabricated by accident, what
does that say for all the relationships the writers have *tried* to develop?
The inspiring *dynamic* (as in *changing*) relationship between Rattrap
and Dinobot throughout Beast Wars pales in comparison to a few select lines
here and there that only mean something to a few Decepticon supporters?
Optimus Prime's relationship with Grimlock through the end of Furman's G1
run and to the end of G2 means diddly compared to Starscream out-of-
characterly shouting, "Megatron, watch out!"?
You may be different, but even a Landmine/Cloudburst buddy story written
by Budiansky means more to me than one line by Starscream that was in error.
>
> : happens to be the Pink Ranger that season says something that *could*
> : be twisted to mean she had a past relationship with Mr. Blue Ranger?
>
> It depends on just what happens, and the degree that you call something
> being "twisted". Again, this assumption that there is a "right" way to view
> and weigh every action and piece of dialogue, and everything else is just
> fantasty.
Okay, say she said, "Your hair looks nice today." Everything in the past
398 seasons has been suggesting that she hates his guts. Now, if this were
the latest episode, you could take this to mean her feelings toward him
are changing. But, if this is left undeveloped or, worse, forgotten entirely,
then it's not meaningful to me at all. It might make your day, but I wouldn't
see why.
The problem is that we're just different, that's all. :)
>
> : (isn't he a kid now?....ick...) Does that suddenly make their
relationship
> : deep? Sure, you can fanfic whatever stuff you want into the Power Rangers
> : mythos, or use vague blink-or-you-miss-it sentences that could support
most
> : any thesis, but that doesn't make the relationship interesting unless your
> : individual imagination is considered canon.
>
> Well, again, this assumes that there is a "right" way to view things, and
> everyone else is wrong, or they are imagining things. Well, when I see
> Megatron stroke Starscream's arm in a very familiar (I would say almost
> intimate) way in "Divide and Conquer" that *IS NOT* using my imagination.
Ewww!
I
> saw it happen, and so can anyone else that watches the episode. Now, I can
> dismiss it as bad writing, an animation flub, etc etc etc. But the fact is,
> they showed what they showed. The whole point of these things is to treat
> the cartoon as if we are actually there observing, and treat it like real
> life. The whole point of watching and discussing is to suspend our disbelief
> and try to sort things out as if we had seen these things in real life. And
> you can't say to your buddy Dan "Sorry you lost your wife man, but it's just
> bad writing, so it doesn't mean anything.". That's why I don't give any
> weight to that excuse, because it's external. I'm trying to look at the show
> itself, not the process behind the show.
I dunno, that whole idea to me seems like denial. Yeah, I know the importance
of suspension of disbelief, but for me it's harder to do that for a poorly
written story rather than a well-written story. If you're completely ignoring
everything except the cartoon, you're missing a lot of context. This isn't
a history lesson, and even in history books, you hafta know what the writer
of that particular textbook was thinking and what his biases were. In fact,
how can the decision be made that the Decepticons are good be based *soley*
on the *actual cartoon*? Heck, they call 'em "evil" in the cartoon. Taking
that as your canon, not the circumstances behind why the story was written
would seem to suggest that you'd agree.
Earlier you said:
> It's not reading between the lines to say "I observed such and such an
> action or line of dialogue in the cartoon."
So the narrator says they're evil. I observe this in the cartoon, so is
it true? :)
> Again, if I say I *SAW* X and Y happen on the show, it's NOT filling in the
> blanks. If I go on to say "It means X and Y" then yes, I am interpretting
> what I think is the most likely explanation for what I see. But the very
> things that make me stop and think and interpret is what MAKES it good
> writing. If it was as bad as you suggest, I wouldn't bother with it.
Yeah, but I could interpret almost anything. I could interpret a story
written when I was five into a literary classic, just by retconning all my
ideas and taking what I know now to the actual words. That doesn't make
the story good. It make you a good interpreter. :)
>
> : I'm of the opinion that the motivations of the writer DO count. My
> : motivations in this discussion are to debate a topic and have fun, and
> : even hopefully learn something by the end (then again, does this topic
> : *ever* end?:). So if you came along and reinterpreted all my stuff and
> : added little comments between the lines, does that make my argument any
> : different? Darnit, if I write a space-epic where absolute evil exists, I
> : want it to be a space-epic where absolute evil exists.
>
> But if you, as the writer, create characters that you feel are the absolute
> embodiment of absolute evil, that doesn't mean I have to agree. I will
> recognize that was your intention, but I may identify with those characters.
> Your motivation as a writer matters only in that you create. What I choose
> to think about what you have created might be different than you intend. You
> might think telling me I'm a great deal like Optimus is a compliment. I
> might not see it that way.
Yeah, but say in my stories, absolute evil exists. This is what the story
*states*. Within the context of the story, *not taking your external
views into account*, the people or ideas I state are evil are evil. You're
being just as external as you say I am when I say the stories are badly
written.
>
> : Sure. They showed what the showed. It's sloppy writing. But that just
means
> : that if the episode happened to be terribly written by someone who didn't
> : particularly care and pretty much just pulled the whole story outta his
butt
> : so's he could get a paycheck, that means that there won't be much depth
> : to that story.
>
> The writer might not have INTENDED to put in depth. S/He may not have known
> that we'd latch on to what s/he consider throw-away lines. But the fact
> still remains - They showed what they showed. Talking about a fictional
> universe, it's quite easy to just dismiss things because you know they are
> works of fiction. But, if you treat them as if you had observed it yourself,
> then you have to come up with something a little better.
Wouldn't it be great to have something better from the beginning, instead of
having to rethink it into something it's not? :)
>
> Example - In the whole essay, Raksha uses examples from the cartoon, and
> speculates on what it means. She could just as easily have said "Starscream
> and Megatron were former friends, because the writers obviously wrote it
> that way, and you can't prove me wrong, so nyah." But she didn't, and
> neither do I when I write about issues involving the cartoon. If you can't
> use the reasoning in real life, it's not valid to me. Because we're trying
> to suspend our disbelief and look at this universe on its own terms, not
> bring in external considerations.
Exactly. On the TF universe's own terms, the *Decepticons are evil*. The
narrator says so. In this particular fiction, the Decepticons are this
fiction's ideas of evil. Anything else is "external considerations."
>
> : Any little quirks that you find that you like are probably
> : accidental. Completely random.
>
> Then why are they so consistent?
Starscream showing concern for Megs? How often does *that* happen? :)
>
> : Hey, I'm not throwing *anything* outta the canon because it's written
poorly.
> : Heck, we wouldn't be left with much canon, now, would we? :) I'm just
stating
> : that nothing *truly* significant can be found in a crap story. You can
make
> : your own stuff up, but it doesn't change the story.
>
> Walky.. Well, 1.) I don't consider the stories to be crap. 2.) It's not
> "making stuff up" to say I SAW this happen. The simple fact that there are
> CONSISTENT character elements that I can point to means they are NOT random.
1. Well, I know that. Hard not to know what our different views are after
chatting on IRC. Speaking of which, where ya been? Or have I just been
working at the wrong hours....?
2. And I say the Decepticons are CONSISTENTLY written as evil. At least
the fiction's idea of evil. Working only from the internal aspects of
that fiction, with no outside context, I don't see how it matters what
your individual ideas of right or wrong are. As the universe exists,
the Decepticons are evil. The Autobots are heroic. Interpretting differing
motives for these characters would be external, not internal like you've
been saying.
And I'm not saying that the external is wrong. Like I said, I do it all
the time when I discern about bad writing. It's just that I believe outside
information is important, while you say it is not.
>
> : They
> :> showed what they showed, and simply pointing out there are writers with
> :> external motivations behind the creation of something does mean the
creation
> :> itself is invalid.
>
> : I assume that's a "doesn't mean the creation of..." there. The inherent
>
> Well, that's what I meant to say, yes. :)
>
> : quality of a literary work, IMO, depends on how much care is put into the
> : story as well as how much skill the writer possesses. Quality doesn't
depend
> : on if some random joe can make the story into something it isn't, yet fits
> : his/her own lifestyle.
>
> I won't beat the dead horse again about making stuff up versus what they
> showed. But I will point out that you don't KNOW how much care was put into
> the G1 series. Have you talked to all the G1 writers at length? Have you
> read their notes, watched video tapes of them working? How do YOU know how
> much care they put into it?
> (Ah, I can sense my favourite answer coming up : "It's so obvious!!")
It's so obvious!! Er...wait. No... Heh.
You mean I can't watch Barney and Friends and figger out it's written in an
unsophisticated fashion? I can't watch a cheap Disney-wannabe version of
Aladdin done by some independent studio and released only to video and realize
it was only tossed together to cash in on the real deal?
As I see it (whatever that amounts to :) the quality in a work can be noticed.
Of course, it's easier to notice it with every bit of literature you read,
so you can gain experience. Case in point: when I was 7, I thought the TF
cartoon was the greatest series ever. But not that I see it's sorta childish
and not as imaginative as some other things I've read, it's lowered on my
list of great stuff. Now, when I watch it, (like this summer on Sci-Fi),
I think, "Ack, I liked *this* stuff when I was a kid?"
And then I go back and read my TF comics. ;)
>
> : Like I said, I don't dismiss it. :) I see it as sloppy writing and accept
> : it as that. I may write up little ideas on how to explain it, but that
still
> : doesn't change the original work.
>
> That is dismissing it. You're using an external excuse to avoid the problem.
> If you can't use the explanation in real life, it doesn't fit into a serious
> discussion of fiction. "Hey Bob, don't worry that your house is on fire,
> it's just bad writing, so it's not important."
Yeah, but this is a story about transforming sentient robots. A lot of
explanations don't work in real life that work in this story. True, that's
not breaking the fourth wall, but I merely *don't* use my interpreting skills
to claim the original, uninterpreted work is written better because of it.
>
> : But, I do think there is *something* close to a universal definition of
> : "good" writing. And I believe that has something to do with the amount of
> : effort and skill put into a work.
>
> Sure, it will matter as far as it affects the end product. But you can't
> discuss the end product by bringing in external factors. THAT is making
> stuff up IMHO, becasue it didn't happen in the story.
Again, (heh, I think we're both saying the same thing over and over:) applying
your own ideas of good and evil to a cartoon where evil is absolute is just
as external.
>
> : To end it, I doubt the writers of the G1 cartoon ever meant to imply that
> : Starscream and Megatron were friends in the past. Any speculation that
this
> : may or may not be true is just that. Speculation. While that may make
the
> : stories a little more digestible for our more sophisticated tastes (as
opposed
> : to when we were kids), it doesn't change the fact that the original work
may
> : or may not be poorly written.
>
> So what if they did mean to imply it or not? They showed scenes that makes
> some people think along those lines. That's enough. That's *ALL* we're
talking
> about. We're talking about the motivations of the CHARACTERS, not the
> writer's motivations. If I see a so-called modern art sculpture that looks
> like a bunch of twisted pieces of metal painted blue, and is the ugliest
> thing I've ever laid eyes on, it wouldn't move me one little bit to hear the
> artist spent five years on it, lovingly crafting each piece. Likewise, if I
> see a breathtaking painting that I think is beautiful, it's not going to
> matter to me to hear the artist knocked it off in two hours while talking on
> the phone, and doesn't even remember painting it. I still will like it for
> what it is.
Eh. I don't comprehend that viewpoint. Again, it's 'cuz we have obviously
different ideas, but the amount of care and work put into art really affect
my opinion of it.
--David "If we ever agree, I'll buy you a Cyberjet :)" Willis
aka Walky
http://members.xoom.com/WiiGii
Robert Powers
Another of my posts that I was wise enough to save -- sure enough, it
didn't go through. Looks like I'll have to start posting to the .mod
groups by e-mail. Sorry if this post doesn't follow-up to the proper
post.
-----------------
First off, thank you both for a very interesting debate...
On Wed, 20 May 1998 12:30:33 EST, Skyflight <Bea...@cris.com> wrote:
>So what if they did mean to imply it or not? They showed scenes that makes
>some people think along those lines. That's enough. That's *ALL* we're talking
>about. We're talking about the motivations of the CHARACTERS, not the
>writer's motivations. If I see a so-called modern art sculpture that looks
>like a bunch of twisted pieces of metal painted blue, and is the ugliest
>thing I've ever laid eyes on, it wouldn't move me one little bit to hear the
>artist spent five years on it, lovingly crafting each piece. Likewise, if I
>see a breathtaking painting that I think is beautiful, it's not going to
>matter to me to hear the artist knocked it off in two hours while talking on
>the phone, and doesn't even remember painting it. I still will like it for
>what it is.
This is a very telling version of Skyflight's argument (I'm never sure
nowadays whether I should refer to him as Skyflight, Burt, or Beavis...
:]. I think it calls attention to the issue of what make a piece of art
"great", be it a novel, a painting, or a TV script. And I think a
distinction that's being missed here is that between great *art* and a
great *artist*.
I think we all agree that the things Raksha and Skyflight (R & S
henceforth) are talking about *can* be read into the show. But to Walky,
the fact that these little tidbits are probably "accidental" lowers the
value of the show. To R & S, the issue of whether they were intentional
or not is completely irrelevant. Walky's disagreement with R & S's points
stems in part from his perception that a lot of *effort* was *not* put
into the writing of the G1 show. R & S may agree that this was indeed the
case, but feel it doesn't necessarily affect the quality of the show.
As much as it bothers me at some level, I have to go with R & S. The
intentions of the creator are, in the end, irrelevant in comparison to the
final product. HOWEVER, the creator's intentions DO have great weight in
shaping the outcome of the product. Furthermore, one mark of a good/great
artist is not whether they can knock off one randomly good piece of work,
but if they can turn out good/great art consistently. Effort doesn't
matter in the end, but it does tend to the creation of better work.
I think the G1 writers did not intend to turn out a product with the
sophisticated overtones that we see in it today. That they did so does
not make them great artists, or even the G1 show great art. But it does
make it at least "accidentally good", for at least some viewers.
Of course, the whole issue of what makes art "great" is a bit nebulous,
but my head is spinning now and I'm not going to go into that. :]
--
Robert Powers of the Ever-Changing .sig
repo...@shell.faradic.net ____________________________________
| Vince Clortho considered this. The Traveler had never before |
| come in the form of a dude. It smacked of treachery. |
|_____________________________--Ghostbusters <novelization>____|
David "Walky" Willis
>Heh... if you ever find proof that all 'Cons are evil no matter what
because the
>narratror/box/theme song says so and that we writers don't throw in hidden
>sub-plots, I'll give you two of EACH cyberjet (and even throw in Hook's
legs and
>Prowl-the-half-a-'Bot)!
Well, to clarify, I never said that the 'Cons are evil (although their
cause may be), but in the TF fiction, if you take it at face-value like
ol' Skyflight said, the 'Cons are evil.
There are several good 'Cons. Some so-so 'Cons. And sure, there are evil
'Cons. But it's probably the same with the Autobots. I just happen to like
what the Autobots are fighting for more than what the Decepticons are
fighting for.
Yes, due to the characters in the TF series, if you use your own
interpretations and ideas of right and wrong, then some character may seem
darn right friendly even though the narrator states that they are evil.
But again, that's applying your own morality. External. External external
external. :)
According to the internal as-it-is TF mythos, the 'Cons are evil.
--David "Besides, Starscream's just nice to Megs occasionally 'cuz he's
a backstabbing suck-up. But that's my own interpretation." Willis
Skyflight
In alt.toys.transformers.classic.moderated David \"Walky\" Willis <walk...@geocities.com> wrote:
: Yes, due to the characters in the TF series, if you use your own
: interpretations and ideas of right and wrong, then some character may seem
: darn right friendly even though the narrator states that they are evil.
: But again, that's applying your own morality. External. External external
: external. :)
: According to the internal as-it-is TF mythos, the 'Cons are evil.
I know it's a shock, but I disagree Walky. One has no CHOICE but to apply
their own values and judgement to the cartoon (or anything they watch). A
person sits down, watches something, and then forms an opinion on what
he/she thinks of it. One can not help but do this, it's how humans work.
When I say external, I mean forming an opinion of the show or its characters
based on something that didn't happen on the cartoon. Watching Starscream
shoot Nightbird in the back is a valid part of forming an opinion about
Starscream, IMHO. But, saying "every cartoon has to have a second in command
like that, so it's bad writing" is not, IMHO. (What that has to do with
Starscream's actions and motivations I don't know. Again, if you had a
painting in your house that was so beautiful it greatly moved and inspired
you every time you looked at it, and you then found out it was painted by
someone who turned it out in a hour talking on the phone and didn't care
about it - would you throw that painting out?)
So, the narrator may say, The Evil Decepticons (tm). That happened on the
cartoon, and must be considered. However, I don't have to agree with it. If
I were to say "The narration is poor writing, and therefore wasn't actually
said." then I would be applying external rationale. I may dismiss what the
narrotor says as wrong, based on what I see elsewhere in the cartoon, but I
can't simply pretend it was never said.
walk...@geocities.com
In article <6k9bau$g...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Skyflight <Bea...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> : Yes, due to the characters in the TF series, if you use your own
> : interpretations and ideas of right and wrong, then some character may seem
> : darn right friendly even though the narrator states that they are evil.
> : But again, that's applying your own morality. External. External
external
> : external. :)
> : According to the internal as-it-is TF mythos, the 'Cons are evil.
>
> I know it's a shock, but I disagree Walky. One has no CHOICE but to apply
> their own values and judgement to the cartoon (or anything they watch). A
> person sits down, watches something, and then forms an opinion on what
> he/she thinks of it. One can not help but do this, it's how humans work.
Well, yes and no. There is the tv show, and there is what the viewer thinks
about the tv show after having watched it. The tv show can exist without
someone being around to watch it and form an opinion. I know it's near
impossible to watch something objectively, but that doesn't mean that there
isn't an objective viewpoint.
Let's take War Dawn.....Aerialbots reconsider their faction alignment with
the Autobots, ask some Decepticons what their side of the story is, and the
'bots get sent back in time. These are facts. They happened, and they
are objective. No interpreting at all. Now when you think of whether the
'Cons were right or not in their choice to ignore the Aerialbot's queries
and send them off into the past instead, that's interpreting -- making it
subjective. You can watch the show without a thought in your head. Sure,
that's boring and I don't expect anyone to be able to do it, nor do I
say interpreting things are wrong, I'm just saying that an objective viewpoint
is possible. It's like reading a timeline.
>
> When I say external, I mean forming an opinion of the show or its characters
> based on something that didn't happen on the cartoon. Watching Starscream
> shoot Nightbird in the back is a valid part of forming an opinion about
> Starscream, IMHO. But, saying "every cartoon has to have a second in command
> like that, so it's bad writing" is not, IMHO.
It's just that I've seen *so* many other cartoon villains written before
and after TFG1 characterized so similarly, Starscream doesn't really come to
life (for me), since I've seen his kind done worse and I've seen his kind
done better.
Thus, saying the cliched "relationship" between Megatron and Starscream seems
not only wrong to me, but it insults Transformers in general, in that the
"best relationship in the entire TF mythos" is not all that great.
(What that has to do with
> Starscream's actions and motivations I don't know. Again, if you had a
> painting in your house that was so beautiful it greatly moved and inspired
> you every time you looked at it, and you then found out it was painted by
> someone who turned it out in a hour talking on the phone and didn't care
> about it - would you throw that painting out?)
Actually, I probably would. I wouldn't throw it out, but my opinion would
drop considerably from the previous high esteem I'd had for it. Anything
else would be living a lie.
>
> So, the narrator may say, The Evil Decepticons (tm). That happened on the
> cartoon, and must be considered. However, I don't have to agree with it. If
> I were to say "The narration is poor writing, and therefore wasn't actually
> said." then I would be applying external rationale. I may dismiss what the
> narrotor says as wrong, based on what I see elsewhere in the cartoon, but I
> can't simply pretend it was never said.
Again, I still hold the opinion that deciding whether you agree with something
or not is applying external rationale. If it isn't the original cartoon's
rationale, it's gotta be someone else's, right? And that rationale never
existed in the cartoon until someone came along and applied it. Therefore
it's not *part* of the original cartoon. It's added on like Aerialbots to
Metroplex.
I want to emphasize that I agree that applying your own rationale to a cartoon
is not wrong. I do it all the time. It's inevitable.
--David
aka Walky
http://members.xoom.com/WiiGii
>
> --
> Skyflight, ATTCM co-moderator and Anti-Spam crusader
>
>
Raksha
Getting back to the Megatron & Starscream's past friendship topic for a
bit.....
Blue-Jackal writes:
>I remember seeing the scene in "Megatrons master plan"
>where Megs and Screamer are walking through the power
>plant (or whatever it is) and Megatron says "Have you ever
>seen so much energy Starscream?". I always thought that
>they were unusually seeming like friends there because I
>think that scene looks like Megatron is trying to teach Starscream
>and is treating him like a protege(sp?).
I remember that scene catching my attention as well, because they really
were strolling along and talking companionably like friends. It's one of
the many many scenes that I could have listed in the essay, which there
simply wasn't room for. In the printed magazine, I like to keep the
introductory essays to one page (though on occasion I've opened the
floodgates of spam and run into two). And even with narrowing the margins
to their utmost limits and shrinking the text to the point where you almost
need a magnifying glass to read it, there's only so much room on a single
page....
>I remember several occasions where Megatron would transform
>into a gun and let Starscream catch him. I don't think he would
>do that if there hadn't been some trust between them.
That was something that always puzzled me, actually, but you're right in
that it was almost always Starscream and not one of the "more trusted"
warriors who fired Megatron in his gun mode. My brother once had a theory
that this was actually a way for Megatron to excercise his dominance over
Starscream and keep him in his place -- assuming that Megatron would be
fairly vulnerable in gun mode, which would assume that Starscream could do
a lot of damage to him in that mode if he so desired ... but remember that
this isn't just a handgun, this is a *fusion* weapon. My brother's theory
was that an attempt to crush the relatively small gun would set off a minor
nuclear explosion that would vaporize Starscream as well, and so he knew
better than to even try -- and the "excercising dominance" aspect was where
Megatron continually put Starscream in a position of *seeming* to be very
close to being able to damage him, but not being allowed to do it after all.
I entertained that theory for a while, and maybe there's still something
to it ... they *do* play mind-games with one another, lots of trying to put
the other down, psychological one-upsmanship, and such ... but then, if
you've read the essay, I don't believe Starscream actually would try to
crush the gun mode even if he knew he could get away with it....
>I'm asuming everyone remembers the scene early in the movie
>when, after Laserbeak has returned, Megatron says "Unlike
>some of my other warriorsyou never fail me". Watch Starscream
>at that point, the way he turns round as if to say"Hey!!!!", because
>he just knows the remark was meant for him.
I noticed that one as well -- particularly the fact that it wasn't an
*angry* expression so much as it was a *hurt* expression. Same with the
scene in "Divide and Conquor." And you can't tell me that by the end of
"Decepticon Raider in King Arthur's Court," Starscream wasn't genuinely
happy to see Megatron again.... :)
--Raksha
Raksha
Ultima wrote:
>Raksha wrote:
>[SLASH]What the hell? I'm bored. This is all one big waste of time, but what
>the hey...>
Do explain to me why it's a waste of time? I didn't consider it a waste of
time to write out the essay, I don't consider it a waste of time to
continue to give evidence for my point of view, so why should you consider
it a waste of time to reply? If you *do* consider it a waste of time, then
why bother?
>> This one is on a theory I've held for many many years, almost since the
>>very beginning of my involvement with the TFs, and is one of the things
that
>>made the whole concept so engaging for me -- seeing as there were not only
>>great characters involved, but complex interactions between them. Pretty
good
>>for a half-hour toy commercial, hm? ;)
>
>Yeah. Much too good. Which means that it's highly unlikely... Not that
>that's ever stopped you before, but...
Unlikely is in the eye of the beholder, like so many other things. Hey, if
you feel the characters are *not* interesting and engaging, then what's the
appeal of the show to you? To me personally, the attraction to the TF
mythos has always been in the strength of its characters, just like that's
what essentially drives the Star Trek phenomenon. I realize there are
different takes on this, that there are people who get into the TFs because
many of the toys are so excellent, but I'm of the mind that this alone
can't sustain a *fandom*. There's a difference between a "collector" and a
"fan", and while there's surely a greater or lesser degree of collector in
most every fan, that alone isn't enough, IMO.....
>> I have long found Starscream to be the single most interesting
>> and multi-faceted character among the Transformers. Not my very
>>favorite, mind you, there's a difference - and while he certainly makes
>>my top-five list by now, I must admit that at first I actively *dis*liked
him.
>>Here was someone who was constantly trying to undermine the imminently
>>qualified leader whom I thought very highly of, and under the rules of
"my friend's
>>enemy is my enemy," I had Starscream pegged early as a contemptible and
>>power-hungry jerk.
>
>Before I go on, you ever stopped to think that maybe he WAS acontemptible
>and power-hungry jerk?
I believe I just said that. I thought as much at first too. But there was
so much evidence to the contrary that I was quickly forced to re-evaluate
my judgement.
>There are times (many times) whenwhat's on the surface IS what's underneathe,
> especially when dealing with a children's show where complex writing of
characters
>got in the way of action
None the less, somehow the complexity of the characters crept in. You'd
have to do a whole lot of ignoring of entire scenes, events, lines of
dialogue, tones of voice, facial expression, etc., to classify Starscream
as a one-dimensional character.
>>Starscream, let's be honest, has done some pretty unforgivable things to
Megatron.
>>At the top of the list would surely be shooting Nightbird in the back,
>
>Actually I'd place that somewhere near the bottom of the list. If Megs
really wanted to,
>I figure he could have just built another Nightbird...
Let's see if I understand what you're saying here. "Someone kills your
lover, or sees to it in some other way that you may never see them again.
Gee, no big deal, you can just go out and get another, organic beings
replicate themselves all the time." You seem to be forgetting that
Nightbird was a sentient being, and as such, her nature and personality are
unique and irreplaceable.
>>I've heard a good number of attempted explanations for the continued
>>tolerance between Starscream and Megatron, ranging from the extreme
>>"Starscream was once Megatron's lover"
>
>Before I read on, I almost came to that conclusion based on what I've
>read here actually...
Heh. While there may well be a place for slash-fanfic in the realm of the
Transformers, I just don't see Starscream as being quite Megatron's
type.... ;)
>>to the banal "the characters couldn't be written out of the show as
>>long as the toys were still on the shelves."
>
>You call it banal. I call it "highly likely", since it was toys that
>drove the show, not the writing (essentially).
Not so. The toys were neat, no one would ever contest that. But if it was
*just* the toys, if they'd come with no personalities and no stories, which
were lent to them *by the cartoon* (and to a lesser degree by the comic),
there wouldn't be a TransFandom today. I guarantee it.
> More to the point: Starscream was never destroyed because that would
>have been equivalent to killing a life (since the show harped from the
beginning
>that TFs could "think and feel"), and to my knowledge, no american-made
cartoon
>series for the projected audience that TFs did has EVER shown death (at
least
>none that was reasonably popular).
>In fact, name one TF who actually died in the series itself (that
isCconfirmed that is).
I've always maintained that the multicolored seeker jets who were seen
throughout MTMTE, but never again thereafter, died in the crash of the
spaceship. I know you're going to claim that's not a confirmed kill, that
those were simply penciled in to make the Decepticon forces look more
numerous and thus more menacing, but that's a cop-out ... that's not a
simple animation glitch, gods know there were a number of them in the
series, but these were individuals who were drawn multiple times, quite
deliberately. You can't just look at a scene and say "They weren't really
there." Because they never had a line of dialogue? If there are crowd
scenes in the background of an action-adventure movie, and a sniper with an
automatic weapon mows people down, would you say that those people were
never really there in the context of the story, that they didn't really die
in the context of the story, simply because they never had any dialogue, we
never learned who they were earlier in the story, and they were simply
placed there for visual effect?
And then there's the Sweep in "FFoD". A very obvious kill. And he *had*
dialogue. Did he not exist either?
Interesting aside, not to open that can of worms again (though, what the
hell, they're wriggling out through the holes in the bottom already :) ),
the only clear confirmed kills that were shown in the series, were Autobots
killing Decepticons, and not the other way around. Hmmm....
Getting to your point, though, in a roundabout manner ... even *if* your
statement were true, that no deaths were ever shown (which it isn't, as
I've just pointed out), and even *if* your explanation were correct, that
kids' cartoon shows aren't allowed to show deaths and that's why no
characters ever died (probably true in an overall sense, except for those
few that snuck past), it still has no bearing on the real question. As
Skyflight has pointed out elsewhere, when you bring "real-world" reasons
into the story, you're no longer viewing the story as an
internally-consistent universe. While the "ultimate" explanation for
keeping a character around, may be to sell toys, the *internal*
story-driven reason, what's *shown* on the episode, has nothing whatsoever
to do with that.
Example ... say you're reading a series of novels, and at the end of one,
the main character is in danger of death, and the only other individual
with him is someone who had never gotten along with this guy. Yet against
all expectation, the one character goes to save the other. Why? Well, the
ultimate cause may be that the author knows she's still got two more books
to finish in that series, that's what she's been contracted for, and she'd
better damn well not kill off the main character, as he's needed in future
stories. Perhaps she's unwittingly written herself into a corner, so that
the situation is as I describe it, that the only other person with the
character who might save him, is an antagonist. This happens, believe me;
I've had the experience myself. So now the scene is written, the deed is
done. The possibility exists now, in the next book, to explore *why* that
other character stepped forward to help, and this in itself might add a
whole new facet to the storytelling. Even if the author obliviously goes
on to write the next book and never mentions it again, the readers will no
doubt form their own conclusion from the events shown, namely that the
rescuer wasn't such a bad person after all, that there's surely something
decent about him somewhere. Because such is the conclusion that's drawn
*from the actions in the story.* That's all that matters. Whether the
author cleverly planned it that way, or whether it was an inconvenient
mistake, is totally irrelevant. Furthermore, there's no possible way for
the readers to know, and really little reason for them to care, if they're
otherwise enjoying the book as it stands.
> >It's also often been suggested that Starscream's flying skills were
simply so
>>exceptional and valuable that Megatron couldn't afford to kill him, but I
don't buy
>> that for an instant.
>
>Too simplistic eh? That was probbaly the "official" cartoon explanation,
>but we know better, right? Bleah...
If you can point me to *one* scene where Megatron says flat-out to
Starscream, "I'd like to blow your slagging head off, but your skills are
too valuable for me to lose," *then* you might have a leg to stand on. I
happen to know that there's no such scene. So once again, even if the
writers had this idea in mind when they wrote the stories, it never came
through on screen. Quite the contrary, something very different came
through on screen -- and within the consistency of the story, *this* is
what's important.
Another example. Someone writes a really lousy fanfic that totally
misrepresents characters ... they seem to be doing nothing that makes any
sense. When taken to task, the author defends herself -- "No, look, *this*
is what I meant to convey by that, *this* is why Onslaught said
this-and-such, and I know it comes across differently, but that's not what
I meant..." Too bad, eh? How are the readers to know that? If that's
what was "meant," then why wasn't it written that way? Why should a reader
interpret it any differently than the way it was in fact written? It's the
*result* that's important, not the intention *behind* the result, however
divergent it may be.
>>The episode that handed me the full-blown realization of this, remains
one of
>>my favorites to this day: "War of the Dinobots." As is typical of
character-development
>>for Decepticons, it's the most fleeting of scenes, and you have to look
sharp and listen close,
>
>Translation: You have to look sharp and listen close, and when that
>doesn't work, fabricate.
Cute. However, when I point to specific scenes and give you word-for-word
lines of dialogue, and you call it "fabrication," then who is it that's
really ignoring the facts as given?
>> "Divide and Conquer," where Starscream was honestly seeking Megatron's
approval for
>>a mission well-led, and was clearly hurt upon> not receiving it ("Surely
you wish to
>>commend me for my efforts...?"); and numerous other examples.
>
>This is the same as the above. Screamer's ego was kicking in there:
"Surely you don't
>wish to commend ME for MY efforts." He likes to hear himself be praised...
By someone that he holds in contempt? Why would such a person's praise
mean anything to him? Why would he be so upset in that scene in the Movie
where Megatron indirectly disparages his abilities, if Megatron was someone
he hated totally and thoroughly? One doesn't react that way toward someone
who means nothing to you. Praise from somebody I despise, would mean
nothing to me. An insulting letter from a stranger, I find downright
amusing. But if it should come from a *friend*, or friendly acquaintance,
or someone whom I otherwise hold in some high regard, then that's very
different again. Picture yourself in that situation, and imagine your
different responses to each.....
>> I would guess that Starscream once idolized Megatron as "the leader who
could
>>do no wrong," and Megatron was pleased with the idealistic and highly
skilled
>>young warrior who so looked up to him, and from that they built a
companionship,
>>a friendship, a mutual trust.
>
>Like I said, it's possible. I wouldn't mind if that was really the case
>before, but somehow I doubted such a scene ever sprang into the minds of
>the people who wrote this show.
Whether it did or not, is entirely irrelevant. Note that the precise
nature of the characters' former relationship is my own speculation at this
point, so don't be confused there. It's obvious to me from the evidence of
what we do see on the show, that there's more to Megatron and Starscream's
interaction than is immediately obvious, and I find my explanation of their
past to be the most likely, of the possibilities that I've heard. The
precise *details* of how it all ended, are of course my own guesses, and I
have never claimed otherwise.
>> My suspicion is that even the best of commanders isn't unfailingly
perfect,
>>and some drastic, inadvertent error on Megatron's part was such a
disillusion
>>to Starscream that he felt compelled to "get even."
>
> Or maybe because Screamer's a power-hungry, egotistical jerk who wants
>to run the entire show himself...
Except that from everything we see on the show, it's clear that he isn't
... or at least, that's not *all* he is.....
>>(notice that he was always most hostile toward those whom Megatron
thought especially highly of),
>
>Can't remember.. Did Starscream ever act unusally hostile towards
>Soundwave?
Not overtly, but a great deal is conveyed by tone of voice and the manner
in which commands are given. I'm inclined to agree with you on this one
point, that Starscream didn't quite dare to antagonize Soundwave directly,
and there too one might speculate on reasons why ... it was clear
Starscream didn't *like* Soundwave, but then, he didn't seem to like
anyone. Why not insult Soundwave directly? Well, Soundwave is someone
whom it wouldn't be much fun to insult, for one thing ... very difficult to
get a rise out of someone so confidently centered and quietly sure of
himself. He'd likely just ignore all of Starscream's attempts, whereas
someone like Skywarp would be easily goaded. Furthermore, Soundwave was
very important to the whole lot of them, and Starscream likely would have
risked the wrath of the entire group -- to say nothing of Megatron -- if
he'd really tried to *harm* Soundwave in some manner.....
Note how he seethes about Shockwave, though, another individual whom
Megatron holds in high esteem. Rumble and Skywarp, you've already
mentioned yourself. And then there's Nightbird, an overwhelmingly obvious
loathing from Starscream for someone that Megatron cared so much for.....
>>because underneath all his bristling he was excruciatingly lonely ...
>
>"I'll rule the universe, even if I'm the only one IN the universe"
>-Sounds like Screamer didn't mind being lonely, as long as he was in
>charge...
And here you're willing to define the entire character by one line, and
make an assumption that contradicts a tremendous amount of evidence to the
contrary? Interesting. This is exactly what you're accusing me of, except
that it has less evidence to back it up. I *won't* do what you've tried to
do with my arguement and dismiss this line as "not existing," because it's
*there* and it *was* said, most definitely and without any doubt. However,
you also have to consider what we know of Starscream as a character, and
the context that it was said in. Starscream is impulsive, emotional, lacks
a certain amount of self-control, and acts for immediate gratification.
When he came out with this line, he was frustrated and angry. It's
essentially the equivalent of saying to an acquaintance that you're furious
with "I'll beat you to a pulp if you ever knock on my door again," when in
fact you don't mean anything like that and would never actually do such a
thing, but in the heat of anger it sounds appropriately threatening.
Whether or not the person feels like they really have to be afraid of you
from that point onward, will depend on how well they know your personality
and nature, how inclined you are to burst out with thoughtless statements
in anger. Well, Starscream does have that inclination. I'm imagining him
for a moment as the only living being in the universe ... he'd go out of
his mind within a week.....
See, it's not just a single line that's important, though single lines
are important too ... it's the *whole picture* that has to be taken into
account, and then the single lines fit in and make sense.
>> Old friends can't make up their differences if one of them is dead.
>
>Well, even with one of them destroyed, and subsequent return
>(Starscream's Ghost, or do you ignore everything that occured in the
>movie and afterwards as well?),
In a way I do, because I don't consider the Movie and third season to take
place in the same universe as the first and second seasons, but that's
totally irrelevant to the points here. The characters are still the
characters as they appear on the shows, in whatever seasons.
>Megatron (well, Galvatron) didn't seem to please to see his "old friend".
>I suppose you could say that Galvatron is not Megatron,
Of course Galvatron is not Megatron.
>but the main personality was the same...
Not even close. Even Movie Galvatron, who was sane still, is a totally
different being than Megatron. He may have some of Megatron's memories,
knowledge, tactical skills, and what-not, but in terms of personality, they
were entirely separate. See my "Megatron vs. Movie Galvatron" posts for
more details, as I don't feel like writing it all out again just now....
> >In the endless dance of internal tension and resolution between two
> >fascinating and strong-willed characters, it was ultimately the *lack*
>>of conflict, the reconciliations, the cooperations, the forgiveness, which
>>far overshadowed the superficial power struggle and made the interaction
>>truly captivating. Most intriguing of all, to me personally, is the
notion of
>>one day seeing those differences settled, and it's this hope that keeps
>>the Megatron/Starscream interaction eternally mesmerizing.
>
>And yet, how does all of this come into play when Galvatron simply
>obliterated Starscream without hesitation, now that he was able to do so
freely?
See above. Galvatron is not Megatron. The very fact that he killed
Starscream, proves this beyond any shadow of a doubt. Megatron could very
well have killed Starscream if he'd wanted to, and without a great deal of
trouble, I might add. The point still is that he didn't do so, no matter
*how* far Starscream pushed his luck. And once again, the notion that "the
toys were still on the shelves and that's why they couldn't be written
out," is a cop-out that invalidates the reason we watch t.v. shows and
movies and read books to begin with -- namely, that we take at face value
the worlds that are created there, as being "real" for the moment. The
ceaseless critic who sits through a movie noting where the sunset is fake
and chatting about what type of lighting and smoke machines were used to
create a certain effect, etc., can never immerse himself in the story and
enjoy it for what it is. The integrity of the story and the characters as
they're presented in the TF cartoons, deserve better than that....
Skyflight
Raksha <jk...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
: Not so. The toys were neat, no one would ever contest that. But if it was
: *just* the toys, if they'd come with no personalities and no stories, which
: were lent to them *by the cartoon* (and to a lesser degree by the comic),
: there wouldn't be a TransFandom today. I guarantee it.
I don't know of an annual Voltron or GoBot convention, many many fan clubs
and Zines, multpile newsgroups, a million web pages, etc etc etc. I *DO* see
a lot of fan activity surrounding GI Joe thouygh, which was another
character-driven story IMHO. Yes,the reason the cartoons were produced was
to sell toys, but the fact is they WERE produced, and they showed characters
that were interesting. (Even more so with the comic book IMHO)
: Example ... say you're reading a series of novels, and at the end of one,
: the main character is in danger of death, and the only other individual
: with him is someone who had never gotten along with this guy. Yet against
: all expectation, the one character goes to save the other. Why? Well, the
: ultimate cause may be that the author knows she's still got two more books
: to finish in that series, that's what she's been contracted for, and she'd
: better damn well not kill off the main character, as he's needed in future
: stories. Perhaps she's unwittingly written herself into a corner, so that
: the situation is as I describe it, that the only other person with the
: character who might save him, is an antagonist. This happens, believe me;
: I've had the experience myself. So now the scene is written, the deed is
: done. The possibility exists now, in the next book, to explore *why* that
: other character stepped forward to help, and this in itself might add a
: whole new facet to the storytelling. Even if the author obliviously goes
: on to write the next book and never mentions it again, the readers will no
: doubt form their own conclusion from the events shown, namely that the
: rescuer wasn't such a bad person after all, that there's surely something
: decent about him somewhere.
A very excellent point, and just to tie it in with the essay - they *DIDN'T*
simply forget about what happened. They showed things like the example you
give consistiently throughout the cartoon. The writers didn't just not deal
with it ever again, they wrote little scenes into almost every show. Say if
Starscream has warned Megatron the one time, and every other show, they
showed them fighting and arguing in the way you'd expect of people that had
no respect for each other. Well, it might be easier to chalk up that one
line to any number of things, as an abberation that wasn't meaningful. But
the fact that *SO* many little moments like this occur, throughout, is IMHO,
meaningful.
: Because such is the conclusion that's drawn
: *from the actions in the story.* That's all that matters. Whether the
: author cleverly planned it that way, or whether it was an inconvenient
: mistake, is totally irrelevant. Furthermore, there's no possible way for
: the readers to know, and really little reason for them to care, if they're
: otherwise enjoying the book as it stands.
I don't think I could enjoy a book if I was microanalyzing the
construction of the story. When I first started writing, I did that a little
bit with books, and it just sucked the joy right out of it. I have to
experience something first as a creative work, and then start to analyze it,
if I even feel I want to.
: If you can point me to *one* scene where Megatron says flat-out to
: Starscream, "I'd like to blow your slagging head off, but your skills are
: too valuable for me to lose," *then* you might have a leg to stand on. I
: happen to know that there's no such scene. So once again, even if the
: writers had this idea in mind when they wrote the stories, it never came
: through on screen. Quite the contrary, something very different came
: through on screen -- and within the consistency of the story, *this* is
: what's important.
Exactly right. And I wonder.. What makes one assumption more valid than
another? If you draw ANY conclusion at all as to the nature of something
that isn't explicitly and consistently stated, aren't you making an
assumption? This is not a bad thing, IMHO. After all, who wants every little
quirk and nuance of a relationship spelled out in minute and tedious detail?
Isn't it something that we humans are adept at, forming a theory of mind? We
make a guess about motivation, observe someone, and see if our assumption
fits. Adjust accordingly. And BTW, that is the capability that created one
of the most complex social organizations on the planet. To utilize that
ability to see things through someone else's eyes and trying to imagine what
they must think, is IMHO a measure of how intereesting something it. If I
don't care in the least about a story or character, I won't bother. I'd
shrug it off and wonder what the people who do like are raising such a fuss
about.
: Cute. However, when I point to specific scenes and give you word-for-word
: lines of dialogue, and you call it "fabrication," then who is it that's
: really ignoring the facts as given?
Hmm.. If I may be allowed to speculate, I think when people say things like
this, they mean you (or I, or anyone) are fabricating the importance of the
scene. They don't attach the same weight to something as you or I or anyone
does, and thus they say we're pointing to insignificant lines or meaningless
scenes, and fabricating importance. What I find amusing is assigning NO
importance to something is every bit as much "fabrication" (read :
interpretation) as assigning great importance.
Not to say this applies to the original author of course, he may have
another meaning in mind. Just a trend I've noticed in the past 3+ years.
: out," is a cop-out that invalidates the reason we watch t.v. shows and
: movies and read books to begin with -- namely, that we take at face value
: the worlds that are created there, as being "real" for the moment. The
: ceaseless critic who sits through a movie noting where the sunset is fake
: and chatting about what type of lighting and smoke machines were used to
: create a certain effect, etc., can never immerse himself in the story and
: enjoy it for what it is. The integrity of the story and the characters as
: they're presented in the TF cartoons, deserve better than that....
Very well said. This is exactly what I've been trying to point out, though
perhaps not doing so good a job of it.
--
Skyflight, ATTCM co-moderator and Anti-Spam crusader
Check out the (soon to be updated) ATTCM web archive located at this URL -
http://beavis.simplenet.com/attcm/threads.html
kodai
Raksha <jk...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
: Getting back to the Megatron & Starscream's past friendship topic for a
: bit.....
[snip ALOT of the post]
Personally, I have always thought that the writers were going with the old
saying "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". As long as
Megatron keeps Starscream really close Megatron can stop plots against him
quickly.
:>I remember several occasions where Megatron would transform
:>into a gun and let Starscream catch him. I don't think he would
:>do that if there hadn't been some trust between them.
: That was something that always puzzled me, actually, but you're right in
: that it was almost always Starscream and not one of the "more trusted"
: warriors who fired Megatron in his gun mode.
Of course quite a few others have fired Megatron in his gun form -
Soundwave, Optimus Prime, I think Shockwave did it once, I also seem to
remember Spike doing it (maybe it was Bumbelbee) just once.
The wages of sin are death, but after taxes are taken out,
it's just a tired feeling - Paula Poundstone