Don't Blame B.Budiansky!!!
ALWAYS QUESTION AUTHORITY
Ya know....I think the original four T-former comic book limited
series was pretty weak. But 5-about 12 were pretty good, much more
dramatic than the cartoon ever was without being too cheesy. Where shocwave
managed to deactivate all the Autobots and defeat Megatron, and where
Ratchet magaged to outwit Megatron, that was pretty well done.
The "return to Cybertron" issues were good as well, I thought. Don
Perlin was pretty weak at drawing the T-formers, but he certainly drew a
pretty awesome blaster. ( Probably because he made him look so humanoid-
boy, Perlin may have been able to draw human bodies all right, but he coudn't
draw a cool robot worth crap. )
The real culprit was the toy company. The animated series had the
luxury of timed releases to coincide with the toys, as well as having, what,
almost a hundred episodes out by the time the t-former comic book was up in
the forties? Budiansky was obviously forced to introduce all the new
characters into the series before he could develop the older ones thoroughly.
Remember how contrived the death of Optimus Prime was in #24? C'mon, that
was obviously because someone pulled poor Bob into a smoke filled room at
Hasbro and pointed at him,
"Listen, bobby. We killed off Optimus Prime in the movie last
summer and you've still got him running around your comic book! Kill him off
next issue or else! Oh yah, and while you're at it, make damn sure you
include the Combaticons and the Protectobots!"
Other than that, I think he came up with a couple of rather creative
ways of introducing characters after that. Even though it was obviously
forced, the intro of the Predicons and Trypticon fit well into the story.
With all the limitations on him, its no wonder he gave up and started writing
absolute crap like "the carwash of doom."
p.s. and that's still no excuse. all reality was out the window
when Bob let Prime die because he cheated at a *computer* game. Oh, come
on, Prime! You mean you'd rather let yourself die over some high morality
than protect your beloved squishies? sounds like pretty irrational logic to
me!
No wonder people like the Decepticons! The Autobots were made out to
be total morons! At least Furmon likes the idea of vicious Autobots!
D.A.James
Lizard
daj...@acad.drake.edu writes:
> No wonder people like the Decepticons! The Autobots were made out to
>be total morons! At least Furmon likes the idea of vicious Autobots!
Well, there's a point. Say what you will about the 'con cause, at least
they're willing to do what it takes to achieve it. You get the
impression, sometimes, the Autobots don't really *care*. Some of them,
true, are only fighting the 'cons because they have no other choice. But,
shouldn't we see some of the Autobots who believe as passionately in the
righteousness of their ideals as Megatron, et al, do in theirs? The one
thing no one can claim about Megatron, Shockwave, etc, is that they are
uncomitted! In the comic, for example (bringing this round about),
Shockwave keeps Megatron alive because he will be useful to the
Decepticon's. He doesn't allow his personal hatred for Megs to get in the
way of his goals.
--
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things
to be bought and sold are legislators:Anon.
The meek shall inherit the Earth -- in six foot plots.:Anon.
Robert A. Jung
> Ya know....I think the original four T-former comic book limited
>series was pretty weak. But 5-about 12 were pretty good, much more
>dramatic than the cartoon ever was without being too cheesy.
Issues 5-8, maybe. But that's about as far as I'd give it.
>The real culprit was the toy company. The animated series had the
>luxury of timed releases to coincide with the toys, as well as having, what,
>almost a hundred episodes out by the time the t-former comic book was up in
>the forties? Budiansky was obviously forced to introduce all the new
>characters into the series before he could develop the older ones thoroughly.
I can't buy that. Having Hasbro dictate to a writer to introduce new
characters is not a detriment to good storytelling -- look at Larry Hama's run
on G.I. JOE after all these years. He's consistently able to meet the whims
of Hasbro without writing flat, one-dimensional characters or pathethic
dialogue.
Besides, too many things during Budiansky's run clearly didn't come from
Hasbro. The Mechanic? The Car Wash of Doom? Robot Master? Kids in space?
*Bleagh* Aside from Circuit Breaker, I can't name a single thing in the pre-
Simon Furman issues that I'd want to see again.
>With all the limitations on him, its no wonder he gave up and started writing
>absolute crap like "the carwash of doom."
He was writing absolute crap long before then. The big reason the original
TRANSFORMERS comic lost readers and was ultimately cancelled was because
people were turned off by Bob's writing. I know I didn't get back into the
TF comic until after I accidentally stumbled across Furman's work. I'm sure
I wasn't the only one.
--R.J.
B-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I write because I am personally amused by what I do, and if other people are
amused by it, then it's fine. If they're not, then that's also fine."
Send mail to rj...@netcom.com --Frank Zappa
Steven Mar
>Perlin was pretty weak at drawing the T-formers, but he certainly drew a
>pretty awesome blaster. ( Probably because he made him look so humanoid-
>boy, Perlin may have been able to draw human bodies all right, but he coudn't
>draw a cool robot worth crap. )
I disagree. While Perlin's TFs typically lacked the action of, say,
Wildman's fights, Perlin's robots were clean and technically well drawn
if you like MCS TFs. If you like biochanic TFs, then I could see why
you'd think Perlin sucked. Some of Perlin's art was sloppily done, also,
probably because of time restraints. Also, Perlin's humans were far
better, technically speaking, than Wildman's or Yaniger's. The latter two
both mutilate their humans into grotesque forms.
>when Bob let Prime die because he cheated at a *computer* game. Oh, come
>on, Prime! You mean you'd rather let yourself die over some high morality
>than protect your beloved squishies? sounds like pretty irrational logic to
>me!
I strongly agree with your points concerning Budiansky's plight. I also
agree with your analysis of Optimus' contrived death. However, we should
recognize the possibility that Prime was traumatized because he sort of
committed what he considered a heinous crime. Thus, he didn't kill
himself only because he "cheated" at the game, but because he simply
couldn't live with himself now. Nevertheless, the proper way to solve the
dilemma would have been to kill Megatron, and then to decide whether or
not Optimus had an obligation to bear his conscience and continue
protecting the innocents.
> No wonder people like the Decepticons! The Autobots were made out to
>be total morons! At least Furmon likes the idea of vicious Autobots!
Well, the problem was that the Autobots would protect a single human even
if it meant killing ten Autobots. What they didn't realize was that a)
some humans weren't worth protecting, and b) letting ten Autobots die
might be more detrimental in the long run even to other humans. You
decide what you think should be done in instances like this.
On a slightly offset track, however, not all Autobots were losers in
Budiansky's comic. Grimlock was pretty tough. I think other Autobots were
well portrayed, also, though for other traits. Scrounge was a good tragic
character, IMO. Why was Perceptor such a grumpy loser, though?
- Steve
Steven Mar
>Well, there's a point. Say what you will about the 'con cause, at least
>they're willing to do what it takes to achieve it. You get the
>impression, sometimes, the Autobots don't really *care*. Some of them,
>true, are only fighting the 'cons because they have no other choice. But,
>shouldn't we see some of the Autobots who believe as passionately in the
>righteousness of their ideals as Megatron, et al, do in theirs?
If a 'Con is evil at the root because of a rotten cause, no amount of
surface personality can make up for that. It's like admiring Hitler
because of his determination and thoroughness. (Ref. Spock on Khan.)
Certainly some of the Autobots are fighting only because they hate the
'Cons, but you could say the same of certain 'Cons. The common Autobot
believes in his cause as much as any 'Con believes in his own cause. And
the stellar Autobot is unswayable.
>Shockwave keeps Megatron alive because he will be useful to the
>Decepticon's. He doesn't allow his personal hatred for Megs to get in the
>way of his goals.
This is an unfair example. You know a similar instance can't be cited for
the Autobots because Good Autobots don't hate other Autobots. :)
- Steve
Steven Mar
>characters is not a detriment to good storytelling -- look at Larry Hama's run
>on G.I. JOE after all these years. He's consistently able to meet the whims
>of Hasbro without writing flat, one-dimensional characters or pathethic
>dialogue.
While I'm not a frequenter of the Joe comic, I've gotten a few issues now
and then aside from the TF crossovers, and I thought they all sucked
majorly. The plots were mega lame-o, and the characters were no better. I
suspect I might have just gotten the crappy runs, but I doubt the comic
overall was that stellar. (I'll cut out now because I admittedly don't
know all that much about it.)
> Besides, too many things during Budiansky's run clearly didn't come from
>Hasbro. The Mechanic? The Car Wash of Doom? Robot Master? Kids in space?
>*Bleagh* Aside from Circuit Breaker, I can't name a single thing in the pre-
>Simon Furman issues that I'd want to see again.
I don't see how you could like CB but not these other things. IMO, they
all sucked. There's no dispute over that. But Furman had his share of
equally idiotic ideas, and it's unfair to judge them based on their worst
writing. Eg: alien mobsters v. Autobots, Longtooth v. Mobydick, humans in
tights (the NeoKnights), etc. "Bleagh" is right.
That being said, I agree with you that Furman's writing was better
overall than Budiansky's, even if I dislike Furman's humanization of the
TFs. But rather than damning Budiansky to hell, it could just be that
Budiansky simply misjudged the nature of his audience. It may also be
that the greater part of the audience actually did go for dumb things.
This newsgroup is an innaccurate sample of the population at large.
- Steve
BTW, how many times can you and I argue this thread, Robert? Maybe we
should just save our posts and put them in a Budiansky v. Furman FAQ or
something. :)
Stephen Bajzek
B.Budiansky!!! by Steven M...@husc7.harvard
> Budiansky's comic. Grimlock was pretty tough.
Tough? Maybe, but I can think of more appropriate terms...incredibly
stupid. I totally hated Budiansky's portrayal of Grimlock. In issue 27
it was good, but after that it was total garbage. He turned the whole
thing into a comedy that *wasn't* funny. Ugh.
max
"Listen, there's no chance of usin' your toilet, is there?"
"No."
"I thought not, that's why I pissed in your garden..."
Raksha
throats or fought among themselves (Brawn vs. Perceptor in "Microbots," for
instance), but the conflicts were never intense enough to generate more than a
passing interest. Now the Deceptions ... *they* know how to keep your
attention. I always found the Starscream/Megatron conflict in the series to be
far more fascinating than the larger Autobot/Decepticon conflict -- because in
the larger war, I knew who I was rooting for, without question. In the
Megatron/Starscream conflict ... well, while I like Megatron better than
Starscream and wouldn't want to see him replaced (and Starscream would make a
lousy leader anyway), I still like Starscream enough that I didn't want to see
him totally obliterated. Created a bit of a dilema. Is it allowable to like
the enemies of one's friends? Trying to strike a balance in situations like
this is just one of the many things that makes this show so all-consuming for
me....
--Raksha
Bobby T. Yee
> rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>
> >characters is not a detriment to good storytelling -- look at Larry Hama's run
> >on G.I. JOE after all these years. He's consistently able to meet the whims
> >of Hasbro without writing flat, one-dimensional characters or pathethic
> >dialogue.
>
> While I'm not a frequenter of the Joe comic, I've gotten a few issues now
> and then aside from the TF crossovers, and I thought they all sucked
> majorly. The plots were mega lame-o, and the characters were no better. I
> suspect I might have just gotten the crappy runs, but I doubt the comic
> overall was that stellar. (I'll cut out now because I admittedly don't
> know all that much about it.)
>
Well, if it's as good as Hama's current run on Wolverine, I'll
have to pick a few issues of G.I. Joe...
>
> > Besides, too many things during Budiansky's run clearly didn't come from
> >Hasbro. The Mechanic? The Car Wash of Doom? Robot Master? Kids in space?
> >*Bleagh* Aside from Circuit Breaker, I can't name a single thing in the pre-
> >Simon Furman issues that I'd want to see again.
>
> I don't see how you could like CB but not these other things. IMO, they
> all sucked. There's no dispute over that. But Furman had his share of
> equally idiotic ideas, and it's unfair to judge them based on their worst
> writing. Eg:
> alien mobsters v. Autobots
I thought that issue was funny...but then again, I like SciFi in a
setting like that... (i.e., some Galaxy Rangers episodes, the Star
Trek episode with mobster, etc...)
> Longtooth v. Mobydick,
Okay, Longtooth vs. Moby Dick blew...it just seemed really lame when I
read it...
> humans in tights (the NeoKnights)
Heh...that's common for Marvel...the majority of superheros in Marvel
comics wear tight-fitting spandex...
|----------------------|-----------------------------------|
|Bobby Yee | Time heals all wounds. |
|by...@andrew.cmu.edu | Yeah. Some, better than others. |
|yee...@cmu.edu | -- Wolverine #75 |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------|
|Ain't it fun |
|When you know that you're gonna die young? |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
Robert A. Jung
>rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>> Besides, too many things during Budiansky's run clearly didn't come from
>>Hasbro. The Mechanic? The Car Wash of Doom? Robot Master? Kids in space?
>>*Bleagh* Aside from Circuit Breaker, I can't name a single thing in the pre-
>>Simon Furman issues that I'd want to see again.
>
>I don't see how you could like CB but not these other things.
Because Circuit Breaker is an idea that a good writer could have thought of
as well. Josie's origin may be a bit cheesy in places, but overall she has
more depth than any other human Bob ever wrote.
>But Furman had his share of
>equally idiotic ideas, and it's unfair to judge them based on their worst
>writing. Eg: alien mobsters v. Autobots, Longtooth v. Mobydick
Those two were part of the "Matrix Quest"; I'd count them as one and the
same. And the MQ was not a total waste -- the last two issues alone were
worth it.
>humans in tights (the NeoKnights) ...
>That being said, I agree with you that Furman's writing was better
>overall than Budiansky's, even if I dislike Furman's humanization of the
>TFs.
Steve, that's just because you don't like humans in TRANSFORMERS, period.
Then again, you do have a hard time with Transformers that don't meet your
vision of "perfection", such as other people's fanfic interpretations.
>But rather than damning Budiansky to hell, it could just be that
>Budiansky simply misjudged the nature of his audience.
Yeah. He was writing for seven-year-olds. If STAR Comics (Marvel's kiddie
division) was around when TRANSFORMERS started, it would have quickly been
relegated into that ghetto. At least there Bob's writing would have fit the
simplistic nature of the line.
Lizard
Mad...@CMU.EDU writes:
>stupid. I totally hated Budiansky's portrayal of Grimlock. In issue 27
>it was good, but after that it was total garbage. He turned the whole
>thing into a comedy that *wasn't* funny. Ugh.
Was 27 the issue with Trypticon? If so, I agree -- I liked Grimlock and
the Dinobots in that issue. That issue showed Grimlock as impulsive,
rather than stupid -- and capable of learning from his mistakes. The
Grimlock of the G2 comic shares many of those traits, even though he has
the "speech impediment".
Lizard
writes:
> I can't buy that. Having Hasbro dictate to a writer to introduce new
Hama's run
>on G.I. JOE after all these years. He's consistently able to meet the
whims
>of Hasbro without writing flat, one-dimensional characters or pathethic
>dialogue.
>
appear and disappear at near-random. A great writer would become a
mediocre writer, a mediocre writer a lousy one.
Also, two things:
The GI Joe line was aimed at a slightly older age group.
Second, Joes never died, especially not en masse as they did in the TF
movie. Perhaps killing robots is more acceptable than killing actual
people.
> Besides, too many things during Budiansky's run clearly didn't come
from
>Hasbro. The Mechanic? The Car Wash of Doom? Robot Master? Kids in
space?
>*Bleagh* Aside from Circuit Breaker, I can't name a single thing in the
pre-
>Simon Furman issues that I'd want to see again.
I liked the whole "Underbase" saga, even though it was primarily a means
to kill off the old, bring in the new. And the character of Shockwave was
more interesting under Budiansky than in the cartoon series.
Lizard
sm...@husc7.harvard.edu writes:
>If a 'Con is evil at the root because of a rotten cause, no amount of
>surface personality can make up for that. It's like admiring Hitler
>because of his determination and thoroughness. (Ref. Spock on Khan.)
>
One *can* admire traits without admiring the person. To use a real-life
example, I admire Andrew Carnegie's ability to claw his way to the top,
while at the same time acknowledging he wasn't exactly the nicest person
on the planet.
>Certainly some of the Autobots are fighting only because they hate the
>'Cons, but you could say the same of certain 'Cons. The common Autobot
>believes in his cause as much as any 'Con believes in his own cause. And
>the stellar Autobot is unswayable.
I agree, but let's *see* it, then. The best example of what I would call
"Aggressive Good" was Grimlock's speech to Prime in G2, Issue 1 -- he
actually stated a set of values he believed in and was willing to fight,
kill, and die for. More of this sort of explicit statement of principles
is needed. Otherwise, it's reduced to:
"Why are the Autobots good?"
"Because they fight the Decepticons"
"Why is that good?"
"Because the Decepticon's are evil."
"Why are they evil?"
"Because they fight the Autobots, and the Autobots are good."
Etc.
Japanese animation, in general, makes good use of the "noble
villian"...something American animation (and entertainment in general)
should do more of. Also, remember:The winners write the history books.
Had things gone a little differently, we'd celebrate the birthday of that
heroic patriot, Benedict Arnold, and revile the traitor George Washington
who tried to seize control of the colonies for himself.
jdmar...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
> Ya know....I think the original four T-former comic book limited
> series was pretty weak.
Hear Hear!!! Spiderman... Goddamn WHY is he in every Marvel mag?
> But 5-about 12 were pretty good, much more
> dramatic than the cartoon ever was without being too cheesy. Where shocwave
> managed to deactivate all the Autobots and defeat Megatron, and where
> Ratchet magaged to outwit Megatron, that was pretty well done.
Why yes it was =).
> The "return to Cybertron" issues were good as well, I thought. Don
> Perlin was pretty weak at drawing the T-formers, but he certainly drew a
> pretty awesome blaster. ( Probably because he made him look so humanoid-
> boy, Perlin may have been able to draw human bodies all right, but he coudn't
> draw a cool robot worth crap. )
I didn't like the guy who became a wheel. But they should'a made a toy of him
anyway =) .
The worst thing I ever saw was Meggy at some coal mine and he is shouting and
his mouth looks like someone;s constructing a building in it.
> The real culprit was the toy company. The animated series had the
> luxury of timed releases to coincide with the toys, as well as having, what,
> almost a hundred episodes out by the time the t-former comic book was up in
> the forties? Budiansky was obviously forced to introduce all the new
> characters into the series before he could develop the older ones thoroughly.
> Remember how contrived the death of Optimus Prime was in #24? C'mon, that
> was obviously because someone pulled poor Bob into a smoke filled room at
> Hasbro and pointed at him,
>
> "Listen, bobby. We killed off Optimus Prime in the movie last
> summer and you've still got him running around your comic book! Kill him off
> next issue or else! Oh yah, and while you're at it, make damn sure you
> include the Combaticons and the Protectobots!"
>
"And while you're at it... here's some money ".
> Other than that, I think he came up with a couple of rather creative
> ways of introducing characters after that. Even though it was obviously
> forced, the intro of the Predicons and Trypticon fit well into the story.
> With all the limitations on him, its no wonder he gave up and started writing
> absolute crap like "the carwash of doom."
"Oooh Buster. Let's take a trip in the carwash, hmmmm?"
I DO like how Ratbat has a brain in the comics, rather than use the "scrawk!"
of him in the movie. Did he ever appear in the regular tv series?
>
> p.s. and that's still no excuse. all reality was out the window
> when Bob let Prime die because he cheated at a *computer* game. Oh, come
> on, Prime! You mean you'd rather let yourself die over some high morality
> than protect your beloved squishies? sounds like pretty irrational logic to
> me!
> No wonder people like the Decepticons! The Autobots were made out to
> be total morons! At least Furmon likes the idea of vicious Autobots!
RIGHT ON MAN! RIGHT ON!!!
> D.A.James
-Cheese
Steven Mar
> Steve, that's just because you don't like humans in TRANSFORMERS, period.
Not true at all. Here's what I don't like: overhumanized TFs (eg: fleshy
faces, Primus theory), and unrealistic humans. By unrealistic humans, I
mean CB, the NeoKnights, binary-bond partners, etc. Realistic humans,
OTOH, are good for the story. This includes everyday humans who play
supportive roles... Walther Barnett, Rachel Becker, Charlie Fong, et al.
>Then again, you do have a hard time with Transformers that don't meet your
>vision of "perfection", such as other people's fanfic interpretations.
Not a hard time. I simply want to discern why people insist on making TFs
more organic, for example. Fanfic interpretations are fine. Fanfic
writers usually ask for comments. I gave mine. If writers don't want to
hear my comments, I won't make them. Simple enough and easier for me.
- Steve
Steven Mar
>One *can* admire traits without admiring the person.
Intractable debate. Let's just say that maybe =you= (and others, no
doubt) can admire traits separately from the person. IMO, the person must
be considered along with his traits.
>Japanese animation, in general, makes good use of the "noble
>villian"...something American animation (and entertainment in general)
>should do more of.
Jhiaxus and Cyclonus are two such villains in the TF universes. Such
characters are often more interesting than normal villains. But why are
people so eager to show how good the villains are, instead of making the
point that they're still the bad guys? (Let's try to keep this separate
from the other thread on whether or not you can even say the villains are
bad in the first place.)
>Also, remember:The winners write the history books.
>Had things gone a little differently, we'd celebrate the birthday of that
>heroic patriot, Benedict Arnold, and revile the traitor George Washington
>who tried to seize control of the colonies for himself.
No doubt. But we're not talking about history books here. The cards,
comic, and cartoon are intended to show the events and characters as they
are. Autobots didn't "write" them for their own benefit. Also, I would
say that, regardless of their specific personalities, Arnold "fought" for
the oppression of the colonists. I don't care =who= writes the books, the
essential fact here remains. If you can find a letter from Arnold proving
that he didn't intend to screw the rebellion, then maybe you could argue
his case. The British handled the Revolution incorrectly.
- Steve
Bobby T. Yee
> rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>
> > Steve, that's just because you don't like humans in TRANSFORMERS, period.
>
> Not true at all. Here's what I don't like: overhumanized TFs (eg: fleshy
> faces, Primus theory), and unrealistic humans. By unrealistic humans, I
> mean CB, the NeoKnights, binary-bond partners, etc. Realistic humans,
> OTOH, are good for the story. This includes everyday humans who play
> supportive roles... Walther Barnett, Rachel Becker, Charlie Fong, et al.
Hmmm...unrealistic humans? Besides Transformers, what other comics do
you read? Most (mainstream?) comics these days have at least one
superpowered human in it, so I'm not surprised to see CB or the
Neo-Knights. Plus, since it's a comic book, what's wrong with having
unrealistic humans?
Steven Mar
>Hmmm...unrealistic humans? Besides Transformers, what other comics do
>you read? Most (mainstream?) comics these days have at least one
>superpowered human in it, so I'm not surprised to see CB or the
>Neo-Knights. Plus, since it's a comic book, what's wrong with having
>unrealistic humans?
Besides TFG2, none. I don't doubt that most comic books have their
mutants in them. But TFs are not about mutants, they're about robots. I
don't remember people being too happy when they found out "Matrix Prime"
was about mutants instead of robots.
Just because something's a comic book doesn't mean it should go out of
its way to include mainstream comic elements such as mutants. I
personally think mutants should stick to their comics and stay out of the
TF universe.
BTW, G.I.Joe isn't plagued with mutants, is it?
- Steve
Eric E. Katz
In a previous article, Liz...@vnet.net (Lizard) says:
>Also, two things:
>
>The GI Joe line was aimed at a slightly older age group.
>Second, Joes never died, especially not en masse as they did in the TF
>movie. Perhaps killing robots is more acceptable than killing actual
>people.
Joes did die, but only according to Hama's whims. GI Joe is victimized by
the toy company as much as the original Transformers was. There are some
ridiculous toys (space shuttles) and characters with dumb jobs. Hama did
supply some interesting stories involving the background of the characters.
He handled them well until about issue 52 (that's when I started reading
the comic). Then he gave up on developing stories revolving around the
characters, and then fell back on them later, but didn't do nearly as well.
Robert A. Jung
>In article <rjungCo...@netcom.com> Robert A. Jung, rj...@netcom.com
>writes:
>> I can't buy that. Having Hasbro dictate to a writer to introduce new
>>characters is not a detriment to good storytelling
>
>appear and disappear at near-random.
Considering that Hasbro backed the various comics to sell toys, a dictate
to them to kill off characters seems very suspect. Promote new ones, yes, but
kill off old ones? Nah.
>The GI Joe line was aimed at a slightly older age group.
Compared to Budiansky's writing on TRANSFORMERS, the ingredients list on a
cereal box is targeted to an older age group...
>Second, Joes never died, especially not en masse as they did in the TF
>movie.
Sure they have. (rummage rummage rummage) While characters in GIJ don't
fall at the same rate as in TF:G2 (and they have been falling pretty fast,
let's face it), Joes and Cobras and whatnots have died, retired, or generally
faded out of the picture. A big example is G.I. JOE #109-#114, where scores
of main characters died -- and stayed dead -- in a middle eastern war.
And I strongly suspect (heck, am positive) that the mass slaughter of
Transformers in the movie were due to (a) it being a movie, and not a TV
cartoon, and (b) the desire to phase out old characters for new ones.
(Yes, it was cheesy that no one died in the G.I. JOE movie, but that was not
released for theatres. Otherwise, I think, you would have seen a noticable
body count there, too)
>I liked the whole "Underbase" saga, even though it was primarily a means
>to kill off the old, bring in the new.
The "Underbase Saga" (issue #50, if I'm right) is probably the only
Budiansky issue I'm actively seeking, and that's only because of the talk it's
gotten on the net. Otherwise, almost all of Bob's issues can burn for all I
care -- but I wouldn't want to part with any of my Furman issues...
>And the character of Shockwave was
>more interesting under Budiansky than in the cartoon series.
Yeah, but Shockwave in the cartoon was a yes-man, pure and simple.