In Defense of Silverbolt
Andrew Frankel
I dunno... I don't want to get into a long-winded arguement about liking
or disliking the character Silverbolt, but I have to argue that he does
display a distinctive and interesting personality in the show.
Why are his chivalry and morality dismissed as boring and/or cliche? To
me, his "superman-of-the-50's" characterization is effective. I'm not
talking about children emulating Silverbolt's heroics or learning the
"good lesson" of the day; instead, I see his characterization fufilling
three roles.
First, the character blends well with the other cast members whom we
have already come to know. Secondly, his "cookie-cutter image" (as some
call it) serves as an identifiable trait for viewers of the show to
latch onto - it humanizes the robots, the sci-fi subject matter, and the
CGI animation for that matter. Third, in an epic story like BW or
Transformers as a whole, I think it is necessary to have (sorry to say)
"boring" characters. Just as we expect Tarantulas to scheme treachery,
we expect Silverbolt to be heroic...it's just what his character *does*.
Rant off. I'm wondering why people look for good guys to dislike or
disagree with, and then when one comes along, we put more emphasis on
hating the character's "image" than what makes him/her tick.
Just my .02 cents this weekend,
Andrew / Swiper
Robert A. Jung
In article <346F14...@earthlink.net> side...@earthlink.net writes:
>Why are his chivalry and morality dismissed as boring and/or cliche? To
>me, his "superman-of-the-50's" characterization is effective.
The short answer: Superman is boring. "The big blue Boy Scout" is an
accurate description. Give me more "human" heroes like Spider-Man instead.
The long answer: There is nothing wrong with holding to (or aspiring for) a
heroic ideal. The problem is that characters who are defined SOLELY by their
holdings to the heroic ideal appear simplistic and stifling. A character like
Silverbolt or Superman (or Optimus Prime) does not have a personality other
than what the ideal allows them to have -- their behavior and reactions and
thoughts are all driven by how they SHOULD behave. They're puppets to the
code -- "cookie cutter image," if you will.
IMO, the reason people dismiss these characterizations is because they ring
false. The only way for you to be that perfect all the time is to rein in
your own personality, to be a caricature instead of a character. Such
caricatures ARE boring and cliche, and since their behavior is driven by the
"chivalry code," people transfer those "boring and cliche" feelings to the
ideals as well. In actuality, it's not the ideals that are the problem, but
the characters' slavish devotion to them.
A Superman/Silverbolt/Optimus Prime character may be someone you admire and
respect and like -- but they're not someone you want to hang out with. Can
you imagine any of those guys joining a crowd of everyday folks, going to the
mall and shooting the breeze, maybe go and unwind with some volleyball? I
can't; and every time they try, it looks fake and unnatural ("Am I drooling
properly, Spike?").
Silverbolt is an amusing character, though I find myself more often laughing
AT him than I am laughing WITH him (c.f. "Tangled Web"). On the other hand,
with a more plausible character like Rattrap, you can laugh WITH him. He also
adheres to the "heroic ideal," but he isn't a slave to it, and allows his own
personality to come through.
--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
------- Visit Rob on the web! ------ http://www.digiserve.com/eescape/ -------
Carcharodon
Robert A. Jung wrote:
> In article <346F14...@earthlink.net> side...@earthlink.net writes:
> >Why are his chivalry and morality dismissed as boring and/or cliche? To
> >me, his "superman-of-the-50's" characterization is effective.
>
> The short answer: Superman is boring. "The big blue Boy Scout" is an
> accurate description. Give me more "human" heroes like Spider-Man instead.
>
> The long answer: There is nothing wrong with holding to (or aspiring for) a
> heroic ideal. The problem is that characters who are defined SOLELY by their
> holdings to the heroic ideal appear simplistic and stifling. A character like
> Silverbolt or Superman (or Optimus Prime) does not have a personality other
> than what the ideal allows them to have -- their behavior and reactions and
> thoughts are all driven by how they SHOULD behave. They're puppets to the
> code -- "cookie cutter image," if you will.
>
> IMO, the reason people dismiss these characterizations is because they ring
> false. The only way for you to be that perfect all the time is to rein in
> your own personality, to be a caricature instead of a character. Such
> caricatures ARE boring and cliche, and since their behavior is driven by the
> "chivalry code," people transfer those "boring and cliche" feelings to the
> ideals as well. In actuality, it's not the ideals that are the problem, but
> the characters' slavish devotion to them.
>
> (snip)
> Silverbolt is an amusing character, though I find myself more often laughing
> AT him than I am laughing WITH him (c.f. "Tangled Web"). On the other hand,
> with a more plausible character like Rattrap, you can laugh WITH him. He also
> adheres to the "heroic ideal," but he isn't a slave to it, and allows his own
> personality to come through.
>
Personally, I think everything you said is just *more* of a reason why Silverbolt
is such a potentially interesting character. Yes, he's a metallic Clark Kent.
But as you pointed out, he's in a situation where all his lofty moral pretenses
can't help but fall short. Nobility will gain him nothing in a battle against the
likes of Tarantulas, and it will not act as "inspiration" to allies with
personalities like those of the violence-prone Dinobot and wisacre Rattrap. Of
all the Beast Warriors, he is the most displaced from where he really belongs, and
he has the most to learn--and unlearn--from the harsh lessons of combat.
Silverbolt strikes me as a charming naif, a blind optimist, someone who you do
indeed "laugh at", who you respect but at the same time feel sorry for, because
the strength of his convictions makes him act in strained and unnatural ways that
won't make much of a difference anyway. A tragic hero. If anything, I actually
find him more interesting than Primal, a token
"good-guy-who-can-only-be-pushed-so-far", whose entire sorry rebirth added up to
one unintentional cliche after another (unlike Silverbolt's personality, which is
composed of *intentional*, in-your-face cliches that are meant to be an amusing
striking contrast to the other characters) and whose new ape/toad visage is as
repugnant as SB's "doggiebot" look is strangely cute.
Andrew Frankel
Rob, thanks for responding to this one:
> The long answer: There is nothing wrong with holding to (or aspiring
> for) a heroic ideal. The problem is that characters who are defined
> SOLELY by their holdings to the heroic ideal appear simplistic and
> stifling.
True...but then can't that "slave to the code" condition, as you
accurately point out, be seen as internal struggle, thus making for
great characterization? Instead of us feeling bored and just dismissing
'bolt as cookie-cutter dough, couldn't the audience just as easily
experience pathos and/or anticipation that he overcomes that bind?
> A character like Silverbolt or Superman (or Optimus Prime) does not
> have a personality other than what the ideal allows them to have --
> their behavior and reactions and thoughts are all driven by how they
> SHOULD behave. They're puppets to the code -- "cookie cutter image,"
> if you will.
Uh oh - a certain resident serpent might chime in here about "Obnoxious
Prime" ... <grin> Again, I agree with you here, but seeing SB as a
puppet to the code, to me, provides room for tons of character-driven
questions - does Silverbolt want to adhere to this code of absolute
chivalry? He had the chance to be a Predacon and rejected it. Does he
see his actions as false or does he really think he is doing what is
"right?" It's wrong to strike females, he says, so he doesn't nail (for
lack of a PC term) Blackarachnia. If he sees his actions as pretense,
who is he trying to deceive, impress, or answer to? I guess the
question is why can't this be seen as his "personality" - his needing to
live his life honorably?
> In actuality, it's not the ideals that are the problem, but the
> characters' slavish devotion to them.
Good point. So chivalry isn't dead, but it damn well should be because
it breeds loser 'bots. :)
> A Superman/Silverbolt/Optimus Prime character may be someone you
> admire and respect and like -- but they're not someone you want to
> hang out with. Can you imagine any of those guys joining a crowd of
> everyday folks, going to the mall and shooting the breeze, maybe go
> and unwind with some volleyball?
I just need to look in the mirror to answer that one... heh.
> Silverbolt is an amusing character, though I find myself more often > laughing AT him than I am laughing WITH him (c.f. "Tangled Web"). On > the other hand, with a more plausible character like Rattrap, you can > laugh WITH him. He also adheres to the "heroic ideal," but he isn't a
> slave to it, and allows his own personality to come through.
Well at least Silver stirs up a chuckle or two from you! Serious
question though: how could Silverbolt be changed into someone plausible
then? Have him sniff a fire hydrant? :)
Any thoughts?
Andrew / Swiper
Break 39
I think Silverbolt could be a character that we see grow and change to become
interesting, and through that change, the journey itself could be interesting.
He's in the wrong place. His attitude doesn't cut it. In battle, if he and
Blackarachnia face each other again, he's slag. He's gonna wake up before too
long, and it's gonna be a rude awakening. "Silverbolt's Descent into
Darkness", is what I think will happen. (Or could happen to make him more
interesting.) We're going to watch him lose his ideals, he's going to fail,
and he's going to have to grow a bad temper. He's going to have to face the
real world, just like everyone else, and that could be something that could
help him be a character that the rest of us could identify with. But to start
such a journey or reach such a conclusion, we have to see how he starts out.
I really hope that this was the starting point for such a journey. He's a
good character now, but shallow. I really hope we see him grow and get more depth...
The_Great_Cornholio
Andrew Frankel (side...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: I dunno... I don't want to get into a long-winded arguement about liking
: or disliking the character Silverbolt, but I have to argue that he does
: display a distinctive and interesting personality in the show.
Distinctive yes, it's almost impossible to have a character NOT be
distinctive and have any lines at the same time. Even if the lines are
exactly the same, two different voice actors and two different animation
models will produce distinct characters.
But, interesting? I must disagree here 100%. He may at some point BECOME
interesting, but as of now, he's a stock background nobody, with no nuances.
You could replace him with a carboard stand-up and no one would notice.
I don't blame Bob and Larry for this, they must keep things in perspective
for the kiddies after all. But, I'm hoping they'll do something to at least
test his beliefs, if not change them. Or give him a weird hobby or
something, like collecting sand.
--
Thank you, I'm Beavis, goodnight.
Robert A. Jung
In article <346F7B...@earthlink.net> side...@earthlink.net writes:
>> The long answer: There is nothing wrong with holding to (or aspiring
>> for) a heroic ideal. The problem is that characters who are defined
>> SOLELY by their holdings to the heroic ideal appear simplistic and
>> stifling.
>
>True...but then can't that "slave to the code" condition, as you
>accurately point out, be seen as internal struggle, thus making for
>great characterization?
Only if he actually has to struggle against that code. If he's insulated
from that problem -- if Silverbolt is allowed to be the perfect hero, unfazed
by circumstance or the teasing of his teammates -- then that's not
characterization at all. Most of the time, heroic ideal characters don't have
to confront the problems with the ideal; I can't recall when (pre-John Byrne
retcon) Superman was caught in a bind between what he wanted to do and what
his code told him to do, for instance (though I admit I am not a big Superman
authority).
If we get later episodes showing Silverbolt having to question and come to
terms with the practicality of his code, I'll be pleasantly surprised. But I
also do not really expect to see it happen, because it's easier to write a
perfect hero as a cartoon good-guy than it is to write a cartoon good-guy
challenging the "perfect hero" ideal. Kurt Waid/Alex Ross' KINGDOM COME
Elseworlds series hinges largely on Superman struggling to maintain his heroic
ideals, even as the rest of the world rejects them -- now THAT is
characterization...
>> A character like Silverbolt or Superman (or Optimus Prime) does not
>> have a personality other than what the ideal allows them to have --
>> their behavior and reactions and thoughts are all driven by how they
>> SHOULD behave.
>
>Uh oh - a certain resident serpent might chime in here about "Obnoxious
>Prime" ... <grin>
To some degree, I think Raksha's right. As a character, Optimus Prime is
trivially easy to write for -- just go for the generic good-guy ideal and toss
out some platitudes. Writing Optimus as a person rather than as a cliche is
a harder matter, because he doesn't really have much of a personality...
>He had the chance to be a Predacon and rejected it. Does he
>see his actions as false or does he really think he is doing what is
>"right?"
I see nothing in Silverbolt's character to indicate that he's doubting --
even for a moment -- the validity of his views.
>> In actuality, it's not the ideals that are the problem, but the
>> characters' slavish devotion to them.
>
>Good point. So chivalry isn't dead, but it damn well should be because
>it breeds loser 'bots. :)
There's a balance between adherence to the ideals and allowing one's own
individuality to subsist. I mean, I'm sure Optimus Primal and Silverbolt
share most of the same views about what is proper and ethical behavior -- but
Primal is also not above telling Rattrap to shut up when he gets out of line,
whereas Silverbolt would probably accept it in bemused silence as "the
humorous antics of my comrade."
>Serious
>question though: how could Silverbolt be changed into someone plausible
>then? Have him sniff a fire hydrant? :)
A bit hard to do at this point, I think, since he's already well-established
as being a strict follwer of the heroic code. One solution might be to show
that his adherence is a sort of personal game -- that he knows he's being a
bit silly and excessive, but "plays the part" anyway because it amuses him to
do so (for whatever personal reasons). This is something that's easier to
pull off in a textual medium than in an animated/televised show/film,
though...
Jetfire333
Yeah, doggie-bot is kind of like a naive kid right now. I'm sure that as the
war drags on, he'll start to wake up and realize that he has to sacrifice some
ideals, and maybe even beat up on BlackArachnia. Otherwise, to be blunt, he's
just a dork. I have faith that Bob and Larry have something planned to work
on Silverbolt, so that he'll grow and change a little, because they've done a
good job of characterizing so far.
Andrew Frankel
SiIverboIt wrote:
[POSSIBLE SPOILERS]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
> turtle2116 writes " .....And is silverbolt going to be airrazors new love
> intrest..."
>
> Beastbob1 writes "Not Airrazor's. That would be too easy... :) "
>
> hhmmmmm??? i wonder...... = ]
Wow - interest between BlackA and Silverbolt? cool deal!
Andrew / Swiper (he refused to kill her and she kinda gasped when they
were face to face...)
Break 39
I also noticed in another post that someone mentioned Silverbolt may be hiding
something in his past. "Skeletons in his closet" was the term I believe was
used. Unfortunately, his datatracks were lost and he has no knowledge of his
past, but if desired, I'm sure Bob and Larry could come up with a good way to
get around that. I do have confidence in Silverbolt, and I would advise
people to keep their eyes on him...I doubt that they'd write a worthless
character into the series. So far every other character that has been
introduced later on has been effective to some greater purpose later. Keep
watching. I have a feeling it's only going to get better.
NeoTrent
>But, interesting? I must disagree here 100%. He may at some point BECOME
>interesting, but as of now, he's a stock background nobody, with no nuances.
>You could replace him with a carboard stand-up and no one would notice.
>I don't blame Bob and Larry for this, they must keep things in perspective
>for the kiddies after all. But, I'm hoping they'll do something to at least
>test his beliefs, if not change them. Or give him a weird hobby or
>something, like collecting sand.
I find it odd that no one is recognizing that his nuance is his nobility. He's
obviously ment to be a counter to Quickstrike's pychotic gunman persona.
Quickstrike is a shifty, sadistic villan from the spagetti westerns.
Silverbolt is the proud, noble and honorable knight of Arthurian legend.
His nuances are many, especially for being in a total of three shows, only one
of which he was featured in promenently as a leading heroic character.
1) He won't strike a lady.
2) He won't attack a defenseless or downed opponent.
3) He expects death from his victorious enemies (Rattrap, Cheetor and
Dinobot in Coming of the Fuzors Pt. 2)
4) He has an honor code of any kind.
So he won't strike "a lady". Everyone screams cliche... but then again, how
many characters now have that character trait? Lets see, on BW, NONE besides
him, and I can only think of a few others that have shown up recently in any
media. I think this sort of character quirk is interesting... he's just as
insane as Waspinator or Quickstrike, only in a different way.
Just as the knights of the round table ran into tests and trials of their
bravery, honor and nobility, so will Silverbolt, most likely. But will he
fall like Lancelot into broken promises and tarnished convictions, face
disillusion and near death in combat like Arthur, or will he perish in the
pure rapture of his goodness, like Galahad?
If you get down to it, Most of the BW Characters are stereotypes and
architypes. The characterazation takes awhile.
-Trent
----
Always hunting mecha toys, Gundam, Macross,
Mospeda, Transformers and knockoffs of the like.
-
Tengu
In article <rjungEJ...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com says...
> In article <346F7B...@earthlink.net> side...@earthlink.net writes:
> >True...but then can't that "slave to the code" condition, as you
> >accurately point out, be seen as internal struggle, thus making for
> >great characterization?
>
> Only if he actually has to struggle against that code. If he's insulated
> from that problem -- if Silverbolt is allowed to be the perfect hero, unfazed
> by circumstance or the teasing of his teammates -- then that's not
> characterization at all.
Why is it necessary for Silverbolt to question his beliefs to
reinforce the notion that he holds them dear? True, it can be engrossing
to see a hero in torment, but it can be just as interesting to see one
who holds to his values unwaveringly.
> >Uh oh - a certain resident serpent might chime in here about "Obnoxious
> >Prime" ... <grin>
>
> To some degree, I think Raksha's right. As a character, Optimus Prime is
> trivially easy to write for -- just go for the generic good-guy ideal and toss
> out some platitudes. Writing Optimus as a person rather than as a cliche is
> a harder matter, because he doesn't really have much of a personality...
Optimus Prime is only trivially easy to write for if you're a two-
dimensionally minded writer. I don't see how Optimus could be seen as
"without" personality any more than Megatron could be. In the cartoon,
for example, Optimus had his notable traits; we saw him get angry, we saw
him make sacrifices, and we saw him show a compassion that occasionally
was exploited as weakness. Seeing Prime only as a cookie-cutter hero who
therefore displays only cookie-cutter actions strikes me as a limited
view. Prime *is* a heroic character; much of that heroism is derived
from, not merely validated by, his actions.
> A bit hard to do at this point, I think, since he's already well-established
> as being a strict follwer of the heroic code. One solution might be to show
> that his adherence is a sort of personal game -- that he knows he's being a
> bit silly and excessive, but "plays the part" anyway because it amuses him to
> do so (for whatever personal reasons). This is something that's easier to
> pull off in a textual medium than in an animated/televised show/film,
> though...
Why is it so absurd to consider the possibility that Silverbolt
actually *likes* living in strict adherence to a moral code?
Occasionally, I like a character who isn't wishy-washy about his or her
beliefs. Don't we admire that kind of world view in real life as well?
I mean, why should a staunch moralist automatically be written off as a
quack?
Tengu:<>
Tengu
In article <64oidm$e...@examiner.concentric.net>, Bea...@cris.com says...
> But, interesting? I must disagree here 100%. He may at some point BECOME
> interesting, but as of now, he's a stock background nobody, with no nuances.
How so? Is the fact that he's a bit stoic some indication that
he's uninteresting? Honestly- I'd like to know your reasons. :)
> You could replace him with a carboard stand-up and no one would notice.
You could replace Waspinator with a sugar-hyped second grader and
almost the same could be said.
> I don't blame Bob and Larry for this, they must keep things in perspective
> for the kiddies after all. But, I'm hoping they'll do something to at least
> test his beliefs, if not change them. Or give him a weird hobby or
> something, like collecting sand.
It'd be *interesting* to see Silverbolt forced into challenging
his beliefs, but what satisfaction is truly to be found in that kind of
character exposition? Often, it seems to me that western media in
general likes to build up icons of "good" and "noble" and tear them down
just to see what happens... *That* is something I find _much_ less
interesting than a stubborn moral optimist.
Tengu:<>
Robert A. Jung
In article <MPG.edaeebc4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> te...@ix.netcom.com (Tengu) writes:
>In article <rjungEJ...@netcom.com>, rj...@netcom.com says...
>>In article <346F7B...@earthlink.net> side...@earthlink.net writes:
>>>True...but then can't that "slave to the code" condition, as you
>>>accurately point out, be seen as internal struggle, thus making for
>>>great characterization?
>>
>> Only if he actually has to struggle against that code.
>
>reinforce the notion that he holds them dear?
That he holds them dear is not in question; my point is that if he adheres
to them effortlessly and without challenge, then that IMO is not
"characterization," but just cookie-cutter writing. Besides, most drama is
about conflict at some level...
>> To some degree, I think Raksha's right. As a character, Optimus Prime is
>>trivially easy to write for -- just go for the generic good-guy ideal and
>>toss out some platitudes.
>
> Optimus Prime is only trivially easy to write for if you're a two-
>dimensionally minded writer.
Gee, thanks. B-)
>I don't see how Optimus could be seen as
>"without" personality any more than Megatron could be.
Well, I never said that Megatron wasn't flat either...
>In the cartoon,
>for example, Optimus had his notable traits; we saw him get angry, we saw
>him make sacrifices, and we saw him show a compassion that occasionally
>was exploited as weakness.
Someone would have to do a survey to verify, but I think the number of times
in the cartoon where Optimus actually showed such behavior would be ten or
less. The only time I remember him getting REALLY angry, for instance, was
when he yelled for Sideswipe's rocket pack in "MTMTE."
>Occasionally, I like a character who isn't wishy-washy about his or her
>beliefs. Don't we admire that kind of world view in real life as well?
Not in this day and age -- our society's become suspicious enough that
anyone acting that upright is immediately suspect. Why do you think DUE
SOUTH is a comedy? B-)
Even Superman's no longer quite the Boy Scout any more...
Carcharodon
Andrew Frankel wrote:
Maybe she was impressed by the size of his....swords
Tallories
On 11/16/97, Andrew Frankel <side...@earthlink.net> wrote...
>True...but then can't that "slave to the code" condition, as you
>accurately point out, be seen as internal struggle, thus making for
>great characterization? Instead of us feeling bored and just dismissing
>'bolt as cookie-cutter dough, couldn't the audience just as easily
>experience pathos and/or anticipation that he overcomes that bind?
Maybe they could. But then, that makes me wonder why I haven't?
Silverbolt has just given no indication that there is anything but
"slave to the code" meanderings in his mind. If there were hints of
conflict or concern, that might make him more "human", if you will.
But I think Rob is right. I haven't seen anything but the chivalrous
Maximal here, and while those character traits are certainly not
bad, they make for very boring viewing.
>I guess the
>question is why can't this be seen as his "personality" - his needing to
>live his life honorably?
He's just too predictable. I could easily have guessed that he
wouldn't shoot Blackarachnia, as well as I can predict a hundred
other honorable things he'll probably do over the course of this
season. But it is a very unrealistic and very dull personality
for TV fans.
>Good point. So chivalry isn't dead, but it damn well should be because
>it breeds loser 'bots. :)
Well, at least for 'bots who are supposed to be warriors.
>Well at least Silver stirs up a chuckle or two from you! Serious
>question though: how could Silverbolt be changed into someone plausible
>then? Have him sniff a fire hydrant? :)
Let him screw up. For example, put him into a situation where he is
forced to question his moral beliefs. Example: he sees one of his
Maximal pals in a firefight with Blackarachnia. He must either
violate his moral code and shoot BA, or not help a friend. If he
shoots her, he must deal with his own inner turmoil at breaking
his moral code. If he doesn't, he has to face the wrath of the other
Maximals. This would add depth, and reality, to his character.
- Jennifer
Visit BWA! All the fanfics you can eat!
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7432/
"We would often by sorry if our wishes were gratified."
-- Aesop
James M. Spencer
SiIverboIt wrote:
>
> I KNOW Silverbolt is going to have a bit more character then he does now. He's
> not exactly Superman as everyone thinks Why? because he's not afraid to
> destroy evil Superman doesn't kill. Silverbolt blows up people (or at
> least trys to) (by the way aren't those sword/missle/club thingys cool!) And
> about him not hurting a female? theres a little more going on there then it
> seems i have a feeling the next fight Blackarachnia wouldn't be able to
> hurt him either why? Below is listed a message from toon talk on aol
>
> turtle2116 writes " .....And is silverbolt going to be airrazors new love
> intrest..."
>
> Beastbob1 writes "Not Airrazor's. That would be too easy... :) "
>
> hhmmmmm??? i wonder...... = ]
This doesn't seem very likely. As interesting a development as that
would be it is _really_ out of character for Blackarachnia to be in love
with somebody. Everything she does is to further her own ends. If she
came even close to being in love, it seems likely that she would squash
that emotion and continue to work on a new way to further her own goals.
Should she ever express the emotion of love to anybody, it would most
likely be like the flirting that she does now..something used to
manipulate others into doing what she wants.
Don't get me wrong, I like the character but it is out of character for
her to do what is implied here.
Jeff Hauser *
* Sig Sold Seperately
Luke Allen
Andrew Frankel wrote:
>
> SiIverboIt wrote:
>
> [POSSIBLE SPOILERS]
>
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
> > intrest..."
> >
> > Beastbob1 writes "Not Airrazor's. That would be too easy... :) "
> >
> > hhmmmmm??? i wonder...... = ]
>
>
> Andrew / Swiper (he refused to kill her and she kinda gasped when they
> were face to face...)
So now we know that SilverBolt will be the Maximal no more!!!
Unless it's him and (shudder) Inferno... But let's not go there.
--
Luke Allen
http://www.nmt.edu/~lallen
"flaming grapple monkey" -- overheard
on rec.games.computer.quake.*
Commercial emailers will be billed $500
Tengu
> >dimensionally minded writer.
>
> Gee, thanks. B-)
Did I say *you* were a two-dimensionally minded writer?
> >In the cartoon,
> >for example, Optimus had his notable traits; we saw him get angry, we saw
> >him make sacrifices, and we saw him show a compassion that occasionally
> >was exploited as weakness.
>
> Someone would have to do a survey to verify, but I think the number of times
> in the cartoon where Optimus actually showed such behavior would be ten or
> less. The only time I remember him getting REALLY angry, for instance, was
> when he yelled for Sideswipe's rocket pack in "MTMTE."
So there's a quantitative factor involved in measuring a
character's personification? Personally, I liked the fact that Optimus
stood out as the "perfect" hero, with flaws in his character that
*occasionally* showed through.
> >Occasionally, I like a character who isn't wishy-washy about his or her
> >beliefs. Don't we admire that kind of world view in real life as well?
>
> Not in this day and age -- our society's become suspicious enough that
> anyone acting that upright is immediately suspect. Why do you think DUE
> SOUTH is a comedy? B-)
I'm not going to go generalization for generalization here. We
both know that "society" is much more complex than blanket statements can
carve it out to be. Personally, I believe that most people generally
*like* honest and noble characters. Vested trust in those characters
wasn't the issue I was aiming for.
Tengu:<>
Accualt
Hey people who are jumpng Silvs for not striking BA I wouldn't have either. Now
if she attacked me after I let her walk I would have taken it to
her...gentally but I still would have. Course if I was a BWarrior I would be a
big blue transmetal tricertops who has a shoulder mounted artillery canon and
goes by the name Accualt...but thats just me.
Hey Hasbro listen to that guy make a Mega toy out of him slap him on the show
and give him a personality kind of like Ironhide's or Bonecrusher(BW) techs
are. Ya that would be cool you could even bring me in to do the voice and I
have concept designs for him...you listening Bob, Larry, Hasbro? Ah wishful
thinking I guess...::sigh::...still would be cool though.
Accualt
"::Terrosaur pulls a flaming alien anal probe out of his ass:: I hate being
dead."
"::Accualt sits around:: Ya me to budy...me to..."
Lord Rubicon
Silverbolt's code doesn't limit him when it comes to Black Arachnia, it
only means he needs to get creative. He doesn't need to fire on her,
strike her, or in anyway harm her in order to stop her. Incapacitating
BA would do the trick, and would not go against his code. As for him
being a love interest for BA, have you forgotten that BA's bio card
lists her as a double agent? Also, who's to say that she doesn't in some
way respect bird-doggiebot for not firing on her. I'd like to see just
where this is going to lead, personally
Rubicon-"Your destruction at my hands is inevitable."
Inferno-"FOOL!! Pain is my friend. Allow me to introduce you to it!"
Rajan Ragupathy
Tengu wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
> > >Uh oh - a certain resident serpent might chime in here about "Obnoxious
> > >Prime" ... <grin>
> >
> > trivially easy to write for -- just go for the generic good-guy ideal and toss
> > a harder matter, because he doesn't really have much of a personality...
>
> "without" personality any more than Megatron could be. In the cartoon,
> for example, Optimus had his notable traits; we saw him get angry, we saw
> him make sacrifices, and we saw him show a compassion that occasionally
> therefore displays only cookie-cutter actions strikes me as a limited
> view. Prime *is* a heroic character; much of that heroism is derived
> from, not merely validated by, his actions.
>
Besides which, Prime isn't perfect, he makes mistakes sometimes.
An example is the episode where he refers to the Decepticons as being
"unfeeling machines."
That would be totally out of character for a cookie-cutter character,
but very much in character for for someone who is flawed, but still
a hero.
Best, Raptor
--
******************************************************
Those who master others have force.
Those who master themselves have strength.
-Confucius
A man must put the magic first, the world second.
By doing anything else, he limits himself and his potential.
-Raistlin Majere (Dragonlance)
Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.
-Optimus Prime (Transformers, G1)
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
-Admiral Tolwyn (Wing Commander 4- TPOF)
******************************************************
Picard42
Robert A. Jung wrote:
>
> In article <346F14...@earthlink.net> side...@earthlink.net writes:
> >Why are his chivalry and morality dismissed as boring and/or cliche? To
> >me, his "superman-of-the-50's" characterization is effective.
>
> The short answer: Superman is boring. "The big blue Boy Scout" is an
> accurate description. Give me more "human" heroes like Spider-Man instead.
>
We already have a character like that on Beast Wars. His name is
Rattrap.
> The long answer: There is nothing wrong with holding to (or aspiring for) a
> heroic ideal. The problem is that characters who are defined SOLELY by their
> holdings to the heroic ideal appear simplistic and stifling. A character like
> Silverbolt or Superman (or Optimus Prime) does not have a personality other
> than what the ideal allows them to have -- their behavior and reactions and
> thoughts are all driven by how they SHOULD behave. They're puppets to the
> code -- "cookie cutter image," if you will.
>
I don't see what's wrong with that. The fun of this type of character
is testing that perfection and trying to find flaws in it. Superman has
been around for quite a long time, and he wouldn't have been if he was
as boring as you make him out to be. If I had kids, I'd much rather
them aspire to be like Silverbolt than Rattrap. Kids don't look at the
character the way you are in this post. There's a reason why a lot of
us loved Prime so much when we were kids.
> IMO, the reason people dismiss these characterizations is because they ring
> false. The only way for you to be that perfect all the time is to rein in
> your own personality, to be a caricature instead of a character. Such
> caricatures ARE boring and cliche, and since their behavior is driven by the
> "chivalry code," people transfer those "boring and cliche" feelings to the
> ideals as well. In actuality, it's not the ideals that are the problem, but
> the characters' slavish devotion to them.
>
> A Superman/Silverbolt/Optimus Prime character may be someone you admire and
> respect and like -- but they're not someone you want to hang out with. Can
> you imagine any of those guys joining a crowd of everyday folks, going to the
> mall and shooting the breeze, maybe go and unwind with some volleyball? I
> can't; and every time they try, it looks fake and unnatural ("Am I drooling
> properly, Spike?").
>
I'll use my previous example of Superman. He's spent plenty of time
mixing with normal people, even in his Superman guise, and it looks
natural. It's called good writing and characterization.
> Silverbolt is an amusing character, though I find myself more often laughing
> AT him than I am laughing WITH him (c.f. "Tangled Web"). On the other hand,
> with a more plausible character like Rattrap, you can laugh WITH him. He also
> adheres to the "heroic ideal," but he isn't a slave to it, and allows his own
> personality to come through.
>
> --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
> ------- Visit Rob on the web! ------ http://www.digiserve.com/eescape/ -------
Beast Wars plays largely on character interaction. You need contrasting
characters to make that work. What fun would five Rattraps be? Answer:
none. If nothing else, at least appreciate Silverbolt for conflict
value with Rattrap, which may be necessary should certain rumors come
true. At least give the writers a chance to give him a little more
characterization before you condemn him forever...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Picard42
G+++ FW+ M D+++ AA++ N+++ W+ B+++ OQP BC97++ OM+ P276
"You're no match for ME! BURN, traitor, BURN!!!!" - Inferno
"No way! Two can play!" - Blaster
"Leaking lubricants!" - Ironhide
"You're a leaking lubricant!" - Peter Cullen, Botcon 97
"And trust me --- it takes me a *lot* less time to polish my
purple-headed
pole than it took me to polish that piece of purple pontification." -
Bob Forward
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ska-Tobot
In article <19971119022...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
acc...@aol.com (Accualt) wrote: Course if I was a BWarrior I would be a
big blue transmetal tricertops who has a shoulder mounted artillery canon
and
> goes by the name Accualt...but thats just me.
Ya know, after sifting through that grammar, I thought of something. If
YOU, the average a.t.t.er were a BW char, what would your Beast Mode be?
I figured, going with the "Ska" in my name, that I'd have to say Otis,
the lovable cartoon bulldog on the Mighty Mighty BossTones' logo. <ya
know, with the horns and all that?>
Either that, or Max. (As in Sam and.)
He cracks me up.
Ska-tobot
{<(o)>}
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Robert A. Jung
In article <64tnvt$uhi$2...@stronghold.dhp.com> One Bee To Rule Them <spe...@dhp.com> writes:
>I agree. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. What is people's
>problems with a heroic character?
Nothing. Silverbolt is heroic; Rattrap is heroic. The difference is that
Rattrap has a personality, and Silverbolt is a cliche...
>Why does someone who does no wrong have
>to be torn down, shown to be flawed, or made to see the error of his ways?
Who said this?
>What's wrong with Silverbolt being a noble, chivalrous warrior who always
>properly enunciates his words?
Nothing. But it IS rather boring hanging out with someone who's in Boy
Scout mode 24/7...
>Personally, I want to see
>Silverbolt come through this whole conflict with his morals and nobility
>INTACT.
Nothing wrong with that. Some conflict would be interesting. Haven't seen
it yet, though. So far, Silverbolt's personal worldview has had it easy...
Carcharodon
Robert A. Jung wrote:
> In article <64tnvt$uhi$2...@stronghold.dhp.com> One Bee To Rule Them <spe...@dhp.com> writes:
> >I agree. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. What is people's
> >problems with a heroic character?
>
> Nothing. Silverbolt is heroic; Rattrap is heroic. The difference is that
> Rattrap has a personality, and Silverbolt is a cliche...
Rattrap is no less cliched than Silverbolt. He's sarcastic, self-pitying, and enjoys provoking
other characters. Do the names "Raphael", "Guy Gardner", "Jubilee", "Bulk and Skull",
"Speedball", "Spiderman" ring any bells? You can see this in any number of genres. If
anything, SB is the "pure" hero to counteract Dinobot's "anti-hero".
SiIverboIt
>This doesn't seem very likely. As interesting a development as that
>would be it is _really_ out of character for Blackarachnia to be in love
>with somebody. Everything she does is to further her own ends. If she
>came even close to being in love, it seems likely that she would squash
>that emotion and continue to work on a new way to further her own goals.
>Should she ever express the emotion of love to anybody, it would most
>likely be like the flirting that she does now..something used to
>manipulate others into doing what she wants.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I like the character but it is out of character for
>her to do what is implied here.
>
I understand your point of view but you also have to understand that
characters change if they don't they get predictable, boreing, ect.... in
B.A.'s case she has always wanted power that was all there was to her but now
she has found something else probably more important to her silverbolt
joke as you may but love is more powerful then energon or the leadership of
the preadacons
besides if B.A. didn't "feel" something between them then why didn't she
just kill him? She has beaten inferno and with silverbolt's weakness (not
harming women) then she easily could have off'd him right then and there....
Silverbolt
Michael
Mike
Me
bla bla bla.....
One Bee To Rule Them
Tengu <te...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <64oidm$e...@examiner.concentric.net>, Bea...@cris.com says...
> > I don't blame Bob and Larry for this, they must keep things in perspective
> > for the kiddies after all. But, I'm hoping they'll do something to at least
> > test his beliefs, if not change them. Or give him a weird hobby or
> > something, like collecting sand.
> It'd be *interesting* to see Silverbolt forced into challenging
> his beliefs, but what satisfaction is truly to be found in that kind of
> character exposition? Often, it seems to me that western media in
> general likes to build up icons of "good" and "noble" and tear them down
> just to see what happens... *That* is something I find _much_ less
> interesting than a stubborn moral optimist.
I agree. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. What is people's
problems with a heroic character? Why does someone who does no wrong have
to be torn down, shown to be flawed, or made to see the error of his ways?
What's wrong with Silverbolt being a noble, chivalrous warrior who always
properly enunciates his words? Nothing, I say. Personally, I want to see
Silverbolt come through this whole conflict with his morals and nobility
INTACT.
Life doesn't have to suck for a character in order to make an interesting
story, and conflict doesn't always have to be internal.
----
H. Jameel al Khafiz, Physicist-At-Large
"Fool! Pain is my friend! Allow me to introduce _you_ to it!"
"You're no for match me! Burn, traitor, burn!" --mighty Inferno
The Happy Fun Page --> http://www.dhp.com/~spectre
James M. Spencer
While the characters in the show do change over time (thank god for
intelligent scripting), character traits are what change, not a
character's base personality (i.e. Dinobot has softened a little bit in
his time with the Maximals, but he has never abandoned his devotion to
his idea of what a warrior should be).
Among Blackarachnia's traits is flirting with others to achieve her
ends, but her core personality is that she is most concerned with her
own welfare. This will not change and this is what I believe would
prevent her from ever falling in love with Silverbolt because this would
not be in line with putting her concerns first.
As to why she strike down Silverbolt when he spared her...I attribute it
to shock. Ever since she modified the stasis pod to launch Primal into
orbit she has been getting beat on _hard_. First Airrazor decks her,
then Tarantulas repeatedly _forcibly_ (and apparently painfully) takes
control of her, gets threatened with execution by Megatron, etc. After
all that she's taken lately she was probably expecting for him to hit
her and was so surprised by him not doing so that she was stunned and
unable to act while she acclimated to this.
Of course, this is just my opinion of how things have occured. Your
opinion is obviously different and we won't know for sure until the
event that you allude to happens or the season ends. Although it would
be interesting if "Code of Honor" was about a realtionship between the
two and the implications that it has for the personal sets of honor for
the two (i.e. consorting with the enemy for Silverbolt and sacrificing
of one's personal freedom for another for Blackarachnia).
Eric Harding
In article <3472C2...@SCREW.YOU.es.co.nz>, Rajan Ragupathy <the...@SCREW.YOU.es.co.nz> wrote:
>Tengu wrote:
>>
><SNIP>
>>
>> > >Uh oh - a certain resident serpent might chime in here about "Obnoxious
>> > >Prime" ... <grin>
>> >
>> > To some degree, I think Raksha's right. As a character, Optimus Prime is
>> > trivially easy to write for -- just go for the generic good-guy ideal and
> toss
>> > out some platitudes. Writing Optimus as a person rather than as a cliche
> is
>> > a harder matter, because he doesn't really have much of a personality...
>>
>> Optimus Prime is only trivially easy to write for if you're a two-
>> dimensionally minded writer. I don't see how Optimus could be seen as
>> "without" personality any more than Megatron could be. In the cartoon,
>> for example, Optimus had his notable traits; we saw him get angry, we saw
>> him make sacrifices, and we saw him show a compassion that occasionally
>> was exploited as weakness. Seeing Prime only as a cookie-cutter hero who
>> therefore displays only cookie-cutter actions strikes me as a limited
>> view. Prime *is* a heroic character; much of that heroism is derived
>> from, not merely validated by, his actions.
>>
><SNIP>
>
>Besides which, Prime isn't perfect, he makes mistakes sometimes.
>An example is the episode where he refers to the Decepticons as being
>"unfeeling machines."
Don't forget in Ultimate Doom Pt.1 where Prime throws the final switch to
bring Cybertron into Earth orbit, causing mass destruction and probably deaths
across the planet. When it comes down to it, Cybertron does come before
Earth, deep down inside of him.
Eric
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Harding
ome...@oz.net
For a web page you'll think sucks, try http://www.oz.net/~omegas
----------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Spencer
Carcharodon wrote:
>
> Robert A. Jung wrote:
>
> > In article <64tnvt$uhi$2...@stronghold.dhp.com> One Bee To Rule Them <spe...@dhp.com> writes:
> > >problems with a heroic character?
> >
> > Rattrap has a personality, and Silverbolt is a cliche...
>
> Rattrap is no less cliched than Silverbolt. He's sarcastic, self-pitying, and enjoys provoking
> other characters. Do the names "Raphael", "Guy Gardner", "Jubilee", "Bulk and Skull",
> "Speedball", "Spiderman" ring any bells? You can see this in any number of genres. If
> anything, SB is the "pure" hero to counteract Dinobot's "anti-hero".
I think while listing off these others you prove someone else's point
while failing to recognize it. Let's take the list for example:
On Raphael you're right, he's nearly the same as Rattrap.
I never saw the early Guy Gardner stuff, but later on he goes straight
into being a jerk who everybody hates, Rattrap rarely crosses that line
(and most of the time it's with Dinobot :) ).
Jubilee does these things because she's insecure, Rattrap acts like he
does not as a cover but because that is how he views the world.
Don't know about Bulk and Skull.
Speedball doesn't do the self-pity bit (except for one or two issues),
he generally compensates for that portion by just being flip.
Spiderman is nowhere near Rattrap. While Spiderman may be sarcastic, he
is the king of "My life is so horrible!!! (While having a beautiful
model as his wife)" self-pity. The kind that makes you want to make his
death extra slow and painful because he whines so much about so little.
The point is that most of these characters have similarities but there
is more to the characters that makes them different.
If you replaced Rattrap with any of these other characters people would
immeadiately see the difference in the details of the personality. So
far we haven't seen any differences in Silverbolt's personality that
would set him apart from any other "goodie-goodie". I think when we see
that is when we'll see people's opinions about him change.
Robert A. Jung
In article <3472F750...@psu.edu> Picard42 <Mmr...@psu.edu> writes:
>Robert A. Jung wrote:
>> The short answer: Superman is boring. "The big blue Boy Scout" is an
>>accurate description. Give me more "human" heroes like Spider-Man instead.
>
>We already have a character like that on Beast Wars. His name is
>Rattrap.
Yeah, and Rattrap's cool. B-)
>I don't see what's wrong with that. The fun of this type of character
>is testing that perfection and trying to find flaws in it. Superman has
>been around for quite a long time, and he wouldn't have been if he was
>as boring as you make him out to be.
Why'd you think DC Comics has been tinkering with Superman's character over
the ages? They KNOW that keeping him as the pristine Boy Scout would lose
readers; the Superman of today is certainly not the same Superman of ACTION
COMICS #1 (especially not with that ugly blue outfit -- yeech!).
>There's a reason why a lot of
>us loved Prime so much when we were kids.
I always liked Jazz more, myself.
>Beast Wars plays largely on character interaction. You need contrasting
>characters to make that work. What fun would five Rattraps be? Answer:
>none.
Absolutely true. But not everyone who's a less-than-pristine character has
to be Rattrap, either. You can't tell me that Cheetor and Airazor and Rhinox
are all Silverbolt clones, for instance. Tigatron is close, though he does
let his less restrained side show through ("Let us transform ... AND SLAG SOME
BUTT!").
>If nothing else, at least appreciate Silverbolt for conflict
>value with Rattrap, which may be necessary should certain rumors come
>true. At least give the writers a chance to give him a little more
>characterization before you condemn him forever...
Oh, he's amusing. But he's not what I would point to as an example of
complex characterization. As author Peter David notes(*), "It's the
predictable way. It's the safe way. ... That's the one-dimensional portrayal
of a hero. He always does what's right." That's Silverbolt right there.
(* = From PAD's afterword to Harlan Ellison's original "City on the Edge of
Forever" script. Anyone who's even remotely a Trek fan should read the
original script -- it's even better than the episode that was filmed, which is
already the most popular classic TREK episode of all time.)
Grrrlgoyle
Accualt wrote:
>
> Silvs is going to have and do some growing up agreed but hey who knows maybe
> this not striking women thing works great on the chickbots...go get uhm Silvs
> :)
>
> Accualt
Good point. <g> I know that *I'm* more attracted to males who won't hit me. ;-p
~~~~~Grrrlgoyle
(but, then, I'm not a chickbot)
(Why did the chickbot cross the road? To cruise Silverbolt?)