New Redemption Grab Bag now includes an assortment of 500 cards from five (5) different expansion sets. Available at Cactus website.
The chick in that movie is so gross looking. I don't know who in their right mind would think that she was attractive.
I was surprised at the unnecessarily elevated level of crudeness
Quote from: BubbleBoy on July 06, 2009, 07:33:49 AMI was surprised at the unnecessarily elevated level of crudenessAnyone who would be "surprised" by this has clearly not been reading this thread.
Michael. Bay.How many times must I say it?!?
devastator in the second film is portrayed as seven constructicons (hightower, scavenger, scrapper, hook, long haul, mixmaster, and rampage). bay has also said that the name devastator was used incorrectly in the first film for brawl.
hightower (or iron lift) is a constructicon and from tf: universe.
i also find it hard to quote another forum as a reliable, citable source. nonetheless, its obviously wrong.
Quote from: Master KChief on July 07, 2009, 06:01:48 PMhightower (or iron lift) is a constructicon and from tf: universe.Iron Lift was the original (the ORIGINAL original was "Hook"). Hightower did not appear as a name for him until they started doing all that Universe and Classics stuff a few years back. "Hightower" is not an original Constructicon.Quotei also find it hard to quote another forum as a reliable, citable source. nonetheless, its obviously wrong.Yeah, that's obvious. Because there's no possible way it could be you. That's why it makes so much sense to tear down one guy's source while providing none of your own.
since when did any of the constructicons in the movie have to adhere specifically to the 'original' constructicons?
thats not the argument here.
the point is there were several constructicons in the movie.
its micheal bays vision
as far as my citations, feel free to sift through all 184 of them on the main wiki page.
Quote from: Master KChief on July 07, 2009, 08:30:17 PMsince when did any of the constructicons in the movie have to adhere specifically to the 'original' constructicons?Maybe because that's what I've been talking about this entire time?no? because by self-admission you did not know?Quotethats not the argument here.That's exactly the argument here. You might want to keep that in mind, since I was the one who's been making it to begin with.again, no, because you didnt even know if there was a constructicon in the movie to begin with.Quotethe point is there were several constructicons in the movie.I verified several posts ago that some of the bots in Devastator were Constructicons and some were not. There were three possible outcomes, that was one of them, I never denied it. Exactly what is it about my statement that you feel you have to criticize?you did not 'verify' anything, you offered possibilities of what devastator could be that covered the spectrum of ALL possibilities. i could very much well say 'the earth is round' and 'the earth is not round', and still come out right whichever way. this is not 'verification', this is simple conjecture.Quoteits micheal bays visionAgain, that's what I've been saying from the beginning.ok. cool.Quoteas far as my citations, feel free to sift through all 184 of them on the main wiki page.Really? Is this the part where I go "LOL wiki"?184 citations is far more reliable than the whopping zero you've provided...from another forum, at that...
Negative - Do not see this movie. Like Harry Potter it is meant to appeal to kids and will only lead them astray using clever marketing techniques and product tie-ins. Furthermore, I find it unhealthy for our kids to go on thinking God created other planets and that they are alien robots inhabiting them. Once your kids see this movie they are going to want to play with Transformer toys, Legos, and all other sorts of toys that enable them to build robots like they saw in the movie. They will fantasize about other worlds that are not in the Biblical account of creation and believe that robots are created with life in the same way God made man. Our youth cannot help but be corrupted by such robot fantasies and it encourages them to grow up worshipping manmade technologies like robots. Obviously this has clear implications for other man-made creations, like stem cell research. We should not mess with Creation or with the story of it. If you want your kids to worship robotic life then take them to this movie. If you want them to know that God made man on the sixth day and stopped there—he didn't make another planet filled with evil robots—then avoid this movie at all costs. Don't be 'Decepticon'-ed by this movie.My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 1—Jonathan, age 31
I'm just proud to see TKP all growed up and pwning trollz :tear:
no? because by self-admission you did not know?
again, no, because you didnt even know if there was a constructicon in the movie to begin with.
you did not 'verify' anything
Hightower, Overload and Rampage were not Constructicons in first-generation Transformers. So it's either a mix of robots or Bay changing around the robots to suit his whim again.
184 citations is far more reliable than the whopping zero you've provided...from another forum, at that...
In the movie the Decepticon tank is called Devastator; in all other promotional materials, it is called Brawl. Hasbro do not actually own a trademark on the name "Devastator" and re-issues of the old Devastator toy [a huge robot made of multiple pieces of construction equipment] have had to be called "Constructicon Devastator." Michael Bay changed it because he thought it "sounded better;" Hasbro and Roberto Orci have both stated the name is an "error."
QuoteApparently, Bay said something about there being a big error in the film prior to the screening; do you know if the Devastator/Brawl mixup was it, or something else? Thanks Roberto!It's gotta be, because we pointed it out twice in the editing room!
Apparently, Bay said something about there being a big error in the film prior to the screening; do you know if the Devastator/Brawl mixup was it, or something else? Thanks Roberto!