So in the movie, and in the special features, Brawl is called "Devastator." However, in the commentaries and bonus features, ILM and company just refer to him as "the tank." What's going on here exactly? I'm sorry if I missed this discussion in the past.

Michael Bay hates you and wants you to be confused. At least that's what I gathered from the film.

The filmmakers had free reign to use any Transformers they wanted to in this film, and even create some of their own or reassign names, all of which they pretty much did. Hasbro would get to manufacture toys based off of, and ultimately own rights to, whoever they chose to use, but the cast of the film was at the discretion of the filmmakers.

Bay chose to name this new tank character "Devastator" rather than "Brawl" late in the game. Hasbro didn't have time to correct the merchandise, but couldn't stop Bay from using whatever name for the character he wanted, since the robot cast of the film was up to him.

Or that.

I was under the impression that naming that character "Devastator" was a point on which Hasbro and Bay didn't agree - Hasbro couldn't do anything about his name in the movie, but didn't want the toy to be named that, so here we are...

You know, both of those stories could be true at the same time.

I think any fan is going to be hard-pressed to look at the tank guy and not see Brawl. But Bay can call him whatever he wants to; it is his movie, after all. I still call him Brawl, though. It just makes a lot more sense to me.

I agree with Pete, that any fan will see Brawl in "the tank".
To me, I call him "Brawl" when referring to the toys, but I call him "Devastator" when referring to the movie version.

i really think he should remain as Brawl. i mean we're getting the REAL Devastator in the next movie after all. so what's HE gonna be named?

What? How do you know that? If you're spoilering, I will Powerglide you in the eyes until you bleed out.

read the treatment

Worry not, just speculation so far. There's some stuff that points to that being the case, but stuff points to them putting Mass Shifting in the sequel, too, and I'm not putting money on that one.


The treatment's not the story they're using. Even if it was, have some respect for your fellow board members and use spoiler tags, dude. Quote this post to find out how.

What "treatment?"

There was treatment for Transformers 2 floating around a few weeks ago, that featured the Constructicons, and thus Devastator.
I hope they don't make it in for TF2, honestly. IMO they should respect the internal continuity of the films, and leave them/him out of it. Go with the Stunticons and Menasor instead.

Plus I am sick to f'ing death of construction vehicle combiner teams. I really liked that them movie was essentially "old" Autobot characters against an almost completely "new" roster of 'Cons, and I'd actually prefer a completely new combiner team for the movies.

Actually most of the 'Cons had G1 roots.
Megatron, Starscream, Bonecrusher, and Frenzy (plus Devastator, if we accept the Brawl name) were all based off of G1 Decepticons. Only Blackout and Barricade were "new."

Plus, they killed off Bonecrusher, so that's an other reason I would prefer they stay away from the Constructicons.
Given the manner in which they were introduced in the treatment, the Stunticons would make more sense, and would fit better within the movie universe to boot.

I think its a real stretch to say a character like Bonecrusher is "based on" the G1 character with the same name. Obviously all the movie characters have similarities to characters in previous iterations, but as for the seven movie 'cons, I'd say only Starscream and Megatron would be new representations of "old" characters and the others are essentially new characters created for the movie.

Basically there was a "script treatment" floating about a couple of weeks ago, which while pukka (with regard to being professionally produced) more likely it was done by a script-writer auditioning (if you will) for a job on TF2, but it's NOT the actual TF2 script (although there's a chance elements of it could end up in the new film). Hopefully that won't be the case, because the script was filled with so much overt fanwank it frankly seemed out of place for the movie-verse.

Well considering we only got 45 seconds or so worth of Bonecrusher, we can't say anything about his character.
It seems, however, that he has some sort of connection to G1 Bonecrusher.
The G1 version was a Constructicon, hence his alt mode was a construction vehicle.
The movie version is a Buffalo mine-clearing vehicle. It may just be me, but the Buffalo seems as close as you can get to a construction vehicle and still stay a military vehicle (Bay said he wanted most of the 'Cons to have military alt forms). So I would say there's definitely a connection. It's not as obvious as SS or Megs, but it's there.

At the very least I would SS, Megs, and Frenzy were based on G1 characters.
G1 Frenzy was a cassette. Given that mass-shifting wasn't an option, it becomes logical that in the movie-verse he becomes the actual boom box. Also, his function was very similar to what we've see from Soundwave cassettes before. So even if we put Bonecrusher in the "made for the movie" category, I would still say the G1-based 'Cons number at three, with SS, Megs, and Frenzy. You could add a forth as well, if we accept "Brawl" as a viable alternate name for Devastator.

I can't argue with any of that, but I still see it all as a real stretch. Frenzy's personality is nothing like the G1 character of the same name and, honestly, G1 Bonecrusher's and Brawl's main story function was to be part of a subgroup, which neither movie character is.

I see them as completely new characters reusing old names, just like Energon Ironhide as compared to G1 Ironhide.

I love the phrase "overt fanwank"!!!

I'm wi Hobbes, I think it was a reusing of an old name, instead of newer versions of the G1 characters. Still, useing Devastator and Bonecrusher has totally messed up any chance of useing the Constructicons in the sequel (G1 accurate anyway), 'cos surely you can't have new characters in the movie-verse sharing names with now dead ones.

Maybe a whole new 'Con combiner isn't such a bad idea.

I don't know how anyone can definitively say "this movie character's personality was nothing like his G1 namesake" since there's so little to go on in terms of G1 source material. G1 Frenzy was in like three episodes ever, and as for Bonecrusher and Brawl, they had about as much character development as your average Decepticon goon (i.e. hardly any at all). Likewise, it's not like the movie really gave you any personality insight into *any* of the Decepticons, aside from Megatron. So there's really nothing there either way IMO.

I don't think movie Bonecrusher was 100% deliberately meant to be G1 Bonecrusher, but I also don't see them as completely unrelated characters either. There's definitely some overlap there. Same with Brawl and Frenzy. I see it as the movie characters taking inspiration from G1 characters, but not being based on them as the Autobots were.

Some people don't use the Cartoon to define characters Pete - some use a combo of the Comics and Tech Specs.
Just saying is all - that's where I draw most of my G1 Character Personas/Info from.

But I agree with you on the last statement - I think they are all "based on" their original counterparts, but not a complete lift either, so new interpretation + old inspiration.

The Constructicons have formed their giant robot before without using the names Mixmaster, Hook, and Scrapper.

I don't see the problem here.

How about the fact that in the movie-verse the name "Devastator" has already been used? I would rather see the Stunticons anyway.

I'd rather see Abominus. In some way, shape, or form.

The problem with that though, is that it ruins the whole "robots in disguise" thing.
Part of the Movie's, and it's toy line's, appeal is that it's the first main line in a while to use realistic earth vehicle alternate modes (save Megatron).

As long as the combined formed looked truly monstrous, I don't see any reason why "Abominus" wouldn't work combined from cars and jets and stuff...although that may cause some people's heads to explode (isn't looking at TB).

Now that I think about it, Decepticon vehicles that turned into monsters would be a great foil to my Autobot vehicles that turn into Dinosaurs idea...

Very good point.


Yes, yes it would. Plus Hasbro would have a field day.

I'd be totally up for any Gestalt really...
Abominus, Bruticus, Menasor, etc..

Just as long as it fits within the realms the movieverse has set up and doesn't just feel like added fanwankery without a true purpose. Basically I don't want the Gestalt thrown in just to give fanboys some 30 seconds of wankjuice for one scene/battle.

Barricade and Blackout also had G1 roots. Both were Decepticon Micromasters. Both went on to have versions of themselves in the Armada/Energon series. Blackout was reused as the name for Demolishor's Mini-Con and again as the purple helicoptor for the Energon Combaticons. Barricade was used for the leader of the Energon Combaticons.

Couldn't agree more, and I think this should go for ANYTHING or ANYONE in the sequal. Not even Soundwave, a character who the vast majority of fans would like to see in the sequel, should be in there if it's just (my new fave word:) for fanwank. It should all be vital to the plot, whatever or whoever it is.