QUOTE (Smooth Jazz)
This hits the nail on the head right here. Prowl is such an intelligent and capable combatant that you wonder how he ended up on a space-bridge repair crew. Except when you see his inability to function in a group. That had kind of been glossed over in every episode from the pilot until now.
That's because Prowl was supposed to have moved on from that. The whole thing with character development is that your character moves from one phase or stage to another, as part of how that character evolves/develops/matures - whatever you want to call it. In the pilot, yes, Prowl was too much of a maverick who failed to understand the value of being a team player, but he learnt a harsh lesson and supposedly moved on from that. If writers wanted to maintain or foster even part of that rogue element within Prowl, then they should have maintained parts of it in Prowl in other episodes.
For example, although Bumblebee has made progress from moving away from being such an impulsive, hot-headed and immature character (rather irritatingly slowly at first too), writers have still retained an element of his impish nature - which means that it can be recalled to some degree when the occasion arises, e.g.: in the episode "Velocity." As you've pointed out, Prowl's former rogue element has been completely removed since the pilot until now, which would lead the audience to believe that he had well and truly evolved way passed that - so seeing him slide not just back to how he was, but even
further back in such a short period of time doesn't seem to fit well, in terms of logical character progression.
Compare this with say Beast Wars/Beast Machines Blackarachnia's transition from evil to good - it was a long, gradual and arduous journey throughout Beast Wars until she was fully realised as a true heroic character in Beast Machines. Now for BM Blackarachnia to revert back to evil at the drop of a hat would be very jarring to the story. Yeah okay, she did revert back to evil in Universe, but that was due to influence from Unicron - who's a god.

The idea of having a character in flux isn't necessarily a bad idea, but IMO the execution could've been done better.
QUOTE (Smooth Jazz)
If you wanna talk characterization...why does Bulkhead have to be written as a clumsy muscle bound idiot that destroys everything in his path? rolleyestf.gif That one, for me, is just tiresome.
...and that is something that I've disliked about the characterisation of Bulkhead since this series started. Although we've seen Bulkhead make improvements in Season 2. He's no Rhodes scholar, but constantly falling about and being a destructive clumsy oaf as much as he used to. And they are showing more of his actual persona being being just a clumsy brute - that was one thing I enjoyed about "Rise of the Constructicons," and even in this episode I liked how Bulkhead felt cut when that Starscream clone couldn't remember his name.
On that note, I also really hate how the Dinobots are also constantly portrayed as not just being clumsy muscle bound idiots, but as
savages too. (-_-)
QUOTE (Smooth Jazz)
Of course I know the kids like it.
Really? I don't know about you, but when I was a kid, I really didn't like it when the G1 cartoon decided to severely dumb down the Dinobots after Season 2. I
always preferred the Dinobots from the G1 comics because they were just better written.
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer)
So it isn't possible that what we saw in Prowl this episode is actually part of his character? I think what's happening is that we've become so used to quick character sketches substituting for actual characterization that we've come to see anything beyond the most basic character traits as "out of character." "Prowl is a silent nature lover and that's all there is to him! Anything else is not Prowl!" Maybe what we saw this week is Prowl too.
If I want to see a Transformer in Animated with multiple personality disorder, I'll look at Blitzwing.

QUOTE (Lord Madhammer)
Am I the only one who saw a Boba Fett reference in Lockdown's poncho?
I didn't see that. I thought it was a reference to the episode being called "A Fistful of Energon," being a reference to Clint Eastwood in "A Fistful of Dollars."

QUOTE (Lord Madhammer)
I really like the fact that the Autobots spend most of their time repairing stuff that's been destroyed in their battles with the Decepticons. So often in kids' shows you see total crazy urban destruction with no repercussions at all. It's nice to see that the writers are thinking logically about the show.
Yes, I agree. It reinforces the fact that their conflict has consequence - and anything that teaches kids about consequences and responsibility can only be a good thing.

Children's Television Workshop'd!
QUOTE (SCPrime)
Except that using Bumblebee would not have as powerful an effect on the moral of the story (upgrades=power can corrupt even the most level-headed). Bumblebee is already rash. The writers chose Prowl for a reason, and that is that he is seemingly the most level-headed. Yes, Prowl is out of character (at least the character we know so far) but that's the whole point. If it was Bumblebee, then the audience would have thought, well that's just Bumblebee being Bumblebee. But with Prowl, then the audience thought wow that's NOT Prowl at all. It must be the upgrades. Is it a bit off to explain the moral of the story in this way? Perhaps to you and me. But for kids, it's much easier for them to understand if it's as black and white as this.
So... you're saying it's okay for the show to talk down to kids? As Michael McConnohie said in the G1 DVD interview, kids
hate being talked down to and assumed as if they're stupid. Doing that can often make children being resentful of the literary material.
You don't need to dumb things down to make it appeal to kids. There's a lot of things in Animated Season 2 that I think are great because they're not dumbing it down as much as Season 1.
QUOTE (SCPrime)
And as some have already mentioned, it's nice to see that not all characters are pigeon holed to have only a certain characteristic.
You're talking about static one-dimensional characters, like the Transformers in the G1 cartoon. This isn't what we're talking about here though. Character development is all good, but it needs to be done in a logically connective manner. This is part of the reason why I don't like some of the characters in Beast Machines (e.g.: Megatron) simply because the character development between Beast Wars and Beast Machines wasn't done in a satisfactorily logical manner IMO. BM Megatron is a
fantastic character in his own right, but he's just _not_ Beast Wars Megatron - and that is bad character development.
Was Prowl a cool character in this episode? Yes. But is it the same Prowl that we've been seeing develop throughout the series? Dubious.
QUOTE (SCPrime)
This episode actually reminds me alot of Lord of the Rings. Frodo, a hobbit, portrayed mainly as peaceful (internal conflict and all), succumbed to the power and evil of the ring at the end (as do many). The moral of the story would not be as nearly as effective if they used anyone other than Prowl, IMO. Just like the moral of the story would not be as nearly as effective if LotR used another race as the bearer of the ring rather than a hobbit. Yes, it was more believable in LotR because they had 6 hours to show the internal conflict of Frodo. Whereas Fist full of Energon had 20 minutes to portray the internal conflict of Prowl.
And timing is a
crucial element of story telling. Don't try to make a character go through extreme character change in a single episode like that...
As Father Time said, it's really more like they did it because it suited the plot - i.e.: it was a plot device, rather than actual character development for its own sake. What they could've done was to seed sub-plot elements in previous episodes to lead to this, such as showing bits of Prowl's ego manifesting, rogue nature re-surfacing etc.
This is something that was done frequently in the Transformers Marvel comics and Beast Wars. G1 Scorponok's transformation into a martyr and "Code of Hero" would've totally sucked if writers hadn't previously seeded sub-plot elements that would later mature into primary plot elements later.
Tezuka "God of Manga" Osamu (and I'm sure many other writers) once described planning a story as creating a large tree but with branches winding around the trunk, not away from it. The trunk of the tree represents the primary plot line and the winding branches represent sub-plots which branch out from the trunk but always wind back into it.