Springer to transform Autobot City (presumably into the robot mode of the giant Autobot Metroplex)

I don't think there's any evidence of that parenthetical supposition. Is there? JW 01:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but some backwards reasoning suggests it: according to one of the alterations made after I created this page, the Decepticons' first strike probably took out Metroplex's transformation cog, preventing the Autobots from converting the city to robot mode. Personally I don't buy that explanation either, but given they did a TV episode on the subject later (referenced in the article on the cog) I was just retconning the article to reflect it.

Although I see the point you're probably making: to transform Autobot City into Metroplex might well have resulted in some injuries and deaths given a solid number of Autobots were inside the city when it would have gone to robot mode. (User ... I am going to create an account, I swear...)

Hmm, if Metroplex isn't mentioned in the actual movie, and the fact that his transformation cog was damaged is only mentioned in a followup episode, this should be mentioned in the article. E.g., "transform Autobot City (according to the later episode #foo, into the robot mode of the giant Autobot Metroplex)" or somesuch. JW 13:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


I remmeber there being an awful lot of characters on both sides, but I haven't seen any definitive numbers. Do we have a complete list, so we can verify that the Autobots were outnumbered? Or is it stated in the dialogue? JW 13:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Springer claims they're outnumbered as Starscream strafe's Ultra Magnus' team. Decepticons had their 1984 crew, the coneheads, the Constructicons, the Insecticons, the Triple Changes and Reflector. Not counting the tape guys since they hadn't appeared yet when Springer made that announcement. --FFN 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It's in the dialogue.
Perceptor: Ultra Magnus -- an analysis of Decepticon capabilities indicates a distinct tactical deficiency.
Ultra Magnus: In other words, Perceptor...?
Springer: We're outnumbered!
(Cue explosion from a Seeker than roars past, shooting.

(Me again. Still have to make myself an account...)


Yes, you're correct Steve. Floro Dery has even gone so far as to say in interviews that he was not aware of Metroplex when making the movie designs for Autobot City. He of course tries to turn it around and say that his Autobot City designs inspired Metroplex (Which they likely did) but that he had to go with his secondary design as opposed to his primary design which was much better, capable of curing cancer, and could make angels weep openly.--Rosicrucian 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This raises the question of whether the writers of FFoD were doing a retcon -- were trying to explicitly say that Springer's team were transforming Metroplex in the movie -- and they just didn't make it obvious enough. You also have to ask if it really counts as a retcon, since FFoD was the very next bit of animation to come out, and the same guy, Flint Dille, was story consultant on TFTM and the writer of FFoD. We're hanging on the very flimsy edge of "retcon" when one guy contributes to one story and then clarifies things in the next. So: If we think that Dille's authorial intent in FFoD was to say they were transforming Metroplex, we should mention that, with appropriate "apparnetly"s and "arguably"s. JW 01:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It is definitely not my intent to say that Dille intended that. In the finished fiction, Autobot City and Metroplex are not the same thing. Metroplex is, at most, a sentient, mobile "piece" of the city. Before catching up on wiki today, I had never in my life heard anyone claim that Springer and Arcee were trying to transform Metroplex manually despite his damaged cog, and I see no reason to make that speculation. Taking everything at face value, they initiated a clearly-automated sequence for converting the city into a battle fortress. Metroplex is later claimed to have been damaged, clumsily "explaining" why he didn't do anything despite apparently having existed (and not explaining why nobody mentioned him). --Steve-o 04:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I defer to your judgment. JW 13:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.