[Energon/G1] Corrected profiles

[Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria]

http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/A2_WHEEL.JPG

It irritates me when a figure is released that is obviously supposed to embody a key character in the Transformers mythos only to have Arron Archer rename the character something stupid and give the character an arbitrary profile and wrong stats.

So here is a corrected one.

http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/D1_SHOC.JPG

And here is another.

http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/A4_MIR.JPG

And another

http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/A3_JET.JPG

Here is one more.
 

[Spiderman]

That's pretty cool dude I'm with ya on that whole naming thing.
 

[Denyer]

Lovely (not sarcasm, I do like them.) However, not news—please read and follow the posting guidelines for that forum.

edit: Long story, but this discussion got off the subject of fan art, so over to G1 it goes...
 

[Alpha Trion]

They look good, but I must disagree with your motives for creating them. These figures are not meant to represent those classic characters; they're simply homages. They're designed to represent new characters seen in Superlink, a show that isn't even in the same continuity the characters you reference are found in.
 

[Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria]

No, the sculpters designed them after the original characters.

The people who sell the toys came up with the "RID/CARROBOTS", "ENERGON/SUPERLINK" , "MICRONLEGEND/"ARMADA" themes. And the same people come up with the idiot names and cartoons that seem to have a completely different continuity every year.

Even the chief marketing executive, Aaron Archer, would tell you he isn't the slightest bit interested in the Transformers mythos or the desires of the artists who design the toys, or the fans. He is only interested in selling as many pieces of colored plastic to 6 year olds as he possibly can and his strategy is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. You can also tell that the profiles for the toys are written by brain dead marketing executives and not talented comic book writers like those found at Dream wave.

Aaron Archer is trying to change the Transformers franchise into a variation of the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers. Have you looked at Energon Prime lately? He's begun looking a little more and more like a Megazord with every passing year. Noticed how they change the entire continuity every year (although there is some play between Armada and Energon) and call it RID in 2001 and 2002, Armada in 2003, Energon in 2004.... Powerrangers timeforce-RID, Power rangers ninja idiots-Armada, Power Rangers Dino Thunder-Energon. Can't you see what Archer is doing?

If you can honestly look at "Shockblast" and tell me it wasn't supposed to be "Shockwave" and "Downshift" and tell me it wasn't supposed to be "Wheeljack" then I have some life insurance policies I would like to interest you in.

Here is my address for the life insurance:

uR2niave@givemeallyourmoney.com
 

[Battle_Ravage]

Flesh you have no idea what u r talkin about. Seriously, these are juz toys. Get out ya mamas basement. Its all open to interpretation. Power Rangers are the bomb! Transformers would be cooler if they were like them. The power rangers make tons of money so they muz be doin' sumpin right, genius. In They should probably tie the two toy lines together!!! Then we could see a real Optimus Megazord and he could battle the evil Rita and Zed! And I would kill to see the Green Ranger as a Dinobot headmaster.

Go Go POWER RANGERS! MIGHTY MORPHING POWER RANGER-Er-ERs!!!
 

[BigMaki]

Originally posted by Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria
If you can honestly look at "Shockblast" and tell me it wasn't supposed to be "Shockwave" and "Downshift" and tell me it wasn't supposed to be "Wheeljack" then I have some life insurance policies I would like to interest you in.

You do realize that as far as Shockblast is concerned, Hasbro legally cannot name the figure Shockwave, right? I think it's about as close as the can get. As far as Wheeljack goes, at least they saved the name by using it in Armada. You could be getting figures with no homages to G1 at all, y'know...
 

[Battle_Ravage]

No doubt. Who really cares about toys from 20 years ago anyway? Yah, that's right adults living in thier parents basement who still play with them. "Flesh Eating Bacteria" (lol) is living in the past. just trying to push his prefs on everybody else. Those old g1 cartoons weren't any better than energon and armada, heck they were WORSE!!! The new merchandise is entirely different and the people who are buying it don't remember all of that old crap so what good would it do to associate the product with it? Tain't logical.


 

[Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria]

Well Big Maki, it sounds like I could interest you in a premium life insurance policy. Seriously, I respect your opinion and all, but its really niave. If you honestly believe that they couldn't release the toy as Shockwave by simply calling it Shockwave.2 or by spelling it Shokwave then you are quite gullible. They could even get around the trademark by calling the character General, Colonel, or Lieutenant Shockwave. LOL.

When Mr. Archer does stuff like name a major character "Shockblast" he does it to spite the fans. He really has no respect for the Transformers phenomena and is just out to make a quick buck for himself at the expense of ruining the franchise in the long run.

As far as Battle_Ravage is concerned, go take your Power Rangers and troll somewhere else. I welcome discussion with an alternative opinion, but not if you are going to be rude.

By the way, to show you how great Mr. Archer's marketing is working, guess what? Armada (I meant Energon) just lost its timeslot. http://www.seibertron.com/news/view.php?id=4015

Cancelled due to low ratings. It appears people don't want to watch another power rangers show after all. If the cartoons were well written and a continuation of the original Transformers story rather than a 20 minute advertisments for toys with writing done by hacks hired by the lowest bidder, it would still be on.

The original Transformers were on for 3 years in one incarnation and toward the end the toys were garbage and kids were still watching the cartoons.

Really, these marketing exectutives that try to change the Transformers into other product lines have always hurt the Transformers. Remember the Action Masters? Transformers that didn't transform designed to compete with GI Joe? What were these executives smoking? I hope they quit before thier children were born with birth defects from it.
 

[BigMaki]

You're making a lot of assumptions about me there, Mr. Bacteria. You'd rather see them name a figure something as stupid as Shockwave.2 or as deliberately illiterate as Shokwave? You seem to have a lot of misdirected hostility towards Hasbro and way too much love for the beloved GEEWUN.

I fail to see how fans are being "spited" when characters are direct homages to GEEWUN characters. It's a different continuity, yet they've tried to get the fans interested in them with these nods to the originals. Your logic just doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

BTW, we've all had this argument 3000 times bfore around here. The G1 originals still exist. The new series are a completely different continuity and universe. Get over it.
 

[Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria]

I don't have any hostility toward Hasbro per say, but I disagree with the direction Mr. Archer is taking things. You have the right to your opinion and I have the right to mine. And get your definitions strait: a personal opinion is not an assumption.

If you want to continue the discussion, treat me and anyone else who might happen to post with respect or just go away.

I am only interested in rational discussion, even with people with different or conflicting points of view. I am not interested in a flame war and I made that implicitly clear to your buddy.

 

[Battle_Ravage]

Mr. Bacteria, you just can't stand it that you are wrong! You don't have the right to tell people they can't post! IF ANYBODY IS FLAMING ITS YOU! A FLAMING F.... Most people on this site agree with BigMaki and that means that he is probably right and that you are the one who needs to just go away! You talk like you are the authority on Transformers. Man this is the wrong place to put up that front. Later chump.
 

[BigMaki]

Originally posted by Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria
I don't have any hostility toward Hasbro per say, but I disagree with the direction Mr. Archer is taking things. You have the right to your opinion and I have the right to mine. And get your definitions strait: a personal opinion is not an assumption.

Calling me naive is an assumption about me. That's what I was referring to.

If you want to continue the discussion, treat me and anyone else who might happen to post with respect or just go away.

I am plenty calm. In fact, I'm being exceptionally nice to you right now. It's just that we've had far too many G1 fanboys who come in, scream about how everything post-1986 is crap and eventually end up getting banned because they can't handle the fact that people are disagreeing with them. Be prepared for a lot of people with more time than I've got on my lunch break from work right now to start poking holes in your arguments.

I am only interested in rational discussion, even with people with different or conflicting points of view. I am not interested in a flame war and I made that implicitly clear to your buddy.

Battle_Ravage only registered yesterday, so it's a little strange to assume he's my "buddy." I disagree with the direction he's taking the discussion anyway. It's a little odd to be posting about living in the basement when you've taken the time to register on a Transformers message board, but hey, whatever. Still, his point that Power Rangers have outsold TFs for a while holds true. Any big corporate entity is going to breed a copycat mentality for whatever is selling well. There's a reason Armada's minicons were treated like Pokemon to a certain extent. Which leads to my next point...

Archer's job is to sell toys. Period. I still don't see how naming a character Shockblast is an attempt to slap fans in the face, considering they're not allowed to use the original name. Add to that the fact that fans our age are a VAST minority of the toy-buying public, we're lucky we're getting homages and characters with nostalgia-tinged names at all. If they can't use the name, they're going to find something close that doesn't sound stupid. If your toyline has a possibility of losing money on a toy because another company owns the copyright to the name and has a possibility of suing and winning, the bean counters are going to make sure there's not a possibility of that happening. Remember, you can call the figure whatever the hell you want. And you don't have to buy it if you don't like it. While I like some of the homages present in Energon, I haven't seen a single figure I feel is worth the money, so I haven't bought any. Click the link in my sig for more of my views on this sort of thing...
 

[Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria]

Okay, I am going to assume you didn't just implicitly threaten to ban me with your comment that:

"It's just that we've had far too many G1 fanboys who come in, scream about how everything post-1986 is crap and eventually end up getting banned because they can't handle the fact that people are disagreeing with them."

I will agree that the Power Rangers sells well, but the Power Rangers occupies its own niche in the market, to attempt to copy it when you already have a viable original product is folly.

In the past when the Transformers product waned it was because of two things:

1) The quality of the toy decreased signifantly. When you go from an accurate representation of a Porche that turns into a robot with crome parts and firing missiles to a toy that turns from something that isn't even a real vehicle, to robot form that is barely discernable as humanoid, you've dropped the ball on quality. That happened in 1988 to the transformers. That was a big nail in the coffin, but the marketing execs just decided that nobody like transforming robots anymore and stopped selling for awhile after that.

2) Lack of versatility. All though I don't think the continuity needs to be scrapped every year, it does help to change themes and introduce Dinosaurs or Beast forms to keep things fresh.

However the original Transformers did have an element that the current incarnation lacked. BTW the current incarnation is superior by the above points to what was being marketed 1987 to 1990. The element I speak of that is absent in the current toy is story telling.

Good story writing is very important and the cartoons on today totally neglect this. They have shallow character development, poor continuity, and no discernable moral themes. In my opinion that hurts the product.

And the Power Rangers is a terrible product in my opinion. The fact that because everyone does this or everyone does that it must be good is a fallacy of reasoning; 'argumentum ad populum'. An argument is sound based on whether or not its premises are sound and the arguments constructed based on those premises are also sound. Whether or not every one in the room agrees is irrelevent, especially considering that some people in the room may not have passed algebra. (don't assume I'm insulting anyone, I'm just making a general point)

Crack is also very popular and I happen to think it is terrible product too.

My point about Archer is that by undercutting the quality of the product to make money 'right this minute' he is actually going to wind up making less money in the future by damaging the credibility and quality of the product.
 

[Denyer]

Originally posted by Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria
No, the sculpters designed them after the original characters.

After—as in resembling, not actually the originals, etc.

Originally posted by Battle_Ravage
You don't have the right to tell people they can't post!

I do. Assumptions about basements and sundry other crap only serve to detract from the argument you're trying to make—so please avoid making ad hominem attacks.

Originally posted by Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria
Crack is also very popular and I happen to think it is terrible product too.

Any product which can induce customers to crawl through broken glass on their hands and knees for the privilege of giving you their money is successful, whatever you think about the quality. (Class A drugs which are 'pure' are typically the most likely to kill, in fact.) But I digress.

Originally posted by Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria
The quality of the toy decreased signifantly.

Between about 1990 and 1995. The 1984-1986 toys were well-engineered, but appalling quality when you consider that the materials they were constructed from were highly fragile. Then you have a few years of chunky plastic designs (eg, Headmasters, Targetmasters) which were well-constructed, but didn't reflect Earth vehicles. G2 featured the re-release of some of the most limited moulds of 'G1', alongside some which are still regarded as amongst the most desirable (such as Laser Rod Prime.)

If anything, quality has only improved—ball joints, plastic compounds which don't shatter, more complicated designs. I don't have a great deal of interest in Transformers which do anything but sit on a shelf and look pretty, personally, but they're much better toys.

Originally posted by Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria
Armada just lost its timeslot.

And? It's an old line. The toys it advertises are no longer on most shelves.

Originally posted by Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria
Can't you see what Archer is doing?

Selling toys. Very successfully. Energon is not being marketed to adults.

Originally posted by Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria
Good story writing is very important and the cartoons on today totally neglect this.

So did the cartoons of the 80s. They capitalised on the loosening of advertising restrictions pertaining to marketing to children. Most of the original TFs had characterisation only by virtue of their voice actors (a two-sentence stereotype is not characterisation) and the early US comic was little better.
 

[Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria]

Denyer, rather than taking my thoughts and comments out of context and throwing them back out with little sarcastic remarks attached, do you think you could just try forming your own original comments based on your own original premises?

For instance you could just say to me:

A) I disagree with you in regard to your opinion of how
Mr. Archer is managing the product line. Mr. Archer has
actually saved the product line by selling his soul to
Mephistopheles and you should be grateful.

B) I also don't think that the sculpters intended for the
toys to be the generation 1 characters, but to be a
homage to them. The Generation 1 toys have a seperate
continuity from the current. The newer audience is familiar
with the current so let them have a seperate continuity.

Not that those are your opinions, I am sure your opinions make much more sense than that.

See, it makes it look like you are trying to be understood and have something meaningful to say and not merely aiming to annoy someone.
 

[BigMaki]

Originally posted by Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria
Okay, I am going to assume you didn't just implicitly threaten to ban me with your comment that:

"It's just that we've had far too many G1 fanboys who come in, scream about how everything post-1986 is crap and eventually end up getting banned because they can't handle the fact that people are disagreeing with them."

Just explaining why many have the attitude that I do. I don't have the power to ban anyone. And I certainly wouldn't even consider banning you for anything you've said thus far. Why do you keep assuming the worst in everything I say?

I will agree that the Power Rangers sells well, but the Power Rangers occupies its own niche in the market, to attempt to copy it when you already have a viable original product is folly.

It may be folly in your opinion, but imitation is an idea used by pretty much all big corporations. Smaller companies who need to carve their own niche are usually the ones who are the innovators. When their innovation does well, the larger corporations go on the copycat bandwagon or buy them out. It holds true for almost every industry, so it makes sense that it would hold true for the toy industry as well. The copycats rarely sell better than the originals, but that doesn't seem to stop people of the corporate mindset from thinking that "this time will be the time it works."

In the past when the Transformers product waned it was because of two things:

1) The quality of the toy decreased signifantly. When you go from an accurate representation of a Porche that turns into a robot with crome parts and firing missiles to a toy that turns from something that isn't even a real vehicle, to robot form that is barely discernable as humanoid, you've dropped the ball on quality. That happened in 1988 to the transformers. That was a big nail in the coffin, but the marketing execs just decided that nobody like transforming robots anymore and stopped selling for awhile after that.

I couldn't agree more that the quality of post-movie releases was vastly inferior to that of pre-movie releases. I always attributed it to the fact that the original designs were made with the vehicle mode in mind first, then the robot was designed from there. In post-movie it seemed as if the robot mode was designed first, then the vehicle mode was made to accomodate that. It didn't help that plastic was used to replace rubber and metal as well. Keep this in mind -- the original Diaclone molds used for most of the 1984-85 toys were designed in the late '70s and very early '80s, when licensing wasn't as big a deal as it is nowadays. They had to stop using accurate vehicle modes to avoid paying licensing fees to the car companies whose models were used. This sucks, but again, they're in the business of making money. And using futuristic vehicle modes worked for a year or two...

2) Lack of versatility. All though I don't think the continuity needs to be scrapped every year, it does help to change themes and introduce Dinosaurs or Beast forms to keep things fresh.

I can understand the need for continuity between lines, but it also alienates newer people trying to hop in story-wise. If you're a comic book fan, it's akin to Marvel's "Ultimate" line where it's the same situations, just different settings and different personalities for the characters. It's worked, in my opinion.

However the original Transformers did have an element that the current incarnation lacked. BTW the current incarnation is superior by the above points to what was being marketed 1987 to 1990. The element I speak of that is absent in the current toy is story telling.

Good story writing is very important and the cartoons on today totally neglect this. They have shallow character development, poor continuity, and no discernable moral themes. In my opinion that hurts the product.

If you're comparing the cartoons of today to the original G1 cartoons, you're going be sorely disappointed when you go to the G1 cartoon/comic forum. A lot of people (myself included, to a certain extent) regard the original cartoon as utter garbage, and they regard it as such for exactly the reasons you've just mentioned. Include the myriad of animation errors to the mix, too. Energon and Armada aren't exactly the pinnacle of cartoon writing, but at least they've tried to tell one coherent story where actions of the previous week's episode are acknowledged and mean something in this week's episode (most of the time.)

And the Power Rangers is a terrible product in my opinion. The fact that because everyone does this or everyone does that it must be good is a fallacy of reasoning; 'argumentum ad populum'. An argument is sound based on whether or not its premises are sound and the arguments constructed based on those premises are also sound. Whether or not every one in the room agrees is irrelevent, especially considering that some people in the room may not have passed algebra. (don't assume I'm insulting anyone, I'm just making a general point)

Crack is also very popular and I happen to think it is terrible product too.

I agree with you completely there. I'm not saying it makes it good, I'm saying that if an executive looks at toyline A and sees that its story is great but it's not selling anything then looks at toyline B and sees that the story sucks but it's selling like hotcakes, which one do you think he's going to want his new toyline to emulate? Whichever one is going to make him the most money. Again, going back to the big corporation copycat syndrome.

My point about Archer is that by undercutting the quality of the product to make money 'right this minute' he is actually going to wind up making less money in the future by damaging the credibility and quality of the product.

Well, to be honest, apart from our little hardcore fanbase, there really isn't anyone that cares about the quality of the product's storyline all that much. The quality parents care about more is whether or not the new robot car thing the bought little Timmy is going to break the first time he plays with it or not. I'd say most of the G1 line would fail that quality test pretty quickly. And who knows, in 20 years' time little Timmy may be looking on eBay for all those old Energon toys he used to play with when he was little. He'll probably find a lot more in better condition than I've found most of the G1 guys I've wanted...

A mod may want to split this discussion off from the original topic, I do like the tech specs and don't want to distract from them too much since this sort of discussion isn't something that goes in the creative forum.
 

[Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria]

Thanks for the discussion. You have valid points.

I still feel that the old cartoon was written better, in general plot. For instance, the original story of aliens crash landing on earth and how the computer chose vehicles as forms for them and all of the different personalities, was really excellent. I am referring mostly to the first season and the movie. The movie easily blows any of the current cartoons out of the water. Characters were very good.

The animation, as you mentioned was pretty bad compared to what is around today though. But I don't think that is part of the story telling.

And I cannot emphasize enough that a story does sell a product in the entertainment business. Just like Star Wars sold action figures in the early 80's.

Children like to escape from the torments of school and parents and thier minds are more sophisticated than you give them credit for. By taking the story out of transformers I feel that Archer and the bottom liners are really stealing something from the children.

The way I see it, it wouldn't be too hard for these executives to hire some real writers to put together a more vivid and captivating story for children, rather than idiotic violence for no reason.

It all boils down to a person in the industry choosing to earn the value of the customer or simply doing the bare minimum to get that cusomers dollar. Mr. Archer really isn't involved in the creative process at all and there needs to be more thought in that area.

Its just my opinion.

Again, thank you for the discussion.
 

[Denyer]

Originally posted by Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria
Denyer, rather than taking my thoughts and comments out of context and throwing them back out with little sarcastic remarks attached, do you think you could just try forming your own original comments based on your own original premises?

I like you. I hope you're not allergic to tomatoes.

Originally posted by Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria
The Generation 1 toys have a seperate continuity from the current.

The tech-specs aren't even in the same continuity as the 'G1' shows (US or Japan) comics (US and UK) or other media (storybooks, etc.) There are at least twenty-five mutually exclusive continuities/timelines within what is commonly regarded as 'generation one'.

For example, the Optimus Prime we see in the US show isn't the Optimus Prime we see in the Marvel UK comic, the Optimus Prime we see in the Japanese manga or the Optimus Prime we see in Marvel US G2.

Originally posted by Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria
it makes it look like you are trying to be understood and have something meaningful to say and not merely aiming to annoy someone.

I would imagine the people I'm talking to are following quite well.

You've taken cards for one set of characters, pasted bios for another set of characters across them, and trolled the result through a news forum. What am I missing, exactly?
 

[Flesh_Eatin_Bacteria]

I never said that anyone was not capable of reading what you had to say. I did say that it would be better if you articulated your own thoughts and ideas rather than simply cutting and pasting someone elses and then adding sarcastic remarks. Which you still either choose not to do or are incapable of doing.

What you are doing is highly antagonistic and not very indicative of someone who is trying to discuss a topic civilly with other people who appreciate some of the same subjects. You are obviously looking to bicker and I would prefer you bickered somewhere else.

And by the way, the profiles are not verbatum copies of the originals. I did actually modify them to fit with the toys they are based on. And I never claimed to have written the original profiles they are based on to begin with, which you seem to be implying.

And I was aware of every fact that you just presented in your rebute and it has no bearing on anything I said. I happen to think that story telling is an important aspect of any product that is designed to entertain the imagination, especially of children.

You seem to disagree with me and it is wonderful you have your own opinion. I would just rather hear your opinion presented in terms of your own thoughts rather than my thoughts twisted around, taken out of order and context and thrown back.

And I like you too.