If Generation 2 had had a different name, would we still consider Generation 1 as a huge, singular entity?

Nevermore · Post by **Nevermore** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:17 pm

So, the original Transformers toyline was simply named "Transformers" until it was cancelled in the USA in 1990 (and continued under that name in Europe and Japan for a few more years).

Then comes "Transforners: Generation 2", and introduces us to line sub-titles. Next come Beast Wars, Beast Machines, RID, Armada and all that other stuff.

Because Generation 2 was named "Generation 2", we now retroactively consider everything that came before that as "Generation 1".

Now, if Hasbro had named G2 something else, such as "Transformers: Combat Heroes" or "Transformers: Ultraforce", how would we be looking at G1 today?

Sure we wouldn't call it "Generation 1" because there's no "Generation 2". But would we still consider it as one singular toyline/franchise that lasted from 1984 to 1990/1993, or would we view it as a sequence of several revamps?

There's already scattered factions in this fandom who only consider the pre-1986 movie toys to be the "true" G1, or only the "cartoon" era toys up until "Rebirth".

Would we think of the 1980s/early 1990s line as "Transformers Original Series", "Transformers Headmasters Series", "Transformers: Pretenders", "Transformers: Micromasters" and "Transformers: Action Masters"? The 1989-1990 toys were pretty consistently divided into Pretenders, Micromasters and Action Masters, after all, with no new toys that didn't fit into one of the gimmick-based sub-lines.

another tf fan · Post by **another tf fan** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:15 am

I think it would break down like this:
Transformers : 1984/1985
Transformers 2005 : 1986
Transformers - Master: 1987-1990(This includes head master, Targetmaster, Powermaster, Action Master, Pretenders etc.)

G1 would, I think, split into these three groups. If it gets anymore divided it would be too complicated. Besides the sub-groups have always existed and in the G1 era people still refered to the toys as Transformers, no matter the type.

Blitzwing · Post by **Blitzwing** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:45 am

I think fans of the Marvel comics would still consider it all to be one entity since they were all part of the same run.

Cartoon/Toy fans might brake it down differently.

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:12 pm

Yeh, not a huge amount of people use the Generation 1 label 'properly' as it is - most fanboys have their own meaning, whether it's the American stuff, the pre-movie stuff, the stuff they remember having as a kid. Even most sensible fans who aren't dribbling muppets tend to have their own definition whether they realise it or not. So for usage it's slightly irrelevant - when writing stuff for my site, I tend to jump through hoops to avoid saying "G1" because it's a stupid name for something so wide-ranging, generally you can get away with saying "the original Hound" or whatever. Same way I'm never going to call Gundam "Gundam 0079", it should be self explanatory and not need expansion. It'd be like calling The Godfather "The Godfather Part One" (I know some people do this, but they're twats, frankly).

another tf fan · Post by **another tf fan** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:47 am

You mean it would be wrong to call Star Wars "A New Hope"?

Catalyst Dragon · Post by **Catalyst Dragon** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:12 am

I put Transformers, Headmasters/Targetmasters, and 2010 as G1 cartoon wise.

As for toys i've always considered anything before Rid (except BW/BM) to be G1. example Masterforce Overlord.

In otherwords I always have considered G2 to be G1!

I don't think i ever owned a g2 toy though...

another tf fan · Post by **another tf fan** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:29 am

Yeah, I always thought of BeastWars as something other than G1. No matter it's ties to G1 my mind divides at 1990.