Transformers: Unicron (discussion and speculation)

The modern comics universe has had such a different take on G1, one that's significantly represented by the Generations toys, so they share a forum. A modern take on a Real Cybertronian Hero. Currently starring Generations toys, IDW "The Transformers" comics, MTMTE, TF vs GI Joe, and Windblade. Oh wait, and now Skybound, wheee!
User avatar
Dominic
Supreme-Class
Posts: 9331
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:55 pm
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Transformers: Unicron (discussion and speculation)

Post by Dominic »

How it stacks up to Transformers wasn't the point. Certainly Transformers is the biggest property Hasbro has, but it is not the only viable one they have.
What do you think that Hasbro cares more about? TF or Ponies?

A decade ago, TF was a global media presence. In the last few years, TF has sunk in profile, but remained above Hasbro's other properties.

MLP was an oddity, with an improbable market in the US (which invited no small amount of mockety) that made less money than TF.

TF was supposed to be the foundation for Hasbro to build up their other properties. And, that failed miserably. But, TF is still the last property that Hasbro can use to push/stay in the main stream, hence it being Hasbro's last viable property.

Would Unicron stop once the Transformers were wiped out though? For all we know, Unicron would have continued to seek out other lifeforms similar to Cybertronians or sources of Energon, given Unicron went after the colony worlds before attacking Cybertron itself.
Unicron was a revenge machine made to kill Cybertronians. The most reasonably assumption to make is that it would have stopped once the Cybertronians were wiped out. Unicron wiping out the (non-Earth) colonies first was a dramatic cliche, and it took out most of the Transformers/energon. There would have been nothing left for Unicron to hunt after it killed the Transformers on Earth.
I'd have to say Arcee has had a pretty big profile from her introduction, given she was one of the major characters in TFTM and subsequent seasons of G1. It's just her role as a hot-headed warrior type with a chip on her shoulder that Furman started. Whether Furman intended to insult anyone or not or how many female character's he's written isn't really relevant, the story itself comes across as insulting given the character was forcibly altered to be female against her will, and the line about having a "maelstrom of contradictory sensory input" because she's a woman. I think it should be clear why that'd offend some people, it was not people looking for something to be offended by.
Arcee was a token character in a bad cartoon from 20 years before IDW started using the license.

The "Spotlight" issue was the smartest thing that Arcee had ever appeared in.

The line about "contradictory sensory information" was a reference to how Arcee had been changed from what she should have been to something else. Furman was saying that Arcee had been forcibly put in the wrong body. Furman was not saying that "women are crazy" or "women have contrary sensory information". (And, the fact that I have to say that in in such blunt and anemic terms demonstrates how eager people are to be needlessly offended by intentionally misreading the "Spotlight" issue.)
User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
Posts: 5225
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Transformers: Unicron (discussion and speculation)

Post by Sparky Prime »

Dominic wrote:What do you think that Hasbro cares more about? TF or Ponies?

A decade ago, TF was a global media presence. In the last few years, TF has sunk in profile, but remained above Hasbro's other properties.

MLP was an oddity, with an improbable market in the US (which invited no small amount of mockety) that made less money than TF.

TF was supposed to be the foundation for Hasbro to build up their other properties. And, that failed miserably. But, TF is still the last property that Hasbro can use to push/stay in the main stream, hence it being Hasbro's last viable property.
Hasbro isn't going to see Transformers as their last viable property just because it is their highest seller. They'd never focus on just one property like that. MLP may be an oddity, but it's still a very successful property for them. Other properties do fairly well too, albeit not as mega successful. And again, they'll have Power Rangers in 2019, which is just as popular as Transformers is, if not more so. They have plenty of viable properties.
Unicron was a revenge machine made to kill Cybertronians. The most reasonably assumption to make is that it would have stopped once the Cybertronians were wiped out. Unicron wiping out the (non-Earth) colonies first was a dramatic cliche, and it took out most of the Transformers/energon. There would have been nothing left for Unicron to hunt after it killed the Transformers on Earth.
Once Unicron destroyed Earth, that wouldn't have been the end of the Transformers, not with Luna-1 still out there and all the Transformers that hadn't returned home to Cybertron spread out across the universe. Not to mention, the Functionalist Cybertron having made this universe its new home.
Arcee was a token character in a bad cartoon from 20 years before IDW started using the license.
Never-the-less, token character or not, it gave her a high profile given how prominent she was in that cartoon.
The line about "contradictory sensory information" was a reference to how Arcee had been changed from what she should have been to something else. Furman was saying that Arcee had been forcibly put in the wrong body. Furman was not saying that "women are crazy" or "women have contrary sensory information". (And, the fact that I have to say that in in such blunt and anemic terms demonstrates how eager people are to be needlessly offended by intentionally misreading the "Spotlight" issue.)
That may have been what Furman's intentions were (not that it really helps that much), but you're wrong about people "intentionally misreading" the Spotlight eager to be offended by it. I'm sorry, but the fact you have to say anything "in such blunt and anemic terms" doesn't demonstrate people being eager to be offended at all, but rather, that Furman wasn't so clear in his meaning as you seem to think he was. Like it or not, the story just comes off as offensive to some people in how it was written.
Post Reply