TF Views

Also..

Voted for Hot Rod.

Shockwave wrote:Sparky, I think you and I are generally of the same opinion on this as I generally don't consider wiki citations as all that credible either. But, if O6 and I are discussing what happened in a TF comic and he posts something like "no, this happened in this issue" and links to the TFwiki article on that issue I'm probably just gonna take that at face value and leave it at that.

That's not the sort of thing I'm debating here. That would essentially be citing the comic book and then posting a link to what is basically a summery of that issue's story. In that case, the link to the wiki article would be supplementary. That's not like making a claim based off of what a Wikipedia article itself says. Like if I was to argue ROTF Sideways actually originally came from the RID universe because the TFwiki makes that a thing out of a joke in the Allspark Almanac with Animated Sideways being a dimensional hopper who wants to visit Shanghai.

Maybe it's not so much a double standard as much as depending on how far we wanna go to prove our arguments. In a situation like the example above, I'm willing to bet that neither O6 or I would be very motivated to go looking for source material beyond the cited wiki (unless I had said comic on hand, and even then I would have to be motivated to actually move to the closet to get it). Now, in situations like that time travel debate that we had wiki articles probably shouldn't be the first go to source for arguments on stuff like that.

But that's the thing, like I said above, the cited source in your example would be the comic itself, not the wiki article. The wiki article would just be providing a summery, but if you wanted to still debate it, you would have to go back to the comic itself regardless. Otherwise, I agree with you here, wiki articles aren't going to be the most reliable sources to use for a debate such as like the time travel thing.

I voted for Rodimus.

Wiki debate:
In general, a wiki needs to be used with caution. Even putting aside malicious edits, one has to account for honest mistakes. And, those are going to happen on a page than anybody and their grandmother can edit. I have personally seen, corrected (and likely made) a few mistakes on the actual real wikipedia. Wikipedia's moderators cannot be everywhere. And, I am sure they have higher priority pages (relating to active/controversial topics) than the stuff I was seeing/posting to. If somebody refers to page with a mistake on it, they are going to perpetuate that mistake unless they check it elsewhere.

With the TF wiki, there is the added problem that some of the guys in charge are self-indugent twits, which is why there are pointless references to Willis' comics and such. And, I have seen intentional misreadings on that wiki.

Generally, wikis should be used to quickly check facts that you sort of already know, or as a starting point before back-tracking to a more fixed source.

(Of course, I will give Wikipedia credit for being a well organized page. I have been growing increasingly frustrated with the poor organization of many tech pages.)


Okay, Hall of Fame:

I am torn. I really am. I just do not know.

Hooookay. I consider the Hall of Fame entries to be the most legitimate descriptor of the character that Hasbro is putting up. And, frankly, not all iterations of a character are created equal. Blaster from the old G1 comics is not Blaster from IDW or Sunbow or from TFU..... And, that is why I am letting the character entries sway me.

Magnus: The best art that Hasbro had for the character is box art from 25+ years ago. Oh, for fuck's sake..... And, the character as described by Hasbro includes shades of "Animated" and/or "Prime", complete with reference to a hammer....that the G1 iteration of Magnus did not have. I can buy in to the idea that they are idiomatically the same guy. But, the entry is a jumbled mess. It is not even a competent draft. (Is Magnus even that important in "Prime"? I have not been keeping up on the show.) As much as I like Magnus (primarily for the old UK comics, I cannot pull for Magnus.

Arcee: Wow, "Unicron Trilogy" package art from nearly a decade ago. Well, that is better than 25+ year old box art. But, it is also from least important iteration of the character. Seriously, Arcee made a more significant impact in the old UK comics, where Furman reportedly did not even want to use her. As much as I would like to vote for Arcee based on IDW's iteration of the character, this entry does not reflect any of that content. And, Hasbro's write up reflects "Prime". Arcee is legitimately important in "Prime". But, why is Hasbro using UT package art when they should have something better? No dice.

Megatron II/BW Megatron: I am not sure where Hasbro pulled the art from. It looks like a modern riff on the original package art. (Was there a re-issue of that toy that used this art?) In any case, this is probably about as good as it is going to get for BW Megatron. And, it is not a bad piece of art. And, the write up does a good job of concisely summarizing everything the character did between 1995 and 2003, if not 2006. And, yeah, as much as I have soured on "Beast Wars" over the years, it had an impact and Megatron was a central character for 5 years of TV and he made an impact on the comics as well....

Rodimus/Hot Rod: And, 25+ year old package art..... Still, the entry is generally consistent with G1 iterations of the character. And, unless I am wrong, this is first time that Hasbro has been using the "Hot Rod" name in a while.

Prowl: See Magnus' entry, minus the stuff about the UK comics and with some stuff about Furman's US run and modern IDW stuff. And, swap out "25+ year old box art" for "decade old sourcebook art that Hasbro picked up from a bankrupt license holder". Ah well, at least they did not use "Robots in Disguise" or "Energon" package art.....


All told, I am flip-flopping between Megatron and Rodimus. I am leaning towards Rodimus, but Megatron has gotten a few of my votes. Yeah, I voted for a "Beast Wars" character.....


-Deliberating Dom......

Dominic wrote:Generally, wikis should be used to quickly check facts that you sort of already know, or as a starting point before back-tracking to a more fixed source.

Exactly.

Megatron II/BW Megatron: I am not sure where Hasbro pulled the art from. It looks like a modern riff on the original package art. (Was there a re-issue of that toy that used this art?)

It's from the BW 10th Anniversary line Hasbro did in 2006. Both Optimus Primal and Megatron got a new mold which had a cyber key gimmick like the Cybertron toyline had at the time.

Dominic wrote:Arcee: Wow, "Unicron Trilogy" package art from nearly a decade ago. Well, that is better than 25+ year old box art. But, it is also from least important iteration of the character.

I'm assuming this was used as a sort of balance between the "Pink Cadillac" and the current "Blue Motorcycle" that she currently is. They could not use Prime art without completely alienating her G1 appearance and could not use the G1 art for the same reason of alienating her Bayverse and Prime look. The "pink motorcycle" look is therefore the logical choice of boxart since it essentially merges the two aesthetics.

Sparky Prime wrote:Anyway....

With voting now live, I also decided to vote for BW Megatron.

Anyway... that's who I'm also voting for every day, and it wasn't who I expected I would be, but seeing them on the page, BW Megs is more deserving in my mind than the others. If I could have voted for 2, since 2 will win, the other vote would have been Ultra Magnus.

Dom wrote:Hooookay. I consider the Hall of Fame entries to be the most legitimate descriptor of the character that Hasbro is putting up. And, frankly, not all iterations of a character are created equal. Blaster from the old G1 comics is not Blaster from IDW or Sunbow or from TFU..... And, that is why I am letting the character entries sway me.

That is the polar opposite of how Hasbro sees it though. You are putting the most weight into the thing that Hasbro puts the least effort towards (ok, second-least, this year's image sources are so random).

Megatron II/BW Megatron: I am not sure where Hasbro pulled the art from.

BW 10th anniversary figure's box art, reversed. Not the Cybertron carded version of that figure tho'.

Rodimus/Hot Rod: And, 25+ year old package art

Seeing that art they chose for this poll made me feel bad about owning a G1 Hot Rod, it really is quite odd artwork that reflects not so well on the figure.

And, unless I am wrong, this is first time that Hasbro has been using the "Hot Rod" name in a while.

Since it's not for a product, I think they're using it for character recognition in the poll.

Shockwave wrote:

Dominic wrote:Arcee: Wow, "Unicron Trilogy" package art from nearly a decade ago. Well, that is better than 25+ year old box art. But, it is also from least important iteration of the character.

I'm assuming this was used as a sort of balance between the "Pink Cadillac" and the current "Blue Motorcycle" that she currently is. They could not use Prime art without completely alienating her G1 appearance and could not use the G1 art for the same reason of alienating her Bayverse and Prime look. The "pink motorcycle" look is therefore the logical choice of boxart since it essentially merges the two aesthetics.

I hadn't thought about that. That said, I might have gone with her Animated box art instead, except it's crazy sword lady art, but her Animated toy is the closest thing we have to the character as a product at all (unless you count like statues and mini-things).

Today is the last day to vote!

JediTricks wrote:Today is the last day to vote!

Already? Wow, they had that going for less than a week.

And it told me I already voted for today. Which I haven't.