Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

And, actually, that just points out how ridiculous it is. He created some of the material for tech spec cards and then didn't even adhere to it.

Grimshock wrote:And, actually, that just points out how ridiculous it is. He created some of the material for tech spec cards and then didn't even adhere to it.

Who are you talking about here? Did Furman write any of the actual tech specs? I thought it was just Budiansky until the very late Eighties. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Either way, I don't see how Furman really strayed from anything. He just developed it. You keep saying a writer could stick to the guidelines, but what, pray tell, are these guidelines of which you speak? The tech specs?

EDIT:

Denyer wrote:It was deliberate misinformation so that things in the film would come as a surprise to audiences... but got passed to companies who were writing books as well.

I didn't know that. Thanks for that little nugget.

Was, then, the Galvatron toy designed after they wrote early drafts of the film, or did the film team take a new toy design that had no tech spec / thumbnail character sketch and develop it that way?

Grimshock wrote:I can certainly say my enjoyment of TF's had taken severe blows over the last couple of years. Stormwolf asks "It won't bother you if you don't read comics, so what's the problem?" The problem is that I WANT to read comics. I've been such a hardcore fan. You wouldn't believe how many times I've read them over. How I could quote them. Even went through every single one and counted the appearances of every character. I mean HARD F'N CORE.

What's there not to like then? Seeing how Furman pretty much wrote the largest chunck of comics back in the old days.

I recon that you'll love the Kup Spotlight, it's similar to City of Fear. And Impactor makes a return too, you can't tell me that you don't want to see him make a return again.

And what about the Shockwave Spotlight? It's got some pretty solid roots in previously established comics.

Leonardo wrote:Did Furman write any of the actual tech specs?

Shooter and O'Neill are credited with the first 28 "major heroes and villains" (I'll scan Marvel Age sometime) though it's likely Budiansky had input there as well, then BB did the majority for the first five years or so, by his recollection. Bob seems to have exited stage left at speed around the time the Micromasters came out (which dovetails with his comics tenure.) After that the profiles in issues are Furman (plus of course history and profile material in the UK comics before that) and he became a go-to guy for the toys. [It's worth noting Nel Yomtov seems to have a better memory of the period than Furman, who doesn't remember writing UK G2, despite his name being on it.] The later tech specs start referencing existing comics material (Polyhex, Grimlock coming on-side, etc.)

But most of the characterisation Furman is responsible for comes from his writing on both Marvel comics.

Leonardo wrote:what, pray tell, are these guidelines of which you speak? The tech specs?

This is the thing. There isn't any "ultimate canon" -- writers have the option to do anything Hasbro doesn't overrule. If they think, say, that Windcharger (or Cliffjumper's glass gun) is insanely over-powerful, they won't use that bit or will add limits. If they think Carnivac has more character potential as a Decepticon squad leader disillusioned with his side, or Thunderwing would make an interesting leader, etc, a bland techspec will be built on substantially.

Over several hundred issues, Furman was mostly self-consistent and interested in building an ongoing continuity, which he did. Primus/Unicron was something a bit different back in the day, whereas now it's been used as the basis of several main Transformers lines by Hasbro (plus club and convention material) and the idea's rather played out.

The notion of the matrix being literally good vs evil goes right back to the movie script, though -- it's described as "the spiritual equivalent of a bomb" inside Unicron. Furman added a personality to the thing. (And back when the series was being written, Budiansky had already introduced a matrix capable of creating life. I don't think we know if Ron Friedman was aware of the comics when coming up with the movie, but the chain goes "something the Autobot leader has --> physical object that the Autobots regard spiritually and talk of joining each other in (xref: the movie) --> the power of an ancient character some TFs regard as a god".)

Leonardo wrote:Was, then, the Galvatron toy designed after they wrote early drafts of the film, or did the film team take a new toy design that had no tech spec / thumbnail character sketch and develop it that way?

Most likely after. The movie started concepts and writing quite far back into the animated series (hence it doesn't include various characters who were introduced further in.)

There'll have been overlap, but "ideas and plot, some script --> character designs --> more script / toy designs --> rewrites" seems reasonable. The first two stages go hand in hand.

Denyer wrote:

Leonardo wrote:what, pray tell, are these guidelines of which you speak? The tech specs?

This is the thing. There isn't any "ultimate canon" -- writers have the option to do anything Hasbro doesn't overrule. If they think, say, that Windcharger (or Cliffjumper's glass gun) is insanely over-powerful, they won't use that bit. If they think Carnivac has more character potential as a Decepticon squad leader disillusioned with his side, or Thunderwing would make an interesting leader, etc, a bland techspec will be built on substantially.

Over several hundred issues, Furman was mostly self-consistent and interested in building an ongoing continuity, which he did.

That's what I was thinking, which is why I'm struggling to identify these guidelines or roots that Grimshock keeps talking about. It seems to me we have either the original Marvel comics, or the animated series, or not very much at all, in terms of roots. There's no canonical guide, as you say, prior to the fiction, other than those tech specs, which were written by the comics writers themselves.

With that in mind, how did Furman stray from the roots? Where was he significantly inconsistent?

Leonardo wrote:With that in mind, how did Furman stray from the roots? Where was he significantly inconsistent?

Or alternately, how CAN he stray from the "roots"? Only he, Bob Budiansky, Bob Forward and Lawrence DiTillio have ever bothered to create any background whatsoever.

It's what gave their stories strength and durability in the first place.

Stormwolf wrote:

Leonardo wrote:With that in mind, how did Furman stray from the roots? Where was he significantly inconsistent?

Or alternately, how CAN he stray from the "roots"? Only he, Bob Budiansky, Bob Forward and Lawrence DiTillio have ever bothered to create any background whatsoever.

It's what gave their stories strength and durability in the first place.

Precisely my thinking.

Glyph wrote:

Loki120 wrote:Sorry, just lost interest in IDW a while back, and considering how the franchise works, I expect it gone and a whole new continuity to start with the next year or so.

That's how the cartoon and toyline side of the franchise works, not the comics. IDW and Furman have already said that they're building the so-called 'Furmanverse' as an ongoing continuity into which all their G1 stuff will fit; this is coming from a guy who sustained a single G1 continuity for nigh-on 15 years of comics and text stories before moving into Beast Wars, long after the G1 cartoon and toyline were cancelled.

Wrong! What? That's how both works not just the cartoon, the comic has gone threw a new incarnation with every new company. Furmanverse from which all G1 stuff will fit? Who are they kidding? Please.

Anyway, this has gone way off topic, not liking the new series and the characters they chose to start it off with is my thing, I just chose not to like it. If you do great, I think it's crap however.

Loki120 wrote:Wrong! What? That's how both works not just the cartoon, the comic has gone threw a new incarnation with every new company. Furmanverse from which all G1 stuff will fit? Who are they kidding? Please.

I think Glyph meant Furmanverse from which all of IDW's G1 stuff will fit. Though, I'm not keen on the moniker "Furmanverse", myself, as there are other writers coming into play (and have already participated, as in Magnus' spotlight). Plus, I feel Ryall is an oft-overlooked yet significant player in establishing this continuity.

I'm happy to drop the argument in general terms, but one thing I want to pick up: the comics have gone through something like a reboot with each company, that's true. It's happened three times to date - Marvel -> Dreamwave -> IDW. How many continuities has the cartoon been through again, sometimes within the same series?

Glyph wrote:How many continuities has the cartoon been through again, sometimes within the same series?

in the same series... ZERO

bookofjunon wrote:in the same series... ZERO

The original show has joyful bits of nonsense recursion like the Constructicons.

Armada, Energon and Cybertron are sold in the US as being the same continuity, despite the flaws in that reasoning.

The original G1 cartoon series was entirely composed of oneshot stories. There was no real continuity to begin with.

Not quite. There are a few recurrent things (the history of Cybertron, including a cast of non-toy characters.)

Mostly it doesn't matter which order they're broadcast in, though. Characters will show up without introduction either way.

Hot_Rod wrote:

Grimshock wrote:Another thought: A huge contributing factor is that TF fans allow themselves to be pushed around. Hasbro and Takara produce a multitude of repaints and we buy 'em all. The stories are created haphazardly and don't jive, but we buy them too. The movie producers tell us "this is how it's gonna be" and, of course, so many are gonna go see it. We don't stand up for ourselves. We don't stand up for quality. We don't make them earn our money. It's a shame really.

If you want to make a statment about something the only way to do it with with money. The old saying: "Money talks; BullSh*t walks!" So if fans aren't happy with what they did, simply don't give into it. If you give them your money, then you are telling them you totally approve with what they did to the character designs and as a result you will see Hasbro take that direction in all immediate future Transformers designs.

I sort of agree with that, but why does that mean fans are pushed around, as Grimshock writes? If they put out a repaint we don't want, we don't buy it. If the stories are rubbish or "don't jive", then don't watch the cartoon, don't buy the comics. The people at Hasbro don't push us around. They don't force us to accept this stuff. As consumers, the choice is entirely ours.

Total agreement with Leo. In addition:

Hot_Rod wrote:That seriously concerns me. Because at that point you have Transformers going from something we all loved, into something totally different. The elements and the formula that was the ONE common denominator we fans liked (The formula for the look of our Robots), then becomes something different that makes it no longer feel like Transformers, which in turn risks the death of Transformrs as we know it.

Speak for yourself, not for all of us. The look of the robots is a factor in the TFs' appeal, but hardly the be-all-and-end-all. I'm good with changes in style, and introducing new characters into the fold, as long as the spirit of Transformers is intact.
Cool looks are important, to be sure, but hardly moreso than plot and characterisation.

This kind of thinking annoys me no end - in essence it's the same as religious nuts (or similar) condemning films on the grounds of blasphemy, without ever having seen it or even finding out exactly what it contains.

Just because the movie isn't 100% G1, I'm not going to slag it off until I know what I'm slagging off. If, once I've seen it, I think it's a steaming pile, then I'll be all mouth, but not before.