The Energon Pub

News Credits: 8 · by **Megatron Wolf** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:48 pm

The other day i was talking to a friend about the new movie bots. And of course we got into that they look like crap and dont look like there name sakes or TFs blah blah blah. You know, whats said 1000 times a day on here. Well this got me thinking, why is Transformers the only franchise that recycles names like they do?

Some of you might be thinking "well its so old how could they make so many names or keep the same characters the same"? Well lets think of another franchise thats been around just as long....GIJOE. Every iteration ive seen weather it be cartoons, comics, hell even the upcoming movie the characters have been and acted and looked the same(well except movie duke). Cobra Commander has always looked and acted the same. Duke has always looked and acted the same. Destro, Zartan, Flint hell i could go on. Still you could be saying " Well GIJOE only has a handfull of characters and TF has had a **** load over the years. They cant have original names for them all. Well now ill bring up a franchise thats been around a lot longer than TF, Star Wars. In all the books, comics, games, movies and tv shows that ive seen, read and played, never has a name been recycled. Yeah they might use part of a name but they're always related to the original character some how. After all these years im pretty sure Star Wars has more characters then Transformers. And its not like hasbro cant do it. There are characters that have retained there look and persona over the years. Optimus, Rodimus, Megatron, Soundwave, Starscream (exclude the movie versions). Every Optimus even Primal has acted the same and look pretty damn near identical. Beast Wars had an excuse, this was the continuation that took place in the future. So any recycled names were the relatives of the original characters. Its not like they cant make new bots. We've seen plenty of new faces with new names so it can be done. Look ar Beast Wars, every other bot was new. Why they dont do it i just have no clue. The problem could lye in that every year we get a new show thats suppose to not be connected to any thing else unless specified. And the rights jump back and forth from the US to Japan. But still if your going to recycle names why not recycle the character as well?

I doubt we'll ever get an answer but perhaps if some more people think about this other than me maybe just maybe we can figure out an answer we can live with. And once that happens perhaps we could all live with these crappy Transformers Bay has unleashed upon the world. Not likely but hell it wont hurt to try. Now if your still here and actually get what im saying feel free to comment and add to the discussion. Also sorry for taking up so much of your time but i just had to say this to more than 2 two people one of which doesnt even like Transformers that much. I thank you for your time and i hope we get to the bottom of this one day. ( Small note, My first draft was better and had more to it but my power went out and i forgot most of my arguments. Also all statements are based on what ive seen in my lifetime. So if im wrong about some thing feel free to present proof and ill gladly admit i was wrong. Thank you.)

News Credits: 9 · by **Editor** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:59 pm

Well....

Thou I don't fully agree with you on GIJoe because there have been differences in characters with the same name on the same level as Transformers, but I do see what you mean. G1 Prime and Animated Prime and Bumblebee, versus say 1980's and Sigma 6 Duke and Scarlett, same names, similar and yet different enough.

but that's not the point i'm going for...

My main thoughts with this is that how many properties are there to really compare against? Sure Joe, and Star Wars have been active for ages and most of the time when they recycle names it is for the same character in a different situation. But with Transformers with a more or less constant toy release amid numourous storyline changes and branding they know that a name will sell a figure even if it looks completely different so they will push that idea.

In the case of a name being used for different things all together, It because it's better to reuse a name not being used and hold down a copyright or property for a new character, rather than try to apply for a new one.

Just think of all the crossover names between TF and GIJoe like Roadblock or Shockwave. Or other hasbro properties like the dozen+ MLP's with names like Beachcomber and Cosmos.

Transformers isn't the only property to reuse name just one of the highest profiled one (TMNT being another). And had something like Centurians, Go-Bots (not including being reconed into Transformers), M.A.S.K. (not including being reconed into GIJoe), Visionairies, or Inhumaniods (Should be reconned into GIJoe) lasted longer than they might have had to face similar situations.

News Credits: 9 · by **Mykltron** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:18 pm

Has Star Wars had anywhere near as many characters as Transformers over the years? I don't have a clue, but i'd be surprised if the answer is yes.

The thing with Star Wars names is, they're basically nonsense - they could make them up by pulling scrabble chips from a bag. With TFs the names often mean something - For example, Optimus Prime clearly indicates leadership (so OP having that name in TFA really doesn't make sense) and Mixmaster can really only apply to a blender or cement mixer. As he's a Constructicon it's pretty obvious which. For this reason names from the Beast era are unrelated to other series. Cheetor can really only be a spotty cat.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:44 pm

Because it's probably cheaper and easier to renew a name rather than to register and protect a new name.

by **Lorekeeper** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:25 am

Name recognition goes a long way, especially when you're selling people back their own childhoods to pass on to their own progeny. Also, why take a risk on a new character, when people adore the old archetypes: re: Rodimus Prime?

I think TF really stands out on the redesigning of recycled characters... although my wife has asked me "Don't you already have Optimus Prime... two of them... why do you need more?" And I'm tempted to explain, but I know how silly it is. The thing is when a really cool new prime is released, I want it.

And then there was Swoop, the first Transformer I broke. His dino-face snapped off. I was ecstatic to buy the new Animated version.

Why do they do it? it seems to work. Why doesn't anybody else do it? Well, wait 20 years to see what franchises are still alive that had real recognizable characters. Also, cars get old fast, as does other technology, so the cutting-edge becomes dated quickly. Not as much so for paramilitary imagined uniforms.

I wonder if, once pokemon finally does die, if 5-10 years later they reboot it. Or is that what Bakugan is, really? I have no clue.

News Credits: 6 · by **Dr. Caelus** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:17 pm

News Credits: 1 · by **cybercat** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:41 am

Jeez, Caelus, thanks for the overdose of comic-art funbags. Practically gravity-defying, a few of those. That must be one of them there *superpowers*. (Yeah, I can say sexist stuff like 'funbags' because I'm a woman. It's a double standard. Sucks, don't it?) My eyes! My eyes!!!!!

Actually, GI Joe in the olden days wasn't a whole host of characters. There was one dude. His name was Joe. Dude with blue injection molded briefies? Flocking beard? Now, maybe I just don't know (in which case, educate me *gently*) it seems that most of the 'reboots' of GI Joe could didn't really require massive changes of storyline or the general rules in the universe. Sure, they got better technology and weapons, but it seems to me (from my admittedly limited knowledge) that there wasn't a X-verse GI Joe with massively different rules or characterizations than a Y-verse. As opposed to, say Armada Starscream vs G1 Starscream.

Thus I don't think Joe is 'recycling' the names as just 'stretching the same continuity'.

And besides, recycling's so *green*.

HK, to whom knowing is only *half* the battle.

News Credits: 6 · by **Dr. Caelus** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:09 pm

hellkitty wrote:Jeez, Caelus, thanks for the overdose of comic-art funbags. Practically gravity-defying, a few of those. That must be one of them there *superpowers*. (Yeah, I can say sexist stuff like 'funbags' because I'm a woman. It's a double standard. Sucks, don't it?) My eyes! My eyes!!!!!

It's good to see that the maturity level of this board continues to be drug down by an elect few. The bosoms kind of go with the territory of comic books, along with bulging biceps, shoulders you could land aircraft on, perfectly clear skin, and 0 body fat.

I think it's worth pointing out though that, being as we're on the internet, no one really has any absolute knowledge regarding the gender/sex/sexuality of anyone else, so whatever special considerations one may believe they are entitled to in offline life, pretty much evaporate online. I don't really consider the term "fun bags" to be sexist (tacky maybe, but not sexist) but if you habitually use societal double-standards to shield your conduct in the outside world, you may want to exercise more caution here.

Anyway Hasbro has pretty much done with GIJoe what the Geewunners wish they'd done with Transformers - recycle the characters in toto, only making minor changes to keep them contemporary or in form with the maturity level of the media being used at the time.

And yet, GIJoe seems to generally be the less successful one... a connection perhaps?

by **Jar Axel** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:25 pm

That depends entirely on your POV. GIJOE took a much longer break from the toy isles than TF did and hasn't had a propper toon in ages. Despite that while TF may have sold a larger volume in 08 Joes flat out crushed them in turnover and demand to the point that most stores couldn't even keep Joes stocked

News Credits: 6 · by **Dr. Caelus** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:35 pm

Viperman wrote:That depends entirely on your POV. GIJOE took a much longer break from the toy isles than TF did and hasn't had a propper toon in ages. Despite that while TF may have sold a larger volume in 08 Joes flat out crushed them in turnover and demand to the point that most stores couldn't even keep Joes stocked

But isn't that due to under-stocking? If so, can turnover really be considered a fair gauge of success?

While I see some validity in measuring success as a ratio of sold-over-produced, it just lends itself to some absurd conclusions - like Bawls is a more successful soft-drink than Coca-Cola - and it makes the judged 'success' of a product partly dependent on rarity. In this scenario, if Hasbro was to use that ratio to make their business decisions, they might scale up Joe production, and scale back TF production, which could just invert the relationship.

Plus, since we're talking about the brands in the holistic sense, rather than just the toys, one of the reasons I felt GIJoe wasn't as successful as TF is because it didn't have a proper cartoon series for years. [Which actually makes me wonder if, rather than leaping to a movie, Hasbro should instead have backed a live action TV series instead.]

Also, while I remember a good loooooong stretch where Transformers were no where to be found, I don't remember a time when GIJoes weren't on the shelf in some form (though I think I do recall a time when they were only at TRU).

by **Jar Axel** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:37 am

That is certinly a posibility however the proper proceedure would be to up production of the product which is being under stock (which hasbro did with joes several times) and reduce production of the product which is being overstocked untill they reach a point where production is entirely ballanced by sales. Not exactly an easy thing to do when retailers are demanding more of a product that they sit on longer than one that sells out imediatly due to a faulty markett philosophy. (that advertiseing media generates sales rather than simply popularizing product) This is why we so consitently see products like Ben10 and Bakugan overstocking and overflowing into other product zones.