The Energon Pub

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

All right.

I know they aren't very popular with TF fans but I'm in the middle of a debate on them [on an other site] and I would like to gather the opinions of others here.

As some of you may or may not know, the Animorphs starts as a book series, then a tv show and were also made into a toyline.

Also, what many of you may or may not know is that when they were released as a toyline, they were placed under the TF franchise.
Toy photos :: MarcoBeetleMOSC1a.jpg picture by sto_vo_kor_2000 - Photobucket

Now, I'm aware that they were placed under the TF brand as a marketing strategy, to appeal to a wider audience, in an attempt to make larger sales for the toyline.

That it was a business decision.

But some people say because of all that its not a "true" tf toyline.

But I disagree.

I'm normally the type of guy that argues how "vague" things are, of how "gray" an issue is.

But I see this issue as pretty "black and white".

The toys carried the TF logo, that makes them a TF toyline.

I would like to hear some "logical" arguments for or against.

And by logical I mean anything other then "I dont like them so their not TF's".

[Jelze Bunnycat]

It basically comes down to this: Despite them carrying the "Transformers" brand, they have absolutely nothing to do with the overall mythos. The same can be attributed to the Crossover lines, which Animorphs, in a sense, is. So no, I don't consider them "true Transformers". And don't get me started on the Playskool Go-Bots.

Now that I think about it, putting the Animorphs under "Transformers" probably backfired. Kids aren't that stupid, I'd be deterred by them using the name solely for marketing purposes as well. "They're not Transformers, they suck!"

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

It basically comes down to this: Despite them carrying the "Transformers" brand, they have absolutely nothing to do with the overall mythos. The same can be attributed to the Crossover lines, which Animorphs, in a sense, is. So no, I don't consider them "true Transformers". And don't get me started on the Playskool Go-Bots.

Now that I think about it, putting the Animorphs under "Transformers" probably backfired. Kids aren't that stupid, I'd be deterred by them using the name solely for marketing purposes as well. "They're not Transformers, they suck!"

So your saying the Cross overs arent TF's either??

[Jelze Bunnycat]

It basically comes down to this: Despite them carrying the "Transformers" brand, they have absolutely nothing to do with the overall mythos. The same can be attributed to the Crossover lines, which Animorphs, in a sense, is. So no, I don't consider them "true Transformers". And don't get me started on the Playskool Go-Bots.

Now that I think about it, putting the Animorphs under "Transformers" probably backfired. Kids aren't that stupid, I'd be deterred by them using the name solely for marketing purposes as well. "They're not Transformers, they suck!"

So your saying the Cross overs arent TF's either??

I'll have to agree with your statement that anything released under the "Transformers" brand is a Transformer. Makes sense from a marketing point of view. However, I have my own personal definition of a "True Transformer": any transforming sentient robot from the planet Cybertron or any affiliated planet. Animorphs and the Crossovers do not fall under that definition, and I'm sure others will agree with me.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

It basically comes down to this: Despite them carrying the "Transformers" brand, they have absolutely nothing to do with the overall mythos. The same can be attributed to the Crossover lines, which Animorphs, in a sense, is. So no, I don't consider them "true Transformers". And don't get me started on the Playskool Go-Bots.

Now that I think about it, putting the Animorphs under "Transformers" probably backfired. Kids aren't that stupid, I'd be deterred by them using the name solely for marketing purposes as well. "They're not Transformers, they suck!"

So your saying the Cross overs arent TF's either??

I'll have to agree with your statement that anything released under the "Transformers" brand is a Transformer. Makes sense from a marketing point of view. However, I have my own personal definition of a "True Transformer": any transforming sentient robot from the planet Cybertron or any affiliated planet. Animorphs and the Crossovers do not fall under that definition, and I'm sure others will agree with me.

I'm sure many would.

But, I was asking for "logical arguments".And a personal definition doesnt fall under that category.

Not that I'm ungrateful for your reply.But what you basicly said is...

"Technically/Legally they are transformers, but sine I dont like them/their story, they arent".

[Jelze Bunnycat]

I never said I didn't like them, or the story. I only made a clear distinction to what overall series they're part of. Animorphs, Star Wars or Marvel.

Transformers is a popular brand, for sure. However, in my opinion it should only be used for the robots from Cybertron we know and love. Animorphs and Crossovers, despite actually transforming, simply piggy-back on the Transformers brand's success, which cheapens it a lot. They could have made due without the brand perfectly, at least that's what I think.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I never said I didn't like them, or the story. I only made a clear distinction to what overall series they're part of. Animorphs, Star Wars or Marvel.

Transformers is a popular brand, for sure. However, in my opinion it should only be used for the robots from Cybertron we know and love. Animorphs and Crossovers, despite actually transforming, simply piggy-back on the Transformers brand's success, which cheapens it a lot. They could have made due without the brand perfectly, at least that's what I think.

Thanks for the clarification.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I thought I would have had more input by now.

[Diem]

Seems pretty clear to me: Animorph toys may be part of the Transformers toy line. But they are in no way related to the Transformers comics, cartoon, books, movies etc. Indeed, they have their own books and TV show. The same also applies to the Star Wars or Marvel Transformers. Sure, the Transformers "officially" met Spider-man in their comic but this could be considered a fun cameo more than anything real, since neither franchise ever mentioned the other again. I could argue that figures or characters have to be in or connected to another pillar of the Transformers franchise such as the cartoon.

But it seems to me you're asking for a logical answer to what seems, to me, a common sense question. Sure I could invent some qualification that Transformers have to fill to be "true" Transformers but there would always be some exception to the rule. Are the Disney Label figures true Transformers? How about the Bayverse Mr. Potato Heads?

If you put, say a Playskool figure or Anakin Skywalker in front of me I'd feel totally confident dividing them into "true" or "not-true", even though I wouldn't be able to quite explain why. But it wouldn't be down to like or dislike (at least, not consciously) but instead a Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon type situation.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Seems pretty clear to me: Animorph toys may be part of the Transformers toy line. But they are in no way related to the Transformers comics, cartoon, books, movies etc. Indeed, they have their own books and TV show. The same also applies to the Star Wars or Marvel Transformers. Sure, the Transformers "officially" met Spider-man in their comic but this could be considered a fun cameo more than anything real, since neither franchise ever mentioned the other again. I could argue that figures or characters have to be in or connected to another pillar of the Transformers franchise such as the cartoon.

But it seems to me you're asking for a logical answer to what seems, to me, a common sense question. Sure I could invent some qualification that Transformers have to fill to be "true" Transformers but there would always be some exception to the rule. Are the Disney Label figures true Transformers? How about the Bayverse Mr. Potato Heads?

If you put, say a Playskool figure or Anakin Skywalker in front of me I'd feel totally confident dividing them into "true" or "not-true", even though I wouldn't be able to quite explain why. But it wouldn't be down to like or dislike (at least, not consciously) but instead a Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon type situation.

"Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon type situation" I'm not sure what you mean.

[Droptested Thrice]

Those Crossover toy bios reference the big transforming robot gimmick as either something Tony Stark invented, or as an extension of the Force's power.

The TF branding is all there, but the bios paint the transforming giant robot bit as part of the Star Wars or Marvel Universe.

Not sure if that's the answer you're looking for.

[Diem]

Seems pretty clear to me: Animorph toys may be part of the Transformers toy line. But they are in no way related to the Transformers comics, cartoon, books, movies etc. Indeed, they have their own books and TV show. The same also applies to the Star Wars or Marvel Transformers. Sure, the Transformers "officially" met Spider-man in their comic but this could be considered a fun cameo more than anything real, since neither franchise ever mentioned the other again. I could argue that figures or characters have to be in or connected to another pillar of the Transformers franchise such as the cartoon.

But it seems to me you're asking for a logical answer to what seems, to me, a common sense question. Sure I could invent some qualification that Transformers have to fill to be "true" Transformers but there would always be some exception to the rule. Are the Disney Label figures true Transformers? How about the Bayverse Mr. Potato Heads?

If you put, say a Playskool figure or Anakin Skywalker in front of me I'd feel totally confident dividing them into "true" or "not-true", even though I wouldn't be able to quite explain why. But it wouldn't be down to like or dislike (at least, not consciously) but instead a Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon type situation.

"Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon type situation" I'm not sure what you mean.

Like this:

Optimus Prime G1 toy: appears in the comic, the cartoon etc. Zero degrees of separation from the main Transformers franchise. Is a "true" Transformer.

G1 Vroom: does not appear in the comic or in the cartoon but is part of the same discrete toyline (G1 toys). One degree of seperation. Is a "true" Transformer.

Sports Label Megatron: does not appear in comic, cartoon etc. Is not part of the same discrete toyline. Is clearly based on a character who is part of the franchise. In fiction, comes from the larger Transformers continuity. Two degrees of seperation Is debatably a "true" Transformer.

Animorphs Jake: does not appear in cartoon etc. Is not part of the same discrete toyline. Is not based on a Transformers character. In fiction, does not come from the larger Transformers continuity. Is not a "true" Transformer.

As I say, it's not especially logical and could be argued at multiple stages. I wouldn't personally use integers either. But for me "true" Transformerness would be based on how far from the core franchise they lay.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Like this:

Optimus Prime G1 toy: appears in the comic, the cartoon etc. Zero degrees of separation from the main Transformers franchise. Is a "true" Transformer.

G1 Vroom: does not appear in the comic or in the cartoon but is part of the same discrete toyline (G1 toys). One degree of seperation. Is a "true" Transformer.

Sports Label Megatron: does not appear in comic, cartoon etc. Is not part of the same discrete toyline. Is clearly based on a character who is part of the franchise. In fiction, comes from the larger Transformers continuity. Two degrees of seperation Is debatably a "true" Transformer.

Animorphs Jake: does not appear in cartoon etc. Is not part of the same discrete toyline. Is not based on a Transformers character. In fiction, does not come from the larger Transformers continuity. Is not a "true" Transformer.

As I say, it's not especially logical and could be argued at multiple stages. I wouldn't personally use integers either. But for me "true" Transformerness would be based on how far from the core franchise they lay.

All right, I see what your saying, still dont get the Kevin Bacaon thing, but I'm not really a fan of his.

But, your examples are looking at the brand as a whole.

I'm not.

This brand known as Transformers has always had 2 main different branches and then those branches break off into nsub-branches.

The 2 main branches are...
[main branch in red bold sub branch in bold green

Merchandise
primary toys
licened products
Fiction
comic
novel
cartoon
film

So, looking for what a "true" TF is really isint feasible.Because ultimately its a subjective view thats going to hindge on personal opinion.

What we need to determine is......."what makes any TF toy [product]....A TF toy [product]"???

Why is the radio control movie Bumblebee toy a Tf toy??

Why is the movie "Match box like" cars considered TF toys??

The answer seems to be, because Hasbro has allowed for the TF logo to be used on these toys.

And if thats the case, why does it not apply to Animorphs or the cross overs.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Those Crossover toy bios reference the big transforming robot gimmick as either something Tony Stark invented, or as an extension of the Force's power.

The TF branding is all there, but the bios paint the transforming giant robot bit as part of the Star Wars or Marvel Universe.

Not sure if that's the answer you're looking for.

Who is this aimed at?

[Droptested Thrice]

Those Crossover toy bios reference the big transforming robot gimmick as either something Tony Stark invented, or as an extension of the Force's power.

The TF branding is all there, but the bios paint the transforming giant robot bit as part of the Star Wars or Marvel Universe.

Not sure if that's the answer you're looking for.

Who is this aimed at?

It's aimed at anybody getting into this thread. The bios for the Crossover toys themselves explain the transforming gimmick as something based in the Marvel or Star Wars universes, rather than crediting it to anything from Cybertron.

I'm just adding that here. I don't have any stake on the issue either way, so far.

As for you saying Diem is wrong for looking at this from the brand standpoint, instead of just the toys...isn't that somewhat splitting hairs? This topic is about Animorphs being part of TF.

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

It's aimed at anybody getting into this thread. The bios for the Crossover toys themselves explain the transforming gimmick as something based in the Marvel or Star Wars universes, rather than crediting it to anything from Cybertron.

I'm just adding that here.

Ok thanks for clearing that up..

But thats part of the fiction.

As for you saying Diem is wrong for looking at this from the brand standpoint, instead of just the toys...isn't that somewhat splitting hairs? This topic is about Animorphs being part of the TF brand.

Well I didnt say he was wrong....or at least I didnt intend for it to come off like that.

Like I said.

The Tf brand has had different branches.

Merchandise
Fiction

And not all of the fictions match with the merchandise.

So when you look at it from that view this is what you get.

Was the Animorphs fiction part of the TF brand???....No

Was the Animoprhs toyline part of the TF brand??....Yes

And No,its not splitting hairs because I started this topic asking wether or not people feel Animorphs was a TF toyline.