TF Views

Based on Dom's question from the Hall of Fame thread:

Dominic wrote:What exactly does "G1" mean? As O6 pointed out, it has been retooled and re-done so many times over the years that it is hard to be sure what someone means. There is no inherent time element to the name, unless one ties it purely to 1984 thru 1992. Of course, what then would we call IDW's main book, (that we happen to discuss in the G1 forums)?

To me, it's fairly simple. Generation One, even though it's a 'retronym' adopted after the fact, is everything before G2. That is, the toyline, comics and cartoon produced before 1992, or whenever G2 began. The originals, in other words.

That seems simple enough. Except that, as Dom mentions, G1 has been revisited in various forms over the years. So here are my thoughts, subject to revision if I rethink it.

- Reissues: They're original G1 figures, made with the old tooling. But they're in new packaging and some have safety mods. I'd say they still count as G1.

- E-hobby recolors of G1 molds: not G1. The character and color scheme didn't appear during G1, even if the basic figure did.

- Dreamwave and IDW comics: the ones that use the G1 figures would seem to count. They take a lot of liberties with the character designs but they do tell stories using the G1 characters. But they were also created years after the line ended, but I don't really see that as a problem. The Star Trek movies were created years after the original series, but they're still considered a continuation of that series. They're still genuine Trek. The comics aren't in continuity with either Marvel comics or the old cartoon, but given Transformers' precedent with multiple continuities, they aren't an anomaly.

- Universe/Classics/Generations remakes of G1 figures: not actual G1. The character may be, but the technology used to make the figure clearly separates it from the original toyline.

The definition seems to be inherently vague, (which of course necessitates this thread), and much dependent on context. For example, most on-line auctions use "G1" to describe an old toy or a re-issue. For story purposes, "G1" means any number of cartoon or comic series.

Dreamwave and IDW comics: the ones that use the G1 figures would seem to count. They take a lot of liberties with the character designs but they do tell stories using the G1 characters. But they were also created years after the line ended, but I don't really see that as a problem. The Star Trek movies were created years after the original series, but they're still considered a continuation of that series. They're still genuine Trek. The comics aren't in continuity with either Marvel comics or the old cartoon, but given Transformers' precedent with multiple continuities, they aren't an anomaly.

This might not be the best analogy. Nobody, (aside from the most partisan GeeWunners), would dispute the legitimacy of "Beast Wars" or the "Unicron Trilogy" as really being "Transformers". The question is how to define the term "G1" in relation to the franchise. The old TV show now has the "Classic" prefix. The only substantial revision has been the recent movie. The term "Classic" is used consistently in reference to the old TV show.

"G1" on the other hand is tossed around pretty liberally. DreamWave used "Generation One" as the subtitle for its ongoing comic series. This series ignored the old cartoons and comics. Hasbro has used the term on toy packages to describe the years of and between '84 and '92. But, aside from a few re-issues that were "snuck" into modern packaging, (the TFU Insecticons come to mind here), the toys themselves were not only based on new design standards, the did not really looklike the original toys or control art.

Hound's vehicle mode and weapons are much different between G1 and TFU. Nobody is going to argue that TFU Sunstreaker resembles G1 Sunstreaker, especially if one compares the robot modes. The modern Decepticon jet mould looks little enough like any of the old control art for the original Decepticon jet. (Try mapping G1 colours onto that mould, and the amount of cheating needed will became apparent.) Along similar lines, Hasbro referenced G2 on Inferno's packaging, despite there being nothing about the toy to evoke G2 aside from the fact that Inferno was released in G2 with only slight mould changes. This list could go on and on and on and on....

The above is not a critique of the newer toys. (In fact, I am a huge fan all 3 of the moulds used as examples.) But, are they really G1? Modern Batman looks more like Golden Age Batman than the Batman from the 60s and 70s. Even discounting IDW's current "anything goes" standard for character models, most of the original characters have gotten at least one meaningful redesign that still evokes the original character models.


Dom
-oi, we have a quagmire here.

Usually when I use the term "G1" I'm usually referring either specifically to toys from the 84-92 era or the original comic or cartoon. This is mostly a conversational distinction because there are set terms for other things that came later that refer to G1 or are based on it. For example, when we were discussing All Hail Megatron, we didn't refer to it as "IDW G1", we referred to it as AHM because that's it's given title. Now functionally, as for what I regard as "G1" is a different matter. I regard G1 as anything that is directly based on the original toyline from 84-92. And to clarify that further it's anything that uses those characters or is intended to be those characters. Case in point: Classics/Universe/Generations. I tend to think of this line as the original toyline just updated with current technology. I would analagize that to a rough sketch turning into a finished drawing. The rough sketch, you get the major points, but a lot of the details aren't quite there yet. So, Classics Starscream, to me, is exactly G1 Starscream and represents what the original toy wanted to be but couldn't because of toy standards/technology at the time. I regard Masterpeice the same way.

And just to confuse this thread further, I actually regard both Beast Wars and Beast Machines as G1 since both shows were obviously intended to be continuations from the original G1 cartoon continuity. Same continuity, same universe, therefore technically G1.

I don't even agree with your "eHobby isn't G1" argument since it doesn't hold up. Even in the original series, we often had new toys literally show up out of nowhere, and the best explanation someone would give is, "Oh, they were always there, you just didn't see them before." Those characters can retroactively be made part of the universe just as "Year One" can retroactively become Batman's origin, Alpha Trion can retroactively become one of the Thirteen.

Dominic wrote:[Dreamwave] ignored the old cartoons and comics.

This is kind of...debatable. DW's continuity was always messy, but from the start it seemed like it was trying hard to fit in with the cartoon. Until, well, it was obvious that it never would. DW wasn't even consistant with *itself,* killing Wheeljack in the first trade and then bringing him back with no explanation as if to say, "Just ignore that whole first arc, okay?"

Along similar lines, Hasbro referenced G2 on Inferno's packaging, despite there being nothing about the toy to evoke G2 aside from the fact that Inferno was released in G2 with only slight mould changes.

Those slight mould changes were represented--G2 Inferno didn't have his ladder, he had a water shooter. It'd be like releasing a G2 Classics Prime--the differences would be pretty negligible because G2 Prime's cab was almost identical to G1 Prime's,

I think what it comes down to: It doesn't matter, it's just a label. Use it where it feels appropriate. It's like these goddamn people who get into huge sprawling arguments over whether certain bands are "metal" or not. Who fucking cares? Judas Priest kicks ass if it's metal or not.

Dominic wrote:This might not be the best analogy. Nobody, (aside from the most partisan GeeWunners), would dispute the legitimacy of "Beast Wars" or the "Unicron Trilogy" as really being "Transformers".

Star Trek has different brands though, just like Transformers does. There's the overarching "Trek" category, but then it gets broken down into TOS (itself a retronym, just like G1), TNG, DS9, etc. Transformers is an overaching brand, with subgroups like BW, BMac, RID, etc. Some of those subgroups have their own subgroups. Beast Wars has Transmetals, Fuzors, Transmetal 2s. G1 has Dinobots, Powermaster, Action Masters, etc. That's a bit more rare with modern lines since they don't last long enough to get subdivided. But that's the analogy I was thinking of.

Now the question is, can Hasbro go back and add to a past toyline? How is that line defined? Is it defined by the time in which it was made, by the characters, by the engineering techniques used on the figures, or the design style? Or some combination? Or by simple branding?

To go back to the Trek analogy, can the recent movie be considered part of the original series? It's the original characters, but with new actors (Leonard Nimoy excepted), new look, and a different storytelling style. Universe Sunstreaker or Sideswipe are original characters, but with new engineering and different branding. Do either of these modern iterations fit comfortably within the original source material they're based on? Now Trek is explicitly a new timeline, while the Universe bios don't really address that. They could well be the original G1 characters in their original universe (whichever original universe that might be!).

Hound's vehicle mode and weapons are much different between G1 and TFU. Nobody is going to argue that TFU Sunstreaker resembles G1 Sunstreaker, especially if one compares the robot modes. The modern Decepticon jet mould looks little enough like any of the old control art for the original Decepticon jet. (Try mapping G1 colours onto that mould, and the amount of cheating needed will became apparent.) Along similar lines, Hasbro referenced G2 on Inferno's packaging, despite there being nothing about the toy to evoke G2 aside from the fact that Inferno was released in G2 with only slight mould changes. This list could go on and on and on and on....

Dom, you talk about varying design style among the seekers being a point of contention when collecting. I have a similar problem considering Universe figures as genuine G1, simply because the design is so different.

The above is not a critique of the newer toys. (In fact, I am a huge fan all 3 of the moulds used as examples.) But, are they really G1?

It's odd... I have no problem accepting the characters as the original G1 versions, but not the actual figures.

Onslaught Six wrote:I don't even agree with your "eHobby isn't G1" argument since it doesn't hold up. Even in the original series, we often had new toys literally show up out of nowhere, and the best explanation someone would give is, "Oh, they were always there, you just didn't see them before." Those characters can retroactively be made part of the universe just as "Year One" can retroactively become Batman's origin, Alpha Trion can retroactively become one of the Thirteen.

I guess that's my main question: can figures be retroactively be added to a toyline that ended in 1992?

I think what it comes down to: It doesn't matter, it's just a label. Use it where it feels appropriate.

It's more fun to argue about it.

I guess that's one of my main irritations with characters like Acid Storm. Sure, Acid Storm might have been there for like 2 seconds of screen time, but if the character was worth developing, they would have at the time. Making a figure of him now is basically just Hasbro trying to squeeze more money out a 26 year old toy line by trying to say a new character has been there the whole time. I'm not really articulating this well, but I think you guys know what I mean. And really a better example of this would be the Ehobby Hauler repaint. Hauler? Really?

To answer Onslaught's question about why we are talking about this: Given how commonly used the term "G1" is, it would not hurt to have some kind of real definition for it. Granted, we are all going to go right back to the lazy way we always talk about it. But, the fun is in the arguing.

And, because this is an internet arguement: Hitler. (It needs to be said. Natural law and all that.)

It's interesting you mention that, because I'm sure the Hasbro guys sit around drawing concept pictures with "HE'S BLUESTREAK GOD DAMN IT" written under them. Silverstreak is only his official name because it has to be--if they could, they'd name him Bluestreak.

Blue/Silverstreak, Octankor and Minicon tapes are examples of "retro-active change by fiat". Granted, Hasbro has a perfectly good reason to mandate the Blue/Silverstreak change, (not wanting to be sued), but it is still a change by fiat. And, I assume the names are "meant" to have always been that way in context.

Silverstreak could still work as it evokes speed, (both over land and in speech). If we did not know the original name, would it really bother us?

Point of information, as much as I am not a fan of Martin Lawrence, I am not sure if that is actually the reason Hasbro cannot use "Bluestreak". I want to say there is a toy company that is holding it for tertiary piece of garbage.

You know, a lot of this whole "We want new characters!" stuff seems to only occur with us TF fans. You never see comics fans sitting around complaining, "Man, this book is just full of the same characters we've read about for years! Why not invent some new ones?! Lazy writers!"

There are plenty of notistic Transfans as well. They want just old characters. Just old character like when there were kids...during the UT.

I tend to think that comic fans are burned out on new characters after all the stunting of the 90s. Remember "Bloodlines"? Remember Marvel's analogue for that story? Yeah. How credible are new characters? How long do they stick around before being killed/changed/forgotten? A writer at Marvel, (I forget who), was quoted in a recent issue of "Spotlight" saying that how the Younger Avengers were handled now would determine how long they stuck around and if they became fodder for the next cross-over.

New characters are easier to accept in toys because they are less likely to be accompanied by hype.


Acid Storm does not bother me. I like newish characters. And, Acid Storm's bio is amazing. "He works in relative obscurity and enjoys his job. He shows up for work and does a good job and is liked by his peers." Damn. That is a good bio. We have a Decepticon who is neither an over-powered crazy ass nor a fan-wank character. And, hey, look, a repaint with no idiotic connection to any of his mould mates beyond just happening to look like them.

And just to confuse this thread further, I actually regard both Beast Wars and Beast Machines as G1 since both shows were obviously intended to be continuations from the original G1 cartoon continuity. Same continuity, same universe, therefore technically G1.

But, by that logic, "Next Generation" and "Deep Space Nine" are "Original Star Trek". It is even more tenuous in this case because "Beast Wars" followed from a vague Generation 1 that was neither fish nor fowl, comic nor cartoon nor back of the package.

Case in point: Classics/Universe/Generations. I tend to think of this line as the original toyline just updated with current technology. I would analagize that to a rough sketch turning into a finished drawing.

I see this arguement. But, it is hardly fair to say that the original toys were incomplete or unfinished. TFU was not the end goal of anyone 30 years ago. And, there are meaninful differences in the basic designs. 20A Prime could be taken as an update of an old design. But, Sunstreaker, Mirage and uh Powerglide are meaninfully different. They are good/great toys, (well, I cannot vouch for Powerglide as I do not have one), and the original characters. But, they are very different.

(Actually, along similar lines, is the Golden Age Batman the same character as the modern Batman? Oi.)

I don't even agree with your "eHobby isn't G1"

I think Takara justifies the E-Hobby editions as reviving the old sub-line. Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the numbering on those toys picks up where Japanese G1 left off?

I guess that's my main question: can figures be retroactively be added to a toyline that ended in 1992?

Takara would say "yes".

This is kind of...debatable. DW's continuity was always messy, but from the start it seemed like it was trying hard to fit in with the cartoon. Until, well, it was obvious that it never would. DW wasn't even consistant with *itself,* killing Wheeljack in the first trade and then bringing him back with no explanation as if to say, "Just ignore that whole first arc, okay?"

There actually was a throwaway line in volume 2 that explained Wheeljack being around. "You had a close call a few months back there buddy." That was it. I am not defending the decision to bring Wheeljack back. But, it was not completely out of the blue and without explanation.

DW never presented their comics as fitting in with anything established. In fact, the strove to be as neutral as possible to begin with, borrowing from all previous sources as they saw fit.

Those slight mould changes were represented--G2 Inferno didn't have his ladder, he had a water shooter.

Good catch old bean. But, I think G2 Inferno did have the ladder, with the squirter connecting to the ladder. Either way, you might be on to something.

Now the question is, can Hasbro go back and add to a past toyline? How is that line defined? Is it defined by the time in which it was made, by the characters, by the engineering techniques used on the figures, or the design style? Or some combination? Or by simple branding?

I tend to go by packaging more than anything else. That means that the TrU Insecticon and Perceptor re-issues are technically TFU toys. (Granted, they look odd next to recently designed TFU toys. But, the packaging presents them as TFU toys.)


But, for content purposes, the terms get muddy again. As Anderson pointed out TFU Sunstreaker and Sideswipe are clealy and unambigiously the original characters. When reviewing them, we would likely say "this is supposed to be the guy from G1". But, are they really? Toy-wise, the answer is clearly no. But, even in context, one could argue the answer is no. The only places the character models have appeared are in Japanese pack-in comics and in IDW's "new G1".


Dom
-notes that "GI Joe" is continuing and rebooting at the same time.

Hauler was awesome, screw you. I mean, who else were they going to do with that mould? Artfire?

The thing of it is, Transformers is kind of inherently supposed to be 'interactive' fiction. I would almost argue that TF fanfiction is more "acceptable" than something like Star Trek or Harry Potter fanfic--because everybody makes up their own storylines as a kid playing with toys. That's what they're meant to do. And these kind of retroactive bits 'add' to that whole rather than subtract from it.

Let's look at Megaplex, arguably one of the *first* retro-G1 characters. Here's a guy who implies Megatron has a bunch of body doubles laying around. As a concept, this 'rules' and I was really happy to see it revisited with the eHobby blue Megatron (who, in and of himself, also gave people a chance to own the "original" Japanese Megatron release--albeit wth scope and silencer intact.) because it's a wonderful concept. Various political figures have had body doubles in the past (Saddam, Castro, and probably Hitler) so it makes sense that Megatron would do something like this--especially when you take things into account like the Straxus-Megatron clone from the UK comics. (I've always kind of retroactively liked to pretend that was Megaplex.) Not just that, but the concept carries weight even into modern lines--once I got Henkei Megatron, I popped Classics Megatron's cannon off, gave him Energon Cruellock's sword and christened him the new Megaplex.

The fact is that the Transformers universe has hundreds, if not thousands, of characters in it. Though it's regularly implied that the TF numbers are dwindling, we're never shown or told how great those numbers are--and this is only implying Cybertron and Earth as the only locales for TF. Planet Master (Masterforce) and The Gambler alone, in cartoon continuity, imply that there's tons of other Transformers just 'out there' in the ether, operating mostly or wholly independent of anybody else. Remember Pincher and his buddies Longtooth and Doubleheader? Stuff implies that they've been around since before the Ark launch, and yet we never see them until 1988.

Fact of it is, we see Acid Storm (or the guy who would become Acid Storm) doing stuff. He exists and he can be fleshed out. Maybe he never does anything else important besides that one episode. The rest of the time he just shoots at cardboard cutout Female Autobot characters.

FAKE EDIT: Okay I had this all done and then Dom posted before me.

Dominic wrote:To answer Onslaught's question about why we are talking about this: Given how commonly used the term "G1" is, it would not hurt to have some kind of real definition for it. Granted, we are all going to go right back to the lazy way we always talk about it. But, the fun is in the arguing.

And, because this is an internet arguement: Hitler. (It needs to be said. Natural law and all that.)

It's funny because I legitimately bring up Hitler up there.

Silverstreak could still work as it evokes speed, (both over land and in speech). If we did not know the original name, would it really bother us?

Point of information, as much as I am not a fan of Martin Lawrence, I am not sure if that is actually the reason Hasbro cannot use "Bluestreak". I want to say there is a toy company that is holding it for tertiary piece of garbage.

The Martin Lawrence film is a dumb explanation. It's like when people try to say they couldn't call the Resident Evil games "Biohazard" because there's a band named that. Bullshit, you don't understand trademark law.

And yeah, Silverstreak would bother me--although not for the same reason. It bothers me now, as it probably would if he weren't blue, because it's a 'dumb name.' It means nothing while the other name actually has some meaning. (Also, there'd be no "Blue Bluestreak" legend, which opens a whole other can of shit.)

I always thought they should just use his Japanese name...Streak.

There are plenty of notistic Transfans as well. They want just old characters. Just old character like when there were kids...during the UT.

It's funny because I was a teen during UT. Of course, I loved the mass of new characters. Doom-Lock, man! Doom-Lock is my God. I sacrifice goats to that bitch.

New characters are easier to accept in toys because they are less likely to be accompanied by hype.

Ha haaaa! Drift.

(Actually, along similar lines, is the Golden Age Batman the same character as the modern Batman? Oi.)

It's when you start doing meta-existential crap like that that I always step away. I mean, Chrissake. It's like arguing Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man are supposed to be fundamentally different characters. They're still fucking Spider-Man!

I think Takara justifies the E-Hobby editions as reviving the old sub-line. Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the numbering on those toys picks up where Japanese G1 left off?

I have no idea.

Good catch old bean. But, I think G2 Inferno did have the ladder, with the squirter connecting to the ladder. Either way, you might be on to something.

Yeah, you're right, but I do believe the way Inferno is designed, he's supposed to be what a "realistic" water-squirting fire truck would be. Or something. I dunno.

Do we have pics of Grapple yet? I do hope he does have a crane.

I tend to go by packaging more than anything else. That means that the TrU Insecticon and Perceptor re-issues are technically TFU toys. (Granted, they look odd next to recently designed TFU toys. But, the packaging presents them as TFU toys.)

What about those late RID toys, like Dreadwing/Smokejumper, and Urbanation? They were branded RID, but in Armada-style packaging. This was before the first TFU. Are they RID toys? Armada toys? Retroactively Universe, since they were filling the same function?

But, for content purposes, the terms get muddy again. As Anderson pointed out TFU Sunstreaker and Sideswipe are clealy and unambigiously the original characters. When reviewing them, we would likely say "this is supposed to be the guy from G1". But, are they really? Toy-wise, the answer is clearly no. But, even in context, one could argue the answer is no. The only places the character models have appeared are in Japanese pack-in comics and in IDW's "new G1".

It's the Batman design argument. Batman's got a ton of different designs out there, and even a lot of times his 'colour scheme' isn't consistant. (Is his cape and cowl black, or blue? Is it both? Are his tights gray or black? Is there a yellow circle around the Batsymbol, or not? And this is just within comics--let's not even touch the movie, animation or TV designs.) But each one is effectively supposed to be Batman. Likewise, Sideswipe is clearly supposed to be Sideswipe no matter what minor differences there are--he's still a red Lambourghini with the back of the car turning into his legs and the hood becoming his chest, and the doors are hanging off his arms.

Dominic wrote:

And just to confuse this thread further, I actually regard both Beast Wars and Beast Machines as G1 since both shows were obviously intended to be continuations from the original G1 cartoon continuity. Same continuity, same universe, therefore technically G1.

But, by that logic, "Next Generation" and "Deep Space Nine" are "Original Star Trek". It is even more tenuous in this case because "Beast Wars" followed from a vague Generation 1 that was neither fish nor fowl, comic nor cartoon nor back of the package.

That's pretty much my thought process. Star Trek and it's subsequent shows are set in the same timeline continuity essentially being part of the same story. I tend to regard G1, BW and BM the same way.

Dominic wrote:

Case in point: Classics/Universe/Generations. I tend to think of this line as the original toyline just updated with current technology. I would analagize that to a rough sketch turning into a finished drawing.

I see this arguement. But, it is hardly fair to say that the original toys were incomplete or unfinished. TFU was not the end goal of anyone 30 years ago. And, there are meaninful differences in the basic designs. 20A Prime could be taken as an update of an old design. But, Sunstreaker, Mirage and uh Powerglide are meaninfully different. They are good/great toys, (well, I cannot vouch for Powerglide as I do not have one), and the original characters. But, they are very different.

Yeah, I know no one was thinking of "Classics" or the MP versions 30 years ago, but I see getting those toys now as Has/Tak's attempts to take the original toys and make them better. It's like with Star Trek toys. Sure they had Spock toys 30 years ago, but they were pretty shoddy toys compared to the Spock toys they have now. The NECA version is far superior as a "toy" than the original MEGO. But I don't think anyone at MEGO had NECA's version in mind when they were making it. The newer toys from Classics/Universe/Generations all have the same characters and the core elements of them are there and they are clearly intended to be "a" representation of the same characters. In other words if I have a MEGO Spock and NECA's Spock, they're different toys of the same character. That's similarly how I would regard say, Classics Mirage.