Revenge of the Fallen The Combiner Debate Thread

[Golgo-13]

And yet still the cartoon was produced in less time then the comic book took.

They were not produced together nor were they developed by the same writters.

They were not developed together.

You were wrong on both points.

They were developed by different teams in different parts of the country.

The cartoon's creators took the back story established by the comic's and toy bios creators and built on it.Thats a far cry from working together to develop the franchise.

I think we've gotten a little off topic, but to answer this....

I too have done research on this, and i'm getting conflicting results. I think it's safe to assume that the comics came out sometime around 1984, the SAME year than the cartoon came out. Hasbro had only gotten hold of the rights to a hand full of Asian toys ( that would later become the Transformers) just a year or two before. The way your making it sound is that the comics was written way before the cartoon, and the cartoon merely took what the comics had established. That can't be the case as, like i said, Hasbro had only gotten the greenlight a year or so pre-1984 to even develope the toys.

What was the point of all of this???

I'm pointing out that Hasbro is not the all to all source for what's what in the TF universe. Yes they greenlite everything TF related but the comics and the cartoon writers are the ones that develop the characters backgrounds. Even Michael Bay states this. So if Hasbro just happens to have Reflector dumped under the 'combiner' category, just because he combines, doesn't make him a TRUE combiner as i defined earlier on...

I don't think.

Hasbro is nothing but a bunch of suits, sitting around conference tables trying to sell the most of what they can. They don't care whether WE call Reflector a 'combiner' a 'comboner', or a '****ing *****e bag'. They just care if he sells. The writers in the different mediums are what ppl go by, not Hasbro, bro.

I never said that the cartoon did not open the world of Transformers to a wider fanbase.

The only thing I mention was that the comic book was produced and came out first, that the cartoon and the comic book were produced independently of each other and the cartoon was written useing some of the ground work establisher by the comic and the toy bios..

And I proved that and you wrong for saying other wise.

I'm getting conflicting info on this one. I'll get back to you on this one, but i still stand by my original statement.

And it was Hasbro the hired Marvel to create the TF universe and the characters within.So even if they did not do anything to created the characters and their personalties they cared and understood that to sell their merchandise that each character need them.

That doesn't mean that Hasbro definitions are sound.

No where have i found Hasbro stating that Jetfire was once a Decepticon. If YOU can, plz do enlighten me. But for right now i haven't seen or heard anything that states that in their archives. That characteristic of Jetfires was developed in the comics/cartoon. It's one of his most known characteristic to the fans. So 'cause Hasbro doesn't state it as so, should we all dismiss this about him? Just cause Hasbro says Reflector is a combiner, doesn't make it so, as the term 'combiner' established by the comics/cartoon.

And BTW, the toys were released before ether the comic book or the cartoon.

Its how I was introduced to Transformers.I "WAS" just walking down the isle of my local comic/toy store,Forbidden Planet in NYC, saw this cool looking toy and decided I wanted it

Yeah, of course you did. How convenient. Just like you conveniently happen to work at Marvel

Was it G1 TF's?

Or later incarnations?

'Cause back then me and my school mates were toy buying fiends. Everything that was hot we wanted, and got. He-Man, SW, etc. It wasn't until the cartoon came out that i'd ever heard of Transformers. Now i lived in England, UK at the time, so i don't know how it was in the States, but over there that's how TF became a selling sensation, via the cartoon.

I'm starting to think you dont have one.

Keep reading.

Actually you chose a pretty bad example to prove your point.Its pretty much common knowledge that Galvatrons toy bio was written to deliberately keep one of the main plot points of the movie from the fan base.

They wrote it that way to mislead fans.

You should have gone with Shockwave as an example.


Oh boy are you full of Bad info.

It was never the intention of Hasbro or Marvel that they be 2 different characters.

Galvatron was designed from the begining to be an up-graded body for Megatron.

You can see the evidence in the toy's design.He looks like an upgraded Megatron.

The toy bio was written to mislead fans.They did the same with Hotrod and Rodimus's tech specs.Neither indicates that they are the same character and Rodimus's bio does not indicate that he is the "NEW AUTOBOT LEADER".

The toys were released close to 5 months before the movie was and they didnt want to give away the whole plot of the film before it was released.

But yet even with his re-issued toy, many many years AFTER the '86 movie the tech specs still weren't changed...hmmm. Further proof that either Hasbro's database's are flawed, or what i said about the writers MAKING Megatron Galvatron are indeed true.

BTW,we're talking about G1 Galvatron mind you, not the later incarnations.

Glad I could teach you something.

Ah, you've made it down this far, so i'm glad i could teach YOU a thing or two....

I would disagree.

Hasbro has the absolute last word on every thing that is TF.

They are the property owner.What fans want,what fans see,what fans consider, are besides the point.Hasbro sets policy for what is fact in the TF toyline or fiction.

That being said, Reflector was never said to be a combiner by either Hasbro,the Marvel G1 comics [which he wasnt in much] nor was he in the cartoon [as you mention]......but for that matter the term "COMBINER" was never used in the cartoon for any of the characters that most consider combiners at all so we really cant try to use that particular fact as a ruling factor.

I repeat They never referred to Deverstator,Superion,,Bruticus, ext as combiners in the cartoon so the fact that they never referred to Reflector as one is irrelevant.

So you havent made a single point here.

Now like I said Hasbro has not said that Reflector is a combiner....but my point is that if the Micromaster combiners are considered "Combiners" then so is Reflector.

This made me lol!

You've just made MY point for me. You originally stated that Reflector is the ORIGINAL COMBINER team, and not Devastator that's what started this whole debate, but now your saying that neither Hasbro,the Marvel G1 comics nor the cartoon (who are the only parties that had their hands on G1 at the time) defined him as such ....so why do YOU think he's a combiner, for god sake, cause little green men beamed down from mars and told you so?!

Your talking in circles here, man!

Are the Headmasters. Targetmasters and Powermasters combiners too?

Is Optimus Prime a combiner because he consists of three autonomous modules; himself, roller and the Autobot Headquarters... the combat deck equipped with a versatile mechanic/artillery robot, and injury to one is felt by the other two....?

Look i'm not actually sure where the term combiner came from. It's probably one of those fan made slang words that everyone just ran with. So if the term is indeed a fan slang, or fan originated then we the fans have the right to define what it is. So again, a Combiner is a team of robots that combine to form a super robot i.e, Devastator, Superion, Menasaur,etc... regardless of whoever tried to 're-define the word' under the 'micromaster' umbrella..

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I think we've gotten a little off topic, but to answer this.... I too have done research on this, and i'm getting conflicting results. I think it's safe to assume that the comics came out sometime around 1984, the SAME year than the cartoon came out.

Yes but they were released a few months apart.But I'm not talking about release dates, I'm talking about production dates.

Hasbro had only gotten hold of the rights to a hand full of Asian toys ( that would later become the Transformers) just a year or two before. The way your making it sound is that the comics was written way before the cartoon, and the cartoon merely took what the comics had established. That can't be the case as, like i said, Hasbro had only gotten the greenlight a year or so pre-1984 to even develope the toys.

I'm not making it seem like there was a huge amount of time in between the two.Your injecting that into my post but I never said that.

Here's a simple time table for it all.Keep in mind that these are estimates and not exact dates.

Hasbro see's the Diaclone/Microman toy lines from Takara at the Japan toy show feb 1983. They get the rights to sell and reproduced them by March/April 83.

They shop around for some ideas May threw July 83] and then decide to go to Marvel and have them work up an idea to market Transformers into characters and a universe by July/August 83.

Marvel writters begin to write a back story but are stumpted when it comes to finding someone to completle it.September 83 they get Bob Budiansky to finish the back story and write most of the toy bios.. Marvel had the same problems finding a writter for the comic book so again they get Bob Budiansky to edit and co-write the comic book by November/December of 83.

Hasbro with Marvel then decide to make a cartoon around Feburary of 84.They base the story of the cartoon universe on the established "basic" back story from the toy bios and the comic. And what I mean by "basic back story" is the main eliments,Cybertron,4 million years ago they crash into a mountain on earth and those kinds of things.

Now I know thats not much time between them but my point was simply which came first and that they were not developed at the same time or by the same people.

I'm pointing out that Hasbro is not the all to all source for what's what in the TF universe. Yes they greenlite everything TF related but the comics and the cartoon writers are the ones that develop the characters backgrounds. Even Michael Bay states this. So if Hasbro just happens to have Reflector dumped under the 'combiner' category, just because he combines, doesn't make him a TRUE combiner as i defined earlier on... I don't think. Hasbro is nothing but a bunch of suits, sitting around conference tables trying to sell the most of what they can. They don't care whether WE call Reflector a 'combiner' a 'comboner', or a '****ing *****e bag'. They just care if he sells. The writers in the different mediums are what ppl go by, not Hasbro, bro.

And I still dont see the point. I never said that Hasbro had any hand in character development. Simply that by being the owner they set policy. And your not reading my post.

I said twice that Hasbro has never said that Reflector is a combiner.I said that by Hasbro including the Micromaster combiners into the category of a "COMBINER" that Reflector must also then be included.

And if you only want a "comic book" example.....take a look at Dreamwave's "More then meats the eyes" profile book and you'll see that it says that Reflector utilizes a prototype of the combiner technology. http://transfans.net/interviews_budiansky.php

That doesn't mean that Hasbro definitions are sound. No where have i found Hasbro stating that Jetfire was once a Decepticon. If YOU can, plz do enlighten me. But for right now i haven't seen or heard anything that states that in their archives. That characteristic of Jetfires was developed in the comics/cartoon. It's one of his most known characteristic to the fans. So 'cause Hasbro doesn't state it as so, should we all dismiss this about him? Just cause Hasbro says Reflector is a combiner, doesn't make it so, as the term 'combiner' established by the comics/cartoon.

I dont see the point in any of this. Your mixing character development and back stories with the basics of what the toys are. And again your not following my post. The term "combiner" was never used in the cartoon.

And I dont see the point of draging in things like Jetfire being a "Con" in the fiction since were not talking about the back stories of any one character. What were talking about is the categories that these toys should be placed in according to the criteria established by Hasbro..

Yeah, of course you did.

I "NEVER" lie to people I talk to online.I dont see the point. In truth about the only person I ever really lie to is my wife.

How convenient.

Must be.

Just like you conveniently happen to work at Marvel

It wasnt convenient.I busted my ass for that internship.Just as I busted my ass to get into the JOE KUBERT SCHOOL OF CARTOON AND COMIC ART

It was threw them that I got the job and it wasnt eazy rasing keeping it having to work 2 other jobs to suport my 2 kids.

Was it G1 TF's?

Actually my first Transforming toy was a Diaclone Grimlock I got back in early 83....wish I still had him.

As a kid I loved Japanese import cartoon and toys, I was a big fan of Shogun Warriors,Battle of the Planets,Gigantor ,Astro boy and Starblazzers [aka Space ship Youmoto] and I went out of my way to buy toys from those lines.

Lucky for me that New York Cities China town was loaded with such toys and it was only a short 15 minute train ride to get there. I already had a job at the time so I was able to buy most of my own toys and comics and my mother didnt have an issue with me going to Manhattan by myself on the trains. Anyway I'm drifting off point.

My next transforming toy was a Diaclone Ironhide [Black] and a Diaclone Trailbreaker [a funny blue]. I ended up with at least 10 of the toys that would later be released under the Transformers brand from Hasbro.

And when I first saw a "TRANSFORMERS" toy in box from Hasbro I went out of my mind with joy knowing that not only did I already have a few of the line but I would be having them before most of my friends.

Or later incarnations?

Not sure what you mean.

'Cause back then me and my school mates were toy buying fiends. Everything that was hot we wanted, and got. He-Man, SW, etc. It wasn't until the cartoon came out that i'd ever heard of Transformers. Now i lived in England, UK at the time, so i don't know how it was in the States, but over there that's how TF became a selling sensation, via the cartoon.

Thats how they became popular here as well, I never suggested otherwise.

But I was into them before they got popular.I was talking about "MY" experance not that of most of the fan base.

Keep reading.

Sure if you think it will help make your point.....but I doubt it will.

But yet even with his re-issued toy, many many years AFTER the '86 movie the tech specs still weren't changed...hmmm. Further proof that either Hasbro's database's are flawed, or what i said about the writers MAKING Megatron Galvatron are indeed true.

I knew it.......No help to you at all.

Galvatron was never, I repeat "NEVER" reissued by Hasbro. So there would have been no reason for Hasbro to change the tech spec info. Takara on the other had did reissue the Galvatron toy but they didnt use tech specs.....they used bio cards.

As for wether the info was changed or not I dont know since I dont read Japanese....but I doubt that they would have changed anything on it since Takara has a habit of trying to make their re-issue look just like the original releases. They had the bio cards for their other reissues read exactly as the originals from 84 and so on.

And as you should know Hasbro has no say on what Takara choses to put or not put on their box'es.

So all I see is "Further proof" that you dont know what your talking about.

I also dont see why a reissue would have any changes to the bio anyway. Unless it was because of a copyright issue.

BTW,we're talking about G1 Galvatron mind you, not the later incarnations.

I figured.

Ah, you've made it down this far, so i'm glad i could teach YOU a thing or two....

So far you havent taught me anything other then the fact that you dont know anywhere near as much about Transformers as you think you do.

Every thing you have posted so far was completely incorrect.....other then those things that can be considered an opinion of course.

The Galvatron thing was very laughable

This made me lol! You've just made MY point for me.

Thats hard to believe since you cant even make your point.

You originally stated that Reflector is the ORIGINAL COMBINER team, and not Devastator that's what started this whole debate, but now your saying that neither Hasbro,the Marvel G1 comics nor the cartoon (who are the only parties that had their hands on G1 at the time) defined him as such ....so why do YOU think he's a combiner, for god sake, cause little green men beamed down from mars and told you so?! Your talking in circles here, man!

You should learn to follow my post. I said that "TECHNICALLY" Reflector was the first combiner.I never said that it was stated by any source. I then provided the reasons why.

And it was because Hasbro widened the definitions of what can be considered a "COMBINER" by calling the Micromaster combiners, "Combiners". Hasbro, in doing that, retroactively made Reflector the first combiner.

Just as Marvel once made Narmor the sub-mariner marvels first mutant by stating that hi-hybrids of two humanoid races were also mutants.Altho I think they retconed that.

Are the Headmasters. Targetmasters and Powermasters combiners too?

It is debatable. They do use combiner tech.....also stated in Dreamwave's MTMTE profile books.

They are two minds,two personalties that are merged into one.

The way I see it there's a good argument for including them into the category of "Combiners".

If you can provide a solid argument against it please do.I would love a good laugh.

Is Optimus Prime a combiner because he consists of three autonomous modules; himself, roller and the Autobot Headquarters... the combat deck equipped with a versatile mechanic/artillery robot, and injury to one is felt by the other two....?

Their all 1 mind so the answer is No.

Look i'm not actually sure where the term combiner came from. It's probably one of those fan made slang words that everyone just ran with.

This is what I believe as well.

So if the term is indeed a fan slang, or fan originated then we the fans have the right to define what it is. So again, a Combiner is a team of robots that combine to form a super robot i.e, Devastator, Superion, Menasaur,etc... regardless of whoever tried to 're-define the word' under the 'micromaster' umbrella..

So are you suggest that I'm not a fan.......or that you as a fan, and your opinion are more accurate them me and mine. Or that the opinions of the majority are more important that that of the minority.

Seems rather conseeded of you dont you think????

And again I'm not one to try and quote un-official sources in a debate but since were talking about how fans have the right to dictate how the term applies then I again point to the TF Wiki page. http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Combiner

And like all Wiki pages it is a page dedicated to TF that gets its info from the fans. And according to that page....

Generation 1 contains many examples of combined alternate modes, including Reflector, Dreadwing, Big Powered, the Battlestar, and the Double Targetmasters.

The very fact that this page exist proves that there are others that think the way I do. And if it should be a case that is defined by the fans, as you suggest, then the fans have spoken.

And one fans opinion does not carry any more weight then an others.

So far I have provided a logical argument as for why Reflector is a combiner......You have yet to provided a single argument against.

EDIT!!!!!
Cant believe I missed this

I'm getting conflicting info on this one. I'll get back to you on this one, but i still stand by my original statement.

On what????That they were developed together by the same writter?????

Just to be sure here's your original statement

The comic and the cartoon where developed TOGETHER by the same writer.

This is what your standing by?????

I'll make it real simple for you........

Here's an exert from an interview with Bob Budiansky, the man who wrote 90% of the original toy bios,co-wrote the original back story,co-writter and editor for Marvels G1 comic book.

[the words in red are from the guy asking the questions while the words in black are from Bob B.]

3. How much - if any - involvement did you have with the original animated series, the movie, and Marvel UK?
Zero, none and zilch. Over a period of about five years, I provided names, character profiles and story treatment additions to Hasbro as new toy lines were introduced. What the animated series, the movie and Marvel UK did with them afterwards was none of my concern.

There it is from the "horse's mouth", so to speak.Proof that the guy that developed the comic book had "NOTHING" to do with the development of the cartoon.


Here's the rest of that interview if you would like to see it.
http://transfans.net/interviews_budiansky.php

 

[Hotwire]

In an attempt to settle this...

1. I think most of us would agree that a combincer/gestalt is a group of robots that combine to form a larger robot.

2. Devestator was the first of this kind. Also, each robot that made up Devestator also had his own robot and alt modes.

3. Reflector was three robots that combined to form a camera. Each robot that made up Reflector did not have his own alt mode.

So, while Reflector was the first group to combine into one thing, Devestator was the first of what many have accepted to be a combiner.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

In an attempt to settle this...

1. I think most of us would agree that a combincer/gestalt is a group of robots that combine to form a larger robot.

2. Devestator was the first of this kind. Also, each robot that made up Devestator also had his own robot and alt modes.

3. Reflector was three robots that combined to form a camera. Each robot that made up Reflector did not have his own alt mode.

So, while Reflector was the first group to combine into one thing, Devestator was the first of what many have accepted to be a combiner.

Thanks for your input and to be honest I once agree with you.

But when those Micromasters combiners came out in the later half of the G1 run it blew open the doors for what a combiner can be in the TF universe.

Most of the Micromaster combiners only formed 1/2 of an alt mode.

Each part of Reflector formed i/3 of an alt mode.

I really dont see the difference.

If the Micromaster combiners can be called combiners then it follows that so can Reflector.

Its quite logical when you think about it.

But hey its not like I'm trying to impose my views on others.

I made my statement and backed it up with a logical argument.If others want or desire to still only consider a combiner to be a group that forms a super robot thats their [and your] right.

I never said anyone was wrong in that case.I simply made my point and backed it up.

 

[Golgo-13]

Yes but they were released a few months apart.But I'm not talking about release dates, I'm talking about production dates.



I'm not making it seem like there was a huge amount of time in between the two.Your injecting that into my post but I never said that.

Here's a simple time table for it all.Keep in mind that these are estimates and not exact dates.

I'm not injecting anything into it. You made it seem as though there is no way the comics and cartoon could have been written together and you keep using the TIME in which they were put together and released, as your defense for that. If time isn't even the issue then why even keep bringing it up?

Hasbro see's the Diaclone/Microman toy lines from Takara at the Japan toy show feb 1983. They get the rights to sell and reproduced them by March/April 83.

They shop around for some ideas May threw July 83] and then decide to go to Marvel and have them work up an idea to market Transformers into characters and a universe by July/August 83.

Marvel writters begin to write a back story but are stumpted when it comes to finding someone to completle it. September 83 they get Bob Budiansky to finish the back story and write most of the toy bios.. Marvel had the same problems finding a writter for the comic book so again they get Bob Budiansky to edit and co-write the comic book by November/December of 83.

Hasbro with Marvel then decide to make a cartoon around Feburary of 84.They base the story of the cartoon universe on the established "basic" back story from the toy bios and the comic. And what I mean by "basic back story" is the main eliments,Cybertron,4 million years ago they crash into a mountain on earth and those kinds of things.

Now I know thats not much time between them but my point was simply which came first and that they were not developed at the same time or by the same people.

O.K a few posts back you frowned upon my use of Wiki as a source, because it was written by fans. Fair enough. But now you yourself use Wiki.

According to wiki:

Marvel’s Editor-in-Chief at the time, Jim Shooter, produced a rough story concept for the series, creating the idea of the two warring factions of alien robots – the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons. To flesh out his concept, Shooter called upon veteran editor Dennis O'Neil to create character names and profiles for the cast, but O’Neill’s work – for whatever reason – did not meet with Hasbro’s expectations, and they requested heavy revisions. O’Neill declined to make said revisions, and the project was turned down by several writers and editors approached by Shooter until editor Bob Budiansky[/] accepted the task. Hastily performing the revisions over a weekend, Budiansky’s new names and profiles were a hit with Hasbro, and production began on a bi-monthly four-issue comic book miniseries, AND three-part television pilot.

Bob Budiansky revised what O'Neil laid down and it was greenlite by Hasbro. Budiansky came up with the concept, the characters and their bios. What Budiansky wrote turned into the comics and the cartoon, hence my previous statement: The comics and the cartoon came from the same guy. A fact in which you've twisted and warped as a way to contradict this, from the very beginning.

And I still dont see the point. I never said that Hasbro had any hand in character development. Simply that by being the owner they set policy. And your not reading my post.

I said twice that Hasbro has never said that Reflector is a combiner.I said that by Hasbro including the Micromaster combiners into the category of a "COMBINER" that Reflector must also then be included.

And if you only want a "comic book" example.....take a look at Dreamwave's "More then meats the eyes" profile book and you'll see that it says that Reflector utilizes a prototype of the combiner technology. http://transfans.net/interviews_budiansky.php

My point is Hasbros database on catagorgies, bios,etc are sometimes different from what we get/got in the comics & cartoon, so you can't keep citing Hasbros definitions as the definitive source, regardless of their holding on the TF franchise. I used Jetfire and Galvatron as an example of how things in their databases don't match up with what the fans recognise in other mediums of certain TF characters. So you constantly saying that by Hasbro including the Micromaster category into their database, automatically puts Reflector in the combiner category, has no weight.

I think Hasbro is just as confused as you are about the whole subject.

I dont see the point in any of this. Your mixing character development and back stories with the basics of what the toys are. And again your not following my post. The term "combiner" was never used in the cartoon.

And I dont see the point of draging in things like Jetfire being a "Con" in the fiction since were not talking about the back stories of any one character. What were talking about is the categories that these toys should be placed in according to the criteria established by Hasbro..

See above answer. It applies here too.

I "NEVER" lie to people I talk to online.I dont see the point. In truth about the only person I ever really lie to is my wife.

I'm sure she'll be happy to hear that. I'm married too. :high five:

It wasnt convenient.I busted my ass for that internship.Just as I busted my ass to get into the JOE KUBERT SCHOOL OF CARTOON AND COMIC ART

It was threw them that I got the job and it wasnt eazy rasing keeping it having to work 2 other jobs to suport my 2 kids.

Actually my first Transforming toy was a Diaclone Grimlock I got back in early 83....wish I still had him.

As a kid I loved Japanese import cartoon and toys, I was a big fan of Shogun Warriors,Battle of the Planets,Gigantor ,Astro boy and Starblazzers [aka Space ship Youmoto] and I went out of my way to buy toys from those lines.

My next transforming toy was a Diaclone Ironhide [Black] and a Diaclone Trailbreaker [a funny blue]. I ended up with at least 10 of the toys that would later be released under the Transformers brand from Hasbro.

And when I first saw a "TRANSFORMERS" toy in box from Hasbro I went out of my mind with joy knowing that not only did I already have a few of the line but I would be having them before most of my friends.

Lucky for me that New York Cities China town was loaded with such toys and it was only a short 15 minute train ride to get there. I already had a job at the time so I was able to buy most of my own toys and comics and my mother didnt have an issue with me going to Manhattan by myself on the trains.

You must be sub-human to remember such details of events that happened 25 plus years ago. Do you also remember the day, month, time, weather conditions, and astrological alignment of the moon and it's phases at the time, too?

I'm drifting off point.

As usual.

Not sure what you mean.

I meant were you introduced to the world of Transformers via G1, or later incarnations, such as Beast Wars, RID,etc. But you've answered that already now.

But I was into them before they got popular.I was talking about "MY" experance not that of most of the fan base.

Thats how they became popular here as well, I never suggested otherwise.

Neither was i. I was just pointing out how 'I' was pulled into the TF world.

Sure if you think it will help make your point.....but I doubt it will.

If you're actually ABSORBING anything in my posts, you should have gotten at least ONE of my points by now.

I knew it.......No help to you at all.

Galvatron was never, I repeat "NEVER" reissued by Hasbro. So there would have been no reason for Hasbro to change the tech spec info. Takara on the other had did reissue the Galvatron toy but they didnt use tech specs.....they used bio cards.

As for wether the info was changed or not I dont know since I dont read Japanese....but I doubt that they would have changed anything on it since Takara has a habit of trying to make their re-issue look just like the original releases. They had the bio cards for their other reissues read exactly as the originals from 84 and so on.

And as you should know Hasbro has no say on what Takara choses to put or not put on their box'es.

So all I see is "Further proof" that you dont know what your talking about.

I also dont see why a reissue would have any changes to the bio anyway. Unless it was because of a copyright issue.

This is absolute hog wash. Let me entertain your theory that the Tech specs of Galvatron were indeed altered not to give away a key plot point of the movie, fine. That was in 1986. Why then in 2005 do they remain exactly the same, as i mentioned before- 22 odd years after the movie... regardless of whether Takara released it, Hasbro released it, or Tom, Dick or Harry released it? When translated (yes, i honestly look it up..with great difficulty btw), they read exactly the same. Furthermore Takara's Galvatron re-issue is NOT indentical ( as you claimed their re-issues are) to the original Galvatron. Their re-issue is UP-GRADED to match the color scheme of Galvatron from the animated movie; Hasbro's '86 Galvatron did not.

As i said before, this theory has been debated back and forth for as long as i've been a TF fan (i can't remember correctly but they might mention something about this on the commentary for the 20th anniversary release of the '86 movie...but i'll get back to you on that, as i haven't watch it in a while): the writers of the movie took what was to be a new Decepticon, and made him Megatron's incarnation.

The G1 toys were targeted at kids. Yes kids read, but they had Galvatron's rank listed as a '9' back then, and still do. They wrote it up they way they did, but listing his rank as a 10 (as all leaders are) wouldn't give away any of the movies spoilers to kids, would it..?

So far you havent taught me anything other then the fact that you dont know anywhere near as much about Transformers as you think you do.

Every thing you have posted so far was completely incorrect.....other then those things that can be considered an opinion of course.

The Galvatron thing was very laughable

Completely? Are you even reading what i'm writing, or merely skimming through?

Thats hard to believe since you cant even make your point.

Like i said before, hopefully by now, you should have at least absorbed one of them; minimum.

You should learn to follow my post. I said that "TECHNICALLY" Reflector was the first combiner.I never said that it was stated by any source. I then provided the reasons why.

And it was because Hasbro widened the definitions of what can be considered a "COMBINER" by calling the Micromaster combiners, "Combiners". Hasbro, in doing that, retroactively made Reflector the first combiner.

Just as Marvel once made Narmor the sub-mariner marvels first mutant by stating that hi-hybrids of two humanoid races were also mutants.Altho I think they retconed that.

O.K, if Hasbro has widened their definitions of sub-groups, and the inclusion of micromasters puts Reflector in the 'combiner' group, then isn't Hasbro INDEED the source in which your basing this statement on?

Or are YOU putting words in Hasbros mouth, so to speak...?

It is debatable. They do use combiner tech.....also stated in Dreamwave's MTMTE profile books.

They are two minds,two personalties that are merged into one.

The way I see it there's a good argument for including them into the category of "Combiners".

If you can provide a solid argument against it please do.I would love a good laugh.

Headmaster and Powermaster do not have two INDEPENDENT alt modes. Headmasters-the head portion- gives power to the lower LIFELESS lower body.

Targetmasters are definately not COMBINERS. Megatron Transformed into a gun that had to be fired by another TF, but i've never heard him referred to as a Targetmaster, nor a Combiner; or are YOU gonna make the dillusional assumption that he now is one......?

Their all 1 mind so the answer is No.

Thank god. Your at least partionally sane.

EDIT!!!!!
Cant believe I missed this


On what????That they were developed together by the same writter?????

Just to be sure here's your original statement



This is what your standing by?????

I'll make it real simple for you........

Here's an exert from an interview with Bob Budiansky, the man who wrote 90% of the original toy bios,co-wrote the original back story,co-writter and editor for Marvels G1 comic book.

[the words in red are from the guy asking the questions while the words in black are from Bob B.]



There it is from the "horse's mouth", so to speak.Proof that the guy that developed the comic book had "NOTHING" to do with the development of the cartoon.


Here's the rest of that interview if you would like to see it.
http://transfans.net/interviews_budiansky.php

I answered this at the very beginning of this post. Hopefully it sunk in this time.

So are you suggest that I'm not a fan.......or that you as a fan, and your opinion are more accurate them me and mine. Or that the opinions of the majority are more important that that of the minority.

Seems rather conseeded of you dont you think????

I'm not saying your not a true fan at all; just a rather misguided one. It is YOU and a few others who i suspect injected the notion that Reflector is a combiner, and are now trying to force feed it down everybody elses throats, as you have repeatidly stated yourself that there is no 'official documentation' that he is one.

If the word is indeed a fan made one, how can you merge a fan made definition, with the category that a toy company came up with, and independently start throwing certain TF's, like Reflector, into the fan created ones? The catagories should remain independent of each other. The fans don't see Reflector as a 'combiner' by OUR definition of the word (and we have the right to define the word, as it is ours) and YOU and a few others consider him AS one.

Your forgetting; your saying your a fan; going by a fan definition but also going by definitions that Hasbro has created. They're contradicting each other in this case and your confusing yourself with it. You can't say your a fan, but only acknowledge fan slang when it suits you.

And again I'm not one to try and quote un-official sources in a debate but since were talking about how fans have the right to dictate how the term applies then I again point to the TF Wiki page. http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Combiner

And like all Wiki pages it is a page dedicated to TF that gets its info from the fans. And according to that page....



The very fact that this page exist proves that there are others that think the way I do. And if it should be a case that is defined by the fans, as you suggest, then the fans have spoken.

And one fans opinion does not carry any more weight then any others.

So far I have provided a logical argument as for why Reflector is a combiner......You have yet to provided a single argument against.

O.K well this definition of what a combiner is (taken from a similar source) more 'definatively' defines what a combiner is.

I posted it before but apparently you missed it:

The term "Combiner" (sometimes called "Gestalt") refers to a sub-group of Transformers able to combine their bodies and minds into a singular, larger, more powerful super-robot (the process is referred to in Computron's Marvel tech spec as "combinatics"). The term "Combiner" comes from the sub-group's ability to "combine" into a larger robot. The first combiner was Devastator, formed from the Constructicons, but the technology was eventually duplicated by the Autobots, leading to the creation of more combiner teams by both sides.

Logical proof from a similar source, 'wiki'; for the fans; by the fans...and THE FAN'S HAVE SPOKEN!

Reflector does not combine to form a 'SUPER ROBOT'.

His 3 individual robot modes, do NOT have independent alt modes.

Therefore, he is NOT a COMBINER!

Furthermore:

The term "gestalt" was adopted by fans as the catch-all name for combining Transformers. Although not officially employed on any merchandise by Hasbro, it appears that the term is recognized by them for its use in the fandom.

Now, if by some miracle you can find documentation where Hasbro has used the term 'Gestalt' and Reflector in the same sentence (as the source above stated Hasbro HAS indeed adopted the term in certain places), then i say you've won this debate. But judging by the definition above..i say your up ****'s creek without a paddle, my friend!

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I had to split this post into 2 because of the pics so make sure to read both before you reply.

Fo-shizzle, it's kind of funny really, I never considered the name "combiner" as some form of an official title for that group of Transforrmer. Much like what Golgo said I always considered it a nickname, and as far as I know there still is no official designated title for this type of TF, I guess because they are a kind of sub-group among the standard set they never really got their own official toy group ie headmasters. This also brings up the question of Triple Changers, was that a nickname or did they actually have an official sub-group title?

Well I know the triple changers were called that on the toy catalogs from day 1.

I'm not injecting anything into it. You made it seem as though there is no way the comics and cartoon could have been written together and you keep using the TIME in which they were put together and released, as your defense for that. If time isn't even the issue then why even keep bringing it up?

You are injecting words into my post and your dong it again.

I never said that "THERES NO WAY" that the toon and the comic were developed at the same time and by the same writter.

I said that its is a "FACT" that they werent.

See the difference???

Saying that "theres no way" is saying that there isint a possibility.

What I'm saying is that its a Fact that they were not.

O.K a few posts back you frowned upon my use of Wiki as a source, because it was written by fans. Fair enough. But now you yourself use Wiki.

Where did I use Wiki in this part????

According to wiki:

Bob Budiansky revised what O'Neil laid down and it was greenlite by Hasbro. Budiansky came up with the concept, the characters and their bios. What Budiansky wrote turned into the comics and the cartoon, hence my previous statement: The comics and the cartoon came from the same guy. A fact in which you've twisted and warped as a way to contradict this, from the very beginning.

I know what Wiki says and I'm not twisting anything.

Not only are you ignoring Bob's own words in his interview but your putting more faith in Wikipedia.

Not only have I read the interview I have heard the man speak on the topic some years ago.

The man says he never worked to develope the cartoon

You tell me who I should believe????Bob or Wiki?????

And who said "TIME" is not an issue????

My point is Hasbros database on catagorgies, bios,etc are sometimes different from what we get/got in the comics & cartoon, so you can't keep citing Hasbros definitions as the definitive source, regardless of their holding on the TF franchise. I used Jetfire and Galvatron as an example of how things in their databases don't match up with what the fans recognise in other mediums of certain TF characters. So you constantly saying that by Hasbro including the Micromaster category into their database, automatically puts Reflector in the combiner category, has no weight.

I think Hasbro is just as confused as you are about the whole subject.

And again none of this is relivent since I'm not talking about the fiction.It is a well established fact that the toy info does not always match the fictions.

I'm sure she'll be happy to hear that. I'm married too. :high five:

She'd kill me if she knew....which is why I lie.

Is that a compliment????

You must be sub-human to remember such details of events that happened 25 plus years ago. Do you also remember the day, month, time, weather conditions, and astrological alignment of the moon and it's phases at the time, too?

I have Asperger's Syndrome.Its a form of Autisem.One of the positive symptoms is a photographic memory of events.

One of the less positive symptoms is a need for repetetive actions.So I could tell you what day of the week and around what time of day I bought those toys because I always did my toy shopping on the same days at the same times.

I know it sounds nuts but its what I have had to deal with.

I got most of that under control now a days.

If you're actually ABSORBING anything in my posts, you should have gotten at least ONE of my points by now.

Not yet.

This is absolute hog wash.

Lets see if you can prove that......

Let me entertain your theory that the Tech specs of Galvatron were indeed altered not to give away a key plot point of the movie, fine. That was in 1986. Why then in 2005 do they remain exactly the same, as i mentioned before- 22 odd years after the movie... regardless of whether Takara released it, Hasbro released it, or Tom, Dick or Harry released it? When translated (yes, i honestly look it up..with great difficulty btw), they read exactly the same.

And I repeat....why would they be changed????Takara never changed any of the other reissues bios, Not even Hotrods or Rodimus Primes, so why would Galvatrons be the only one to be changed????

Like I said Takara tryies to keep as much as possible the same as the original, particular the bios and the box'es.

Furthermore Takara's Galvatron re-issue is NOT indentical ( as you claimed their re-issues are) to the original Galvatron. Their re-issue is UP-GRADED to match the color scheme of Galvatron from the animated movie; Hasbro's '86 Galvatron did not.

I didnt say "IDENTICAL" and I refered to the bios and the box's.

I said nothing about the toys.

Takara does like to make the toys look more show accurate but that has, as of yet, not extended to the bios.

They have made no changes to what they printed in the 80's.

As i said before, this theory has been debated back and forth for as long as i've been a TF fan (i can't remember correctly but they might mention something about this on the commentary for the 20th anniversary release of the '86 movie...but i'll get back to you on that, as i haven't watch it in a while): the writers of the movie took what was to be a new Decepticon, and made him Megatron's incarnation.

And you still havent made a single point.

I dont see how Takara choosing to stay with the original bio has anything to do with what Hasbro originally intended.

If your trying to make a connection between the two your not doing a good job of it.

The G1 toys were targeted at kids. Yes kids read, but they had Galvatron's rank listed as a '9' back then, and still do. They wrote it up they way they did, but listing his rank as a 10 (as all leaders are) wouldn't give away any of the movies spoilers to kids, would it..?

It would have for me and my buddies.

The first time we say Galvatron, which was on some kind of poster for up coming toys ,at Forbidden planet, we all thought that it was Megatron in a new body.

The poster had no names or info about the toys just pics.For that matter I freely admit that upon seeing Ultra magnus I thought he was a new body for Optimus Prime, for obvious reasons.

But when we finally saw the box a few months later, and after reading the bio and seeing the ranking we all assumed that we were originally wrong.

And them months after that we find out that the bio lied to us.

And its funny you keep forgetting that the same tatic was employed on 4 other characters.

Hotrod, Rodimus Prime,Cyclonus and Scourge have no mention that they were ever connected to other characters.

Only Scourge's bio had a slite "HINT" about it and it wasnt much of one.

All it said was that he was made from "Decepticon Werckege" which could mean a few things.

And even thou the toys were targeted at kids the comic book was not.The toys target age range was 5 to 12 but the comics were 13 to 16+.

So Hasbro would have had good reason to want to keep the plot a secret as long as possible.

BTW, movie makers go out of their way to keep the plot of their films a secret.

Completely? Are you even reading what i'm writing, or merely skimming through?

Like i said before, hopefully by now, you should have at least absorbed one of them; minimum.

I'm reading them completely but you still havent taught me anything.

O.K, if Hasbro has widened their definitions of sub-groups, and the inclusion of micromasters puts Reflector in the 'combiner' group, then isn't Hasbro INDEED the source in which your basing this statement on?

Or are YOU putting words in Hasbros mouth, so to speak...?

To some degree I am, but its not unreasonable for me to do so.Let me explain.

At the beginning I would have agreed with your use of the term "Combiner".

Reflector was a single case and he differend from the other characters that were called "Combiners".

While I saw a possibility for claiming he was a combiner it didnt make sence to because unlike the others called "combiners" he did not form a super robot, he did not have separate alt modes.

Then came the Micromaster combiners.They did not have seprate alt modes, they did not combine to form a super robot.

If they can be called "Combiners" then why cant Reflector???

I asked you that question a few times but you have failed to answer it.

Headmaster and Powermaster do not have two INDEPENDENT alt modes. Headmasters-the head portion- gives power to the lower LIFELESS lower body.

In Hasbro version of Headmasters the lower body is not lifeless.

That was Takara Masterforce....dont mix thing up.

Targetmasters are definately not COMBINERS. Megatron Transformed into a gun that had to be fired by another TF, but i've never heard him referred to as a Targetmaster, nor a Combiner; or are YOU gonna make the dillusional assumption that he now is one......?

I never said Targetmasters were combiners.Altho there is an argument for including some of them.

If I'm right the "Double Targetmasters" combined to form a super gun.So the term "Combiner" can be applied to them.

And I made no such statements about Megatron.

Dont try to paint me as delusional just because you cant come up with an argument that refutes mine.

I answered this at the very beginning of this post. Hopefully it sunk in this time.

No it hasent because your denying Bobs own words on the topic.

Here they are again....

3. How much - if any - involvement did you have with the original animated series, the movie, and Marvel UK?
Zero, none and zilch. Over a period of about five years, I provided names, character profiles and story treatment additions to Hasbro as new toy lines were introduced. What the animated series, the movie and Marvel UK did with them afterwards was none of my concern

I hope it sunk in this time.The guy who developed the comic [90%] had nothing to do with the cartoon.

I'm not saying your not a true fan at all; just a rather misguided one. It is YOU and a few others who i suspect injected the notion that Reflector is a combiner, and are now trying to force feed it down everybody elses throats, as you have repeatidly stated yourself that there is no 'official documentation' that he is one.

I havent been shoving anything down your's or anyones throats.If you chose to disagree with me thats your right.

I never said you were wrong.

I said "TECHNICLLY" Reflector was the first "Combiner" and then I provided the reasons why.

So far you havent been able to come up with an argument disproving mine, other then popular opinion.

Which is not the way to win a debate.

If the word is indeed a fan made one, how can you merge a fan made definition, with the category that a toy company came up with, and independently start throwing certain TF's, like Reflector, into the fan created ones?

I didnt merge the two, Hasbro did by useing the term to describe others with some similar capabilities.

The catagories should remain independent of each other. The fans don't see Reflector as a 'combiner' by OUR definition of the word (and we have the right to define the word, as it is ours) and YOU and a few others consider him AS one.

Your making some rediculos statements here.

1] How can you say the fans dont see Reflector as a "combiner" when its obvious that some [even if a small amount] do

2] If it is a fan term do I not have just as much right as any fan to use the term as I see fit since I helped to create it???

3] How can you dictate the definition of the word for all when we cant even prove that its a fan term???

On that I did some research and I really cant come to a 100% answer.....but I did find evidence of Hasbro useing the term "Combine" to describe the Protectibots and the Stunticons.

Those are from the 86 TF toy catalog which introduced those teams.

Its for years before the Micromaster combiner catalog from 90.

Its not proof who came up with the term first but it is proof that Hasbro was useing it much earlier then we thought.

Your forgetting; your saying your a fan; going by a fan definition but also going by definitions that Hasbro has created. They're contradicting each other in this case and your confusing yourself with it. You can't say your a fan, but only acknowledge fan slang when it suits you

Who are you to dictate how the slang should be applied????

O.K well this definition of what a combiner is (taken from a similar source) more 'definatively' defines what a combiner is.

I posted it before but apparently you missed it:

Logical proof from a similar source, 'wiki'; for the fans; by the fans...and THE FAN'S HAVE SPOKEN!

I didnt miss it and your source is from the "GENERAL" Wiki while mine is from the "SPECIALIZED" TF Wiki page.

Which page do you thing should have more presise info as to Transformers?????The page that has an opinion on everything in the world or the one that only focus's on only Transformers????

Reflector does not combine to form a 'SUPER ROBOT'.

His 3 individual robot modes, do NOT have independent alt modes.

Just like the Micromaster combiners.

If they are combiners then why not Reflector.

And heres a better question.

Here is a link to your source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_technology#Combiner_Technology
And here is a link to your sources Micromaster's page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromasters

The Micromaster combiners are listed as "Combiner Squads".

If you dont want to hit the link here's the info:

Combiner Squads consists of three vehicles, each of which can transform into two separate Micromasters. Combiner Squads are specifically themed.

Looks like your source contradicts itself from one page to the next.

Thats why I never use anything I find on Wiki's general pages as a source in a debate.

It only makes one look foolish.

If your going to put your faith in a wiki page your pest to trust the stuff on the "SPECIALIZED" pages.

They are normally written by more dedicated fans.

Therefore, he is NOT a COMBINER!

You still havent shown me why not.

Furthermore:

The term "Combiner" (sometimes called "Gestalt") refers to a sub-group of Transformers able to combine their bodies and minds into a singular, larger, more powerful super-robot (the process is referred to in Computron's Marvel tech spec as "combinatics"). The term "Combiner" comes from the sub-group's ability to "combine" into a larger robot. The first combiner was Devastator, formed from the Constructicons, but the technology was eventually duplicated by the Autobots, leading to the creation of more combiner teams by both sides.

The term "gestalt" was adopted by fans as the catch-all name for combining Transformers. Although not officially employed on any merchandise by Hasbro, it appears that the term is recognized by them for its use in the fandom.

Now, if by some miracle you can find documentation where Hasbro has used the term 'Gestalt' and Reflector in the same sentence (as the source above stated Hasbro HAS indeed adopted the term in certain places), then i say you've won this debate. But judging by the definition above..i say your up ****'s creek without a paddle, my friend!

Dude your not even following your own source....

Your source says ...."The term "gestalt" was adopted by fans as the catch-all name for combining Transformers. Although not officially employed on any merchandise by Hasbro"

But then you claim "Hasbro HAS indeed adopted the term in certain places"

Where are you getting that????

And I dont understand why you want something with the term "GESTALT" now when that term is synonymous with "Combiner".

But since your hook on the fact that there is only 1 type of combiner let me show you something........

These are from issue 8 of DW's profile book.

While they do not mention "Reflector" specifically they do seak about "Other Combiner Technologies".

That include the Micro Master combiners and even Powermaster Optimus Prime

As you can see there is more then 1 type of "COMBINER" and that the others include Powermasters and the Micromaster Combiners.

So again I ask you.....If the Micromaster combiners can be called , which they are, "Combiners" why cant Reflector?????

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

This is from the "Headmaster page and it says that The Headmaster tech was uses aspects of "Combiner" tech.

And finally this is from "Viewfinders" bio page.

Viewfinder is the center part of Reflector.

I hope the pics are clear enough....my scanner decided not to work.

As I hope you can read/make out Reflector is stated to be a combiner under his specifications.

It does not say "Gestalt" but it says "Combiner" which is synonymous with "Gestalt".

These books are authorized by Hasbro.....as a matter of fact "IDW comics" has just started reprinting them so if you want to get your hands on them they should be eazy to get at a comic shop.

These books are an extention of Hasbro's words and are in high demand by the fans.

Hopefully this satisfies your request for some "documentation where Hasbro has used the term 'Gestalt' and Reflector in the same sentence".

But I'm guessing you'll ether egnore it or cast it aside because it does not support your debate just like you casted aside Bob Budiansky own words in that interview when he says he had nothing to do with the creation of the cartoon.

Ether that or you'll claim you can read the words in the pics to buy your debate some time.

I will try to fix my scanner to post better pics.

Now to sum this up, and to hopefully shorted this long debare since I hate to type this much

2] You were wrong about the same writter working on both the cartoon and the comic

3] You havent provided me one solid reason that explains why Galvatrons toy bio [or that of the other 4 characters] was not delibratly made to mis-lead the fans

4]Your definition does not hold any more weight then mine

5]The opinions of the many dont carry any more weight then those of the few in this kind of debate.

6]Your "FAN" source does not carry any more weight then my "Fan" source, particularly because your "Fan" source cant keep its info the same from one page to the next.

7] You have yet to tell me why Reflector cant be a combiner but those Micromasters can.

 

[Golgo-13]

O.k look ppl, let me start off by saying that i have quite enjoyed this debate so far, i haven't learned a whole lot, but have enjoyed it. I would first like to congratulate my opponent, sto_vo_kor_2000. I have had many lengthy debates on the Hype over the years i've been here, and this one is probably in the top 3. Unfortunately for my opponent, his last two posts have offered my nothing more that a fresh print out i can use for toilet paper, and a bit of nostalgia via the toy pics- and seriously, the images are way too blurry to read. Ask other members if they can read them; look at them yourself; they really are very hard on the eyes, dude.

Where did I use Wiki in this part????

You used TF wiki. Wiki is wiki. Regardless of whether it's a specialized page. They're both written by fans, and are often frown upon by some (not me) as it's use of as a source, as anybody can add information to it.

Is that a compliment????

Yes. Savor it. You won't get alot from me.

Furthermore:

I would love to answer each and every point you've TRIED to make, but the length of these responses seem to be getting longer and longer with each others comebacks, so......for the sake of spearing myself another case of carpel tunnel (as i got from typing my last repsonse), i'm gonna respond to your summarized statements, fair enough?

Now to sum this up, and to hopefully shorted this long debare since I hate to type this much

2] You were wrong about the same writter working on both the cartoon and the comic

No i'm not. You misread my original point (big surprise there). The cartoon AND comic stemmed from the backstory WRITTEN by the same guy. What don't you understand about that? Here read this:

Budiansky is considered the "father" of Transformers lore, being part of the birth of the line of both toys and comics, responsible for much of writing of the original Marvel Transformer comic. Budiansky went on to become a legend among Transformers fans, having conceived the names of most of the original, most iconic Transformers, including Decepticon leader Megatron, Autobot medic Ratchet, and Decepticon Ravage. He also wrote the vast majority of the descriptive "tech spec" biographies printed on each Transformers toy package, giving each figure unique personality quirks.

Budiansky’s new names and profiles were a hit with Hasbro, and production began on a bi-monthly four-issue comic book miniseries, and three-part television pilot.

Now they mention Megatron by name above. Wasn't Megatron used in both the comics AND the cartoon? Who came up with his name, and many others and their backstories...? So ONE writer in responsible for what would later become a comic book franchise and a cartoon, got it?

3] You havent provided me one solid reason that explains why Galvatrons toy bio [or that of the other 4 characters] was not delibratly made to mis-lead the fans

Look this is my point as plain as day:

The writers of the TF '86 Movie wanted to write out the orginal G1 line up, to make room for the new toys so instead of simply killing them all off, they varied it by having some of them die off, and others being re-born as some of the new toy characters, like Galvatron. I can't remeber which TF Scourge and Cyclonus were incarnated from ( i think it was Skywarp and one of the insecticons, don't quote me one that) but i remember seeing the Insecticons in season 3 of the cartoon..all of them. Now yes, i know the insecticons can clone each other, and that's the excuse i believe the writers would use to cover up their mistake. But in the movie, there were only 3 Insecticons damaged during the attack on Autobot city. They were the 3 that were Discarded from Astrotrain. One of of them becomes scourge or Cyclonus, yet they were back in season 3.

My point is, the writers of the movie came up with the whole Megatron becomes Galvatron, an Insecticon becomes Scourge(?),etc. To Hasbro Galvatron and co were completely SEPERATE and NEW characters.

4]Your definition does not hold any more weight then mine

True, to a certain point. But if your a fan, why so dead intent on proving to me that Devastator is not an the original combiner team, when MOST fans would say he is?

5]The opinions of the many dont carry any more weight then those of the few in this kind of debate.

But two groups of ppl with contradicting information can't BOTH be right.

It's like one group of ppl saying "God does exist", and another group saying "There is no god"; they both can't be right, unless there definitions of what god is are DIFFERENT.

By creating the Micromaster catergory, Hasbro has completely warped the minds of some.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.

If it belongs to a team, with individual alt modes, and merges to form a super robot, it's a 'combiner'.

6]Your "FAN" source does not carry any more weight then my "Fan" source, particularly because your "Fan" source cant keep its info the same from one page to the next.

Your saying they're equal but yet criticize my source? Make up your mind. If my source is, as you say 'can't keep it's info the same from page to page', then your saying that your source holds more weight than mine.

Therefore your contradicting your prior statement that both are equally acceptable, and that what you believe is right, and what i believe is wrong.

7] You have yet to tell me why Reflector cant be a combiner but those Micromasters can.

[/quote]

I have NEVER said that those Micro-master ARE combiners. If they're not a team of robots that have independant alt modes, but merge to form a super robot, then they are not a combiner team. Reflector does not meet this criteria.

Devastator is and always will be the original Combiner team.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Sto vo kor 2000 posts are starting to look like The Guard posts , but I actually went through the whole thing

I guess thats both a compliment and a put down

The visual aids are nostalgic.

Arent they??

O.k look ppl, let me start off by saying that i have quite enjoyed this debate so far, i haven't learned a whole lot, but have enjoyed it.
.

As have I

I would first like to congratulate my opponent, sto_vo_kor_2000. I have had many lengthy debates on the Hype over the years i've been here, and this one is probably in the top 3.
.

Thank you

Unfortunately for my opponent, his last two posts have offered my nothing more that a fresh print out i can use for toilet paper, and a bit of nostalgia via the toy pics- and seriously, the images are way too blurry to read. Ask other members if they can read them; look at them yourself; they really are very hard on the eyes, dude.
.

I'm sure they are.....and I knew you would use that excuse

If anyone else can read them please do other wise I will be fixing my scanner soon so I'll be able to post new scans.

And reguardless some of them arent that bad....the fact that you refuse to acknowlige them is typical.

You used TF wiki. Wiki is wiki. Regardless of whether it's a specialized page. They're both written by fans, and are often frown upon by some (not me) as it's use of as a source, as anybody can add information to it.
.

But you suggested that I used Wiki in support of the info on the shows development which I did not.

I only used it in refrance to what you called a "fan term".

Yes. Savor it. You won't get alot from me.
.

Well thank you....I guess

No i'm not. You misread my original point (big surprise there). The cartoon AND comic stemmed from the backstory WRITTEN by the same guy. What don't you understand about that?
.

I understand that, the issue is thats not what you originally said.

Here is what you said:

The comic and the cartoon where developed TOGETHER by the same writer. .

Now how could I have mis-read that?????

It was I that claimed that the cartoon was written useing the back story written for the comics and toy bios not you.

Here read this:Now they mention Megatron by name above. Wasn't Megatron used in both the comics AND the cartoon? Who came up with his name, and many others and their backstories...? So ONE writer in responsible for what would later become a comic book franchise and a cartoon, got it?
.

And how does that help you???

As I said above.....the cartoon was written useing the back story established by Bob for the comics and toyline.

But Bob did not work on the cartoon.

Your now trying to turn your original words around to save face but its not working.

You said both were "developed together by the same writter" and thats not correct.

The cartoon was developed based on what Bob wrote but he did not develope the cartoon, nor were they developed together.

Look this is my point as plain as day:

The writers of the TF '86 Movie wanted to write out the orginal G1 line up, to make room for the new toys so instead of simply killing them all off, they varied it by having some of them die off, and others being re-born as some of the new toy characters, like Galvatron. I can't remeber which TF Scourge and Cyclonus were incarnated from ( i think it was Skywarp and one of the insecticons, don't quote me one that) but i remember seeing the Insecticons in season 3 of the cartoon..all of them. Now yes, i know the insecticons can clone each other, and that's the excuse i believe the writers would use to cover up their mistake. But in the movie, there were only 3 Insecticons damaged during the attack on Autobot city. They were the 3 that were Discarded from Astrotrain. One of of them becomes scourge or Cyclonus, yet they were back in season 3.

My point is, the writers of the movie came up with the whole Megatron becomes Galvatron, an Insecticon becomes Scourge(?),etc. To Hasbro Galvatron and co were completely SEPERATE and NEW characters.
.

You need to watch the 86 movie more closly.

Durring the assult on Autobot city more then 3 Insecticons can be seen durring the battle.Watch closly they are in back ground shots.

Further more at least 1 of the Insecticons was seen on the planet of junk.Which means that they returned with in the movie and not in season 3 as you suggest.

And again you havent proven your point.

You havent given me one reason to believe that Hasbro thought or intended them as new characters.

And again I ask you if he was intended to be a new character....explain the design simularities?????

Unlike to TF toys that came be fore the movie Galvatron and most of the movie characters [except Ultra Magnus] did not come from a pre exsisting Takara toy line.

Galvatron and most or the other movie toys were designed for the movie bsased on what Hasbro wanted.

So tell me why Galvatron looks simular to Megatron if it was not intended?????

True, to a certain point. But if your a fan, why so dead intent on proving to me that Devastator is not an the original combiner team, when MOST fans would say he is?
.

So now your saying that "if I'm a fan I should bow to popular opinion"?????

That I should believe what "MOST FANS" believe????

Thats rediculos.....I'm seeing what the evidence indicates.

And again it's not like I'm forcing you to agree with me.

But two groups of ppl with contradicting information can't BOTH be right.
.

Everyone is entitaled to their opinion.

And thats what the groups of people have is an opinion.

If you wasnt accurate info you got to go to the main offical source not a fan page that sites opinion.

And the main offical source says that there are more then one kind of combiner.

By creating the Micromaster catergory, Hasbro has completely warped the minds of some.
.

That may be.....but its their creation....its their property....so its their right to do so.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.
.

And according to Hasbro the Micromaster combiners are "DUCKS" =combiners.

If it belongs to a team, with individual alt modes, and merges to form a super robot, it's a 'combiner'.
.

Thats your defintion [and others] of what a combiner is.....But its not Hasbros.

And they are the offical source.

Your saying they're equal but yet criticize my source? Make up your mind. If my source is, as you say 'can't keep it's info the same from page to page', then your saying that your source holds more weight than mine.
.

I'm not criticizing your source....I'm just point out a fact and also saying that you should not rely on that source to support your argument.

I only used a simular source to show that their are fans that think the way I do.....but your useing Wiki for the baces for your intire argument.

Therefore your contradicting your prior statement that both are equally acceptable, and that what you believe is right, and what i believe is wrong.

I believe that both are fun reads but shouldnt be used to support a debate.

I have NEVER said that those Micro-master ARE combiners.
.

You dont have too.....Hasbro already has.

If they're not a team of robots that have independant alt modes, but merge to form a super robot, then they are not a combiner team. Reflector does not meet this criteria.
.

And again Hasbro says they do.

So again for the countlees time you havent made one point in your argument other then your [and others] opinion.

Your entire argument is founded on your opinion and not 1 single fact.

 

[Golgo-13]

I'm sure they are.....and I knew you would use that excuse

It's not an excuse. Look a them yourself, you can't honestly say those things are legible..?

But you suggested that I used Wiki in support of the info on the shows development which I did not.

I only used it in refrance to what you called a "fan term".

Nice turn around.

You used wiki, and criticized me for doing so. What and how you used it for is irrelevant.

I understand that, the issue is thats not what you originally said.

Here is what you said:

Now how could I have mis-read that?????

It was I that claimed that the cartoon was written useing the back story written for the comics and toy bios not you.



And how does that help you???

As I said above.....the cartoon was written useing the back story established by Bob for the comics and toyline.

But Bob did not work on the cartoon.

Your now trying to turn your original words around to save face but its not working.

You said both were "developed together by the same writter" and thats not correct.

The cartoon was developed based on what Bob wrote but he did not develope the cartoon, nor were they developed together.

Is not CREATION part of the development process? Bob created the names, backstories and bios for the charactaers. Those same items were used for both the comics and the cartoon. Are you saying that Bob isn't created as being a creative hand in the cartoon? I'm not saying that Bob animated the series, for crying out loud, i'm saying what he WROTE gave birth to both the comic and the cartoon.

And yes the had to be developed together. Marvel had their hands in both mediums. They used one to sell the other, with only minor differences because they didn't want one to contradict the other one. It's called marketing. Hitting different mediums with the same concept. Transormers toys, books, the cartoon, backpacks, Slurpee-cupsect.....

What your saying is as ludacris as someone saying ''Orci didn't develope the Michael Bay TF movie" simply because he wasn't on set. He wrote the darn thing, just like Bob did.

Even your own 'specialized' source, tf-wiki says:

Bob Budiansky was the writer of most of the Marvel US Transformers comic book series and the creator of much of the mythos, characters, and names behind the first several years of the franchise.

The ENTIRE franchise NOT just the comics! FYI the Franchise included the cartoon!

You need to watch the 86 movie more closly.

Durring the assult on Autobot city more then 3 Insecticons can be seen durring the battle.Watch closly they are in back ground shots.

Further more at least 1 of the Insecticons was seen on the planet of junk.Which means that they returned with in the movie and not in season 3 as you suggest.

And again you havent proven your point.

The movie is FULL of errors. Characters being in several different locations at one time, wrong coloring, etc; just listen to the dvd commentary. You bringing up multiple insecticons doesn't prove anything other than the fact that the animation supervisors sometimes had their heads up their rears ends!

You havent given me one reason to believe that Hasbro thought or intended them as new characters.

And again I ask you if he was intended to be a new character....explain the design simularities???

Unlike to TF toys that came be fore the movie Galvatron and most of the movie characters [except Ultra Magnus] did not come from a pre exsisting Takara toy line.

Galvatron and most or the other movie toys were designed for the movie bsased on what Hasbro wanted.

So tell me why Galvatron looks simular to Megatron if it was not intended?????

.....cause they wanted to keep the 'feel' of Megatron. They didn't want to make him vastly different from the popular selling Megtaron, just as they made the Ultra Magnus toy be accompanied by an all white Optimus Prime. They didn't want to stray too far away from the feel of the original leaders.

And you whole argument about them wanting to keep the plot of TF '86 movie a secret, starts to completely unravel if you'd actually bothered to read Rodimus Prime's tech specs; he's ranked as a '10'; as a LEADER. So if they wanted to keep things under raps, then they wouldn't give away Rodimus being the Autobot leader, but hide the fact that Galvatron is one. Very inconsistent don't you think? Fact is, Galvatron was intended to be a completely separate character and NOT the Decepticon leader; it was the writers of the movie that MADE him come from Megatron.

So now your saying that "if I'm a fan I should bow to popular opinion"?????

That I should believe what "MOST FANS" believe????

Thats rediculos.....I'm seeing what the evidence indicates.

And again it's not like I'm forcing you to agree with me.

You've pulled just about every debate trick from under the sun, and now claim you're not forcing me to take your OPINION as FACT?

Everyone is entitaled to their opinion.

And thats what the groups of people have is an opinion.

If you wasnt accurate info you got to go to the main offical source not a fan page that sites opinion.

And the main offical source says that there are more then one kind of combiner.

So there are NOW different KINDS of Combiners. Way to try to dig yourself outta the whole you've dug yourself into.

So educate me:

Which Combiner group does REFLECTOR fall under; and which does DEVASTATOR fall under. It can't be the same.

'IF' you knew that there were sub-groups of Combiners, then why not say that from the beginning? When i stated that 'Devastator is the original combiner', all you had do is mention that there are multiple combiner groups, ask me which group i was referring too when i said that, and then
waited for my response. It was YOU who grouped Reflector and Devastator in the same combiner group, which is completely ridiculous imo, thus why you replied that 'Reflector is the original combiner', and not Devastator....

That may be.....but its their creation....its their property....so its their right to do so.

Meddlesome suits!

And according to Hasbro the Micromaster combiners are "DUCKS" =combiners.

Thats your defintion [and others] of what a combiner is.....But its not Hasbros.

And they are the offical source.

I showed you time and time again how inconsistant Hasbro-'the source' is, even within their own archives.

The source is tainted.

I'm not criticizing your source....I'm just point out a fact and also saying that you should not rely on that source to support your argument.

I only used a simular source to show that their are fans that think the way I do.....but your useing Wiki for the baces for your intire argument.

NO i'm not. I've used several different sources like 'tfarchive.com' and 'tfu.info' as well as wiki, i just haven't been shoving it in your face like you have to me with your sources.

You dont have too.....Hasbro already has.

And the ripple effect of their mistake is apparent in this very debate.

So again for the countlees time you havent made one point in your argument other then your [and others] opinion.

Your entire argument is founded on your opinion and not 1 single fact.

That's a pretty bold statement considering i've given you multiple inconsistancies between the toy-verse, cartoon-verse and the comic-verse when it comes to TF characters; all are fact.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

It's not an excuse. Look a them yourself, you can't honestly say those things are legible..?.

I didnt think they were impossible to read but maybe they are.

Here you should see them now......



Combiners and other types of combiners

Headmasters and how they share aspects of combiner tech

Viewfinder [center part of Reflector] and how he uses combiner tech

As I said before these books were approved by Hasbro, written by Dreamwave comics,been adopted by IDW comics,have been in high demand by fans and are now being re-printed by IDW.

This should fit your request for a document with the word combiner used to describe Reflector.....

But I'm sure you'll find some way to deny them.

Nice turn around.

.

I havent turned anything around.



I did not use Wiki to make a point with the debate.

You used wiki, and criticized me for doing so. What and how you used it for is irrelevant.

.

Nonsence.When debating the tactic's and sources used are of the upmost importance.

Is not CREATION part of the development process? Bob created the names, backstories and bios for the charactaers. Those same items were used for both the comics and the cartoon. Are you saying that Bob isn't created as being a creative hand in the cartoon? I'm not saying that Bob animated the series, for crying out loud, i'm saying what he WROTE gave birth to both the comic and the cartoon.

.

I know how the prosses works....but that doent change what you said.



Your trying to change your original statement to fit the facts just to save face.



Nice try but just like the rest you failed to do so.

And yes the had to be developed together. Marvel had their hands in both mediums. They used one to sell the other, with only minor differences because they didn't want one to contradict the other one. It's called marketing. Hitting different mediums with the same concept. Transormers toys, books, the cartoon, backpacks, Slurpee-cupsect.....



What your saying is as ludacris as someone saying ''Orci didn't develope the Michael Bay TF movie" simply because he wasn't on set. He wrote the darn thing, just like Bob did.

.

Again your trying to twist the facts to save face.



The carttoon was based on Bob's writting but he did not develope the cartoon.



Bob Kane mave have created Batman [not getting into the Bill Finger debate] but Bob Kane had nothing to do with the Develpment of Batman Begins.



Same thing with the TF cartoon.The only difference is the amount of years that passed between the comic and the movie.



The G1 cartoon was developed useing Bob's work but he did not develope the cartoon or ever had any say in how the cartoon was developed.

Even your own 'specialized' source, tf-wiki says:



Bob Budiansky was the writer of most of the Marvel US Transformers comic book series and the creator of much of the mythos, characters, and names behind the first several years of the franchise.



The ENTIRE franchise NOT just the comics! FYI the Franchise included the cartoon!

.

And yet it does not say he worked to develop the cartoon.



You still havent made a point.

The movie is FULL of errors. Characters being in several different locations at one time, wrong coloring, etc; just listen to the dvd commentary. You bringing up multiple insecticons doesn't prove anything other than the fact that the animation supervisors sometimes had their heads up their rears ends!

.

It was you who brought up the Insecticons trying to prove a point....which you failed at again.



You said only 3 appeared....and you were wrong.

.....cause they wanted to keep the 'feel' of Megatron. They didn't want to make him vastly different from the popular selling Megtaron, just as they made the Ultra Magnus toy be accompanied by an all white Optimus Prime. They didn't want to stray too far away from the feel of the original leaders.



And you whole argument about them wanting to keep the plot of TF '86 movie a secret, starts to completely unravel if you'd actually bothered to read Rodimus Prime's tech specs; he's ranked as a '10'; as a LEADER. So if they wanted to keep things under raps, then they wouldn't give away Rodimus being the Autobot leader, but hide the fact that Galvatron is one. Very inconsistent don't you think?

.

That ones eazy to explain......It sliped by them.....There are a few examples of mistakes on the toy bios.

Most noteably the fact that "HOT ROD" is also ranked at 10, as a LEADER.

Or are you suggesting that he was the new leader before becoming Rodimus???

I'm guessing your geting your "tech spec" info from TFU....but they only have the original rankings on file.Not the corrected ones from the year 2 releases.

There are many such mistakes in the toy bios.

Look at Skywarp....he was originally given Starscreams stats [and vice versa] but was later correct.

This is not ment as an insult but you should widen your pool of info sources.

The info is out there if you look hard enough for it.

Fact is, Galvatron was intended to be a completely separate character and NOT the Decepticon leader; it was the writers of the movie that MADE him come from Megatron.

.

Again your siteing your opinion as fact.

You've pulled just about every debate trick from under the sun, and now claim you're not forcing me to take your OPINION as FACT?

.

I never told you that you had to agree with me.



It was you that pulled that.



I made astatement and backed it up.



So far you havent provided me with on solid fact.

So there are NOW different KINDS of Combiners. Way to try to dig yourself outta the whole you've dug yourself into.

.

I didnt say there were different kinds of combiners, Hasbo did.If you dont like it take it up with them.

So educate me:



Which Combiner group does REFLECTOR fall under; and which does DEVASTATOR fall under. It can't be the same.

.

Acording to the bio pages their are "Mental Combiners" which Devastator belongs too......and the other is not as definly catagorized other then to say it was a "less extream" type of combiner tech.

'IF' you knew that there were sub-groups of Combiners, then why not say that from the beginning?

.

My first statement was short and intended to provoke questions.



How ever you challenged me to back it up and when I did instead of asking me to explain my way of thinking you started a debate by saying I was wrong and you trew Wikis defintion of the term "combiner" in to try to rove your point.



And if you go over the many different post over the past few days I mentioned that there were different types of combiners a few times.

It was YOU who grouped Reflector and Devastator in the same combiner group, which is completely ridiculous imo, thus why you replied that 'Reflector is the original combiner', and not Devastator....

Sub-groups are still part of the over all group.So my point still stands.



Or are you saying that the Constructicons [sub-group] arent Decepticons [over all group]?????

I showed you time and time again how inconsistant Hasbro-'the source' is, even within their own archives.



The source is tainted.

.

NO i'm not. I've used several different sources like 'tfarchive.com' and 'tfu.info' as well as wiki, i just haven't been shoving it in your face like you have to me with your sources.

.

Correct me again....who threw up a source first......oh yeah that was you.And you used it to say I was wrong.



I havent shoved anything in your face.



But its good that you are useing some good resources.....but you need to widen your search habbits.



It looks like you find something that appears to help your case and you stop looking further.



For example did you know that Skywarp hadv two toy bio's written;



Originally his stat section was mis-printed and it was then corrected.



TFU only has one of the two listed.

And the ripple effect of their mistake is apparent in this very debate.

.

And if you had asked a question instead of trying to put someone down we wouldnt be having this debate.



And it was you that started the debate by saying I was wrong and suggesting I do some research.

That's a pretty bold statement considering i've given you multiple inconsistancies between the toy-verse, cartoon-verse and the comic-verse when it comes to TF characters; all are fact.

And what do the inconsistancies between the 3 prove????



Nothing at all.



The cartoon had some inconsistancies within its self and so did the comic.



Yes you have provided facts about the story and the character but your argument about what a "Combiner" is has only been based on your opinion.And your calling your opinion a fact.



The fact of the matter is Hasbro did say there are different kinds of combiners when the intruduced the Micromaster combiners.

You may not like that but it is a fact.

Your deffintion of a "Combiner" is only and opinion wether its shared by the masses does not change the "FACTS".

 

[Golgo-13]

Wow, who made this thread!?!

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Wow, who made this thread!?!

Ohhh you noticed it......should have seen that.

I got no idea who started it or moved our post here.

My guess it was a mod.

Might be pointless now.....

 

[Wolverini]

Wait ... wait wait wait. WHAT!?


You two *****es get a thread all for yourselves and then you decide to stop posting / arguing? WHAT!?

Keep the bickering in here.

 

[Golgo-13]

wait ... Wait wait wait. What!?


You two *****es get a thread all for yourselves and then you decide to stop posting / arguing? What!?

Keep the bickering in here.

Shut

Up

 

[Wolverini]

Thats what about 30 people tried to tell you in the other thread but you didnt listen. Why should I listen? Correct, I shouldn't.

 

[Hotwire]

Wait ... wait wait wait. WHAT!?


You two *****es get a thread all for yourselves and then you decide to stop posting / arguing? WHAT!?

Keep the bickering in here.

Actually, I started it for them this morning. But, for some reason it shows Golgo-13 as the thread starter. But, oh well.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Thats what about 30 people tried to tell you in the other thread but you didnt listen. Why should I listen? Correct, I shouldn't.

Dont make a bigger deal of it then it was.

30 people??????

 

[Golgo-13]

Thats what about 30 people tried to tell you in the other thread but you didnt listen. Why should I listen? Correct, I shouldn't.

Your such a drama queen.

 

[Wolverini]

Nah! I'm not a drama queen.

I'm a conversation killer. You two finally stopped *****ing at each other. Hooray for me!

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Nah! I'm not a drama queen.

I'm a conversation killer. You two finally stopped *****ing at each other. Hooray for me!

Must be the high point in your life

We settled it in pm....there's no reason to go on just to please you.

 

[Wolverini]

What POSSIBLY could be the reason for me to get a kick out of this?

Your mindless *****ing is over. Good. Keep it that way.

You settled this via a PM. Couldn't you have done that 30 posts back? Just an option really.

 

[Golgo-13]

What POSSIBLY could be the reason for me to get a kick out of this?

Your mindless *****ing is over. Good. Keep it that way.

You settled this via a PM. Couldn't you have done that 30 posts back? Just an option really.

Well we didn't realise that a debate about Transformers, on a board created for Transformers , would be so un-Transformers-like, to our fellow Transformers fans...

 

[Wolverini]

I never said you were discussing something NON-Transformers like. I just said it was getting out of hand with that wall-o-text **** you posted.


Keep discussing, nothing wrong with that.

Last post in here from me, otherwise ill be no different than you two.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I never said you were discussing something NON-Transformers like. I just said it was getting out of hand with that wall-o-text **** you posted.


Keep discussing, nothing wrong with that.

Last post in here from me, otherwise ill be no different than you two.

Enjoy