Talk:Ruined FOREVER

Regarding deletion
I see no point to having this article. --KilMichaelMcC 07:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are 4 instances of Ruined Forever on this page alone. -Derik 07:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no point to having those, either. --KilMichaelMcC 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * JaAm has a page. 'Ruined Forever' is used ironically within the fandom- and this is clearly marked as a fandom article just like True fan is.  Ruined Forever is clearly more prominent than Dull surprise, though possibly not as widely as Neon.  (Which now that I look at it need its opening quote reformatted...)  My entire impetus for creating it was that Sntint made an ironic Ruined Forever joke on a talk page and I was like- "huh, why dont' we have a page for that?"  (Well, also I wanted to wash the bad tast of Don Murray out of my brain.)
 * Ruined Forever appears to rest comfortably within the range of existing articles on the Wiki, but I am content to allow others to decide. If a majority think it's not relevant to Transformers the article can be deleted, as always.  -Derik 07:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I say it's as relevant as Playskool, neon, and FIRRIB.
 * And Derik on the rebound to make me feel dumber. It's not enough that I misspelled my own screenname, he's also got to sign my posts for me.  Damn that Derik.  YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWN.  --Terrocon Blot 07:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote for keeping the page. As already stated, a number of other pages already exist to explain similar fandom colloquialisms. --Sntint 13:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see this article as explaining anything. It seems to exist purely to ridicule fandom behavior that we don't like, and thus I see no point to keeping it. --KilMichaelMcC 19:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to stay too. Where else would terms like Ruined FOREVER, Furmanism, and Chewed caramels be documented for all time, if not here?--Evil-yuusha 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do these fandom terms need to be ones that are famous/infamous, known or used widely? Then how about TFW2005's 'HE TELL ME' (in reference to that guy who claimed Peter Cullen was cast as RID Prime)? TFW2005 is probably the most prominent of the Transformers fan sites, as well as the one that Hasbro seems to unofficially prefer. I personally never even heard of 'dull surprise' until I read it on this wiki. --FFN 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor I. But I don't think we're just documenting memes-- each of these articles, Truk !Munky, Chewed caramels even JaAm are 'about' a belief/response/tendency in fandom- not just the phrase used to illustrate it.  Dull Surprise is a belief the masturbatory praise heaped on Superstar Funana was undeserved, JaAm is about the backlash against Dreamwave's style-over-sanity lack of visual storytelling, Truk not Monkey encompasses both knee-jerk hatred of BW and frustration about knee-jerks, and Chewed caramels seems to be about a desire that all TF toylines subscribe to some broad interpretation of G1's design aesthetic.  I doubt anyone put conscious thought into this, but the fandom-meme articles people found worthy of creating aren't just about the phrase- they're about phrases that expresses something larger about how fans relate to Transformers.
 * (I'm not familiar with 'HE TELL ME' and where it may fall with this.) -Derik 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think dull surprise is way too limited in use (basically just #wiigii! as far as I know) to really belong here, but Derik does sort of have a point about the article being about a little more than that. I also don't know "HE TELL ME" but it sounds like something worth considering -- claims of unnamed inside sources and all that.  --Steve-o 01:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, it was actually Peter Cullen as Armada Prime. The posts (being from 2002), no longer exists, but fortunately blitz_64 managed to save the posts for posterity The Saga of HE TELL ME and GoOP.


 * Actually, Steve-o, I'd say "Secret Inside Sources" would be a more appropriate meme/article to describe that last one. Having never heard of "HE TELL ME", and seeing that few others apparently have either, I'm not sure it's as much a meme as "Secret Inside Sources" is.--G.B. Blackrock 13:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Around the same period, I recall some other idiot who claimed to be a Hasbro photographer and described crazy things like the Mini-Cons becoming body armour and Prime's minicon transforming into his Matrix. These claims, while totally false, were important because they apparently spurred Aaron to emerge as ORSON and totally destroy that other dude, IIRC. --FFN 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember that quite vividly indeed. The guy who claimed to be the photographer actually revealed himself over at the Allspark this year, actually.  Oh yeah, and I think the animu thing was 4Chan leakage .--MCRG 05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Usage
Has "ruined forever" ever been used seriously by fans? While it describes a real and annoying sentiment, I'm not sure I like basing an article on a phrase that was sarcastic in the first place. Interrobang 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded. -Rotty 18:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure something very similar, at least, has been used. But regardless, you say that it describes a real sentiment, so, what's the problem?  Can you recommend a better title for the article?  Or are you saying the article shouldn't exist at all?  --Steve-o 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my vote is for not existing at all. --KilMichaelMcC 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I (and a number of others) used to think "Rapeing my childood" was only used for sarcastic reasons. Then I read the thread on the promo poster for Transformers Animated, which had a number or people using the seriously. --FortMax 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Has Trukk not Munky ever been used in a non Ironic/Sarcastic way? It's still a catchphrase used by the fandom, as is this. Both rate articles under the fandom category, IMo.--ZacWilliam 20:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The scream your head off in outraged panic / call for mass-firings or send death threats over something that has/will ruin/ed TF behavior of this article certainly was in evidence during Beast Machines- and I think the "sky is falling" aspect is amply evidenced by the sheer number of times fans have declared TF ruined forever. (And, clearly, been wrong every time, or every time but 1 depending on your belief system.)
 * If you have some other title you'd prefer for this article like 'Clicken-Little Syndrome' by all means propose it and see what people think, but the article speaks to a genuine (and highly mockable) aspect of fandom psychology.
 * And frankly, while the behavior itself is worthy of ridicule, the reason for it- an exaggerated concern for the health and future of the brand- is actually kinda endearing and speaks well of fans. At least their hearts are in the right place. -Derik 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Dini
I think accusing the fandom of saying the art style of Paul Dini the writer being used for Animated will "RUIN TRANSFORMERS FOREVER" is making the article simply too mean-spirited. I've never seen any individual display the idiocy we're accusing the fandom of with that line. -Rotty 05:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have. Scary, scary stuff.

Also, the last line of the entry seems to cut a little into the humor by overexplaining. Replace it with a "general hasbro idiocy" linking to "transformers" or somesuch?

Marked for deletion.
This is getting out of hand.

This page has become the epicenter of an edit war that has gone on for nearly a week now. As of the time of this writing, only six other pages link to this article. While I fully support the light tone of Teletraan I, and I understand that some explanation of aspects of the fandom complete the Wiki, I believe this particular article and debate at this point only detracts from the issue.

I DO agree that it was biased in the form in which it existed before our anonymous editor "friend" decided to change it, but I do not think that matters any longer. This article does not add anything inherently positive to the wiki, indeed, it does not chronicle anything positive or negative about Transformers itself at all. Its relation to Transformers is tangential at best.

By deleting this, we would not lose anything except the beginnings of what appear to be the modern equivalent of a Usenet flamewar. Deleting it, I believe, can only benefit Teletraan I. --Sntint 12:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I whole-heartedly agree. Detour 12:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I didn't feel this article was necessary, and I still don't. I agree that the fandom is full of idiots who never bothered to grow up after 1986, but our mockery of them doesn't belong in the wiki. Not to say that Mister "integrity of the characters" is right, though. Interrobang 12:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm putting in a vote for keeping it. It's a fun article to read, and it speaks a lot of truth in it's wonderfully snarky way.--Gouki 12:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Snarkyness can be fun but this article is just pushing it, IMO. Detour 12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay, it's funny. Also, if you delete it then the terrorists win.
 * I would keep it. I think it describes a real sentiment, that needs to be pointed out as overblown.  JW 13:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit war was only between registered users and a single unregistered dude. I've fixed things, at least for the moment, by protecting the page from unregistered editors. If you're gonna get in a pissy editing war, we'd damn well better know who you are. --ItsWalky 14:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Our anonymous friend is from the Netherlands, if anybody cares. Interrobang 14:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This "Ruined FOREVER" article is stupid and don't make any sense. Its just shit


 * Seafood Louis. -Derik 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the opinion of an anon means anything, but I think this article is freaking hilarious. I was talking with a friend about TF:Animated and he said that the girl with the transforming bike 'ruined it permanently' so I linked him this article. He laughed and said, 'ok, well maybe I'm over-reacting.'

I think the article is funny and provides valuable perspective.
 * Well said, citizen. JW 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you've cancelled out the other anon from earlier, at any rate. And yeah, I agree with your assessment of it.--Andrusi 22:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Same --Chiasaur11

I happen to think this article is incredibly useful in charting the tendency for all fans everywhere (but especially TF fans) to react in comical and hyperbolic ways. I think the breadth of what people determine can/has ruined TF forever automatically makes the article an amusing and insightful look for the novice fan into the fandom's reactionary past.

Indeed, I actually have shown this article to people just coming back (or getting into) TF. It's inspired about as many laughs as it has genuine curiosity as to what the fandom and franchise are like as entities. Isn't that the idea of this wiki? I would think reference materials as to the history of the fandom, good and bad, are always a boon.

(and that aside, I just think it's really, really funny)

.... Aaaaaaand I had to go and screw up. Bah. That's me above. --Cmdr Crayfish 10:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line?
How do we stop this from becoming just a giant list of everything that anyone has ever expressed any dislike for ever? Why, for instance, is The Beast Within in there? Or Gonzo (which I thought was generally accepted as at least better than We've, even if not as good at Mainframe)? - Jackpot 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've kinda been watching this list grow with some mild irritation- it went from about 1 item for every 2 years to twice that in fairly short order, and that bothers me.
 * I've sorta resolved to edit the list down this October, pruning it (so to speak) with some opportunity for people to say what should stay and what should go.
 * The Beast Within has to stay though- at the very least it ruined the Dinobots forever- now whenever George Rodd brings up combiner Dinobots we have to grudgingly admit they're canon. Also, it was the reason for the article's creation in the first place. -Derik 18:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why wait? If we want this to be a list of developments that prompted widespread fury that lingered for years, we can shorten it to "Actionmasters, BW, BM, Armada, Hallit, and Bay," and perhaps a few others, right now.  Then a "Trivia" note saying that The Beast Within really DID ruin Transformers, or at least Dinobots, forever.  Just a thought... but yeah, having every single series in there dilutes the point.  --Thylacine 2000 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem is, how do you decide what deserves to be listed as ruining TF forever, if none of it really did in the first place. I've seen just about everything listed there used as an example of why ____ TF series/movie/toyline will fail--Carrion 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Thy, I'd append your list with a general "*-masters" thing, as a lot of armchair CEOs claim that the entire -master trend killed the line, not the fact that it had, you know, run its course. -hx 14:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just basically agree with Thy and Hoop that whatever's listed here should have a certain "endurance" as a scapegoat. The turnaround of opinion on Animated was what, two weeks? "* Masters" certainly counts, as should Pretenders. --M Sipher 14:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What, a simple a Google newsgroup search for |"killed transformers" ain't enough? /:] -- Repowers 05:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt I'd get objections if I added it, but I'd like to throw it by the community: Should we readd Kiss Players? -- SFH 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I really think Animated should stay in there, if only because it's such a dramatic departure. Turn around was fast, but the initial reaction was strong. I mean, for the first time in fifteen years of being a fan, I actually found myself muttering "My god... they've finally done it. It's ruined..." --70.190.251.10 05:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

beast wars didnt reuin tf beast machines sorta did but it was still quite good ,if u ignore some minor things - Unsigned post by 80.6.180.141
 * You're missing the point of the article, then. The point is that every time something new comes along, the fandom screams about how it will ruin Transformers forever, when in reality it's usually the opposite. -- Dark T Zeratul 22:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Last Deletion Locked in?
Spotted a couple of points on the list removed by someone who seems to like deleting stuff just because, but when I tried to restore the page, it was already locked. Were his edits accepted, then?--Apcog 15:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two facets to this. First, without occasional pruning, the list in this article tends to grow, and grow, and grow.  Every now and then, someone has to come along and cut it back.  Since this is a wiki, the question of what gets cut is made by the person willing to do the cutting.
 * The second facet is that the items cut were in fact less core to the "ruined forever" concept. "Runined forever" is a cry that springs up whenever something new is added to the Transformers brand by HasTak, and it happens every single time.  Thus, the fans can't ruin TF forver, because they don't add new canon.  And, while HasTak can ruin TF forever, it's because they're the only ones who can do so.  I.e., one of the cut items was in error, and one was redundant.  JW 15:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I suppose. It was a combination of both the deletions and the person who committed them that made me question their validity.--Apcog 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yah, user Teletraan is not exactly a primo contributor. Still, this particular edit seems (at minimum) defensible.  JW 17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe link
I've never, ever been interested in MOTU, so I have no idea what was the cause of the revamp line's failure, but given the extreme slant of the article, I can only assume it failed because it concentrated on collectors rather than kids. If so, why does it link to a Wikipedia article that cites Mattel's "excessive focus on attempting to mass-market the line to a new generation of children rather than focusing on a safer collector-based approach" as the reason for the line's failure? Am I missing something or does that sound like the line tanked because it focused on selling toys to kids rather than what this article is railing against? --FFN 11:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess who wrote the Wikipedia article. (Hint: It wasn't kids.) -hx 12:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact is the line failed, no one can say *exactly* why. There are reasons for both oppinions.


 * Fact: The line DID court fans rather than kids in many ways. It didn't reinvent the boat but took the exact looks, exact characters, and in some cases even exact stories the fans clamored for and did them again, only better, prettier, smarter, and more "realisticly". In that respect it was pretty much EXACTLY what older fans of '80s properties clamor for, and said fans generally loved it. But for whatever reason it never caught on with actual kids in the way the simple, campy, primitive, bowlegged original did. So some see that and blame the line's failure on the older fan mentality.


 * Also Fact: Mattel tried to sell the toyline the way they had Batman. I.E. A million goofy variations on He-man and Skelator (and one or two others) and everyone else was almost impossible to find or didn't get a figure at all. This was very much NOT what collectors wanted. Many blame it for the line's failure at retail, arguing that part of what made the original a hit where the huge variety of strange and different warriors and monsters that Mattel had left out this time in favor of flooding the shelves with He-man repaints and ill-concieved alterations (The entire wave of "samori repaints on stilts" is often pointed to, but are only one of many examples.) Some see this and blame an ill-concieved inapropriate retail stratagy aimed at marketing to kids having crippled the line's retail appeal.


 * Personally I think there's some truth to BOTH. For whatever reason (timing, approach, luck,) the older fan oriented cartoon never clicked with the kiddies, AND the Batman-style retail stratagy was a bad choice for a MOTU type toyline. --ZacWilliam 14:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was the feeling I got, that is there is no clear cut side to 'blame', and in this case, I think we should ditch the Masters of the Universe link, given the information there contradicts the slant of this article, and in any case it's not a clear cut case of 'it's all the collectors fault'. --FFN 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm, there's some legitimate thought there... but it ruins the G.I. Joe comparison. (Why catering to adult collectors and abandoning attempts at reinvention is a losing strategy in the long run necause ther old dudes die off and uyou're not bringing new fans in.)
 * For what it's worth, I meant from design and marketing- I agree that the actual toyline was schitzophrenic- alternating between a slavish adherence to the original designs and case assortments aimed at kida who weren't watching the cartoon.-Derik 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea - how about one of you guys (who actually know about MOTU) edit the wikipedia article so it's more balanced, so we don't end up looking like idiots in this article? --FFN 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that even in today's environment, the military has some pull to kids. Not so much the gay, gay fur-bikini barbarians. Sword-and-sorcery has some appeal nowadays, but mostly when it's very Japanesey kids-anime-style. (One could also note that the "big" Joe revival frankly isn't very big. It's pretty damn low-key, really, where He-Man was some major-league THIS WILL BE BIG!!! Lower expectations = greater chance of meeting and exceeding them.) --M Sipher 17:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd also imagine that production costs on the 25th anniversary Joe figs are pretty darn reasonable on Hasbro's bookkeeping. They've done similar lines for Star Wars for decades, so they know what they're doing.--RosicrucianTalk 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really annoyed that the GI Joe 25th line isn't available here, because Hasbro AU's last attempt to revive GI Joe in Australia totally tanked. If you can believe it, Toys R Us stores here languished under piles of unsold Cobra Trooper 6-packs, which, as I've read in forums, collectors were fighting over. They're not on pegs anymore, so I guess they've been shredded or incinerated by now.--FFN 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So have we decided on this link yet? The Wikipedia link still contradicts the snarky joke link of this article. --FFN 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's always going to, because there will always, always be enough people who are going to make sure that the bullshit boogeyman "CASE RATIOS!! CASE RATIOS!!! KIDS WANTED ALL THOSE OBSCURE ONE-EPISODE GUYS AND USELESS MINOR VILLANS!!!!!" (while patently ignoring the fact that if you can't sell your two primary characters in the line, maybe there's something wrong with your franchise, not case ratios... it'd be like if a Batman line couldn't sell toys of Batman) is squarely blamed for MOTU's failure. Frankly, I'd say just add a note to OUR article saying "ignore the bullshit about case ratios. Kids just didn't want a line about a boring gay man in a fur bikini." --M Sipher 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignoring your general disdain for He-man here, and even the whole case ratio issue, the fact remains that saying (as our snark does) that the newer He-man line "catered exclusively to older collectors" and that this caused its failure is both unprovable, AND very widely disputed. I'd say we should remove the link on those issues alone. --ZacWilliam 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (-Edit: On a side-note, given the apparent success of the 25th ann. line and the coming movie, the critical G.I.Joe link in there may soon be meaninglessly out of date as well...)


 * And this is my point - we'll start looking like idiots who can't even get our facts or jokes straight if we insist on keeping these links. --FFN 08:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see Zac's point- but I think he's reacting to something that's not in the article. We're holding the MOTU reboot as an example of a line that abandoned all attempt at reinvention.  Since there was not reinvention in the reboot line, at all, this should not be up for dispute.
 * We do not say that this is why the line failed. It probably was, but we don't say that.  We merely hold it up as an apporach that's probably unhealthy for Transformers to follow.
 * So to be really blunt-- I don't care what whiny fanboys may have edited Wikipedia to say in support of their view that the line was perfect and viable the way it was. A) That's masturbatory.  B) It's not what this article is talking about, so it's simply not relevant. -Derik 14:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But it says 'cater exclusively to the old-school collectors', which the line evidently did not do. In which case, regardless of if we are holding up as an approach that TF should not follow, it's not a good example in the context of the very joke-link, especially if it sends the reader to an article that disputes the joke. --FFN 14:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In this context, that 'catering' refers to design, not case assortments. We're discussing reinvention.  One does not 'reinvent' case assortments!  And in terms of designs, characters etc... MOTU did cater. -Derik 14:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)