FANDOM


RiD

Robots in Disguise is not really a "continuity family" in the technical sense of the term as, to my knowledge, there's only one RID continuity. The one comic it got was also placed in its animated continuity, and all of the uses of its characters in Universe and the Fan Club Cybertron comic are also sprung from the cartoon's universe. How should we address that here? --ItsWalky 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuity orphan? Vagabond? Widower? Bachelor?
In all seriousness, though, I think just plain "continuity" works well enough to distinguish it from the continuity families of G1 and UT. - Dark T Zeratul 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So, hey! Car Robots is retconned to be in G1 continuity in Japan, while Robots in Disguise remains its own! Eeep! We need to do some fixing here... --ItsWalky 00:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In what cracked-out world do you conclude that RiD, which made constant references to the G1 'toon continuity conflicts with Japan putting CR in G1 'toon continuity? -Derik 00:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The real one! --ItsWalky 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, you win that one, I have to admit the real world is pretty cracked-out. -Derik 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Go-bots

Are we sure the Go-Bots aren't in BW continuity? I mean- Wreckers #4 and all. ( I know, non-published material does not count...) -Derik 19:09, 17 October 2006 (PDT)
Pretty fucking damn sure, Derik. --ItsWalky 02:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It does seem like Hasbro might have flirted with the idea of making it BW/BM based given how many clear design references there were in the early designs, but it's definately its own thing/continuity as it was created. Look at the Wreckers thing as an Easter egg, like Cy-kill being in WWI ZacWilliam 02:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Where do you get information about Wreckers #4? I'd really like to know. The little bit here makes it seem like not much was known. Thanks! --Crockalley 03:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
At some point, Guido Guidi, Wreckers #4's artist, auctioned off the first four pages when 3H died, so we've got scans of those floating around. --ItsWalky 03:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


2007 Movie

We're considering the movie and all it's attended stuff it's own new continuity family yes/no? I mean there's a lot of G1 influence but it's also it's own thing (which you could say about every cf really). Just wondering if this page needed updating. --ZacWilliam 11:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's its own entity. - Dark T Zeratul 12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Making things up

I'm not at all comfortable with us declaring that Transformers Animated, which won't have any fiction until next year, is a family of incompatible continuities. What would be wrong with calling it, RiD, and Go-Go-Gobots simply "continuities", more accurately reflecting the data at hand instead of making things up? -Rotty 19:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Are you saying that a lone continuity can't be referred to as a "family"? I disagree with that, but regardless, RID and Go-Bots are not necessarily singular continuities anyway (tech specs, Dreamwave Summer Special, Car Robots, Complete Go-Bots Power!, etc.), and I think it is pretty much a given that Animated won't be either. --Steve-o 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Believing that it's "making things up" to assume Animated won't be a singular entity with no contradictiong peripherals, the absolute first of its kind amongst Transformers franchises, is kind of like being doubtful the Sun will rise tomorrow. --ItsWalky 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm half-expecting a comic book out of this. Whether or not it's through IDW... debatable. CN may negotiate to have it in with their stable of cartoon comics like Teen Titans Go! and the like. --M Sipher 21:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Except it wouldn't be the first of its kind at all, Walky. The Dreamwave Summer Special story and non-show character tech specs for RiD were all set within the cartoon's universe. I don't know where you're finding multiple incompatible continuities. -Rotty 21:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Read our Continuity article again. You can't say FOR SURE that the Summer Special and the toy bios are the same continuity as the show. Sure there's no reason to believe they aren't, but there's ALSO no reason to believe they are. What about the all the RiD and alternate RiD stuff brought into Universe as well, there's a LOT there that may not be incontinuity with the show. And of course Car Robots, which is VERY MUCH a different continuity from RiD but still part of its Continuity Family.--ZacWilliam 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
IMO, the non-show characters in RID are definitely not part of the cartoon's continuity. I really got the impression from that series that we were seeing all the Transformers that were on Earth participating. The toys claim those other characters were there too, and that, to me, means they are in a slightly different continuity. --Steve-o 22:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Technically Walky, I think RiD is a singular continuity with no contradictory peripherals, unless you consider the simple existence of non-show characters in the toyline a contradiction. The E-hobby Spychangers packet, TFU/Revelations all seem to take place after the anime ended, but within anime continuity. -Derik 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I may have to respectfully disagree. Even if you decided against all that stuff being seperate, and ignored all the Universe stuff, AND ignored the "Continuity Uncertanty Principle" as described in our Cont. article, all of wich make it a "family," you still have Car Robots. I know what you might say, that Japan now considers it part of G1. That doesn't matter. There's no reason IMO that a continuity can't be part of two families. like in a Venn diagram. And if the idea of "continuity families" is to have any validity at all, RiD and CR must be considered part of the same family, as they are, by definition, slight variations on each other. --ZacWilliam 05:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Quibbles

Can we just edit the IDW section of this to say "Pacifist Prime doesn't think it's G1" and be done with it? I'm pretty sure he's the only one who has ever quibbled this, and I'm not sure why a single editor gets to dictate so much, especially since half the problems he has with it are present in other versions of G1, or are completely arbitrary. --ItsWalky 04:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. --M Sipher 04:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.