FANDOM


Optimus Prime's "Ice Age" Altmode?

In the first chapter of this series, we get two brief glimpses of Optimus Prime's robot mode, from the "Ice Age Wars" era that preceded the Transformers' big sleep until the 19th century. He has two curved protusions over his shoulders that look a bit like an elephant or mammoth's trunk, split in half lengthwise. He looks a smidge like Big Convoy, except that Big Convoy's trunk didn't split, it just came off entire. And yet, I could swear I've seen a toy whose robot mode had a split trunk like that. Can anyone else recall one? JW 17:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

BW Ironhide's (the elephant Magnaboss component) entire head split in half, including the trunk. - RolonBolon 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
He's a brachiosaurus. Guido Guidi says it himself here.--MCRG 04:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

New Continuity, or G1, or . . . ?

So, there are three ways we can handle articles related to Hearts of Steel:

  • The current way seems to be to add on to G1 articles, since HoS is kinda similar to G1. So, we have an "IDW 'Hearts of Steel' continuity" section in the Bumblebee (G1) article.
  • Or, since anything under the Evolutions banner is explicitly a new continuity, we could create new pages, with titles like "Bumblebee (HoS)" (or possibly "Bumblebee (E:HoS)" so all Evolutions are grouped together).
  • Or, third, since presumably there will be more Evolutions titles, and (also presumably) they will be all relatively small continuities, with short articles, we could create pages with titles like "Bumblebee (Evolutions)", with a "Hearts of Steel continuity" subheader, and put everything about every Evolutions variation of Bumblebee on that page.

The problem with the first option is that HoS is only kinda like G1. Future Evolutions series might be unlike anything we've seen, and unsuitable for categorizing as a sub-continuity of something else, requiring their own continuity. (For example, a future Evolutions might be a fantasy setting, where the Transformers are golems, and the lead characters are Optimus Primal, Hot Rod, and Hot Shot (Armada).) Plus, the G1 articles are long enough already.

The problem with the third option is that not every character or subject will appear in every Evolutions series, so the Bumblebee (Evolutions) page and a hypothetical Optimus Primal (Evolutions) page might have nothing in common except for both being "Evolutions".

So, I really prefer the second option, with the continuity marker being "(E:HoS)". The downside is a proliferation of new (and relatively short) pages, but, y'know, that's not a problem unless we decide it is. Opinions? JW 15:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer to wait until there's at least a second Evolutions miniseries to allow a basis for comparison. Once that happens, the choice should be clear.--Rosicrucian 15:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
That's absolutely fair and reasonable. But the eager fanboy in me wants to start doing HoS writeups now, and I would rather do them in the right place to begin with . . . but I can wait, if necessary. JW 15:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I'll let someone who's logged in more time on this wiki than me weigh in then. Has the next Evolutions series been announced so far?--Rosicrucian 15:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Not every new continuity gets a character page spin-off. We don't have Bumblebee (Marvel Comics) or Bumblebee (G1 cartoon) or Bumblebee (Find Your Fate). Hearts of Steel is just another G1 continuity, among several. --ItsWalky 15:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I point out that the G1 cartoon, Marvel comics, and Find Your Fate continuities have a lot more in common with each other than they do with HoS. I think the idea that HoS is a "G1 continuity" is at least slightly suspect, and contributes to the continuing bloat of the G1 pages.
Or, to put it another way, why shouldn't new continuities get new character pages? What's the benefit of cramming everything that looks vaguely like G1 onto a G1 page? JW 15:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
To my eyes, the only difference between HoS and the most vanilla G1 continuities is that the TFs fell asleep after crashing instead of during the crash, and then woke up again a little earlier. There is nothing else depicted to give us any reason to think things are different.
We shouldn't put every new continuity on a new page for two reasons. First, we would have a million zillion pages then and it would be unmanageable. Second, it is actually informative and useful to put similar incarnations of a single character on a single page. Your understanding of Bumblebee as a mythical/achetypal entity is greatly enhanced by seeing multiple portrayals all treated together in a single article.
That said, it is true that the fiction sections for some G1 characters are becoming a bit unwieldy due to the continual reboots and new additions to the G1 continuity family. We may at some point feel the need to split them up, if not systematically, then at least for the largest articles, sort of the way we have done with some characters' toy sections. If it comes to that, I would still not want to push each portrayal into its own article. For a systematic change, I would want to "clump" the continuities in some sensible way. For individual splittings, it would be based on length of the sections. So, most likely, it would be the G1 cartoon, Marvel comic, and possibly the Dreamwave comic sections heading out. Something small like Hearts of Steel would probably stay in the main article.
Lastly: It is possible, though in my opinion unlikely, that some Evolutions story will end up being so different than other stuff that it is essentially a new continuity family. If that happens, then probably we will just make new articles for those characters. And yes, more Evolutions is on the way. IDW has stated that they have many ideas and lots of talent in the queue for them.
--Steve-o 16:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
To my eyes, the only difference between HoS and the most vanilla G1 continuities is that the TFs fell asleep after crashing instead of during the crash, and then woke up again a little earlier.
I think that's overly simplistic. (It's also false on a detailed level, since Scourge is a member of the E:HoS Decepticons, and there's no sign of Unicron or Galvatron.)
Scourge and Cyclonus were members of Scorponok's Decepticons in the Marvel Comics, and there was no sign of Unicron or Galvatron. (This was later explained in the Marvel UK material, by way of, uh, time travel.) I don't think we want to count the Marvel Comics US stuff as not G1, do we? I mean, it was, you know, the first TF material. It's technically the G1est. --ItsWalky 19:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Analyzing "What fits into what continuity family" by the backstory events leads to all sorts of weirdness. (Especially given the "one Primus, one Unicron" idea, which means all continuities at their root have the same backstory.) I can argue just as well that Armada is the same as G1, except that the Mini-Cons changed things. Or that the Movie continuity is the same as G1, except that the All Spark cube was the focus of the war. Saying that the first few pages of E:HoS are kinda like G1, except for two (really important) differences, ignores the fact that the rest of the story doesn't look like G1.
Look at it this way: Which characters are more alike: Bumblebee (G1) and Bumblebee (E:HoS), or Optimus Prime (G1) and Optimus Prime (RiD, Armada, Movie, Animated)? All five Optimus Primes are the current, active leaders of the Autobots, are fighting their war in more-or-less the present day (of when the fiction was written), against Megatron, and all of them turn into big trucks.
Bumblebee (G1) is a subordinate to Optimus Prime, turns into a Volkswagen, and is active in the late 20th century. On the other hand, Bumblebee (E:HoS) is the de facto leader of the Autobots during the E:HoS series (though not de jure), turns into a locomotive, is active during the 19th century, and the opposing leader is Starscream. By an argument of "what looks similar", G1, Armada, Movie, and Animated are far more similar than G1 and E:HoS. JW 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Steve-o-- whe way to prevent bloat on the G1 articles is to use sub-articles.

But the reason we have them all in one article is so you can get an at-a-glance idea of how widely the character has appeared. And yeah, HoS is a G1 continuity. -Derik 17:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

HoS is a G1 continuity. I'm curious to hear your reasons for saying that. What makes it G1? What makes it more G1 than, say, the live movie? (This is meant in a genuinely-curious, non-hostile way.) JW 18:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
G1 is anything based directly on the toyline running from 1984-1992, or any new toys set in that continuity family. The entirety of HoS's Transformers cast is based on the first few years of Transformers toys, appearance-wise, character-wise, etc. Everyone seen was a 1984-1986 guy. The very conceit of the story was "what if the G1 Transformers woke up earlier?" The writer said he liked to think it could still fit into canon, though obviously he didn't know enough about Transformers to not realize there's more than one continuity, hence no singular canon, to begin with.
It IS more based on G1 than the live movie, though I still think of the movie as more G1 than most other continuity families. An argument can be made for it being its own separate entity, and an argument could be made that it's fairly G1. I like to think it should be separate, at least on this wiki, because it's such a huge, high-profile entity that very much seems to be a starting point all its own. It's cleaner. Making HoS its own continuity family isn't consistent with anything anywhere else here and it would make things much, much more complicated for no reason.
--ItsWalky 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I think it's slightly less 'G1' than the movie-- but I think the movie belongs int he G1 continuity family.
OTOH, since the movie is a 'base continuity' from with many variations spring, I think it makes sense to treat it like its own family too. I think the wiki will eventually, by consensus decide that the movie should be considered a major branch of the G1 family tree... but still keep the documentation mostly separate because the setting has some fairly fundamental difference.
HoS has G1 Scourge, and the Insecticons, and Rumble and Frenzy and frelling Squawkbox Characters that are only found in G1.
(Just wait for the fight about whether or not to place Animated in G1...) -Derik 20:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant the "E:HoS stuff should be filed under G1" point, for now, though it may bear revisiting after we see the future of Evolutions. JW 15:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(But if I should ever get to write TF comics, I'll be sure to throw in a few Sky-Bytes and Longviews next to my Bumblebees, just to mess with you guys.) JW 15:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Identifying characters

Hey, is that Tarantulas in the lower-left corner of p2 (the Ice Age Wars 2-page spread)? Who else has a head like that? JW 11:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're talking about. There's no good shot of any head in the lower-left corner, and the back of the head of the guy we do see doesn't look like Tarantulas to me. Guy in the bottom right corner is Soundwave, though. --ItsWalky 04:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Date

I'm the guy who came up with 1867 on Mark Twain's page based on stuff I read on the Internet. I was reading through some of his writings for the local paper and where he lived at what times, and I thought he was also in San Francisco in 1867, perhaps after he went to Europe or something. I did pick the date rather arbitrarily. Probably should have said so and written down my reasoning because I sure as hell can't remember now. --ItsWalky 04:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[shrug] As near as I can tell from skimming a few Twain bios, he didn't have a daughter until he lived in New York, so any date we pick is going to be wrong. 1867 is as good a choice as any. JW 13:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Original artist?

Shouldn't this page mention the dude who was originally tagged to do the art, whose name I forget at this moment? Preferably with that awesome concept piece he drew? --M Sipher 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ted McKeever. And yeah, we probably should. - RolonBolon 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.