Talk:Blades (G1)

Profile Art

This is kind of skirting the line for official art, but Jackpot's unused MTMTE Blades art is just so awesome. Can I? Can I?

(I wanted to use some of the Yaniger stuff of him from G2 #1, but none of it was unobscured enough by panel boundaries or dialogue to use as a profile pic....)

--ItsWalky 01:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it- Jackpot was PAID to produce that art, right? It's not fanart- it's production art- just stuff they decided not to use. I say yea.

Speaking of Yaniger art-- do you (or anyone) have the promo image of G2 Sideswipe used in the Marvel Age article hyping G2? I totally want it for his profile. -Derik 02:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(No Marvel Age art here, no. Though I think we try to stick to original bodies for profile images anyway, for the most part, though there can conceivably be exceptions, and I think there's at least one on this Wiki. And by "original bodies" I mean "the first we were exposed to," not "what they were born as." )

The reason I wanted to "ask permission" to you guys first is that we know Dreamwave paid him for it, but we're not sure if it's Hasbro-approved, which is the important half of the equation. We could look the other way for split-hair circumstances I guess. Also, while we're on the subject of permission, I should probably ask Jackpot if it's okay to yoink it, or one day he might show up on my doorstep and break my knees. Being an unused artpiece that he only has on his portfolio site makes it slightly less "public domain" than other official artpieces. --ItsWalky 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest to use anything from my site here. Hell, I've been thinking about putting some of my profile pics on articles, myself. But likewise I was unsure about the whole commissioned-but-unused deal. I guess if something was created in an official capacity and shows no signs of being contradictory to existing policy/canon, then I can't think of a good reason to exclude it, regardless of publication. Hasbro-published material should always be preferable, but...

Also, I don't know the details of why specific pictures were redone. My vague, half-remembered recollection of secondhand information is that the art-change as a whole was called by Hasbro. However, the form it took seemed to be handled by DW - specifically James McDonough, who was brought in as an art director to salvage the project. He had the freedom to keep me on board when he dropped most of the other artists, and some of my art that made it into the books WAS from before the switch-up. Big Shot, for instance, was a survivor. So Hasbro's disapproval didn't cover every single drawing, and perhaps never referred to individual drawings at all. The choice of whether or not to use Blades may have been Hasbro-dictated, but my gut instinct says it was actually McDonough's call, and if he'd decided to use it, Hasbro wouldn't have stopped him. Shrug.

(Incidentally, thanks for the kind words. Pat Lee also told me it was awesome. Your tastes are so similar!)

- Jackpot 21:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was an official commission, and the resulting piece was not rejected, then yes, I think it's official, just unpublished. The 3H TF mag includes pictures accepted for Genesis, but which did not make the final cut. That stuff was occicial, as I reckon it.-Derik 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If a piece was printed in a different official publication than it was intended, then it's obviously still official. That doesn't answer the question of whether something that was never published at all can still count on this Wiki. Moreover, you called out the notion of being "rejected," which certainly applies to the Blades pic. It's just a question of who rejected it. If it was paid for by a Hasbro licensee, accepted by the licensee, then later rejected by the same licensee, but it doesn't clearly contradict Hasbro policy or quality, then where does it fall?

For what it's worth, I have no ego-interest in this; it makes no emotional difference to me if my unused pics can be allowed on the Wiki or not. They just happen to be a very apt focal point for hammering out policy.

- Jackpot 23:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If this helps, we're actually using some of the MTMTE art by Don and Dan Khanna (specifically Fireflight and Fangry) that were not actually used in the books, but were released by Dreamwave as publicity pics back in early 2003. Since most sites didn't delete their Dreamwave news images, they're still all over the net. --FFN 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So... why didn't this ever happen? Jackpot's Blades art is awesome, and we do still need a main image for this page, and I think there's more enough of the TFU and published MTMTE art already up for the other Protectobots. Unfortunately, Blades' robot mode art is only shown at small size on Jackpot's site... -- Repowers 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion really resolved. Commissioned-but-rejected is a pretty grey area, as officiality goes. Also, the pic you saw on my site was probably just the smaller one for browsing. There's a bigger one too. (If you use it, you can edit out the signature and copyright. Just give me the standard credit in the description.) - Jackpot 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am on that like white on rice.

It is a gray area, but to date, nobody's voiced any serious objections. Rejected or not, it was done in an official capacity, and I think that puts it just this side of acceptability. Well, that plus general awesomeness. -- Repowers 18:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, if Jackpot was paid for it, then it's considered official art owned by Hasbro (or at least just something owned by Hasbro), if I understand correctly. --FFN 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Romanization of Japanese Name

I know this is a tiny detail, but the page lists this:

Japanese name: Graze (グレイズ, ga-re-i-zu)

"Ga-re-i-zu" would in fact be written as ガレイズ. The above would be romanized as "gu-re-i-zu" (and is how I suspect it should be). I don't have a reference as to which way it's written originally to know how to edit this though, so I'll let it stand until someone can find one. --Jyuu 08:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah; typo on the English part (it should always have been gu). The katakana itself is correct. --Monzo 09:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just attempted to verify and found a couple google refs to グレイズ in Japanese toy stores, but none for the other. *feels somewhat useful!* --Jyuu 09:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)