Talk:Buffalo MPV Decepticon

Buhwha? Merge?

Bonecrusher was decapitated. Onscreen, no less.--Rosicrucian^Talk 12:51, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

No body=not dead, apparently. He's alive on-screen. His body wasn't among those dumped in the ocean. Frenzy was decapitated too. Transformers are hard to really kill dead. See also Talk:Bonecrusher (Movie). - Starfield 12:57, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Frenzy is specifically noted as having a decentralized nervous system and numerous redundancies. His ability to survive dismemberment is fairly unique.--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:03, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Well scratch that part then. - Starfield 13:20, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Aside from Frenzy, decapitation/head destruction seems to be the best way to kill a Decepticon, as it's the method Optimus Prime uses 90% of the time. --Detour 15:41, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Having this page begs the question of whether or not to split all the other constructicons into multiple pages i.e. the red and yellow rampages. seems more sensible to just put a note on bonecrusher's page. Cliffjumper prime 12:54, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

not to mention "Mine-protected vehicle" could be replaced with a better name... sounds like it's covered in mines. Cliffjumper prime 12:56, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Bonecrusher isn't a Constructicon. Eire July 1 09 (UTC)

That's the technical term for the vehicle. There isn't a better name for it. It's a Buffalo mine-protected vehicle.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:56, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

regardless, I stand by my first statement. Making a separate page for this guy is the same as making a separate page for the red rampage. it's just not necessary. Cliffjumper prime 18:04, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

The wiki has no real problem with pages for minor characters even if they have no name. - Starfield 22:37, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

There is NO reason whatsover to assume that this guy is Bonecrusher from the first movie. I don't know if this warrants a page of its own, but it definitely DOES NOT belong on Bonecrusher's page. He hates that. 72.128.60.173 19:44, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Agreed. We have no indication that it is Bonecrusher and we know that Transformers of the same body appear in the movies (Constructicons, Grindor). However I'm not sure this really warrants a page. A small note on the ROTF page I think would be enough. --Bluestreak7 22:33, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

It's a little strong to say there is "no" indication it is Bonecrusher, but I see most everyone disagrees. I removed the merge tag. - Starfield 22:46, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Clearly there isn't a consensus on this. This article needs a note that this character may in fact be Bonecrusher, but we're covering him as a seperate character until there's some clarification. -Derik 22:54, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

And on the "does not deserve his own article" we have articles for TFs that are only mentioned by name once and have no other fictional appearance opther then being mentioned, and we even have an article about a TF that does not exist. So yea this guy here deserves his own page. Dead Metal 04:15, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

Personally I think ILM got lazy creating a new bot and just reused Bonecrusher. Wasn't Brawl's tank mode sighted aswell? 68.9.247.42 14:19, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Well yes, this is almost certainly what happened. It's just that in terms of Transformers fiction and the way the wiki operates, they've effectively created a new (albeit identical) character as a result.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:29, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Except for the tiny problem of Bonecrusher's body not being on the carrier at the end of the 2007 movie, which makes his possible survival at least semi-credible.

(It's a mess.) -Derik 16:52, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

One more thing, we include all the "Mixmasters", "Long Hauls", and "Rampages" on one page even though we know there are more than one of them and sometimes some of them are not explicitly named. So, even if he is not Bonecrusher (but I think he is) maybe we should have all the movie's "Bonecrushers" on one page like we have all of the "Mixmasters". Or maybe split up the "Mixmasters" as best we can. - Starfield 13:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

There's a difference here. All the Constructicons have at least one double, and that's presented in the same media they appear in. Bonecrusher was previously assumed to be a unique individual, and he died.--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:38, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

For the record, I was advocating a merge with Bonecrusher based on the wiki's stance on easter eggs. "Easter eggs are treated at face value unless it makes no sense to do so." At face-value, he is Bonecrusher. By any other standard, comic or whatnot, this would be clear. And since there is some sense to it, (his body wasn't dumped into the abyss and his character bios said he survived) it should be taken at face value. Bonecrusher is supposed to be Bay's favorite Transformer so this guy in ROTF was probably an easter egg. The Ironhide answer may complicate things, however. But how is an Autobot supposed to know for sure if he is an impostor? - Starfield 20:25, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Supposed kill count

Watching it again, it doesn't look like he's even firing at the Arcees. "Clonecrusher" here seems to be focussed entirely on Ironhide, while the bikes are fighting a Decepticon protoform. If you go frame by frame when the purple bike is hit, you see that the shot comes from the right, while you can see Clonecrusher peeking over the rooftops to the left.Carrion 15:48, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Almanac

The AllSpark Almanac II didn't have anything to say about this guy? :( - Starfield 15:33, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

DOTM appearance?

The page says that a Bonecrusher shows up to be one of the 'Cons Optimus whoops during his rampage in Chicago. While there is way too much asskicking in the scene I can't tell myself... can we get a screenshot of that just for clarification? 76.186.90.217 21:37, 4 January 2012 (EST)

There was no Bonecrusher clone in DOTM.--Carrion 01:20, 5 January 2012 (EST)

Shouldn't it be noted that Ironhide probably killed him?--24.69.64.254 18:36, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Some rearrangement may be needed

I know it's been more than ten years since everyone agreed to keep the ROTF Buffalo Decepticon as a separate character from Bonecrusher (based mostly on the lack of evidence that they were supposed to be the same character), but recent evidences suggest that Hasbro (or more specifically, the people currently involved with Transformers at Hasbro) may in fact see them as one and the same. Toy designer Sam Smith recently stated the following regarding his thought process behind the new "NEST Bonecrusher" toy: "While Bonecrusher does get defeated in the highway battle with Optimus Prime in movie 1, his character reappears in the desert battle of Revenge of the Fallen, so in some form of continuity, he is still around during the inception of the NEST program." [1] Now I know this quote is a little ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways, but it's safe to say that Bonecrusher's controversial cameo in ROTF influenced the creation of said toy. Another recent piece of evidence is Bonecrusher being labeled as a Revenge of the Fallen character in Forged to Fight, which I know is already mentioned as an "error" on his own page's notes, but may actually not have been an error at all given the most recent evidence, and may have been someone else's attempt at merging the Buffalos together. And before someone says I'm theorizing too much, on the contrary, I'm working with the actual information given by the game instead of assuming it's just an error.

So, based mostly on what Sam Smith said, I believe the current staff at Hasbro has decided to retcon the ROTF Buffalo into being Bonecrusher all along. They have made retcons to the movies before that were accepted by the wiki, such as declaring Skipjack was the yellow Bulldozer that appears in ROTF, and I don't think this is any different.

So what I think we should do is either:

1) Merge this entire page with Bonecrusher (Movie);

2) Merge most of it but leave the ancient Constructicon from Tales of the Fallen separate;

3) Keep both pages separate as they are but add a section to their notes explaining the whole situation in the same vein as "Blackout vs. Grindor" and "Who is Skipjack?".

I understand merging them may still be a stretch given the ambiguity of the new evidence, but I still firmly believe that we should at the very least implement the third option. Any thoughts? -- Fritz (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2022 (EDT)

If Bonecrushers are a model of construction drone/Constructicon as presented by Tales of the Fallen, we might simply be able to merge the two pages and say something like "Sometimes there are multiple of him" in the intro like we do on other Constructicon pages. Even if we don't go that route, the RotF stuff on this page should clearly be merged into Bonecrusher and this article can be retitled something along the lines of "Buffalo MPV Constructicon" or "Buffalo MPV construction drone". - Archforce (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2022 (EDT)

I am extremely unconvinced by the first bit of evidence; Hasbro designers saying random shit on their social media has literally never been a source for this wiki beyond stuff we put in notes, and we're not about to start now. There's no need to do this when we literally see Bonecrusher die in the first movie and our "evidence" is some mobile game nobody gives a shit about. Escargon (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2022 (EDT)

Sam Smith is the design manager on Studio Series, hardly a random designer saying shit on their social. This is another Skipjack situation, the only difference is that Skipjack was clarified in a Pulse blog post and Bonecrusher in the design lead's commentary on the figure they directly designed. And since when have we ever thrown out a source because people don't give a shit about it, this honestly feels like a biased position to take. Hasbro has been saying Bonecrusher survived the 07 movie since 2008, I don't see why we continue to say him living is an impossibility. - Archforce (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2022 (EDT)

The way we have Skipjack now is also inane and ridiculous. My point about the social media thing is that those sorts of outside sources have never really affected the way we talk about characters; we don't, for example, put the Universe 2008 Overload toy on the G1 Micromaster toy because someone at Hasbro confused them as that one instead of the Armada character in a fan Q&A. Jungle Bonecrusher is a micro-continuity, it has no impact on the film. It's not about biases, it's about what's actually important, and two multi million dollar movies are undeniably more important than a back of the packaging toy bio and a mobile game that half our articles don't even have any information on. Escargon (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2022 (EDT)

Trying to understand your perspective, what grievances do you have with he site's coverage of Skipjack? - Archforce (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2022 (EDT)

Yeah, I think at most we could use a note about it. A full subsection probably isn't necessary. --Riptide (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2022 (EDT)

As I said, I understand merging may be a bit too much for some, but I don't think we should ignore these attempts at retconing the character either, treating them as mistakes or people just saying whatever they want. An official game is a legit source of information and the word of a Hasbro employee should always be taken into consideration even if it is with a grain of salt. Lastly but not least, this probably won't be the last time we hear about this, so adding a cohesive note about "who said what" to these pages would help future-proofing any further confusion. -- Fritz (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2022 (EDT)

A note is one thing, but we do not need a whole sub-section about it. Escargon (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2022 (EDT)

If it's a confusing mess with conflicting information spanning multiple decades, I think it does deserve its own subsection. Do you also disagree with the subsections for ROTF Scrapmetal, ROTF Grindor, ROTF Devastator, ROTF Scorponok, G1 cartoon Cyclonus, Cyclonus's Armada, G1 Overbite and Primus?--Nevermore (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2022 (EDT)

This isn't a confusing mess. This is ILM reusing a model and then people using random things to create a bigger story than there really is. And half of those subsections don't really need to be that long either. Escargon (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (EDT)