Talk:Grindor (ROTF)

Background

Just out of curiosity, do any of the toy bios give an explanation on what Grindor's story is? -- SFH 12:27, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

No, it is just his personality. - Starfield 12:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Accuracy edit.

It has been confirmed that Blackout is dead, so I am deleting the part that says he might be Blackout.Homey 21:29, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Where was that confirmed? There's all kinds of back-and-forth on whether it was Grindor or Blackout. Here's Liam Shalloo claiming Roberto Orci has said it was supposed to be Blackout: http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=59821&view=findpost&p=1259230 ...I don't doubt the info, I just think we need to get some links to first-hand info that confirms one way or another, because I'm seeing a lot of arguing and people quoting credible sources without actually sourcing them. Lukeblast 10:23, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Grindor is the only one who is getting mainline toys, though. --FFN 10:29, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

And Barricade is a definite example that if Hasbro considered him alive, they would have reused him.--Rosicrucian^Talk 10:43, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah but what does the movie identify him as? Unless the end credits say something, I'm pretty sure he wasn't named at all. People not following the toyline would be forgiven for assuming it's Blackout. This comes under whether the movie is a seperate entity or considered connected to all the other materials. The Grinder toy is clearly Hasbro making some sense out of the movie (and scoring a new toy to boot) but the movie on its own doesn't explain who this is. Narrative convention (and I know that's kinda a bullshit term, but you know what I mean) makes it Blackout. Up to now, he's the only guy we've ever seen before that looks like that. No one else was introduced as a sepearte character.Riddlerj 14:53, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Don't forget that Grindor is a major playable character in the video games. --ItsWalky 14:52, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

When Dreamworks says Grindor's a misinformation name, i'm inclined to believe them.--86.87.28.191 17:03, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

When and where did "Dreamworks" say this? --KilMichaelMcC 17:05, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Hey, when an anonymous dude says anything with no source, I'm inclined to believe them! It's a failing of mine. --ItsWalky 17:32, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

That's more or less what I'm getting at. Even people who aren't anon are throwing around information that can go either way. Some are claiming it came from credible sources, but I've seen no actual proof of those. I have no reason to doubt anyone and no desire to prove anyone wrong; in this case, who is right is less important to me than showing your work. Like many people, the wiki is my go-to site for TF information, and I'm finding that even here, a side has been taken with no conclusive proof that I can see. I'm just asking that a link or quote or something gets dug up and added to this. Lukeblast 00:15, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Blackout is dead, and the guy in the movie is in Grindor's colors. --ItsWalky 00:29, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

What's the source for Blackout being dead? The first movie? Megatron was pretty dead too. What's the source for the guy in ROTF being Grindor? The toys? They aren't the movie (let's not forget that the toys also say Jazz and Bonecrusher are still alive). Aside from "Grindor" not standing still long enough for someone to really tell the difference in color between him and the nearly-identical guy from the previous movie, he's never named on-screen. The assumption that if Megatron was brought back, then so was Blackout is a likely one for the average moviegoer (and many fans) to make. Sam's Allspark fragment brought an entire kitchen to life and re-energized Jetfire. Why couldn't the much larger one used on Megatron have brought Blackout back as well? Not to keep harping the same point, but proof is a necessity. I'm seeing well-thought and logical arguments (and personally, I think it's Grindor too), but reasoned assumptions are not the same as sourced facts. Lukeblast 02:32, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

You can see Blackout's remains (in many peieces) among the wreckage to be disposed of on the deck of the aircraft carrier in the first movie.

The Decepticons had but one AllSpark fragment.

That's not Blackout in the ROTF movie. -Derik 00:35, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Once again, Megatron was also in pieces. No one has said that Allspark fragments can only be used once (in fact, Sam's was used twice). The argument that he could be Blackout was just as reasonable, which is why I kept harping on the necessity for a sourced statement. Thankfully, the recent Q&A has provided one. I'm gonna link it and remove all doubt... well, I'm sure someone out there will still insist differently, but Hasbro's word trumps fan stubbornness. 98.222.66.80 19:10, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

It's a common sense argument that anyone could easily accept.
Unfortunately, it's been my experience that Wikis have to take canon over common sense, so here's hoping Hasbro backs it up. -- SFH 12:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Here's something to think about... If it was Blackout, you would see him erupting from the water beside his master Megatron, like the Constructicons and Ravage did. He was never seen doing that. What do you all think?--AWT88 12:59, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Kind of speculatey. Nearly everything about Blackout's personality was established in secondary media like comics, and I... just don't think the screenwriters or Bay thought that long and hard about his motivations.--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:02, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Not to sound like I'm beating a dead horse, but this goes back to what I was mentioning earlier. Everyone is going to secondary sources such as the toys and books and Transformers previous incarnations to compute what, in the film itself, could be counted as actually film errors. A Blackout looking guy showing up even though he was dropped into the water last time. Multiple Constructicons. We can fannon it off that "yeah, there's probably multiple troops with the same body type" and "yeah, the toy says that's Grindor" but avarage movie goers don't know that. The movie doesn't state it, and the movie is, in many ways, considered a spliter timeline from the comics and toy lines and what not. It's its own continuity. 98.235.18.165 15:48, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Such is the nature of a constructed reality.

But is our own any less inconsistent, or any less artificial? -Derik 16:44, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

But many of the supposed 'errors' in both the 2007 and 2009 movies were explained in the original scripts, but the explanations were simply trimmed for time. Those things are not 'errors' or after-the-fact explanations... they are simply things that were always true which did not make it on-screen.

ROTF is messier, because it has a mix of things that do make sense if you go back to the original script (which in our case usually means the novel) and things for which explanations were created during-production by Hasbro or the game developers who were workign with the script and started adding to the events off-screen etc... and stuff that is being added after-the-fact to fix problems in the movie or simply fill 'holes.' ("Purple Motorcycle Autobot" seems to not have never had a name in the course of production. That's not really an error of any sort... it's just that the character's name, bio etc all got filled in later.)

Plus the problems with IDW's expanded continuity, which is always a bit messy.

So do we listen to Orci who says Arcee is a 3-body combiner? Or Hasbro who says it's 3 individuals, one of whom is Arcee? Does Orci lose his ability to pass judgment on what Arcee 'is' because the combining aspect was completely dropped from the film? "The picture of reality you are presenting is based on an early idea that was dropped. Justifying your picture of reality with the dropped idea invalidates it." -Derik 17:49, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Welker credits according to his site

According to Welker's official site, he voices Soundwave, Ravage (huh?), Devastator and Grindor (huh??). What do you guys think? Something to consider is Welker was credited for Reedman, but it's not mentioned on this site. --FFN 13:42, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

I'm not entirely convinced that that wasn't updated by someone who read on Wikipedia that Welker voiced Grindor (particularly since it prominently uses of the term "vocal effects", which is how I personally wrote the original sentence on Wikipedia that described Welker's audio efforts for the non-speakers). That is not to say, of course, that Welker did NOT do the effects for Gindor: small as they are, that "sheeagh" when Prime rips his head apart is total Welker. - Chris McFeely 16:45, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

I'd be willing to take it if we're looking for a justification to do away with this "we don't know who the helicopter in the movie is" nonesense (which really seems to a passive-aggressive form of ROTF butthurt) but McFeely is probably right. -Derik 17:35, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Accuracy edit pt 2

Firstly it was confirmed at the premere in tokyo, but you can see for yourselves now that it's out here. Secondly, don't hound people so much.Homey 16:21, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

In what manner was it confirmed? How is Tokyi specific tot his? Are you saying that the movie itself somehow confirms this? Was the character's name mentioned in press-releases or interviews for the movie? Did the Japanese dub credit him as Grindor?

Do you realize that your general hand-wave statement is terribly uninformative? -Derik 17:37, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Protect

I say we protect this site as it's being hit by some douchebag annon user.Dead Metal 12:57, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Jaw123 isn't an anon though. Apcog's given him a warning, so if he keeps edit warring, stricter action may be taken. --abates 17:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Accuracy edit part 3

Why are you all so fussy? And did any of you read the TFWiki.net Hasbro Q&A for July 2009 ? If you didn't, please do. Right now. And I won't keep wasting my time debating about this unless someone has a reliable source that says that Grindor is Blackout.Homey 20:49, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

How big is Grindor exactly?

Alright so Blackout was about 33 or so feet tall if the Movie Guide is to be believed, but Grindor is nearly one and a half times taller than Optimus (who is 28 feet tall) is. Well, a MH-53 Pavelow is 88 feet long, 25 feet high, and I'd say about 10 feet wide or so...A CH-53 super stallion is 99 1/2 feet long, 27 3/4 feet tall and I'd say, twelve feet wide? So Grindor can't be that much bigger than Blackout. And yet he is indeed significantly taller despite only having a bit more dimension from his vehicle mode...can someone with the ROTF scale guide answer this for me?

He is 33 Feet Because Grindor is Blackout resurrected! 77.86.81.52 12:49, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

He is not a resurrected Blackout, Grindor and Blackout are totally different characters--Metroplex 13:03, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Ok then why the tell does Grindor have rust on him then in the forest fight??? 77.86.81.52 15:54, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

That is a good point Grindor is pretty rusty in Revenge of the Fallen and rust only really shows when you have been in water, like what happend to Megatron. DOTM123 15:56, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

#1 You're going to have to prove that Grindor had different texturing than Blackout. Movieverse robots are notoriously dirty and battledamaged. You're also going to have to prove to me that Grindor's dirtiness is specifically rust, versus the same general wear-and-tear nearly every live-action Transformers robot has, and we don't really get many good, clear, and sharp looks at Grindor to really make out that sort of thing. I'm inclined to think the "he's got more rust than Blackout!" claim is kind of bullcrap.

#2 Things only rust if they've been submerged in water? That is super false.

#3 It was decided loooooong ago that Blackout isn't Grindor. It's going to take some real crazy-ass proof to shove the verdict the other direction. --ItsWalky 16:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Why is this such a long standing misunderstanding? There have been TFs that share body-types since day 1! Why should the movie-verse be any different? Particularly given the amount of time needed to make a new CGI rendering. As for the rust, maybe the 'copter he scanned was rusty. Remember, Bumblebee was pretty beat up and rusty as a 1976 Camaro. --Khajidha 16:35, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Grindor is very sensitive about his case of cosmic rust and wishes people would stop bringing it up on his talk page. --abates 17:00, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Blackout vs Grindor

Given how this misunderstanding keeps popping back up despite the multiple items related to it in the Notes sections, should we perhaps call a little more attention to it? I was thinking of a section that details where each name is used, under what circumstances and by whom. It would go on to explain that fiction that uses either name is covered on the relevant page (I don't know if there even is any fiction that uses Blackout in an ROTF setting) but fiction that does not specify is assumed to be Grindor per Hasbro's statement. This is basically the approach I used when making the gender subsection of Airrazor's page. Any feedback would be welcome. --Khajidha 08:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

I'm inclined to think that this is less a misconception and more a case of people wanting Blackout to not be dead (at the expense of Grindor, who's only really got any personality in the PS2 game), but I'm not opposed to it. It might be better served with an extensive writeup on the Misconceptions/Urban Legends page addressing things like the nonsensical claims by fake ILM employees mentioned on Blackout's Talk page and such. -LV 08:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

"Huge Russian Helicopter"

I just wanted to state, the aforementioned quote from the ROTF novel is false because the Super Stallion is an American built helicopter. Also, the founder of the company Sikorsky, which made the Stallion isn't Russian, he was a Ukrainian immigrant to the United States where started building choppers. So you couldn't even use the founder as an excuse. Skywarp Prime (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2019 (EDT)Skywarp Prime

I think you mean "erroneous", not "false". The novel actually calls him a "huge Russian helicopter". That is a fact. It does not match his design in toys or other media, so it could be an error. But it could just mean that in the particular universe represented by the novel he took on a Russian helicopter form instead of the Super Stallion mode he has in other universes. --Khajidha (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

Fair point. Skywarp Prime (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (EDT)Skywarp Prime

Also, whether Sikorsky was Russian or Ukrainian is a complex question with the answer depending on exactly what you mean by those two terms. As the sovereign state that he was born in was the Russian Empire, he was Russian by at least one definition. And according to reports of his own statements, he self-identified as Russian. --Khajidha (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

Studido Series

With an eBay listing, as well as a release in Australia today, should his Studio Series toy be listed here? T-Wrecks got listed before an official announcement once he got a retail release, should Grindor be the same?

Proof: https://news.tfw2005.com/2021/06/24/transformers-studio-series-ss-73-grindor-and-ss-86-07-slug-daniel-found-in-australia-436101

ApocalypseThruster (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2021 (EDT)

Yeah, the rule of thumb for this sort of thing is usually an official reveal or the first moment it appears on shelves. Since HasTak has still neglected to acknowledge the release of T-Wrecks, I'd say this is probably gonna end up being the same. Fanofcoolstuff27 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2021 (EDT)