Talk:Hasbro Q&A/May 2009: Answers
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Huh.
[edit]Wow. I have learned nothing. That was like: "Joke." "Misunderstanding." "No." - Chris McFeely 17:40, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- That's PR company polished answers for you. They polish it until all information is scrubbed out. *thumbs up* --FFN 17:43, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Well, we learned that whoever said there was going to be a second wave of the CCG but it was canceled before it was announced was full of fucking shit, so there's that. (Although, if I'm not mistaken about where that info came from, we already KNEW that...) Hooper_X 17:47, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Can we snark about these answers on our front page announcement of the Q&A? Perhaps something about inviting people to be bewildered and mystified. --FFN 17:50, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Sure, let's throw the whole thing back in Hasbro's face, despite the fact that Monzo worked for a couple weeks to even get us on the Q&A list in the first place. That seems like a logical and rational thing to do. Maybe next time we ask questions that are more likely to get a less-canned response. We've learned by now that questions about future product are pretty much pointless, questions about specific aspects of the manufacturing process or the relationship with retailers are pointless, and that no, they won't tell you where Aaron Archer lives. However, they seem to be more than willing to answer questions about current product, past product where possible, and to generally provide some degree of insight into the design stages of the process. So we tailor our questions accordingly. Hooper_X 17:57, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- When Hooper of all people is telling you not to snark, you'd best listen.--RosicrucianTalk 17:58, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Hey dude, it was a joke. *rolls eyes* --FFN 18:07, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- I'm just saying. Twenty fucking sites ask three questions a pop; even if 90 percent of them come back with canned PR responses, that still leaves 10% useful info, which is kind of the point of the thing in the first place. There's a lot of chaff to sort through, but it's still better than nothing at all (or only getting to ask once a year at BotCon, when there's one or two viable questions trapped around 500 WHEN YOU MAEK NEW SKYYGARY and shit like that, and you'd never get an answer to something like the CCG question, because they couldn't do the necessary legwork) Hooper_X 18:14, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- And just because this round was not particularly useful does not mean that some future round will not be. If the questions asked are sideways of useful, so be it. -Derik 18:51, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- This kind of thing is exactly what those of us at TFViews are always going through. The GI Joe fansites got to do Q&As ages before we did, and I watched a *lot* of them make really stupid mistakes with it. A lot of them still do it (HALP PLZ MAKE NEW AIRBORNE I LOVE AIRBORNE) and, on top of that, buttloads of them ask the 'same damned questions as other sites.' Onslaught Six 18:55, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- You'd be surprised at some non-answers. Last round I asked a question in regards to GIJoe figures that in 1997 were retooled to hinder articulation and I got back this weird comment about how they had to be retooled to preserve articulation... --Detour 21:50, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- This kind of thing is exactly what those of us at TFViews are always going through. The GI Joe fansites got to do Q&As ages before we did, and I watched a *lot* of them make really stupid mistakes with it. A lot of them still do it (HALP PLZ MAKE NEW AIRBORNE I LOVE AIRBORNE) and, on top of that, buttloads of them ask the 'same damned questions as other sites.' Onslaught Six 18:55, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- And just because this round was not particularly useful does not mean that some future round will not be. If the questions asked are sideways of useful, so be it. -Derik 18:51, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- I'm just saying. Twenty fucking sites ask three questions a pop; even if 90 percent of them come back with canned PR responses, that still leaves 10% useful info, which is kind of the point of the thing in the first place. There's a lot of chaff to sort through, but it's still better than nothing at all (or only getting to ask once a year at BotCon, when there's one or two viable questions trapped around 500 WHEN YOU MAEK NEW SKYYGARY and shit like that, and you'd never get an answer to something like the CCG question, because they couldn't do the necessary legwork) Hooper_X 18:14, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Sure, let's throw the whole thing back in Hasbro's face, despite the fact that Monzo worked for a couple weeks to even get us on the Q&A list in the first place. That seems like a logical and rational thing to do. Maybe next time we ask questions that are more likely to get a less-canned response. We've learned by now that questions about future product are pretty much pointless, questions about specific aspects of the manufacturing process or the relationship with retailers are pointless, and that no, they won't tell you where Aaron Archer lives. However, they seem to be more than willing to answer questions about current product, past product where possible, and to generally provide some degree of insight into the design stages of the process. So we tailor our questions accordingly. Hooper_X 17:57, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Can we snark about these answers on our front page announcement of the Q&A? Perhaps something about inviting people to be bewildered and mystified. --FFN 17:50, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Well, we learned that whoever said there was going to be a second wave of the CCG but it was canceled before it was announced was full of fucking shit, so there's that. (Although, if I'm not mistaken about where that info came from, we already KNEW that...) Hooper_X 17:47, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Looking at the TFViews Q&A though, the answers boil down to:
- "Leader Optimus Prime is awesome!" with an implied side of "Buy it!" (there was an interview with the Takara guys who actually engineer all these toys that was translated by someone at TFW2005 not too long ago and gave a lot more insight into that one, although I don't have the link to hand. Because Takara does the engineering, I'm not even sure that the Hasbro design team is competent to answer that question)
- A straight answer for once, but it's the answer that - given the pattern of blastification from around the time that change happened - had generally been surmised already
- Again, a mostly straight answer, but a shallow one which I'm not sure tells us anything we don't already know (Retailer wants, say, a deluxe-class tank; Hasbro look at the deluxe tank moulds they have handy, then at what characters/colour schemes are likely to sell - with a glance at what trademarks they have/want to renew, of course), and I doubt a more detailed answer would pass the lawyers
- I agree that TFViews did better than the wiki's questions in that they got two answers - the questions picked here were pretty damn poor, after all - but still... - SanityOrMadness 00:19, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- Looking at the TFViews Q&A though, the answers boil down to:
- Bearing in mind Hooper's comments, I'd say it'd be wise to think back to the RiD/UT era and try to think of questions about all that stuff. It's mostly old enough that it's probably pretty harmless, but recent enough that some of the production team is still around. -- Repowers 21:15, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Indeed. We asked a question about the change to Fireblast a few years back, and how it randomly changed back. (Apparently...someone copyrighted Firepower?) Onslaught Six 21:22, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- You mean trademarked. --ItsWalky 21:55, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Silly Porter C. Powell!
- Can we throw Forrest Lee a lowball question about how the Transformer Legends anthology fits with the multiverse?
- Or hell, can we ask him if the bartender at Macadams IS Macadam? That's never been confirmed, and "Prime Spark" muddied the waters since the writer seemed ot think that the bartender, like the bouncer, was just a guy who worked there. -Derik 22:00, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- I'm pretty sure the bartender has NEVER been Macaddam. I mean, his deal is he's "never been seen." And the Bartender is all over the friggin' place. (Because, you know, he's the bartender.) --ItsWalky 22:31, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Y'know, I've never really seen continuity questions resolved at these bi-monthly Q&As. Sometimes at conventions, but the website Q&As seem to be more about the toys, the design process, and the occasional trademark question.--RosicrucianTalk 22:03, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- I don't think asking them that could possibly yield any satisfactory resolution. We asked one "meta"-styled continuity / canonicity question last time, and they punted--which is almost certainly for the best. If people validate author intent and Forest says "Legends is canon," then they just have a dilemma between his intent and Cian's intent (and was Forest even on the team when the book was written?). If they validate author intent and Forest says "it isn't," then they've learned nothing more than what Cian said and nothing about our presentation here would change--though on second thought, we might then have to struggle our way around Hasbro walking away from the established multiverse concept of at least the last 6 years, and wouldn't THAT be fun! Meanwhile, if they don't validate author intent, then who cares what he says except perhaps as trivia? --Thylacine 2000 22:13, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Plus, admittedly, there's not usually much reason to "spend" Hasbro questions on such things when many of the writers and artists seem willing to answer fan questions on their own anyway, provided you know how to contact them. --Jeysie 22:19, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- I don't think asking them that could possibly yield any satisfactory resolution. We asked one "meta"-styled continuity / canonicity question last time, and they punted--which is almost certainly for the best. If people validate author intent and Forest says "Legends is canon," then they just have a dilemma between his intent and Cian's intent (and was Forest even on the team when the book was written?). If they validate author intent and Forest says "it isn't," then they've learned nothing more than what Cian said and nothing about our presentation here would change--though on second thought, we might then have to struggle our way around Hasbro walking away from the established multiverse concept of at least the last 6 years, and wouldn't THAT be fun! Meanwhile, if they don't validate author intent, then who cares what he says except perhaps as trivia? --Thylacine 2000 22:13, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- If we're going to ask Forrest Lee anything, it should be why he decided to completely ignore Animated Sunstorm's cartoon portrayal and just make him a complete ripoff of the Dreamwave portrayal instead. --Detour 22:39, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Indeed. We asked a question about the change to Fireblast a few years back, and how it randomly changed back. (Apparently...someone copyrighted Firepower?) Onslaught Six 21:22, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Bearing in mind Hooper's comments, I'd say it'd be wise to think back to the RiD/UT era and try to think of questions about all that stuff. It's mostly old enough that it's probably pretty harmless, but recent enough that some of the production team is still around. -- Repowers 21:15, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Learned nothing? Unless I'm reading this wrong -- which I must be -- we seem to have learned that Armada Overload is the G1 guy. That's insane. Chip 00:35, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- F***! You just imploded my brain! --Detour 00:50, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- Come on, it's no stupider than the multiversal singularity crap on the Thirteen original Transformers page. - SanityOrMadness 01:18, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- Eh, Hasbro has a way of not distinguishing between different universes when they talk about characters like this. To them, Movie Bumblebee is the same as G1 Bumblebee. "In RiD, Hot Shot was this sharpshooter, but for Armada, we made him this sort of stoner kid character." They say stuff like that all the time. -- Repowers 01:21, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- Though in this case they seem to be explicitly overlooking the Armada incarnation. It's just, "He used to be a truck, and now he's due for an upgrade." Honestly, I'd say the move from Prime's Bag O' Guns to the Scattorshot mold is, at best, a lateral one in terms of "upgrades." I think they just screwed up the answer, and if someone feels like incorporating the mistake into the canon, at best you could say that the toy applies to both continuities, while the characters remain separate. - Jackpot 04:37, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- My understanding of the question and answer was that one particular toy, the Universe release of Overload in 2008, was actually meant to be the G1 Overload, not the Armada Overload. They're still two separate characters, it's just that a toy which we thought was meant to be the Armada guy is actually the G1 guy. (I could be completely wrong, of course!) --abates 02:25, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- Well, he can't be G1 and not Armada, because his packaging said he was "Armada Series" all the heck over him. That part can't be misunderstood. --ItsWalky 09:41, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- I completely disagree. The G1 guy IS the Armada guy, who is also the Universe guy. That would be the "mysterious origins" his Universe box mentions. How does that make sense? Fuck it, blame Unicron. G1 Overload is scooped up by Unicron for the 2003 Universe war. When Unicron implodes as seen in the Club comics, Overload is deposited in the UT, semi-amnesiac, and becomes the Armada guy. (You could even go one step kookier and say the reason his Universe vehicle mode looks like G1 Flak is because of a subconscious memory of his former comrade.) It's total fanfic, but it fits with what we just got. Hooper_X 07:39, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- They are just talking about a re-imagining for the "Overload" character. I wouldn't read too much into it. It would be like if they said, "Megatron was a gun in G1 so we thought he was in need of an upgrade, so we made him a helicopter in Animated." - Starfield 10:04, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- No way. This is way way funnier, goddamnit. AND it answers that whole "mysterious origins" aspect rather nicely. Hooper_X 12:33, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- As fanon as it is, I agree. Hell, we could always ask the guy who did Linkage! Onslaught Six 15:35, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
- We need this established as solid, inescapable, unavoidable canon. I dunno how to go about that, but it must be done. It's too senseless not to be canon. Chip 21:00, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
- As fanon as it is, I agree. Hell, we could always ask the guy who did Linkage! Onslaught Six 15:35, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
- No way. This is way way funnier, goddamnit. AND it answers that whole "mysterious origins" aspect rather nicely. Hooper_X 12:33, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- They are just talking about a re-imagining for the "Overload" character. I wouldn't read too much into it. It would be like if they said, "Megatron was a gun in G1 so we thought he was in need of an upgrade, so we made him a helicopter in Animated." - Starfield 10:04, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- F***! You just imploded my brain! --Detour 00:50, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
Links
[edit]I'm.... assuming that Monzo added the wikilinks, and Hasbro neither responded with their own nor saw them in our questions? That feels odd to me, like we're not properly representing the exchange. - Jackpot 04:41, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- I dunno, man. If anyone is going to embed wiki links into their hasbro q&a submission, it's Monzo. Hooper_X 07:41, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- The only link embedded in that batch of e-mailed questions was the one to the WotC site. We've added internal wiki-links to all the relevant keywords to every previous Q&A response, so now seems like an odd time to bring it up... --Monzo 00:54, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
- I think the reason I'm noticing it now is because it kind of makes Hasbro look extra stupid for misunderstanding the Overload question. If nobody else is bothered by it, then whatevs, but I thought I'd bring it up. - Jackpot 16:08, 7 June 2009 (EDT)
- The only link embedded in that batch of e-mailed questions was the one to the WotC site. We've added internal wiki-links to all the relevant keywords to every previous Q&A response, so now seems like an odd time to bring it up... --Monzo 00:54, 6 June 2009 (EDT)