Talk:Lugnut (TF 2010)

Movieverse?

Is this figure part of the movieverse of the 2010 toyline? The article says nothing about it being a representation of an older character, but sites like Seibertron and YouTuber Peaugh both referred to it as a Generations figure. Bioniclepluslotr 18:22, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

This figure is being released in the 2010 toyline. Many people call any homage figure a "Generations figure", doesn't make it true. Look at the Special Ops Jazz and Turbo Tracks figures. --Khajidha 18:35, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

This might be determined if "United" has comics included like Henkei! did. --ItsWalky 18:38, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

Wait, so are the Jazz and Turbo Tracks figures Generations or not? They're part of the 2010 line, but look just like the old characters, and the toy is listed on the old characters' articles. Bioniclepluslotr 17:14, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

They are not part of Generations, they are part of the 2010 line. They represent the original characters, so they are on those pages. Many people thought they were Generations figures and you still run into that misunderstanding, thus my mentioning them. The 2010 line is very fluid in what characters it represents. And, to go back to your original post, the similarity of this figure to Animated Lugnut is mentioned in the notes section. --Khajidha 18:37, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

He's featured in the United comic within Generations 2010 book alongside Scourge and Frenzy. So I'd say G1. Poweredconvoy 12:10, 11 December 2010 (EST)

Yep, G1. --Terrortron 11:27, 15 December 2010 (EST)

So he's also in the Battle In Space comic as well, so in both Hasbro and Takara's fiction he's G1. Poweredconvoy 12:22, 15 December 2010 (EST)

Wait, seriously? Crap, now I have to hunt down that set. --Detour 12:27, 15 December 2010 (EST)

If the United comic is considered G1, would that make the War for Cybertron figures G1 too, since they are featured in it?Riddlerj 01:22, 22 January 2011 (EST)

It would make their toys G1, but not ours. It's happened before. --ItsWalky 01:26, 22 January 2011 (EST)

Yeah, sorta like Hasbro's "Universe" Hot Shot is Armada Hot Shot, but Takara's "Henkei" Hot Rod is a new G1 character named Hot Rod. --Detour 01:40, 22 January 2011 (EST)

Move?

Should we move this page to "Lugnut (G1)"? For example, Drift's page isn't "Drift (AHM)". --Kaymac192 21:18, 10 February 2011 (EST)

No, we shouldn't. Disambiguation goes by franchise, not continuity family. Lugnut first appeared in the 2010 line, not the Generation 1 franchise. "All Hail Megatron" is a story, not a franchise. Drift debuted in the G1 franchise. --NCZ 21:30, 10 February 2011 (EST)

I'd say yes based on Poweredconvoy's last post. He's in the Rodimus vs. Cyclonus comic which is a "behind the scenes" of the 86 movie. The 2010 toyline itself has no real fictional precedent --MistaTee 21:33, 10 February 2011 (EST)

No. Cryotek is only in the Wreckers comic book, but his toy is Robots in Disguise. He's at RID because, as NCZ pointed out, we disambiguate by franchise, not fictional appearance. --ItsWalky 21:36, 10 February 2011 (EST)

I agree that this article should stay "(TF 2010)", and I'd like to add that all TF fiction is published under the franchises too. The "Rodimus vs. Cyclonus" comic is just as TF-2010-branded as the Lugnut toy, so either way you go, that's the proper parenthetical.

The only way I could see justifying "Lugnut (G1)" would be if he had appeared in actual G1-branded fiction that preceded the toy. For example, if IDW had put Lugnut in their G1 comic, then later the TF 2010 toy came out, and the toy was clearly meant to represent IDW-Lugnut... THEN I think the parenthetical would need to be "(G1)". But the real situation is very far from that, so the page is solid where it is.

Edit: Just found an example: Drift (G1). He appeared in IDW's G1-branded comic long before the toy was on the shelves, so G1 is his franchise of origin. If he hadn't existed in the IDW comics, or the toy had come first, he would've been "Drift (Generations)" for the same reason that this page is "Lugnut (TF 2010)".

- Jackpot 04:43, 11 February 2011 (EST)

Wait, this guy's been released?

This is news to me, as far as I'm aware there hasn't been a legitimate sighting in the states in a B&M store. Karhukjnsi 22:54, 11 February 2011 (EST)

Walky reviewed the one he got on his blog a couple of weeks ago, so it must be out. --abates 23:10, 11 February 2011 (EST)

Because he couldn't have gotten it from eBay or shipped from Asia? Karhukjnsi 23:18, 11 February 2011 (EST)

No, he bought it from Big Bad Toy Store. --abates 23:48, 11 February 2011 (EST)

Fists

In the United section of the article, it says that Lugs fists are prone to jamming. Is that to say that the American version suffers the same misfortune?--Megatron Prime 21:56, 4 March 2011 (EST)

The Reluctant Specialist

Does the issue actually specify that it's the same Lugnut? Because looking at it, it seems like it should be treated the same as "Blitzving" -- it doesn't appear to have any details from the TF 2010 design.KrytenKoro 17:15, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

So? It doesn't matter if he has a different body, a bunch of the rest of the characters do. It's obviously Lugnut. Escargon 17:26, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

I feel this is one of those times where nothing is served by acting like it's not Lugnut. - Chris McFeely 18:44, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Blitzving gets treated as such because the actual G1 Blitzwing is doing stuff on Cybertron in the Robots In Disguise ongoing, so this Titan Hunter cannot be Blitzwing. Lugnut, the design is obviously Lugnut and Lugnut isn't exactly doing anything that conflicts with some other Lugnut in IDW's G1 books... so why overcomplicate things? --Detour 19:49, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

IDW Split

I know the references all have different origins but given how other articles are structured, I think keeping the Titan Hunter Lugnut here until a fictional confirmation of them being separate characters occurs is appropriate

Eire (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2016 (EDT)

LSTOW "Appearance"

(The character being debated.)

I'm fairly certain that Roche has said before that he didn't intend for anyone in the crowd scene to be anyone. Escargon (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2018 (EDT)

If you have a quote, I'd be happy to read it. But that cyclopean hunchback with massive shoulders is kinda hard to see as accidental. --Xaaron (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2018 (EDT)

There needs to be more those two characteristics to establish that guy as Lugnut because a guy that doesn't look like Lugnut in a crowd of block-colored generics isn't likely a previous character. Saix (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

Lugnut has one of the most distinct designs in Transformers history. The single eye, hunched back, sloped neck, hinged jaw, and general broad-widthed body-type are all present. These are not character aspects an artist might "accidentally" throw together, and inadvertently make something that just looks like Lugnut. --Xaaron (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

And yet he still doesn't actually look like Lugnut. Hulking cyclops isn't something Lugnut pioneered. Saix (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

Name a second one. --Xaaron (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

I was talking in a broad cultural context, not Transformers. Saix (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

I had to look again because I realized I had never actually seen Lugnut before, and like...this guy looks only vaguely similar to Lugnut, in that he's broad shouldered and one eyed (which isn't even the right color for Lugnut, mind. Escargon (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

It's a block-colored cameo. Coloring is not at issue. Everyone has the same color eyes there, just like their bodies are the same color. --Xaaron (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

...that...doesn't look like Lugnut. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

Also, Lugnut has 5 eyes. Escargon (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

https://www.allspark.com/forums/topic/66307-last-stand-of-the-wreckers-1/?p=1445555 --Xaaron (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

That's not Roche. I don't get why you're posting that. Escargon (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

I would have called it Lugnut; is it really such a contradiction, when Beast Wars Megatron is showing up in IDW of 2018? --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

BW Megatron actually looks like BW Megatron, for one. Saix (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

.....are you serious? This looks exactly and uniquely like Lugnut. I thought the only possible way people could be opposed to calling it the Lugnut it blatantly is was because of some assumed continuity error of the sort that turned a dead SG Ravage into Glit. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

I dunno. That looks Exactly Like Lugnut as much as that guy on the far far left of the panel looks Exactly Like Pyro. (Big shoulders, antennae, etc.) -hx (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

I'd recommend, without a stronger visual reference (big mono eyed robot's not an uncommon sci-fi design and one you could do easily enough stroll into without intent) or author confirmation (which is very unlikely given the chances of Nick remembering exactly if he intended the colours big robot to be someone), leave it out of the historical bio and add it to the trivia section. Eire 15.19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This is what Lugnut looks like. The head on "Lugnut" above is up higher and shaped differently, and none of the details on his shoulders or chest match. I sincerely don't see any resemblance beyond the most basic body shape. Escargon (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

Several years later: https://twitter.com/NickRoche/status/1277539538244718592 Escargon (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2020 (EDT)