Talk:Prowl (TM2)

...this image caption puzzles me. Is it supposed to be some sort of O. G. Readmore reference? -Derik 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely this article's suffix should be (Transmetal 2), should it not? --KilMichaelMcC 00:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

aargh, I'm pulling my hair out while trying to refrain from changing the caption to "Prowl has a habit of taking a long time to notice other people's problems"--Carrion 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Move

Since Magnaboss Prowl has been retconned (stupidly) into being G1 Prowl... should not THIS Prowl now be under (BW)? ... and shit, same for Silverbolt. --M Sipher 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I argue that BW, while accurate, isn't a terribly helpful disambig-- it invites confusion since he is not the only BW Prowl. -Derik 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion easily cleared up by, well, glancing at the page. (And considering the number of characters who cross franchises, particularly into Universe, causing a lot of name repetition...) --M Sipher 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Prowl 2/BW Prowl/BT Prowl/etc

Is there any actual solid proof that all of these guys are the same character or is Derik taking his fanon waaaaaaay too seriously?

Please read this discussion, already in progress.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

TM2 Prowl is explicitly BT Prowl from the new sourcebook apparently. (This character has been rechristened Prowl II by the sourcebook.)

BT Prowl's bio seem to make allusion to him also being Prowl 2, which is what we're arguing about. -Derik 17:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for

For years fans speculated whether one of the BW Prowls was G1 Prowl.

Who'd have thought they'd both turn out to be him? -Derik 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RID Prowl 2

Where is it stated that the RID Prowl 2 is the same guy as the BT Prowl/TM2 Prowl/Magnaboss Prowl? Takata may sonsider all pf RID/Car Robots as part of G1, but this doesn't apply to the US continuity. (Unless this was stated in the BW Sourcebook) --FortMax 19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is Derik's theory, which is being discussed mostly over at Talk:Prowl 2, but also at other Prowl pages. His theory is that the Binaltech Prowl, RID Prowl 2 toy, and Owl-Prowl (but not Magnaboss Prowl) are one character, distinct from Prowl (G1)/Magnaboss Prowl. The support for BT Prowl and RID Prowl 2 being the same character is that A) the Japanese booklet for BT Prowl mentions that his body was originally designated "Prowl 2", B) RID Prowl 2 has no bio, and C) in Japan G1 and RID are the same continuity. The writer of the booklet, Ichikawa, apparently likes putting connections like that into his material, so this may well represent authorial intent, but the general opinion seems to be that it's not a sufficiently supported theory.

The idea that BT Prowl and Owl-Prowl are the same guy is apparently pretty strongly supported by Owl-Prowl's bio in the BW Sourcebook (I haven't read that, myself). Which means that both Magnaboss-Prowl and Owl-Prowl "are" G1 Prowl, at the same time in the same continuity, if you treat BT Prowl and G1 Prowl as "the same character". However, BT Prowl's origin story is weird enough that it can be considered a branch point, creating a new character who just happens to mostly think he's Prowl (G1).

In short, waffles! JW 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I dislike this being characterzed as 'Derik's wacky theory' since it's pretty clearly what Ichikawa had in mind when he made the 'Prowl 2' reference. What we are essentially disagreeing over is whether this means he is Prowl 2, or whether it's a homage to Prowl 2.

There's a seperate-but-related contingent that says "Prowl 2 is just RiD Prowl, even though he has a different name and there's a duplicate prowl running around." This ignores that if Ichikawa-kun wanted to referencing him, he wouldn't be calling him Prowl 2, he'd be calling him Mach Alert because of of Japan view RiD/CR.

But mostly, yeah, JW's summary is spot-on. -Derik 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't call it wacky, and I did say that it was probably what Ichikawa intended. (The "waffles" non sequiter was a joke on what a huge mess even the completely canonical Prowl stuff is.) JW 20:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the waffles joke, it made me laugh! -Derik 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

SOTW

The owl Chimeracon is specifically drawn as Prowl; we should leave him in here with an "alternate account" bit. Escargon (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2018 (EDT)

Huh, I think I got that mixed up with Onyx Prime's owl-in-shadow minion from the OP series. Grum (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2018 (EDT)

Barber and Zama either goofed or have some yet-unrevealed story plan; OP #15 has Prowl and Stampy as Maximals despite both appearing as Chimeracons in SOTW. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2018 (EDT)

Old Talk:Prowl 2 page

What the fuck, Derik? —Interrobang 21:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

...do you not think Prowl 2 needs an article? -Derik 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't even understand what that was about. -- SFH 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Read, learn. -Derik 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Skimming the booklet, it looks like "Prowl 2" ended up as just a new body for Prowl, and is not meaningfully a separate character. It should probably be handled in Prowl's article. JW 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazingly actually reading the booklet yields a different result than skimming it. -Derik 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Given my apparent lack of reading skills, I would appreciate it if you would give us a summary of your reasons for creating this page. JW 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay! Summary follows:

He's a separate character from Prowl.

Summary ends. -Derik 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took the time to read it more thoroughly. The Prowl described there is A) a copy of Prowl's consciousness, previously stored on a computer, plus B) a human (Chip Chase) in a symbiotic relationship with him, right?

Ergo, it's a lot like Powermaster Optimus Prime as he appeared in the G1 comics, who we don't consider to be a separate character. Heck, given that we still consider the Prime from Marvel Comics issue 80 to be the same character (a Last Autobot-empowered reincarnation of Prime, based on Hi-Q, based on Powermaster Optimus Prime, who in turn was made from a floppy disc copy of the original Prime), I don't think Prowl 2 warrants a new page. It's the same guy as Prowl. JW 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be a completely adequate explanation if we didn't have this guy and the original Prowl running around simultaneously, as different individuals, in two separate places in continuity.

And also if, you know, we hadn't actually gotten a toy called 'Prowl 2.' -Derik 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, heck, dude, if you'd said that in the first place, instead of being all coy . . . JW 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

...Isn't it implied by creating an article for him? Guys who aren't separate characters don't get one. -Derik 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The poop jokes and "I may be high at the moment" summary did not foster faith in your judgment. I am now reassured. JW 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Beast Wars Sourcebook heavily implies that Transmetal 2 Prowl is Binaltech Prowl in a new body, while Prowl from Magnaboss is the original Ark crewman in a new body. Yes, Ben Yee has made this a royal clusterfuck, but it's a canonical clusterfuck now.--Rosicrucian^Talk 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WhY mY HEad hURt? -- SFH 22:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm only inviting a headache by asking, but... why is RID Prowl 2 in this? --M Sipher 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Was Binaltech Prowl actually called "Prowl 2"? --KilMichaelMcC 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Blue one? I believe so. --FFN 23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What I mean to ask was, "was the toy was actually sold under the name Prowl 2"? The link to the Binaltech booklet translation Derik provides above says mentions that in the storyline the Binaltech Prowl body was originally developed to be a GT "parallel form" labelled "Prowl 2," but that plan was scrapped and that body became BT Prowl/Chip's main body. But was the character actually referred to as "Prowl 2" anywhere? Derik mentions above that we've "gotten a toy called Prowl 2"... but I think he may just be referring to the RiD toy, which he seems to think is the same character for some reason. --KilMichaelMcC 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the toy itself was just called Prowl. I think Prowl 2 came from the BT storyline. --FFN 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see nothing to indicate that Owl Prowl is the RID guy in Owl Prowl's IDW writeup. Small miracles. --ItsWalky 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As a note, Owl Prowl's page should be moved to Prowl II, apparently, as that's how his IDW profile writes his name. Not with a 2. --ItsWalky 02:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Prowl 2 is the same character because he is the same character. From the BWTF.com translation;

At first, the Honda-designed BT-15 model was developed for this project to become the parallel form "Prowl 2," but because Prowl's original body was destroyed before the GT network was activated, it was decided that BT-15 would function as his primary unit.

Remember, in japan Rid/CR takes place during G1. It's cracked- but RiD Prowl 2 is considered a G1 character in Japan. They're the same guy. -Derik 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what's confusing me: It says that the BT Prowl body was originally designed to be a GT-unit called "Prowl 2," but that that plan was scrapped and it became Prowl/Chip's body instead. Where does it say that the Prowl/Chip character was actually called "Prowl 2"? --KilMichaelMcC 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that RiD Prowl 2 is the same guy as Prowl II? —Interrobang 02:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RiD Prowl is a G1 character in Japan. Hirofumi Ichikawa wallowed int he RiD/G1 connection for Binaltech. (The GT system was a reference to RiD's Mirage GT.) So no, I have no evidence that G1 Prowl 2 is the same character as the other G1 Prowl 2, other than Ichikawa going out of his way to note he was going to be called Prowl 2 soas to emphasize that connection in case you were thick enough to miss it.

(Am I crabby? Yes. But I've spent this entire page arguing with people who don't know what they're talking about, and when presented with links to information them skim them, miss the relevant parts and then tell me I'm wrong.) -Derik 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty quickly turned off to objectively considering your idea because you *started out crabby*. You do that pretty frequently, and I know I've pointed it out at least once and I'm doing so again because I think it's valid. I don't understand why you'd contribute here if you apparently want to be so unhelpful. Indeed, what really did your Prowl 2 page accomplish besides getting rid of *one* red link? (at the time, only the Optimus Prime page linked to "Prowl 2".) --Sntint 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a valid complaint. -Derik 05:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you truly think it's a separate, undocumented, character, then it'd be far more helpful to not submit the page until you've taken the time to build it up to some degree of completion. Even if you *must* make only a stub right away, at least make it less... vomitous. As JW said, certain aspects of your initial article did *not* speak much of the article's validity. --Sntint 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But he has acid pellets! He's and owl. Poop iss inherent in the joke, and I'd be shocked if the tech-spec writer wasn't thinking it (and giggling naughtily) as he wrote the profile! -Derik 05:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's just not very clear what your intentions are at all when you preface things with "I may be high". --Sntint 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Which would explain my lousy section formatting, not the content! I write my best content high! -Derik 05:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Derik - can you address my question? The paragraph you quote says that the Binaltech Prowl body was originally designed to a "parallel form" called "Prowl 2", but after Prowl's original body was destroyed "it was decided that BT-15 would function as his primary unit." So if this body is now the "primary unit" for Prowl (with added Chip) is the character called Prowl 2 or was that designation discarded along with the original "parallel form" plan? --KilMichaelMcC 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure! Perhaps it represents a branch point witht he Binaltech timeloop. But Project Bodyshop survives the timeloop, so...

Look, he's a duplicate Prowl in G1. TM2 Prowl is a duplicate prowl in G1. Prowl 2 is a duplicate prowl in Rid... and Rid is G1 in Japan. Binaltech Prowl is supposed to be RiD Prowl. The booklet included the reference for that very reason.

So no Ethan, I can't produce a more explicit statement that BT Prowl is RiD Prowl2 than the already existing Hirofumi Ichikawa doing handstands in front of his lawn which he has lit on fire to spell out 'This is Prowl 2' for passing aircraft to read. I'm sorry- that's the best you're going to get. -Derik 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Derik, there is not the slightest reason to believe that Prowl 2 is a duplicate Prowl in RID. That's the part you refuse to explain, hence that's the part people have trouble with.

I'm pretty sure the Super Mode deluxes were originally solicited as "Prowl 2", "Sideburn 2", and so forth, and Prowl 2 seems to be based on Super Prowl, so presumably he made it to production before the change was made. That's still speculation, but it's much less baseless speculation than what you're presenting as fact. And I'm not presenting mine as fact. Chip 04:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Binaltech booklet explicitly referencing Prowl 2 isn't the slightesst reason? I mean- sure, you might disagree that it's sufficient reason, but you deny it's even reason for pause or consideration? it carries no weight at all?

When it's a discarded idea, at most it was author intent... at some point in time. You keep forgetting that part, even when we bring it up. --ItsWalky 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What discarded idea? It says 'Prowl 2' on page 9 of the booklet, right there in plain kanji!

How is something that got into the finished booklet a 'discarded idea'? -Derik 05:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It also says "Optimus Prime" and "Prowl" on Bumblebee's finished TFU entry. Does that mean he's those two characters? Context, man. You keep intentionally ignoring the context. --ItsWalky 06:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little afraid Derik's trying too hard to be whimsical and funny. We're geeks, man. Geek humor has to be well-thought and without holes. When this can't be done, just stick to the facts. Scientific facts. --Sntint 06:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be a great counter-argument if "Prowl 2" in BT Prowl's booklet I highlighted wasn't referring to that character, unlike Optimus Prime and Prowl in Bumblebee's TFU Profile where those names refer to different characters.

I prefer my comedically disingenuous arguments with more Batman references. -Derik 07:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote Problem

I think there's a problem with the quote we're using ("BT-15 acts with all of Prowl's usual personality and will", etc.) If I'm reading the article correctly, that quote is from the text that Mr. Ichikawa originally sent in, but is not in the actual published booklet. Ergo, it represents authorial intent, but isn't canon. But, I might be wrong — the article at BWTF has the translation and the original stuff all mixed together, and is quite confusing. How does it look to other people? JW 04:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Walky just deleted the article without moving it over its destination, so it's moot.

I also think Walky forgets that 'Prowl 2' had a toy, for which this is a valid and official name, and if he'd prefer we work fro that article, 'Prowl 2' should be a redirect, not deleted. -Derik 04:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Prowl 2 should redirect to Prowl (RID). --ItsWalky 04:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But Prowl 2 isn't Prowl (RID). They are separate characters. -Derik 04:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In your personal canon, sure. --ItsWalky 04:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what I hate? That the Deluxe redecoes didn't make it out with the 2s after their names like they were in the computers, so we could all know that "2" indicates that they're the redeco versions and our infuriatingly literal-minded fandom could stop doing things like complicating this issue into the fucking stratosphere. That's what I hate. -LV 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And 'GT' meant Grand Tourismo and represents Hasbro's myopic view that every indy car ever should be called Mirage.

Ichikawa makes stupid things suck less. I'm sorry you don't feel like keeping track of the details. -Derik 04:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I told myself I wasn't going to bother replying to this, but then I decided I wanted to call you an idiot. Ichikawa's entire storyline for Binaltech is a horrible, fanwanky, unworkable mess, you idiot. -LV 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to sum up...Prowl vs. Prowl 2

I think I understand where Derik is coming from, which is:

Binaltech Prowl's info contains a reference connecting the character to RiD's "Prowl 2". Binaltech is FULL of many intentional references to obscure Transformers (and even G.I.Joe) geekery, so the fact that it specifically references RiD's "Mirage GT" and "Prowl 2" is neither surprising nor odd. (And as Derik points out, RiD IS part of G1 in Japan, so they're not just cute cross-continuity nods but actual viable in-continuity references/explanations.)

The main arguments here all come down to whether that reference means he's meant to be the same character as Prowl 2 or if it is just a "nod" to him. Here it is again:

At first, the Honda-designed BT-15 model was developed for this project to become the parallel form "Prowl 2," but because Prowl's original body was destroyed before the GT network was activated, it was decided that BT-15 would function as his primary unit.

The mold was going to be "Prowl 2" that much is clear.

Walky and co.'s point seems to be that while it "was going to be" P2, the death of Prowl (in TF:TM right?) scraped that and it became the primary just plain "Prowl" unit instead. Great. That makes sense. So in some alternate continuity where G1 Prowl didn't die in the movie then this *IS* Prowl 2, but in regular continuity it's not. Atleast not yet...

Derik (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) assumes that at some point when the real Prowl come back this Prowl became designated "Prowl 2" again as was originally planned. Possible, but speculation. Another possibility is that Chip-Prowl stayed "Prowl" and a NEW GT body was built for them and THAT body was Prowl 2 from RiD. Hey, it's possible.

Yeah, my connclusions from all this:

1)Wow, this is a royal continuity KNOT!

2)There's not "quite" enough evidence to say RiD Prowl and owl Prowl are the same guy. Close, but not quite.

3) There is a strong enough leaning that there MIGHT be a connection that I'd at least mention the possibility and explain it in the wiki. Explaining concisely and understandably is the trick. ;-) --ZacWilliam 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't in TF:TM that Prowl died in the Binaltech continuity - his spark actually got lost in subspace when they were attempting to transfer it into his new Binaltech body. That's what prompted Chip to step up and become the new Prowl.

I'd say the major complication lies in the fact that Binaltech is split off into its own divergent parallel universe at the end of its story, which doesn't line up with the Beast Wars timeline, and hence can't really be a part of it, but HEY, thanks a lot for not paying attention recent Japanese continuity developments, there, Yee! - McFeely, not signed in

It splits off, but the split occours after Project Bodyshop was initiated, so it (and presumably the duplicate Prowl) remained part of the main timeline. (The split remaining post-BS was a plot point.)

Zac pretty much summed up my issues, he only missed one tiny point;

chip!Prowl being redsignated Prowl 2 if-when original!Prowl came back isn't some abstract socratic point. Prowl does come back at some point. As a result there's two of them running around during BW-era.

"Gee, we would have called this body Prowl 2 if the original was still bumming around. + The Original will be bumming around again at some point in the future = ?" -Derik 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's been a while since I read Binal-Prowl's full bio, but recardless of of where/how the original went out, the rest of the summary/points stand. I see what Derik's saying, and it does seem there's a decent possibillity that the owl and RiD Prowl 2s "likely could be" the same guy, but still for something this convoluted that's this much of a continuity/mind-screw I think we need something stronger that "likely could be" to include it as a fact. I remain with my original feeling: that it should get an explanation/note in here as an interesting/weird possibility, but I wouldn't go farther than that. --ZacWilliam 14:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To be persnickety, I don't think we really know when the divergence occurs - it's not impossible that none of the events of Binaltech actually wind up occurring in the mainstream J-animated timeline (and it's certainly a smoother fit in the grand scheme of things). Project Bodyshop only started, after all, because Wheeljack specifically wanted to change the future, and the indication was that the existence of Binaltech warriors would lead to the Alternity - which, to me, says that Binaltech warriors don't exist in the mainstream timeline, otherwise there'd be no need to preserve the timeline Ravage screwed with. - McFeely again

True enough. Is there no mention of the Cosmic Rust attack on the official JTF timeline? -Derik 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a mention of it in the IDW Beast Wars continuity now. A time long ago that "many Autobots succumbed to an infection that destroyed their bodies," during which "humans and Autobots worked together on a project to construct new bodies based on a combination of Earth and Cybertronian technology." Thus, "this led to the infusion of a human's essence into a robotic body, the result being a warrior who took on the mantle of the Autobot Prowl for a brief time." Ergo, Binaltech Prowl 2 = Beast Wars Prowl II.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

*shrug* So BT might be completely averted in the JCartoon timeline- but it is part of the IDWBW timeline. (That should probably be noted on the Alt/BT page, that it's a closed loop in the J'toon timeline.)

Also, do we have a page for the Alternity?-Derik 17:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a mention of the cosmic rust attack on the timeline, but then, it also includes all the events of Binaltech, and presents them as occurring concurrently with everything else in the "main" timeline, making no distinction over what happens in it, and what occurs only in the branching timeline (which is only created retroactively and aghh my brain).

In other news, I really want to punch IDW's fucked-up Beast Wars timeline. - McFeely Once More

This is some of the most unfathomably stupid X-Men-In-The-Nineties idiotically-literal-fan bullshit I've ever seen, and that's it's been canonized is outright depressing. I want to hit IDW's BW with a fucking bus. Then back up and hit it again. Then pee on it. --M Sipher 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Be fair, Ichikawa did it first. The BW Sourcebook just sucked any wonder, joy, or pleasure out of it. -Derik 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"The BW Sourcebook just sucked any wonder, joy, or pleasure out of it." You can accurately end that sentence after the word "sucked". JW 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

BT Prowl being Chip-for-brains was a bad idea, an utterly unneccessary occurence that was an uneccessary complication for the sake of fanwank. There's no denying it. But where Ichikawa was at least content to leave something at a sly reference to another series without actually tying them together, BWS has run headlong into that steaming shitpile and dove in, mouth open wide, once again for no good reason. (This is why I'm against claiming RiD Prowl 2 is actually part of this idiocy. Because that's taking the same path based on nothing but moronic literal-mindedness, which should be strenuously discouraged and derided.)

Owl-Prowl was far better when he was just some nutball who thought he was a former Autobot. That one nugget of insanity in an otherwise logic-driven character was fun. Now? Goodbye, fun. Hello, idiocy. (And all this over a character of zero importance in the fiction he appears in, where WHO (ha ha) he is and what he's like doesn't matter because he's fodder there to show up and die.) --M Sipher 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More BT Craziness

I may be wrong, but according to...either Black Convoy or Mirage's peices of the BT story, wasn't the BT timeline preserved as an alternate timeline? If IDW's BW is therefore a part of that timeline, it isn't a part of the original timeline and could thus be ignored as a wholly separate part of BW? Sure makes it easier to ignore. --Spectre 23:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a problem is BW's G1 is already alternate to the main two original US G1 continuities we know (BW instead being a fusion of mostly the G1 cartoon with parts of the Marvel comics lore), and what we do know is rather vague. --FFN 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Although we do know that BW's G1 features Galvatron killing Starscream, and since Megatron doesn't become Galvatron in the BT timeline... - Chris McFeely 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Binaltech storyline specifically doesn't work towards Beast Wars. What a clusterfuck. --ItsWalky 23:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, BT doesn't work towards what we know of BW, but maybe it results in shitty IDW-BW? Just trying to figure out a reasonable reason to ignore IDW-BW as a separate, stupid, alternate to BW, instead of seemingly being shoved into the show-universe. Just thinkin'. --Spectre 00:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Light at the end of the tunnel! --ItsWalky 00:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Logically one would suppose then that IDW BW was the result of the (largely?) undocumented 2nd time around the BT timeloop, with things adhering somewhat more closely to the G1 toon. -Derik 01:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Animators didn't know?

"Transformers: The Movie (1986) was not released in Japan until ####[year needed], leaving Japanese animators unaware that many characters died during the movie. As a result these deceased characters continued to appear in subsequent Japanese series. (1987-1989)"

Weren't the 1986 Movie and Headmasters both animated by Toei? Isn't it more likely the Headmasters writers didn't know (given Prowl appears to have a line in the first episode)? --FFN 16:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call, make the note. Also- can someone with the Metrodome DVD's check that's actually Prowl speaking? i was referencing the RTM dubs and it looks like it's him, but they have like 4 guys doing every voice so I'm wary of being misled. -Derik 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No need now, I think Chris McForgotToLogin changed it to 'production staff'. --FFN 22:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris has the DVD's! We should make him check the speaker as penance for not being logged in!

Though seriously- what client ic Chris using? He seems to be having chronic breoser problems, this has been going on for over a year but it seems to have recently gotten worse. -Derik 23:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked the DVD while I was making caps to see if it really WAS Prowl, and it's not really easy to tell. I choose to believe its him because his mouth is covered by the way he's holding his gun, but no-one else's mouth moves.

Incidentally, the only reason I've not been logged in for recent edits is 'cause I've been doing them from work, and the computer's a communal one, so I don't bother wif all dat. :) After 6pm GMT, I'm always signed in. So, no, that other chap there's not me (although I think Ichikawa probably should get mentioned in the opening note, just 'casuse). - Chris McFeely 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Literalist fans

I think we could stand to have an article about literalism and it's resulting continuity creep on the wiki. It rests kinds uncomfortably in this article because there's a lot of (completely justified) iritation over the pretty sucky continuity creep that occurred here... but there's not really enough room to get into why it sucks. I'd liek to have an article to link to. Siph, woudl you be interesting in drafting one? -Derik 01:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ow, my freakin' head!

I just realized something. Something that made my head hurt. Since Magnaboss Prowl is G1 Prowl, and is alive and well in Beast Wars continuity, then doesn't that mean that Prowl 2/BT Prowl/whatever's continuity headache of an existance shouldn't exist in the first place because he was created to replace a very dead G1 Prowl? --Detour 11:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, IIRC, he was created to replace Prowl when Prowl's spark was "lost" in subspace or something when they attempted to transfer it to his Binaltech body. I would guess that they just "found" it again at some point, kinda like when Nightbeat sought out and recovered the Megatron-Ratchet combo in the comic. (Although it might make a cooler story if Magnaboss Prowl was a fake Con plant.) --ZacWilliam 12:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A more neutral page title

Since this article is about the various versions of the Owl figure, I believe it would be more continuity neutral to have this Page under Prowl (Transmetal) or Prowl (BW Owl). MrRald (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2021 (EDT)

As I had brought up in the portal a few weeks ago, I'd prefer "Prowl (TM2)" as it is cleaner and more to the point. -- Fanofcoolstuff27 (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2021 (EDT)