Talk:Ruined FOREVER

BEFORE YOU SUGGEST ANY OTHER ADDITION:
This page is NOT for anything someone complained about online sometime. This page is for exceptionally notable and sizable instances of vast numbers of fans having hugely negative knee-jerk reactions to things that turned out to not be the end of the world at all. Think very hard about what you're about to suggest. It probably doesn't belong on this page.

-The Management

{{#if:||

}}

Regarding deletion

I see no point to having this article. --KilMichaelMcC 07:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 4 instances of Ruined Forever on this page alone. -Derik 07:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no point to having those, either. --KilMichaelMcC 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

JaAm has a page. 'Ruined Forever' is used ironically within the fandom- and this is clearly marked as a fandom article just like True fan is. Ruined Forever is clearly more prominent than Dull surprise, though possibly not as widely as Neon. (Which now that I look at it need its opening quote reformatted...) My entire impetus for creating it was that Sntint made an ironic Ruined Forever joke on a talk page and I was like- "huh, why dont' we have a page for that?" (Well, also I wanted to wash the bad tast of Don Murray out of my brain.)

Ruined Forever appears to rest comfortably within the range of existing articles on the Wiki, but I am content to allow others to decide. If a majority think it's not relevant to Transformers the article can be deleted, as always. -Derik 07:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I say it's as relevant as Playskool, neon, and FIRRIB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terrocon Blot (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

And Derik on the rebound to make me feel dumber. It's not enough that I misspelled my own screenname, he's also got to sign my posts for me. Damn that Derik. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWN. --Terrocon Blot 07:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote for keeping the page. As already stated, a number of other pages already exist to explain similar fandom colloquialisms. --Sntint 13:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this article as explaining anything. It seems to exist purely to ridicule fandom behavior that we don't like, and thus I see no point to keeping it. --KilMichaelMcC 19:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to stay too. Where else would terms like Ruined FOREVER, Furmanism, and Chewed caramels be documented for all time, if not here?--Evil-yuusha 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do these fandom terms need to be ones that are famous/infamous, known or used widely? Then how about TFW2005's 'HE TELL ME' (in reference to that guy who claimed Peter Cullen was cast as RID Prime)? TFW2005 is probably the most prominent of the Transformers fan sites, as well as the one that Hasbro seems to unofficially prefer. I personally never even heard of 'dull surprise' until I read it on this wiki. --FFN 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor I. But I don't think we're just documenting memes-- each of these articles, Truk !Munky, Chewed caramels even JaAm are 'about' a belief/response/tendency in fandom- not just the phrase used to illustrate it. Dull Surprise is a belief the masturbatory praise heaped on Superstar Funana was undeserved, JaAm is about the backlash against Dreamwave's style-over-sanity lack of visual storytelling, Truk not Monkey encompasses both knee-jerk hatred of BW and frustration about knee-jerks, and Chewed caramels seems to be about a desire that all TF toylines subscribe to some broad interpretation of G1's design aesthetic. I doubt anyone put conscious thought into this, but the fandom-meme articles people found worthy of creating aren't just about the phrase- they're about phrases that expresses something larger about how fans relate to Transformers.

(I'm not familiar with 'HE TELL ME' and where it may fall with this.) -Derik 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think dull surprise is way too limited in use (basically just #wiigii! as far as I know) to really belong here, but Derik does sort of have a point about the article being about a little more than that. I also don't know "HE TELL ME" but it sounds like something worth considering -- claims of unnamed inside sources and all that. --Steve-o 01:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, it was actually Peter Cullen as Armada Prime. The posts (being from 2002), no longer exists, but fortunately blitz_64 managed to save the posts for posterity The Saga of HE TELL ME and GoOP.

Actually, Steve-o, I'd say "Secret Inside Sources" would be a more appropriate meme/article to describe that last one. Having never heard of "HE TELL ME", and seeing that few others apparently have either, I'm not sure it's as much a meme as "Secret Inside Sources" is.--G.B. Blackrock 13:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Around the same period, I recall some other idiot who claimed to be a Hasbro photographer and described crazy things like the Mini-Cons becoming body armour and Prime's minicon transforming into his Matrix. These claims, while totally false, were important because they apparently spurred Aaron to emerge as ORSON and totally destroy that other dude, IIRC. --FFN 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember that quite vividly indeed. The guy who claimed to be the photographer actually revealed himself over at the Allspark this year, actually. Oh yeah, and I think the animu thing was 4Chan leakage [1].--MCRG 05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I say we keep it. Compy-Rex 18:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Compy-Rex

If this page is deleted I will cry. (Undecided) 05:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Usage

Has "ruined forever" ever been used seriously by fans? While it describes a real and annoying sentiment, I'm not sure I like basing an article on a phrase that was sarcastic in the first place. Interrobang 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. -Rotty 18:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure something very similar, at least, has been used. But regardless, you say that it describes a real sentiment, so, what's the problem? Can you recommend a better title for the article? Or are you saying the article shouldn't exist at all? --Steve-o 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my vote is for not existing at all. --KilMichaelMcC 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I (and a number of others) used to think "Rapeing my childood" was only used for sarcastic reasons. Then I read the thread on the promo poster for Transformers Animated, which had a number or people using the seriously. --FortMax 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Has Trukk not Munky ever been used in a non Ironic/Sarcastic way? It's still a catchphrase used by the fandom, as is this. Both rate articles under the fandom category, IMo.--ZacWilliam 20:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The scream your head off in outraged panic / call for mass-firings or send death threats over something that has/will ruin/ed TF behavior of this article certainly was in evidence during Beast Machines- and I think the "sky is falling" aspect is amply evidenced by the sheer number of times fans have declared TF ruined forever. (And, clearly, been wrong every time, or every time but 1 depending on your belief system.)

If you have some other title you'd prefer for this article like 'Clicken-Little Syndrome' by all means propose it and see what people think, but the article speaks to a genuine (and highly mockable) aspect of fandom psychology.

And frankly, while the behavior itself is worthy of ridicule, the reason for it- an exaggerated concern for the health and future of the brand- is actually kinda endearing and speaks well of fans. At least their hearts are in the right place. -Derik 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Dini

I think accusing the fandom of saying the art style of Paul Dini the writer being used for Animated will "RUIN TRANSFORMERS FOREVER" is making the article simply too mean-spirited. I've never seen any individual display the idiocy we're accusing the fandom of with that line. -Rotty 05:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have. Scary, scary stuff.

Also, the last line of the entry seems to cut a little into the humor by overexplaining. Replace it with a "general hasbro idiocy" linking to "transformers" or somesuch?

Marked for deletion.

This is getting out of hand.

This page has become the epicenter of an edit war that has gone on for nearly a week now. As of the time of this writing, only six other pages link to this article. While I fully support the light tone of Teletraan I, and I understand that some explanation of aspects of the fandom complete the Wiki, I believe this particular article and debate at this point only detracts from the issue.

I DO agree that it was biased in the form in which it existed before our anonymous editor "friend" decided to change it, but I do not think that matters any longer. This article does not add anything inherently positive to the wiki, indeed, it does not chronicle anything positive or negative about Transformers itself at all. Its relation to Transformers is tangential at best.

By deleting this, we would not lose anything except the beginnings of what appear to be the modern equivalent of a Usenet flamewar. Deleting it, I believe, can only benefit Teletraan I. --Sntint 12:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree. Detour 12:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't feel this article was necessary, and I still don't. I agree that the fandom is full of idiots who never bothered to grow up after 1986, but our mockery of them doesn't belong in the wiki. Not to say that Mister "integrity of the characters" is right, though. Interrobang 12:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting in a vote for keeping it. It's a fun article to read, and it speaks a lot of truth in it's wonderfully snarky way.--Gouki 12:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Snarkyness can be fun but this article is just pushing it, IMO. Detour 12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay, it's funny. Also, if you delete it then the terrorists win.

I would keep it. I think it describes a real sentiment, that needs to be pointed out as overblown. JW 13:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit war was only between registered users and a single unregistered dude. I've fixed things, at least for the moment, by protecting the page from unregistered editors. If you're gonna get in a pissy editing war, we'd damn well better know who you are. --ItsWalky 14:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Our anonymous friend is from the Netherlands, if anybody cares. Interrobang 14:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This "Ruined FOREVER" article is stupid and don't make any sense. Its just shit

Seafood Louis. -Derik 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the opinion of an anon means anything, but I think this article is freaking hilarious. I was talking with a friend about TF:Animated and he said that the girl with the transforming bike 'ruined it permanently' so I linked him this article. He laughed and said, 'ok, well maybe I'm over-reacting.'

I think the article is funny and provides valuable perspective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.253.76 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

Well said, citizen. JW 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've cancelled out the other anon from earlier, at any rate. And yeah, I agree with your assessment of it.--Andrusi 22:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Same --Chiasaur11

I happen to think this article is incredibly useful in charting the tendency for all fans everywhere (but especially TF fans) to react in comical and hyperbolic ways. I think the breadth of what people determine can/has ruined TF forever automatically makes the article an amusing and insightful look for the novice fan into the fandom's reactionary past.

Indeed, I actually have shown this article to people just coming back (or getting into) TF. It's inspired about as many laughs as it has genuine curiosity as to what the fandom and franchise are like as entities. Isn't that the idea of this wiki? I would think reference materials as to the history of the fandom, good and bad, are always a boon.

(and that aside, I just think it's really, really funny)

.... Aaaaaaand I had to go and screw up. Bah. That's me above. --Cmdr Crayfish 10:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line?

How do we stop this from becoming just a giant list of everything that anyone has ever expressed any dislike for ever? Why, for instance, is The Beast Within in there? Or Gonzo (which I thought was generally accepted as at least better than We've, even if not as good at Mainframe)? - Jackpot 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've kinda been watching this list grow with some mild irritation- it went from about 1 item for every 2 years to twice that in fairly short order, and that bothers me.

I've sorta resolved to edit the list down this October, pruning it (so to speak) with some opportunity for people to say what should stay and what should go.

The Beast Within has to stay though- at the very least it ruined the Dinobots forever- now whenever George Rodd brings up combiner Dinobots we have to grudgingly admit they're canon. Also, it was the reason for the article's creation in the first place. -Derik 18:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why wait? If we want this to be a list of developments that prompted widespread fury that lingered for years, we can shorten it to "Actionmasters, BW, BM, Armada, Hallit, and Bay," and perhaps a few others, right now. Then a "Trivia" note saying that The Beast Within really DID ruin Transformers, or at least Dinobots, forever. Just a thought... but yeah, having every single series in there dilutes the point. --Thylacine 2000 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, how do you decide what deserves to be listed as ruining TF forever, if none of it really did in the first place. I've seen just about everything listed there used as an example of why ____ TF series/movie/toyline will fail--Carrion 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Thy, I'd append your list with a general "*-masters" thing, as a lot of armchair CEOs claim that the entire -master trend killed the line, not the fact that it had, you know, run its course. -hx 14:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll just basically agree with Thy and Hoop that whatever's listed here should have a certain "endurance" as a scapegoat. The turnaround of opinion on Animated was what, two weeks? "* Masters" certainly counts, as should Pretenders. --M Sipher 14:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What, a simple a Google newsgroup search for "killed transformers" ain't enough? /:] -- Repowers 05:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt I'd get objections if I added it, but I'd like to throw it by the community: Should we readd Kiss Players? -- SFH 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I really think Animated should stay in there, if only because it's such a dramatic departure. Turn around was fast, but the initial reaction was strong. I mean, for the first time in fifteen years of being a fan, I actually found myself muttering "My god... they've finally done it. It's ruined..." --70.190.251.10 05:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

beast wars didnt reuin tf beast machines sorta did but it was still quite good ,if u ignore some minor things - Unsigned post by 80.6.180.141

You're missing the point of the article, then. The point is that every time something new comes along, the fandom screams about how it will ruin Transformers forever, when in reality it's usually the opposite. -- Dark T Zeratul 22:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Last Deletion Locked in?

Spotted a couple of points on the list removed by someone who seems to like deleting stuff just because, but when I tried to restore the page, it was already locked. Were his edits accepted, then?--Apcog 15:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two facets to this. First, without occasional pruning, the list in this article tends to grow, and grow, and grow. Every now and then, someone has to come along and cut it back. Since this is a wiki, the question of what gets cut is made by the person willing to do the cutting.

The second facet is that the items cut were in fact less core to the "ruined forever" concept. "Runined forever" is a cry that springs up whenever something new is added to the Transformers brand by HasTak, and it happens every single time. Thus, the fans can't ruin TF forver, because they don't add new canon. And, while HasTak can ruin TF forever, it's because they're the only ones who can do so. I.e., one of the cut items was in error, and one was redundant. JW 15:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. It was a combination of both the deletions and the person who committed them that made me question their validity.--Apcog 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yah, user Teletraan is not exactly a primo contributor. Still, this particular edit seems (at minimum) defensible. JW 17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe link

I've never, ever been interested in MOTU, so I have no idea what was the cause of the revamp line's failure, but given the extreme slant of the article, I can only assume it failed because it concentrated on collectors rather than kids. If so, why does it link to a Wikipedia article that cites Mattel's "excessive focus on attempting to mass-market the line to a new generation of children rather than focusing on a safer collector-based approach" as the reason for the line's failure? Am I missing something or does that sound like the line tanked because it focused on selling toys to kids rather than what this article is railing against? --FFN 11:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess who wrote the Wikipedia article. (Hint: It wasn't kids.) -hx 12:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is the line failed, no one can say *exactly* why. There are reasons for both oppinions.

Fact: The line DID court fans rather than kids in many ways. It didn't reinvent the boat but took the exact looks, exact characters, and in some cases even exact stories the fans clamored for and did them again, only better, prettier, smarter, and more "realisticly". In that respect it was pretty much EXACTLY what older fans of '80s properties clamor for, and said fans generally loved it. But for whatever reason it never caught on with actual kids in the way the simple, campy, primitive, bowlegged original did. So some see that and blame the line's failure on the older fan mentality.

Also Fact: Mattel tried to sell the toyline the way they had Batman. I.E. A million goofy variations on He-man and Skelator (and one or two others) and everyone else was almost impossible to find or didn't get a figure at all. This was very much NOT what collectors wanted. Many blame it for the line's failure at retail, arguing that part of what made the original a hit where the huge variety of strange and different warriors and monsters that Mattel had left out this time in favor of flooding the shelves with He-man repaints and ill-concieved alterations (The entire wave of "samori repaints on stilts" is often pointed to, but are only one of many examples.) Some see this and blame an ill-concieved inapropriate retail stratagy aimed at marketing to kids having crippled the line's retail appeal.

Personally I think there's some truth to BOTH. For whatever reason (timing, approach, luck,) the older fan oriented cartoon never clicked with the kiddies, AND the Batman-style retail stratagy was a bad choice for a MOTU type toyline. --ZacWilliam 14:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was the feeling I got, that is there is no clear cut side to 'blame', and in this case, I think we should ditch the Masters of the Universe link, given the information there contradicts the slant of this article, and in any case it's not a clear cut case of 'it's all the collectors fault'. --FFN 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, there's some legitimate thought there... but it ruins the G.I. Joe comparison. (Why catering to adult collectors and abandoning attempts at reinvention is a losing strategy in the long run necause ther old dudes die off and uyou're not bringing new fans in.)

For what it's worth, I meant from design and marketing- I agree that the actual toyline was schitzophrenic- alternating between a slavish adherence to the original designs and case assortments aimed at kida who weren't watching the cartoon.-Derik 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea - how about one of you guys (who actually know about MOTU) edit the wikipedia article so it's more balanced, so we don't end up looking like idiots in this article? --FFN 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that even in today's environment, the military has some pull to kids. Not so much the gay, gay fur-bikini barbarians. Sword-and-sorcery has some appeal nowadays, but mostly when it's very Japanesey kids-anime-style. (One could also note that the "big" Joe revival frankly isn't very big. It's pretty damn low-key, really, where He-Man was some major-league THIS WILL BE BIG!!! Lower expectations = greater chance of meeting and exceeding them.) --M Sipher 17:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd also imagine that production costs on the 25th anniversary Joe figs are pretty darn reasonable on Hasbro's bookkeeping. They've done similar lines for Star Wars for decades, so they know what they're doing.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really annoyed that the GI Joe 25th line isn't available here, because Hasbro AU's last attempt to revive GI Joe in Australia totally tanked. If you can believe it, Toys R Us stores here languished under piles of unsold Cobra Trooper 6-packs, which, as I've read in forums, collectors were fighting over. They're not on pegs anymore, so I guess they've been shredded or incinerated by now.--FFN 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So have we decided on this link yet? The Wikipedia link still contradicts the snarky joke link of this article. --FFN 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's always going to, because there will always, always be enough people who are going to make sure that the bullshit boogeyman "CASE RATIOS!! CASE RATIOS!!! KIDS WANTED ALL THOSE OBSCURE ONE-EPISODE GUYS AND USELESS MINOR VILLANS!!!!!" (while patently ignoring the fact that if you can't sell your two primary characters in the line, maybe there's something wrong with your franchise, not case ratios... it'd be like if a Batman line couldn't sell toys of Batman) is squarely blamed for MOTU's failure. Frankly, I'd say just add a note to OUR article saying "ignore the bullshit about case ratios. Kids just didn't want a line about a boring gay man in a fur bikini." --M Sipher 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring your general disdain for He-man here, and even the whole case ratio issue, the fact remains that saying (as our snark does) that the newer He-man line "catered exclusively to older collectors" and that this caused its failure is both unprovable, AND very widely disputed. I'd say we should remove the link on those issues alone. --ZacWilliam 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (-Edit: On a side-note, given the apparent success of the 25th ann. line and the coming movie, the critical G.I.Joe link in there may soon be meaninglessly out of date as well...)

And this is my point - we'll start looking like idiots who can't even get our facts or jokes straight if we insist on keeping these links. --FFN 08:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see Zac's point- but I think he's reacting to something that's not in the article. We're holding the MOTU reboot as an example of a line that abandoned all attempt at reinvention. Since there was not reinvention in the reboot line, at all, this should not be up for dispute.

We do not say that this is why the line failed. It probably was, but we don't say that. We merely hold it up as an apporach that's probably unhealthy for Transformers to follow.

So to be really blunt-- I don't care what whiny fanboys may have edited Wikipedia to say in support of their view that the line was perfect and viable the way it was. A) That's masturbatory. B) It's not what this article is talking about, so it's simply not relevant. -Derik 14:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But it says 'cater exclusively to the old-school collectors', which the line evidently did not do. In which case, regardless of if we are holding up as an approach that TF should not follow, it's not a good example in the context of the very joke-link, especially if it sends the reader to an article that disputes the joke. --FFN 14:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In this context, that 'catering' refers to design, not case assortments. We're discussing reinvention. One does not 'reinvent' case assortments! And in terms of designs, characters etc... MOTU did cater. -Derik 14:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

More to the point- we're discussing changign the content on this page because highly dubious artument on Wikipedia disagrees with something we're not even saying here.

If Wikipedia had a bullshit argument we were actually refuting I might kinda understand this. But we're not! We are actually arguing about removing a link to an article because fanboys have jizzed across it in ways that contradict things our article doesn't say, but which 'might run through that same fanboy's mind as they read our article.'

While I clearly feel the fanboy argument is specious-at-best it doesn't matter. We say it catered to collectors. That's it! It's just an example of one extreme a toyline can take. -Derik 14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why is The Armada series , Beast Wars series, the Movie, and Exclusives listed here?Autobot Soundwave 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Because fans reacted very negatively to a lot of these things, which went on to become major successes. It's satire. -- SFH 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Because they ruined Transformers forever, of course.--Carrion 19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the list

The Cliff Notes version: there's very little reason to.

The full version: Contrary to what many people think, this is not a list of everything Transformers ever. It is not even a list of everything Transformers that fans have ever complained about. It is a list of the relative handful of times that something ground-shaking and new has come along, something totally different from what's gone before, something that's not exactly like 1984, that causes people to complain that Transformers has irrevocably jumped the shark and begun sinking into an irreversible oblivion. All this doomsaying is then typically followed by the franchise surging back to life as the awful horrible new thing turns out to be a smashing success. Alternately, the horrible new thing quietly fades away while the franchise chugs along to the next new thing.

Thing is, anybody who's stuck with Transformers to this point is used to these reinventions. Perspective has grown long enough that plenty of fans now understand that anything they don't like will be gone in a year or two. Maybe I'm biased 'cause I only read the Allspark boards and they're fairly intelligent, but cries of RUINED FOREVER are increasingly rare these days.

I don't see why Drift is on the list. Plenty of people think he sucks, but nobody's claiming he's going to bring down the whole franchise. All Hail Megatron would be a better candidate, because people (including myself!) are claiming that IDW's whole storyline has been permanently destroyed by it. (You could also make a case for Energon ("bad anime"), Prime Directive ("MATURE ADULT XXX" or "Buckets of Blood" or "Pat Lee"), and/or Dreamwave ("The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man", "Superstars", "Bankruptcy").

I don't see why stolen prototypes are on the list. Yeah, some of us make a fuss over them. Y'know why? Because HASBRO THEMSELVES HAS SAID THEY ARE A THREAT TO THEIR BUSINESS. There's no ridiculously overblown grasping-at-straws fandom absurdity to mock here.

And I'd need to see a LOT of linked posts before I'd accept ROTF on the list. I can't fathom someone having complaints about ROTF that didn't also apply to the first movie. -- Repowers 12:10, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

There are new complaints about ROTF - about these two.--172.162.17.159 08:34, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree with Repowers 100%. If anything, I think the list could use some trimming. Are people complaining about the Twins? Sure! Is ANYONE saying that Transformers, as a franchise, is over/tainted? Umm ... not that I've heard. Certainly no substantial block of the fandom.

And stolen prototypes, while I DO think people make a somewhat biggish deal about them, don't really belong on the list either. A: as Repowers points out, Hasbro itself has legitimized the concern. B: people getting annoyed about something is NOT the same as saying that the Transformers brand is beyond recovery. Hell, even AHM seems like a stretch. I think that most of the fandom has gained enough hindsight to know that, at worst, AHM represents a change in direction for *IDW'S* story, but certainly not the end of Transformers as we know it. Hell, ROTF and Animated were contemporary, and both were tremendous successes.--Jimsorenson 09:48, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure we we can't have Energon on this list, seeing all the complaints on this very wiki, but, eh.--Spin-Out 08:00, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

I disagree. I've read on here that people LIKED it at first, but eventually lost faith/the will to live after watching it. The list chronicles the events which work the OTHER way around. Metal Gear NOIZE 09:07, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I'd say the list has nothing to do with how good something is, but more with complaints from the fandom and especially even before the thing in question has been released. Having said that, does RiD really warrant a place on the list? Was there really that much of a commotion about it? -Mazenoise 10:10, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm surprised "G1 Bayformers", aka Don Figueroa's new drawing style isn't on this list, given that almost every single opinion on it I found was a flame.....---Blackout- 12:30, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

I loath it to the core of my petty, petty being... but i don't see it as something that will kill or taint the franchise. Kiss-Player is still squicking people years later... the fact the Japanese owners basically licensed TF loli guro porn is something that genuinely shocks people and lessens their opinion of TF as a whole-- especially since it's not one of those 'worse than it sounds' things, the closer you look, the more disturbing it actually gets. An unpleasant art style inflicted on the comparatively small comic-book audience... just isn't in the same ballpark.

I think it's harmed IDW's Transformers brand equity... people seem a lot more skeptical and a lot more negative of editorially-generated jerking around of the TF brand, because they've now repeatedly dumped directions they committed to in order to chase imaginary gains that never materialized-- apparently heedless of the negative baggage piled on the story in the process. (One more major reset in pursuit of some sort of magical deckchair configuration the editors are convinced is more important than telling good stories... and I might as well be reading DC!) But not the brand overall. -Derik 05:46, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Not to get all chat roomy here, but... what he said. Oh dear lord, WHAT HE SAID. (Derik, have you posted that sentiment to IDW's boards?) -- Repowers 19:49, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

How about that B.O.T episode

To many fans, it's considered to be the worst G1 episode ever, so I think it should be placed here. Dinoman96 17:23, 23 November 2009 (EST)

Yea, but this isn't a list of what people just call "bad" - it's a list of the things that threw the fandom into a colossal uproar and actually caused people to say Transformers was ruined forever, more for the fact that they were drastically or outlandishly new and different than for their actually being of poor quality. - Chris McFeely 17:46, 23 November 2009 (EST)

Drift

Shouldn't we add this Mary Sue to Runied FOREVER? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.62.9.241 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

No. He hasn't ruined anything forever. --Detour 23:55, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Maybe you should read the page above before you add to it. --M Sipher 01:02, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

A quick question (not about adding additional items)...

Anyone else think that a funnier name for Prime would be Bayformers Teen Titans? I ask because we've got Bayformers and Teen Titans on the list, and Bayformers Animated kind of throws off the flow. Ratbatman 20:03, 16 December 2010 (EST)

To me at least, "Bayformers Animated" flows much better than "Bayformers Teen Titans". --NCZ 20:04, 16 December 2010 (EST)

A fair point. I meant it more in the manner of fitting with what else was in the article. Not a big deal either way, I suppose. Ratbatman 20:12, 16 December 2010 (EST)

Parodies of this page in other media

Just in case you didn't noticed it, this page has been parodied several times and in different media:

• http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DarthWiki/RuinedFOREVER (As noted, this wiki is the trope namer for "Ruined FOREVER")
• http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1224448/ruined-forever.aspx
• http://www.helloweenboard.com/topic/4063-seven-sinner-discussion-thread/page__view__findpost__p__336072
• http://www.rockband.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47999&page=1
• http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Ruined_FOREVER
• http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/warmachine/163237-blight-spreading-nites-cryx-blog.html#post1416664
• http://halofanon.wikia.com/wiki/Halo:_Ruined_FOREVER

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.212.60.105 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

I love how the Wookiepedia people completely missed the point. Ratbatman 12:40, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

...their version seems basically the same sarcastic treatment as ours. Are you reading a different page? --ItsWalky 12:43, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

They seemed a lot more concerned with insignificant detail than this wiki is. However, in retrospect, "completely missed the point" was a bit strong on my part. Maybe the Star Wars fandom is more temperamental than we are? Ratbatman 12:49, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

"MAYBE", he says! :D - Chris McFeely 12:54, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

Not really parodies, more just... versions. Esser-Z 11:40, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Adaptations. --ItsWalky 11:54, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Literal for once

Pat Lee. --96.225.181.135 21:31, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

Transformers survived him, so not really literally, no. --ItsWalky 22:00, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

The franchise as a whole, but not Dreamwave. Or his reputation. --96.225.181.135 21:17, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Not the point of the page. --King Starscream 21:20, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Autobots who didn't turn into cars

Transformers was ruined FOREVER in 1985! Seriously.--Nevermore 14:39, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

TFW2005 ruined Transformers forever.--Carrion 15:07, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

Dark of the Moon

• The first and second movies by Michael bay are on the list, but why not the third. Lots of people complained about the third one. Black rhino ranger 07:49, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Getting on this page takes more than simple complaints. --Khajidha 08:16, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Rescue Bots

I propose adding rescue bots to this list, only listed as rescue heroes, or Eureka. Bookwormdalek 20:26, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

...but it's universally beloved. Surely no Transformers fan could hate fun?! -Derik 15:51, 12 December 2012 (EST)

While I agree that in moderation fun is enjoyable, its creation did cause the standard "Ruined FOREVER" response that would deem it necessary to add to the page in the best interests of keeping an accurate database. Bookwormdalek 18:29, 30 June 2013 (EDT)

...Which died down about a week later, with only the few stubborn mules of the fandom remaining intolerant of it. This list contains things that have had lasting backlash that ran deep. Rescue Bots never got such deep-filled hatred as the things covered by this list. --Sabrblade 01:09, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

Windblade

Given the kerfuffle a certain segment of the fanbase made over Windblade, ahould she and/or her series be added to this list? And if so, as what? Nemesis Primal (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2014 (EDT)

This is just me, but I'd say we wait a bit more and see how her series and its portrayal of her character are received first. --Sabrblade (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2014 (EDT)

You know this fandom better than I do... I'm not always active in forums or anything... so I'll defer to your judgement. But from what I heard, the drama got really stupid at some points. Nemesis Primal (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2014 (EDT)

The loudmouths are a minority at this point, people are being really vocal about how much they're enjoying the book. People are being mixed about whether they like the writing or the art more, but in general I'm seeing a favorable response to the art and an appreciation for its snappy writing. Antimatter (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2014 (EDT)

IMO the drama was less to do with Windblade and more about the "brief conflict" between Scott and Furman referenced on Spotlight: Arcee's page - the worst criticism of Windblade I've seen is that she's kinda dull so far (and that was from me). I remember Drift raising far more ire when he was introduced and Drift isn't listed here. --Emvee (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

That's because IDW shilled Drift as "super cool" and that he'd be "their Wolverine". Windblade, on the other hand, wasn't shilled as a super cool "Wolverine", which is probably why she's been received better than Drift was.Spin-Out (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2014 (EDT)

Masterpiece Star Saber's English-language bio for the Australian release

Wow, the nerdrage over a little bonus addition for a limited run official import of a Japanese toy that references established IDW fiction is amazing. If that bio doesn't ruin Transformers FOREVER, nothing can.--Nevermore (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2015 (EST)

As always, my instinct in a situation like this is to wait for at least 3-4 months to see if there is widespread and sustained griping. Many people want to find a way to include, well, virtually everything on this page, and most TF franchises just don't get that level of sustained vitriol to warrant inclusion.--Jimsorenson (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2015 (EST)

I don't think we even need to be that conservative. Nobody is going to claim that one regional release of one toy has ruined the entire Transformers franchise. There's no new innovation or franchise re-invention going on here. It's just one bio on one toy and some people raging for a day or two.

As I've said before, RUINED FOREVER is not just "BUHR ME FAN HATE THING". It's "This new and different thing means that Transformers cannot and will not ever be good again" (add "because new things are bad" as needed), followed by Transformers surviving, thriving, and continuing to be good. In this age of live action movies, there's not much left that can shake the franchise to its core like that. -- Repowers (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2015 (EST)

DOTM Soundwave and Wheeljack cancelled in USA

Is that ruined forever? Many fans compalined about them cancelled and how they got too many Bumblebees.Pat (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2015 (EST)

No, that is not "ruined forever". Ruined Forever is large scale complaining about things that have supposedly irredeemably damaged the brand. And the complaining has to continue for a long period of time. Fans were upset about this, but it didn't drag on for years and years. Or even months and months. --Khajidha (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2015 (EST)

Autobot Megatron

Alot of fans were really upset with Megatron joining the autobots...That can be considered as a `RUINED FOREVER". Hyruk (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2015 (EST)

This doesn't sound like something that happened. --Nu-Priest (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2015 (EST)

Megatron never joined the Autobots (though there is a mirrorverse Megatron of course) but we don't talk about fanfics, only official fiction.Pat (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2015 (EST)

Go read the IDW comics, it happened. Or wait for this toy. But again, this is nowhere near the level of complaining that is necessary for Ruined Forever. --Khajidha (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2015 (EST)

But what's wrong if Megatron is an Autobot? It's supposed to be nice because that means there are no Decepticons and no war.Pat (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2015 (EST)

Which would pretty much END the fiction. No conflict, no drama, no story.--Khajidha (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2015 (EST)

In the allinged continuity, he becomes an Autobot in the Beast Hunters Predicons Rising movie. Markatron (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2015 (EDT)

"Radical Feminist SJWs"

Can we remove this entry from the list? It just seems like pointless flamebait to me- not to mention that in my experience, practically nobody believes that female Transformers "ruined" the brand. I mean, you have some people (including the mighty Simon Furman himself) who find the idea of gender in a race of robots kinda silly because, well, they're robots- an opinion I personally disagree with but still understand- but in all my time as a Transformers fan I've never seen ANYONE having the sort of knee-jerk reaction to the existance of female Transformers that this entry is implying, even on the 4chan Transformers threads.

Plus, quite aside from anything else, it's an open invitation for LOLDRAMA and not even that funny.Squigsquasher (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2015 (EDT)

• As far as I can tell, the only people who had trouble with it were the writers for some of the comics, under the justification that as automata, Transformers shouldn't have genders. That said, no one complained and after Arcee's head-turning introduction to the series, more of them showed up without incident, meaning either a shift in attitude or pressure from Hasbro.

So yeah, pretty much. Don't need it. --King Starscream (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2015 (EST)

Nnnnnyeah, that one's staying. http://fucknotfw2005.tumblr.com/post/125522205664 http://fucknotfw2005.tumblr.com/post/124075222269 http://fucknotfw2005.tumblr.com/post/122682384287 http://fucknotfw2005.tumblr.com/post/129784394268 http://fucknotfw2005.tumblr.com/post/128712971726 http://fucknotfw2005.tumblr.com/post/121195549217 There is literally an entire Tumblr dedicated to cataloging angry reactions to women in Transformers and how "social justice" is ruining it further. Hundreds of entries. If you missed all of it, then you're blessed! --ItsWalky (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2015 (EST)

I mean, seriously, this is one of the few entries on the page that can actually be supported by articles on non-Transformers websites. It belongs on here more than most others, if this were a wiki which was going for any kind of Wikipedia-style notability. --ItsWalky (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2015 (EST)

Well, my day is ruined forever. I could seriously have gone my whole life without learning about this tumblr.--Giggidy (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2015 (EST)

Meh, most of the posts linked in that Tumblr (or at least the ones you linked) seemed to be fairly reasonable, and far from the outright disgust that usually accompanies cries of "RUINED FOREVER". Heck, there were actually a few fairly valid points here and there amidst the "I disagree with the direction IDW is taking the franchise" posts (most notably that men might be better at managing/marketing a boy-oriented toyline, just as women might be better for girl-oriented toylines). Unless "Ruined FOREVER" now means "Not everyone agrees this is a 100% good thing" I still think it's a pretty petty, unnecessary addition to an otherwise decent article. Now if you want real Ruined Forever butthurt just look at the reactions to Alpha Bravo, Offroad, Rook and Blastoff-as-a-jet.

Also, you aren't helping your case any by linking to clickbait articles. C'mon, we're better than this.--Squigsquasher (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2015 (EST)

...wow. Now this entry is staying even more. --M Sipher (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2015 (EST)

I beg your pardon? Is simply stating the fact that the cited sources did not display a particularly vicious level of backlash, especially compared to, say, the absolute atomic butthurt experienced by the fandom due to the existence of Alpha Bravo and the other CW newbies, now some kind of capital offence? I certainly don't think I said anything that even remotely deserved that level of condescension.--Squigsquasher (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2015 (EST)

No, no, he needed to use more condescension. You're agreeing with some awful-ass bigoted shit. --ItsWalky (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2015 (EST)

Yeah, I was toning it down, really. Because the contention that new Combiner components complaints were somehow more vicious and awful than the shit leveled at the existence of more female TFs, including female TFs who don't look like metal Barbies (adding a nice layer of transphobia to the mix) is patently ridiculous, repulsive horseshit, and you are NOT going to win this one, so just stop now. --M Sipher (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2015 (EST)

Both those websites linked push agendas up the asshole, and pulling shit off some obscure Tumblr page doesn't really help one's argument. Also, it's funny seeing Walky defend entry. Why don't we compromise? Remove the shit about feminism and SJWs and replace it with something like... "More female Transformers"? It makes the people mad look like strawmen, but it's a start. ~~User:TheTFGeek~~ (User talk:TheTFGeek:talk)

Oh, and I won't be able to reply immediately because I'll be hitting the hay soon. Please take into consideration my idea and try to act civilized (not that you all aren't). Oh, and apologies for attacking you like that, Walky. ~~TheTFGeek~~

Hahahahah "agendas" hahahahhahahahah no. No, it is not going away. Coddling bigoted, misogynistic shit is not "civilized", its scummy and won't be tolerated here. --M Sipher (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2015 (EST)

I would sooner raze this website to the ground than allow something I pay for to coddle smallminded 4chan concern trolling about "agendas." It stays. --ItsWalky (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2015 (EST)

Shit, I was trying to act nice and compromise, but, alright, have it your way. Also, M, are you telling me you really can't tell when news sites push agendas? ~~TheTFGeek~~

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah --M Sipher (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2015 (EST)

Hahhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha this fool won't actually argue with me and has to reply in a insulting manner hahahahahahahahah ~~TheTFGeek~~

It's interesting how nobody's ever asked that this article be more polite about fans who hate Beast Wars or the live-action films or whatever. No, it's just the fans who hate female characters who deserve that! Jalaguy (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2015 (EST)

Gamergate has finally reached our shores. Saix (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2015 (EST)

I had a good feeling someone would bring that up... ~~TheTFGeek~~

I wonder why. Saix (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2015 (EST)

I'm unclear regarding how the obscurity or otherwise of the tumblr page is relevant when it is reposting stuff people have said on a major Transformers fan site. --abates (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2015 (EST)

My two Euro-Cents: Do I personally need female Transformers? Not necessarily. Do I hate the concept of female Transformers? Hell no. Do I oppose the introduction of more female Transformers characters? Not if they're written well, which they seem to be for the most part. (I particularly enjoy Nautica!) Is the backlash hilariously over the top? Absolutely. Is it indicative of misogyny deeply rooted in many members of our jolly little fandom? Definitely. Does it belong on this page? Well, of course.--Nevermore (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2015 (EST)

Locked

If ever there was a page that deserved to be locked, it's this one. The idea that it needs some debate before we go ahead and add something here is a good one, and I hope it stays that way indefinitely. --Giggidy (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2015 (EST)

Thank you for listening to me instead of laughing at my posts and automatically assuming I'm a troll. I'd add some insulting stuff in this next sentence, but I don't want to further agitate people. ~~TheTFGeek~~

Right, I just got an idea for a bullet point; combining Dinobots, which were summarily Ruined FOREVER to the fandom after The Beast Within. It's pretty clear that that topic should probably be on here under a bullet point, at least to me. MaximalBroadjaw (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2016 (EST)

Combiner Wars

Anyone else think Combiner Wars (cartoon) should be added to the list? Jcbynum1 23:11, 27 September 2016 EST

No, the point of this list is things which whiners ridiculously claim have ruined Transformers but in fact have not. Terribly made productions are a separate thing. You don't see the RotF film on here with its dismally low critical reception, do you? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2016 (EDT)

Sipher gave a big fat NO to that previously, so it's a no go. This page isn't for everything terrible or everything new, just specific stuff that was widely, irrationally feared by the fandom to spell certain irreparable doom for the Transformers brand. As bad as the CW cartoon was, it was hyped up with much anticipation and hailed by some as a sort of Second Coming of G1 in cartoon form. People were dying to see this cartoon and were thinking it could be the greatest thing ever, the very opposite of the "Ruined FOREVER" concept. And once it came out, while people saw how bad it was, they still knew that it wouldn't ruin the brand like they thought the things on this page would. --Sabrblade (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2016 (EDT)

Apparently IDW is adding another to the list

According to some people 'stuck in 1984', shall we say, at least, Multi-property crossovers are Ruining FOREVER! Transformers as a stealth way to phase out all the 1984-introduced characters we know and love. - TBR (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2016 (EDT)

Once again, the list's entry requirements are not a simple as "some people complained about it". (If they were, literally everything the brand has ever done would be on the list.) Jalaguy (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2016 (EDT)

HasCon

Given the fans' unfavorable reaction to the newest convention, any hopes for adding this to the page? FigureGunplaFan (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2017 (EDT)

Has Hascon been actually accused being something that will "ruin the Transformers brand forever", or have the negative reactions just been a general dislike of some of the con's aspects? If only the latter, then no, it wouldn't be added to this page. --Sabrblade (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2017 (EDT)

Well, looks like HasCon is spared from the fires of this page. FigureGunplaFan (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

Great, that omission has made this page worthless. "Transformers: Ruined FOREVER" ruined FOREVER. Cosmos1 (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2017 (EDT)

At this point I would support the removal of the list of things that have ruined Transformers forever, just to make it easier to keep the page from being indiscriminately added to. --Khajidha (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

It's already locked so only administrators can edit the page. I think bringing prospective items here means we can limit what's added all right, even if some people are going to disagree with the outcome of the discussion. --abates (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

I for one was trying to make a joke. I'm not really concerned about HasCon being on this page. Cosmos1 (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2017 (EDT)

Hasbro acquiring TakTom

Oh boy, this is a big one. This is going to be mentioned to this page in the future if this happens. https://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/speculation-hasbro-looking-to-acquire-takara-tomy/39978/ (NOTE: This is speculation) FigureGunplaFan (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2017 (EST) UPDATE: Yup, that "Unifying the Brands" happened. FigureGunplaFan (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2017 (EST)

Cade's quote in TLK

Should you add Cade's "That is not Optimus" quote in this page as a meta reference to the fans and the page? FigureGunplaFan (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2017 (EST)

Beast?

Given the frequency of the two subjects popping up together, I am actually curious. Has anyone ever accused the Beast of ruining the franchise forever? Or is it one of those thankfully obscure things that only really comes up on this wiki and The Cinema Sins review of Power Rangers? --King Starscream (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

I think it's one of those things that isn't obscure among TFdom, but it's also not exactly mainstream media like most of the things on that list.

It prob belongs on this list, tho. Crossfire 18:35, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

The point of this list is not "bad things in the Transformers franchise" but "things the fandom overreacted to". Nobody cared about the Beast because it's a British pack-in comic that has zero influence on anything. Saix (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

Have you... seen the Beast, Saix? I don't know if I'd say "no influence"...

But in all seriousness, he is correct. Pretty much anyone who goes on a TF news-site or the like can be exposed to mainline show or comic and react to it. The Beast is more one of those things that only hardcore fans (and/or us wiki editors) really understand the reference to. It's horrifying, but not "controversial". Crossfire 22:09, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

Toy Distributions in 2020

Looks like this example has potential given the negative reactions regarding Hasbro's lack of distribution in some countries like the UK. FigureGunplaFan (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2020 (EDT)

No. --Riptide (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2020 (EDT)

(Late response) Okay, I understood. But I'm also here to remind you that the responses to the exclusives these days are alarmingly clear. FigureGunplaFan (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2020 (EDT)

NFTs

Yup. Definitely new entry worthy. FigureGunplaFan (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2022 (EST)

Probably not for this page, because this is a sarcastic list of things that people overreact to but turn out to not be that bad in the long run. NFTs don't quite fit that, being unironically and unabashedly terrible. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2022 (EST)

Yeah, no. NFTs are objectively shit. --M Sipher (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2022 (EST)

Okay. Maybe I should SERIOUSLY read the page carefully next time. FigureGunplaFan (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2022 (EST)

MOTU no longer a good example

In the years since the intro was written, Netflix She-Ra and "kid" He-Man have shown that that property can be rebuilt to appeal to new, more diverse audiences. GIJoe still entombed in amber, though. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2022 (EDT)

Honestly, Joe as the sole punchline without Mickey or MOTU feels more effective anyway. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2022 (EDT)

Possible addtion - Pronouns?

Considering the uproar about Nightshade's pronouns being mentioned like, twice, maybe we could add Pronouns to the list and tag them? (Cue all those people saying that EarthSpark is indoctrinating children lol) Or add Nightshade to the "SJW" part, since "woke" and "SJW" are pretty much used synonymously nowadays -- Thunderwave/Bwans_Art (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2024 (EST)

I don't see any mention of that storm in a teacup on his their page, and frankly I'm disinclined to give the matter any oxygen. --M Sipher (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2024 (EST)

"His"? --Broadside (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2024 (EST)

guh it's been a long day --M Sipher (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2024 (EST)

Valid, let's leave this topic to the whiners on Reddit and X... fingers crossed they'll get used to it in season 2! -- Thunderwave/Bwans_Art (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2024 (EST)

Late to this discussion, but "PRONOUNS!!!" definitely needs to be on this article. The outrage around Nightshade might not have seemed as big as it was because those kinds of people have so many constant meltdowns over the most banal things that it's almost impossible to pay attention to any single one of them, but it definitely made a lot of losers angry regardless, there are videos with hundreds of thousands of views on it. (FortressMaxxing (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2025 (EDT))

"Mario movie"?

For TF1? I heard that comparison thrown around a lot especially early on. Liliesrobots (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2024 (EDT)

No! The fans LOVE this movie. It's like the polar opposite of what this page is about. --Sabrblade (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2024 (EDT)

Fans in general love this movie but people still bitch about it, and the page is about that minority of bitchy fans, right? Liliesrobots (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2024 (EDT)

Sabr is right; this page is for stuff that had overwhelming discourse surrounding it and/or a not insignificant number of people saying it ruined the franchise, not just a loud minority. TF1 doesn't qualify under any stretch of the imagination. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2024 (EDT)

Possible Addition: Poor Marketing? (for tf one)

It’s no secret by now that poor marketing killed any chance of TF one’s success. The trailers made everyone think it was gonna be a generic kids movie, and it threw many people off, me included. And since TF one bombed, Hasbro pulled their funding and the movie franchise is left in limbo. But what do yall think?--Trashatron (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2025 (EDT)

Again, please refer to the top of this talkpage. --Broadside (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2025 (EDT)

F*nko Pops

Honestly, just make the "Things that are actually, objectively terrible" page link to the entire Funko Pop page, and add an "(Especially this)" as parenthesis follow-up with a wikilink to the NFT section instead. Funko Pops are legitimately some of the most abhorrent abominations to have been unleashed upon this cruel and uncaring world, seeing walls of these things plastering gentrified comic book shops makes me sick to my stomach, and I support any and all slander against these objectively, empirically, factually, unquestionably horrible wastes of plastic. When Steve Buscemi said "Do you think God stays in heaven because he, too, lives in fear of what he's created here on earth?", I am pretty much 100% sure that Pops were what he was referring to. (FortressMaxxing (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2025 (EDT))

Generative AI

We've now got at least three known instances of Generative AI being used in official Transformers-branded product. Instead of making the Objectively Terrible link go to just NFTs, I suggest making its own section of bullet points within or below the "See also" section. This bullet list likely would only have three bullets until something comes along and causes worse environmental damage than Gen AI and NFTs have done so far.
The proposed list, as follows:
Things that are actually, objectively terrible

• Non-Fungible Tokens
• Generative AI
• A money laundering scheme $3800 statues

Singularity (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2025 (EST)

I agree with this. Kadeo (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2025 (EST)