Talk:Skram (G2)

So- what? It's not Skram? Are we distrusting the evidence of our eyes? Do we not think someone in War Within was Windcharger unless he's explicitly named? I seem to be missing what's going on here- because it looks to me like Skram's a member of maximal security in the BM era, several centuries after G2-- yet his wiki entry seems to be saying that another, completely unrelated character was inspired by his deco. I call shenanigans on that, and I say the trivia entry is pulling this 'not the same characterness' out of it's ass.

If I'm missing something then by all means explain it. But if you have a picture of Skram in the 23rd (or whatever) century, why isn't it part of his history here? I think Skram being active in Beast Era is a pretty interesting thing for a character who never really did anything else. -Derik 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to explain. This bit of trivia is already in the Trivia section. Put in there by guy who helped decide his deco. How is that out of his ass? --ItsWalky 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But it's not trivia. If it was in both places, it belongs in the Timelines section of his Fiction area.

Also, the trivia entry is making an unsubstantiated claim that the Maximal-guy isn't Skram. -Derik 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you purposefully ignoring what I'm saying? ACCORDING TO THE ARTISTS/FANS WHO COMPOSED THE IMAGE, IT IS MERELY AN HOMAGE TO SKRAM'S COLOR SCHEME. Are you only here, parrotting the same exact damn fucking argument over and over despite what I say, just to raise my blood pressure? Do our words mean nothing to you? --ItsWalky 17:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? The trivia bit just says he's an homage, and earlier everyone was asking. The linked thread on Allspark doesn't mention Skram either.

So, Trenttroop did, in fact, intend this not to be Skram... but still used Skram's color scheme? I'm still a little confused, clear that up for me. -Derik 17:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My bedlinens are in Joyce's color scheme, but I'm fairly certain my bed is not Joyce. Okay, I realize that I'm going to have to spell this out for you in a less artful way. You see, it is possible to homage something without it actually being that something. For example, I may like Spider-Man's colors. I could put Spider-Man's colors on some guy. That doesn't mean I intend for that guy to be Spider-Man! It is merely a color homage! This is very simple, and either you are lacking some part of your brain or you are being difficult on purpose.

Do you want other examples? K-9's page treats this subject similarly. And, sure, you'd think that the Predacons behind Razorclaw on the final page are themselves, but they're actually descendents/homages/not-the-original characters. An homage does not always sctrictly mean they're the original guy. In fact, being an homage pretty much precludes them being the original guy, or it would be called an update instead.

And as I've said repeatedly, you do not have to ask Trent. M Sipher had input into the color schemes of these guys. And he was the guy who put the trivia note in. Therefore I WOULD TAKE HIS WORD ON THIS. --ItsWalky 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Sipher thought it would be cute to stick the colors of a patrol specialist onto another patrol specialist- but for him to be a new character. Of course- there's nothing here to actually indicate he is a new character.

To clarify my poistion, since I was apparently insufficiently blunt;

1) That is idiotic

2) That is an unnatural reading of the cannon from the outside. The natural reading is- two patrol specialists in the same highly distinctive color scheme? Same guy!

3) You're elevatign Author intent above the actual cannon in a situation where Author intent is as it's weakest.'

My eyes, and the circumstance he appears in, tell me that is Skram. There is nothing in the cannon to indicate imply, or even really give a circumstantial reason he would not be Skram. Against it being Skram is 'Oh, I was throwing around color schemes.' -Derik 18:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to have a Fiction section that says "This is definitely Skram," and then note in the Trivia section "Actually, no he's not, according to the creators." How backwards is that? The idea of a color homage may seem odd to you, but I'm pretty sure it's fairly obvious to the rest of us. I don't understand your inability to cope with the concept of a homage or why one would do such a thing. Again, that's what an homage IS. If people didn't do it, we wouldn't have a word for it. --ItsWalky 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're falling prey to a fan-creator mindset, and aren't able to step back from this and see it for what it is; an actual, published piece of fiction, which is supposed to be read and enjoyed by people who don't know Trent and Sipher- but might be familiar with Transformers, and would, logically, conclude this is Skram.

I'm saying Author intent here is trumped by what we see, and unless some subsequent publication goes out of its way to establish this is not Skram-- hs'e Skram.

Peripherally, I'm also saying (as rudely as possible) "If Sipher, Trent, et-al didn't want peopel to conclude he's skram, they shouldn't have given him Skrams' fucking color schem. This entire debate is a result of a conscious choice on their parts- apparentlty designed to decieve and confuse the reader- and generally make it impossible to draw logical conclusions about the universe from the published material."

Homage-colors suck on toys- but at least on toys we have a way of sorting out when someone isn't supposed to be who they look like. Doign that in a comic? Somebody had a major attack of the stupids. -Derik 18:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say the identity of the character cannot be stated assuredly until we have official confirmation one way or the other. The author intent is merely evidence in favor of this caution, to be discarded if real fiction says one way or the other. To absolutely declare him to be Skram is misleading, especially so prominently on Skram's page, and especially especially if we have any evidence to the contrary, which we do. A note in trivia handles the matter better. Your feelings on what is and is not a good homage is not the arbitrar. --ItsWalky 19:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You ramble on and on this, yet you fail to realize that there's nothing that states that they're the same character in the first place? The guy only fucking shows up in one piece of art as a extra to a comic with no text whatsoever for him, thus we default to author intent until canon comes around for him. Frankly, "author intent" is on a higher tier than your retarded "SAME COLORS=SAME CHARACTER" assumption. Interrobang 19:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit like arguing that 2/3 of the cast of The War Within are unknowns because they never got a dialog box identifying them.

So appearance counts for NOTHING?

Look, if you want to argue 'Hey, we might be getting something with these guys, this might all be settled in an official capacity, so don't start examining it too closely yet- there's more coming' I'm fine with that. But the argument I see is "Dont' trust the evidence of your eyes, trust what the guy who designed the art (but isnt' the writer of this possibly firthcoming material) was thinking. And that's a bullshit argument. -Derik 19:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a false choice. Appearance doesn't count for nothing. It also does not count for EVERYTHING. --ItsWalky 19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither does Author intent. Appearance does count for everything (or at least a lot) in Transformers in most cases (such a white-tiger-deco'd patrol cars) yet apparently in this case- it counts for nothing, and Author intent counts for all? -Derik 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the results are inconclusive. Which is why the appearance of the Skram-esque guy goes into trivia, not the fiction section. --ItsWalky 20:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

War Within was clearly stated to represent old characters in prehistory. A one-off group shot of unnamed characters, that aren't likely to get any fiction, wasn't. Beyond Tigatron, which was indicated by many cues other than color scheme, including "author intent". Interrobang 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I think there are far more people who have no idea who Skram is in the first place so there is not a one for one based on colors of someone you don't know, and have never heard about. If I understand this correctly, this is based on a group shot of lots a similar designed patrol guys in different colors. I imagine there are other panels in transformers that have background charaters without names. Fans can place names on them if they want, and while author intent might be a good gauge as to who is who, it doesn't always workout that way in the end. It might be easy to pick out a relatively known robot out of a group in War Within because of an enlarged group knowledge of the subject, but a G2 comic character is not going to have as large of a group base for such knowledge. Until this debate happened, I've never even heard of, much less seen Skram. So the likely conclusion is that a trivial note would be fitting for a trivial one shot deal. Now if someone decides to do an Adventures of the Maximal Security Patrol, or some such thing, then you might get more useful information. ~Ithekro

Wow... that's uh.. a pretty heated discussion about whether some guy is Skram or not. I agree with parts of what both sides are saying. I agree with Derik that sometimes the only thing we have to go on is a character's appearance -- even when that appearance may have been modified in some way -- to tell who is who. I also agree with him that declaring the character to be surely not-Skram would elevate author intent to canonical status, which is not acceptable. However, as Interrobang says, most of the cases where we decide somebody *is* somebody based only on appearance are in a story context where we are *expecting*, and even told to expect new-body versions of previously established characters. The Maximal Command Security Force doesn't really fit that bill to the extent of War Within. As such, there is no real reason to think that it is Skram, nor is there any reason to declare him unSkram. Neither side really bears the burden of proof on this issue... it's simply insoluble. As such, I definitely think it should be mentioned in the trivia rather than the fiction section. However, I think adding a sentence to the trivia that acknowledges the *possibility* that Skram is in the MCSF is appropriate, as long as it's emphasized that there is no canonical evidence either way. Absent the author intent information, it's a curious coincidence which will probably never be resolved, but should be mentioned. --Steve-o 05:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking he looks like Depth Charge? With, uh, orange pants? Chip 06:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the current form is sufficiently ambiguous that it can go either way, so nothing more probably needs to be said in the trivia blurb.--MCRG 08:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Beef with the Maximal Cops - I might be able to shed some light on this. The Maxis were designed after, left to right: Diver, Unit 2/Nitrostreak, Skram (flying), Deluge, Ikard, Armada Wheeljack (kneeling), K-9 (the commander), Tigatron and Highbeam. When I did the intial designs, the intention was that Deluge, Highbeam and Scram would be the G2 characters, post Maximal Upgrade. All the homages were straightfoward, except for Wheeljack. I just really dug his colorscheme. The first renderings I did had them with G2 Autobrands on their right shoulders to match the Maximal symbols on their left. Pete didn't want to go that route and made an editorial decision to drop the symbols. The dropping of the symbols, to me, shunted them into descendant/homage territory. The maximal police captain's name is 9k in every note and sketch I did for this thing. Whether or not that means he's K9, I'm going to have to say we don't know until its confirmed. Ikard and Diver don't match their pre-show designs but that's also true of the "yeah but not quite" Lioconvoy from the IDW BW series. If you want to know current author intent: Ikard, Diver and 9K/K9 = Intended to be the canonical characters. Highbeam, Skram and Deluge = Until more surfaces, I consider them homages. Unit 1 and Unit 2 are who they are from the comics, of course. And the guy with Armada Wheeljack's colorscheme is a new character. -- Trent Troop 09:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sooo... That function....

"Crack Patrol"... Do we have a best guess on what that was supposed to mean? Seriously?--76.28.76.206 23:22, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

I assume the applicable definition from the Oxford English Dictionary is this one: "crack: attrib.adj. excellent; first-rate (a crack regiment; a crack shot)" --abates 00:33, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

it's just not a normal usage of the word. " Crack patrol" just isn't something folks would ever say. It was the 90s when Joe had their whole anti-drug team. It could just as easily be that usage. At least that bizzar as it also is, would be a more "normal" meaning of thevphrase. --76.28.76.206 07:42, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

It absolutely means "excellent" or "first-rate" and has nothing to do with drugs. The Skyscorchers' and Axelerators' bios in general are very awkward; possibly they're relics of being written by someone within Hasbro Europe whose first language wasn't English. Or he was a robot. Either way, there's no hidden meaning here beyond "giggle giggle crack". -LV 07:46, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

Oh yea, it could have been written by someone with English as a second language? I never considered that before. "Crack Patrol" is unusual. The Oxford English Dictionary examples uses an article. "A crack regiment", "a crack shot." "Crack regiment" would sound just as weird. - Starfield 13:10, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

I don't see how that is any weirder than any of the other "___________ Patrol" forms. "Air Strike Patrol" or "Off Road Patrol", for example. There really isn't anything wrong with "Crack Patrol", some people just have a Beavis and Butthead-esque "Hnnhhhh hnnnhhh, he said crack" level of immaturity. --Khajidha 13:24, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

No it has nothing to do with sophmoric humor. No one was gigling here at all. It has everything to do with "Crack Patrol" not being normal english. "Air Strike Patrol" and such are NOT the same thing because they ARE all phrases that are normal, logical, and comon meaningful english usage. Crack Patrol simply is not. Seriously it stumped me as a kid and there was never and snickery humor to that it just literally didn't seem to mean anything comprehensible. As the Joe line was running a whole Drug Enforcement sub line at the time that seemed as logical a guess as any. Now I'd say it was probably meant to be"top" but it's not at all something a normal english speaker would write.--76.28.76.206 14:13, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

I'ma go out on a limb and guess you're a Sherman here 76.28.76.206, 'cause as a normal English speaker (English as in born in England) it's not particularly odd at all. If his bio was written by someone in Hasbro UK then there's nothing unusual about it in the slightest - it's a (relatively) common turn of phrase this side of the pond. --15:04, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

It's pretty common 'round these parts (NC, USA) as well. To 76.whatever, my point about Crack Patrol not being any weirder than Air Strike Patrol was directed at Starfield's contention that Crack Patrol needed an article. The OED would say an air strike patrol or an off road patrol just as it does say a crack patrol. --Khajidha 16:01, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

It's kind of ridiculous to see someone say such-and-such well-known English phrase "is not normal English." No offense, but maybe you're just not very well-read? And I'm an American too. --Thylacine 2000 18:20, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

"Every one, a crack shot!" --Gort, describing the good Nebulan pre-Targetmasterized sharpshooters, "The Rebirth, Part 1". --Thylacine 2000 08:11, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

That phrase is an anachronism of a sort though. A hold out that's nearly the only place the word is ever used in that sense in American english anymore. Still, the fact that these guys were originally released and bio-ed in Europe as LV said may be the best explanation for the strange word usage.--76.28.76.206 09:11, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

I bet you think Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble are carrying on an affair ("we'll have a gay old time!"), too. It obviously just means that his patrol is made of skilled personel. --Khajidha 09:25, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

But the Flinstone example is exactly what I'm saying. It is also an out of date/now uncommon usage, though not quite as bad as Crack patrol. I'll agree that "top/excelent" is almost certrainly what it means, yes. Just saying it's still an odd and rather unnatural phrasing in modern american english. --76.28.76.206 09:44, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

Man, now I want an Autobot ANTI-DRUG TASK FORCE line. Sideswipe Says: Winners Don't Do Drugs! -hx 12:41, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

The word "crack," being used in exactly this manner. In 2010. --Andrusi 14:39, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

and you can still find places that use gay to mean happy alla Flintstones. Doesn't change the above points.--76.28.76.206 14:49, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

Yeah, uh, actually, it does. The entire premise of your argument is that this is a usage of the word that does not happen anymore, or at the very least does not happen commonly. This is inherently incompatible with the continued use of the word in exactly that fashion. It is a word which is very much part of the collective consciousness. The A-Team is about "a crack commando unit." There is a concrete foundation repair company whose name is a pun on the usage (and which goes on to further pun on the phrase in a completely different direction). It is not a weird obscure phrasing that nobody uses. --Andrusi 15:09, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

He is clearly using the "I am the World" argument approach. He is not aware of the usage of such a word. Therefore, nobody uses that word anymore. --FFN 23:08, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

It still makes more sense than Ninja Consultant. -- Semysane 21:18, 17 March 2011 (EDT)