Talk:Misconceptions and urban legends about Transformers

How about the statement that Metrotitan is made of the ghosts of dead Decepticons? I know I've heard that thrown around a time or two back in the day.... -hx 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats Violinjyger and it's true.

Alright, how about something about how G2 is G2 and everything after the movie, while technically a second generation, is not "G2" (although I recall hearing that Pat Lee regarded it as such).--Zodberg 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition to the Beast Wars Section: Black Arachnia was inspired by an Asian stripper

Can some please add this? The guy from Mainframe said (you can find his post on A.T.T.) that their animator, WHO IS OF ASIAN DESCENT, was taken to a strip club before he worked on BA's animation model. There was NEVER any mention of an Asian stripper by ANYONE from Mainframe, EVER!

I had forgotten this one, but it DID have a serious amount of play in the late 90's fandom... -hx 07:42, 8 November 2010 (EST)

90's fandom? I was hearing it through a good chunk of the 2000s. Ironhold 18:29, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

I just heard it a few days ago. --M Sipher 18:38, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

French Starscream

I went ahead and removed the entry about Starscream. First of all, while I don't know about Bigbot's reliability... the sound clips ARE legit. And the French source you pulled from TFW2005 referred to Starscream being male in the CARTOON (ie "episodes") rather than the movie itself, which used an entirely different dub team.

I'm French Canadian, all my ancestors came to Canada from France, between the ages of three and ten, I rented the movie in French every single time I was at my grandparents' house. So I know what I'm talking about here. --Detour 22:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also assume that the French fans interviewed to dispell that theory ALSO knew what they were talking about. And this Youtube clip and this other Youtube clip don't make him sound very female to me. It's your word against both other French fans and evidence I just watched with my own eyes, man. --ItsWalky 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I dunno how many more bloody times I must say this, the French movie used a different dub team from either French dubs of the cartoon. I even pointed it out in Starscream's article. Yes, in the TV show he was a guy, but in the movie, the new dub team made him and Shrapnel girls. Listen to those clips for proof. Those are legit from the TFTM I watched growing up. --Detour 22:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to get Nevermore to clarify on this when he made the changes, but he was unable to provide more info. Can you confirm that Starscream was characterized / referred to as female in the movie, along with the feminine voice? I think it's important that we clarify the myth as "partly true" rather than just delete it, but I want to be sure we have it all nailed down. --Steve-o 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, aside from the obvious voice, Megatron says to Starscream "Tu es une imbécile." In English, "an idiot" would be used to refer to a male or a female idiot, but in French the article varies in gender, were Starscream a male he would have said "Tu es un imbécile." instead of "une imbécile". (French articles and determiners)

Shrapnel being female is OBVIOUS from the fact that Kickback calls him/her "Mademoiselle Shrapnel", which translates to "Miss Shrapnel".

I'm trying to locate video clips of the French dub of TFTM to have more than just sound clips but so far I haven't found any... not sure where I could find a VHS tape in this day and age either... --Detour 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For those wondering why Shrapnel's being mentioned here, you can read this link, which is how this whole issue was brought up in the first place. But note that I've never questioned (for I've had no reason to do so) movie Shrapnel's femininity.--G.B. Blackrock 23:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Repackaged old toys

I think we should also have something on the notion that new-packaging releases of older toys are old unsold items taken back from store shelves, pulled from their cards, and RE-packaged onto new cards. I mean, this HAS to be bullshit. But I'm not sure of the best way to phrase it, since it's not a ridiculous argument that comes up very often. I wonder if Kyde has any insights on this. --M Sipher 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I've ever heard somebody claim that, but admittedly, I have been out of online TF discussions for a year or two, and have never read the web boards regularly. I think that unless this is something that actually comes up semi-frequently, there's not much reason to bring it up in the article. --Steve-o 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it said repeatedly that REDECOs are unsold toys that are sent back to Hasbro and repainted. Of course, I've only ever heard it said on Tformers. Those posters probably aren't competent enough to be held accountable for their actions. --ItsWalky 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it several times over the course of years. Certainly more than I've seen "Shrapnel's a girl in France" and "Geman movie omitted Starscream's death"... which is never before the wiki. --M Sipher 23:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what Siph said. -hx 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've recently had a discussion with a common friend of ours, who is a longtime hardcore collector with inside contacts, and even he believed in the "repackaged toys are REpackaged in the literal sense" theory until I pointed out to him how expensive that would be. So I agree with Sipher here that it deserves a place on this page.--Nevermore 00:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article?

If we can get a few pictures... like the catalog image of blue-sided Bluestreak, Raiden in the Headmasters cartoon, a few other things... I think this page should have Featured status. It's important shit. --M Sipher 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say all the reference links are going to need alternate text before we can safely call this a featured article.--Rosicrucian^Talk 00:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Confirmed" myths?

Would it be worth it to add urban legends that are actually true? (I'm thinking here things like "Sunstreaker and Sideswipe's/Starscream and Skywarp's tech specs were swapped, there was a Unicron toy planned during G1 that had an Orson Welles voice chip, etc.) Some of those things almost reach the status of urban legends in the fandom (not as much as they used to, now that information is easier to come by, but still.) Also, we need to add "Armada was supposed to tie together all previous TF continuities" or whatever the dumb rumor was. Also, maybe something to explain exactly what the RTV dubs really are (made in Malaysia, not Singapore, did they REALLY air in Hawaii/Mexico/wherever as I've seen people claim, etc.) -hx 13:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, "There was a Transformers breakfast cereal with Bumblebee-shaped marshmallows and when you poured milk on it, they changed from car mode to robot mode." A kid at my school SWORE he had eaten this. -hx 13:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no evidence for it but I DO remember seeing a Commemorative Sideswipe at TRU. Having no interest in G1 at the time I didn't buy it (though it might;ve been some other commemorative Autobot; I dunno for sure but my memory genuinly has the image of sideswipe).--BlackStarscream 01:27, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

TF:TM soundtrack evidence of "lost" scene

The 10 seconds in question are from 02:29 to 02:39 in "Death of Optimus Prime" on the original soundtrack CD. There was at least one other release of the soundtrack, right? Can anyone check and see if the mysterious sequence is there too? Or, hell, if anyone has heard of DiCola giving an alternate explanation, please disabuse me of the whole notion. - Jackpot 19:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to dig out my copy of Lighting Their Darkest Hour: The Complete Music Score for TFTM, but I seem to recall the entire album clocking in at several full minutes longer than the entire movie, and that's before one considers The Touch or any of the other songs. I recall from somewhere that DiCola once did an interview in which he talked about it being unusually difficult to score the film, and IIRC it was because he had to score based off of the storyboards rather than the finished footage. If so, it could be that DiCola simply over-estimated how long certain scenes would run and so scored for every sequence start-to-finish like that, at which point the score was trimmed to fit the actual timing for the sequences and to fit in around the other songs. Ironhold 18:19, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

I just had a thought. We know that there were a number of scenes which made it as far as the storyboard stage before being cut. Could DiCola have been given these scenes to score as well? If so, then the combination of "DiCola scoring scenes that were cut" and "DiCola misjudging the length of each scene" could easily explain why the full score is so much longer than the actual movie. Ironhold 21:09, 10 July 2013 (EDT)

Misconception?

"A misconception usually held by casual fans or nostalgic adults is that of the original 1980's cartoon being the best fiction and most influential/successful line to date, with all other successors being unpopular and/or unsuccessful ventures. Some of this misconception is based on the fact that most of the original audience stopped watching and following the franchise after its cancellation, or even before (as it wasn't "cool" to be kiddy once the puberty hit). Without any exposure to the market, the toyline and the new cartoons, they simply assume that Transformers has sunk in both popularity, quality and sales, since it's not what they remember."

Any facts/sources to back this up? I'd bet that actual sales between the demise of G1 and Micheal Bay stepping in were significantly lower, which would seriously contradict what's being said here.

According to lists that used to be published in Tomarts(?) magazine, Transformers has consistently placed in the top 3 boys toys properties since the beginning of Beast Wars. Robots in Disguise and Armada both reported record profits, though Energon and Cybertron didn't seem to match Armada's success. --ItsWalky 03:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How did Energon and Cybertron sell, anyway? It seems widely known that Armada sold like hotcakes, but nobody ever brings up the two sequels in that regard. -- Repowers 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Team names and vowel breaks

While I'm good with the "Seacons" inclusion... well, bot every Decepticon team had an "i" vowel break... like the Predacons. And not every team had a vowel break at all... like the Triggercons, and arguably the Firecons. On the other hand... were the Seacons the only two-syllable name team, where everyone else had three? Nothing else is springing to mind... --M Sipher 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's a "a" or an "i" is kinda moot; the point is that there was a break in all the teams before them. (FWIW, to a lazy Southern tongue like mine, the "i" and "a" are almost indistinguishable. It all comes out "uh-cons" regardless.) As for the contemporaneous Triggercons, there's no ambiguity in their name, as there's no vowel there to be misappropriated. Right or wrong, the extraneous "uh" in "see-uh-cons" comes from the "a" in "Sea". Last question: "Firecon" is only two syllables, innit? -- Repowers 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's only two syllables if you're a dirty southerner. --ItsWalky 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Southerner, and I say it "Fie-er". Any rate, the point is the current entry says "all teams had 'i' vowel breaks". Which ain't true... I'm more inclined to believe it's a "three-plus syllables" pattern. --M Sipher 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(D'oh. Terrorcons!) --M Sipher 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See, I think we should start calling the Pretender Monsters the Pretendicons, just to keep with the pattern. Semysane 08:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Soundwave's buttons

I think there are actually two separate issues at work here. I'd always been under the impression that G1 Soundwave underwent a running change in both the U.S. and Japan--going from the distinct, inset early buttons to the big protruding single chrome block later. After that change occurred, the mold was altered to turn it into Soundblaster. That was why Hasbro said at first they couldn't use the tooling anymore--because the door had been changed. The Takara bookbox reissue solved this by making a new version with a hybrid single door / late chrome button style, and also keeping another version with all of Soundblaster's features still around. Have I completely misunderstood the issue? --Thylacine 2000 14:35, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

R-rating

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=40510

Huh.--Nevermore 07:13, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Didn't they clarify that he was actually talking about Disturbia, Shia's OTHER PG-13 movie that came out that summer? - Cattleprod 14:19, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Plagiarizing

Yeah. [1] [2] [3] [4] Awesome work stealing our content and adding your poorly written own stuff, sucker!--Nevermore 16:56, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

I like how he added his own dumb "conclusions", which mostly contradict the copy+pasted text and are just completely wrong too. -Mazenoise 17:38, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

I've talked with some Brian guy over at that site, and he says he'll be deleting the blogs. Victoly? --ItsWalky 17:46, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

Hasn't happened yet.--Nevermore 06:58, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Surprise! --ItsWalky 09:48, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Looks like it's been removed.--Nevermore 13:10, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

"Companies" section?

I've seen the misconception that Tomy bought Takara (rather than merging with them on equal terms) thrown around quite a few times...What else could go into such a section?

Additionally, thise page has grown quite large. Should we split it?--Nevermore 19:12, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

Variations in Europe

Some toys were exclusively (or predominantly) available in the United Kingdom (sometimes also the Netherlands)

As I understand it, one of the reasons why this one may have taken root is because when the franchise began Hasbro in the UK and continental Europe were not yet integrated and so the releases were separate - I think the UK may have even begun the toys in late 1984 (which would explain why the comic began in September that year rather than waiting for the toys advertised to arrive the next). Most of the sightings of toys being available in one market but not the other, though in my experience tend to be cases of the UK not getting toys seemingly available on the continent - e.g. issue #60 of the UK comic reports Blaster being available in Germany with German tech specs - rather than the other way round. Timrollpickering 08:04, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

Agreed. I saw Trypticon and Bruticus box-set on sale in Greece, and Deluxe Insecticons and Shockwave in France circa 1986. None of these were ever available in the UK. J'mie 08:18, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

But this section is not referring to European releases of regular US toys. It's referring to Euro-exclusive toys like the "Classic" reissues, Turbomasters etc.--Nevermore 02:52, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Here's an old one I just remembered

Since the Diaclone & Microchange molds have copyright dates from the 70s on them, the original toys are from the 70s as well. That one's been pretty well debunked by actual release date info, but we should probably have something on the wiki explaining the reason that toys from '82 were marked '78 or whenever. It's something to do with how Japanese patent or copyright law or whatever worked at the time, IIRC - since Microchange STARTED in the late 70s, all the toys, no matter whne they dropped, had the copyright date of the initial product. At least, I think that's how it worked. Hooper_X 10:51, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Correct. Japanese copyright stamping at the time went by year of the brand's inception, not the year the toy per se was created. (I'm not sure if that's still the case in Japan. For any toys produced for non-Asian markets, it seems they're adhering to the date of manufacture rather than brand inception. At least, I can't recall the last time I saw a new TakaraTomy or Bandai toy with an old copyright date on it.)--Apcog 11:01, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Right. and shortly after posting this, I see it's already on there. It seems like we might need a more logical organizing process for this thing - maybe a "pre-Transformers" section before G1 to cover stuff like this exactly. Kind of track it through the history of the series, rumors about pre-TF toylines first, then rumors about TF development (John Romita drawing the character models, f'rinstance) and then kind of an era-by-era as appropriate. Hooper_X 11:40, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Blue Bluestreak

My brain is too fried from using Linux to make the appropriate edit right now and have it come out not terrible, but I think it's weird that the article acts like we have absolutely no idea why the rumor of a blue Bluestreak would be more widespread than the rumor of a dark gray Astrotrain. (And this is the part where someone assumes I don't know what his name means.) --User:Andrusi

Because it DID exist as a Diaclone, and some rumors existed of a VERY FEW making it out in TF boxes, including an ex-Hasbro employee. See: http://tfsource.com/blog/diaclone-car-robots-part-1/ --User:Chrusher

Can we get this page locked down?

Pages of this nature should never be open to anonymous edits, because somebody, somewhere, will take offense to us "lecturing them" on why they're wrong. --FFN 20:51, 4 July 2010 (EDT)

That probably won't stop them from making an account just to do the exact same thing anyway. --LokitheGrammarNazi 16:49, 18 September 2010 (EDT)

Japanese dub of Animated

Japanese Animated is a separate continuity from the Movieverse, right? But there was some early coverage that claimed otherwise, which still has people fooled? Is that correct?--Nevermore 16:41, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

"Transformers was nearly rated R by the MPAA."

It sounds like this is true, so does it belong here as a misconception or urban legend? - Starfield 02:00, 8 November 2010 (EST)

Because it's Shia's OTHER film, Disturbia, that was almost rated R. --Detour 02:08, 8 November 2010 (EST)

Neo/Car Robots Connection-

While I am not disputing that it is not a direct sequel, it might be worth noting that this one does have *some* vague credence, as it does include time-travelling Predacons/Destron(gers) as well as the semi-cameo by Heinlad in the pilot. I would imagine that these elements were included, in part at least, to help the transition from the "Beast Era" fiction to generation-spanning mash-up land. Which, still, a sequel does not make, I grant you. But it might be worth mentioning that there are elements beyond "animation style" that point towards this misconception, the Heinlad 'cameo', especially--Destrongerlupus 15:44, 12 November 2010 (EST)

War for Cybertron is a prequel to the G1 cartoon/War for Cybertron is part of G1

This section comes across as very pedantic, almost like "Hasbro declared it part of Prime, therefore it is. All the contradictions with the Prime cartoon and the similarities with G1 mean nothing, as they are overruled by Hasbro's official verdict". Yes, I know Hasbro has the last word, but seriously...--Nevermore 09:32, 28 November 2010 (EST)

But that is the case. WFC has superficial similarities to G1 so casual fans automatically ASSume that it is part of that continuity. Hell, many of them don't realize that there are multiple G1 continuities. As the Prime franchise integrates and synthesizes elements from all previous continuity families, there are bound to be similarities to G1. However, the franchise is so new that it is hard to get a feel on what it is. Hasbro's statements as to what belongs where is all that we really have to go on as of yet. --Khajidha 09:38, 28 November 2010 (EST)

I think the section as it is currenty described is pointless. It is G1 cartoon-centric and the reasons why WFC is not G1 also apply to nearly all the G1 comics! 82.15.221.203 11:56, 29 November 2010 (EST)

Except people don't seem to think that WFC is in Marvel or IDW continuity. When people think it's G1, they think it's cartoon G1. The only other G1 universe I ever see people try to fit it into is War Within, and the section discusses that as well. The reason for it being cartoon-centric is because most people are under the belief that it is part of the cartoon. WFC cannot fit into any G1 universe and it's confirmed to not be a new one. The comics, while presenting different views, are G1. WFC may seem like another interpretation, but that's been debunked. --NCZ 12:19, 29 November 2010 (EST)

As I understand it, the creators were creating it as part of G1, as far as they were concerned. As far as I am concerned, creators of a licensed Transformers product made a G1 story, so it is a G1 story. The wiki's position on the matter really does boil down to "Hasbro declared it part of the modern continuity, therefore it is." - Starfield 12:52, 29 November 2010 (EST)

It was specifically a sequel to the original cartoon, as far as the video game folks were concerned, despite the Jetfire and the Aerialbots and the Stunticons and the totally new origin for Optimus prime. The video game folks can be wrong. --ItsWalky 12:59, 29 November 2010 (EST)

So it had a sloppy/loose, video-game-level of attention to continuity. The cartoon itself has conflicting origins. Anyway, the section should probably say something about the video game folks and their press statements, since the "War for Cybertron is G1" myth didn't come out of nowhere. - Starfield 13:08, 29 November 2010 (EST)

Here's a possible rephrasing: "High Moon Studios, the creators of the WFC game, intended for it to be a prequel to the G1 Sunbow cartoon, and the two share some broad similarities (though they are irreconcilable in detail). However, Hasbro has declared that WFC is a micro-continuity in the Prime franchise, not G1, and ex cathedra pronouncements from Hasbro trump authorial intent." JW 14:23, 29 November 2010 (EST)

I think it's more likely that they advertised it as being part of the cartoon, because that's the most well-known Transformers fiction and would appeal to 80s kids. I don't know how it can be developed as a prequel considering the blatant inconsistencies. --NCZ 14:36, 29 November 2010 (EST)

War Within is a "G1 prequel" even though it clashes with the cartoon. The difference is that there's actual "G1" fiction that is in continuity with War Within (namely, Dreamwave G1). Besides, War for Cybertron clashes with the Prime cartoon just as much as it clashes with the G1 cartoon, so the only thing we have is Hasbro's official word overruling it. Aaaaaaaand then we have the recent case of Hasbro stating that various characters aren't in the movieverse despite official fiction placing them there. So yeah.--Nevermore 07:17, 2 December 2010 (EST)

Thinking about it again, I think the main problem I have is that pretty much everything else on this page is blatantly false and directly disproven by factual evidence. In the case of WFC, all we have is Hasbro in their ever-vague continuity mish-mash official-speak declaring it part of the Prime continuity. Since this is the same Hasbro that claims Hunt for the Decepticon toys who appeared in movieverse fiction or who are tied to movieverse characters via their bios aren't part of the movieverse, I'd say we require more substantial evidence for this to actually belong on this page as a cut-and-dry "misconception". The only other comparable case I can think of is "Car Robots is a Beast Wars Neo sequel", where we list all the arguments disproving it and then only mention the official Takara retcon-via-official-timeline in a postscript sentence.--Nevermore 10:45, 2 December 2010 (EST)

Yea, I don't see how anyone can say "WFC is G1" is blatantly false after watching this commercial. - Starfield 11:36, 3 December 2010 (EST)

I don't see how that commercial proves which continuity the game fits in. Yes, it is obviously HOMAGING G1, but that doesn't make it G1. The Prime franchise draws inspiration from everything that came before. If anything, Starscream's comment "Again?" would point to it NOT being G1. --Khajidha 11:05, 4 December 2010 (EST)

You are assuming WFC is part of Prime's continuity and then saying WFC homages G1 because Prime's continuity draws from everything that came before. The question is whether WFC is part of Prime. I think the commercial is promoting WFC as G1. Hasbro says WFC is part of the "modern continuity". I used to think that meant something close to "in continuity with the Prime cartoon", but after the latest Q&A, I'm not exactly sure what "modern continuity" and "modern world continuity" are supposed to mean. Hasbro just doesn't think in the same terms regarding categories.

I think if the wiki just looked at WFC itself and how it was promoted, it could easily be put in the G1 continuity family, at least as much as IDW. IDW has different origins for Galvatron, Cyclonus, Goldbug, Headmasters. It homages Pretenders and female Transformers and easter-eggs Action Masters ("altmodes are for wimps") without any actual (confirmed?) Action Masters. The Micromasters aren't even Cybertronian Transformers. Then there's this:

I don't consider IDW's take as "G1". the stories are not a continuation of the ones from the 80's cartoon or the Marvel stuff. they didn't crash on earth 4 millions years ago and get lodged in a volcano, it doesn't even fit into Beast wars. sure it's got the same names and elements from G1, but that can also be said with every other series that came and went since G1. Armada, Energon, Cybertron, Animated, the Movie.. All have elements of G1 in them, all have an Optimus who's a red truck and there's a Yellow car that younger people can relate to. references to Matrixes, Unicrons..etc, but they're not G1.DonFig

Don's reasoning for IDW not being G1 is the exact same sort of stuff in this article about WFC not being G1, yet IDW is still classified as G1. I'm not saying the wiki should reclassify IDW. I'm just saying that saying "WFC is part of G1" isn't some obvious myth. Maybe the wiki should just classify War for Cybertron as its own thing with notes saying the developers considered it in the spirit of Generation 1 and Hasbro kinda sorta lumped it in with modern stuff. - Starfield 12:03, 4 December 2010 (EST)

Actually that's not what I was saying, I'll try to clarify. That commercial has a design sense that is clearly influenced by G1. Starscream's "again?" comment shows that it is not actually G1, and is thus an homage. Other elements of the game are homages of other parts of TF history (Demolishor and Slipstream for Armada and Animated for example). This mix of homages to various eras is similar to that seen in the Prime cartoon. Hasbro's comments that WFC is part of Prime's continuity family clarifies all of the above. --Khajidha 13:19, 4 December 2010 (EST)

Except that Hasbro also says that certain characters aren't part of the movieverse but belong to the "modern-world continuity" even though they appeared in official movieverse fiction. So if Hasbro is giving out contradictory information, how can we consider something that hinges entirely on Hasbro's official world "definite"?--Nevermore 13:33, 4 December 2010 (EST)

I think you are reading too much into Starscream's "Again?". I didn't think that when I heard it. It is just Starscream upset because Shockwave is going to request "The Touch" again or something. - Starfield 14:17, 4 December 2010 (EST)

Pretty much the entire purpose of Exodus is to lay the foundation for this new "modern continuity" by taking War for Cybertron's story and differentiating it from G1. This is a conscious effort, folks. It's not like we're just taking one statement and running with it.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:21, 4 December 2010 (EST)

So if Exodus took the War for Cybertron story and de-G1-ified it, where does that leave War for Cybertron itself? - Starfield 16:38, 4 December 2010 (EST)

As the backstory to Prime. WFC may not have originally been intended as that, but Exodus is the link that establishes it as the first bit of Hasbro's new continuity rather than a continuation of a prior continuity.--Rosicrucian^Talk 21:51, 4 December 2010 (EST)

There's also their identical Cybertron designs: Cybertron_(planet)#Prime --ItsWalky 09:23, 7 December 2010 (EST)

The current rewrite pleases me. JW 10:11, 6 December 2010 (EST)

Some have taken this misconception further and believed War for Cybertron is an actual prequel for the original cartoon. ... for example, the game developers themselves! --ItsWalky 10:20, 6 December 2010 (EST)

Much better now. The only thing missing as far as I'm concerned is a note on Hasbro's own murky attitude towards "continuity" (PCCs and HftD characters allegedly not being part of the movieverse) and the whole wibbly-wobbly nature of the whole shebang.--Nevermore 06:51, 7 December 2010 (EST)

That'd be a whole 'nother topic heading, and I'm not sure "The notion of separate and well-defined continuities is far more developed in fandom and on this wiki than within the walls of Hasbro, and thus we are obsessively mapping boundaries that don't really exist," is a topic we'd have much fun visiting. JW 07:08, 7 December 2010 (EST)

MY BRAIN HURTS--Nevermore 14:00, 7 December 2010 (EST)

Well of course they're not in continuity. BUT that doesn't mean they don't belong to the same continuity family. --Detour 14:08, 7 December 2010 (EST)

Hasbro UK. Who has all of no say in anything along those lines. --M Sipher 14:11, 7 December 2010 (EST)

Why would Hasbro UK have any less say about continuity than, say, Takara, whose pronouncements we document?--Jimsorenson 15:28, 7 December 2010 (EST)

PS: I'm not saying that we should take it too seriously, there's the whole 'private correspondence' thing, I'm just finding the idea that Hasbro UK has no say in the matter odd.--Jimsorenson 15:30, 7 December 2010 (EST)

The massive ineptitude and halfassery that they carry themselves with in everything they do, say or have any part of. - Chris McFeely 15:32, 7 December 2010 (EST)

Takara creates things. Hasbro US creates things. They are both proactive partners in creating Transformers IP. Hasbro UK is their dumb unemployed cousin who can't keep his thumb out of his own ass. --ItsWalky 15:34, 7 December 2010 (EST)

Hasbro US agrees. --ItsWalky 10:12, 8 December 2010 (EST)

Can we at least agree that this whole thing is vastly confusing, Hasbro's official stance has flaws and there's been contradictory information given out by the dumb unemployed UK brother?--Nevermore 11:03, 8 December 2010 (EST)

Also: [5] From Pete Sinclair:

What I have been told is one continuity, the modern continuity, containing these 3 stories. Hasbro does not deal with Universal streams or continuity families. They only deal with, and are concerned with, the modern continuity...

--Nevermore 14:24, 8 December 2010 (EST)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. ---Blackout- 14:17, 7 December 2010 (EST)

Yes, because e-mail correspondences with marketing guys (from Hasbro UK, no less) are reliable arbiters of Transformers information. —Interrobang 14:58, 7 December 2010 (EST)

More insanity: Cliffjumper (Prime) has a link in his toy entry to Cliffjumper (G1), implying that Takara's United version of Generations Cliffjumper represents an incarnation of G1 Cliffjumper. Is there any evidence supporting this, or are we automatically assuming that all Takara toys represent incarnations of G1 characters unless explicitly stated otherwise? To make matters more complicated, G1 Cliffjumper's page contains no entry for United Cliffjumper.--Nevermore 08:25, 8 December 2010 (EST)

The website links between "Earth Mode" and "Cybertron Mode" toys. Takara doing their own thing is not a new occurrence. —Interrobang 08:34, 8 December 2010 (EST)

For what it's worth, Figure Oh! explicitly advertises Cliffjumper as appearing in the DS version of WFC.--Nevermore 10:29, 8 December 2010 (EST)

Not worth a lot. They're simply pointing out the real-world genesis of the toy. Frankly, IF we see any kind of fiction-use of said models, it'll likely be in some manga set in some continuity that is just as irreconcilable (or blatantly new) as Henkei was... if it's not set in Henkei's timeline anyway. --M Sipher 14:15, 8 December 2010 (EST)

Transformers Prime Toyline existence

Should the persistent belief that Transformers: Prime will not have a toyline be added here, or is it only TFW that gets like five threads devoted to that topic on a daily basis? -Ratbatman 11:05, 30 November 2010 (EST)

Until there is an announced toyline, instead of the "We're not making toys" one we got, it's not a misconception or an urban legend. It's fact based on the available information User:Eire 16:18 30 Nov 2010.

THEY NEVER SAID THEY WEREN'T MAKING TOYS. NEVER EVER. Jesus Christ, in the exact same panel in which people THOUGHT Hasbro said they weren't making toys, Eric Siebenaler even said that he couldn't wait for people to see Bulkhead Prime's action figure! ALL THEY SAID WAS THAT THEY WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT TOYS RIGHT THIS MOMENT, not that there would NEVER BE TOYS. --ItsWalky 11:22, 30 November 2010 (EST)

That's the thing, some people still believe that Hasbro isn't going to make any toys for the Prime franchise. I'd support the addition of a section clarifying this for those people. --Khajidha 12:14, 30 November 2010 (EST)

Seems like the sort of thing that's going to have a relatively short lifespan, as we're probably going to see the Prime toys at Toyfair.--Rosicrucian^Talk 12:31, 30 November 2010 (EST)

At that point, the "Hasbro said they weren't making any Prime toys and they're liars!" begins. --ItsWalky 13:22, 30 November 2010 (EST)

What are you getting so worked up about? If they said there are no toys in the works at the moment, it one doesn't contradict my statement of no sign of toys to come, because there isn't because they haven't revealed any, and two if it does contradict me, so what? It's exactly...nothing. Certainly nothing to get remotely excited about. Or is this mainstream forum backlash. I should point out, I avoid the big forums, so if this has been kicked up fifty billion times over there, I wouldn't know about it. User:Eire 18:31 30 Nov 2010.

I'm pretty sure someone from Hasbro (Aaron Archer?) said that there would be Prime figures, but they were holding off until after the current blitz of 2010/Generations/PCC and (possibly) the upcoming DOTM line. Can anyone back me up on this with a reference? --Khajidha 13:44, 30 November 2010 (EST)

They never said "there are no toys in the works at the moment," they said they weren't talking about it.--Carrion 14:31, 30 November 2010 (EST)

This. This this this this this. --ItsWalky 14:59, 30 November 2010 (EST)

Now that you say it, I do think you're right, Walky. I'm probably always going to want to stab someone in the eyeball with a nail file over this. Which, I guess, is our criteria for this article, come to think of it.--Rosicrucian^Talk 04:23, 1 December 2010 (EST)

Nimoy Unicron lines?

I know it's been debunked over the years, but we probably ought to put the "Leonard Nimoy dubbed some of Orson Welles' lines because they were unusable" rumor to bed on this page somewhere. -hx at work

Targets for bloat removal

Okay, I'm putting together a list of items of dubious existence on this page. There's a lot of stuff that just seems... small. Certainly trivia-worthy on relevant pages, but not big enough to really warrant being here. Let's hear some arguments for keeping...

• Powermaster Optimus Prime was the first, original Optimus Prime toy.
• A "giant"-sized Optimus Prime toy was available during Generation 1.
• A winged variant of Sludge was available during Generation 1.
• The reissue Soundwave toys released by Takara are reverse-engineered from Soundblaster because the original molds are lost.
• Commemorative Series Side Swipe was found at Toys"R"Us stores in the USA.
• Some toys were exclusively (or predominantly) available in the United Kingdom (sometimes also the Netherlands).

There's certainly some confusion about the way releases were handled on this side of the Atlantic, not least because it took time for the various markets and even companies to be aligned, and this has created confusion in later years when everything's been gathered under a single listing called "Europe". I'm not sure the current paragraphs really convey this well - indeed the myths in the 1980s and early 1990s (mainly through the UK letterspage) tended to be based around the continent getting toys the UK didn't rather than the other way round and some of this got reproduced in the internet era. But would "All countries in Europe received a single set of releases in the 1980s" be obscure in itself and/or oversummarising the mess? Timrollpickering 15:48, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

• Transformers were meant as a "genderless" race. Arcee and the other female Transformers were added to the brand because feminists complained about the Transformers all being male. (When the fuck was this ever proposed?)

I actually heard this from someone else a few years ago, so it's been making the rounds. Given that the G1 cartoon seemingly went out of its way to avoid adding female characters at first (no recurring female characters for 1984, and Carly not appearing until several episodes into the 1985 season) while other franchises were gender-integrated from the get-go (such as with G. I. Joe or He-Man), I can see where this misconception might have first started. Ironhold 18:28, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

• The Transformers: The Movie/Scatman Crothers coined the term "ginormous", which has since been added to several dictionaries.
• An Earthforce story was written to promote the non-combining Constructicon toys.

--M Sipher 03:35, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Also, several of the entries not on this list can really use some trim. --M Sipher 04:53, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

"A "giant"-sized Optimus Prime toy was available during Generation 1." seems particularly unneeded since it directly follows the bit about 20th Anniversary Optimus, which is pretty much the same misconception. The only part that is really new is the the giant bootleg thing, and that could just be added to the 20th Anniversary section if needed. Soundwarp SG-1 12:37, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

For me this has been one of the most interesting pages over the years, so I'm sad to see anything go, but yeah, some like the Alternators Windcharger thing would make more sense just on individual character pages. On "Winged Sludge": was that really more of a source of confusion than any other Four Star knock-off? Should that myth possibly be expanded to something like, "Four Star's toys using Transformer molds were legit Diaclone variants sold at the same time as their TF counterparts," since some listings of their toys throw up "Diaclone" as a keyword? Bumblevivisector 20:01, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

I think this page should focus on the large scale, line wide myths. Things particular to one character (or one actor, in the case of Scatman Crothers) should be moved to the specific page. --Khajidha 17:55, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

The G1 series being dubbed anime

I remembered something when I read this entry in the list. Back when Rhino was releasing the 1986 movie and the first few batches of episodes on VHS, the local chain of the Suncoast video retailer had everything "Transformers" stocked in their anime section. Back then I honestly took it to mean that Transformers was anime, and another collector I spoke with at the time thought the same.

For those who had Suncoast chains in their area during the Rhino years, did your chain similarly stock G1 in the "anime" section? If so, then Suncoast might have inadvertently contributed to the propagation of this myth. Ironhold (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2014 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure being a cartoon with a lot of behind-the-scenes associations with Japan had much more to do with the "the propagation of this myth" than your local overpriced retailer. Mimi (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2014 (EDT)

"Megatron is named from Megas"

Does this count as a misconception? This was written on Wikipedia about fans missauming it but Megatron is actually a portemeau of megaton and tron.

IDW Hasbroverse

Though I'm not going to argue against the point that the existing IDW TF continuity getting rebooted isn't the fault of the Hasbroverse, the phrase "unsustainable downwards spiral" regarding pre-Hasbroverse sales is pretty hyperbolic and somewhat ignorant of the general comics industry. The graph linked to in the footnote shows sales steadily declining at about 1k a year. Across the 4 years from DoOP to Revolution, that's a drop of about a third. That may sound bad, but that's actually better than average. Pretty much every American monthly comic (apart from the Walking Dead) loses readers as it goes. Many from Marvel and DC will see bigger percentage drops in readership than that in the space of one year, let alone four, and not only keep on going, but be considered successes. If a phrase as overblown as "unsustainable downwards spiral" is apt for anything, it's the post-Revolution sales, which see that level of decline within about a year, which, more supports the "misconception" being argued against here. If this is going to be "debunked" it needs to be with first hand evidence (a quote from someone at IDW) rather than tenuous supposition from sales charts. Danja (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2018 (EDT)

Bay's Opinion on the 1986 movie

I suddenly remembered someone said that Michael Bay hated the 1986 Animated movie. Don't know who said that, but I can consider this as a rumor since there is no official word about him genuinely hating the flick. FigureGunplaFan (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2018 (EDT)

Cliffjumper's deaths in "every" continuity

Uh, yeah. There are some people who still think that Cliffjumper dies in every show or comic that existed. Is it worth mentioning? FigureGunplaFan (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

Bumblebee Not Confirmed as Reboot

I'm not entirely sure what's not clear about a 'new storytelling universe' meaning a reboot of some sort. It surely means other than the existing Bayverse even if it borrows elements from it.

Lorenzo sabotaged Peter Cullen's Audition

I see this brought up on various fan sites, in discussions about why fans hate Lorenzo di Bonaventura. The source of this comes from an interview with Don Murphy, someone who is from what I've read is pretty biased himself. The basic story is Mr. Murphy refers to Mr. Bonaventura as Scorponok, who wanted Liam Neeson as Optimus Prime, for starpower, while Mr. Murphy believed they should get Cullen back in the role. There is a story that Lorenzo sabotaged Mr. Cullen's audition, by making sure the other person who was supposed to read the lines not show up, but Peter Cullen managed to play both characters (Optimus Prime and Ironhide) and impressed Michael Bay to reprise the role for the live action theatrical film. I see this story repeated verbatim in the fandom without a source should this warrant a place on this page? And does anyone have a refutable source for this story?