Talk:Hyperdrive (Turbomaster)

Untitled

Why does this use disambig 3.5 instead of 3.0? --Jimsorenson 21:02, 14 December 2009 (EST)

I did it because they're two characters with the same name in the same continuity. Which, contrary to Interrobang's summary edit, we have made note of on this wiki... including Skydive's page and several of the Movie characters. (In fact, what gave me the idea for the Disambig3.5 to begin with was just making a generic version of the Movie one we made after that whole discussion.)

So, er... if we don't need to use that disambig on anything other than SG pages, then OK, but I did do it based on how we do things on other pages, not pulling it out of my backside. --Jeysie 02:17, 15 December 2009 (EST)

The only reason we use it on Movie/RotF characters is because we concluded that our readers are retarded have a hard time telling the difference between "Movie" and "ROTF". There is no actual reason to use it on G1 continuity family dudes. (We managed just fine with the existence of Flame (Marvel), Dreadwing (G2), Overlord (G.I. Joe), among others.) —Interrobang 02:31, 15 December 2009 (EST)

So what about the Skydive page, then? I'm not the one who added that there. I've seen similar disambigs on other G1 pages, too. If I got it wrong, then fine... but it was done wrong before I got here, then. (I guess I just find it a little frustrating when I get told "we don't do that" when we do do that, which is why I did it in the first place, as I always try to look at how other pages do things.)

(...I could point out none of your examples are relevant, as they're not two TFs with the same name in the same continuity (yes, I know G2 is technically the same continuity family, but it's generally treated as its own separate thing).) --Jeysie 02:52, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Flame (Motorvator) and Flame (Marvel). And the difference between G1 and G2 is about the same as "Movie" and "ROTF". You still haven't explained why we need it here. —Interrobang 03:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)

The same reason we need any disambig... to avoid confusion. If we don't need it, then OK... but you might as well remove it from the Skydive and Movie pages too, etc., then, as they're in the exact same scenarios. *shrug* --Jeysie 03:24, 15 December 2009 (EST)

My two cents worth: while in principle I agree with Jeysie's rationale, given that there are only three Hyperdrives total a simpler disambig is probably better (for now). Khajidha 06:04, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Ah, I see, two characters with the same name IN THE SAME CONTINUITY FAMILY. That has a certain amount of value to it. I'm not sure if I agree with it or not, but I at least see the logic. It just seemed like a strange exception to me. --Jimsorenson 03:06, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, basically. I could see the argument for not doing it, too, but I noticed other pages had done it and so I went for consistency. --Jeysie 03:24, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Hyperdrive concept art

Does anyone else think the explanation for Hyperdrive's concept art doesn't make sense? Thunderclash was already a pretty big and expensive toy in his own right, but the article says Hyperdrive would have been an even bigger, more expensive toy? I really don't think the two are different enough that at any point they could have been intended to be part of the same toy line. His vehicle mode is extremely similar to Thunderclash's, down to the "Transformers" writing in the same spot on the trailer. The robot mode we see in the concept art appears to be formed only from the cab portion of the vehicle mode, just like Thunderclash's robot mode is. Also, the robot mode transformation, while clearly different, is just as simple as Thunderclash's is. All of these things make me think that Hyperdrive was an early concept for Thunderclash. They more of less kept the vehicle mode as-is and changed the robot mode completely. Given that the robot mode looks like God Ginrai and Star Saber had a baby, maybe Hasbro UK requested the design be changed to be less Japanese-inspired. I think that is a better theory, personally. Might Gaine (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2022 (EDT)

What we have here is based on the description given in the Generations book, though admittedly that is using an old translation. Escargon (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2022 (EDT)