Talk:Hasbro Q&A/May 2009: Answers
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchWow. I have learned nothing. That was like: "Joke." "Misunderstanding." "No." - Chris McFeely 17:40, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- That's PR company polished answers for you. They polish it until all information is scrubbed out. *thumbs up* --FFN 17:43, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Well, we learned that whoever said there was going to be a second wave of the CCG but it was canceled before it was announced was full of fucking shit, so there's that. (Although, if I'm not mistaken about where that info came from, we already KNEW that...) Hooper_X 17:47, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Can we snark about these answers on our front page announcement of the Q&A? Perhaps something about inviting people to be bewildered and mystified. --FFN 17:50, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Sure, let's throw the whole thing back in Hasbro's face, despite the fact that Monzo worked for a couple weeks to even get us on the Q&A list in the first place. That seems like a logical and rational thing to do. Maybe next time we ask questions that are more likely to get a less-canned response. We've learned by now that questions about future product are pretty much pointless, questions about specific aspects of the manufacturing process or the relationship with retailers are pointless, and that no, they won't tell you where Aaron Archer lives. However, they seem to be more than willing to answer questions about current product, past product where possible, and to generally provide some degree of insight into the design stages of the process. So we tailor our questions accordingly. Hooper_X 17:57, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- When Hooper of all people is telling you not to snark, you'd best listen.--RosicrucianTalk 17:58, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Hey dude, it was a joke. *rolls eyes* --FFN 18:07, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- I'm just saying. Twenty fucking sites ask three questions a pop; even if 90 percent of them come back with canned PR responses, that still leaves 10% useful info, which is kind of the point of the thing in the first place. There's a lot of chaff to sort through, but it's still better than nothing at all (or only getting to ask once a year at BotCon, when there's one or two viable questions trapped around 500 WHEN YOU MAEK NEW SKYYGARY and shit like that, and you'd never get an answer to something like the CCG question, because they couldn't do the necessary legwork) Hooper_X 18:14, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- And just because this round was not particularly useful does not mean that some future round will not be. If the questions asked are sideways of useful, so be it. -Derik 18:51, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- This kind of thing is exactly what those of us at TFViews are always going through. The GI Joe fansites got to do Q&As ages before we did, and I watched a *lot* of them make really stupid mistakes with it. A lot of them still do it (HALP PLZ MAKE NEW AIRBORNE I LOVE AIRBORNE) and, on top of that, buttloads of them ask the 'same damned questions as other sites.' Onslaught Six 18:55, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- You'd be surprised at some non-answers. Last round I asked a question in regards to GIJoe figures that in 1997 were retooled to hinder articulation and I got back this weird comment about how they had to be retooled to preserve articulation... --Detour 21:50, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- This kind of thing is exactly what those of us at TFViews are always going through. The GI Joe fansites got to do Q&As ages before we did, and I watched a *lot* of them make really stupid mistakes with it. A lot of them still do it (HALP PLZ MAKE NEW AIRBORNE I LOVE AIRBORNE) and, on top of that, buttloads of them ask the 'same damned questions as other sites.' Onslaught Six 18:55, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- And just because this round was not particularly useful does not mean that some future round will not be. If the questions asked are sideways of useful, so be it. -Derik 18:51, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- I'm just saying. Twenty fucking sites ask three questions a pop; even if 90 percent of them come back with canned PR responses, that still leaves 10% useful info, which is kind of the point of the thing in the first place. There's a lot of chaff to sort through, but it's still better than nothing at all (or only getting to ask once a year at BotCon, when there's one or two viable questions trapped around 500 WHEN YOU MAEK NEW SKYYGARY and shit like that, and you'd never get an answer to something like the CCG question, because they couldn't do the necessary legwork) Hooper_X 18:14, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Sure, let's throw the whole thing back in Hasbro's face, despite the fact that Monzo worked for a couple weeks to even get us on the Q&A list in the first place. That seems like a logical and rational thing to do. Maybe next time we ask questions that are more likely to get a less-canned response. We've learned by now that questions about future product are pretty much pointless, questions about specific aspects of the manufacturing process or the relationship with retailers are pointless, and that no, they won't tell you where Aaron Archer lives. However, they seem to be more than willing to answer questions about current product, past product where possible, and to generally provide some degree of insight into the design stages of the process. So we tailor our questions accordingly. Hooper_X 17:57, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Can we snark about these answers on our front page announcement of the Q&A? Perhaps something about inviting people to be bewildered and mystified. --FFN 17:50, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Well, we learned that whoever said there was going to be a second wave of the CCG but it was canceled before it was announced was full of fucking shit, so there's that. (Although, if I'm not mistaken about where that info came from, we already KNEW that...) Hooper_X 17:47, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Looking at the TFViews Q&A though, the answers boil down to:
- "Leader Optimus Prime is awesome!" with an implied side of "Buy it!" (there was an interview with the Takara guys who actually engineer all these toys that was translated by someone at TFW2005 not too long ago and gave a lot more insight into that one, although I don't have the link to hand. Because Takara does the engineering, I'm not even sure that the Hasbro design team is competent to answer that question)
- A straight answer for once, but it's the answer that - given the pattern of blastification from around the time that change happened - had generally been surmised already
- Again, a mostly straight answer, but a shallow one which I'm not sure tells us anything we don't already know (Retailer wants, say, a deluxe-class tank; Hasbro look at the deluxe tank moulds they have handy, then at what characters/colour schemes are likely to sell - with a glance at what trademarks they have/want to renew, of course), and I doubt a more detailed answer would pass the lawyers
- I agree that TFViews did better than the wiki's questions in that they got two answers - the questions picked here were pretty damn poor, after all - but still... - SanityOrMadness 00:19, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
- Looking at the TFViews Q&A though, the answers boil down to:
- Bearing in mind Hooper's comments, I'd say it'd be wise to think back to the RiD/UT era and try to think of questions about all that stuff. It's mostly old enough that it's probably pretty harmless, but recent enough that some of the production team is still around. -- Repowers 21:15, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Indeed. We asked a question about the change to Fireblast a few years back, and how it randomly changed back. (Apparently...someone copyrighted Firepower?) Onslaught Six 21:22, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- You mean trademarked. --ItsWalky 21:55, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Silly Porter C. Powell!
- Can we throw Forrest Lee a lowball question about how the Transformer Legends anthology fits with the multiverse?
- Or hell, can we ask him if the bartender at Macadams IS Macadam? That's never been confirmed, and "Prime Spark" muddied the waters since the writer seemed ot think that the bartender, like the bouncer, was just a guy who worked there. -Derik 22:00, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- I'm pretty sure the bartender has NEVER been Macaddam. I mean, his deal is he's "never been seen." And the Bartender is all over the friggin' place. (Because, you know, he's the bartender.) --ItsWalky 22:31, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Y'know, I've never really seen continuity questions resolved at these bi-monthly Q&As. Sometimes at conventions, but the website Q&As seem to be more about the toys, the design process, and the occasional trademark question.--RosicrucianTalk 22:03, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- I don't think asking them that could possibly yield any satisfactory resolution. We asked one "meta"-styled continuity / canonicity question last time, and they punted--which is almost certainly for the best. If people validate author intent and Forest says "Legends is canon," then they just have a dilemma between his intent and Cian's intent (and was Forest even on the team when the book was written?). If they validate author intent and Forest says "it isn't," then they've learned nothing more than what Cian said and nothing about our presentation here would change--though on second thought, we might then have to struggle our way around Hasbro walking away from the established multiverse concept of at least the last 6 years, and wouldn't THAT be fun! Meanwhile, if they don't validate author intent, then who cares what he says except perhaps as trivia? --Thylacine 2000 22:13, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Plus, admittedly, there's not usually much reason to "spend" Hasbro questions on such things when many of the writers and artists seem willing to answer fan questions on their own anyway, provided you know how to contact them. --Jeysie 22:19, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- I don't think asking them that could possibly yield any satisfactory resolution. We asked one "meta"-styled continuity / canonicity question last time, and they punted--which is almost certainly for the best. If people validate author intent and Forest says "Legends is canon," then they just have a dilemma between his intent and Cian's intent (and was Forest even on the team when the book was written?). If they validate author intent and Forest says "it isn't," then they've learned nothing more than what Cian said and nothing about our presentation here would change--though on second thought, we might then have to struggle our way around Hasbro walking away from the established multiverse concept of at least the last 6 years, and wouldn't THAT be fun! Meanwhile, if they don't validate author intent, then who cares what he says except perhaps as trivia? --Thylacine 2000 22:13, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- If we're going to ask Forrest Lee anything, it should be why he decided to completely ignore Animated Sunstorm's cartoon portrayal and just make him a complete ripoff of the Dreamwave portrayal instead. --Detour 22:39, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Indeed. We asked a question about the change to Fireblast a few years back, and how it randomly changed back. (Apparently...someone copyrighted Firepower?) Onslaught Six 21:22, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Bearing in mind Hooper's comments, I'd say it'd be wise to think back to the RiD/UT era and try to think of questions about all that stuff. It's mostly old enough that it's probably pretty harmless, but recent enough that some of the production team is still around. -- Repowers 21:15, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Learned nothing? Unless I'm reading this wrong -- which I must be -- we seem to have learned that Armada Overload is the G1 guy. That's insane. Chip 00:35, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
