Talk:Bludgeon (G1)

I culled* this entire article from the Titan Books comic reprint.

• And by Culled, I mean plagerizedSo... patronize them, I guess.

Mettalikato

Is there any more information on this? I tried does some web searching but all I found was one lonely fanfic. My eyes! The Google does nothing!Seems likely to me that it's named after Kato, Bruce Lee's character from The Green Hornet. And of course it coincidentally sounds like the Metallikats from Swat Kats, if anybody cares about that. - GW

• Metallikato. Voila! --ItsWalky 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

IDW Bludgeon's appearance

I'm just curious, was an explanation ever given in regards to Bludgeon's rather... unique battle-damage look in the Stormbringer series? Considering no one else in the series had damage of that extent, it just strikes me as odd. Did anyone ever give a reason for his damaged appearance? -Detour 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say, but he was shown with the damage just after Shockwave's disappearance on prehistoric Earth, so he's been carrying the wounds around for some time. I'd say at the least he's avoided repairing it, and it's possibly self-inflicted.--Rosicrucian 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Main pic

I know it's "wacky" and lets us make a heavy metal joke but I really do think that main pick is horribly ugly. I cringe every time I come across this page. There must be a good pic of Bludgeon out there somewhere. --ZacWilliam 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a very representative picture for Bludgeon just like Grimlock's and Shockwave's. --TX55 06:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Character Model

Has anyone got a pic of this character model? I'm interested in seeing it. --Detour 02:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As the trivia section says, we only see Jose Delbo's copying of it in Yesterday's Heroes. Look at the second image in the fiction section. There it is. --ItsWalky 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Bummer. I was hoping there was another one floating about. Who knows, maybe those The Ark guys will dig it out for their second book... --Detour 03:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Earthforce

The UK material that is currently written happened BEFORE the Earthforce split. I'm moving it back. --ItsWalky 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. It all ends with Bludgeon & co being captured by Earthforce and then escaping from their base. --Detour 06:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Earthforce doesn't happen until Earthforce itself is introduced. Before that issue, everything works fine, continuity-wise, and there are plenty of normal continuity/UK black and white crossovers. "Cry Wolf!" (#272) and beyond don't happen for over 30 issues after Catilla is killed (#239), so there's also a time gap that helps make that a good separation point. --ItsWalky 15:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to issue numbers, I'm at fault here, I just have the pages saved sequentially with no issue number so I wouldn't have known. And what I have is probably some colored reprint since everything is in color (if you want, I can replace that Bludgeon killing Catilla image with a color one when I get home) and at the end of my #239, it says "NEXT: Cry Wolf!"... So you'll have to forgive me for being in the dark. But hey, conflicting ideas aside, between the two of us, we managed to flesh out Bludgeon's page pretty well, wouldn't you say? --74.57.3.251 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC) (Detour at work)

Goddamn Furman and his goddamn Earthforce. Maybe next time, you wanna make sure you're not putting the info twice in one page, though, since I'd already added the events from "Cry Wolf!" up to "Shut Up!" in the regular UK continuity. --Detour 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just rechecked the numbers on the AoE issue, it's 226 so it predates Earthforce. Also, according to the narration, it takes place in 1990 so... I have no idea where it'd go, continuity-wise. O.o --Detour 01:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized we've got a small problem. That seems to be the earliest Furman started hinting at what he thought he'd be writing in the future, regarding the Decepticon Civil War, and it predates the stuff that absolutely can't possibly happen, IE, the introduction of Earthforce. Thing is, between AoE and "Starting Over," there's all sorts of stuff that interweaves really well. Also in there is Deathbringer, which is referenced specifically in US continuity. I still think "Starting Over" is where the Out-of-continuity stuff begins, but AOE does make that murky. Thankfully, it happens in the future! --ItsWalky 01:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

AOE present (with Rodimus) has the evil of Unicron at his core. That happens because of Legacy of Unicron, which happens because Unicron attacked Cybertron for the first time in 2005/6. The events that led to Unicron attacking in 1991 occurred at least as far back as US #60-61, at the end of 1989, predating the Decepticon Civil War. Therefore, the Decepticon Civil War and other events being flashed back to in AOE cannot be the same timeline as the DCW from US #72. It's not TFUS, it's not TFUK, it's probably not even Earthforce -- it's the history of an alternate timeline after that timeline split off from the main one, so any AOE stuff should just be tossed at the end of an entry in a little blurb that says, "And in an alternate universe..." To be specific, I would think AOE: Megatron was probably from a timeline where the Mayhems did not attack the Classic Pretenders (and therefore no one shot God in the face) but instead remained on Cybertron and fell under the command of one Megatron or the other. --Xaaron 02:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Times like these, I really wish Furman had had more respect for things like continuity (even G2 had inconsistencies with elements established by the G1 comics he'd written). --Detour 06:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always taken it as read that the events flashed back to in the AoE Megatron, Shockwave and Scorponok chapters were from the "movie future" timeline, before it got erased. The whole story is recounted by Rodimus, and this IS the Rodimus from the "movie future" timeline, so it makes sense that that's when and where he experienced those events. - Chris McFeely 11:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cybertron Unicron = Bludgeon homage?

File:Cybertron Unicron toy.jpg

Myself and Detour are having a debate about whether this toy could be considered a homage to the G1 toy. I cite the head, colour, alt mode and weapons as reasons for. Detour cites that the colour is Unicron's anyhow, that a tank alt mode is too ubiquitous to count as homage evidence, and the weapons are not related at at all.Since I found about the existence of the toy using "homage" and "Bludgeon" as search terms in Google, I think that there should be at least a mention of the toy in either/both trivia sections.Thoughts? Drmick 13:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole skull head thing is referring to the Unicron head that came with Cybertron Primus. The head had a human-like skull where part of Unicron's face was blown off. The Deluxe Unicron represents his partial rebirth... hence the skull. --FFN 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

True. That fact does obviate the skull being used as evidence that it was primarily a homage. But secondarily? Drmick 13:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

His tank mode is apparently based on some anime which I can't remember, but it was a blue or green, organic-looking tank. It doesn't even look anything like Bludgeon's tank. One would assume a tank would have a cannon, so he does. That pointy stuff on him references the parts of Armada Unicron's planet mode (the pincers, the planet buster) and original robot mode (his rings/wings.) The dude is crammed to the gills with stuff from Armada Unicron.

Customising tip: If you really want a G1 Bludgeon, get Titanium The Fallen and paint him green, since the toy is based on his IDW Stormbringer design. --FFN 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything you pointed out is mere coincidential similarities. He shares orange with Bludgeon, but that's because UNICRON is orange. No other reason. He has a skull because he's been resurrected, it brings a bit of an air of macabre to his return.

You don't seem to know what an homage is. An homage is when something pays tribute to something else without actually being it. In that aspect, Energon Bulkhead is a Springer homage but Universe and Botcon Springer are not because they are meant to be Springer. Would you say that one of the bazillion Batman figures on the shelves right now is a homage to an old Batman figure from when the very first movie came out? This is the same deal. Your soapbox is packed with "homages" that barely even look like the characters you think they homage, and in Bludgeon's case it's nothing more than a case of coincidence, which can just as easily be used to support that Classics Tank Megatron is a "homage" to Bludgeon.

And what you said about googling "Bludgeon" and "homage", the only things I found supporting your theory were one person's comments on a review posted at TFormers, and one guy's message board post on Seibertron. That's it. Some evidence, two random forum posters.

PS: FFN, I'm pretty sure Titanium Fallen is based on Stormbringer Megatron and not Bludgeon, considering his bulkier frame and the position of the treads on his back that match Megatron's more than Bludgeon's. --Detour 23:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had the homage definition debate elsewhere. But to reiterate my slant, I feel a "homage" means "to pay tribute to". A quick google shows that the word has evolved to mean slightly different things. And yes, thus all modern Transformers could be then considered homages to the G1 line. However, I don't think it is too difficult to see where I am coming from with my ideas (in what I am attempting to do), rather it seems that the idea is considered by many to be pointless/stupid/cheesy etc etc. The debate about my soapbox really belongs on its discussion page. To bring the subject back to Bludgeon: I want a Bludgeon toy (or a homage) for my shelf. I've recently bought CybUnicron to be that toy. Until a better toy comes along, or unless someone can come up with a better one, or unless someone can convince me that CybUnicron really has no resemblance to G1 Bludgeon, then I'm sticking to my guns. Green tanks don't count for two reasons: Bludgeon is rarely seen as a green robot, and realistically green tank = G2 Megatron. Drmick 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well just because you feel it looks like Bludgeon doesn't make it a factual Bludgeon homage because it was not intended as such by the people who designed him.

You are more than welcome to use whatever you want in your display shelves, heck I have Universe Frostbite as Carnivac and Cybertron Skywarp as Misfire in mine. But to openly declare the stuff a homage on this wiki is 100% wrong. --Detour 20:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So you do the whole modern thing too? I wonder how many people do that. I appreciate now that some of suggestions cannot go in the wiki proper for the reasons stated on those discussion pages. CybSkywarp needs a coat of pink/lilac (not too dissimilar to the one I used for Spinister?). And Cybertron Snarl is a better Carnivac, no? He can be got quite cheap on Ebay actually. Re: the 100% wrong remark, I take it you mean "100% wrong" as a matter of priciple as opposed to CybUnicron being 100% nothing like G1 Bludgeon? The latter being quite obviously incorrect. Drmick 08:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of principle, Drmick, but a matter of definition. You're missing THE key word in your definition: a homage means "to pay tribute to deliberately". No matter how many similarities you find between two toys, it is not a homage unless the later toy was intentionally patterned after the other. That's not a personal interpretation by certain contributors here; that's what a homage IS. --Xaaron 14:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Interjecting as an outside observer... no. Though it can be said that Cyb Unicron has many similarities to Bludgeon, in that they are both orange guys with skull faces, helmets with pointy horns and tank altmodes... Cybertron Unicron can not, in any objective sense be called ahomage to Bludgeon, because the term "homage," implies intent, and every single attribute he has in common with Bludgeon can actually be traced as coming from another non-Bludgeon source. -Derik 08:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, that's what you were saying- I misread your negative ont he last sentence. *sigh* Ignore this. -Derik 08:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article

If we fill out his Dreamwave War Within section, we could feature this tonight for next month's article! --ItsWalky 15:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Skull-faced samurai, featured just in time for Halloween! I'd help, but all the Dreamwave books I have are the Armada issues. --Detour 15:23, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Done. --FFN 15:37, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, sir. Anything else we're missing? I'll probably feature it now... --ItsWalky 15:39, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Aside from more pictures (at least one from his Marvel UK future story, I'd say), I think we're all set. --Detour 15:44, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

You're welcome. There's some info I'd like to post about the ROTF Bludgeon toy's origins, but I have yet to be given permission to add it to the wiki. I guess it will have to wait. --FFN 15:46, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

UK Future story is there now.--Jimsorenson 16:24, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Needs a toy image that's not fucking watermarked. 129.89.253.50 18:34, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Or better yet, one with our watermark. Does anyone have the toy to photograph? -- Semysane 18:38, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

I have the toy, but it's missing the turret base. I have the turret GUN... --M Sipher 19:38, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Main image

Should we get an illustration of Bludgeon that shows his robot mode, or at least more of his shell, or is this one of our "sacrosanct" images? --ItsWalky 15:51, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

I've never read that issue, but I think the current image is pretty damn funny in its insanity. At the very least, I think the main image we use in the featured front page section should be an image of his pretender shell. --FFN 15:57, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

If I recall correctly, I'm the one who originally uploaded that pic and slapped it as his main image. I did it simply out of necessity; Bludgeon needed a main pic so I grabbed the first one I found from TFArchive's UK cover gallery. It's funny, but if there are better images available that illustrate his entire body and maybe even his inner robot, then it should probably go there. I'm not very fond of "mandatory joke main images". And yes, that goes for Grimlock's, too. We shoudl never let the "lols" get in the way of being informative, even if all the people have to do is scroll down to see an appropriate picture (and considering all the kurfuffle Megatron (BW)'s main image was getting for not being perfect enough, I'm surprised stuff like Grimlock and Bludgeon get a free pass because LOL teh funny). --DrSpengler 20:23, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Sadly, the packaging art on Botch for Bludgeon seems to crop his gun at an odd angle, possibly due to it being too near to the package's window.--Rosicrucian^Talk 20:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't think the cover is particularly funny, but it IS quite metal, and I love how well it works to introduce Bludgeon as a total badass with a creepy shell. I can't think of anything I'd rather change it to. --Detour 20:36, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

The flying leap kick image from US #80 would be my first choice. -- Repowers 20:58, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

We could always superimpose the MTMTE shell and robot arts. It's not bad art. In fact, it's some of the better MTMTE art. But that'd be a lot more homogeneous than our current image. --ItsWalky 21:11, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Wish whomever drew that MTMTE shell picture had remembered to include his characterisation-specific sword. --FFN 22:22, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

I agree entirely with Spengler - the "lols" main images get in the way of content, which is exactly what Transformers Wiki:Policies says should never happen. - SanityOrMadness 22:00, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't see what's so "lols" about Bludgeon's main image. --Detour 22:01, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

On the whole argument of "mandatory joke main images", technically Movie Brawl has had official concept robot mode art that more or less matches his final rendering that we've refused to use since 2007 out of spite, principal and LOLs. Currently a few Revenge of the Fallen characters are using concept art (that more or less matches their final toy designs) as their main pic due to lack of official robot mode images from any other source. --FFN 22:27, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

I think, by far, current image is good, though not funny, and the most important, has the characteristic of Bludgeon. --TX55^TALK 22:33, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

It's an impressionistic, horrendously out-of-scale (However badly TF-scale is borked, it makes Bludgeon look like a gestalt against a Micromaster Inferno) pic that shows only the head and one arm of his shell. As a cover, that's fine; as a "this is what Bludgeon looks like", it's not.

[And the image is badly named on top of all that. It *should* be at Image:MarvelUK-282.jpg]. - SanityOrMadness 09:31, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

I rather think the current image is perfectly evocative of Bludgeon's character as well. And I've never seen it as being "jokey" or whatever either. --Nu-Priest 00:03, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

The main images for Bludgeon, Grimlock and Springer take the self-absorbed injoke too far (Ocean's 12 is a good example of thinking you are really funny, when you aren't). They have become more ingrained into the wiki's psyche and humour, as far as I can tell, only because they are usually the first things noobies try to change. It then becomes a badge of honour for somebody to defend the original pic, and then assume their place on the "inside" with the "in" crowd. Motto: "The funny stays" and all that bollox.

But in Bludgeon's case there may not be a better image out there. His MTMTE art sucks, I reckon, and said so in the MTMTE article (go fix that if you disagree!). Sometimes I wonder if fan-art, or at least fan-commissions by the artists, should be included for the big gaps of prominent characters? (Don't bother answering that, it was rhetorical). Drmick 11:44, 1 October 2009 (EDT)