Talk:Daniel Witwicky (G1)
I have some issues with the apocrypha section, including the part where the article speaks for the fandom (which was already present before being moved to that section) and the new unsourced claim that Daniel was forcibly introduced by Hasbro in order to try to bring in younger fans as the early fans aged and moved on. If phrased as speculation, I think that would be okay, but as-is it is way too strongly stated. If there is documentation of this, such as in one of Rik's interviews with production staff, it should be cited. --Steve-o 17:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'll rephrase that a bit. The inclusion of Daniel and Wheelie, and the reasons, have been cited before, but the original citations have been somewhat lost over the years and may be part of the 'fandom myth'. If anyone has the original info here, though, please feel free to specify it. -- Vanguard
Walky, any time a 'new young character' is introduced into any series, it's to bring in younger audiences and get interest. This is a universal television and marketing constant. Unless you can prove that Hasbro did not have this in mind when it was done in 1986, maybe you should have left the supposition as I had stated it in the appropriate Apocrypha section? -- Vanguard
- If it's so very common, it's not important to be worth mentioning, and is assumed. But for all we know, Daniel's inclusion was Sunbow's decision. Until someone can prove it either way, supposition does not belong here. "Hasbro wanted a young character" will not be put in his entry without credited proof. --ItsWalky 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the new text that appears to link Daniel's inclusion to the cancelling of the cartoon and a "slow and lingering death-spiral for the entire franchise" belongs there. --KilMichaelMcC 18:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. --ItsWalky 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Cute, adorble death-spiral? -Derik23:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
