Talk:Skyfall (G1)
From MediaWiki
Having discovered this entry, I have to say the first image has my all-time favorite caption on the whole Wiki. --Rotty 00:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Needs Neutrality
Our policiy is to have the upper character blurb be continuity neutral. While I know we're all LSotW fans, I do not like the characterisation of Skyfal as a scheeming jerk in "Bullets" overriding the bio he's had for the last 20 years, which describes him as a basically a tallented, daydreaming kid. The IDW personality should be kept to that section I think. --76.28.76.206 08:41, 21 September 2010 (EDT)
- It's not that "we're LS fans," it's that an actual starring in-story role is going to take precedence over 150-word cardcopy blurb from 20 years ago. Keeping the old intro requires willfully ignoring Skyfall's entire in-fiction existence, and thus forgoes "neutrality" for a willful ignorance. We split the difference in cases like Blaster and Galvatron, where there are like 5 different thoroughly-crafted stories. We don't split the difference with Optimus Primal actually being a new body for Optimus Prime. I'm putting it back. --Thylacine 2000 09:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)
- For 20 YEARS he was a KID who daydreamed constantly about flying, was smart and earnest and a great weapons designer, why should one text story (well written or not) take precidence and wipe out who he was for two decades and 99% of his existance. I think our policy of neutrality serves the characte FAR better. I say keep it to the IDW section, as in Blaster's case. --76.28.76.206 09:17, 21 September 2010 (EDT)
- Blaster's case only applies because there is divergent STORY MATERIAL. Skyfall simply never appeared in any fiction before. There's a big difference. We never give such absolute deference to the techspecs and it does a disservice to our readers to exempt from Skyfall's character profile the entirety of all characterization he has ever received. "For 20 years, Skyfall was"--nothing at all. But rather than get into a revert war, I will invite others here to give their opinions. --Thylacine 2000 09:26, 21 September 2010 (EDT)
- I agree with Thylacine. Skyfall was just an obscure character given development. I think that development should stay, rather than a toy bio. It'd just confuse people who only know him from the recent story. It's not the same for Blaster; there are two prominent pieces of fiction that portray him differently. Maybe we could add a note mentioning that his portrayal was different. --NCZ 09:30, 21 September 2010 (EDT)
- Blaster's case only applies because there is divergent STORY MATERIAL. Skyfall simply never appeared in any fiction before. There's a big difference. We never give such absolute deference to the techspecs and it does a disservice to our readers to exempt from Skyfall's character profile the entirety of all characterization he has ever received. "For 20 years, Skyfall was"--nothing at all. But rather than get into a revert war, I will invite others here to give their opinions. --Thylacine 2000 09:26, 21 September 2010 (EDT)
- For 20 YEARS he was a KID who daydreamed constantly about flying, was smart and earnest and a great weapons designer, why should one text story (well written or not) take precidence and wipe out who he was for two decades and 99% of his existance. I think our policy of neutrality serves the characte FAR better. I say keep it to the IDW section, as in Blaster's case. --76.28.76.206 09:17, 21 September 2010 (EDT)
