Talk:Skyfall (G1)

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)

He was not a kid for 20 years. His original tech spec bio says absolutely nothing about his age, just that he's a day-dreamer. (I can think of two other Autobot daydreamers, Skids and Slapdash, who are also not "The Kid.") It's only his Dreamwave MTMTE profile which says that he's young. And being young doesn't preclude you from being a jerk, anyway. --ItsWalky 09:47, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

To add on the pile, he wasn't smart for 20 years, either. He had an intelligence of six. "Talented young dreamer" and "great intelligence" weren't words that applied to him until 2003. --ItsWalky 09:52, 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)

I'd have to agree with Thy, for the reasons he outlined above. Perhaps a little less heavy handed than it was written before, but there should be implications in the intro that all is not as it seems.--Khajidha 09:32, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

I still strongly disagree with this prioratizing, but I'll bow to the crowd. I do think taking this route necessitates adding toy bio and MTMTE bio entries to his fiction section. To make the different "takes" on the character clear--76.28.76.206 10:19, 21 September 2010 (EDT)