|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Mar 26, 2011 20:11:03 GMT
|
|
primenova
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
Posts: 6,001
|
Post by primenova on Mar 26, 2011 20:23:08 GMT
It's just the fact that the cartoon messed up with doign the wrong colour in the pilot then not correcting it.
But Frenzy is blue because he has sound powers that are normally coloured blue - but sometimes coloured yellow in the comic too.
But IDW are going with the messed up naming now aren't they? So Hasbro have messed up with the toy lien too.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowynne on Mar 26, 2011 20:36:16 GMT
aaaahhhh the good old RIRFIB or RIBFIR debate.... toys came before the cartoon and the toys originally were RIRFIB so thats my general standpoint as i am more about the toys and less about the fiction (dont get me wrong i like the fiction, but i love the toys). of course in the G1 cartoon (after the toy release) it was RIBFIR which is where the confusion starts.
so i guess the best description is rumble is red in original toyline but blue in G1 cartoon frenzy is blue in original toyline but red in G1 cartoon. so lets see thats....
RIRIOTLBBIG1CFIBIOTLBRIG1C see? argument solved! its easy!
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Mar 26, 2011 21:01:32 GMT
Rumble being blue and Frenzy being red just 'feels' more right to me, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2011 21:14:58 GMT
FIBRIR!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Mar 26, 2011 21:52:40 GMT
It's a silly debate, because there is of course one indisputable correct answer.
In the Marvel comics TF universe, FIBRIR. The original toy line reflects the comics on this point (but disagrees with it in many other respects).
In the Sunbow cartoon universe, FIRRIB.
I've voted FIBRIR because I only follow the Marvel comics TF universe. But of course it's not true in the cartoon universe, where FIRRIB.
Here's a controversial point of view, though: Me, I don't hold with Rumble having piledriver arms. His original character profile only says that he emits ground waves through his feet, and I think that's all we ever see him do in the US comics - particularly in the original four-part mini-series. Both he and Frenzy have 'drum-like' devices in their torsos (representing the spinning bits in their cassette modes). Rumble's create low-frequency earth tremors, Frenzy's create high-frequency screeches.
Anyway, I think we only see Rumble use the piledriver arms in UK stories - 'Decepticon Dambusters', 'Crisis of Command' - and the G2 comic.
I don't care for it at all. Ground waves through the feet, I say!!!
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Mar 26, 2011 22:36:22 GMT
Speaking as a mildly colourblind person, whose testimony is therefore suspect... I cannot vote in this poll as both answers are incorrect as far as I can tell. To my eyes, judging by the toys (which are primary source material for the 1984 characters by dint of prior existence) Rumble is indeed Red, but Frenzy is a shade of purple.
The comic is closer to being correct in this case (as far as I am concerned) with the cartoon being the one that is at variance.
Mind you, I don't actually have a "dog in this fight" so to speak. The Sunbow 'toon may have flipped the colours, but given how rarely I ever see this isn't going to affect me that often.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Mar 26, 2011 22:39:27 GMT
I feel odd being, it seems, the only person who does not care in the slightest. In the cartoon and comic neither made any impact and I didn't get either toy until 1994 (frenzy) so I didn't play with it much.
I suppose toys take priority and looking at it Hasbro have until now taken that view. But I don't care.
Sadly that option does not exist
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Mar 27, 2011 17:30:44 GMT
FRENZY IS PINK. RUMBLE IS MAGENTA.
I AM THE GREEN GOBLIN.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Mar 27, 2011 17:45:48 GMT
as well as Thor?
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamthomson on Mar 27, 2011 18:40:19 GMT
Put me down for not caring as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on Mar 29, 2011 9:58:24 GMT
RIRIOTLBBIG1CFIBIOTLBRIG1C its easy! I agree with this wise logic!!! |
|
|
|
Post by shadowynne on Mar 29, 2011 18:35:19 GMT
RIRIOTLBBIG1CFIBIOTLBRIG1C its easy! I agree with this wise logic!!! im telling you guys its the way forward! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2011 20:18:26 GMT
I don't really care, but because more media shows them as Rumble is red, that's just the way I tend to think of them in general
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2011 20:26:23 GMT
When I think of Rumble the animated version is the first thing that comes to mind. That makes him blue. Frenzy, therefore, by virtue of not being Rumble, is red.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Stranger on Mar 30, 2011 23:03:47 GMT
It's such a ludicrous argument. The entire universe was created for one reason : to sell toys. So whatever the original toys were is the right answer, if the cartoon or comic messed up, they're in error. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Mar 31, 2011 6:57:25 GMT
The entire universe was created for one reason : to sell toys. You have to put that in your sig! Now we know why we're all here and our role in life. It all makes sense! |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Mar 31, 2011 7:22:47 GMT
It's such a ludicrous argument. The entire universe was created for one reason : to sell toys. Toys representing fictional characters. You can't argue that where the toys have opaque windscreens and the comic/cartoon characters clear ones, the latter are in error. Or where the toys have visible screws and bits of vehicle modes not properly hidden, the cartoons and comics are in error for covering them up. Similarly re: poseability. So your argument isn't an absolute one. But I'll grant you that the above are all flaws of the toys due to costs and engineering limitations. There are no such limitations with respect to colour, and therefore no reason why the toys should get colour wrong. So I accept your logic, with provisions.  Martin (who reckons that TFs would actually change their colours from time to time on Earth to fool their enemies when in vehicle mode) |
|
|
|
Post by Kingoji on Mar 31, 2011 7:29:04 GMT
Didn't vote. They alternate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Mar 31, 2011 7:34:14 GMT
Didn't vote. They alternate. You know, it would actually give them an advantage in battle if the Autobots didn't know which one had the earthquake powers and which was likely to inflict sonic attacks on the. Keep 'em guessing! Martin |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2011 7:34:59 GMT
(who reckons that TFs would actually change their colours from time to time on Earth to fool their enemies when in vehicle mode) Hey they did that in the DDP G.I. vs TF series with a few characters (like making Starscream all black or giving Ratchet and Ironhide all black torsos) so why not? |
|
|
|
Post by grahamthomson on Mar 31, 2011 7:36:34 GMT
We should vote, therefore, that they can alternate their colours at will!
Besides, Chameleon can change his colours!
Also, the Movie TFs must be able to if they come to Earth as silver protoforms then scan a nearby vehicle and take on its colours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Mar 31, 2011 7:57:52 GMT
It's such a ludicrous argument. The entire universe was created for one reason : to sell toys. Toys representing fictional characters. No, the fictional characters represent the toys. There was a knock at the door this morning. I raced to it (well as fast as Phil races) in the hope it was UN-20, all ready with a "have you run a geiger counter over it ?" line for my postman but alas, no it wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Stranger on Mar 31, 2011 12:21:00 GMT
The entire universe was created for one reason : to sell toys. You have to put that in your sig! Now we know why we're all here and our role in life. It all makes sense! Is that kind of sarky retort really necessary Phil? |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Mar 31, 2011 14:39:59 GMT
Not at all sarky sir, I do apologise if it read that way.
I thought it was a brilliant line that sprang out at me and made me giggle a lot out of it's context!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Stranger on Mar 31, 2011 17:31:38 GMT
Ah right, no bother then man, hahaha!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Apr 3, 2011 16:15:33 GMT
Toys representing fictional characters. No, the fictional characters represent the toys. No, the fictional characters do not represent the toys, they are _inspired_ by the toys, and the toys in turn come to represent the fictional characters. I can't think of any fictional character that is used to represent an inanimate toy, regardless of which came first. The order in which they come, or which is based on which, doesn't determine which one represents the other. Whichever comes first, the toy is the inanimate, imperfect token representation of something fictional that is made real and complete in the mind of the person who plays with it. Whether or not comics and cartoons follow, the toys are designed to evoke fictional characters (or inanimate machines controlled by humans) in the minds of those who buy them, and they wouldn't sell half so well if they failed to do so - they'd be about as interesting as an easily solved Rubik's cube. Mini-Autobots perhaps excepted, whoever designed the toys no doubt was trying to represent fictional beings that existed in his mind as real robots that turned into perfect vehicle disguises, who were made of metal, not plastic, whose guns actually fired lasers and who did not have lots of leftover accessories lying around with nowhere to go when the thing was in vehicle mode. He was in the business of designing a toy that would prompt this fictional character to appear in the mind of the child who played with it, and so made the toys resemble such characters as closely as he could. But he could only go so far in doing so, as he was creating a toy, not the real thing. The idea of a robot in his mind, that he was trying to represent by the toy he was building, would not have accessories with nowhere to go, or stickers for control panels, or fake door handles, or giant screws showing, or lack seats for the driver to sit in, etc. etc. But he knew the child could fill in the blanks in its mind. (Of course, the drawings in comics and cartoons are not photorealistic either and so, like the toys, they too are imperfect representations of a fictional reality that is made complete by the imagination of the reader/viewer.) Martin |
|
|
|
Post by legios on Apr 3, 2011 19:34:02 GMT
A valid, and interesting, point there. I had never really considered it in terms of a Platonic Ideal for Transformers that toys, comic, animated show et al are imperfect reflections of. I guess it was because I have always approached it from the perspective that as The Transformers was assembled from pre-existing, repurposed toys the various media have secondary priority through date of creation.
But thinking about it, Optimus Prime is not the Diaclone Battle Convoy. The Optimus Prime character that the toy is representing when it was sold in Transformers packaging is not the human piloted defense mecha that its designers envisaged when the toy was created. Character and toy are wedded but one is not inherent in another. So in a sense the idea of Optimus Prime has indeed an existence distinct from the 1984 toy called "Optimus Prime". Hmm.... An interesting point and one I shall have to ponder on Martin. Food for thought there.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 4, 2011 18:27:22 GMT
I read Martin's post yesterday and my mind imploded. There's a story idea in there.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on Apr 4, 2011 19:40:26 GMT
Damn you guys are smart. Me, I'm just chewing on a stump, looking up what all the big words mean.
|
|
