A short time ago, I was having a discussion with a fellow Beast Wars collector (and YMC customer) about Transformers.  The topic was the distinctions between various repaints and re-toolings. 

     The two main questions revolved around The Jointrons and Tripredacus as well as the God awful Fox repaints of older characters such as Rhinox and Waspinator.   Were The Jointrons substantially different from Tripredacus?  Would a collector have to get the Fox repaints in order to fairly claim owning a complete run of Beast Wars toys? 

     Just what makes a toy what it is?  In all fairness, a toy is a hunk of molded plastic.  Why do we call one molded lump of plastic Cheetor, another Tigatron and yet another Shadow Panther?

     If one considers a toy’s design to be its most important feature, then Cheetor, Tigatron and Shadow Panther are all the same.  Aside from color and chemical differences in the paint and plastic, each toy is identical.   All three have the same proportions, structure and process for transforming. 

     Do re-toolings make for new toys?  Waspinator and Dirge Gun have similar forms, and some parts are identical.  The only differences between the two are aesthetic ones involving paint and sculpting.  From a mechanical design stand point, Waspinator and Dirge Gun are the same.  However, Dirge Gun has additional mechanisms that do not affect the general design, but add extra features such as a spring-loaded cannon.  Do the additions make a new toy, or do they simply add to an old one?

     What about the color differences?  Does the fact that Waspinator is green and Dirge Gun is blue make a difference? 

     To use Cheetor as better example of color variations, how much difference does it take to make a toy a variant?  As most collectors know, the original Cheetor toy had several variant eye colors.  Are the Cheetor eye-variants substantively the same?  Does the new packaging and slightly different paint make the Fox Cheetor a new toy? 

     All of the Cheetor variants, including the Fox repaint represent the same character.  The toys packaged as Tigatron and Shadow Panther represent other characters. 

     Transformers toys (this includes Beast Wars) are all have character profiles, or specs, either printed on the packages or enclosed in the packages. 

     Can the packaging specs be considered the final answer? 

     In The United States, Hasbro released a Predacon frog with the name Spittor.  In Europe, the same toy was released as a Maximal.  Both the U.S. and European Spittors have the same name, and paint.  The European Spittor also has the same Predacon sigils that the American Spittor does.  The only difference between the two is the character specs on the packages.

     Considering that the only official characterization for Spittor is found on the specs that the toys are packaged with, how does one determine which is the “true” Spittor?  Are both toys representative of the same character?  Is Spittor a double agent?  Or, is each toy a representation of a different character? 

     How significant is the characterization given on the package?  The U.S. specs only give a vague outline of the character’s abilities.  The European card has even less information, listing only the name, function and allegiance of the character.   Neither gives much substantive information about Spittor the frog, regardless of his political affiliation. 

     Some characters are fleshed out in the television series.  However, the package specs often contradict the characterization given on the show.  For example, Depth Charge’s specs list him as loyal to Optimus and The Maximals.  On the Beast Wars animated series, Depth Charge was a recalcitrant loner who only worked with The Maximals because it was convenient.   Is the Depth Charge toy intended to represent a different character from the one presented on television? 

     Another example of this is T-Rex Megatron.  According to the specs, Megatron acquired his beast form by stealing genetic material from human scientists.  In the television series, Megatron traveled back in time to prehistoric Earth and took a beast mode in order to adapt to the environment.   However, Megatron’s second and third forms, Transmetal and Transmetal 2 respectively, had specs matching the character presented in the series.  Did the first toy represent a different character than the second and third toys?  Was the first T-Rex Megatron simply a character that looked like the one on the television series?   Does this mean that the television series over-writes the package specs?  What about characters that are not on the cartoon? 

     What if a single toy is used to represent two separate and distinct characters?  In The United States, Hasbro released a blue mandrill named B’boom.  In Japan, Hasbro’s Japanese counter part, Takara released the same toy as Apache.  Aside from the package specs, B’boom’s only appearance was in the Botcon comic book, which was published with Hasbro’s clearance.  Apache was a main character in the Japanese Beast Wars Second series.  Like many Rob Liefeld characters, B’boom and Apache look alike but are different.  The only distinction between the toys is in packaging.   Could someone take a loose Apache and credibly call it B’boom, or vice versa? 

     The deciding factor in settling the separate identities of Tripredacus and The Jointrons is the characters that each toy is intended to represent. In the U.S. Beast Wars television series, Tripredacus is the name of the three robot council that ruled the Predacons.  In the Japanese series The Jointrons are a trio of loveable robots with a Latino flair. 

     Tripredacus the toy is a set of three robots that combined to form a bigger robot.  While the American toy is one of the loosest translations of any group of characters from plastic to television screen, Tripredacus the toy is intended to represent the character of The Tripredacus Council.  The toy’s character profile makes no reference to the characters being a ruling council.  Additionally the characters in the television series not only lack the beast forms of their plastic counterparts, but no indication is given that they can combine into a larger robot.  However, regardless of the many deviations between plastic and animation, the toy is intended to represent the animated characters.  Beast Wars story editor Larry Ditillio has stated as much. 

     Like the Tripredacus toy, The Jointrons are a team of three robots that combine to form a larger one.  The Jointron toys represent the characters of the same name from the Japanese Beast Wars series.  The Jointrons are painted in completely different colors than Tripredacus, and have different character profiles.  The toys are near perfect translations of the animated characters.  Additionally, the profiles the toys are packaged with closely match the characterization seen in the television series. 

     In some cases however, it is not clear which character a toy is intended to represent.  Seeing as the examples thus far have been based on Beast Wars toys, I think it only fair to use a Generation One character. 

     The character of Optimus Prime was in both the original comic book and the original animated series.  The specs that the toy was packaged with gave no indication which character the toy was intended to represent.  The comic book Prime was depicted much differently than the animated Prime.  If nothing else, the comic book Prime allowed himself to be killed because he cheated in a video game (issue 24).  The animated Prime died fighting Megatron (Transformers the Movie).   Is the toy representative of either, or both?  What about Optimus Prime as presented in the Generation 2 comic book?  Is that a new character?

     Is it possible for a toy to represent a different character than the one outlined in the specs?  In Japan, the Jaguar (Ravage) toy illustrates this. Even if one considers the different names to be a matter of translation, the toy and specs still raise some questions. 

     The specs depict the Ravage as being an old character in a new body.  This matches both the U.S. and Japanese animated series.  However, in the Japanese comic book, Jaguar/Ravage is the son of the original.  However, the toy bears more of a resemblance to the comic book.  Is the toy representative of a different character than the one outlined in the specs? 

     How exact must a translation from toy to television/comic book be?  Even though the Ravage toy looks more like the comic book than the cartoon, it is still fairly close in appearance to the cartoon.  Where does on draw the line for too many deviations? In the cartoon, most characters have hands with separate fingers.  Most of the toys have fingers that are molded together. 

     Besides translating an individual character, what about concept?  The toy of Beast Machines Cheetor looks very different from the animated Cheetor.   In the animated series, Cheetor is a sentient techno-organic cheetah that can morph into a biped warrior.   The toy deviates from the cartoon in both coloring and proportions.  However, it still nicely represents the concept of a morphing techno-organic cheetah. 

     Perhaps the most important factor to consider is the intent of the creator.  In the case of Transformers, the creator is Hasbro (or Takara, or Primus, or Vector Sigma).  Hasbro’s intent with Beast Machines Cheetor is that the toy represent the character on the cartoon.  The intent with Tripredacus is that the toy represents the council. 

     People employed by Hasbro design the toys.  Individuals employed by Hasbro write the characters.  The show is written and produced by licensed parties on behalf of Hasbro.  Hence, people working for Hasbro best answer questions about specific characters.  (Just remember to ask nicely.) 

     Does a fan customizing their toys dilute the purity of the translation?  It would seem that the act of customizing is deviating from the intent of the creators. 

     For example, if a fan buys a plastic representation, (a toy), of Cheetor that was made by Hasbro and repaints it to look closer to television character, they are changing the toy.  However, the intent is still to create a representation of the character. 

     In a way, the act of making toys at all is customizing.  Plastic is manufactured by mixing specific chemicals together.  The plastic is molded and sculpted into the shape of what it is meant to represent.  Paint is applied and the toy is packaged.   A fan customizing a toy is simply another stage in the manufacturing process.   Fans making their own characters are simply using the manufactured toys as raw materials. 

     Besides the customization of the actual toy, a fan can intellectually customize a toy.  Some toys, such as T-Rex Megatron have specs that do not match the television series.  If a fan were to throw away the specs and think of the toy as representing the character of Megatron from the cartoon, would that be an act of customizing?

     Before closing, a note on customizing.  If you have a Tigatron, throw away the card and call it Cheetor, you are not customizing your toy.  You are simply too lazy or unskilled to re-paint it.  It is your toy and you can do what you want with it, but do not expect anyone else to take your collection seriously. 

Nick Forgione is a student at Bunker Hill Community College. If anyone has any questions, comments or complaints about this article please e-mail Nick at fnj@yahoo.com.  If you would like to talk Transformers or philosophy, please e-mail him as well.

Please feel free to send this link to a friend!
http://www.yellowmonster.com/coolstuff/castinplastic_nf.html

Home to: Yellow Monster Collectibles