Corrections and comments from Eric - promo event. (Spoilers)

[griffin]

Passed onto me by the people at Hasbro, Eric wanted to comment and correct a couple of things from our reports covering the Hasbro Animated Promo event last weekend.
Overall he was pretty happy with how we covered the event, but a few things did need to be fixed up.


Ozformers Write up - Good job overall! But some things wound up getting confused.

1) Mighty Muggs (i'm actually quite obsessed with the little guys and trying to go completist among all the different Brands) i'm sure i simply misunderstood a question you asked. Not a big deal... but it's funny that some of my friends in the fandom and at hasbro were kind of confused by that statement.

2) Toys designed - list wasn't posted on TFW2005. I'd just sent it to a friend on those forums. It has since been posted to the TFWiki site.

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Eric_Siebenaler (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Eric_Siebenaler)

3) Comment by Paulbot - i found this a little disrespectful and presumptuous. "Turns out the Hasbro group didn't need to run off straight away from Melb as we saw 'em having lunch in the very busy food court before heading back to the hotel they were staying at and their afternoon flight back to Sydney." ...Truth be told - we had checked out of the hotel before we went to KMart that morning, had 20 minutes to eat, and had to go directly to the airport from there... of which we were nearly late checking in.

4) No worries about the Constructicons comments (on the 2005 boards). This info is already out there, but most people haven't been able to make the connection between Movie/Animated constructicons from a business perspective yet. Technically, nothing is spoiled.

Minor things aside, i felt that you guys did a great job reporting what was said. I love talking to fans, answering questions, and getting feedback on stuff... but there's been times in the past where i had been misquoted and made to look like an @ss. I must commend you on your, and your board members' efforts.


That tfwiki link has indeed been updated, and it is a HUGE list of stuff he's done.

And I don't think there was anything malicous intended in Paulbot's quote (he's not the sort of person to be nasty), but I can see how it could be interpretted as being rather harsh.

[Pulse]

I love talking to fans, answering questions, and getting feedback on stuff... but there's been times in the past where i had been misquoted and made to look like an @ss.

Sounds like typical nutcase Fandom to me... :rolleyes:

I'm glad Eric doesn't take those moronic comments to heart :) (It's the Fandom like that which leaves a sour taste on our reputation... *shakes head*)

[Paulbot]

And I don't think there was anything malicous intended in Paulbot's quote (he's not the sort of person to be nasty), but I can see how it could be interpretted as being rather harsh.

Yes, it wasn't meant to be malicous or harsh, it was just meant to contrast between the "afterwards" of the Melb and Sydney meets and to comment on how busy Southland. :o

[FFN]

Griff, you might as well edit the original thread to fix these mistakes, since that thread was linked to various big international TF boards. Don't want to make Eric look bad or anything :D

[Kyle]

That tfwiki link has indeed been updated, and it is a HUGE list of stuff he's done.

Now that I realise he has his hand in designing both Animated AND Classics, my respect for him grows even more.

[kurdt_the_goat]

I have a lot of respect for Eric obviously playing a huge part in designing stacks of TF toys, but i find the terminology used on on TF Wiki a bit misleading (in saying "Toys Designed by Eric"). Specifically, this is because we have the interview with Alex Kubalsky, showing his concept sketches for Classics BB, Camaro BB and Classics Mirage. In my mind, a list of "Toys designed by Eric" should only consist of toys where he's 95% responsible.. or else there's no point providing the list really! I'm not implying Eric is trying to take credit for Alex' work, just that the TF Wiki almost makes it seem that way, so we can't really take the list on face value.

[FFN]

I have a lot of respect for Eric obviously playing a huge part in designing stacks of TF toys, but i find the terminology used on on TF Wiki a bit misleading (in saying "Toys Designed by Eric"). Specifically, this is because we have the interview with Alex Kubalsky, showing his concept sketches for Classics BB, Camaro BB and Classics Mirage. In my mind, a list of "Toys designed by Eric" should only consist of toys where he's 95% responsible.. or else there's no point providing the list really! I'm not implying Eric is trying to take credit for Alex' work, just that the TF Wiki almost makes it seem that way, so we can't really take the list on face value. I think what we say on the wiki is best way to say it given the process of design that they've informed us of.

Toy design is a collaborative process, which is why some toys are listed among different designers (eg. Hound & Ravage is by both Bill Rawley (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Bill_Rawley) and Alex Kubalsky (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Alex_Kubalsky)) The majority of new Transformers products begin their design process at Hasbro (design of modes, style, rough transformation), and then Takara interprets the designs into working toys (and there's back and forth discussion and tweaks). Eric told us that most of the time Takara is almost spot-on with translating his designs.

From what I understand, going by your definition nobody would get any credit for anything, since nobody is almost totally responsible for any toy.

[kurdt_the_goat]

Obviously :)
I was just suggesting something like you just wrote, should appear on the wiki to clarify that. Alex' page says "Toy Design" which is more vague than "Toys Designed By", which sounds more absolute.

[FFN]

I believe we say elsewhere what I basically said, that Hasbro begins a design process with the concepts and ideas, while Takara makes the final execution into a toy. It's a bit too wordy and specific to say in every Hasbro designer's page. By saying "designed" we make it clear that they had a hand in designing those toys, even if they didn't do absolutely everything*. Aside from Kubalsky and Hirofumi Ichikawa, we have no real idea who has done what at Takara, so it's hard to give credits to individuals on that side of the design teams.

EDIT: I've changed Alex's page to say "Toys designed by Alex"


*For me personally, part of this has to do with a number of people in the fandom who think that Hasbro has little involvement with Transformers toys, or that their concept art makes little difference. A few years ago some fans got into arguments with the people over at ToyBoxDX (some board for Japanese robot fans), the latter of whom were adamant that Hasbro had absolutely nothing to do with Transformers whatsoever, and that they were simply a small distribution company compared to the alleged industrial colossus of Takara. As I recall, they didn't believe a word Hasbro designer Joe Kyde said when he popped in to attempt to clarify things.

Yeah, they were true Japanophiles.

[kurdt_the_goat]

Thanks for clarifying :) Japanophile is probably too specific, i'd just go with plain old 'idiots'. Japanophile idiots, perhaps!

[FFN]

What's funny is both companies have said it's been this way since G1 in the 80s. Collaboration is what makes good Transformers toys.

[kup]

I don't understand. In the wiki Eric is credited with designing Classics Bumblebee and Mirage.

This older interview states otherwise:

http://pingmag.jp/2007/06/29/transformers/

Extract:


PingMag got hold of Australian Alex Kubalsky of Takaratomy in Tokyo, who not only happens to be the sole foreign toy designer in Japan - he also designed all the transformations for Transformer’s Bumblebee, Mirage and more cute fan gear!

[Kyle]

I don't understand. In the wiki Eric is credited with designing Classics Bumblebee and Mirage.

This older interview states otherwise:

http://pingmag.jp/2007/06/29/transformers/

Extract:

My guess is:

Hasbro (eg. Eric) would draw up the initial concepts and designs, then pass these to Takara. Takara (eg. Alex) would then re-draw these designs in his own ways, and engineer a prototype.

[GoktimusPrime]

What's funny is both companies have said it's been this way since G1 in the 80s. Collaboration is what makes good Transformers toys.
Overall it is indeed a collaborative effort - sometimes it's more Hasbro-focused and other times more Takara-focused (or even exclusively developed by one company) - depends on which line we're talking about. But on the whole, Transformers is a cooperative Hasbro/Takara franchise. Assuming otherwise has anything to do with being a "Japanophile" but really more to do with being ignorant... after all, there are plenty of ignoramuses who also falsely assume that Transformers is entirely made by Hasbro.

The way Eric described Hasbro's cooperation with Takara sounds a lot like how Hasbro and Takara worked together during G1 & G2 as described by Ōno Kōjin (http://www.geocities.com/planetsabretron/oonokoujin.html).

[Golden Phoenix]

My guess is:

Hasbro (eg. Eric) would draw up the initial concepts and designs, then pass these to Takara. Takara (eg. Alex) would then re-draw these designs in his own ways, and engineer a prototype.

That is basically the way Eric put it when we asked him.
He said he did concept sketches for both modes and some basic transformation steps and then Takara figured out the engineering and made some design changes

[GoktimusPrime]

And it's the way it's almost always worked since 1986. HasTak FTW. :)

[FFN]

I don't understand. In the wiki Eric is credited with designing Classics Bumblebee and Mirage.

This older interview states otherwise:

http://pingmag.jp/2007/06/29/transformers/

Extract: Didn't you read my explanation on the first page? On the wiki we credit toys to all of their designers if known. Toy designs are a collaborative process between the companies and design teams, so nobody gets all of the credit. I mean, I linked Alex Kabalsky's wiki article which lists all of his currently known designs, some of which are also credited to Hasbro's designers.

Unfortunately, it's much harder to get information on Takara's design team and who designed what toys.

[TheDirtyDigger]

I'll ask Alex about all this conjecture when I catch up with him.
He's due back (or is already) from a stint in Japan about now. His phone keeps going to voice message though.

[FFN]

No wait, it's wrong. Siph confused Alex with one of Takara's other then-new designers.

The list of toys credited to Alex on the TF Wiki was from the man himself.

[FFN]

Overall it is indeed a collaborative effort - sometimes it's more Hasbro-focused and other times more Takara-focused (or even exclusively developed by one company) - depends on which line we're talking about. But on the whole, Transformers is a cooperative Hasbro/Takara franchise. Assuming otherwise has anything to do with being a "Japanophile" but really more to do with being ignorant... after all, there are plenty of ignoramuses who also falsely assume that Transformers is entirely made by Hasbro. "Hasbro designs all Transformers toys alone" is the usual attitude of the general Western audience and Western mainstream media, who are not aware of the existence of Takara (since Hasbro usually don't mention their Japanese business partner in press releases).

"Takara designs all Transformers toys alone" is the usual attitude of rabid anime fans who are used to Japanese companies designing all the toys, and American companies merely importing them. The thought of a close cooperation between a Japanese and an American company on the design level is such an alien concept that they refuse to accept it, as seen on ToyBoxDX.

Unlike the unaware Westerners (who usually don't know that Takara even exists), the "anime fans" folk are aware of Hasbro, but refuse to acknowledge the company's participation in the development process.

[GoktimusPrime]

Uh... not really. Most animé-fans aren't even TF fans and are quite ignorant about Transformers overall - even in Japan animé fans have often asked me "Are Transformers Japanese or American?" My usual response is "both." But yeah, I find that most of these people are just unaware/ignorant rather.

As for people who should know better but fail to acknowledge one company's participation (and there are plenty of Western fans who are aware of Takara but regularly only refer to "Hasbro" as the sole creator of the Transformers franchise), they are either stubborn or lazy (i.e.: cannot be bothered crediting both companies - not even using the fan-abbreviation "hastak")... but hey... it's the same reason why some people can't be bothered discriminating between Bumblebee and BB even though they're two entirely different characters. Just laziness and unfortunately something we have to live with. :/

[Kyle]

Uh... not really. Most animé-fans aren't even TF fans and are quite ignorant about Transformers overall - even in Japan animé fans have often asked me "Are Transformers Japanese or American?" My usual response is "both." But yeah, I find that most of these people are just unaware/ignorant rather.

As for people who should know better but fail to acknowledge one company's participation (and there are plenty of Western fans who are aware of Takara but regularly only refer to "Hasbro" as the sole creator of the Transformers franchise), they are either stubborn or lazy (i.e.: cannot be bothered crediting both companies - not even using the fan-abbreviation "hastak")... but hey... it's the same reason why some people can't be bothered discriminating between Bumblebee and BB even though they're two entirely different characters. Just laziness and unfortunately something we have to live with. :/

I agreed with most of the above until I read the last part about BB. If one day HasTak decides to have a new character called "G1" appear in say, an IDW comic, should the fandom as a whole stop using the abbreviation "G1" to refer to Generation One, when used in a correct context? Even in a casual conversation between hardcore Generation One fans?

I'll continue to use the abbreviation BB to refer to Bumblebee, when I know the audience I communicate with knows full well which character in particular I was referring to. For example, if a discussion started off, clearly, as a discussion about Movie or Animated, I don't believe a person who claims himself to be a true TF fan would think I was talking about the BWII BB. Otherwise, it would be that person's own ignorance, not mine. :p Another example, say a fan reports in an acquisitions thread that he has just acquired a "BB" from Kmart. Now, while I cannot rule out the possibility that he would actually find a BWII BB from Kmart :p my common sense would tell me it would be a toy more likely from Animated or Movie. ;)

[Tiby]

Ok people - best if we now leave the BB/Bumblebee thing there. This has come up before and not much good can come out of a continued discussion about it.

[Kyle]

Sorry. :o

[autobreadticon]

cartoon network has updated the competition drawing entries

[kup]

geez, all I wanted was proper (not assumed) clarification on the wiki article and the interview as both credit their subject with the designs alone.

It is very confusing (and silly) to credit the toy to a designer in an article without any explanation or without specifying what he did. At least it should be acknowledged that there were others involved in the design process.

It would have been much better if they had stated something like "He collaborated in the design of the following toys" than having a wiki entry that only credits a single designer and directly contradicts another Primary source, in this case the interview with the Australian Takara designer.

[FFN]

Uh... not really. Most animé-fans aren't even TF fans and are quite ignorant about Transformers overall - even in Japan animé fans have often asked me "Are Transformers Japanese or American?" My usual response is "both." But yeah, I find that most of these people are just unaware/ignorant rather. I think you and Kyle were thrown by my Westerners thing. I meant the average non-fan-of-anything in the west and the western anime fanboy who is not a TF fan, not an East Vs West thing.


geez, all I wanted was proper (not assumed) clarification on the wiki article and the interview as both credit their subject with the designs alone.

It is very confusing (and silly) to credit the toy to a designer in an article without any explanation or without specifying what he did. At least it should be acknowledged that there were others involved in the design process.

It would have been much better if they had stated something like "He collaborated in the design of the following toys" than having a wiki entry that only credits a single designer and directly contradicts another Primary source, in this case the interview with the Australian Takara designer. We went back and clarified on the articles to the best of our knowledge who they worked with and what they did if known. Don't blame us because there's almost a total lack of Takara details, since there's very little info on Takara designers and what they did, besides Ichikawa and Kubalsky.

[kup]

I think you and Kyle were thrown by my Westerners thing. I meant the average non-fan-of-anything in the west and the western anime fanboy who is not a TF fan, not an East Vs West thing.

We went back and clarified on the articles to the best of our knowledge who they worked with and what they did if known. Don't blame us because there's almost a total lack of Takara details, since there's very little info on Takara designers and what they did, besides Ichikawa and Kubalsky.

Then state something along those lines in the wiki please.

Tip: Don't be so defensive, this only started out as a question not an attack.

[griffin]

First up - Goktimus, don't criticise people for using valid abbreviations just because you don't like Bumblebee being called BB (when referring to topics that don't have anything to do with the BWII character). Not everyone has the time or patience to type out lengthy postings with no abbreviations. There is already a rule in the user guide about allowing people to use any comprehendable measurements on this board, so now I'll have to expand that to cover any comprehendable abbreviation as well.

Secondly - The issue about design specifics - The interview (and the tfwiki from it) are focused on Eric, not anyone else. We already know that it is a collaborative effort between Hasbro and Takara, and it was even mentioned in the report that Eric does concept designs, transformation ideas, etc, and someone at Takara does the engineering designs. There isn't any need to bog down the interview (and the wiki article from it) with that explination more than we already did. And it isn't very fair picking on Eric's entry, and not Alex's, who had the same generic listing of 'Designer', without more specific details that some prefer. Yes, it would be nice to know the specifics here on each and every designer, but for now, we may just have to do with generic 'designer' listed with anyone involved in the 'design process' of each figure.

The tfwiki isn't perfect, and is a fan project, so has to rely on any scraps of official info it can find. And since it is there for fans to use, it also can't be written up like a legal document just to prevent mis-interpretation.
Saying that a particular figure is creditted to one person, doesn't mean it isn't also creditted to others. TFs designs are a collaborative effort, and the wiki can only list those it knows about, or guess the roles they played *IF* there is isn't an official source for that info.
Unless you have an official source to correct an error or *significant* oversight at the tfwiki (or interview), don't criticise what is there.

I on the other hand DO have an official source, quoted here to defend the tfwiki on this:


it appears that some people are on the boards are confused about the TFWiki page updates. Particularly Board member KUP seems to have an issue with very specific clarification on the entry.

Feel free to post this info.

Paraphrasing - He states that the entry "Toys that Eric has designed" is misleading and implies that i have sole ownership over a design. He also gives a link to an interview with Alex Kubalsky in which he claims to have designed 2 particular toys that also appear on my list... KUP seems to want additional info to clarify what role i played in the design of these guys...

Explanation - as many of your board members know and have tried to explain, ALL TF toys are a collaboration between Takara and Hasbro. This means that every toy that is released by Hasbro has one Hasbro Designer and one Takara Designer involved per project. (the exceptions are obvious with Takara's exclusive projects like Alternity and Mickey Prime, etc.) Therefore it is not inaccurate for Alex and myself to both have credit for designing the same toy.

***Dirty Digger says that he'll chat with Alex when Alex returns to AU. I'm sure that you'll find Alex will have the same explanation as what i'm giving now.***

Now, perhaps KUP is onto something as far as what specific roles we all play in TF Design. I think it's a little tedious and probably anal retentive request... but All Hasbro Design roles could be described as Visionary, Conceptual Artists, Big Picture, Brand Managers... Likewise, all Takara Design Roles could be described as Creative Design/Engineers, Meticulous in their precision, Detail oriented, Model Developers. But no matter what labels you slap on something, it really doesn't do any justice to the collaborative efforts both teams put in. These labels create a generalization of our practice, and truth be told, all parties do much more than i just listed. The way our teams work together is a work of Art...

If you guys want, feel free to update my wiki site as you see fit, but note that there is nothing technically inaccurate about anything in the entry as it exists right now.

Yes, that's from Eric himself, via the people at Hasbro (I coloured some of it red for effect). As it would be expected, he has an interest in what people say about him from that Promo Event, both here and on the global forums.
Even though he names you Kup, he's not specifically having a go at you - he's actually 'personally' answering your query on the matter.
Obviously confusion on this issue could lead to erronous speculation and frustration between members, and he wanted to at least help clear it up as quickly as possible. He didn't have to, but it was nice of him to offer some light on the subject for you Kup, and the tfwiki team.

[FFN]

Then state something along those lines in the wiki please.

Tip: Don't be so defensive, this only started out as a question not an attack.
We've already modified the credits to list people who worked with [whomever the article is about] for X toys, if known.

[jaydisc]

Wow! Great thread! :D How awesome of Eric to comment back!

Based on my understanding of what a wiki is, wouldn't it be better to contribute than to complain or critique?

[dirge]

Secondly - Kup, you are making a big deal out of something that very little is officially known about.

Actually, kup has already spoken to me about this... he was really more confused about conflicting information than anything else. The wiki and interview were (on the surface) giving conflicting information, and kup was seeking clarification :)

[griffin]

Hopefully Eric was able to clear things up (for him and everyone else).

[Kyle]

I felt it was already quite clear before, but could also see how some of us could have got confused. Thanks for the clarification. :)

[griffin]

I've editted out part of my posting above that directly criticised Kup, as it wasn't necessary to confront him like that over something that may well have just been an oversight.
A fair bit of the rest of the posting could be removed as well, but it goes towards the point of the quoted text.

It has also been pointed out to me that I shouldn't be telling people NOT to criticise the tfwiki if there is a rational reason behind that criticism (like if the admin of the wiki edits out something that should be in it). That is a valid point, and I want to make it clear that I wasn't giving the impression that the tfwiki is off limits to critism.
My posting though, did mean to say that *if* the wiki's content is not being contradicted by an official source, it isn't fair to be criticising it over content that is otherwise considered the *only* available info.

[kup]

it appears that some people are on the boards are confused about the TFWiki page updates. Particularly Board member KUP seems to have an issue with very specific clarification on the entry.

Feel free to post this info.

Paraphrasing - He states that the entry "Toys that Eric has designed" is misleading and implies that i have sole ownership over a design. He also gives a link to an interview with Alex Kubalsky in which he claims to have designed 2 particular toys that also appear on my list... KUP seems to want additional info to clarify what role i played in the design of these guys...

Explanation - as many of your board members know and have tried to explain, ALL TF toys are a collaboration between Takara and Hasbro. This means that every toy that is released by Hasbro has one Hasbro Designer and one Takara Designer involved per project. (the exceptions are obvious with Takara's exclusive projects like Alternity and Mickey Prime, etc.) Therefore it is not inaccurate for Alex and myself to both have credit for designing the same toy.

***Dirty Digger says that he'll chat with Alex when Alex returns to AU. I'm sure that you'll find Alex will have the same explanation as what i'm giving now.***

Now, perhaps KUP is onto something as far as what specific roles we all play in TF Design. I think it's a little tedious and probably anal retentive request... but All Hasbro Design roles could be described as Visionary, Conceptual Artists, Big Picture, Brand Managers... Likewise, all Takara Design Roles could be described as Creative Design/Engineers, Meticulous in their precision, Detail oriented, Model Developers. But no matter what labels you slap on something, it really doesn't do any justice to the collaborative efforts both teams put in. These labels create a generalization of our practice, and truth be told, all parties do much more than i just listed. The way our teams work together is a work of Art...

If you guys want, feel free to update my wiki site as you see fit, but note that there is nothing technically inaccurate about anything in the entry as it exists right now.

Thank you very much to Eric for the Clarification above. He has succesfully answered my query.

That is all I wanted to know, I wasn't much concerned with editing the wiki article or disproving anyone. My inquiry was just to obtain clarification on why two designers on separate articles were being credited with the same toys and that has now been elegantly answered by Eric.

[GoktimusPrime]

It has also been pointed out to me that I shouldn't be telling people NOT to criticise the tfwiki if there is a rational reason behind that criticism (like if the admin of the wiki edits out something that should be in it). That is a valid point, and I want to make it clear that I wasn't giving the impression that the tfwiki is off limits to critism.
My posting though, did mean to say that *if* the wiki's content is not being contradicted by an official source, it isn't fair to be criticising it over content that is otherwise considered the *only* available info.
...don't even start me about what's wrong with TF wiki... *shudder* but I agree that all criticisms against it should be justifiable (as with criticisms against anything really).

[FFN]

...don't even start me about what's wrong with TF wiki... *shudder* but I agree that all criticisms against it should be justifiable (as with criticisms against anything really). What's wrong with the wiki now?

[TheDirtyDigger]

What's wrong with the wiki now?

Well personally I find it to be an awesome site and the most informative place about TF's on the net but if you want to know what's wrong with it I would have to say not enough nudity or items about me. (or both together)

[jacksplatt11]

What's wrong with the wiki now?

Needs more pictures with funny comments, and more of her:
http://tfwiki.net/w2/images2/d/d7/FixerBug_Stella.jpg


if you want to know what's wrong with it I would have to say not enough nudity

Agreed

[dirge]

What's wrong with the wiki now?

I don't think that's a pandora's box that should be opened here.