G1 Fact Verification

Statement verification:

Quote:

---

Actually, that is a huge misconception. Although Takara first released the molds that would later become the (G1) Transformers, the intellectual properties of those molds have been owned by Hasbro since 1974.

So if it wasn't for Hasbro, Takara would have never been linked with Transformers in the first place!

---

Someone in a different forum made the statement above. Is this true?

As far as I knew, Hasbro had nothing to do with Takara until they decided to market the toys in the USA.

Sounds like speculative and unfounded nonsense to me.

Considering the Diaclone/Microchange lines had no Hasbro markings on the box or toys, and even the first Transformers only had Takara copyrights on the figures, not to mention most molds that became G1 Transformers weren't even designed until '78-ish, make this hard to believe. Particularly with no evidence.

Where was this posted originally?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheHandsomeCrab

Sounds like speculative and unfounded nonsense to me.

Considering the Diaclone/Microchange lines had no Hasbro markings on the box or toys, and even the first Transformers only had Takara copyrights on the figures, not to mention most molds that became G1 Transformers weren't even designed until '78-ish, make this hard to believe. Particularly with no evidence.

Where was this posted originally?

---

I thought so too.

Here is the link:

http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?t=25044

Check out the replies after it.

From what I can recall, Hasbro first had contact with the convertable toys now known as Transformers, at the Japanese trade show in 1981 or 82 (I will have to find the article though).
Some of the toys were actually released in America as part of their existing Japanese line and packaging in 82/83, but I think when Tonka started developing their 'US' Gobots idea in late 83, Hasbro rushed to create their own 'US' brand, calling it Transformers. It was released to the American market mid 84, but anything dated before then would relate to Takara, not Hasbro.
Competing to outdo Tonka in that theme/segment of the action-figure market meant that Hasbro put in more effort with the background story and characters, which as we can see, was the right idea.

Interesting, but I'm skeptical of anything from the Murphy boards or Seibertron though. Both are rife with morons, mis-information and rumours being reported as fact.
(And post counts of 26,000? Christ, some people need to get a life.)

I can see a few obvious errors right now though - Diaclone started several years before 1983, and the Car Robots subline started in March '82 anyway. And Hasbro became Hasbro in the 60s, not the 70s.

It needs more research, but given the source and elementary errors like that, I remain skeptic. If they can't fact-check simple things like when Diaclone started or that Hassenfeld Brothers became Hasbro in '68, who knows how reliable the other information is.

THE INTERNET IS WRONG?!?!?!?!?! Oh noooooeeeesss~!!!1!!1!1!! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime

THE INTERNET IS WRONG?!?!?!?!?! Oh noooooeeeesss~!!!1!!1!1!! :p

---

I was hoping for one of your in depth factual and sourced posts so that I can set those guys straight :)

I could do it myself with a bit of research but my only real source is wikipedia and that doesn't hold much weight in there.

Quote:

---

not to mention most molds that became G1 Transformers weren't even designed until '78-ish

---

I just had a check of my Encore Soundwave and he has a 1974 stamp in him with both Hasbro and Takara's name in it. Funny to think that a toy designed in 1974 is still hell cool.

Yeah, apparently that's when the original design was patented before being redesigned into what we know as Soundwave. According to the article.

Gok, you know Japanese, do you know if there's any way to look up old Japanese patents? I guess that'd prove it.