IDW comics - Wreckers, Nefarious

[griffin]

Coming out in January to March, from IDW...

Wreckers #1, end of January. Preview artwork can be seen here.

Nefarious #1, in March, follows on from the ROTF movie. Preview can be seen here.

Plus covers to other March titles - Ongoing #5, Bumblebee #4, Wreckers #3, Animated, Best of UK, and limited edition All Hail Megatron #16 - seen here. (Damn, IDW have gotten big in the last year - when they picked up Transformers, they had like half a dozen titles)

[SilverDragon]

That's a pretty screwed up Ravage on the cover of Nefarious-his jaws are going different ways, and his mouth cannon is pointing another way entirely!

[Lordy]

The Wreckers look interesting. Always liked the Wreckers as a team, as most of them I either own or would like to own.

[GoktimusPrime]

Heh... during the TF1 movie premiere at Fox Studios they were giving away free tickets so dirge and I started yelling "WRECK AND RULE!" repeatedly, which caught the MC's attention so we scored the tickets.

Hasbro needs to give us Universe toys for Impactor and Rack 'N' Ruin! (oh, and Xaaron too)

[kup]

Ironically enough, I was looking into the possibility of customising a Rack and ruin today.

[GoktimusPrime]

It just occurred to me that the characters Impactor and Rack 'N' Ruin are probably properties of Marvel Comics, not Hasbro (just like Circuit Breaker and Deaths Head).

Still... perhaps they could make characters that bear a homage-like resemblance to those characters and see if Hasbro's legal dept could get around their names, e.g.:
Impactor = "Autobot Impactor" or perhaps just "Impact."
Rack 'N' Ruin = I wonder if they could get around it simply by naming one Autobot "Rack" and the other "Ruin" (instead naming both as "Rack 'N' Ruin"). Another possibility might be to replace "'N'" with "and" or "&".

Xaaron might also belong to Marvel... so perhaps they could use "Autobot Xaaron" or perhaps tweak the spelling to "Xaron" or heh, maybe "X-Aaron." I'm sure Archer would love that!

[kup]

It just occurred to me that the characters Impactor and Rack 'N' Ruin are probably properties of Marvel Comics, not Hasbro (just like Circuit Breaker and Deaths Head).

Still... perhaps they could make characters that bear a homage-like resemblance to those characters and see if Hasbro's legal dept could get around their names, e.g.:
Impactor = "Autobot Impactor" or perhaps just "Impact."
Rack 'N' Ruin = I wonder if they could get around it simply by naming one Autobot "Rack" and the other "Ruin" (instead naming both as "Rack 'N' Ruin"). Another possibility might be to replace "'N'" with "and" or "&".

Xaaron might also belong to Marvel... so perhaps they could use "Autobot Xaaron" or perhaps tweak the spelling to "Xaron" or heh, maybe "X-Aaron." I'm sure Archer would love that!

I believe none of the none toy characters that appeared in G1 Marvel belong to Hasbro.

Although Marvel is never likely to reuse the characters of Impactor or Rack N Ruin, they belong to them and I seriously doubt Hasbro would ever bother to get them back. As mentioned in the QA, Hasbro could still produce toys of these characters since they have the Marvel license but I don't think that Hasbro would ever bother to do so and neither would Marvel.

[griffin]

If they appeared in the TFs comic first, they belong to Hasbro, according to their license (at least, that was what Simon Furman said at a number of botcons). That was why Marvel had Deaths Head appear in a one-page comic just before its TFs appearance. The non-toy Wreckers should belong to Hasbro, which is why a number other non-toy characters have since been released in some sort of homage form (like Primus, War Within Titaniums (Fallen, Optimus, Starscream, Grimlock, Prowl), Alita-1, Sunstorm, Hauler, Chromia, Defcon, Alpha Trion, Dion, Orionpax, Arcee, Unicron, Kremzeek, Transmutate).

[kup]

You are right Griffin, which makes it even more annoying since Hasbro could release faithful G1 toys of them if they wanted to but they don't.

[Sky Shadow]

If they appeared in the TFs comic first, they belong to Hasbro, according to their license (at least, that was what Simon Furman said at a number of botcons). That was why Marvel had Deaths Head appear in a one-page comic just before its TFs appearance.

This first sentence is completely true, and the second is just misinformation created by Marvel so they could use Death's Head without Hasbro realising they owned him. The strip that Marvel claims came before TFUK #113 in 1987 wasn't even drawn until over a year later in 1988 (see the signature):



And, for more information:

http://www.otca.com.au/boards/showpo...&postcount=105