Continuity Clarification?

Discussion in 'Transformers Cyberverse and Cartoon Discussion' started by Mark McCann, Mar 27, 2018.

  1. CybertronianFan

    CybertronianFan Well-Known Member

    Apr 12, 2013
    News Credits:
    Trophy Points:
    To be "heavily involved in the Aligned Continuity (amongst other TF related products), one has to be involved with Hasbro at some capacity or other and his position wasn't a minor one. What part of this do you still not wish to see?

    even I said Hall's involvement with Clashing Visions was minor. However, despite how minor, at that time he did work for Hasbro and he did participate.

    Boldfaced: mean he worked for Hasbro, Sherlock.

    Upgrade your reading glasses - Aligned continuity family - Transformers Wiki, under Clashing Visions, FIRST frigging sentence: " ... the Prime creators didn't want to be tied to previous material (and have themselves said they wanted to get away from the "Binder of Revelation" and do their own thing...". And who does the Prime staff work for? ... :p  Another note: it wasn't just an employee. It was employees.

    That article is pretty clear. The only burden I see here is your massive denial. But hey, that's not my concern.

    Best Wishes,
  2. Super4Ever

    Super4Ever Well-Known Member

    May 7, 2010
    Trophy Points:
    I think it’s you who isn’t seeing. I never once denied he had a major role in the Aligned Continuity. The point you can’t seem to comprehend is that due to the fact that he no longer worked for Hasbro, he did not speak for Hasbro. Yes, he had insider information, but his comments were not endorsed or backed by Hasbro because, again, he no longer worked for them. You can’t speak for a company you don’t work for anymore, it’s that simple.

    Right, he worked for Hasbro. However he didn’t have any firsthand information. He only commented on what he heard from others, which is stated in the exact article you keep mentioning.

    Good job, you pointed out that I pointed out that Archer worked for Hasbro. What you fail to realize is that this doesn’t actually help your arguement because nothing in the article states that Archer commented on any of this. Nice try though.

    Also good job, pointing out the first sentence. However, once again your point does not help your arguement. That sentence is based on statements made by Alvarez who, again, did not work for Hasbro at the time and therefore, again, it is not an official piece of information from Hasbro.

    Agreed, the article is quite clear. In fact it’s even clearer when you use the information presented in the article.

    Again, no one can argue that Aligned fell apart. However, Hasbro never officially made a statement on the matter. The quietly moved on.

Share This Page