I didn't appreciate Bob Budiansky's run as much as a kid (so depressing to see characters killed off so often, particularly that issue with Circuit Breaker at the end with all the faces on the wall) and enjoyed Simon Furman's run more. But when I revisited it as I got older, I've grown to really like it. I still like Simon Furman's run a lot, but Bob Budiansky's run is really good too. When Prime and Megatron were written out, he went in even crazier directions with the leaders and gave time to characters that didn't get much spotlight in the cartoon (like Skids and Blaster). And I appreciated the human villains and elements he created a bit more when I got older.

I always find it kind of cool (maybe he is a hoarder or something) that he kept all this background material even though it strikes me he doesn't seem to put himself out there as much as Simon Furman has on his TF connection. .

I kind of wonder what kind of stories he would write if he was given a chance to do TF again without any expectations... What his current style would be like. Would there even be an audience based on modern sensibilities?

 

Cosigning this. As a kid it really ground my gears that the cartoon portrayed Grimlock as too stupid to live, despite his tech specs listing his intelligence as 7 and his skill as 10.


Thank you

 

You are speaking of the bios, I wasn't I was only speaking of the number, I was also speaking specifically to the time not decades of material that came later - it was a stretch for me to even mention the Movie and so I will say again - Thundercracker and Skywarp's numbers being reverses don't make a huge difference if they were for a long time shown as being essentionally the same thing a pallete swapped "goon".

Everything that changes that came DECADES later really. There were not much more than that in the comics of the day either - and due to the way Transformers didn't immediately get into a repeat cycle as it is now - there was no further examples of "The Adventures of Skywarp & Thundercracker" for (pardon the pun) Generations to follow..

 

Exactly my point to be honest. No way Megatron could be a 10 in the same league as a city/titan power scale.

And I've seen the same character have different specs from one figure version to another, and I would understand that "new body, new capacity" but the scale of the numbers just aren't coherent.

I can see it as a logarithmic scale, so that each number is a multiple from the previous number.

(just an) Example:1 being a "human gun", a 2 being 10x more powerful so a powerful rifle/machine gun/etc., a 3 being another 10x above 2, so 100x more powerful than a 1, etc. So a standard energon weapon being at least a 3, which would be most hand-held type that legend/deluxes use, with some being slightly stronger, (3.1, 3.2, etc.) to Voyagers that would be up to 3.5 levels (so up to 5x more powerful), Leaders' weapons being 3.5 to 4, with some exceptions of course according to the character's weapon.

So Optimus' ion gun would be a very powerful one at 4.1, but Megatron could be a solid 4.5. Combiners could be able to reach the same levels (4.5) with possibly a bit more 4.6) and then you have Titans that could easily be 6-7, even 8 scale. Large "mothership" spaceships and/or large city defences would reach the same levels.

To me a "10" would be nuclear level powers, where a city can be taken out in a single shot, craters, serious planetary damage stuff.

Now repeat this logic to all other specs.

As things are now, EVERYTHING in all media is just plot driven, and has zero logic. And these "official" scales are completely useless and pointless to me as they really don't follow any logic or actual scale between each other. They are completely inconsistent and unrelatable.

No problem, and that's just it for me.. the character descriptions about their personalities is absolutely fine and I enjoy those, but the numbers never made any sense as they really don't follow any sort of logic to the point that I can't recall looking at one and thinking that it made any sort of sense.

 

Bob was kind enough to send me a scanned copy of it! Take note that some of the names listed here are early names and were changed probably because of trademark.

 

The thing is, I'm talking about the numbers too, and how they often match the descriptions in the bios. And the thing is, it does matter. People didn't just start paying attention to the bios 30 years later. Back in the 80s, I already knew that Frenzy and Thundercracker's personalities were basically "wrong" on the cartoon.

This goes back to the typical assumption that the only canon that counts for Transformers is the G1 cartoon... which is of course false.

The very first, inceptional, official canon for Transformers was the bios + specs. Besides providing the foundation for literally everything that followed, they were devised to engage the imaginations and nourish the play patterns of the children getting the toys, and played a significant role for many fans. Not every figure was an important character on the cartoon or in the comics... but it WAS important that every character came with distinct strengths, weaknesses, special powers, and personalities. The richness and development of that original fiction (the bios, aka: the original canon) is a big part of why I'm a TF fan today... as opposed to being, like... a Go-Bots fanboy.  

z

 

In terms of your overall statement, I think you're actually wrong about that. As I already pointed out, the fact that the errors and discrepancies are so obvious reinforces the fact that there was in fact a high degree of consistency (and intentionality).

I also disagree with the notion that everything is "only" ever plot-driven. Establishing the internal rules that govern a fictional universe (and sticking to them) is an important part of world-building and storytelling.

Actually, I'd love to get into the weeds with you about some of the specific Tech Specs examples and address some of your concerns (particularly during the early "good years") but I'll let you decide if you really want to go down that (exceptionally nerdy) road with me.  

z

 

How am I (or can be) wrong when I'm saying that I do not see a logical scale or any logical reference to what the numbers actually means. You've not provided anything to that effect, while I proposed a logical model.

hey, if you have an understanding of the rationale used for those numbers outside of being pulled out of their rear, I'm honestly curious.

The only way really to see these numbers is within reference to each of the characters only, and that falls apart fairly fast.

Just using the attachment above from Rodimus Primal..examples:

Speed: How the hell would Huffer be faster than Bumblebee or Ratchet or Hound, Mirage at 7 like any of the other cars and just 2 points under supersonic jets that even if alien tech is involved, ground speed can't really be above the 200-300 mph (straight line, perfect conditions, physics and laws that can't be avoided without magic), and flight speed of any jet (let alone alien tech) would easily be multiple times this.

FRP (I assume firepower) with Bluestreak at 9, Optimus at 8, Wheeljack at 7, with the other cars at 4-6 (and less). Then Soundwave with his missile launcher and fairly large gun (at 6) is weaker than Ravage (at 7)?

And so many with 8 to 10 in intelligence but yet, the wars lasts "millions" of years instead of them thinking.. hey, let's use our intellect to figure out a proper solution? (heck, if the most intelligent characters are at that level and how thy have all been portrayed in the fictions, the lower numbers would equate to many of them barely able to stand up without drooling... Brawn would be a turnip.)

It's fiction and everything has always been plot driven, you can disagree all you want, but it is fact that it's all made up.

 

I'm not the one claiming it to be some old mystery, CBR was. This was just part of my interview with him and they thought it was worthy enough to write an article about it. It is news to some people, and it's cool that we now have a solid copy on YouTube for everyone to see, just as much as it is on the Wiki.

 

Yes please! Including any extra Bio!

 

Robot Master/Donny Finkleberg is based on Danny Fingeroth, a member of the Marvel bullpen at the time, not Bob.

 

Well you have to apply a little logic to it. I agree with you megatrons firepower could never equal fort max, when megatron could fit in the barrel of fort Max’s gun many times over. I’m of the opinion the stats for g1 were awesome and did make sense. Peace

 

Yeah there's some off numbers considering the type of vehicles they were, but I think it depends on the character. Their firepower or speed might be relative to their size or vehicle type. I think the tech specs do work great overall and are important to the fiction too. Their bios are just as important as it relates to their capabilities seen in fiction that make many of the Transformers we know and love unique.

 

I really like how Bob's chart adds the totals up so you can see how he viewed them overall. OP is a 75, Megs is 70, Jazz is in the 60s with Prowl and Wheeljack, etc.

 

I finally feel vindicated, after all these years. Now the whole world knows the truth:

Thundercracker is, and always has been, better than Skywarp.

 

For him it was just an assignment........part of the job. So humble in fact 

Great job btw snagging the interview!

 

Megatron had firepower of 10 and Rumble has a 9 on that chart. Did I read that right?

Granted, if he can cause earthquakes, that's pretty solid firepower.

it also goes to show how important role-playing type of simultations are. Here we are discussing who was better among repaints of the exact same mode to differentiate characters from toys made from the exact same mold. The differences in all of them was in our imaginations. And, hey, I'm not knocking it. That made it better.

 

We might end up arguing over what each of us considers an "acceptably" logical model. I said I think you're wrong about there being no logical consistency in the Tech Specs (which is to say that I disagree, at least) but I also said I wasn't going to get into all that with you unless you actually wanted to explore it.  

Well, first let me establish some of the parameters of my case, since I wouldn't want to say that the Tech Specs in G1 are universally consistent or sensible. There are lapses, but I think you can see an underlying framework that extends through most of the first 3-4 years of the line.

Here are a few (unconfirmed) general assumptions about the logics at play here, and for simplicity since we have the stats at hand, I'll lean mostly on the 1984 stats above...

Part of the problem here is assuming that the 10-point scale is actually a mathematically proportionate scale, rather than a tiered ranking system. In this sense, the numerical values ARE arbitrary, of course. They only serve to indicate hierarchical tiers. However, those arbitrary values tend to be distributed with surprising consistency across the cast of characters.

I mean, as much as we might crave some sort of universal scale that is evenly and proportionately distributed across 10 integer points, but which also somehow encompasses a range from walking speed all the way up to escape velocity (mach 33, apparently), I don't think that's really feasible... unless we want a SPEED score with only 2 stops: Cosmos (10+) and everyone else (less than zero).  

Ratings of 10 in attributes (particularly STRENGTH) can be treated as effectively "off the charts" rather than being numerically equivalent. This reflects the fact that when the standard for Tech Specs was established, there were no Combiners, and Prime/Megatron represented the pinnacle archetypes.

However, you can see that all "giant" characters (combiners, cityformers etc) clock in at STRENGTH 10 despite having very different lifting capacities specified in their bios. There is one notable exception to this rule - Computron, who seems to be the weakest combiner, but still should be stronger than Optimus (assuming logically that the 4 000 000 lbs lift in Optimus' bio has always been a typo). So he's sort of the odd one out there.

SPEED ratings tend to represent "best speed" in either mode. This is somewhat born out by the fact that characters with no vehicular speed (Megatron, Soundwave, Rumble) are limited to their foot speed (remember, in the original fiction, Decepticons did not have the arbitrary ability to fly in robot mode). Ravage, being a quadruped, unsurprisingly ends up slightly faster than his bipedal comrades.

All Autobot sports cars tend to top out at SPEED 7... other than Windcharger (8) who is exceptionalized as the "fastest Autobot" in 1984.

It may seem a bit weird for Huffer (5) to be faster than Bumblebee and Brawn (4), it's good to remember that VW Bugs were notoriously underpowered. At the same time, 4x4 trucks resembling Brawn (a Suzuki SJ20 according to the TFwiki) are pretty slow, while the Volvo F88 (that Huffer is probably based on) is unusually fast and powerful for a truck in its class. In fact, the F88 top speed is actually slightly faster than the SJ20, so it's not actually all that far from reality.

We can also see that the "slow" Autobots tend to clock in at SPEED 4, with Huffer being a little peppier, and Ironhide (famously the slowest Autobot due to his advanced age) rating a (3).

Putting that into further perspective, we can remember that Autobots are not actually their alt-modes, but in fact individuals with different physical abilities who only resemble specific earth vehicles. This explains things like Starscream and Thundercracker having dramatically different flight speeds, despite being outwardly the same jet.

But what about Gears? He's just some kind of nonspecific hardshell pickup truck, isn't he? Why does he rate a SPEED 6? Well, let's remember that Gears is actually one of the only two 1984 Autobots who can fly -- albeit just for short jaunts.

Funny how some of these small details add up... but that just goes to show that Budiansky was enough of a nerd to put a tiny bit of thought into the development work he was doing for Transformers, rather than just throwing random numbers out there.

Which brings us to flying speeds. Thundercracker and Skywarp are both supersonic jets, and characters who occupy that tier basically start at SPEED 9. Starscream, singled out as the fastest of all, gets a SPEED 10... which is fair, since his Mach 2.8 flying speed could potentially make him roughly twice as fast as Thundercracker or Skywarp (whose max speed is 1500mph).

*A separate argument could be put forward as to whether Skywarp's teleportation should be taken into account, or if that would be cheating.  

Meanwhile, subsonic fliers (Laserbeak, Buzzsaw, Powerglide, Whirl, Swoop) tend to clock in at SPEED 8. Does this mean that Windcharger can briefly attain speeds comparable to a helicopter? Maybe. I mean, he can also shoot magnetic tractor beams out of his hands, so who knows?  

On the other hand, there are some lapses here, too. Things that feel like errors or omissions...

Powerglide apparently has a ridiculous power boost ability that temporarily makes him as fast as Starscream, but he's still stuck with Speed 8.

Meanwhile, orbital-capable characters like Cosmos and Jetfire get (logically) a SPEED 10, but Omega Supreme is overlooked at a mere SPEED 3, as if Budiansky just sort of forgot he had an alt-mode.

*again, you could take a legalistic approach, and ask whether "Omega Supreme" can really attain orbital speeds, or if that's just his arms... but that might be getting a bit TOO granular.  

FIREPOWER gets a bit more ambiguous, since it's one of the abilities where the scifi-fantasy elements of the fiction hold more sway. I mean, what governs Firepower anyway? Is it some inherent capacity for energy output? Or is it whatever gun you happen to be holding in that moment? It ends up being a bit vague.

However, I have no problem with Megatron (for example) having a solid, untouchable FIREPOWER 10... the dude can interdimensionally siphon anti-matter out of a black hole and convert it into some kind of destructive energy blast that can nuke a city.

Also he can shrink himself down to handgun size, and still deliver super-powerful energy blasts. Acknowledging that there is some rule-of-cool there, once you're factoring in abilities like that, worrying about the Megatron's barrel circumference compared to Shockwave's seems kind of pointless. We know Megatron is more powerful. It's described in his bio, and reflected in his stats. It's not accidental.

Likewise, Soundwave may have 2 guns, but he's also not a front-line operator. But Ravage is a designated saboteur who carries two low-radiation 1-megaton proton bombs. His literal job is to deliver high explosives to sensitive targets.

So I have no issue with Ravage (7) having higher Firepower than Soundwave (6). Really, his rating should be even higher... except he only gets 2 shots, I guess.

*meanwhile, you could ask why Soundwave doesn't just carry around proton missiles like Ravage. I dunno... he just doesn't.  

There are some other gaps here too. I mean, Prowl and Bluestreak appear to have the exact same gun, don't they? But Prowl's gun is a pea-shooter (well, acid-pellet shooter) and Bluestreak's is a goddamn LIGHTNING GUN.

But then, Prowl is a strategist, and Bluestreak is a designated gunner, so unsurprisingly they have a different load-out... which just happens to look like the same toy gun.

But hey... I'm sure there's some kind of catch-phrase that covers this incongruity... um... "appearances can be deceiving"? "Objects in mirror can be closer than they appear?" No, that's not it... hmmm...

You seem to be ignoring my point about how storytelling often establishes internal rules and logics that help to govern and stratify even "made up" worlds. Nobody's making rules about absolutes here. There is an immense range here between "we tried to make some internal rules" and "ZOMG! ANYTHING GOES!" ... and as the saying goes, God is in those details.

We generally acknowledge in scifi genres in particular that there is a qualitative difference between "reasonable" and "completely stupid". And so, we can see how there are also relative levels of consistency and intentional alignment that make the Tech Specs several notches below completely arbitrary. Ignoring all of that for the sake of putting your foot down is just sort of silly.

(told you this would get nerdy   )

z

 

I still have a copy of that on my computer from when it was first revealed.... I can't believe it has been 15 years already.
It is good to have a nice clearer copy now to replace it.
Sometimes these sorts of things need to be rolled out every 10 or so years to educate anyone new to the fandom since it was first revealed.
.

 

Or just say that they use a radar chart type approach which distribute a set parameter of "capacity", and as I mentioned earlier, each spec is just geared towards the Individual only. (Similar to video games or D&D character building)

My point is that the specs can't be really used to compared any of them against each other really, and what you and Rodimus stated just falls into that.

But as you both stated or implied I believe, doing it that way was fine to an extent for G1 but no longer worked with the following lines.

But to me, as the over the top abilities are plot driven in the media, I stopped caring about the deus ex machina stuff a long time ago and am more towards the toys and the specs.