TRANSFORMERS UNIVERSE issue #4 was released on December 9, 1986 with a cover date of March 1987.  It was on newsstands at the same time as TRANSFORMERS #26.

This issue wrapped up the alphabet, featuring characters S-W (there were no main characters whose names began with X or Y or Z at this point), and also included 17 additional profiles featuring the newer characters from The Transformers: the Movie.  The fact that they weren't worked in alphabetically with the rest of the cast makes it feel like this was some kind of a last-minute effort, and the fact that even non-Transformer characters were added suggests they were thrown in simply to up the page count.

So, for the main 1984-86 cast, we got profiles for Steeljaw, Swoop, Tailgate, Tantrum, Thrust, Thundercracker, Topspin, Tracks, Trailbreaker, Trypticon, Twin Twist, Vortex, Warpath, Wheeljack, Wildrider, and Windcharger.  Of these characters, three are already dead (Thundercracker, Trailbreaker, and Windcharger), one would be introduced shortly after this issue was printed (Trypticon), and a couple of them would never appear in the pages of the comic book in any capacity (Steeljaw, Tailgate).  Steeljaw gets a special mention here in that he would eventually appear in the story, but in a very late issue of G.I. JOE and not TRANSFORMERS proper.  Twin Twist eventually makes a technical appearance as a background character, but Topspin not at all.  (This left the Jumpstarter characters free for the writers of the UK version of the comic to utilize as they desired.)

This issue also includes profiles for the following movie characters: Arblus, Arcee, Blurr, Cyclonus, Galvatron, Hot Rod, Rodimus Prime (yes, in that order), Kranix, Kup, Quintessons, Scourge, Sharkticon, Springer, Ultra Magnus, Unicron, Wheelie, and Wreck-Gar.  The inclusion of Arblus and Kranix seems especially strange, given that they don't come from Cybertron and were essentially throwaway characters to give the Sharkticons somebody to eat.  But, one supposes they had animation models and write-ups available, despite never getting Hasbro toys in their likeness.  (If Transformers media was a toy commercial, then this issue falls apart a little as effective advertising.  In addition to Arblus and Kranix, there were no G1 Hasbro versions of Arcee or the Quintessons or Unicron, either.)

I always thought it was funny that the 1986 cassettes were given special abilities in tape mode.  One supposes they would have otherwise turned into helpless forms that were kind of worthless.  So, Steeljaw has the ability to magnetize himself and stick to metal objects.  I guess when you transform into something without wings or wheels, that's how you need to get around.

Swoop's first appearance is incorrect, since the Dinobots all appeared in a flashback in issue #4, not issue #8 as his profile claims.

I don't like the vehicle design for Topspin, and how obviously his robot fists are poking out in this mode.  I mean, it's accurate to the Hasbro toy, certainly, but usually the designs for the characters employed some cheats and tried to hide obvious, overt robot parts whenenver possible.  (The profile even says he can use his weapons in either robot or vehicle mode, so I guess he just carries his gun around in his fist, even when he's transformed.)  I also really wonder why the Jumpstarters were never featured characters in both the comics and the cartoons.  Was it related to the lawsuit with Sparkle Toys?  Or did Hasbro just have so little faith in the toys that they didn't want the characters featured?  The toys likely would have sold better if they'd been actual media characters..  

The profile for Tracks mentions his third aerial transformation, but doesn't have an illustration to go along with the profile.

Trailbreaker's profile uses an alternate, unarmed version of his character design, so the radio-jammer and forcefield projector behind his head are both missing.

The illustration for Trypticon is an early model, quite a bit different from the final version that was used in the cartoon series.  His profile makes no mention of Full-Tilt, the little car that sits on his chest in dinosaur mode and can roll down his ramp in city mode.  (When he finally appears in the comics in issue #27, he does have a little robot buddy, but they call him Wipe-Out and he's designed like a dark blue version of Tailgate.)

Wheeljack's profile also features an early version of the character, lacking his back-mounted wings and including an alternate placement of his Autobot insignia (on his shoulder instead of his chest, and the sides of his car mode instead of the roof).  

Wildrider probably gets the award for the shortest profile written in this collection.  His personality description is only a few sentences.

Once we move to the profiles for the characters of The Transformers: the Movie, there's a distinct shift in editorial tone.  The profiles were clearly written by someone other than Bob Budiansky, and many of them eschew the established "profile, abilities, weaknesses" format entirely.  Moreover, they seem to have been written based on preliminary concept descriptions for the characters.  

There's not much to say about Arblus except that his transformation to vehicle mode, as conceived by Floro Dery, would basically be impossible to realize as a Hasbro toy.  His robot head somehow grows into the entire front section of his spaceship mode, or whatever it is that he turns into (his profile has no "abilities" section so it isn't even name-checked).  I'm glad the ability of the Lithone characters to transform was ditched for the final version of the movie, because it makes the true Transformer characters a little less special if every robot civilization is doing it.

It's notable that Arcee and the other Autobots and Decepticons introduced in The Transformers: the Movie went through two distinct iterations.  The initial Floro Dery designs were what the actual Hasbro toys were based on, but then the character designs were further revised, and one could argue homogenized to match the Marvel Productions "house style."  So, all the movie characters would end up looking slightly different in Marvel Comics than in the animated adventures.  With regards to Arcee, the early version has her arms on "backwards," with the shoulder pads blocking the movement of her elbows, with respect to the final version appearing in animation (though she does appear with her arms on backwards in the third season episode "Only Human").

Something else notable about the designs for the Transformers: the Movie characters is that their cartoon models did not include their weapons, which were developed separately and appeared on their own model sheet.  So, none of the characters appear in their profiles equipped with weapons, even when those weapons are described in their profiles.  

Blurr's profile explains how "he looks longer and leaner than most Autobots," which is surely a direction intended to give the artists guidance when designing the character.  Likewise, the profile for Cyclonus explains how he transforms into "a gigantic multi-engine (and perhaps multi-wing) jet fighter," which strikes me as being development notes written during the early phases of the character's development.  They absolutely do not belong in the final printed version of the character's profile.  It makes it sound like they have no idea how many wings the guy has.  Weirdly, they even mention an "additional transformation," which is described as a more spaceworthy rocket mode with no wings.  This sure sounds like a description of the Hasbro toy and its ability to remove the wings/arms.  I always thought that was done simply so the toy didn't break, not so it would count as a separate transformation.  But, it's interesting that they took mention of it.  

The physical differences between Hot Rod and Rodimus Prime are interesting.  In the animated movie, Hot Rod grew in size and stature, but Rodimus Prime remained magenta.  For season three of the show, however, Rodimus was retconned into a dark maroon color.  In the comics, meanwhile, Hot Rod is magenta but Rodimus is a bright red, which reads as slightly orangey color in print.  Neither color matches the maroon of the two respective Hasbro toys.  

Scourge's profile includes an odd variation on his vehicle mode.  The Sweeps were originally conceived as having two vehicle forms, one with the robot head retracted and the other with it fully deployed.  Scourge's drawing shows his robot head sticking out, but with his eyes replaced with a strange wavelength graph or something.  (His profile also describes his vehicle form as an "automotive mode," so there's that.)

Springer's profile is so badly-written that it's not even funny.  "His physique is heavily powerful, his chest massive, his arm enormous and well-proportioned like the most massive bodybuilder."  Like, just stop.  Stop using the word "massive."  

The write-ups for the Autobots in general seem to have backslided rather badly.  All the 1984 characters, almost without exception, are depicted as your basic, all-around hero type, courageous in the extreme, and loyal and dedicated fighters.  Hound, Ironhide, Brawn, Cliffjumper, Sideswipe, they're all like this.  Then we get to the 1985 characters and we get a much wider range of personality types.  Red Alert is paranoid, Grapple is a sensitive artist, Cosmos is a loner, and so on.  Then you get to the movie Autobots and they're all back to being all-around hero types..  As an exercise, I invite you to leaf through their profiles and see how many characters are "always ready to sacrifice himself for his friends or his mission," or some variation of that.  (Hint: it's more than one.)

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:46:23 PM UTC-4, Zobovor wrote:
>
> I also really wonder why the Jumpstarters were never featured characters in both the comics and the cartoons. Was it related to the lawsuit with Sparkle Toys?

You got me curious, so I looked into the Sparkle Toys lawsuit, aka Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc.

As far as I can tell, this was the sequence of events.

In 1983, Takara designed the Jumpstarter molds, and sold over 200K of an initial production run *without* a copyright notice, as Japanese law doesn't permit copyright in toy products. This oversight *nearly* sealed their fate..

In 1984, Takara assigned the Jumpstarter rights to Hasbro, then created a new production run *with* a copyright notice.

In 1985, Hasbro sold those copyrighted molds as Twin Twist and Top Spin.

In the meantime, Sparkle Toys, a small American toy company, got hold of some of that initial 200K production run that had no copyright notice, knocked them off, and sold them as "Trans Robots."

Hasbro sued.

In order to win, Hasbro had to show that there 1) Hasbro owned a valid copyright and 2) Sparkle engaged in unauthorized copying.

Sparkle admitted to the copying, so the case turned on whether or not Hasbro owned a valid copyright in the Jumpstarter design.

Sparkle claimed that since the original 200K batch of Jumpstarters had no copyright notice, no infringement had taken place, because the designs were now in the public domain.

Under the Copyright Act, although Takara's Jumpstarter designs were not copyrightable in Japan, they were in fact copyrightable in the U.S., subject to a filing. Since they were presumably unaware of the vagaries of U.S. law, Takara never made that filing.

However, the Act offers a chance to cure that defect within five years, through 1) registration and 2) the exercise of a reasonable effort to add copyright notice to all copies in the U.S. moving forward. Importantly, that extends copyright protection retroactively.

Since Takara had assigned all Jumpstarter rights to Hasbro, Hasbro, as the assignee, was therefore in the position of the "copyright claimant" and legally able to cure that omission of notice through registration and the affixing of copyright notices to all Jumpstarters sold in the United States, which it did.

Sparkle attempted to counter that some of that initial unmarked production run was distributed in the U.S. via other means, and Hasbro's failure to also affix copyright to those products weakened its case. The Court sidestepped this by stating there was no evidence that any of that initial run ever made it to these shores in the first place.

Ultimately, Hasbro won, Sparkle lost, the Jumpstarters inspired a new generation of Transformers fans, and no one ever knocked off a Takara design again. The End.

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 2:34:53 PM UTC-6, Codigo Postal wrote:
> Sparkle attempted to counter that some of that initial unmarked production run was distributed in the U.S. via other means, and Hasbro's failure to also affix copyright to those products weakened its case. The Court sidestepped this by stating there was no evidence that any of that initial run ever made it to these shores in the first place.

I've got G1 toys that I bought in the USA whose only copyright stamp says "TAKARA JAPAN" on them. No date, no mention of Hasbro, no nuthin'.

I think the Sparkle Toys lawsuit was one of the reasons that Hasbro resold the entire 1984 toy range again (well, except Bumper) in 1985, so they could redo the copyright stamps and establish proper legal ownership (or at least legal licensee status) over the toys. I also think it's the reason that they began the campaign with the heat-sensitive rub symbols—they wanted something on the toys that visually and easily distinguished them from the knockoff versions that were floating around out there.

The Jumpstarters weren't Bandai products, so Takara wouldn't have banned them from popping up in the cartoon the way they did with the Deluxe Insecticons or Jetfire. Topspin and Twin Twist got animation models, but they were never utilized in animation. Bob Budiansky never bothered to use them in Marvel Comics, either, and I wonder if there's a connection. Budiansky did let a few characters slip through the cracks (Red Alert and Inferno), but he wrote almost the entire toy range into the story, so it seems like he could have slipped the Jumpstarters in there somewhere, too, unless there was a Hasbro edict not to use the characters.

Zob (yeah, they were in the UK comics, but... different country, different rules)

I always got the impression that Budiansky HATED the Movie characters
and that's why he refused to use them in his comics. Perhaps because he
didn't create them. That could be why they were segregated into their
own section.

Hasbro told him he didn't have to use them if he didn't want to, but it
seems that he was forced to use some of those characters as
Targetmasters in the Headmasters mini-series.

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 4:31:43 PM UTC-7, Travoltron wrote:
> I always got the impression that Budiansky HATED the Movie characters
> and that's why he refused to use them in his comics. Perhaps because he
> didn't create them. That could be why they were segregated into their
> own section.
>
> Hasbro told him he didn't have to use them if he didn't want to, but it
> seems that he was forced to use some of those characters as
> Targetmasters in the Headmasters mini-series.

Travoltron, my thoughts exactly! Glad I wasn't the only one to reflect and consider along these lines. :)

(Thought experiment. Could we say, then, that Budainsky's negative Movie character stance and feelings was part of what gave rise to UK-only stories like "Time Wars", and the great "Target: 2006"?)

JB

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-6, Joseph Bardsley wrote:

> Could we say, then, that Budainsky's negative Movie character stance and feelings was part of what gave rise to UK-only stories like "Time Wars", and the great "Target: 2006"?

It's funny, because if Budiansky hated the movie and its characters, it's quite clear Simon Furman was very fond of them. He kept coming back to characters like Galvatron and Unicron, even in the U.S. comic book.

I think Furman was eager to write stories about characters that the U.S. book didn't touch. It was partly to leave his own mark and develop his own take, but I think it was also to ensure that he didn't create continuity problems. If Budiansky wasn't doing anything with the Deluxe Autobots or the Jumpstarters, for example, then it's likely Furman considered the characters up for grabs. The lack of official character models for Roadbuster or Whirl didn't seem to get in the way of the UK comic book artists.

So, yeah, the movie characters largely seemed to fall into the up-for-grabs category. Furman did some great stuff with them. I don't blame Budiansky for not wanting anything to do with them, especially since most of them were from a future time period that he wasn't writing about. You really couldn't work Wreck-Gar or Wheelie into the contemporary story since the characters meet them for the first time in the movie.

Zob (Budiansky would have just let Underbase Starscream kill them all anyway)

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:50:54 PM UTC-7, Zobovor wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-6, Joseph Bardsley wrote:
>
> > Could we say, then, that Budainsky's negative Movie character stance and feelings was part of what gave rise to UK-only stories like "Time Wars", and the great "Target: 2006"?
> It's funny, because if Budiansky hated the movie and its characters, it's quite clear Simon Furman was very fond of them. He kept coming back to characters like Galvatron and Unicron, even in the U.S. comic book.
>
> I think Furman was eager to write stories about characters that the U.S. book didn't touch. It was partly to leave his own mark and develop his own take, but I think it was also to ensure that he didn't create continuity problems. If Budiansky wasn't doing anything with the Deluxe Autobots or the Jumpstarters, for example, then it's likely Furman considered the characters up for grabs. The lack of official character models for Roadbuster or Whirl didn't seem to get in the way of the UK comic book artists.
>
> So, yeah, the movie characters largely seemed to fall into the up-for-grabs category. Furman did some great stuff with them. I don't blame Budiansky for not wanting anything to do with them, especially since most of them were from a future time period that he wasn't writing about. You really couldn't work Wreck-Gar or Wheelie into the contemporary story since the characters meet them for the first time in the movie.
>
>
> Zob (Budiansky would have just let Underbase Starscream kill them all anyway)

Zob, very good points - in particular, about the Underbase. Ha!

So ... in some alternate universe (or, perhaps our own), in the original Marvel comic, it's now 2022, as well. I wonder what the state of things is. Who's alive, who's dead, and what's going on?

JB