Talk: Blasto

Are we absolutely sure Blasto is fictional within the ME universe? I can see how one might make that assumption but I always assumed the opposite - that it was a dramatization of a real Spectre. I'm just curious if there's strong evidence in either direction. Niirfa-sa 01:24, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's the fact that the only mention of Blasto is a movie trailer that depicts him using various sterotypes that hanar view as derogatory. There's the fact that all the dialogue he has is paraphrased from Dirty Harry. There's the fact that the claims made about him are doubtful, at best, given other comments made about hanar during the game (comments made by Zaeed and Thane about the physical strength, and dexterity and mobility out of water seem to disprove all the descriptors of Blasto from the trailer). At the end of the day, it boils down to this- the only mention of Blasto is in a trailer for a campy exploitation film. There is no mention whatsoever of Blasto being real, or being a fictionalized version of a real individual. SpartHawg948 01:46, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Seeing as Blasto is not a real character (although he should be - damn that Shepard, I want to play Blasto the fearsome hanar spectre!), how about we move this content into an Advertisement article? --silverstrike 11:21, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well, Let's face it Silverstrike, blasto has evolved beyond that, creating a new persona. I gurantee he'll be back in 3, and there will be more about him in the forthcoming books. Even if he remains a background joke character, he deserves his own page.

Maybe in fanboy-land Blasto has evolved beyond that, but in-game (which is what these articles deal with), Blast has no more "evolved beyond that, creating a new persona" than has elcor Hamlet. I personally support the merge proposal. SpartHawg948 10:24, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Nice to call people fanboys, but it's just a fun thing that people have latched to because it's pretty funny. I'd say leave the article be. --FFN 12:53, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

The content of the article could remain, but in a better suited place, like the Advertisements article. --silverstrike 14:11, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Fanboy wasn't meant as an insult, more as simply a descriptor (and honestly, after the movie Fanboys, the term seems more complimentary than anything else, at least IMO :P). And again, the "evolution" of the character and the "latching on" all occured out-of-game, and that stuff (if it belongs anywhere on this wiki) belongs in the forums. The articles (like this one) are for in-game info and content. And as Silverstrike said, the info will still be here. SpartHawg948 14:47, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

lets NOT merge blasto with advertisments, simply because then you would have to serch too much to find anything on him

I disagree. I just searched and found only 2 articles. One was this, the other was "Hanar". If merged, there will still be only 2 results. -Tajik24 06:16, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

It should stay because it may be a small part of the game but it is a hot topic on forums. Plus its such a small article why does it matter?

That's kind of the point. It's a very short article, as there is next to no information about this character. And very short articles containing next to no information don't last long. (reference zeioph and SSV Hyderabad among many, many examples) And as has been stated, the content will still be readily available, it'll just be merged into another page. It's not like all information relating to Blasto will be purged from the site forever or anything. Finally, this isn't a site that caters to the passing whims and fancies of the forums. This is an encyclopedia, and is treated as such. Frankly, I could care less what's hot on the forums. It's a non-factor when it comes to evenhandedly applying standards on this site. SpartHawg948 02:18, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

I heard that Blasto was an in-joke on the forums that Bioware picked up and included in the game, anybody know if that's true? Bethesda did similar thing for Oblivion by having a character whose dialogue consisted entirely of major forum discussions and in-jokes, and he managed to get an article on the Elder Scrolls Wiki. --FFN 17:42, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that Blasto will be able to get an article on the Elder Scrolls Wiki? Cool! I say that because, of course, just because something is allowed on the Elder Scrolls wiki doesn't necessarily mean it'll be allowed here. Wikia sites are independent and don't have to all comply to one fixed set of guidelines. Which Elder Scrolls wiki is being referenced, btw? The UESP wiki, Obilvio-wiki, or one of the others? SpartHawg948 20:26, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

The UESP, specifically M'aiq the Liar. And yeah, I know how wikis run - I work on tfwiki.net (which embarrasses Wikia's Transformers wiki). I was just using UESP's article on M'aiq as an example of (what is essentially) an in-joke that was included in the game proper. Granted, M'aiq is more substantial than Blasto. --FFN 20:44, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Much more substantial. And isn't he a character who appeared in multiple games? I seem to recall him in Morrowind as well. SpartHawg948 21:06, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

I Suggest you let him have his own article, I can't imagine what he'd do to us when he finds out he is part of some pathetic Advertisement article. Besides, I have a theory that if your Shepard dies during the events of ME2, Blasto will be the playable character for ME3. Veniathan 21:14, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea what he would do to us if he found out he were part of an advertisement page! Nothing! Barring the fact that he's a character in a fictional game, even within that fictional game he is a fictional character! That also seems to cover his purported involvement in ME3. I can see it now: The actor who portrays Blasto strides forth purposefully, a gun in each tentacle. Suddenly, he's ripped to shreds by a Praetorian, vainly struggling to fire his weapons, only to learn they're props. Oh well. He had a good run! :P SpartHawg948 21:17, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Fictional? That's what he wants to make you think! He's a Hanar Spectre going undercover as an Hanar actor playing a Hanar Spectre AND he wants revenge on humanity because Shepard called one of his species a "Big stupid jellyfish". We have got to keep this article in place or he surely kill us all! Veniathan 00:05, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

I find your logic oddly compelling. However, I believe humanity still has a trump card that not even Blasto can overcome. And I think we all know who I'm referring to. :P SpartHawg948 00:09, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

I say this article be kept, the fictional character evoled out of a joke in the mass effect community, including the name. And i htink it is noteworthy if only to showcase how much bioware is in touch with its fanbase. ralok 01:02, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

How does this (or the character of Blasto in general) show "how much bioware is in touch with its fanbase"? SpartHawg948 01:06, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

The character Blasto came directly from a devianART page, and in fact features a similar quote.The image in question. 112 01:22, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. SpartHawg948 01:24, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

A bit late here, but Blasto started out as a joke by writer Patrick Weekes on the old Mass Effect forums before moving to BioWare Social, 'Enkindle This' and everything. It caught on and became something of a meme and a lot of fan images were made etc. Hard to say if Weekes was referencing the news report which was already recorded, but no one knew about it, or if the fact that the joke caught on lead them to record an in-joke news report. Here's the thread the first mention was made in: http://meforums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=681781&forum=144&sp=30 Last post on that page, made a full 3 months before that DeviantART image was posted. JakePT 15:26, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to lie. I didn't really have a dog in this fight, as I wasn't the one who nominated for deletion, although I did support a merger, but it seems like the community has spoken, and you guys want it to stay! Fair enough! SpartHawg948 02:10, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

I guess this has come up before, and like before, I (the person who added the delete tag) don't really have a stake in whether or not this page stays. But the information on this page is now duplicated on the Entertainment page. Given how minor Blasto is (and how he plays no role outside of the movie which shares his name), I lean toward a redirect. -- Dammej (talk) 07:43, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think a redirect to the Entertainment page would be a better idea, otherwise someone might recreate this article. -- Commdor (Talk) 09:04, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. That's pretty much always what I mean when I talk about deletion of a page. Is that redirect template done yet? It needs to be! -- Dammej (talk) 09:14, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

It is done and I switched out the template. The redirect option seems to be called on more than the delete tag, so this will help keep down the amount of articles in the Delete cateogry. Just change the headline, don't want to overstep my bounds here, but I agree with the redirect proposal. That reminds me, need to make a small edit to the Community Guidelines about this. Lancer1289 19:40, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

+1 Redirect. JakePT 20:06, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

I support the redirect proposal. This page is unneeded, seeing as we now have an Entertainment page. Arbington 20:18, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Another vote for a redirect. Bastian964 06:14, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to shock everybody and disagree. I personally am not a big fan of this page (nor am I a big detractor, but still...) but the community spoke out pretty clearly in favor of keeping it, and I really don't think that the entertainment page changes too much. Anywho, that's my two cents. SpartHawg948 21:56, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

That was before the Entertainment page wasn't it? I don't think those same people would care too much if it was merged into another page, so long as the info was there and a redirect was in use. JakePT 23:22, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. After all, the opposition I refer to was in response to a proposal to merge the Blasto article with a proposed 'Advertisements' page. Basically the same situation, just a different page for the proposed merger. SpartHawg948 23:24, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

If this changes your opinion any, you are currently the vote necessary to balance out delete vs. keep votes (if you were to vote delete and) if we were to count the old votes as still valid. Bastian964 17:41, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Why would we count the old votes? This is a new and separate discussion. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:47, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Balance, unless Spart's vote counts for 6 votes, because there are six, including yourself that support the redirect proposal, so 6-1 in favor at this moment. So what old votes? If you are refering to the conversation above, then that is compeletly irrelevent as this is a seperate proposal. Previous conversations like the Merge Proposal section have absolutly no bearing on this vote, and all the votes there are null. Only the votes in this section apply to the current proposal. Lancer1289 17:49, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

I know that they have no bearing on the discussion that's why I said "if." I said that to try to show SpartHawg that we actually didn't have an overwhelming keep vote if you counted both discussions, since that seemed to be his point of contention. Bastian964 19:01, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall ever saying that old votes should be counted. Not sure wht several users seem to think I did. I was merely stating why I was opposed to this merger. As an admin, I do feel it is my responsibility to carry out the will of the community, and last time this came up for a vote, it was voted down. Hence, I voted no, in keeping with the votes of my 'constituency'. Basically, I'm operating like our Congressmen are supposed to operate. Never once said anything about counting old votes though. SpartHawg948 20:08, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe Commdor and myself were refering to Bastian's comment, well at least I was. Anyway, I was curious why you voted against it, and now my curiousity is satisifed. However I do think that the community's opinion has changed on this page, especially with the new Entertainment page, has changed, just like it changed with that ME2 Conquences Category, although it took a while on that one. Well that's my words on making sence of that. Lancer1289 20:30, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

And my response is also (at least in part) referencing Bastian's comment. Again, he suggested, based on mine, that old votes be counted, which is not something I suggested at any time. SpartHawg948 20:34, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ah now I can see where Bastian was coming from on that, so I see it now. Lancer1289 20:37, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

I was not suggesting old votes be counted or that SpartHawg thought old votes should be counted. My point was that current the community's opinion was just as strong as the previous community's opinion (if SpartHawg were to vote with the current one) so in defending the old one, SpartHawg wasn't really defending the community's opinion just the older half of it. Now can I get anymore clear or do I need to add a few more disclaimers. Bastian964 20:54, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. It did get a little confusing with the "you are currently the vote necessary to balance out delete vs. keep votes (if you were to vote delete and) if we were to count the old votes as still valid." bit, but now I guess I can see where you are coming from. Although I was in actuality defending the community's opinion as expressed in the previous vote. I tend to be big on precedent, and again, see my responsibility as being to respect and carry out the established wishes of the community regardless of my feeling on them, which is why this page is still here, and why we have unique dialogue subpages. Lousy democracy... :P SpartHawg948 21:01, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Still looks like 6-1 in favor of redirecting this article, and the usual seven day deadline passed a few days ago. I'll redirect the page in a sec. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:44, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Citadel DLC trivia

" Blasto is seen carrying weapons, one per tentacle, in Mass Effect 3: Citadel despite assertions that hanar are incapable of lifting more than a few hundred grams in each tentacle. "

Is this really worth mentioning, given that it was a movie? They were most likely props.--Zxjkl (talk) 06:52, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

removed. that got snuck in due to the influx of citadel (and misc) edits lately. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 03:51, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Dirty Harry

Could probably stand to be a Trivia note about how a lot of the tropes/plot points of Blasto 6: Partners in Crime are pretty obviously derived from the Dirty Harry films with Clint Eastwood. There's probably a couple of references/homages to other "buddy cop" films like Lethal Weapon thrown in there but Dirty Harry is the big one, I think. Neo89515 (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)