Talk:Alpha 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you guys think that Alpha 5's design might have been based on a fusion of R2-D2's domed head and C-3PO's cowardly attitude? Consider their serving of teens with magical martial arts powers under the direction of blue spectres of old men... Tyciol 19:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Last Seen Error
Alpha 5...along with Bulk and Skull...was the longest consecutively running characters of Power Rangers.
Alpha 5, Bulk and Skull were around until the colony droped off in the Lost Galexy.....he did not leave the show in Trubo.
- Correction, Alpha 6 was the new robot when Alpha 5 left for Eltar with Zordon. The last time we saw Alpha 5 was when he came back for the ceremony when the rangers passed on their powers. RabidPanda V 13:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
...About Alpha's magical christmas... don't you think that nobody really cares about its plot continuity or status as canon, considering that it's a show made for little kids and the only people who would really post that last comment are a tad too old for making that big of a fuss?
[edit] Abilities
Does Alpha have no more abilities? What about when he shot a beam (or something) from his head in The Wannabe Ranger? (I think it was that episode. 95% sure.) Paul Haymon 04:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What the...
Who the heck put "Mexican dubbing" in there? "Mexican" is not a language you racist bastards. The language is SPANISH. S-P-A-N-I-S-H. Get it in your head, damn it! >:(
24.99.73.241 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Leon
[edit] Alpha's Magical Christmas
Under the Alpha's Magical Christmas section, the following is stated: "This is also the only filmed event in the Power Rangers franchise in which the Lord's name is mentioned in one of the songs." Okay. Call me weird, but shouldn't His Name being mentioned in a Christmas carol be considered normal? I'm not sure why there is a red flag being raised. It's not sacreligious, because it is being used in a peaceable and also praising tone. I don't think that this random statement has any place in the article, but that's why I wrote here to notify of a change I'll be making in case there were any points to be raised. I'll simply omit that statement and obviously, anyone can talk here if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.38.225 (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)