Jump to content

Transformers Super Thread 9


eriku
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nope.

The entire Valk legs, feet, arms and gunpod head.

Many Macross fans don't realize it consciously anymore, but from VF0 to VF25 the battroid legs and arms are as obviously in sight, just like the TF limbs of leader Jetfire.

The only subtle difference is the styling of the VF outer plating is similar to the rest of the VF ; but it is just as much ROBOT KIBBLE, as with ROTF leader class Jetfire.

In 25 years Macross, Kawamori has done zero to conceal the robo limbs and the concept of having the legs/feet as boosters is certainly a zero innovation policy. That's also why Yamato

can produce high end toys ; they can focus on one single concept, albeit with marginal variations.

But people have grown so attached to the visual style, that they don't even "see" the robot kibble in VF designs anymore, even though it's there in plain sight for over 25 years already, but at

the same time, those same people complain about Transformers having a bit of robot kibble even if HasTak has to come up with a 100 different transformation schemes.

what? no... there's a huge difference.

On jetfire, he has a second set of engine parts hanging underneath the jet form's engine's, THAT is kibble. On a valk, things like the feet are dual purposed and serve a valid function in both modes. The head on a valk is blended to conform to the underbody and the head gun serves an actual function. Jetfires gun clips underneath the canopy and shouldn't even be there in jet mode. Jetfire has TWO cockpits in robot mode, one where it's supposed to be and the other hanging off his back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, yeah. Have you ever seen a F-14 or Su-27 or MiG-29? Their intakes/nacelles are nigh-identical to a valkyrie's. I mean yeesh, the VF-1 *is* an F-14 in nearly every aspect, excepting the thicker beavertail to fit the arms---and a VF-1's arms still allow for a belly tunnel, it's just shallower than an F-14's.

This'd make a perfect set of legs/feet for a valk: http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2258/mig29lw003web.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, yeah. Have you ever seen a F-14 or Su-27 or MiG-29? Their intakes/nacelles are nigh-identical to a valkyrie's. I mean yeesh, the VF-1 *is* an F-14 in nearly every aspect, excepting the thicker beavertail to fit the arms---and a VF-1's arms still allow for a belly tunnel, it's just shallower than an F-14's.

This'd make a perfect set of legs/feet for a valk: http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2258/mig29lw003web.jpg

I'm going to disagree with that. Even though there are OBVIOUS similiarities, there are also a ton of differences:

1. F-14's are 2 seaters, a VF-1 (save for the Elint, VT, Super-O, are single seaters)

2. The nose is much sleeker on a VF than an F-14

3. The backpack/tailfin area is all wrong, tailfins should be farther apart.

4. The engines on the F-14 sit flush with the main body, while the VF-1 has them underneath. This is the biggest difference, it lowers the whole underside of the VF, intakes and all.

It was obviously BASED on an F-14, but to say it *is* and F-14 is a stretch. There a more differences of course, but I think these are the biggest. I can see what Knoted is saying, however, I don't agree with it. I mean, I thought the YF-19 did a great job hiding limbs. To date, IMHO, I think it's the best variable fighter design out there, simply because it hides Battroid mode so well, and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also forgot the YF and VF 21. Technically, it's the only valk without, what you call, kibble. Besides, as David and eguimon pointed out, the legs and arms serve a function in jet mode. The legs provide propulsion, and the arms provide aerodynamic smoothing. Even the head is fully functional in jet mode, as it can be used as a turret. Just watch the Max and Millia fight in DYRL, and you'll see him swivel the turret, in jet mode, to hit Millia.

That massive amount of kibble is one of the reasons why I won't get Jetfire. Personally, I think the whole toy could have been engineered so that the kibble would either be reduced, or eliminated entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see what Knoted is saying, however, I don't agree with it. I mean, I thought the YF-19 did a great job hiding limbs.
So, you acknowledge plain logic, but decide to disagree with it anyway. Ok, that's your call.

My point is this : when it comes to this "kibble" issue, I see a lot of people bashing the hell out of TF's, when, despite their diversity of altforms and clearly striving to attain some extent of realism in their altmodes,

they cut VF's a whole lot more slack, disproportionally and unfairly.

With each VF, it's robot legs & feet being the jet engines/ thrust nozzles over and over. And aside from "blending in" fairly nice by means of the visual style of the outer plating ; That concept doesn't do a whole lot

of effort to conceal those robo limbs, nor is it innovative.

Sure, ROTF leader class Jetfire is a really bad example with those faux pas legs, but by fair comparison, new TF molds such as deluxe Dirge, deluxe Mindwipe, voyager Starscream achieve a lot more than Valkeries, when it comes to transformation scheme innovation and varying jetstyles ; while doing the best they can (within lower budget constraints), to hide the robot limbs from obvious sight.

But...plse, don't mind me, go on bashing TF's for some minor kibble while thinking a VF1 fighter is a realistic F14 jet.

Edited by knoted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But...plse, don't mind me, go on bashing TF's for some minor kibble while thinking a VF1 fighter is a realistic F14 jet.

But the VF-1 is not an F-14. Yeah, there's some similarities... enough that you can see that Kawamori was clearly inspired by the F-14 when he designed the VF-1. But the VF-1, and all the variable fighters Kawamori designed after, are supposed to be original vehicles that have both their fighter mode and their battroid modes, as well as the transformation from one to the other, taken into consideration. So yeah, you can see the battroid's legs when the Valkyrie is in fighter mode, because in fighter mode those legs make up the intakes, engines, and exhaust ports of the fighter. The head? It's a stretch to say the whole thing is showing, but what is showing also has a function in fighter mode as a defensive weapon. Gunpod? That's where it mounts in fighter mode, and the idea of mounting a gunpod onto a fighter is hardly novel to Macross. And the arms aren't even showing really in the pic you posted, and frankly the fold away pretty neatly on the VF-1. That's hardly kibble.

Jetfire is not an original vehicle inspired by an SR-71, he is an SR-71. That's an important distinction, and the reason why Jetfire is considered to have kibble when the VF-1 is not. The VF-1 looks the way it's supposed to, but Jetfire looks like an SR-71 with a pile of spare parts stuck on the bottom in alt mode. And even in bot mode, he looks less like an SR-71 that turns into a robot and more like the pile of spare parts stuck on the bottom of an SR-71 transformed into a robot with an SR-71 stuck on its back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the VF-1 is not an F-14.
exactly like I said it isn't. But a lot of people are talking about it as if it is as realistic fighter jet while it's not and at the same time bash a TF.

Yeah, there's some similarities... enough that you can see that Kawamori was clearly inspired by the F-14 when he designed the VF-1. But the VF-1, and all the variable fighters Kawamori designed after, are supposed to be original vehicles that have both their fighter mode and their battroid modes, as well as the transformation from one to the other, taken into consideration. So yeah, you can see the battroid's legs when the Valkyrie is in fighter mode, because in fighter mode those legs make up the intakes, engines, and exhaust ports of the fighter. The head? It's a stretch to say the whole thing is showing, but what is showing also has a function in fighter mode as a defensive weapon. Gunpod? That's where it mounts in fighter mode, and the idea of mounting a gunpod onto a fighter is hardly novel to Macross. And the arms aren't even showing really in the pic you posted, and frankly the fold away pretty neatly on the VF-1. That's hardly kibble.
It boils down to this : the VF concept which is basically unchanged in all its versions. It has become the ultimate excuse to what is still basically robot kibble. Saying that it's part of the established design philosophy, doesn't change that fact. But through this narrative/story explanation it works on people as suspension of disbelief.

Still, I am of opinion, TF jet design & engineering has done a whole lot more innovation than Kawamori.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you acknowledge plain logic, but decide to disagree with it anyway. Ok, that's your call.

My point is this : when it comes to this "kibble" issue, I see a lot of people bashing the hell out of TF's, when, despite their diversity of altforms and clearly striving to attain some extent of realism in their altmodes,

they cut VF's a whole lot more slack, disproportionally and unfairly.

With each VF, it's robot legs & feet being the jet engines/ thrust nozzles over and over. And aside from "blending in" fairly nice by means of the visual style of the outer plating ; That concept doesn't do a whole lot

of effort to conceal those robo limbs, nor is it innovative.

Sure, ROTF leader class Jetfire is a really bad example with those faux pas legs, but by fair comparison, new TF molds such as deluxe Dirge, deluxe Mindwipe, voyager Starscream achieve a lot more than Valkeries, when it comes to transformation scheme innovation and varying jetstyles ; while doing the best they can (within lower budget constraints), to hide the robot limbs from obvious sight.

But...plse, don't mind me, go on bashing TF's for some minor kibble while thinking a VF1 fighter is a realistic F14 jet.

I'm not disagreeing with logic...I mean in terms of the VF-1, I do agree with you. However, there are other designs LIKE the YF-19, or the 21 as another member pointed out where I would say you're wrong. In short, there have been efforts to improve or reduce kibble on valks.

I don't bash kibble, it depends on how the kibble looks honestly. TF's are notorious for either having good kibble or bad kibble. They all have kibble though. This comes from the fact that in the TF universe there is not much lineart, and they abuse "animagic" more than anyone else. G1 Megatron, Soundwave, and the seekers are the worst examples. And it's a trend that continues to this day, like Energon Jetfire, Energon Ironhide, etc. Animated was pretty good about kibble, but that was because the designs weren't rooted in reality at all.

Good Kibble is:

G1 Ironhide and Ratchet: Using the extra van part for a tank thing. Cheesy now, but pretty cool idea.

Cybertron Optimus: Great figure, I love it when TF's use kibble to make weapons/flightpacks etc.

ROTF Jetfire was an absolute mess and engineering DISASTER though. There was really no excuse for it. I understand that the design is hard to work with, but still. Now Mindwipe on the other hand, that looks like a sharp TF I might actually pick up. But only to repaint it and mod it into a wierdo hybrid style VF-17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's really no point in arguing this with you since you're just going to use your own private definition of "kibble" when it comes to valkyries and another definition entirely when it comes to transformers.

But *even* if we go by your definition... again, a vakyrie has it's engine/legs exposed... okay, the one thing serves two functions, but fine, let's say it is kibble. Jetfire has TWO pairs of engines in jet mode, the jet appropriate engine nacelles mounted on the wing which is appropriate for the design and then another set of engines, not serving any possible purpose, sitting there under the wings, mounted diagonally. It also has a complete set of legs, feet, arms and hands, fully exposed, the arms and hands actually holding on to a gun which the SR-71 isn't even supposed to have.

By *any* possible stretch of the term *kibble* Jetfire has far more. Why? Because he has *robot only* parts, fully exposed in Jet mode that serve *zero* function in jet mode, they are just there. In fact, every jet transformer has more kibble because they *all* have robot only parts and pieces exposed in their jet mode. Even the Masterpiece seekers have a mess of unique robot only features fully exposed on their underbelly that are not only not found on an actual f-15, but don't even serve any fictional purpose in jet mode.

And just as an aside, if we use your definition of kibble, Optimus Prime is 100% kibble in every mode.

Edited by eugimon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jetfire has TWO pairs of engines in jet mode, the jet appropriate engine nacelles mounted on the wing which is appropriate for the design and then another set of engines, not serving any possible purpose, sitting there under the wings, mounted diagonally. It also has a complete set of legs, feet, arms and hands, fully exposed, the arms and hands actually holding on to a gun which the SR-71 isn't even supposed to have.
I agree ; ROTF Jetfire is horrible when it comes to that. Imo, it's because of the Leader class electronic gizmo's; hampering the guys at the engineering design dept. The only great Leader toy in the ROTF line until now, is OP.

And just as an aside, if we use your definition of kibble, Optimus Prime is 100% kibble in every mode.
Well, it's a personal choice ; are you more forgiving towards a concept which isn't really striving for much innovation ... or,

are you more forgiving towards concepts which do an incredible amount of transformation scheme variety while having to cope with a multitude of varying jet modes ?

I mean, wouldn't it be fresh to have a VF which, for a change doesn't have its jet engine & thrusters for legs ? The only variation I see in Kawamori's designs is that

those robo limbs and canopies are growing thinner and longer with each next version ( and a lot of Japanese motorcycle design influences ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a quick test for kibble:

Try to split the robot and plane apart. I took my Jetfire apart a while ago for some tweaking. You can have about 95% of a Jetfire robot, and 95% of an SR-71, standing next to each other. You can do this with many Transformers.

Try to do that with a valk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree ; ROTF Jetfire is horrible when it comes to that. Imo, it's because of the Leader class electronic gizmo's; hampering the guys at the engineering design dept.

If you agree, then why are you calling us out for criticizing it?

Well, it's a personal choice ; are you more forgiving towards a concept which isn't really striving for much innovation ... or,

are you more forgiving towards concepts which do an incredible amount of transformation scheme variety while having to cope with a multitude of varying jet modes ?

Innovation is cool... but what does that have to do with Jetfire being a mess of kibble? Having a robot with a jet on it's back turn into a jet with a brick of robot-part kibble underneath is hardly innovative.

I mean, wouldn't it be fresh to have a VF which, for a change doesn't have its jet engine & thrusters for legs?

We had that; the YF-21/VF-22's engines are on its back, and the legs tuck inside. The engines on the VA-3 appear to be on its torso, and the legs form the tail. The main engines on the VB-6 seem to be on it's back in battroid mode, and the legs form the wings (although if you want to get technical, it does look like there's some kind of thrusters on its legs.

But yeah, I get your point. Most VFs do have their engines in their legs. It's a logical design that prevents the legs/engines from being kibble. The flaps that cover the VF-22's legs in fighter mode wind up being kibble in bot mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly like I said it isn't. But a lot of people are talking about it as if it is as realistic fighter jet while it's not and at the same time bash a TF.

yet, the Valk IS a realistic fighter jet whereas the TF are not.

It boils down to this : the VF concept which is basically unchanged in all its versions. It has become the ultimate excuse to what is still basically robot kibble. Saying that it's part of the established design philosophy, doesn't change that fact. But through this narrative/story explanation it works on people as suspension of disbelief.

The VF concept does not change because the design concept was solid, quite aesthetically pretty, and made sense.

Regardless of your own redefinition of "kibble", it does not change the fact that the designs of the kibble in the TF jerts are ugly and really serves no purpose other than, well, being unnecessary weight, an aerodynamic drag and a damn design failure to hide the bot-side.

Still, I am of opinion, TF jet design & engineering has done a whole lot more innovation than Kawamori.

Using the term "innovation" in your case regarding the TF jet design and engineering just simply means a fantasy excuse for botching it the first time and continued asshattery to botch it every time.

Don't get us wrong. I think 99% of us here loves the TF designs on the land vehicles, whether they're G1s or ROTFs. Including the kibbles on these land vehicles.

It's just the jet-designs of the ROTFs are simply atrocious in either bot-mode or jet-mode or both.

All the while, the G1 MP-seekers are much nicer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you agree, then why are you calling us out for criticizing it?
not for this specific Jetfire, but the usual attitude towards the TF's in general, throughout the entire TF thread. And the outcries about things

supposedly being "better" in the ol' days.

The flaps that cover the VF-22's legs in fighter mode wind up being kibble in bot mode.
and that's why I find the VF1 and VF22 the strongest designs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yet, the Valk IS a realistic fighter jet whereas the TF are not.
<_<

The VF concept does not change because the design concept was solid, quite aesthetically pretty, and made sense.

Regardless of your own redefinition of "kibble", it does not change the fact that the designs of the kibble in the TF jerts are ugly and really serves no purpose other than, well, being unnecessary weight, an aerodynamic drag and a damn design failure to hide the bot-side.

Using the term "innovation" in your case regarding the TF jet design and engineering just simply means a fantasy excuse for botching it the first time and continued asshattery to botch it every time.

Don't get us wrong. I think 99% of us here loves the TF designs on the land vehicles, whether they're G1s or ROTFs. Including the kibbles on these land vehicles.

It's just the jet-designs of the ROTFs are simply atrocious in either bot-mode or jet-mode or both.

All the while, the G1 MP-seekers are much nicer.

I think you must be really fond of design aesthetics of the past.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<_<

I think you must be really fond of design aesthetics of the past.

Yet you are the one who keeps including the term "innovation" in your posts.

As Montoya would say, I do not think it means what you think it means.

:lol:

seriously, dude. it's ok if you like the kibbles on the ROTFs.

just try not to justify it too much.

trying to compare it to a Valk is a complete shenanigan.

maybe try to compare it with the other TFs instead, no? Like ROTF-jets vs MP SScream/Skywarp.

Edited by treatment
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, wouldn't it be fresh to have a VF which, for a change doesn't have its jet engine & thrusters for legs ? The only variation I see in Kawamori's designs is that

those robo limbs and canopies are growing thinner and longer with each next version ( and a lot of Japanese motorcycle design influences ).

valks have constraints that transformers do not. The pilot needs to go somewhere in every mode, it needs to be a full cockpit, there needs to be actual landing gears, the wings need to be physically capable of sustaining flight, there has to actually be an engine and the weapons can't materialize out of thin air or or be previously part of the engine or drive train.

Given those constraints I think valkyries are admirable in how different they manage to be.

So yeah, I'm much more forgiving of a valk having the engines inside the legs than a transformer that carries an entire jet on its back in bot mode and a jet carrying a robot on its belly in plane mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or reading the inverse of that:

Since most TF planes don't need cockpits, landing gear, full-size engines, intakes, weapons, flight-capable wings nor tailplanes---it's sad that they STILL can't find room to put the robot parts anywhere but hanging out in the open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to second that. I buy pretty much any "female mecha" figure that exists in any form, and I passed on ROTF Arcee without a 2nd thought. It's just a mess of a figure.

It's accurate to the movie design. Garbage in, garbage out.

I think the Human Alliance motorcycle sisters are the best versions so far even if the base colors are wrong. At a larger scale like the deluxe, it makes the aesthetic design look much worse. At the slightly smaller HA scale, it's not nearly as bad. The legends Arcee is decent too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not for this specific Jetfire, but the usual attitude towards the TF's in general, throughout the entire TF thread. And the outcries about things

supposedly being "better" in the ol' days.

There are always going to be a couple of people who seem to be unhappy with new TFs no matter what (I'm looking at you, Pete :p ), but most of the complaints in the last few pages are aimed specifically at Leader Jetfire (a toy you readily admit isn't that hot) and Deluxe Arcee (who seems to be a pretty poor figure by anyone's standard).

Personally, I love Transformers. They're the only toys I really collect (although I have a few 1/144 Gundam models and a plus Goomba, too). I haven't really cared for the Animated line (some nice toys that do a great job of capturing their appearance in the cartoon, but the aesthetic throws me off) or the movie lines (the overly-complex movie designs have translated into some piss-poor toys, with a couple of exceptions... not to mention that I also don't care for that aesthetic). But I bought all the figures from the first Classics line, and almost all of the Universe figures (I skipped a few repaints, especially the Ultras, as well as Dinobot and Hotshot since I'm more interested in the G1 characters). I'm actually a lot more excited to be Transformers fan this year than last year, since I'm actually really excited for a lot of the Generations figures that are coming out, like G1 Thrust, G1 Darkmount (aka Straxus), Drift (aka Peg), and probably more than a few of the War for Cybertron figures.

To recap, I like Transformers just fine, but I think that Leader-class RotF Jetfire (specifically) is a kibble-tastic monstrosity and I can't believe that David likes it other than the fact that it turns into an SR-71.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not for this specific Jetfire, but the usual attitude towards the TF's in general, throughout the entire TF thread. And the outcries about things

supposedly being "better" in the ol' days.

You know.. that's just one guy, granted he says it over and over and over (I love ya pete but you know it's true! :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with the 'old days' sentiment. Aside from the awesome engineering seen in modern TFs, the level of quality found in G1 has diminished over time. Die cast content, rubber tires, or chromed plastic may be things of the past, but they are sorely missed. I would sacrifice every conceivable gimmick to get them back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My love of Transformers spans from the "old days" through current times with many modern toys topping older ones on my 'favorites' list. It's pretty much just Michael Bay's Transformers that I find mostly loathsome. Oh, some of them are alright like Mindwipe, but I find the ones I warm up to are the ones that exhibit the least amount of resemblance to a spilled tray of dentistry tools walking around on goat legs (or worse, like Arcee, who looks like a motorcycle that transforms into a motorcycle accident) But it's just one design avenue of Transformers, and I know it's not how they'll look forever, so I do my best to ignore it. I do find it cute when newer fans of the Michael Bay Transformers get up in arms over people who prefer the older and classic designs, as if there were something inherently wrong with preferring one design over another. They're so argumentative and 'correct' in their opinions that I just want to squeeze their cheeks, tussle their hair and send them down to the corner with a nickle to buy themselves a soda pop. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe they're offended because some people can't talk about the RotF designs with spewing verbal vomit from the very beginning and this gets their ire up?

Nah, they usually have their ire at maximum level to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, what the heck happened in here?! It reminds me of the dorm days when I'd leave my room in the morning then come back in the afternoon and find it in shambles, filled with my rowdy hallmates.

Finally got around to playing with Mindwipe-it's one dope toy. Really digging the head sculpt, the ratcheting hip joints, and the folding wing auto-morph. One slight annoyance: his grey plastic doesn't match the matte black of Skystalker's. A minor quibble for an overall great tf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all very good points! :)

I like the RotF designs just fine, I think they work far better in a live action movie than the classic designs would. Personally, I think both camps have their share of blow hards. There's just as many classic fans who can't seem to understand that some people have different tastes than them and new fans who are just a tad overly emotionally invested in the movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know.. that's just one guy, granted he says it over and over and over (I love ya pete but you know it's true! :D )

Well, with him, it's super obvious, but read through the threads and you'll find a whole lot of similar the good ol' days people.

The explanation of VF's having constraints is a reasonable one. This does explain though, why those "the good ol' days people"

feel right at home with the mere marginal changing nature of VF styling (which is inherent to its nature of transformation scheme)

So yeah, it is kind of sad to see people bash lines such as ROTF, when it's pretty clear they're just bashing it for disliking

the aesthetics....as if each and every TF line before the movie lines was great.

It's so easy & low to bash a line for obvious rotten apples like leader class Jetfire, the bike sisters and the non transforming Devastator ;

because overall, the ROTF toyline is a step forward in the right direction, regardless of whether you like or dislike the aesthetics.

G1 was great, but don't deny that Hasbro put an end to die cast parts, rich chrome apps, realistic intricate mold details and rubber wheels

after 1985.

Or do we want to go back to good ol' times like these? :

optimusprime1c.jpg

overload3.jpg

Edited by knoted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing over personal preferences in TF aesthetics is silly because there is so much to choose from. Using the Action Masters to symbolize "the good old days" is just as silly as using Arcee to symbolize all of RotF toys because there is a lot in between those extremes. Just liking what we like and not trying to pretend it's the right opinion or pretend that any current style is "the right direction" is the only way TF fans can really reconcile our differences with each other and get along. Nobody is wrong for liking movie aesthetics and nobody is wrong for preferring "the good old days". And since I'm listing things that should be obvious to us all: water is wet, most birds have the gift of flight and the Earth is round (prove me wrong, Flatists, prove me wrong!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing over personal preferences in TF aesthetics is silly like every generalizing bash/whining whenever a new ROTF toy or ROTF style derivative appears
fixed.

Using the Action Masters to symbolize "the good old days" is just as silly as using Arcee to symbolize all of RotF toys because
Silly whining about movie styling deserves a silly comparison.

Having said that,

Personally, when it comes to Transformers I like most TF Classics, G1 84/85, and Movie TF's. I'm not too fond of the 'new' TF's in the 1986 movie and most TF's from 1986 to 2006.

When it comes to Macross/Robotech, I like the VF1 best, Mospeada's Legioss close 2nd place and the MODAT 5/Garland 3rd place. I can't say I'm really digging the elongated shapes of the VF0, VF11, VF19 and VF25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find arguments between people over aesthetics to be the same as someone making observational criticism of a toy. One is personal, the other is not. If someone says, "Ugh, more goat legs" every time a new RotF toys is revealed, it's not any different than someone saying, "Wow, that looks great!" It's just people voicing their opinions and expressing their tastes. Getting into an argument over it or personally attacking/questioning someone for their preference is entirely different. An innocuous complaint over goat legs is just that - innocuous. It's when someone else replies to that comment with a sarcastic or mean-spirited comment directed at the individual that things get stupid and usually devolve into petty arguments. Someone complains, "Yuck, more goat legs" and then someone else will inevitably quote and reply to that comment with something like "Oh noes, robots has goat legs! :rolleyes:" . Which translates as "i don't agree with your opinion and I think you are stupid for having that opinion" . What began as a harmless comment directed at a toy is then turned into a personal matter with tastes being questioned, etc.

Edited by eriku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i believe we need to define what kibble means, instead of just making things up as we go along.

kibble

The explanation of VF's having constraints is a reasonable one. This does explain though, why those "the good ol' days people"

feel right at home with the mere marginal changing nature of VF styling (which is inherent to its nature of transformation scheme)

As stated by definition, VF design doesn't qualify for kibble since the parts on question integrate flawlessly into the aesthetic.

So yeah, it is kind of sad to see people bash lines such as ROTF, when it's pretty clear they're just bashing it for disliking

the aesthetics....as if each and every TF line before the movie lines was great.

Some of us don't see things on an "aesthetic only" point of view. Some of us actually consider the engineering involved; and so far, the ROTF line just seems consistent in making all the wrong decisions. And don't get me started on the packaging.

It's so easy & low to bash a line for obvious rotten apples like leader class Jetfire, the bike sisters and the non transforming Devastator ;

because overall, the ROTF toyline is a step forward in the right direction, regardless of whether you like or dislike the aesthetics.

It's also easy & low to counter-bash with "psh! Geewunners". But anyway...

I agree, the ROTF toys are pushing the technology envelope forward, but the designs don't seem to compliment the advance in technology particularly well. Out of the dozen or so new designs released, I've only been impressed by a couple of them, and only bought one. Compared to the Animated line, I've been impressed and bought a lot of them. That pretty much speaks for itself.

G1 was great, but don't deny that Hasbro put an end to die cast parts, rich chrome apps, realistic intricate mold details and rubber wheels

after 1985.

Have you seen the Binaltech/Alternators and Alternity lines? They're not G1 or Bay, but they have everything that "was". Those are 2 lines that speak for themselves.

edited

Edited by UN_MARINE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone says, "Ugh, more goat legs" every time a new RotF toys is revealed, it's not any different than someone saying, "Wow, that looks great!"
That's a bit of a fallacy. A person can list several reasons for being wowed by a design. They may or may not list those reasons, after saying " Wow, that looks great! ...Because ; reason #1, reason #2, reason #3, etc. "

Saying " Ugh, more goat legs " is a specific complaint which rules out any chance of change of mind ; and it's often used ( not necessarily in these forums, mind you ) as a denigrating generalization towards an entire toyline and its fans.

A smile or a grouchy face may not be aimed at a person either, but everyone knows that everyone likes to see more smiles than grumpy faces.

It's too easy to play the underdog role just because the styling of recent toylines doesn't cater to classic taste preferences. It's like saying " Oh noes, they don't make ' em like they used to anymore " and then act like being stepped on the toes

when someone tells 'em the reality, that one can't turn back time.

I'm not here to aim for individuals either, but I do think it's noteworthy to register and figure out the reasons behind those complaints. Also, ...listing a taste preference is not the same as dislike list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...