Is There Room for Gimmick-Driven Toys in Today's Generations Line?

[Zobovor]

Hasbro gives us a handful of Classics toys, and suddenly I want the entire cast from 1984-85. They give us a whole year's worth of Combiner Wars toys, and I lament the handful of combiner teams who got skipped. They give us Titans Return, and I bemoan the handful of Headmasters characters who aren't currently represented. I'm a little bit like a greedy dog who's been thrown a bone, but suddenly decides he wants a whole steak.

With this in mind, I've been thinking about what would happen if Hasbro branched out into modern-era versions of some of the gimmick-driven toys of the G1 days. Rumor has it that we're already getting some Throttlebots at the Legends scale, but it's highly probable that they won't have the motorized gimmick that was the original selling point of the toys. None of the Throttlebots were particularly memorable characters except for Goldbug; they never got feature stories in the Sunbow cartoon or the Marvel Comics stories (yeah, they were present during the Scraplets arc, but did you come away with any sense of characterization for ANY of them?) so, in some ways, their toy representation is what we remember even more than their cartoon or comic book portrayals. Starscream was that guy who always tried to take over, and Thunderwing was that guy who got the Matrix and tried to kill everybody, whereas the Throttlebots were those guys with short legs and pull-back motors.

So, in the case of the Throttlebots, losing the motorized gimmick is likely a necessary loss, and the trade-off for what I assume will be legs of a proper length and actual, functional arms will be well worth it. Likewise, Twinferno (the new version of Doublecross) will almost certainly lack the spark-shooting gimmick of the original Monsterbots, despite this gimmick actually showing up recently in the Age of Extinction toy line. In the meantime, though, what about other gimmick-driven toys?

Would new, modern-era Triggerbots and Triggercons suffer tremendously if they completely lacked spring-powered flip-out weapons? That was arguably the biggest selling point of the toy, since once again, they really never received strong media portrayals, and nobody would be buying them based on their love of the characters. A vague, general sense that "these guys were part of G1, and G1 was part of my childhood, therefore I must own them," perhaps, but not because they were strong, memorable characters in the same way that Soundwave or Jazz were.

Omnibots? If we ever got them (and I kind of see them as an inevitability, because they're just about the only 1984 characters left untouched), would you insist on a weaponized double-change vehicle mode, or would you be okay with a more straightforward robot-to-car design?

Jumpstarters? Would anyone even WANT new Jumpstarters? And if we got them, would you want them to have spring-powered pop-open transformations, or would you prefer a more traditional, do-it-yourself vehicle-to-robot conversion? (Note: Yes, I know that we got redeco versions of the Fall of Cybertron Combaticons that were named after Topspin and Twin Twist, but they were redeco toys and not planned, dedicated homage designs. Secondary note: There are actually rumors of a new toy named Topspin already in the works!)

Along the same lines, what of the Battlechargers? [Note: I know we got a couple of redeco versions of Reveal the Shield Tracks in the form of BotCon exclusives, but I'm talking about something that's a) specifically designed to resemble those characters and b) mass-marketed to the unwaashedf masses.]

How much of the Pretender concept is tied to their outer shells? We've gotten a smattering of toys here and there who were not functional Pretenders (Bludgeon, Thunderwing, Skullgrin) but would you accept new versions of Cloudburst, Landmine, Finback, Bomb-Burst, etc. if they merely transformed into the vehicle forms of their inner robots, or would you insist on a full revival of the concept with outer shells? What about vehicular Pretenders like Roadblock, Gunrunner, Skystalker, and Skyhammer?

Firecons and Sparkabots. Would you buy bigger, Deluxe-class versions of the characters with full-articulated robot modes, if they lacked the sparking gimmick of the 1988 toys?

Do Darkwing and Dreadwind absolutely need to be able to combine into a super-jet in order to be a successful update?

Are there ANY toys from 1990 (Action Masters, Micromaster Combiners) you would buy new versions of?


Zob (it would be interesting if they designed new transformable toys for Axer, Over-Run, Skyfall, Jackpot, etc. who weren't just BotCon redeco toys)

[Optim_1]

On Sunday, 13 November 2016 23:24:47 UTC-5, Zobovor wrote:

>
> So, in the case of the Throttlebots, losing the motorized gimmick is likely a necessary loss, and the trade-off for what I assume will be legs of a proper length and actual, functional arms will be well worth it. Likewise, Twinferno (the new version of Doublecross) will almost certainly lack the spark-shooting gimmick of the original Monsterbots, despite this gimmick actually showing up recently in the Age of Extinction toy line. In the meantime, though, what about other gimmick-driven toys?
>

I disagree about the Throttlebots. The motor gimmick is reflected in their name. I don't make the toys but I think Hasbro could have found a way for actual limbs to exist on a toy alongside an improved motor gimmick. Presto, updated Throttlebots.

Gimmicks are underrated because when done right they can make the toys fun. So, I think reintroducing gimmicks on TF toys (and other toy lines) would be a great way to diversify the toyline. Since these G1 toys you mentioned were known for their gimmicks, updating them with improved gimmicks is the only way for the updates to be faithful. The Triggerbots and Triggercons should have weapons that can conceal well and can flip out. The Sparkabots and Firecons should have better limbs like the Throttlebots and Battlechargers should have but with improved sparking.

I never had any Pretender toys but I think articulation on the shells would improve them a lot but Pretenders were terrible in concept so I doubt any improvement would work. Nothing could make the Pretender concept work especially with Autobots all looking like human giants.

The only toys on your list that were decent toys in G1 are the Omnibots and Dreadwing so they could do well updated without gimmicks but gimmicks are fun, fun, fun.

[Zobovor]

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 3:17:23 PM UTC-7, Optim_1 wrote:

> I disagree about the Throttlebots. The motor gimmick is reflected in their
> name. I don't make the toys but I think Hasbro could have found a way for
> actual limbs to exist on a toy alongside an improved motor gimmick. Presto,
> updated Throttlebots.

I certainly wouldn't be upset if they came up with all-new Throttlebots who still retained the pull-back motors. As far as I'm concerned, they were, hands down, the most fun toys from 1987. I have very fond memories of playing with the neighbor kids one winter day when we were snowed in, and racing the Throttlebots along the cement floor in their basement. You can't buy memories like that.

With that said, I recognize that adding motors would raise the cost of producing the toys. They would be Legends that would sell at a Deluxe price to justify the cost (though I feel weird saying that, since right now the Legends are $9.97 at Walmart and the Deluxes are $9.78). I would love to be proven wrong, but I really get the feeling that Hasbro is struggling to keep the toys under budget as it stands. We're getting Transformers made of the cheapest, hollowest plastic in history and they're skimping on screws, springs, and paint applications like nobody's business, all in the name of turning a profit.

The point may be moot since you could get tiny motorized cars at Walmart for $1.00 as recently as a few years ago (and they were basically a motor with a plastic shell and wheels), so perhaps such an endeavor would not be as expensive as I'm making it out to be.

> Gimmicks are underrated because when done right they can make the toys fun.
> So, I think reintroducing gimmicks on TF toys (and other toy lines) would be
> a great way to diversify the toyline.

I think they're heading in the right direction with the Combiner Wars theme and the Titans Return theme. It looks like Hasbro's current design model is to come up with a gimmick that they can apply to the entire toy range for that year, which unfortunately makes me wonder if there won't ever be room for G1 gimmicks that were used for only a handful of toys, like the Battlechargers or Triggerbots.

> Since these G1 toys you mentioned were known for their gimmicks, updating
> them with improved gimmicks is the only way for the updates to be faithful.

Viscerally, I tend agree with this. Intellectually, I recognize that no update is going to tread the exact same path as G1. Even the current Headmasters toys lack the tech specs meters in their chest, after all. On the other hand, I read recently that does not only the upcoming Perceptor toy function as a working microscope, but the internal workings of his lenses was actually borrowed from the functionality of the G1 toy and then improved with plastic optical lenses. I'm really excited about this, because despite G1 Perceptor being touted as a working microscope back in the day, I've never encountered a copy of the toy that worked as advertised.

> I never had any Pretender toys but I think articulation on the shells would
> improve them a lot but Pretenders were terrible in concept so I doubt any
> improvement would work. Nothing could make the Pretender concept work
> especially with Autobots all looking like human giants.

To me, it makes more sense for the Pretender shells to be the size of regular humans. Either the robots would have to be pretty small (which is fine, since Transformers come in bite-size editions like Rumble and Wheelie), or else the robots should be able to shrink to fit in their shells and then grow to full size when they emerge (which is conceptually no different than Megatron or Soundwave or Perceptor shrinking when they transform).


Zob (Decepticon Pretenders could still be gigantic, I guess)

[Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People.]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 10:24:47 PM UTC-6, Zobovor wrote:
> Hasbro gives us a handful of Classics toys, and suddenly I want the entire cast from 1984-85. They give us a whole year's worth of Combiner Wars toys, and I lament the handful of combiner teams who got skipped. They give us Titans Return, and I bemoan the handful of Headmasters characters who aren't currently represented. I'm a little bit like a greedy dog who's been thrown a bone, but suddenly decides he wants a whole steak.
>
> With this in mind, I've been thinking about what would happen if Hasbro branched out into modern-era versions of some of the gimmick-driven toys of the G1 days. Rumor has it that we're already getting some Throttlebots at the Legends scale, but it's highly probable that they won't have the motorized gimmick that was the original selling point of the toys. None of the Throttlebots were particularly memorable characters except for Goldbug; they never got feature stories in the Sunbow cartoon or the Marvel Comics stories (yeah, they were present during the Scraplets arc, but did you come away with any sense of characterization for ANY of them?) so, in some ways, their toy representation is what we remember even more than their cartoon or comic book portrayals. Starscream was that guy who always tried to take over, and Thunderwing was that guy who got the Matrix and tried to kill everybody, whereas the Throttlebots were those guys with short legs and pull-back motors.
>
> So, in the case of the Throttlebots, losing the motorized gimmick is likely a necessary loss, and the trade-off for what I assume will be legs of a proper length and actual, functional arms will be well worth it. Likewise, Twinferno (the new version of Doublecross) will almost certainly lack the spark-shooting gimmick of the original Monsterbots, despite this gimmick actually showing up recently in the Age of Extinction toy line. In the meantime, though, what about other gimmick-driven toys?
>

I don't mind losing that inner gimmick if it makes the toys better. I'd rather have working arms and legs than a spring motor from a discount pull back toy like the generic dollar store toys.

As for Monsterbot sparkers, you mention the AOE toys....but the AOE toys were untransforming bricks of shelfwarming crap, that started at $15 and people still wouldn't buy on clearance for $3. If that's the trade off for a sparker, no thank you.

> Would new, modern-era Triggerbots and Triggercons suffer tremendously if they completely lacked spring-powered flip-out weapons? That was arguably the biggest selling point of the toy, since once again, they really never received strong media portrayals, and nobody would be buying them based on their love of the characters. A vague, general sense that "these guys were part of G1, and G1 was part of my childhood, therefore I must own them," perhaps, but not because they were strong, memorable characters in the same way that Soundwave or Jazz were.
>

Flip out weapons wouldn't be that hard to achieve. It's a simple gimmick that could be worked in relatively well without messing other things up.

> Omnibots? If we ever got them (and I kind of see them as an inevitability, because they're just about the only 1984 characters left untouched), would you insist on a weaponized double-change vehicle mode, or would you be okay with a more straightforward robot-to-car design?
>

The weaponized modes is why they were fun. If they don't have the weaponized modes, then they're just more Autobot Cars, and not really Omnibots. This is a gimmick I liked as it didn't interfere with a solid car or robot mode.

> Jumpstarters? Would anyone even WANT new Jumpstarters? And if we got them, would you want them to have spring-powered pop-open transformations, or would you prefer a more traditional, do-it-yourself vehicle-to-robot conversion? (Note: Yes, I know that we got redeco versions of the Fall of Cybertron Combaticons that were named after Topspin and Twin Twist, but they were redeco toys and not planned, dedicated homage designs. Secondary note: There are actually rumors of a new toy named Topspin already in the works!)
>

Just go look in the clearance Avengers toys and repaint some of their Jumpstarter redecoes. Unless you shipped them out to Five Below, in that case look in their clearance Avengers toys. We've had tons of spring open transformers, the whole 1-step line now. It's hardly a new thing and I can't get excited about it.

> Along the same lines, what of the Battlechargers? [Note: I know we got a couple of redeco versions of Reveal the Shield Tracks in the form of BotCon exclusives, but I'm talking about something that's a) specifically designed to resemble those characters and b) mass-marketed to the unwaashedf masses.]
>

The Botcon remakes in my eyes were very good. The G1 quality is something you find in the generic robot toys at Big Lots or Family Dollar. I didn't care for their cheapness during G1 and would be a little insulted if we got them again. During G1 they didn't have to cheap out bu they did anyway. How would it be today when they feel obligated to cheap out?

> How much of the Pretender concept is tied to their outer shells? We've gotten a smattering of toys here and there who were not functional Pretenders (Bludgeon, Thunderwing, Skullgrin) but would you accept new versions of Cloudburst, Landmine, Finback, Bomb-Burst, etc. if they merely transformed into the vehicle forms of their inner robots, or would you insist on a full revival of the concept with outer shells? What about vehicular Pretenders like Roadblock, Gunrunner, Skystalker, and Skyhammer?
>

People for the most part only recognize the shells. Barely anyone can tell the Autobot Pretenders apart even with the shells (white guy, white guy, another white guy....) Thunderwing, Skullgrin and Bludgeon updates were really good because they ignored the inner robots.

> Firecons and Sparkabots. Would you buy bigger, Deluxe-class versions of the characters with full-articulated robot modes, if they lacked the sparking gimmick of the 1988 toys?
>

The sparking has worn out on most of the G1 toys by now, so a nonfunctional sparker would be pretty accurate. They originally took sparkers out of thgese toys because a sparking roller skating barbie caught a kids hair on fire.

> Do Darkwing and Dreadwind absolutely need to be able to combine into a super-jet in order to be a successful update?
>

Yes, Definitely

> Are there ANY toys from 1990 (Action Masters, Micromaster Combiners) you would buy new versions of?
>

We'e getting a few Actonmasters that Transform, but I haven't felt the need to own them.

>
> Zob (it would be interesting if they designed new transformable toys for Axer, Over-Run, Skyfall, Jackpot, etc. who weren't just BotCon redeco toys)

Let's get a Treadshot with a proper alt mode.

[Travoltron]

On 11/18/2016 9:20 AM, Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People. wrote:
> Barely anyone can tell the Autobot Pretenders apart even with the shells (white guy, white guy, another white guy....)

Back in the day, I painted my pretender Jazz black. Because, come on.

[Travoltron]

On 11/17/2016 2:17 PM, Optim_1 wrote:
> Nothing could make the Pretender concept work

The whole shell thing is kind of dumb, so I would redo them as Beast
Wars-type toys. Either have the robot turn into an organic beast (i.e.
Bugly turns into an insect) or you could do the opposite, a Beast-like
robot that transforms into a Vehicle.

[Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People.]

I remember the unexplined "pretender" in ROTF, that was really stupid.

[Zobovor]

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 6:14:53 PM UTC-7, Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People. wrote:

> I remember the unexplined "pretender" in ROTF, that was really stupid.

I always got the feeling that somebody had done some cursory research into the Transformers of the 1980's to cull the archives for ideas, which is why, for the second Bay movie, we suddenly got female Transformers, combiner Transformers, etc.

Adding a Pretender was a good idea in theory, and it was used in a way that actually makes sense (no Pretenders in the Marvel Comics were ever able to masquerade as humans). It would have been amazing if they'd used Alice as a springboard for Hasbro to reintroduce the Pretenders concept. I remember being really disappointed that she was never represented in the toy line in any way, shape, or form.


Zob (my excitement over the movie toys tends to diminish a little while after the DVD release, honestly)

[Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People.]

In the book adaptation there was a poor excuse that it scanned a Disney theme park animatronic, so technically it's a robot...

[Zobovor]

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 9:18:26 AM UTC-7, Travoltron wrote:

> Back in the day, I painted my pretender Jazz black. Because, come on.

Yeah, that was a no-brainer. Reminds me of when they finally came out with a TMNT action figure of Bebop that could "mutate" into human form, but they made him Caucasian for some daft reason.


Zob (tokenism only works if you actually stick with it!)

[Gustavo Wombat]

It's in the movie too. There's a thing about the animatronic on the TV.

Alice should have been utterly terrifying in an uncanny valley sort of way,
been covering with too much makeup, and scared the daylights out out of
everyone.

--
I wish I was a mole in the ground.