Dark of the Moon and Today's Economy
Zobovor
ancillary merchandise seems to be taking a different approach this
year than the previous films.
For starters, I've learned that there is not going to be a prequel
novel, which is kind of a disappointment since we got one for the
previous two movies, and I've grown to look forward to them as a sort
of appetizer before the main course, something to keep me satisfied
while I'm waiting for the movie to come out. There is a novelization
of the movie proper on the way, written by Peter David this time
instead of Alan Dean Foster, the scribe for the previous two
novelizations as well as both prequel novels. Peter David is a
celebrated genre author who has written some very good Star Trek: The
Next Generation novels as well as adaptations for other film
franchises (Spider-Man, Batman, Iron-Man, etc.) so this would seem to
be a move in the right direction. Still, it's a shame about the
prequel novel.
I was a little off-put by the concept of the Cyberverse toys at first,
since it seemed like a strange move to suddenly an inexplicably
downsize the toy line. I'm hoping that there aren't going to be any
on-screen characters who appear as Cyberverse toys but not Mechtech
toys, because going forward, I'm planning to only collect the latter,
and it would be a shame to miss out. Still, I think I've finally
gotten a handle on the decision behind the concept. The larger movie
toys are extraordinarily complicated, and it's almost as if the target
audience took a massive shift since 2007—there's no way five-year-old
kids could figure those things out. (Of course, the past two
Transformers movies really aren't appropriate for small children, but
that's neither here nor there.) So, I think the Cyberverse toys are a
deliberate effort to make smaller, and therefore simpler, toys that
kids can figure out more readily. I also think it's another response
to the flagging American economy—when $40 can either get you one large
character from the movie or eight smaller characters, I'd say right
now a lot of parents would probably opt for the latter option. I'm
really turned off by the idea of tiny toys designed to interact with
tiny playsets, though. I can begrudgingly accept the fact that I play
with action figures (which is really just a collector's euphemism for
"dolls"), but I draw the line at playsets (a euphemism for, you
guessed it, "doll houses").
I think what we're seeing here is the natural path for merchandising
in a film trilogy. The first movie always generates more excitement,
more toys, and more ancillary licensing than the later films. The
Phantom Menace, for example, generated a huge glut of product that
Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith combined didn't even come
close to touching. My prediction is that there will be far fewer toys
available this time than there were for previous movies, with less of
a need for Hasbro to sell multiple redeco versions or irrelevant "off-
screen" characters to supplement the toy line. (I still miss the
Robot Heroes.)
(Me, I just hope there's better communication between Hasbro and the
filmmakers this time so we can eliminate things like Jolt being thrown
into the mix as a last-minute addition, resulting in his complete
absence from the toy line, at least at first, as well as the
novelizations. Or all that wacky business with multiple
Constructicons in differing colors. Or dead characters like
Bonecrusher spontaneously appearing again. Speaking of dead
characters, why is Barricade in the toy line AGAIN?! Also, what's up
with Blackout appearing in the Dark of the Moon assortment? I thought
he died, too. Isn't that why Hasbro named the helicopter from the
second film Grindor, to distinguish him from the other one? Hhhh. )
Zob
TigerMegatron
Perhaps the first 2 pre-quel movie verse novels didn't do that great
in sales/not that many bought them.
As far as the "Cyberverse" DOTM toys goes. these seem similar to the
TF2007 Movie & ROTF legends sized toys. fans wanted play sets so
hasbro gave it to them.
It's unknown how long the DOTM toys will keep getting newer 100% new
molds. probably not longer than ROTF that got longer new mold than
TF1/2007.
I'm honestly hoping TF prime only gets 5 new molds & that's it. I just
don't want another awful line like animated was.
I'm hoping for the fan favorite classics/generations to get a full
blown toy line in all sizes,like
basics,deluxes,voyagers,ultras,leaders & supreme sizes.
I honestly don't mind all the previous 2007 & ROTF repaints & new
molds put in the DOTM toy line. repaints serve as purpose as they help
stock the shelves while new molds take their time getting created &
not rushed getting created thus leading to inferior new molds.
repaints also serve a purpose as it allows me to select my favor color
scheme on a toy mold I like.
I don't mind seeing newer molds for 2007 & ROTF in the DOTM toy line.
as some of those characters might have received horrible previous toy
molds. that 2007 Deluxe barricade toy was horrible as it had a huge
hollow gap in it thanks to frenzy being jammed inside that gap spot.
2007 deluxe bumblebee was a awful mold because it had restricted
shoulder joints & weird tiny hands. the HFTD BBB Bumblebee deluxe toy
is a far superior toy than 2007 deluxe bumblebee.
Gustavo Wombat
> For starters, I've learned that there is not going to be a prequel
> novel, which is kind of a disappointment since we got one for the
> previous two movies, and I've grown to look forward to them as a sort
> of appetizer before the main course, something to keep me satisfied
> while I'm waiting for the movie to come out. There is a novelization
> of the movie proper on the way, written by Peter David this time
> instead of Alan Dean Foster, the scribe for the previous two
> novelizations as well as both prequel novels. Peter David is a
> celebrated genre author who has written some very good Star Trek: The
> Next Generation novels as well as adaptations for other film
> franchises (Spider-Man, Batman, Iron-Man, etc.) so this would seem to
> be a move in the right direction.
Is this the same Peter David that made Aquaman's first love a dolphin,
but they couldn't be together because her family objected to
interspecies dating?
> I was a little off-put by the concept of the Cyberverse toys at first,
> since it seemed like a strange move to suddenly an inexplicably
> downsize the toy line.
There were Legends class figures for all of the main characters in
ROTF and the first movie, so this isn't sudden or inexplicable. They
must sell pretty well for Hasbro to put this much of an emphasis on
them. I'm looking forward to them, and may not buy many of the larger
MechTech figures.
Legends Mudflap and Skids were better than their Deluxe equivalents,
by most accounts. And the Ravage kittens were adorable. And wee little
Scoponok...
> I'm hoping that there aren't going to be any
> on-screen characters who appear as Cyberverse toys but not Mechtech
> toys, because going forward, I'm planning to only collect the latter,
> and it would be a shame to miss out.
One of my pet peeves, and I have lots of those, is that dull warm gray
plastic being used as if it were metallic. The Movie lines have been
pretty bad with overusing it, and now the main gimmick will be a big
lump of ugly warm gray plastic that bolts onto every figure.
I've got lots of toys, I don't need more, especially if they annoy me.
> Still, I think I've finally
> gotten a handle on the decision behind the concept. The larger movie
> toys are extraordinarily complicated, and it's almost as if the target
> audience took a massive shift since 2007—there's no way five-year-old
> kids could figure those things out. (Of course, the past two
> Transformers movies really aren't appropriate for small children, but
> that's neither here nor there.) So, I think the Cyberverse toys are a
> deliberate effort to make smaller, and therefore simpler, toys that
> kids can figure out more readily. I also think it's another response
> to the flagging American economy—when $40 can either get you one large
> character from the movie or eight smaller characters, I'd say right
> now a lot of parents would probably opt for the latter option. I'm
> really turned off by the idea of tiny toys designed to interact with
> tiny playsets, though. I can begrudgingly accept the fact that I play
> with action figures (which is really just a collector's euphemism for
> "dolls"), but I draw the line at playsets (a euphemism for, you
> guessed it, "doll houses").
I would hope we get a larger, transforming playset or two. A leader
sized Ark, with a robot mode, a ship mode and a playset mode. It's not
a doll house if it transforms into a giant robot, is it?
> (Me, I just hope there's better communication between Hasbro and the
> filmmakers this time so we can eliminate things like Jolt being thrown
> into the mix as a last-minute addition, resulting in his complete
> absence from the toy line, at least at first, as well as the
> novelizations. Or all that wacky business with multiple
> Constructicons in differing colors. Or dead characters like
> Bonecrusher spontaneously appearing again. Speaking of dead
> characters, why is Barricade in the toy line AGAIN?! Also, what's up
> with Blackout appearing in the Dark of the Moon assortment? I thought
> he died, too. Isn't that why Hasbro named the helicopter from the
> second film Grindor, to distinguish him from the other one? Hhhh. )
Barricade is awesome, he cannot die.
Blackout, however, is not awesome. And he was clearly killed.
Gustavo!
William Rendfeld
> On May 3, 6:40 pm, Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > For starters, I've learned that there is not going to be a prequel
> > novel, which is kind of a disappointment since we got one for the
> > previous two movies, and I've grown to look forward to them as a sort
> > of appetizer before the main course, something to keep me satisfied
> > while I'm waiting for the movie to come out. There is a novelization
> > of the movie proper on the way, written by Peter David this time
> > instead of Alan Dean Foster, the scribe for the previous two
> > novelizations as well as both prequel novels. Peter David is a
> > celebrated genre author who has written some very good Star Trek: The
> > Next Generation novels as well as adaptations for other film
> > franchises (Spider-Man, Batman, Iron-Man, etc.) so this would seem to
> > be a move in the right direction.
>
> Is this the same Peter David that made Aquaman's first love a dolphin,
> but they couldn't be together because her family objected to
> interspecies dating?
He's also the same Peter David who's pretty much synonymous with the
Incredible Hulk in the comic book world, so yeah, he's got a lot of
positive cred behind him. That he's doing the novel version of the
movie is a great and wonderful thing, and I truly wish that IDW could
get him to do some Transformers comics, if only because the name alone
would generate sales.
> > Still, I think I've finally
> > gotten a handle on the decision behind the concept. The larger movie
> > toys are extraordinarily complicated, and it's almost as if the target
> > audience took a massive shift since 2007—there's no way five-year-old
> > kids could figure those things out. (Of course, the past two
> > Transformers movies really aren't appropriate for small children, but
> > that's neither here nor there.) So, I think the Cyberverse toys are a
> > deliberate effort to make smaller, and therefore simpler, toys that
> > kids can figure out more readily. I also think it's another response
> > to the flagging American economy—when $40 can either get you one large
> > character from the movie or eight smaller characters, I'd say right
> > now a lot of parents would probably opt for the latter option. I'm
> > really turned off by the idea of tiny toys designed to interact with
> > tiny playsets, though. I can begrudgingly accept the fact that I play
> > with action figures (which is really just a collector's euphemism for
> > "dolls"), but I draw the line at playsets (a euphemism for, you
> > guessed it, "doll houses").
>
> I would hope we get a larger, transforming playset or two. A leader
> sized Ark, with a robot mode, a ship mode and a playset mode. It's not
> a doll house if it transforms into a giant robot, is it?
I definitely wouldn't object to a full-sized Ark to go with full-sized
non-Cyberverse figures, but at the same time, I think about the cost,
and it terrifies me. Seriously, how expensive was Devastator? How
expensive was that big PIT playset for the GIJoe movie line? Put them
together, and we're talking something on par with a Power Wheels
vehicle in terms of cost, if not more. Seriously makes me wish that
figures were sold with dioramas or something like the build-a-figures
for the Marvel Legends line.
> > (Me, I just hope there's better communication between Hasbro and the
> > filmmakers this time so we can eliminate things like Jolt being thrown
> > into the mix as a last-minute addition, resulting in his complete
> > absence from the toy line, at least at first, as well as the
> > novelizations. Or all that wacky business with multiple
> > Constructicons in differing colors. Or dead characters like
> > Bonecrusher spontaneously appearing again. Speaking of dead
> > characters, why is Barricade in the toy line AGAIN?! Also, what's up
> > with Blackout appearing in the Dark of the Moon assortment? I thought
> > he died, too. Isn't that why Hasbro named the helicopter from the
> > second film Grindor, to distinguish him from the other one? Hhhh. )
>
> Barricade is awesome, he cannot die.
>
> Blackout, however, is not awesome. And he was clearly killed.
Barricade's death didn't make it to the final version of Movie 1; he
just kinda vanished and didn't return for Movie 2, but popped up in
the prequel novel and the comics between the films (both between Movie
1 and RotF, and now between RotF and DotM), and there's some slight
chance that he'll come back for DotM and finally kick the bucket.
Nonetheless, they've got an excuse to make more toys for him, what
with him still being alive.
Blackout's dead, but assuming this is just a Cyberverse toy we're
talking about, well, why not have Hasbro release him in that class?
TigerMegatron
Having a robot mode for the DOTM ark space ship is what I would have
liked to see. a DOTM ark ship with no robot mode equals a no sale/i'm
not buying it type of ordeal. .
SteveD
>I can begrudgingly accept the fact that I play
>with action figures (which is really just a collector's euphemism for
>"dolls"), but I draw the line at playsets (a euphemism for, you
>guessed it, "doll houses").
Isn't the way to sell girls' toys to boys just to strip off the pink and
sparkles, repaint it in dull, primary, or chrome colors, and add military
bits and a testosterone-poisoned name?
Dolls -> Action Figures
Fashion accessories -> Weaponry
Dollhouse -> Action Playset
Barbie Winnebago -> Rodimus Prime
In fact, given that My Little Ponies could be described as sentient modes
of transport, some with advanced powers and abilities, and usually
identified by their personal color scheme and markings...
-SteveD
Gustavo Wombat
> On May 3, 11:20 pm, Gustavo Wombat <GustavoWom...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On May 3, 6:40 pm, Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > For starters, I've learned that there is not going to be a prequel
> > > novel, which is kind of a disappointment since we got one for the
> > > previous two movies, and I've grown to look forward to them as a sort
> > > of appetizer before the main course, something to keep me satisfied
> > > while I'm waiting for the movie to come out. There is a novelization
> > > of the movie proper on the way, written by Peter David this time
> > > instead of Alan Dean Foster, the scribe for the previous two
> > > novelizations as well as both prequel novels. Peter David is a
> > > celebrated genre author who has written some very good Star Trek: The
> > > Next Generation novels as well as adaptations for other film
> > > franchises (Spider-Man, Batman, Iron-Man, etc.) so this would seem to
> > > be a move in the right direction.
>
> > Is this the same Peter David that made Aquaman's first love a dolphin,
> > but they couldn't be together because her family objected to
> > interspecies dating?
>
> He's also the same Peter David who's pretty much synonymous with the
> Incredible Hulk in the comic book world, so yeah, he's got a lot of
> positive cred behind him. That he's doing the novel version of the
> movie is a great and wonderful thing, and I truly wish that IDW could
> get him to do some Transformers comics, if only because the name alone
> would generate sales.
Yeah, I knew he did something else other than bestiality comics, but I
couldn't place it. Later on, Aquaman has a love interest who is a
human named Dolphin... I'm pretty sure that wasn't Peter David's
doing.
The various city-bots we've gotten over the years are all too small
for the toys that they are supposed to interact with. I want a Leader
sized toy that is the Ark, has a robot mode, and is a playset for
Legends figures. So, he would actually be the largest Legends toy
ever.
Zobovor
> There were Legends class figures for all of the main characters in
> ROTF and the first movie, so this isn't sudden or inexplicable. They
> must sell pretty well for Hasbro to put this much of an emphasis on
> them. I'm looking forward to them, and may not buy many of the larger
> MechTech figures.
I'm sensing a shift between the Legends and Cyberverse toys, though.
The Legends were always peripheral stuff—"extra" toys, if you will,
that weren't representative of Hasbro's primary efforts towards
marketing the characters. They were just cute, tiny versions of the
movie characters that were an option if you didn't feel like spending
$20 or $40 on every one of the larger toys. (There were also several
Legends that made a great deal of sense, like a Skids and Mudflap that
you could actually stuff into Devastator's mouth, or the adorable
little Wheelie that was a bit more to scale with the other toys.)
The way Cyberverse is being marketed makes it feel, at least to me,
like this is now the "main" toy line and that the Mechtech stuff is
now almost being treated like an ancillary toy line, like the Fast
Action Battlers or the Real Gear Robots—"Oh, yeah, and there are also
some larger toys, too." That's the part that seems sudden and
inexplicable to me. They never did stuff like regular Legends and
super-dee-duper Legends with extra junk attached and big honkin'
Legends playsets before.
> One of my pet peeves, and I have lots of those, is that dull warm gray
> plastic being used as if it were metallic. The Movie lines have been
> pretty bad with overusing it, and now the main gimmick will be a big
> lump of ugly warm gray plastic that bolts onto every figure.
It is my fervent hope that at least some, if not all, of the
characters from the movie actually do have large, out-of-place
weaponry in vehicle mode to help justify the Mechtech toys as being
something other than a blatant attempt to distinguish the Dark of the
Moon toys from the toys of the first two films. ("No, really, kids,
Bumblebee's complete different this time! Look, he's got a bazooka
stuck to him!")
> I would hope we get a larger, transforming playset or two. A leader
> sized Ark, with a robot mode, a ship mode and a playset mode. It's not
> a doll house if it transforms into a giant robot, is it?
I'm going to say "no," since I have no immediate qualms about, say,
Metroplex or Fortress Maximus, even though both are clearly toys
designed for the smaller characters to live inside of, talk about the
weather, serve each other tea, etc. It's also quite possible I'll
completely change my mind and fall head over heels with the Bouncing
Bumblebee Battle Bunker once I've actually seen it, since I am a
notorious hypocrite when it comes to movie merchandising. (This could
be some elaborate ruse on my part to get myself to not buy as many
toys.)
I realize that basically nothing from the movie universe looks like
the Transformers I grew up with, but I do wish the Ark playset looked
more like the Ark from G1. I probably would have made plans to buy it
if I could have pretended it was "really" a very late piece of G1
merchandise, like I did with Armada Unicron.
Zob
Zobovor
> Blackout's dead, but assuming this is just a Cyberverse toy we're
> talking about, well, why not have Hasbro release him in that class?
It doesn't make sense to celebrate a dead character with more
merchandising. It's not like they're doing a Cyberverse Jazz. (They
did, however, continue to produce Jazz merchandise well into Revenge
of the Fallen, but I think it was understood that it was all postmortem
—wasn't there even a thinly-veiled reference on one of the toy
packages to this effect?)
Why even bother to kill the character off if they're just going to
continue selling toys of him anyway?
(And yes, I realize that many "dead" characters from G1 are continuing
to receive new toys, but that took many, many years. It's not like
new versions of Brawn and Ironhide were popping up a year after The
Transformers: the Movie was in theaters.)
Zob
robo_rob
the pirce difference (which is a huge relief), but the whole thing is
inherently neat to me. One, I already was a big Legends fan. Two, the
Commander class is essentially GI JOE figures that Transform. Then the
play sets, I'm a sucker for those. Loved the Micromaster and
Actionmaster stuff. Actually, loved stuff like that in every toy line.
I think that's the only reason I have missed OP's trailer in recent
times, is for the battle platform.
There is still several Mechtech stuff I either want or will want, but
for the time being my focus is on Cyberverse.
I also will miss the prequel novel, I liked the first two. However, to
fill that gap, Exodus will be released in paperback at movie time, so
for those of us who skipped over the hardback for an eventual
paperback, we can finally read it hopefully before Exiles is released.
Of course, I love all the movie hype, already got several DotM ring
pops. I am forced to skip BotCon this year (like 09), so the movie
hype hells fill that void a little (even though I'll miss seeing
several friends).
Onslaught Six
> I was a little off-put by the concept of the Cyberverse toys at first,
> since it seemed like a strange move to suddenly an inexplicably
> downsize the toy line. I'm hoping that there aren't going to be any
> on-screen characters who appear as Cyberverse toys but not Mechtech
> toys, because going forward, I'm planning to only collect the latter,
> and it would be a shame to miss out. Still, I think I've finally
> gotten a handle on the decision behind the concept. The larger movie
> toys are extraordinarily complicated, and it's almost as if the target
> audience took a massive shift since 2007—there's no way five-year-old
> kids could figure those things out. (Of course, the past two
> Transformers movies really aren't appropriate for small children, but
> that's neither here nor there.) So, I think the Cyberverse toys are a
> deliberate effort to make smaller, and therefore simpler, toys that
> kids can figure out more readily. I also think it's another response
> to the flagging American economy—when $40 can either get you one large
> character from the movie or eight smaller characters, I'd say right
> now a lot of parents would probably opt for the latter option. I'm
> really turned off by the idea of tiny toys designed to interact with
> tiny playsets, though. I can begrudgingly accept the fact that I play
> with action figures (which is really just a collector's euphemism for
> "dolls"), but I draw the line at playsets (a euphemism for, you
> guessed it, "doll houses").
Pretty much every figure is getting downsized, too, actually. I saw
some comparison pics of the newer Bumblebee deluxe moulds in
comparison to Battle Blade Bumblebee, and he practically towers over
them. At best, they come up to his shoulders. It's pretty sad.
> I think what we're seeing here is the natural path for merchandising
> in a film trilogy. The first movie always generates more excitement,
> more toys, and more ancillary licensing than the later films. The
> Phantom Menace, for example, generated a huge glut of product that
> Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith combined didn't even come
> close to touching. My prediction is that there will be far fewer toys
> available this time than there were for previous movies, with less of
> a need for Hasbro to sell multiple redeco versions or irrelevant "off-
> screen" characters to supplement the toy line. (I still miss the
> Robot Heroes.)
I dunno if SW is the proper analogy here, given that Episode One was
supposed to be the Holy Shit New Star Wars moment. It sucking (and the
adverse affect on the resulting toys) surely made a dent in Hasbro's
want to make toys.
> (Me, I just hope there's better communication between Hasbro and the
> filmmakers this time so we can eliminate things like Jolt being thrown
> into the mix as a last-minute addition, resulting in his complete
> absence from the toy line, at least at first, as well as the
> novelizations. Or all that wacky business with multiple
> Constructicons in differing colors. Or dead characters like
> Bonecrusher spontaneously appearing again. Speaking of dead
> characters, why is Barricade in the toy line AGAIN?! Also, what's up
> with Blackout appearing in the Dark of the Moon assortment? I thought
> he died, too. Isn't that why Hasbro named the helicopter from the
> second film Grindor, to distinguish him from the other one? Hhhh. )
Hey, Jolt got a Deluxe like everyone else. He also got a Legends and a
Robot Hero, and I think he even got a FAB. That's as much as some
other characters.
Barricade might actually seriously be alive in the film. We don't know
that he isn't, anyway, and the movie prequel comics haven't killed him
off yet.
I think the biggest problem with ROTF's Constructicons is that we all
said "MOAR ROBOTS!" so they gave us moar. The problem is, they didn't
know that we wanted them to be 'unique,' and thus we got clones
because of budget shit. That, and we don't know that, at one point,
all the Constructicons weren't meant to be the same guy, and ROTF's
cruddy script didn't screw that up somehow. (For example, Long Haul
could have fought alongside Starscream and the guys, and then went off
to form Dev, but the script was rushed so they never bothered with
it.) I'd love it if ROTF's earlier scripts leaked.
Hopefully this time there'll be less of that.
Also, I don't have a problem with dead characters showing up in the
toyline. I mean, Obi-Wan Kenobi died in Episode IV--if Hasbro came out
with a new Obi-Wan Kenobi figure, do you get as ruffled at that?
Onslaught Six
> It is my fervent hope that at least some, if not all, of the
> characters from the movie actually do have large, out-of-place
> weaponry in vehicle mode to help justify the Mechtech toys as being
> something other than a blatant attempt to distinguish the Dark of the
> Moon toys from the toys of the first two films. ("No, really, kids,
> Bumblebee's complete different this time! Look, he's got a bazooka
> stuck to him!")
From what I've gathered--and there's gonna be some spoilers here--Bay
saw what Hasbro was doing with the Stealth Force toyline (the MASK-
style weapons-pop-out-of-vehicles line) and decided to incorporate
that into the movie, and Mechtech is kind of a parallel to that.
Zobovor
> I dunno if SW is the proper analogy here, given that Episode One was
> supposed to be the Holy Shit New Star Wars moment. It sucking (and the
> adverse affect on the resulting toys) surely made a dent in Hasbro's
> want to make toys.
I daresay the very vocal and very negative backlash against the
Transformers movies makes it quite a fitting comarison.
> Also, I don't have a problem with dead characters showing up in the
> toyline. I mean, Obi-Wan Kenobi died in Episode IV--if Hasbro came out
> with a new Obi-Wan Kenobi figure, do you get as ruffled at that?
Again, we're getting new toys of him nowadays, many years after the
fact. Back in the day, they only focused the toy line on the current
film—in 1981, the Star Wars toy line was, simply, The Empire Strikes
Back. In 1983, it was Revenge of the Jedi. And then all of that
packaging was thrown away when George Lucas changed his mind at the
last minute. My point is that an Obi-Wan Kenobi toy would have been
terribly out of place in either of those toy lines.
Zob
Gustavo Wombat
> On May 4, 10:50 am, Onslaught Six <onslaught...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I dunno if SW is the proper analogy here, given that Episode One was
> > supposed to be the Holy Shit New Star Wars moment. It sucking (and the
> > adverse affect on the resulting toys) surely made a dent in Hasbro's
> > want to make toys.
>
> I daresay the very vocal and very negative backlash against the
> Transformers movies makes it quite a fitting comarison.
Except the toys for the 2007 Transformers movie sold like the
proverbial hotcakes, while the Phantom Menace toys... I'm pretty sure
there are landfills devoted entirely to Jar Jar Binks.
And although a lot of fans hated the 2007 Movie, people in general
loved it. People are idiots, granted, but people didn't love Phantom
Menace.
(There's a very nice fan edit of Phantom Menace, where they make it
into a 40 minute silent movie -- it actually works wonderfully for
that)
> > Also, I don't have a problem with dead characters showing up in the
> > toyline. I mean, Obi-Wan Kenobi died in Episode IV--if Hasbro came out
> > with a new Obi-Wan Kenobi figure, do you get as ruffled at that?
>
> Again, we're getting new toys of him nowadays, many years after the
> fact. Back in the day, they only focused the toy line on the current
> film—in 1981, the Star Wars toy line was, simply, The Empire Strikes
> Back. In 1983, it was Revenge of the Jedi. And then all of that
> packaging was thrown away when George Lucas changed his mind at the
> last minute. My point is that an Obi-Wan Kenobi toy would have been
> terribly out of place in either of those toy lines.
Mildly out of place. If his packaging bio said that he was dead, that
Luke thought of him fondly, etc, then it would be fine. Especially
since he showed up in both of those movies.
Gustavo!
Shin Hibiki
>The larger movie
>toys are extraordinarily complicated, and it's almost as if the target
>audience took a massive shift since 2007葉here's no way five-year-old
>kids could figure those things out.
There's no way 35-year-old kids could figure some of those
things out!! o_O
- Shin Hibiki
SteveD
>there's no way five-year-old kids could figure those things out.
I dunno. Kids can be pretty focused. Especially kids who really like what
they're playing with. They don't know that the instructions are supposed
to be complicated.
-SteveD
Primus
I treat the them like a puzzle when I first open them. It may sound weird but it's fun for me.
Gustavo Wombat
> I haven't really ever seen a Transformer that I needed to read the instructions for. There were some that looked a bit odd in their altmode and I checked the instructions just to be sure I did things right, but I haven't been wrong yet... so... I don't count those.
>
> I treat the them like a puzzle when I first open them. It may sound weird but it's fun for me.
You should buy ROTF Mixmaster. I did manage to transform him back into
a cement mixer a couple of times, but he combines fiendishly complex
with annoying in equal quantities.
Alternators Optimus Prime has caused such problems for me I gave up
and haven't bothered trying to transform him back to vehicle mode.
It's clear how he transforms, give or take, but he never quite fits
together nicely in truck mode -- there's some step early on that needs
to position a part at a 23 degree angle or something and then you need
to do a lot of panel massage. He's just annoying.
I never transformed Universe 2.0 Cheetor back to cheetah mode either,
but that's because he was such a terrible toy I just threw him out.
Gustavo!
Primus
I think some ROTF toys fell victim to... I dunno... poor manufacturing or something because Bumblebee just never really ever fit together right when I tried to get him back into vehicle mode. Others toys were the same way and I know it's not me. I went back and followed the instructions to the letter, even looked up some Youtube videos. They just... they're... something isn't right. I don't know if Hasbro was just cheap with them... but something is off.
TigerMegatron
I use u-tube for those transformers that are really complex & hard to
transform back & forth.
Zobovor
> I use u-tube for those transformers that are really complex & hard to
> transform back & forth.
Can I ask why you always call it "u-tube"? It's not a tube in the
shape of the letter "u." It's YouTube. As in, like boob tube, only
in this case, YOU get to be the boob.
Zob