Full BotCon exclusive set revealed
Kil - Michael McCarthy
http://www.transformersclub.com/figurepreview.cfm
Hey, look, a Moonracer toy!
Named... Chromia...
-Kil
Chad Rushing
reading the accompanying comic book so that they'll all be "characters"
rather than just "toys".
- Chad
Goldbug
David Willis
>
>
> Hey, look, a Moonracer toy!
>
> Named... Chromia...
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
--David
www.shortpacked.com
Chad Rushing
- Chad
who will be anxiously waiting for it
OnslaughtSix
Kil - Michael McCarthy wrote:
> http://www.transformersclub.com/figurepreview.cfm
Argh.
They called the techspecs 'filecards.'
Kil - Michael McCarthy
> > http://www.transformersclub.com/figurepreview.cfm
> >
> >
> > Hey, look, a Moonracer toy!
> >
> > Named... Chromia...
>
> Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
It occurs to me now that if they couldn't call the toy Moonracer for
trademark reasons, she could have gotten the re-use of the name
Ricochet instead of the cyberjet. It would've fit with her shooting
skills.
The cyberjet could've gotten some other recently used name, if it
needed to have one of those rather than a new one. Quickstrike, for
example, or Black Out. Or anyone of the Energon Air Team names. Or even
Wind Sheer.
-Kil
David Willis
"Kil - Michael McCarthy" <michae...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1124501895.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> David Willis wrote...
>> > http://www.transformersclub.com/figurepreview.cfm
>> >
>> >
>> > Hey, look, a Moonracer toy!
>> >
>> > Named... Chromia...
>>
>> Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
>
> It occurs to me now that if they couldn't call the toy Moonracer for
> trademark reasons, she could have gotten the re-use of the name
> Ricochet instead of the cyberjet. It would've fit with her shooting
> skills.
Well, no, they couldn't call her Moonracer. There's a "King Moonracer" from
some other toyline. I forget which. But... why WOULD they have tried to
make a Moonracer in the first place? It's CHROMIA that's Ironhide's
girlfriend. Why random Moonracer? And yet the tech spec writes her as
Chromia (she's "tough"), and the screencap of Moonracer for comparison is
called "chromiaref.jpg" Dude, they really fucked this up.
--David
www.shortpacked.com
Xgriml...@aol.com
"King Moonracer" from some other toyline. I forget which."
Would that be "King Moonracer" from the "Rudolf the red nose reindeer"
cartoon & toy line???
Xgriml...@aol.com
Technically Tow-line robot's mode is basic in size. So there's 6 basics
& one mega $20 figure.
I'll wait till some guy sells just Deathsauras on ebay & then buy him.
My least favorite size class is Basic. so this set does nothing for me.
David Willis
<Xgriml...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1124509478....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, that'd be it.
--David
Kil - Michael McCarthy
> and the screencap of Moonracer for comparison is
> called "chromiaref.jpg"
....
> Dude, they really fucked this up.
Indeed.
-Kil
Thunder, Agent '005
> Argh.
>
> They called the techspecs 'filecards.'
>
Yeah, but these are GIJOE nerds, what do you expect? :)
t.k.
(before fans jump on me for this, I was at one time too)
jimso...@gmail.com
Kil - Michael McCarthy wrote:
So let's look at what we have for this year:
Deathsarus - remold of Car Robots Gigatron. Good choice of mold, it's
got good play value, what could be energon weapons, classic character.
$20 toy. Thumbs up from me.
Dirge & Buzzclaw - repaint of Buzzclaw. One isn't bad, though two of
the same figure is a little lame. I was hoping that we'd have two
different insects for the Insecticon 'generals' and maybe alternate
color schemes as 'army builder' packs. If there's one thing the GI Joe
crowd understands it's army builders. Shame, too, since there are so
many good choices for small to medium sized insects. BW Jetstorm would
have been my first choice, since it's a great mold that hasn't been
done too often. TM2 Scourge and Scarem would have worked very well as
a pair, what with Deathsaras being effectively a TM2. Manterror would
have been all right too, though I'm glad they stayed away from Retrax
(terrible mold) and Waspinator (done to death.) Cyborg Waspinator from
BW II would have been ok though. $5 toys. Mild thumbs down for
repetitiveness in the face of some really good mold choices.
Ironhide - remold of energon towline. Terrific choice of mold for him,
what with the platform and the alt mode. $10 toy, big thumbs up.
Fallback - repaint of energon Strongarm. Good choice of character,
shame they couldn't use the name Outback but what can you do? $6 toy,
thumbs up.
Ricochet - repaint of a cyberjet. New character despite name reuse.
You can't go wrong with the cyberjet mold, and the color scheme works
great. I find myself wondering if the other two cyberjets won't pop up
at some point during the con.
Chromia - remold of energon Arcee. OK, as has been pointed out, they
combined Chromia and Moonracer. For some reason this dosen't bother me
too much. It might be the similar color schemes they have to each
other (pastel blue-green, pastel baby blue.) But it's a very welcome
repaint, either way. It's a great mold and it's always nice to have
more female cybertronians. Plus her tech spec makes reference to
Flareup and Firestar - I'm assuming that those'll be :
http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/attachment.php?attachmentid=9223
and
http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/attachment.php?attachmentid=9225
respectively. I wonder what those'll be? Hotel exclusives? Just for
sale at the con table? Something else? Hopefully just for sale in a
two pack, nothing too esoteric. Anyway, $6 figure, big thumbs up.
We've also got the new ratchet figure, as reported on TFW2005:
http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/nextnewest79587.html
Conventional wisdom (pun intended) is that this'll be the item
available to Primus pack preregistrants. So, 10 figures, 6 molds.
(Unless the other cyberjets show up as a two pack - then 12 figures, 8
molds.)
Overall I'd say they did a bang-up job with their choices. I'm not a
big fan of Energon toys in general but they made some terrific choices.
Is it 100%? No, but it's pretty damn close.
JimS
Orson "Sidecutter" Christian
news:1124543480....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Try at LEAST 13 figures ;)
We've still got two Arcee repaints (Chromia's tech notes say that she's
keeping an eye on Firestar's sister, Flareup, so Flareup is almost cetainly
the red one we've seen) that are not quite accounted for, plus Ratchet.
That makes 10. Then there's the third variation of Buzzclaw, with blue
libs.
If you look on the box art, there are four of these alongside Dirge and
Buzzclaw to be seen. So there will be a way to get these too. That makes
11.
I'd bet there's another Strongarm in there too someplace (Brawn) which will
make 12.
Then there's the 8th toy. At all the Joe cons so fat, the 8th bonus toy for
attendees has been a mold not used elsewhere, and I don't see why they would
change that part of the template when they've otherwise just ported over the
Joe-con intact for this trial run.
Oh, and for those who don't know, two Buzzclaws, or even Buzzclaw period,
may not have been the original plan. Nor might any of these other molds.
When the conventions want to do these figures, they have to submit a list of
molds they would like to use for each character to Hasbro, who will come
back and tell them which of those molds, if any, are available.
Aaron F. Bourque
> OnslaughtSix wrote:
>
> > Argh.
> >
> > They called the techspecs 'filecards.'
Well, as far as I can tell, the numbers are the only difference, so one
could argue that the numbers *are* the techspecs.
> Yeah, but these are GIJOE nerds, what do you expect? :)
>
> t.k.
>
> (before fans jump on me for this, I was at one time too)
'At one time'?
G. I. Joe kicks ass.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
Lanny Lathem
Goldbug <no...@none.net> wrote:
>
> Look and it's only for adults! Huh?
We were required to have this on the box by Hasbro's legal department.
--
Lanny
Job 19: 23-27
Please visit my GIJOE Web site:
http://members.aol.com/taural7/LannyJoe/LannyJoe.html
Lanny Lathem
"OnslaughtSix" <mew00...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Argh.
>
> They called the techspecs 'filecards.'
Thanks for spotting that. That was my mistake. I had called them
techspec cards orignally, but in my hurry to get the update done, I fell
into old habits. Apologies. It's fixed now.
Lanny Lathem
"David Willis" <wii...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dude, they really fucked this up.
It was complicated. We were pretty far down the road when we found
Moonracer was not cleared by the legal folks. This was indeed intended
to be Moonracer when the deco was done but events conspired against us.
Chromia was something like the 3rd or 4th choice of names. Chromia was
the first on the list to clear. This was a difficult situation and we
made the best of it on this character. It really was quite a pinch
between legal issues, design issues, and timing with Hasbro, Takara and
the factories in China.
The whole process is kind of like a road trip.
I.E. you plan your route. You fill up with gas and check the tires.
On the way, there's a thunderstorm, a detour, a flat tire and misprint
on the map. Despite all your planning, you get there 3 hours late.
It really bites, but you can't control everything as much as you try.
Please understand. This was a complicated problem and not simply a f---
up.
I personally worked some horrendous hours on this set due to the short
start up on the show and other issues that made this a huge time crunch.
Lanny Lathem
Xgriml...@aol.com wrote:
That was the problem exactly.
Lanny Lathem
"Thunder, Agent '005" <dece...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Yeah, but these are GIJOE nerds, what do you expect? :)
I resemble that remark.
:-)
Lanny Lathem
"Orson \"Sidecutter\" Christian" <sidec...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> When the conventions want to do these figures, they have to submit a list of
> molds they would like to use for each character to Hasbro, who will come
> back and tell them which of those molds, if any, are available.
Availability of molds and coordinating that with the character choices
and the storyline for the set is complicated to say the least.
If we had carte blanche access to everything, it would simply the
process a great deal, but things are the way they are in the toy
business.
Lanny Lathem
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.com> wrote:
> 'At one time'?
>
> G. I. Joe kicks ass.
>
> Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
Indeed so.
:-)
Aaron F. Bourque
> In article <N1JNe.267679$_o.197763@attbi_s71>,
> "Orson \"Sidecutter\" Christian" <sidec...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > When the conventions want to do these figures, they have to submit a list of
> > molds they would like to use for each character to Hasbro, who will come
> > back and tell them which of those molds, if any, are available.
>
> Availability of molds and coordinating that with the character choices
> and the storyline for the set is complicated to say the least.
>
> If we had carte blanche access to everything, it would simply the
> process a great deal, but things are the way they are in the toy
> business.
This might only end up complicating things in the long run, but . . .
maybe next year you can get the names approved/finalized first?
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; just a suggestion, if it's
impractical, ignore me.
OnslaughtSix
Lanny Lathem wrote:
> Thanks for spotting that. That was my mistake. I had called them
> techspec cards orignally, but in my hurry to get the update done, I fell
> into old habits. Apologies. It's fixed now.
.....I just want to say that I am appaled.
We actually have somebody who runs the site for the 'Con who *actually*
reads ATT and listens when people point out mistakes.
I thought we'd never see something like this again. Wow. :D
Thylacine 2000
Lanny Lathem wrote:
> In article <none-AB5A2A.1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Goldbug <no...@none.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Look and it's only for adults! Huh?
>
> We were required to have this on the box by Hasbro's legal department.
>
Now that's.... bizarre. This is the same Hasbro that has to
safety-test Alternators and 20thPrime and intended reissues of
Metroplex or Fort Max all for ages 5+. All of the toys within the
Botcon set had previously passed child standards. So.... what, was it
the new head molds that they're not fully confident in? Or perhaps
some arrangement with stores, such that they cannot sell "ordinary"
Transformers to a non-retailer? I'm stumped.
Lanny Lathem
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.com> wrote:
> This might only end up complicating things in the long run, but . . .
> maybe next year you can get the names approved/finalized first?
>
> Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; just a suggestion, if it's
> impractical, ignore me.
Next year we will have more time. Getting things trough legal can be a
drawn our process and this year we had a short start up. We were sort of
forced to 'get going' without some things being final.
Yours is a good suggestion for sure!
Lanny Lathem
"Thylacine 2000" <thytw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Now that's.... bizarre. This is the same Hasbro that has to
> safety-test Alternators and 20thPrime and intended reissues of
> Metroplex or Fort Max all for ages 5+. All of the toys within the
> Botcon set had previously passed child standards. So.... what, was it
> the new head molds that they're not fully confident in? Or perhaps
> some arrangement with stores, such that they cannot sell "ordinary"
> Transformers to a non-retailer? I'm stumped.
When something is 're-manufactured' it still has to pass the same safety
tests as it did the first time around to confirm lead content levels in
the plastic and the paint. This is costly and adds time to the project.
So, based on the fact these toys passed before, they were OK'd with the
stipulation that they be marked as adult collectibles. All the GIJOE
Club exclusives are marked in a similar fashion.
It has nothing to do with any arrangement with retailers.
The U.S. Navy just issued a 12" GIJOE to be sold only through the Navy
Exchange and only to military personnel. That box is marked as "adult
collectible" also.
Lanny Lathem
"OnslaughtSix" <mew00...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> We actually have somebody who runs the site for the 'Con who *actually*
> reads ATT and listens when people point out mistakes.
>
> I thought we'd never see something like this again. Wow. :D
We really are trying VERY hard. It has been a LOT of work putting this
set together. A lot of folks seem to not understand how much is actually
involved in putting together toys for manufacture. It is hard work to
say the least. I'm glad to see some collectors are pleased. I realize it
would be impossible to do anything that everyone would like equally as
well.
It's like the wide variety of restaurants and how varied each
restaurants menu is. We all don't like the same foods or clothes or
drive the same car. It's a wide and varied world full of a plethora of
likes and dislikes.
Even a number one pop song has detractors.
But...we ARE trying.
gem...@tpg.com.au
wrote:
Heh. It's as if we've been relieving stress by taking turns hammering on a
favorite old door marked 'Hasbro', and all of a sudden someone opens it
and says 'Yes?'
I'm just waiting for the equivalent of a collective coronary followed by
'Me? No, I was never hammering on that door the other day, must have been
someone else...' and 'Hey, you wouldn't happen to know anything about this
movie/toy/convention/comic rumor, would you?'
-SteveD
--
"Do you know Aaron Archer? D'you think he'd autograph something for m...
my kid? Yes. My... kid. Who has the same name as me."
David Willis
>
> It was complicated. We were pretty far down the road when we found
> Moonracer was not cleared by the legal folks.
Here's a website you may find useful in the future, when you're in a hurry
and need to find out if a name is available in a pinch:
http://s90690880.onlinehome.us/trademarks/
It's not a lawyer-friendly $700 trademark search, but it may let you know
ahead of time if you're wasting money and time. For instance:
http://s90690880.onlinehome.us/trademarks/uscartoon.html
According to this chart, "Moonracer" is unavailable because "King
Moonracer," a Rudolph the Reindeer toy, is way too close. Kudos to Monzo
for keeping this updated for his own personal amusement. He's weird like
that.
Woulda saved you some money and headache, I think. :)
> This was indeed intended
> to be Moonracer when the deco was done but events conspired against us.
> Chromia was something like the 3rd or 4th choice of names. Chromia was
> the first on the list to clear. This was a difficult situation and we
> made the best of it on this character. It really was quite a pinch
> between legal issues, design issues, and timing with Hasbro, Takara and
> the factories in China.
> I personally worked some horrendous hours on this set due to the short
> start up on the show and other issues that made this a huge time crunch.
Believe me, I have too. :) And I understand. I did some volunteer work for
OTFCC before you folk got the license, and had some really fun 72-hour days.
But it's all worth it in the end when people smile, y'know?
I'm sorry for the harsh words. I think my biggest beef was that the page
itself covered up or didn't acknowledge the mistake. The screencap of
Moonracer was called "chromiaref.jpg," which really led me to believe that
it was not only a mistake, it was a mistake the website was hoping we
wouldn't even notice. Y'know, hoping we don't realize that's not actually
Chromia. No acknowledgement whatsoever! It wasn't until Pete Sinclair, 6
pages into an Allspark thread, posted further info, saying we'd hear more
about it after the show. I'm really disappointed with how this trademark
goof was handled in the wake of the occurence. If I was just a normal
member who didn't read ATT or the Allspark, I'd think you guys were trying
to put one over on me.
I'm glad to hear this is not the case, and I'm especially glad to hear
feedback on it. My harsh words have shamed me!
--David
www.shortpacked.com
Lanny Lathem
"David Willis" <wii...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a website you may find useful in the future, when you're in a hurry
> and need to find out if a name is available in a pinch:
> http://s90690880.onlinehome.us/trademarks/
>
> It's not a lawyer-friendly $700 trademark search, but it may let you know
> ahead of time if you're wasting money and time. For instance:
> http://s90690880.onlinehome.us/trademarks/uscartoon.html
>
> According to this chart, "Moonracer" is unavailable because "King
> Moonracer," a Rudolph the Reindeer toy, is way too close. Kudos to Monzo
> for keeping this updated for his own personal amusement. He's weird like
> that.
>
> Woulda saved you some money and headache, I think. :)
It may well have. I'm not sure if those resources were used or not, but
I'll pass those links on for sure and find out! Thanks so much!
Starshadow
news:LannyL7-9535D2...@nntp.charter.net...
<snip>
> It's like the wide variety of restaurants and how varied each
> restaurants menu is. We all don't like the same foods or clothes or
> drive the same car. It's a wide and varied world full of a plethora of
> likes and dislikes.
>
> Even a number one pop song has detractors.
>
> But...we ARE trying.
Words of wisdom. Couldn't have put it better myself. :-)
As long as the effort is put out, the majority of people will recognize it.
There will always be that small group who never quite seem to be happy with
anything that is done, but I would encourage you to listen to what they have
to say taken with a HUGE grain of salt. I believe that the attitude
expressed above is the correct and healthy one, and I hope that you and the
other members of Master Collector will stick with it.
*****Starshadow*****
Thunder, Agent '005
>>(before fans jump on me for this, I was at one time too)
>
>
> 'At one time'?
>
> G. I. Joe kicks ass.
>
They're still cool but I've stopped collecting them. I've only got so
much time and money... :)
t.k.
Thunder, Agent '005
> It was complicated. We were pretty far down the road when we found
> Moonracer was not cleared by the legal folks. This was indeed intended
> to be Moonracer when the deco was done but events conspired against us.
> Chromia was something like the 3rd or 4th choice of names. Chromia was
> the first on the list to clear. This was a difficult situation and we
> made the best of it on this character. It really was quite a pinch
> between legal issues, design issues, and timing with Hasbro, Takara and
> the factories in China.
Irregardless, I think you guys did a good job with what you had and the
time you had to do it in... the set, as-is, is more then acceptable to
the majority of us.
t.k.
jimso...@gmail.com
Lanny Lathem wrote:
> In article <1124570053....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > This might only end up complicating things in the long run, but . . .
> > maybe next year you can get the names approved/finalized first?
> >
> > Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; just a suggestion, if it's
> > impractical, ignore me.
>
>
> Next year we will have more time. Getting things trough legal can be a
> drawn our process and this year we had a short start up. We were sort of
> forced to 'get going' without some things being final.
>
> Yours is a good suggestion for sure!
>
> --
> Lanny
Well, despite the short start I'm very very pleased with the result.
Lanny, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts and
clarifications. You'll find that it's impossible to please all of the
trans-fans all of the time, but I think the majority'll come around.
JimS