The Energon Pub

Sabrblade wrote:

TK415 wrote:The comic advertises/represents the toy, the toy came first, not the other way around. Masterpiece toys are the exception, in these cases the toy tries as hard as possible to look like the media. Most of the time it is the media that works to look like the toy. The media can and does embellish or look different from the toy. G1 Cartoon Optimus sure looked a lot better than his toy (though the toy was pretty nice). Transformers Prime and CW Prime media both look better than their toy counter parts. Comic Megatron looks better than toy Megatron.

This... is a touchy subject, given the examples you gave.

While you are right on the money with Victorion and G1 Optimus having had their toy designs created first, with their fiction designs coming second and being modeled after their toy designs, more recent years have seen a lot more of the opposite cases happen with toy designs coming second, being modeled after fiction designs. Most of these kinda of cases that occurred in mainstream format were for all the Movie lines, Animated, Prime, RID 2015, certain Generations, and certain Rescue Bots. For the examples you listed, the TF: Prime designs were show first, toys second, Combiner Wars were mostly toys first, comic second, and Megatron's Leader class toy belongs to neither case since its design is unrelated to his comic body's design.

Alright, fair enough, I was wrong on a few of those, thank you for the clarification Sabrblade (no sarcasm on my part at all), I do want things to be correct.

It is interesting how more Transformers are being model after the media. Even when they are modeled after the media, the media still typically looks better since it is media and not a affordable kids toy.

I am confused about Megatron. Sabrblade, you are much more knowledgeable and read than I am about Transformers (and I’m fairly knowledgeable, but you still far exceed me), I am a year or two behind in the comics reading. I haven’t seen Autobot Megatron yet. But from images on the internet, they sure look close enough (for Hasbro) in robot mode. Megatron toy and IDW MTMTE Megatron, both have treads on legs and on back, both have similar torsos. I am not trying to argue with you, really what am I missing? They seem pretty similar. I wouldn’t be surprised if their alt modes were a bit different, but we’ve seen that before.

TK415 wrote:I am confused about Megatron. Sabrblade, you are much more knowledgeable and read than I am about Transformers (and I’m fairly knowledgeable, but you still far exceed me), I am a year or two behind in the comics reading. I haven’t seen Autobot Megatron yet. But from images on the internet, they sure look close enough (for Hasbro) in robot mode. Megatron toy and IDW MTMTE Megatron, both have treads on legs and on back, both have similar torsos. I am not trying to argue with you, really what am I missing? They seem pretty similar. I wouldn’t be surprised if their alt modes were a bit different, but we’ve seen that before.

This is Megatron's current IDW body (his fifth one total), and is the body that he had when the Leader class toy was first announced:


Though it does seem to turn into a tank, it is quite different from the look and shape of the Leader toy, which hews more towards the classic G1 look in a modern form:



Though, there do seem to be some rudimentary similarities between the look of the Leader toy and Megatron's fourth body, but as that body was also adhering to the classic G1 look in a modern form (in its own way, though):

-Kanrabat- wrote:

fenrir72 wrote:Heck, we don't even have Blastoff as a shuttle or Vortex as a Hin-D.Not to mention we might hear all sorts of protests if we DO get limbbots having an hour glass shape torso perpetrating the sexy stereotype and causing "great anguish" to the morbidly obese segment of the population......ain't the grievance industry grand?

These women LOVE to complain when the "perfect female" is used in advertisemnt and such... The irony is, each time marketeers tried to please them with an "average is beautiful" campain, said campain failed miserably. Same thing with movies and games. Who sell more? A perfect looking hero/heroine, or just an average shmoe?

In fantasyland, and even in marketing, we don't want the dreadful day-to-day life. Whe we see a hero, we want to BE that hero or we want to mate with him/her. You look at an average bozo in the mirror everyday. When you dream, you dream yourself to be ideal, not average. And in your fantasies, who you want to do it with? Something unremarkable, or something special and perfect?

Social Justice Warriors have nice politically correct intentions to want to replace fantasy by realism in entertainment and marketing media. The only thing they refuse to understand is they cannot overwrite millions of years of evolution in human nature.

Kanrabat, you are correct that marketing gets more attention with very attractive people. However, I like to see movies with strong actors, I am no more inclined to see a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise movie than a Ben Kingsley or Edward Norton movie. I want to see an amazing actor not the buffest or handsomest actor. Same goes for women, I am more interested in a strong actress than a pretty one.

Sometimes it isn’t about being politically correct. I have seen and read about way too many people (both men and women), being disrespected, discriminated against, abused, or simply not valued, because of how they were born. I love fantasy, but I don’t need or want my fantasy to be filled with idealized models. While a sexy actress may catch my attention, the more evolved part of my brain (millions of years of evolution in fact) has more interest in story and character. You’re right, our brains are hardwired to pay attention to physically attractive bodies, but your statement ignores millions of years of cultural and societal evolution that has also changed our biology. Companionship and monogamy are more dominant in the world than polygamy and promiscuity.

A lot of Indie movies, European movies and shows, and Asian movies cast normal looking actors (actor meaning male or female). Mainstream Hollywood has the habit of casting the model actors. Not everyone in society wants to see the model actors all the time. I just don’t want only one type of person in media, and capitalism has shown this idea to be supported.

-Kanrabat- wrote: In fantasyland, and even in marketing, we don't want the dreadful day-to-day life. Whe we see a hero, we want to BE that hero or we want to mate with him/her. You look at an average bozo in the mirror everyday. When you dream, you dream yourself to be ideal, not average. And in your fantasies, who you want to do it with? Something unremarkable, or something special and perfect?

I don’t dream to be some “ideal,” I love me. Everyday all day. Sure I’d take some super powers, but I still wouldn’t be anyone else but me. I am a high school teacher and I have seen young women, and close personal friends, feel less-than because of the women they see in the media. All I am saying is I like the Vic team as much as I like Arcee, Windbade, and Chromia. Hasbro can make curvy Transformers but please don’t exclude the Vic team. If people don’t like them fine, don’t buy them, but I am real happy that they are there.

Regarding the pictures that you posted. If you hide the face on all of the ladies that have some type of suit on then you can’t tell if they are male or female until you see their faces, that makes my point exactly.

You and I can disagree. You can watch all of the sexy actresses in movies that you want. I just don’t want all of the female Transformers to be one type of female body type.

I will be happy to stop the political/social discussion and get back to discussing Transformers and toys.

TK415 wrote:Kanrabat, you are correct that marketing gets more attention with very attractive people. However, I like to see movies with strong actors, I am no more inclined to see a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise movie than a Ben Kingsley or Edward Norton movie. I want to see an amazing actor not the buffest or handsomest actor. Same goes for women, I am more interested in a strong actress than a pretty one.

So... Brad Pit and Tom Cruise are "normal and average" looking in the movies, right?

-Kanrabat- wrote:

TK415 wrote:Kanrabat, you are correct that marketing gets more attention with very attractive people. However, I like to see movies with strong actors, I am no more inclined to see a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise movie than a Ben Kingsley or Edward Norton movie. I want to see an amazing actor not the buffest or handsomest actor. Same goes for women, I am more interested in a strong actress than a pretty one.

So... Brad Pit and Tom Cruise are "normal and average" looking in the movies, right?

No offense TK415......you are of the minority. Really now. See MTV, Hollywood mainstream? That's were all the cash is made. They use sl*ts like Miley Cyrus to sell gunk and junk.Jessica Alba, Grande donut girl and the Sport Illustrated cover gals as an example, each reperesenting unachievable role models who look too perfect to be real.

Indie films? That's why it's called indie........not mainstream. They cater to a niche segment (TFs I'd grant you also was a niche segment, just like Star Trek) but it's the mainstream where cash is made.

This statement btw is focused on the analogy you used. As per K's statement, he's just being practical and realistic. Make the product look nicer like putting lipstick on a pig. And the suckers customers will come. Sales and marketing 101.

Me? Aside from the painful color palette not too bothered. If TT can fix this? Fine. If not, well, me no buy her.

fenrir72 wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:

TK415 wrote:Kanrabat, you are correct that marketing gets more attention with very attractive people. However, I like to see movies with strong actors, I am no more inclined to see a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise movie than a Ben Kingsley or Edward Norton movie. I want to see an amazing actor not the buffest or handsomest actor. Same goes for women, I am more interested in a strong actress than a pretty one.

So... Brad Pit and Tom Cruise are "normal and average" looking in the movies, right?

No offense TK415......you are of the minority. Really now. See MTV, Hollywood mainstream? That's were all the cash is made. They use sl*ts like Miley Cyrus to sell gunk and junk.Jessica Alba, Grande donut girl and the Sport Illustrated cover gals as an example, each reperesenting unachievable role models who look too perfect to be real.

Indie films? That's why it's called indie........not mainstream. They cater to a niche segment (TFs I'd grant you also was a niche segment, just like Star Trek) but it's the mainstream where cash is made.

This statement btw is focused on the analogy you used. As per K's statement, he's just being practical and realistic. Make the product look nicer like putting lipstick on a pig. And the suckers customers will come. Sales and marketing 101.

Me? Aside from the painful color palette not too bothered. If TT can fix this? Fine. If not, well, me no buy her.

I was about to post something similar, but you beat me to it, Fen.

Totally agreed.

Pretty things sell; that's why the Bay movies raked in so much money despite the mediocre story lines, average acting and toilet humor. Kickass robots that transform into (mostly) kickass vehicles, pretty girls in sexy clothes, lots of flashy action.

And for the teenage girl audience, there's Twilight with their shirtless werewolf dudes and brooding male model vampires.

I think we're getting to a stalemate situation were it is best to agree to disagree, so how about we see how victorion does when it hits the shelves. Afterall this is all down to business decisions at the end of the day (not spending more money to further retool the moulds) so once she's released we'll see if it's a bad business decision or not.

Fenir, there's still no certainty that takara will release her but then again they did release windblade so who knows.

ZeroWolf wrote:Fenir, there's still no certainty that takara will release her but then again they did release windblade so who knows.

And I'd like to see a bunch of 4Koma mangas that goes with the girls. Each one will feature a fembot that is now waaaaaaayyyyyy more curvy than the toy, with a personality to match a kawai-desu-ne cliche archetype. It will be made in a very parody way as usual.

There will be:

The tsundere.
The yandere.
The rich French girl who laugh in "Diah ha ha hah ha!"
The airhaid.
The slot.
The home-waifu.
And the giant combiner will be the girliest girl to ever be girly.

There have been at least 3 debates in this thread's history about what makes a female transformer a REAL female transformer, how it should look, what it means to be female or male in the fiction, and in toys. Ultimately nobody's mind changes and everybody just moves on to another point of discussion.

For my part, I don't think that the Torchbearers look like men with women's heads. They look like women, women we haven't often seen depicted in mainstream Transformers toylines or fiction. The molds aren't super ultra feminine, but I do wonder if a lot of the "men with lipstick" comments are because we know these were originally molds for male characters. I know someone commented a few pages back that their niece or daughter made a similar observation without that context, so I will grant that it's not 100% due to a subconscious prejudice towards male molds being used as female characters, but I'm sure it counts for something.

That Bot wrote:There have been at least 3 debates in this thread's history about what makes a female transformer a REAL female transformer, how it should look, what it means to be female or male in the fiction, and in toys. Ultimately nobody's mind changes and everybody just moves on to another point of discussion.

For my part, I don't think that the Torchbearers look like men with women's heads. They look like women, women we haven't often seen depicted in mainstream Transformers toylines or fiction. The molds aren't super ultra feminine, but I do wonder if a lot of the "men with lipstick" comments are because we know these were originally molds for male characters. I know someone commented a few pages back that their niece or daughter made a similar observation without that context, so I will grant that it's not 100% due to a subconscious prejudice towards male molds being used as female characters, but I'm sure it counts for something.

It surprises me that nobody has pointed this out about the Warrior Strongarm mold, and how it got effortlessly repainted into Greejeeber (male character) by takara in the TAV line.

I didn't even realise that the strong arm mould had been repainted already.

@kana victorion can't be more girly girl than orbital frame Dolores from the Zone of the Enders anime series if you haven't seen it, I heartily recommend it

ZeroWolf wrote:@kana victorion can't be more girly girl than orbital frame Dolores from the Zone of the Enders anime series if you haven't seen it, I heartily recommend it

Except for a rather "distinctive" pilot compartment intrinsic to all ZOE mechs.

-Kanrabat- wrote:

ZeroWolf wrote:Fenir, there's still no certainty that takara will release her but then again they did release windblade so who knows.

And I'd like to see a bunch of 4Koma mangas that goes with the girls. Each one will feature a fembot that is now waaaaaaayyyyyy more curvy than the toy, with a personality to match a kawai-desu-ne cliche archetype. It will be made in a very parody way as usual.

There will be:

The tsundere.
The yandere.
The rich French girl who laugh in "Diah ha ha hah ha!"
The airhaid.
The slot.
The home-waifu.
And the giant combiner will be the girliest girl to ever be girly.

No need for mangas K. Even the instruction manuals of the 3 TT fembots were hilarious enough.

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

ZeroWolf wrote:@kana victorion can't be more girly girl than orbital frame Dolores from the Zone of the Enders anime series if you haven't seen it, I heartily recommend it

Except for a rather "distinctive" pilot compartment intrinsic to all ZOE mechs.

So much disturbing erm... 'fanart' exists involving that 'cockpit'

MemphisR56 wrote:

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:

ZeroWolf wrote:@kana victorion can't be more girly girl than orbital frame Dolores from the Zone of the Enders anime series if you haven't seen it, I heartily recommend it

Except for a rather "distinctive" pilot compartment intrinsic to all ZOE mechs.

So much disturbing erm... 'fanart' exists involving that 'cockpit'

That Bot wrote:There have been at least 3 debates in this thread's history about what makes a female transformer a REAL female transformer, how it should look, what it means to be female or male in the fiction, and in toys. Ultimately nobody's mind changes and everybody just moves on to another point of discussion.

For my part, I don't think that the Torchbearers look like men with women's heads. They look like women, women we haven't often seen depicted in mainstream Transformers toylines or fiction. The molds aren't super ultra feminine, but I do wonder if a lot of the "men with lipstick" comments are because we know these were originally molds for male characters. I know someone commented a few pages back that their niece or daughter made a similar observation without that context, so I will grant that it's not 100% due to a subconscious prejudice towards male molds being used as female characters, but I'm sure it counts for something.

The reverse is true on this as well. How many of us see female bots simply because we were told ahead of time they would be female? I know that's the category I fell into.

I see female bots because I see female heads...

@Memphis we can thank kojima for signing off on those designs...I mean really...what a place for the pilot to sit. Plus I like the pictures of her in the dress better but seriously it's why I'm super careful what I look for on Google images...

One really has to wonder what Yoji Shinkawa was thinking when he decided to put it there.

All his other mech designs have pretty consistently put the cockpit inside a massively oversized head (Metal Gear REX, RAY, Shagohod etc).



I just see females because we've been told they're females.

Women come in all shapes and sizes, gents. You have to appreciate the female form in all it's permutations. Besides the fact that not every woman turns into a big rectangular vehicle form, I'm sure we can make some kibble allowances for those broad shoulders.

They don't look female to me. They're just too blocky. Only one even has a head that, if I saw it without knowledge of who Victorion is supposed to be, would tell me she's female. I know that's not the PC answer for these boards, but that's how I see 'em.

When TFs start repainting the Arcee and Windblade moulds into male characters I'll give equal weight to leaving expectations at the door for repainted male moulds.

I am new to seibertron so please don't get made at me for messing up.

Ok so let me start off by saying this, I love victorion period

When I first saw her in the USA today Comic preview, I said, " damn "
simple as that, and I felt the figure would be just like that.

It was, but not completely, I had hoped that, the comic combiner head would be on the figure as well, but it's not, I do not like the head as I do the comic, it's two completely different heads and I hope it's not on the final product.

When images at sdcc were being uploaded, I saw unfinished products, they had paint chips all over them, and paint smudge all over them as well, then when I went on a hunt to find the comic pictures shown in their video a sdcc, I discovered they aren't finished.

I looked at stormclash and skyburst and saw on the comic, their suppose to have more teal on the chest/combiner peg.

My final say on victorion is this, I want the comic head of victorion and a more finished paint job on all the figures.



















http://baiku.tumblr.com/post/123857674145/screencaps-of-victorions-sdcc-video-includes

They ARE females, but I at least want them to be finished and look at little more like the comic, because that what made me love them, the comic.

I am new to seibertron so please don't get made at me for messing up.

Ok so let me start off by saying this, I love victorion period

When I first saw her in the USA today Comic preview, I said, " damn "
simple as that, and I felt the figure would be just like that.

It was, but not completely, I had hoped that, the comic combiner head would be on the figure as well, but it's not, I do not like the head as I do the comic, it's two completely different heads and I hope it's not on the final product.

When images at sdcc were being uploaded, I saw unfinished products, they had paint chips all over them, and paint smudge all over them as well, then when I went on a hunt to find the comic pictures shown in their video a sdcc, I discovered they aren't finished.

I looked at stormclash and skyburst and saw on the comic, their suppose to have more teal on the chest/combiner peg.

My final say on victorion is this, I want the comic head of victorion and a more finished paint job on all the figures.



















http://baiku.tumblr.com/post/123857674145/screencaps-of-victorions-sdcc-video-includes

They ARE females, but I at least want them to be finished and look at little more like the comic, because that what made me love them, the comic.

MemphisR56 wrote:It surprises me that nobody has pointed this out about the Warrior Strongarm mold, and how it got effortlessly repainted into Greejeeber (male character) by takara in the TAV line.

Effortlessly? Maybe in the sense that Takara put almost no effort into that repaint, lol. Despite Greejeeber (or Gregevor, if you will) being a male character, the figure still reads as female to me, particularly because the face was not at all resculpted. He's got some pouty lips and a slender jaw. It really is all in the face.

Consider, for a moment, drag queens. They will tell you that the magic of female impersonation is all in the face make-up. Yes, curves in strategic places help, but you're never going to fall for the "illusion" if the face doesn't match expectations.

Wolfman Jake wrote:Consider, for a moment, drag queens. They will tell you that the magic of female impersonation is all in the face make-up. Yes, curves in strategic places help, but you're never going to fall for the "illusion" if the face doesn't match expectations.

Having a gender-neutral body, as in nothing explicitly pointing to either gender, really helps out in that. Think muscles vs. curves.

Looks like you guys aren’t going to change my mind and I’m not going to influence you. No problem let’s move along. But don’t misquote me.

-Kanrabat- wrote:

TK415 wrote:Kanrabat, you are correct that marketing gets more attention with very attractive people. However, I like to see movies with strong actors, I am no more inclined to see a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise movie than a Ben Kingsley or Edward Norton movie. I want to see an amazing actor not the buffest or handsomest actor. Same goes for women, I am more interested in a strong actress than a pretty one.

So... Brad Pit and Tom Cruise are "normal and average" looking in the movies, right?

No, my point was Brad Pitt and Cruise are two of the most handsome actors in Hollywood. They get the biggest films and make the most money. Edward Norton, Kingsley, Greg Kinear, Sandler, Kevin James, Jeff Daniels, Owen Wilson, Nick Cage, Jessie Eisenberg, Chris Walken, John C Reilly, Will Ferrell, and Sean Penn, are not ultra handsome but are all great actors. (I think those can be agreed upon, I am not going to debate the attractiveness of female actors). I don’t like a movie better because it has Cruise in it over the other listed actors.

fenrir72 wrote:No offense TK415......you are of the minority. Really now. See MTV, Hollywood mainstream? That's were all the cash is made.

Indie films? That's why it's called indie........not mainstream. They cater to a niche segment (TFs I'd grant you also was a niche segment, just like Star Trek) but it's the mainstream where cash is made.

This statement btw is focused on the analogy you used. As per K's statement, he's just being practical and realistic. Make the product look nicer like putting lipstick on a pig. And the suckers customers will come. Sales and marketing 101.

Me? Aside from the painful color palette not too bothered. If TT can fix this? Fine. If not, well, me no buy her.

No offense taken, I appreciate your level headedness. I am aware of what you are talking about, I fully get the difference between Indie and mainstream. Like 95% of singers are very attractive. I get that the mainstream makes money and uses the most attractive actors and singers. My point was that I don’t desire 100% of people in movies or Transformer toys to look like models. Indie films make up 35% of domestic sales, the minority for sure, but still a significant portion, and one that does make money. If the market demands 70% curvy female Transformers that is fine, just don’t make it 100%. Even when something is mainstream it can celebrate diversity and doesn’t have to reinforce stereotypes. Star Trek had a very diverse cast decades ago, and now that it is mainstream it still has a diverse cast. That helps make society better.

SKYWARPED_128 wrote:Totally agreed.

Pretty things sell; that's why the Bay movies raked in so much money despite the mediocre story lines, average acting and toilet humor. Kickass robots that transform into (mostly) kickass vehicles, pretty girls in sexy clothes, lots of flashy action.

And for the teenage girl audience, there's Twilight with their shirtless werewolf dudes and brooding male model vampires.

Hey, man, no problem. But that is not 100% of media. Sure it is the majority, I watched every Transformer movie and enjoyed them all, I enjoy that type of film. But I watch other types of movies as well. All I am saying is that it is a good thing to have the Vic team. They either have different body types or they are in suits of armor. Not everyone has to love it, but don’t say that they shouldn’t be made that way.

ZeroWolf wrote:I think we're getting to a stalemate situation were it is best to agree to disagree

I am fine with this. I just don’t want to be misquoted or misunderstood.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

Wolfman Jake wrote:Consider, for a moment, drag queens. They will tell you that the magic of female impersonation is all in the face make-up. Yes, curves in strategic places help, but you're never going to fall for the "illusion" if the face doesn't match expectations.

Having a gender-neutral body, as in nothing explicitly pointing to either gender, really helps out in that. Think muscles vs. curves.

Yes, that helps, but my point is again that the face really makes or breaks the look. You can pad out a chest and hips all you want, but if the face reads masculine, the whole body reads "man with curves" instead of "woman with masculine face." Even with a gender-neutral body structure, professional drag queens will tell you there is a world of difference with face make-up between reading "femme" and "boy." There is a reason why, evolutionarily, we are drawn to each other's faces first and foremost. We remember faces very keenly, and even as infants, we recognize a face versus a non-face, and the faces of our family members and caretakers. We put a LOT of mental stock in recognizing one another by face, and much less so by body structure.