Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store

Details subject to change. See listing for latest price and availability.
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Only the Predacons' and the Autobot Brothers' character models aren't as block as the G1 character models. Everyone else is pretty G1 model blocky.![]()
again, I dont agree.The Bullet train team isint very blocky, nor was the build team all that blocky.
the spychangers,Fort max and the Decepticons are blocky.
RhA wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Only the Predacons' and the Autobot Brothers' character models aren't as block as the G1 character models. Everyone else is pretty G1 model blocky.![]()
again, I dont agree.The Bullet train team isint very blocky, nor was the build team all that blocky.
the spychangers,Fort max and the Decepticons are blocky.
Blocky, not bricky. And come on, team bullet train transforms in to blocks.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:RhA wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Only the Predacons' and the Autobot Brothers' character models aren't as block as the G1 character models. Everyone else is pretty G1 model blocky.![]()
again, I dont agree.The Bullet train team isint very blocky, nor was the build team all that blocky.
the spychangers,Fort max and the Decepticons are blocky.
Blocky, not bricky. And come on, team bullet train transforms in to blocks.
I just dont agree
RhA wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:RhA wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Only the Predacons' and the Autobot Brothers' character models aren't as block as the G1 character models. Everyone else is pretty G1 model blocky.![]()
again, I dont agree.The Bullet train team isint very blocky, nor was the build team all that blocky.
the spychangers,Fort max and the Decepticons are blocky.
Blocky, not bricky. And come on, team bullet train transforms in to blocks.
I just dont agree
Maybe it's a matter of definition? By 'blocky' I mean toys that are composed of simple geometric figures; sqaures, rectangles, triangles. That does not exclude poseability, some very blocky figures are very flexible (Generations Mirage, RiD Grimlock). Bricks are toys with a very limited range of movement, such as Energon Wingsaber, Overload and the bulk of G1 figures.
This makes team bullet train into three bricks in vehicle mode.
At least, that's how I see it.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:RhA wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:RhA wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Only the Predacons' and the Autobot Brothers' character models aren't as block as the G1 character models. Everyone else is pretty G1 model blocky.![]()
again, I dont agree.The Bullet train team isint very blocky, nor was the build team all that blocky.
the spychangers,Fort max and the Decepticons are blocky.
Blocky, not bricky. And come on, team bullet train transforms in to blocks.
I just dont agree
Maybe it's a matter of definition? By 'blocky' I mean toys that are composed of simple geometric figures; sqaures, rectangles, triangles. That does not exclude poseability, some very blocky figures are very flexible (Generations Mirage, RiD Grimlock). Bricks are toys with a very limited range of movement, such as Energon Wingsaber, Overload and the bulk of G1 figures.
This makes team bullet train into three bricks in vehicle mode.
At least, that's how I see it.
alt modes dont normally factor into by view of "blocky" because they are [normally] designed to resemble, at least in part, real worlds vehicles,objects.
So, maybe team bullet train looks a bit [or a lot] rectangular as trains, but really, what would you expect trains to look like?
RhA wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:RhA wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:RhA wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Only the Predacons' and the Autobot Brothers' character models aren't as block as the G1 character models. Everyone else is pretty G1 model blocky.![]()
again, I dont agree.The Bullet train team isint very blocky, nor was the build team all that blocky.
the spychangers,Fort max and the Decepticons are blocky.
Blocky, not bricky. And come on, team bullet train transforms in to blocks.
I just dont agree
Maybe it's a matter of definition? By 'blocky' I mean toys that are composed of simple geometric figures; sqaures, rectangles, triangles. That does not exclude poseability, some very blocky figures are very flexible (Generations Mirage, RiD Grimlock). Bricks are toys with a very limited range of movement, such as Energon Wingsaber, Overload and the bulk of G1 figures.
This makes team bullet train into three bricks in vehicle mode.
At least, that's how I see it.
alt modes dont normally factor into by view of "blocky" because they are [normally] designed to resemble, at least in part, real worlds vehicles,objects.
So, maybe team bullet train looks a bit [or a lot] rectangular as trains, but really, what would you expect trains to look like?
Blocky in robotmode, like bricks in vehicle mode. I never said this is a problem, I just defined my argument.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
RhA wrote:Okay, so what's not blocky about it? Simply saying that you don't agree isn't going to learn me anything about your views.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:RhA wrote:Okay, so what's not blocky about it? Simply saying that you don't agree isn't going to learn me anything about your views.
I dont think I can "teach" anything about my view on the topic.
Maybe its just like you suggested,that they are more flexible/poseable then what I consider "blocky figures"
Tidalwavex wrote:Blocky doesn't refer to limited poseability. it refers to TF toys designs with square parts or rectangular parts, example: 1984 Optimus primes robot chest cab windows,their basically 2 blocky designed Square shapes.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Tidalwavex wrote:Blocky doesn't refer to limited poseability. it refers to TF toys designs with square parts or rectangular parts, example: 1984 Optimus primes robot chest cab windows,their basically 2 blocky designed Square shapes.
I guess its a matter of opinion, because to me, Blocky does refer to limited poseability, a a design that prohibits the possibility of poseability.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Tidalwavex wrote:Blocky doesn't refer to limited poseability. it refers to TF toys designs with square parts or rectangular parts, example: 1984 Optimus primes robot chest cab windows,their basically 2 blocky designed Square shapes.
I guess its a matter of opinion, because to me, Blocky does refer to limited poseability, a a design that prohibits the possibility of poseability.
Then what do you consider "Bricky"?
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Tidalwavex wrote:Blocky doesn't refer to limited poseability. it refers to TF toys designs with square parts or rectangular parts, example: 1984 Optimus primes robot chest cab windows,their basically 2 blocky designed Square shapes.
I guess its a matter of opinion, because to me, Blocky does refer to limited poseability, a a design that prohibits the possibility of poseability.
Then what do you consider "Bricky"?
to me, bricky and blocky are the same thing.
for examples, look to power master optimus or star Convoy.
RhA wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Tidalwavex wrote:Blocky doesn't refer to limited poseability. it refers to TF toys designs with square parts or rectangular parts, example: 1984 Optimus primes robot chest cab windows,their basically 2 blocky designed Square shapes.
I guess its a matter of opinion, because to me, Blocky does refer to limited poseability, a a design that prohibits the possibility of poseability.
Then what do you consider "Bricky"?
to me, bricky and blocky are the same thing.
for examples, look to power master optimus or star Convoy.
Full circle, we're talking personal definitions again.
I don't think Stovokor is wrong, though. We just use different words to describe the same thing.
Funny how something which we understand the same gets complicated through the one thing we use to communicate our thoughts.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Okay, then what term do you use to refer to the squareness/rectangularness of the TF body parts? Would that be "Boxy"? Or would "Boxy" also be a synonym of "Bricky"?
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
The body parts collectively as a whole, I mean. And in regards to just their shape, rather than articulation.sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Okay, then what term do you use to refer to the squareness/rectangularness of the TF body parts? Would that be "Boxy"? Or would "Boxy" also be a synonym of "Bricky"?
if by body part you mean, like a shoulder or upper leg, then blocky,bricky and boxy all apply, but I would specify the part I'm talking about and not refer to the entire figure.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:The body parts collectively as a whole, I mean. And in regards to just their shape, rather than articulation.sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Okay, then what term do you use to refer to the squareness/rectangularness of the TF body parts? Would that be "Boxy"? Or would "Boxy" also be a synonym of "Bricky"?
if by body part you mean, like a shoulder or upper leg, then blocky,bricky and boxy all apply, but I would specify the part I'm talking about and not refer to the entire figure.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
But I'm asking about the whole figure itself, not just its individual body parts.sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:The body parts collectively as a whole, I mean. And in regards to just their shape, rather than articulation.sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Okay, then what term do you use to refer to the squareness/rectangularness of the TF body parts? Would that be "Boxy"? Or would "Boxy" also be a synonym of "Bricky"?
if by body part you mean, like a shoulder or upper leg, then blocky,bricky and boxy all apply, but I would specify the part I'm talking about and not refer to the entire figure.
well, like I said, I would specify the part, and choose any of the 3 words.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:But I'm asking about the whole figure itself, not just its individual body parts.sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:The body parts collectively as a whole, I mean. And in regards to just their shape, rather than articulation.sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:Okay, then what term do you use to refer to the squareness/rectangularness of the TF body parts? Would that be "Boxy"? Or would "Boxy" also be a synonym of "Bricky"?
if by body part you mean, like a shoulder or upper leg, then blocky,bricky and boxy all apply, but I would specify the part I'm talking about and not refer to the entire figure.
well, like I said, I would specify the part, and choose any of the 3 words.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
I'm not asking about poseability. I'm asking about SHAPE! Since you apply all those other terms to refer to poseability, what term then do you use to refer to the body shape of a TF who has very rectangular/square body parts?sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:as a whole, if the firure has great poseability, I dont consider it blocky or what ever word you would like to apply.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:I'm not asking about poseability. I'm asking about SHAPE! Since you apply all those other terms to refer to poseability, what term then do you use to refer to the body shape of a TF who has very rectangular/square body parts?sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:as a whole, if the firure has great poseability, I dont consider it blocky or what ever word you would like to apply.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
Return to Transformers General Discussion
Registered users: agg23, ashe5k, Aubreybot, Bing [Bot], Galvatronus Prime, Glyph, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSN [Bot], Overcracker, Quautobot, shabanowitz, snavej, sprockitz, SupersonicShockwave, Till-all-R1, victori, vintron, Yahoo [Bot], Ziusundra