The Energon Pub

So...
I wasn't gonna get Siege/Earthrise Astrotrain.

The bot mode looked amazeballs.
The choo-Choo was chuggin!
But... That shuttle mode...
More specifically
The back half of the shuttle mode.



WTnumerousF!?

Did they do a parts count, or a plastic weigh, or some other mystic calculus
and just desire it was enough?
What happened here?
It unfinished
Incomplete
Non-aerodynamic
Insane

His freakin junk and his space booty
Is just... Hangin out there, being ugly, forbthe whole universe to gawk at!


But
Butt
I bought it anyway.

*sigh*

I really wanna like him.
Hopefully, someone somewhere will see the same thing
And make a patch
Or an add on kit...

Hopefully.

The real problem is the front half. It's a lot fatter than the rear because of the train kibble; without that, the spots where the rear isn't as smooth wouldn't be nearly as noticeable. There rear being less smooth and having a couple gaps is necessary for transformation.

That being said, they could maybe have made things smoother if he had a toy-accurate chest. But not a guarantee.

It just needs an add on

That can be removed as a shield for bot mode.

(I knew I should have gotten a 3d printer when I had the opportunity)

Never knew this now i can't unsee it. He looks like his back half got blasted hit by a asteroid field and spat out of several black holes.

Yeah, that shuttle mode has gotta be the worst shuttle on any Astrotrain ever. It's what kept me as a "maybe" for so long.

ZeldaTheSwordsman wrote:The real problem is the front half.

No. Just, no. The real problem is that they wasted time, effort, and resources on that 100% unnecessary tender/base section, but couldn’t be bother to put just a tiny bit of extra effort into the actual figure. Hell, even a partsforming cover that turns into a shield would have been far more acceptable.

1. I said the real issue was the front because I don't think the faults with the back would be nearly as noticeable if not for the front half being so much fatter (which draws attention to the smoothness there) than it because of the train mode kibble. But thinking about it, that was still wrong. It's not the real, real issue, it's what rips the wallpaper off the main issue (which I'll get to).
2. I reiterate my opinion that the tender is an entirely necessary thing that the 1986 Astrotrain toy was incomplete for not having, and I think the crawler/launch base is a better shuttle-mode use than covering the rear of the shuttle (which they did put effort into, as shown by details like the vents).
3. The tender has nothing to do with the back end's appearance flaws anyway. His back end would look just as flawed, maybe even worse, if he'd been made as a tenderless Voyager. Why? There are two factors in the appearance of the back: One is the fact that Astrotrain's arms have to tuck in there, and they're bulkier relative to the rest of him than those of the 1986 toy. The other one, and the one more damaging to the looks, is their insistence on giving Astrotrain a cartoon-accurate (in his case, wrong) chest.
See, part of Astrotrain's original design is that the shuttle tailfin is supposed to slide down and split open to give him a chesplate:

But the animation model neglected that step, and was drawn based on his toy with the fin tucked in, and stylized it beyond that, so it looks like this:

Since they decided to go with the cartoon chest, and the back of the shuttle becomes his torso in robot mode, it ends up taking a hit in the looks department to accommodate that chest (because of how it has to fold up).
The Titans Return version did accommodate the cartoon chest more cleanly, but A. that one cheats by moving the wings to the top of the shuttle mode and B. That one also doesn't bother tucking the arms away.

If they'd kept the chest more faithful to the original toy (as the Classics figure did), I'm fairly sure the rear of the shuttle would have been smoother up top.

So IMO the kit we need is not some partsforming shield/cover, but a replacement for the stupid smegging cartoon chest. My desire for cartoon accuracy does not extend to dumbed-down details or to animation model snafus. Deliberate, thought-out changes like color differences or Bumblebee having a face? Yes. Snafus like Astrotrain's chest or everything about the Combaticons but their heads? Not so much.

ZeldaTheSwordsman wrote:The real problem is the front half. It's a lot fatter than the rear because of the train kibble; without that, the spots where the rear isn't as smooth wouldn't be nearly as noticeable. There rear being less smooth and having a couple gaps is necessary for transformation.

That being said, they could maybe have made things smoother if he had a toy-accurate chest. But not a guarantee.

I agree, my bigger issue is the front half. I know the blockiness is show accurate, but I always hated that it simply copied the toy's innacuracy to a shuttle.

How about I flip this debate on its rear end? Or wait, I mean front end, of the train that is. Has anyone noticed that because of the way they did the very front of the locomotive, that it actually doesn't quite work being skinnier than the rest of the train, but also having wheels? That means Astrotrain would need a set of 4 railroad tracks to run on instead of just 2 since the front wheels have a different spacing between them.

Of course in my collection he is a badass weapon train and doesn't need any stinkin tracks, but my OCD can't quite ignore the inaccuracy of the front of the train. Probably due to my dad being a train nut.

Who hated transformers when I grew up. You know what, the front of the train is now my favorite thing.

(This random string of consciousness has been brought to you by not wanting to work when I should be.)

@Rodimus A replacement chestplate and shuttle fin would be fairly simple too, and it would fix the looks without having to be taken off for transformation.
@TF-fan kev777 The out-of-gauge pilot wheels bug me a lot less than the missing tender.

william-james88 wrote:

ZeldaTheSwordsman wrote:The real problem is the front half. It's a lot fatter than the rear because of the train kibble; without that, the spots where the rear isn't as smooth wouldn't be nearly as noticeable. There rear being less smooth and having a couple gaps is necessary for transformation.

That being said, they could maybe have made things smoother if he had a toy-accurate chest. But not a guarantee.

I agree, my bigger issue is the front half. I know the blockiness is show accurate, but I always hated that it simply copied the toy's innacuracy to a shuttle.

It's actually a bit worse on this version than on the original toy, partly because the train panels are more detailed and partly because unlike the 1986 toy this Astrotrain has actual feet that they needed room to stash.

Honestly though, that sort of messiness is the curse of Earth mode triple-changers. And Astrotrain, Blitzwing, and Octane are all nowhere near as bad as Rotorbolt:

I don't have this yet, but there had to be a better way of handling it. The original toy actually did a pretty good job of having both modes.

This one's shuttle mode would look better if the chest had been more faithful to the original toy looks-wise. The gaps in the top of his shuttle mode aft come from the way the chest unfolds to cover his head and arms; a chest done to look like like the original toy's would have been able to layer over itself neatly and extend backwards to cover his head via a slide joint or double hinges.
The added width at the front beyond the train panels, I put that down to A. this guy having actual feet and thus needing room to stow them and B. The fact that his legs extend and collapse by double-hinging rather than by telescoping.

The train mode on this AT is still pretty good as-is. The original had the same issue with the front pilot wheels being out-of-gauge (but reversed, on the original they stick out more than the drive wheels).

I love that Astrotrain despite it's obvious flaws. The rear part of the shuttle being a mess and it's tiny nose.

However, my main gripe with the figure is the front of the TRAIN.
That tiny front end make no sense because we should lay down some special tracks with FOUR rails just to accommodate this weirdness.

The original would need the four sets of rails too, only with the extra rails being on the outside.

It's because of him having real feet:

The feet (which perforce cannot form the funnel and the top of the smokebox) end up on top of the locomotive. So in order to still have a proper front end, that end now has to stick out past the rest of the legs, and so it ends up narrower than the body just like the shuttle nose.

It's just a wee bit less obvious on the original G1.
The Siege/Earthrise version turn it up to 11. As if that train had a bad run-in with the Head-Shrinking tribe of the Amazon.

Rodimus Prime wrote:I'm getting slowly convinced that this figure sux all around... I'm more and more relieved that I didn't buy it.

This figure have bad designs, sure, but it's still fun to handle and he feel massive in hand.

Still, it depend on the PRICE paid. If I had to pay the full 70$CAN plus taxes, I would have been pissed.
However, I got it at 39$CAN plus taxes because stealth Walmart clearance on Siege leaders. For 1$ cheaper than the regular voyager price, it's DAMN well worth it.

I think you'd like him if you actually had him in hand, Rodimus (Speaking of in-hand, tracking says Springer reached you yesterday but I haven't heard from you). And IMO the front looks good aside from the out-of-gauge wheels.

-Kanrabat- wrote:It's just a wee bit less obvious on the original G1.

That's because on the original G1, the front of the engine doesn't have to protrude past the legs. Here, it has to because of the feet.

Ironhidensh wrote:

ZeldaTheSwordsman wrote:The real problem is the front half.

No. Just, no. The real problem is that they wasted time, effort, and resources on that 100% unnecessary tender/base section, but couldn’t be bother to put just a tiny bit of extra effort into the actual figure. Hell, even a partsforming cover that turns into a shield would have been far more acceptable.

I'm still hoping for an addon kit or Shapeways genius to figure it out.

I still advocate for tossing the cartoon-based chest in favor of a toy-based one as the smoothest solution. A toy-based chest would be able to neatly slide or fold over itself. Possibly even extend further back.

ZeldaTheSwordsman wrote:I still advocate for tossing the cartoon-based chest in favor of a toy-based one as the smoothest solution. A toy-based chest would be able to neatly slide or fold over itself. Possibly even extend further back.

I would have preferred this too. Leave the "toon accuracy" to the MP line and give CHUG some breathing room.