The Energon Pub

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:19 pm

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:
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.
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?

to me, poseability influances the way I would view a figures shape.

for example, pm optimus is what I would call blocky, but if he had great poseability I wouldnt see the figure as blocky.

IGNORE joints for this question. Focus on the SILHOUETTE only. Stop thinking about what I'm not asking you about. What term would you use to describe a body sihouette made up of rectangles and squares?

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:51 pm

Sabrblade wrote:IGNORE joints for this question.

I cant.

Your asking me how I would view and describe a certin type of figure.

How can I then answer your question if your asking me to ignore what I consider a major factor in determining my point of views?

the SILHOUETTE a toy can cast is misleading.Heck, there was a time that my body casted a silhouette that looked like rectangles and squares, and I have always been a rather round person [FAT I mean] :lol:

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:06 pm

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:IGNORE joints for this question.

I cant.

Your asking me how I would view and describe a certin type of figure.

How can I then answer your question if your asking me to ignore what I consider a major factor in determining my point of views?

the SILHOUETTE a toy can cast is misleading.Heck, there was a time that my body casted a silhouette that looked like rectangles and squares, and I have always been a rather round person [FAT I mean]

"Outline", then. Okay? The "outline" is what I'm asking about. Is that an okay word? Like what's shown in the bottom panel of this image:

Though, not necessarily cast in shadow.

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:22 pm

Sabrblade wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:IGNORE joints for this question.

I cant.

Your asking me how I would view and describe a certin type of figure.

How can I then answer your question if your asking me to ignore what I consider a major factor in determining my point of views?

the SILHOUETTE a toy can cast is misleading.Heck, there was a time that my body casted a silhouette that looked like rectangles and squares, and I have always been a rather round person [FAT I mean]
"Outline", then. Okay? The "outline" is what I'm asking about. Is that an okay word? Like what's shown in the bottom panel of this image:

Though, not necessarily cast in shadow.

if ther "outline" is boxy, then I would describe the OUTLINE of the figure as boxy, but that description would not necessary apply to my view of the figure itself.

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:15 am

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:if ther "outline" is boxy, then I would describe the OUTLINE of the figure as boxy, but that description would not necessary apply to my view of the figure itself.

This question has nothing to do with figure quality. All it has to with is what it looks like.

Look, you use the terms "bricky", "blocky" and "boxy" to refer to something else entirely from what I'm asking you. Therefore, I'm asking what OTHER term you use to refer to what I'm asking you. I am not asking "which of THESE THREE terms", I'm asking "what term IN GENERAL" do you use? Darn it, Sto, you are smarter than this. :BANG_HEAD:

News Credits: 1 · by **vectorA3** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:59 am

To answer the last question I would terminate said person with extreme prejudice.

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:59 am

vectorA3 wrote:To answer the last question I would terminate said person with extreme prejudice.

As you command, General Cicadacon. :lol:

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:11 pm

Sabrblade wrote:

This question has nothing to do with figure quality.

and I'm not answering based on the figures qulity.

If you were to show me a figure that who's basic outline, "silhouette" , looked a bit boxy...like lets say Rail Racer, I would say something like "at first glance it looks a bit boxy, but upon closer examination you would discover its not boxy at all, its very poseable."

BTW, nice pic.

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:33 pm

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:If you were to show me a figure that who's basic outline, "silhouette" , looked a bit boxy...like lets say Rail Racer, I would say something like "at first clance it looks a bit boxy, but upon closer examination you would discover its not boxy at all, its very poseable."

See, the thing is, I'm not asking about poseability at all. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Poseability relates to the functional design of a figure, whereas I'm referring to the aesthetic design.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:BTW, nice pic.

Thanks. Found it on Google. :lol:

News Credits: 37 · by **SlyTF1** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:50 pm

Of damn course there are people who don't like G1 who are still TF fans. People like my age. People who like Transformers but don't feel like sitting through old 80's cartoons where the animation is stiff, there's horrible diologue and the person either has ADHD or think they're too old to watch cartoons from the 80s. I like G1, but I can see why someone my age would hate G1, but love TF Prime, the movies, etc.

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:15 pm

Sabrblade wrote:See, the thing is, I'm not asking about poseability at all. That's what I'm trying to get at.

right, what your asking me is how I would describe a figure.

and what I'm telling you is that posability is a major factor in my assessment of a figure.

Poseability relates to the functional design of a figure, whereas I'm referring to the aesthetic design.

Poseability effects my view of aesthetics.As I pointed out, Star Convoy is very blocky aesthetics wize.

But if it had greater posability then I wouldnt say it was blocky

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:35 pm

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:See, the thing is, I'm not asking about poseability at all. That's what I'm trying to get at.

right, what your asking me is how I would describe a figure.

But not asking for that thorough an examination. I'm asking how you would describe the ASPECT of the figure that I'm asking about, not the whole figure.

Take, for example, the mini-figures of the human kids from the Prime Entertainment Pack. They are primarily inarticulate (save for their rotating heads), but would you call their geometric molds "bricky and boxy" or "spindly and curvy"?

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:44 pm

Sabrblade wrote:But not asking for that thorough an examination.

and I answered this already as well.

"at first glance it looks a bit boxy, but upon closer examination you would discover its not boxy at all, its very poseable."

and BTW, I'm pretty incapable of not going into a thorough examination, its part of the training I was given for Aspergers.

I tend to "study" just about everything I see,read,hear.So, as long as its a good example ,in hand or a good amount of pics showing a few angles, I'm going to examine it.

Take, for example, the mini-figures of the human kids from the Prime Entertainment Pack. They are primarily inarticulate (save for their rotating heads), but would you call their geometric molds "bricky and boxy" or "spindly and curvy"?

havent seen them yet.

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:51 pm

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Take, for example, the mini-figures of the human kids from the Prime Entertainment Pack. They are primarily inarticulate (save for their rotating heads), but would you call their geometric molds "bricky and boxy" or "spindly and curvy"?

havent seen them yet.

Only their heads turn.

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:56 pm

Sabrblade wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Take, for example, the mini-figures of the human kids from the Prime Entertainment Pack. They are primarily inarticulate (save for their rotating heads), but would you call their geometric molds "bricky and boxy" or "spindly and curvy"?

havent seen them yet.
Only their heads turn.

hmmm, its hard for me to describe, Jack and meiko I wouldnt say are blocky because thet have been molded with bent arms.

Raf on the other hand is a rectangle in shape.

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:44 pm

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:hmmm, its hard for me to describe, Jack and meiko I wouldnt say are blocky because thet have been molded with bent arms.

Raf on the other hand is a rectangle in shape.

This is what I'm talking about. An abstract description based solely on the geometry of the mold cast.

BTW, I've also got Aspergers.

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:54 pm

We now return to the main topic.

SlyTF1 wrote:Of damn course there are people who don't like G1 who are still TF fans. People like my age. People who like Transformers but don't feel like sitting through old 80's cartoons where the animation is stiff, there's horrible diologue and the person either has ADHD or think they're too old to watch cartoons from the 80s. I like G1, but I can see why someone my age would hate G1, but love TF Prime, the movies, etc.

Sounds like you've had personal experience with anti-G1 fans. Care to elaborate?

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:34 am

Sabrblade wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:hmmm, its hard for me to describe, Jack and meiko I wouldnt say are blocky because thet have been molded with bent arms.

Raf on the other hand is a rectangle in shape.
This is what I'm talking about. An abstract description based solely on the geometry of the mold cast.

BTW, I've also got Aspergers.

so, your my brother from an other mother :grin:

News Credits: 1 · by **vectorA3** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:33 am

Sabrblade wrote:
vectorA3 wrote:To answer the last question I would terminate said person with extreme prejudice.
As you command, General Cicadacon.

Ey! I'm still a good guy!

Had to look Cicadacon up, sounds like a very cool character.

The analogy I think of with this question is Star wars. There may be those who exist that hate the OT, but like the PT (Eps I,II,III). I can't really fathom why (and they should be smacked) - but they're entitled to their own opinion I guess.

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:43 am

vectorA3 wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:
vectorA3 wrote:To answer the last question I would terminate said person with extreme prejudice.
As you command, General Cicadacon.

Ey! I'm still a good guy!

Had to look Cicadacon up, sounds like a very cool character.

He said that line ("Terminate, with extreme prejudice") in the first part of the Beast Wars season 2 finale.

vectorA3 wrote:The analogy I think of with this question is Star wars. There may be those who exist that hate the OT, but like the PT (Eps I,II,III). I can't really fathom why (and they should be smacked) - but they're entitled to their own opinion I guess.

Still, with G1, it seems like it is rarer to find one who hates it than one who likes it.

News Credits: 1 · by **vectorA3** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:52 am

Very cool for the General.

-I don't even want to think of the people who hate G1. They are subhuman. lol

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:07 pm

vectorA3 wrote:Very cool for the General.

-I don't even want to think of the people who hate G1. They are subhuman. lol

Harsh much?

Besides, it's not like G1 is the end all, be all, "TEH GR8TIST" version of the Transformers out there.

News Credits: 7 · by **Noideaforaname** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:43 am

One thing I hate about G1 is how it's become the "main" generation in terms of homages. It's to be expected, I guess, since it's the original one, but it's disappointing how Black Shadow getting a new toy or Bulkhead appearing in Prime or even Waspinator and Dinobot winning HoF spots are "unheard of."

It certainly doesn't help that I have little connection with any of the G1 guys.

News Credits: 1 · by **RhA** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:18 am

Noideaforaname wrote:One thing I hate about G1 is how it's become the "main" generation in terms of homages. It's to be expected, I guess, since it's the original one, but it's disappointing how Black Shadow getting a new toy or Bulkhead appearing in Prime or even Waspinator and Dinobot winning HoF spots are "unheard of."

It certainly doesn't help that I have little connection with any of the G1 guys.

Black Shadow is G1, 1989.

by **Screamfleet** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:50 am

Noideaforaname wrote:One thing I hate about G1 is how it's become the "main" generation in terms of homages. It's to be expected, I guess, since it's the original one, but it's disappointing how Black Shadow getting a new toy or Bulkhead appearing in Prime or even Waspinator and Dinobot winning HoF spots are "unheard of."

It certainly doesn't help that I have little connection with any of the G1 guys.

My hope is that Transformers will grow as brand and hasbro will broaden it a bit too. Right now, hasbro wants to have one continuity, which is fine. I just hope maybe in the future, we can see two series within this continuity. Suppose Transformers Prime goes on for another few years, why not a beast wars series along side it?

It seems like a never happen situation. Especially with how hasbro repeatedly says no plans for any beast wars related merchandise. I hope though, like how marvel has multiple characters and shows, that transformers can be the same way. You know, there's the Avengers and The x-men, and why not the autobots and the maximals?