The Energon Pub

Rated X wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Rated X wrote:Well they finally dropped in my POL today. The 3 that I ordered came to a whopping $89.97. This broke my wallet so hard that I had to take out a reverse mortgage on my home. No more beer nights for me because Ill be working overtime for the next 3 weeks to recoup the small fortune I gave away to those evil IT guys. On the flip side, I finally have nice classics stand ins for glyph and tap out in case hasbro never fires up the bumblebee mold in colors people actually want. And wasper is a nice oddity worth having. Cheers

By people, you mean you, right?

So youre saying if hasbro puts out the classics bumblebee mold in blue or green, your passing ?

Yeah I'd totally pass, what relevance does a blue and green Bumblebee have to G1? None of these variants are G1, they were dreamt up years after the fact by a bunch of random fanboys trying to squeeze more dollar out of an already over-used mould. They are no more G1 than Drift. So why have them in your collection in the first place? Particularly when they offer so little bang for the buck.

I don't like to see a guy go without beer so if you set up a 'Just Giving' page I will spot you a dollar.

Banjo-Tron wrote:

Rated X wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Rated X wrote:Well they finally dropped in my POL today. The 3 that I ordered came to a whopping $89.97. This broke my wallet so hard that I had to take out a reverse mortgage on my home. No more beer nights for me because Ill be working overtime for the next 3 weeks to recoup the small fortune I gave away to those evil IT guys. On the flip side, I finally have nice classics stand ins for glyph and tap out in case hasbro never fires up the bumblebee mold in colors people actually want. And wasper is a nice oddity worth having. Cheers

By people, you mean you, right?

So youre saying if hasbro puts out the classics bumblebee mold in blue or green, your passing ?

Yeah I'd totally pass, what relevance does a blue and green Bumblebee have to G1? None of these variants are G1, they were dreamt up years after the fact by a bunch of random fanboys trying to squeeze more dollar out of an already over-used mould. They are no more G1 than Drift. So why have them in your collection in the first place? Particularly when they offer so little bang for the buck.

I don't like to see a guy go without beer so if you set up a 'Just Giving' page I will spot you a dollar.

Well glyph actually did appear in the G1 cartoon on ancient cybertron under quintison rule. Sure it was a two second clip but it is G1. Same thing with Sunstorm. There were plenty of background characters in various episodes on cybertron. They just got their names two decades later. To my knowledge tap out is all botcon, but at the least it makes him official. Id rather explore various inhabitants of cybertron than keep seeing bumblebee get a "stealth" mode or reinvented dinobots for stupid video games. G1 was the birth of the repaint. But back then a repaint actually meant a new character 100% of the time and not a flaming, frozen, toxic, or stealth rendition of a previous character. Hasbro got lazy with the fiction. But I appreciate fiction that has been added to G1 over the years. My classics shelf is a combination of many renditions of G1 combined. Im all for adding new characters. Its reinventing known characters that I frown upon. BTW, thanks for the beer.

Rated X wrote:BTW, thanks for the beer.

LOL

That's the most arbitrary way of defining what matters in G1 I've ever heard.

Preview from Impossible Toys of MC-07 Tapper .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClcqLwyr ... bject_map=[1396007253992743]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[]

Gauntlet101010 wrote:That's the most arbitrary way of defining what matters in G1 I've ever heard.

If I can get the character on my shelf, it matters to me...

Gauntlet101010 wrote:That's the most arbitrary way of defining what matters in G1 I've ever heard.

It's more on the level of

Most of those IT Bumblebee & friends toys didn't even exist in the 1980's G-1 fiction or toy line.

Glyph,tap out & bug bite were all Botcon exclusive toys & exist in alternate universe G-1 Botcon fiction.

IT Wasper,is wasp from the 2009 TF Animated universe.

IT Bump,is Bumblejumper. This toy never had a name or fiction in the 1980's G-1 Universe.

Having IT Bumblebee & Goldbug have the same mold is lazy,incorrect & just 1987 Goldbug's toy had a different vehicle design & robot design.

IT needed to repaint the IT Hill Jumper mold in yellow & called the toy IT Bumper. As this is what the 1984 Bumblejumper toy was. It was a 1984 Cliffjumper red toy recolored yellow.

Autobot Genocide wrote:Preview from Impossible Toys of MC-07 Tapper .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClcqLwyr ... bject_map=[1396007253992743]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[]

Well the video impressd me. It comes with a gun and even has the beloved parts storage people always praise. Its articulated, and will go great with classics. I want to see a size comparison with igear huffer and classics bumblebee.

Rated X wrote:

Autobot Genocide wrote:Preview from Impossible Toys of MC-07 Tapper .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClcqLwyr ... bject_map=[1396007253992743]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[]

Well the video impressd me. It comes with a gun and even has the beloved parts storage people always praise. Its articulated, and will go great with classics. I want to see a size comparison with igear huffer and classics bumblebee.

Here you go,this video has plenty of size comparisions with IT blue tappers in it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uu_ZWWCRYs

Tsutsukakushi wrote:

Rated X wrote:

Autobot Genocide wrote:Preview from Impossible Toys of MC-07 Tapper .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClcqLwyr ... bject_map=[1396007253992743]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[]

Well the video impressd me. It comes with a gun and even has the beloved parts storage people always praise. Its articulated, and will go great with classics. I want to see a size comparison with igear huffer and classics bumblebee.

Here you go,this video has plenty of size comparisions with IT blue tappers in it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uu_ZWWCRYs

LOL you douche! I actually clicked on that. X, don't do it unless you like Smurfs. All the original video did for me is illustrate exactly why there is no place for Impossible Toys in this market. I can just about forgive the hokey aesthetic but to leave the underside of the chassis so completely devoid of any detail is incredibly lazy. I mean, what's wrong with sculpting a crankshaft or exhaust etc? I'll tell you what's wrong, it's too much like hard work for these jokers. You'd think they could make the effort considering that they are re-using this ugly, hollow and uninspiring mould over half-a-dozen times.

Banjo-Tron wrote:

Tsutsukakushi wrote:

Rated X wrote:

Autobot Genocide wrote:Preview from Impossible Toys of MC-07 Tapper .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClcqLwyr ... bject_map=[1396007253992743]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[]

Well the video impressd me. It comes with a gun and even has the beloved parts storage people always praise. Its articulated, and will go great with classics. I want to see a size comparison with igear huffer and classics bumblebee.

Here you go,this video has plenty of size comparisions with IT blue tappers in it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uu_ZWWCRYs

LOL you douche! I actually clicked on that. X, don't do it unless you like Smurfs. All the original video did for me is illustrate exactly why there is no place for Impossible Toys in this market. I can just about forgive the hokey aesthetic but to leave the underside of the chassis so completely devoid of any detail is incredibly lazy. I mean, what's wrong with sculpting a crankshaft or exhaust etc? I'll tell you what's wrong, it's too much like hard work for these jokers. You'd think they could make the effort considering that they are re-using this ugly, hollow and uninspiring mould over half-a-dozen times.

It does appear to be ugly and hollow from the back. But that is the case with many hasbro figures. For me personally, Im paying more for the character, not the mold.

Rated X wrote:

Banjo-Tron wrote:

Tsutsukakushi wrote:

Rated X wrote:

Autobot Genocide wrote:Preview from Impossible Toys of MC-07 Tapper .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClcqLwyr ... bject_map=[1396007253992743]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[]

Well the video impressd me. It comes with a gun and even has the beloved parts storage people always praise. Its articulated, and will go great with classics. I want to see a size comparison with igear huffer and classics bumblebee.

Here you go,this video has plenty of size comparisions with IT blue tappers in it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uu_ZWWCRYs

LOL you douche! I actually clicked on that. X, don't do it unless you like Smurfs. All the original video did for me is illustrate exactly why there is no place for Impossible Toys in this market. I can just about forgive the hokey aesthetic but to leave the underside of the chassis so completely devoid of any detail is incredibly lazy. I mean, what's wrong with sculpting a crankshaft or exhaust etc? I'll tell you what's wrong, it's too much like hard work for these jokers. You'd think they could make the effort considering that they are re-using this ugly, hollow and uninspiring mould over half-a-dozen times.

It does appear to be ugly and hollow from the back. But that is the case with many hasbro figures. For me personally, Im paying more for the character, not the mold.

but then wouldn't it make more sense to pay a fraction of the cost for official tiny Hasbro BBs (from any of a dozen releases) and some paint?

craggy wrote:but then wouldn't it make more sense to pay a fraction of the cost for official tiny Hasbro BBs (from any of a dozen releases) and some paint?

This is more a case of being a fan of Impossible Toys rather than the product itself.

Rated X is being biased and more power to him. It isn't going to help these things sell... These things are only marginally better then the original 1984-1986 toys and that's being generous as anyone willing to give these toys an unbiased glance can see.

craggy wrote:

Rated X wrote:

Banjo-Tron wrote:

Tsutsukakushi wrote:

Rated X wrote:

Autobot Genocide wrote:Preview from Impossible Toys of MC-07 Tapper .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClcqLwyr ... bject_map=[1396007253992743]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[]

Well the video impressd me. It comes with a gun and even has the beloved parts storage people always praise. Its articulated, and will go great with classics. I want to see a size comparison with igear huffer and classics bumblebee.

Here you go,this video has plenty of size comparisions with IT blue tappers in it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uu_ZWWCRYs

LOL you douche! I actually clicked on that. X, don't do it unless you like Smurfs. All the original video did for me is illustrate exactly why there is no place for Impossible Toys in this market. I can just about forgive the hokey aesthetic but to leave the underside of the chassis so completely devoid of any detail is incredibly lazy. I mean, what's wrong with sculpting a crankshaft or exhaust etc? I'll tell you what's wrong, it's too much like hard work for these jokers. You'd think they could make the effort considering that they are re-using this ugly, hollow and uninspiring mould over half-a-dozen times.

It does appear to be ugly and hollow from the back. But that is the case with many hasbro figures. For me personally, Im paying more for the character, not the mold.

but then wouldn't it make more sense to pay a fraction of the cost for official tiny Hasbro BBs (from any of a dozen releases) and some paint?

Ive never been a fan of painted customs because the paint chips.

Well also these guys do offer a lot more articulation than the G1 toys, that would be another reason to get them. Not reason enough for me though

NOS wrote:

craggy wrote:but then wouldn't it make more sense to pay a fraction of the cost for official tiny Hasbro BBs (from any of a dozen releases) and some paint?

This is more a case of being a fan of Impossible Toys rather than the product itself.

Rated X is being biased and more power to him. It isn't going to help these things sell... These things are only marginally better then the original 1984-1986 toys and that's being generous as anyone willing to give these toys an unbiased glance can see.

How is my thumbs up any more biased than the rest of you guys slamming them ? Some of the nitpicks you guys have dont bother me, plain and simple. My only nitpick would be I wish they were bigger. IT seems to have this vision that articulated figures look good sitting side by side with 1980's bricks. So they made them G1 toy scale. I disagree with that vision. Everything I own from IT is on my classics shelves. So naturally I wish they were Igear mini-bot size. But since Huffer and Seaspray (Igear) are so small, I guess I can live with a few more small bots on my shelves.

Rated X wrote:

NOS wrote:

craggy wrote:but then wouldn't it make more sense to pay a fraction of the cost for official tiny Hasbro BBs (from any of a dozen releases) and some paint?

This is more a case of being a fan of Impossible Toys rather than the product itself.

Rated X is being biased and more power to him. It isn't going to help these things sell... These things are only marginally better then the original 1984-1986 toys and that's being generous as anyone willing to give these toys an unbiased glance can see.

How is my thumbs up any more biased than the rest of you guys slamming them ? Some of the nitpicks you guys have dont bother me, plain and simple. My only nitpick would be I wish they were bigger. IT seems to have this vision that articulated figures look good sitting side by side with 1980's bricks. So they made them G1 toy scale. I disagree with that vision. Everything I own from IT is on my classics shelves. So naturally I wish they were Igear mini-bot size. But since Huffer and Seaspray (Igear) are so small, I guess I can live with a few more small bots on my shelves.

I can't speak for everyone else, X. I've only noticed that when it comes to Impossible Toys they can do no wrong in your eyes even when it seems painfully obvious to others, like myself, who see that their efforts could use a little something extra be it imagination, design, detail, articulation, etc. In my eyes, compared to all the other 3rds out there, Impossible Toys products feel lazy and it's no wonder they've fallen out and closed shop.

NOS wrote:

Rated X wrote:

NOS wrote:

craggy wrote:but then wouldn't it make more sense to pay a fraction of the cost for official tiny Hasbro BBs (from any of a dozen releases) and some paint?

This is more a case of being a fan of Impossible Toys rather than the product itself.

Rated X is being biased and more power to him. It isn't going to help these things sell... These things are only marginally better then the original 1984-1986 toys and that's being generous as anyone willing to give these toys an unbiased glance can see.[/
How is my thumbs up any more biased than the rest of you guys slamming them ? Some of the nitpicks you guys have dont bother me, plain and simple. My only nitpick would be I wish they were bigger. IT seems to have this vision that articulated figures look good sitting side by side with 1980's bricks. So they made them G1 toy scale. I disagree with that vision. Everything I own from IT is on my classics shelves. So naturally I wish they were Igear mini-bot size. But since Huffer and Seaspray (Igear) are so small, I guess I can live with a few more small bots on my shelves.

I can't speak for everyone else, X. I've only noticed that when it comes to Impossible Toys they can do no wrong in your eyes even when it seems painfully obvious to others, like myself, who see that their efforts could use a little something extra be it imagination, design, detail, articulation, etc. In my eyes, compared to all the other 3rds out there, Impossible Toys products feel lazy and it's no wonder they've fallen out and closed shop.

Well I can only look at them for what they are, not what I want them to be. What they are is obscure characters that nobody else wants to tackle. Really, who else is going to do kranix and arbulis ? And the alicons are pretty cool. The guys who did delicate warrior never bothered to give us a paradon medic repaint. I know MMC plans to, but that body barely suits arcee let alone the peaceful medic. And who can complain about the kremzeek figure ? Its perfect. How can you give kremzeek more aesthetic ? And the quints were pretty damn good too. The only thing they dropped the ball on was not giving the baliff cartoon accurate colors. But I still like them regardless. And with the exception of the faces, the tetra jets are freaking awesome. I display them as jets anyways so its no big deal for me. The coneheads faces look much better than the regular seekers I must admit. For people who say IT figures are not complex enough in transformations, they have never messed with a tetra jet before. Its damn near close to a fansproject level of difficultily. As I stated before IT seems to have this vision that their figures are for enhancing G1 brick collections. But most collectors who want obscure characters want them for classics CHUG displays. IT figures are somewhere between vintage G1 and classics figures. Thats why the market is so small for them. G1 brick collecters want vintage. They dont care about enhancing their collections with non vintage figures (hence the glacialbots lack of success) So the only people who really want these characters are classics collectors who are among the pickiest people in the universe. People keep saying the figures suck. By whos standards ? Im not that picky so why should I jump on the haters bandwagon ? Im not saying the figures are flawless, but they work for me. I think all the nitpicking is a bit excessive. People scrutinize toys the way I would scrutinize a real car before I buy it. I cant put too much thought into a 30 purchase. I just pull the trigger. Scrutiny for me starts at 100 dollars and up. Thats how I roll. People need to realize that before they question why I dont agree with the popular stance against IT. The same thing goes for crazy devy and high quality KOs. My budget allows me not to be so damn picky and pull the trigger. So I get some haters. They dont wanna see me ball, they wanna see me fall. I buy alot of stuff they might consider garbage, but I got all the popular stuff too. And I work hard at my job to make it happen. People need to realize that everytime they taunt me for not sharing the common popular opinon. Bunch of vechicons, lol

Rated X wrote:As I stated before IT seems to have this vision that their figures are for enhancing G1 brick collections. But most collectors who want obscure characters want them for classics CHUG displays. IT figures are somewhere between vintage G1 and classics figures. Thats why the market is so small for them. G1 brick collecters want vintage.

This very well sums up why IT fails.

Rated X wrote:They dont care about enhancing their collections with non vintage figures (hence the glacialbots lack of success).

Didn't the Glacialbots sell out on FP Core? Shouldn't we consider that a success?

Rated X wrote:quote

X, justify your reasons however you want, but to me you're transparent.

This isn't a case of 'appreciating a good toy', but rather 'I back the companies I like'. Not saying that's wrong, just saying don't sugarcoat it. These IT Minichargers just aren't as good as you would have everyone believe. They're lazy, they lack imagination, and aren't worth the plastic it took to mold them.

IT just didn't try hard enough for quality on their products as well as aiming for a small market. I feel like someone there wasn't critical enough of their work and stopped at "this is good enough." Their Arcee had too many universal flaws for me to think that it went through really vigorous QC. Yeah, they made Arbolus and Kranix, but the plastic they used and the paint ... I just don't understand why they didn't use the same quality as on their Quint figures (which I liked). And the paint on soem of those also has issues. I took my Scientist out of storage to find the toys on top of him had scraped a lot of paint off and his tentacles had fallen off ... hunh?? I bought another and it was much higher in quality, but I shouldn't have to do that.

And the Tetrajets ... they should have seen their proportion issues right at the render stage. They should have seen the face issue at the test shot stage. But someone over there said "this is good enough, we can't afford more QC" and so the entire line just fell flat. And it's a shame because the concept and character choice was excellent and had no real competition.

Rated X wrote:They dont wanna see me ball, they wanna see me fall.

Love that

NOS wrote:

Rated X wrote:quote

X, justify your reasons however you want, but to me you're transparent.

This isn't a case of 'appreciating a good toy', but rather 'I back the companies I like'. Not saying that's wrong, just saying don't sugarcoat it. These IT Minichargers just aren't as good as you would have everyone believe. They're lazy, they lack imagination, and aren't worth the plastic it took to mold them.

they're only $30. you can't even buy a loaf of bread for that these days, right?

All of this Banter that X creates is a kill joy.

craggy wrote:

NOS wrote:

Rated X wrote:quote

X, justify your reasons however you want, but to me you're transparent.

This isn't a case of 'appreciating a good toy', but rather 'I back the companies I like'. Not saying that's wrong, just saying don't sugarcoat it. These IT Minichargers just aren't as good as you would have everyone believe. They're lazy, they lack imagination, and aren't worth the plastic it took to mold them.

they're only $30. you can't even buy a loaf of bread for that these days, right?

Buys about 8-9 loafs round here... regardless, by that statement, these things aren't even worth a loaf of bread.