The Energon Pub

I don't hate G-1,nor do I know anyone else who hates G-1.

I view G-1 as the roots or template that everything else after G-1 follows or must follow.

I'll admit I have ZERO love for the Generation one toys because their brick-formers with limited articulated joints. HOWEVER I'M A DREAMER & I LOVE THE G-1 1980's designs+characters so much i'm alway dreaming & imagining them with super poseable articulated joints. I love buying poseable updated homage new molds based off G-1 toy designs & characters.

I always loved & still love the generation one cartoon series. I like it so much because it's a very adult oriented serious cartoon series. their isn't that much over the top silly joking slap stick humor in the G-1 cartoon series. I enjoy all the scientific words they use. season 3 is my favorite because some episodes are very dark & shadowy. i'm not a fan of some of the season 1 & 2 animation.

As far as the marvel TF G-1 comics goes. i like them better than IDW's TF comics stories. I like alot of the characterization some TF's got.

Lastly lets not forget that headmasters,masterforce,victory,zone,battle stars & operation combination are all part of Generation one. even though most of these produced brick-formers TF toys. the toy designs were beyond awesome & steps above most G-1 usa toy designs. masterforce & zone had spectacular beautiful animation. I dream that one day most of the G-1 Japanese exclusive toys will get super poseable new toys.

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 would not be surprised if such people exist. The absence of someone seeing them does not always mean the proof that such a thing does not exist, as my experience has shown me. G1 has it's good points but also some really glaring flaws, and while the most of us look at/back on that with nostalgia and respect, I wouldn't put it passed some people to hate it for those flaws or because they saw it as disgustingly dated and cheesy.

But please don't get me started on GEEWUNers; they drive me up a wall and a half.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

I dont see them as blocky in robot mode, and some do view such issues as a problem

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.

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"

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"

From my personal experiences in buying TF toys from the years 2000 thru 2011.

Their are some blocky TF toys designs regardless if they have decent poseabilty or not.

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.

In the case of some CR/RID toys,the Takara designers did a horrible job of mixing blocky parts with new age round parts. the CR/RID trains is a perfect example of this. the train parts are all blocky,while the limbs & heads are rounded off parts. CR/RID oprimus prime & ultra magnus all had a 50/50 combination of blocky & rounded off parts.

It appears these days both Hasbro & Takara are trying really hard to get rid of the blocky parts in various TF toy lines like the movie verse,animated & TF Prime toys.

Personally,I enjoy the 50/50 mixture of blocky parts mixed in with new age rounded off parts. If it's done right,they can be trully awesome TF toy designs. Examples: Armada,energon & Cybertron toy lines.

I wasn't a fan of the TF animated toy line more rounded off toys designs. I prefer the AEC 50 Blocky/50 rounded off parts TF toy designs aesthetics.

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.

I think a lot of G1 toys suffer because of the accuracy of their alt' modes and limitations in the 'toy technology' of that era. Where as TF Animated for example, was deliberately designed to be 'blocky'.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

I think you just summed it up very well

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"?

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.

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.

The body parts collectively as a whole, I mean. And in regards to just their shape, rather than articulation.

Sabrblade wrote:

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.

The body parts collectively as a whole, I mean. And in regards to just their shape, rather than articulation.

well, like I said, I would specify the part, and choose any of the 3 words.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

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.

The body parts collectively as a whole, I mean. And in regards to just their shape, rather than articulation.

well, like I said, I would specify the part, and choose any of the 3 words.

But I'm asking about the whole figure itself, not just its individual body parts.

Sabrblade wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

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.

The body parts collectively as a whole, I mean. And in regards to just their shape, rather than articulation.

well, like I said, I would specify the part, and choose any of the 3 words.

But I'm asking about the whole figure itself, not just its individual body parts.

I thought we covered this already.

as a whole, if the firure has great poseability, I dont consider it blocky or what ever word you would like to apply.

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?

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.