Sabrblade wrote:I see. I just hope you mean this figuratively rather than literally, since images like the fallowing would likely give you a headache:
The one with the multiple Optimi is pretty sweet, actually. If you think about it, it's in line with what I'm saying: acknowledging that there are other versions of a certain character, rather than renaming the hell out of things! BW, as I mentioned, at least referenced G1 at one point, rather than exist as an unexplained variation of G1.
You ever read a comic book in the middle of a story arc and have to suffer pages and pages of "previously in our book, this happened!"? I hate that. I think serials like TF can be long and expansive, without the need to constantly reinvent or explain itself for each generation. I'm pretty sure I started watching the G1 cartoon in pieces, and around the middle - my head didn't -->
In other words, Prime COULD have referenced the G1 Terrorcon's without showing them, rather than focus on only the content their CG machines could pump out on a budget. As with any CG animation, the visual limitations really limit the writing, which is a shame. I'm sure when the term "Terrorcon" got used for the zombies, there were no plans to actually have Terrorcon's in the show, and the writing staff figured a conflict would thus never arise. Or that the show is for children and they won't notice the new use of the term.
MINDVVIPE wrote:On the topic of quality, I think thats hard to compare between a G1 figure and a current figure since they both had different goals. G1 seemed to go after a certain look at all costs (kibble, lack of poseability) where as new toys look for playability most...
Makes sense to me. My mind tends to imagine the G1's better than they were. Then I see them at Con's and think, "dang... we've come a long way..."
GuyIncognito wrote:Two things that aggravate me about TF collectors:
1) The idea that even after 30 years, every new figure should look just like the original, even if that original toy wasn't even a Transformer when it was created.
2) The unrealistic expectations that these figures should continue to increase in quality, engineering, articulation, etc., but that prices should never go up. The implication that Hasbro should make thrid-party-quality toys and sell them at 1984 prices.
1) Sometimes the originals just looked better. Hun-gurr, for example, looked better as a G1 toy. He was big, had a cool head, nice transformation, etc. This new one is nice, too... but come on. Don't say you don't wish they kept the original scales of 1 large center piece and 4 smaller limbs!
2) At what rate should the prices go up? During a recession? These are toys, after all. Do you think parents today are willing to pay double of what they did in 1984? For a toy? I mean, I understand what you're saying, but this isn't the automobile industry we're talking about. At a certain price point, parents stop buying toys (or severely limit the amount they buy), which makes selling toys a money-losing matter. KB Toys went bankrupt, FAO Schwartz is gone... Not to mention that parents today (IMO) are more likely to spend money on digital games for their kids' iPads and phones. Toys and pretend-play are on their way out, in favor of electronics and video games. Jacking toy prices up, at this point in the game, is NOT the way to win back the kids...
Plus, the technology and quality HAS improved. No more GPS, for example. Cheaper components (plastic vs. diecast) and yet longer-lasting toys.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that most diehard collectors who are willing to pay $100 for an Iron-hide by a third party, or $45 for a 3rd party Brawn... well, they'd pay more than 1984 prices if Hasbro made some of the classic G1 characters. You could say that the Masterpiece line sells pretty well, too.