Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "FCBD 2023 SPIDER-MAN + VENOM Marvel Comics DEC220013 (CA) Gleason"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/fcbd/2023/spider-man+venom/t-DSC02617.jpg)
A lot of people just dislike that asymmetry.AllNewSuperRobot wrote:I've never understood the contention.
It answers itself in the scene composition. Thundercracker is front and centre. He is reformatted into Scourge. Bombshell is likewise front and centre, reformatted into Cyclonus. Skywarp is in the background, just as the other Insecticons that became the Sweeps.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:A lot of people just dislike that asymmetry.AllNewSuperRobot wrote:I've never understood the contention.
It answers itself in the scene composition. Thundercracker is front and centre. He is reformatted into Scourge. Bombshell is likewise front and centre, reformatted into Cyclonus. Skywarp is in the background, just as the other Insecticons that became the Sweeps.
AllNewSuperRobot wrote:I've never understood the contention.
It answers itself in the scene composition. Thundercracker is front and centre. He is reformatted into Scourge. Bombshell is likewise front and centre, reformatted into Cyclonus. Skywarp is in the background, just as the other Insecticons that became the Sweeps.
AllNewSuperRobot wrote:But by the same token, Cyclonus is smart and cunning. Which would point his origins towards Bombshell, over Skywarp. Who wasn't exactly an intellectual in Sunbow.
Razorbeast88 wrote:AllNewSuperRobot wrote:But by the same token, Cyclonus is smart and cunning. Which would point his origins towards Bombshell, over Skywarp. Who wasn't exactly an intellectual in Sunbow.
Agreed, I dont understand why it's debatable in the first place lol
Sabrblade wrote:A lot of people just dislike that asymmetry.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
Sabrblade wrote:Razorbeast88 wrote:AllNewSuperRobot wrote:But by the same token, Cyclonus is smart and cunning. Which would point his origins towards Bombshell, over Skywarp. Who wasn't exactly an intellectual in Sunbow.
Agreed, I dont understand why it's debatable in the first place lolSabrblade wrote:A lot of people just dislike that asymmetry.
AllNewSuperRobot wrote:I've never understood the contention.
It answers itself in the scene composition. Thundercracker is front and centre. He is reformatted into Scourge. Bombshell is likewise front and centre, reformatted into Cyclonus. Skywarp is in the background, just as the other Insecticons that became the Sweeps.
aronjlove wrote:AllNewSuperRobot wrote:I've never understood the contention.
It answers itself in the scene composition. Thundercracker is front and centre. He is reformatted into Scourge. Bombshell is likewise front and centre, reformatted into Cyclonus. Skywarp is in the background, just as the other Insecticons that became the Sweeps.
Do you take everything in animation as correct? Including that scene of the Combaticons and Bruticus all together? Or any of the scenes where characters literally change size depending on who is drawn next to them? I mean, if they never animated anything wrong then you would be right. But everything about G1, except the toys, is riddled with errors, animation and comic both. And therein lies the contention.
AllNewSuperRobot wrote:aronjlove wrote:AllNewSuperRobot wrote:I've never understood the contention.
It answers itself in the scene composition. Thundercracker is front and centre. He is reformatted into Scourge. Bombshell is likewise front and centre, reformatted into Cyclonus. Skywarp is in the background, just as the other Insecticons that became the Sweeps.
Do you take everything in animation as correct? Including that scene of the Combaticons and Bruticus all together? Or any of the scenes where characters literally change size depending on who is drawn next to them? I mean, if they never animated anything wrong then you would be right. But everything about G1, except the toys, is riddled with errors, animation and comic both. And therein lies the contention.
Except these are two identical scenes made just for The Movie. Never repeated or contradicted. The usual dismissive 'animation errors' for Sunbow, doesn't really apply to a purposely replicated composition.
Munkky wrote:After months of telling myself I wouldn't, I'm now really tempted to get the Devastator box set. I've had a few of the individual Constructicons in the past, but recently sold them all on Ebay. The UK website Kapow Toys still has the set listed as a pre-order (even though it was supposed to have come out in October?) and I feel as if I should get it before it goes. For those who have Devastator, is he worth it?
aronjlove wrote:AllNewSuperRobot wrote:aronjlove wrote:AllNewSuperRobot wrote:I've never understood the contention.
It answers itself in the scene composition. Thundercracker is front and centre. He is reformatted into Scourge. Bombshell is likewise front and centre, reformatted into Cyclonus. Skywarp is in the background, just as the other Insecticons that became the Sweeps.
Do you take everything in animation as correct? Including that scene of the Combaticons and Bruticus all together? Or any of the scenes where characters literally change size depending on who is drawn next to them? I mean, if they never animated anything wrong then you would be right. But everything about G1, except the toys, is riddled with errors, animation and comic both. And therein lies the contention.
Except these are two identical scenes made just for The Movie. Never repeated or contradicted. The usual dismissive 'animation errors' for Sunbow, doesn't really apply to a purposely replicated composition.
Huh, I guess you're right:
Munkky wrote:After months of telling myself I wouldn't, I'm now really tempted to get the Devastator box set. I've had a few of the individual Constructicons in the past, but recently sold them all on Ebay. The UK website Kapow Toys still has the set listed as a pre-order (even though it was supposed to have come out in October?) and I feel as if I should get it before it goes. For those who have Devastator, is he worth it?
sol magnus wrote:aronjlove wrote:AllNewSuperRobot wrote:aronjlove wrote:AllNewSuperRobot wrote:I've never understood the contention.
It answers itself in the scene composition. Thundercracker is front and centre. He is reformatted into Scourge. Bombshell is likewise front and centre, reformatted into Cyclonus. Skywarp is in the background, just as the other Insecticons that became the Sweeps.
Do you take everything in animation as correct? Including that scene of the Combaticons and Bruticus all together? Or any of the scenes where characters literally change size depending on who is drawn next to them? I mean, if they never animated anything wrong then you would be right. But everything about G1, except the toys, is riddled with errors, animation and comic both. And therein lies the contention.
Except these are two identical scenes made just for The Movie. Never repeated or contradicted. The usual dismissive 'animation errors' for Sunbow, doesn't really apply to a purposely replicated composition.
Huh, I guess you're right:
The other Decepticons were dead, the only one alive was Megatron. He used their 'raw material' to form 'new troops for [Megatron] to command."
Megatron was the only one to 'continue' with memory of his former self as evidence by the rest of the movie and further episodes would touch on that state of affairs for only Galvatron.
While, as a kid, I probably rathered the idea of Skywarp being Cyclonus, but who any of the Decepticons were before Unicron got to them was irrelevant to Unicron. Megatron was barely relevant.
Munkky wrote:After months of telling myself I wouldn't, I'm now really tempted to get the Devastator box set. I've had a few of the individual Constructicons in the past, but recently sold them all on Ebay. The UK website Kapow Toys still has the set listed as a pre-order (even though it was supposed to have come out in October?) and I feel as if I should get it before it goes. For those who have Devastator, is he worth it?
AllNewSuperRobot wrote:What is the going rate for a Combiner boxset, these days? The WFC Bruticus was probably the "newest" Gestalt I've bought and he was a lot cheaper than that.
AllNewSuperRobot wrote:Munkky wrote:After months of telling myself I wouldn't, I'm now really tempted to get the Devastator box set. I've had a few of the individual Constructicons in the past, but recently sold them all on Ebay. The UK website Kapow Toys still has the set listed as a pre-order (even though it was supposed to have come out in October?) and I feel as if I should get it before it goes. For those who have Devastator, is he worth it?
£370!![]()
What is the going rate for a Combiner boxset, these days? The WFC Bruticus was probably the "newest" Gestalt I've bought and he was a lot cheaper than that.
ZeroWolf wrote: dead Decepticon becomes Cyclonus, same difference.
AllNewSuperRobot wrote:I see. As I was looking up the price I did note he is an eight figure combiner. Considering "normal" is 3-5 figures, I imagine he would be a big boy with an additional three characters.ZeroWolf wrote: dead Decepticon becomes Cyclonus, same difference.
...And his Armada
TF-fan kev777 wrote:Does anyone else with SS86 Hot Rod have any issues with his legs not wanting to fully close in bot mode? For me the issue is his right calf. It looks like there is some interference with his ankle tilt that forces his calf on that side to pop back open. The calf will stay closed if I have the ankle tilt bent as far a possible, but as soon as I try to straighten out the ankle, the calf pops open. It does look like the grey ankle piece on that side is slightly thicker that the other and what appears to be causing the interference.
I'm trying to get a feel for how widespread the issue might be before deciding to either exchange him or maybe shave down the area on his ankle tilt that is interfering.
Here are the best photos I could take of the issue.
Standing upright, the calf won't stay closed.
Use a super wide "a" stance, and it stays closed.
Same deal as above, but focusing on just the ankle, first the extreme tilt, everything stays closed.
Straighten out the ankle and it pops open.
It is a bit of a bummer as I do like the figure. Hopefully mine is just a stinker and I'll be able to easily exchange it.
aronjlove wrote:TF-fan kev777 wrote:Does anyone else with SS86 Hot Rod have any issues with his legs not wanting to fully close in bot mode? For me the issue is his right calf. It looks like there is some interference with his ankle tilt that forces his calf on that side to pop back open. The calf will stay closed if I have the ankle tilt bent as far a possible, but as soon as I try to straighten out the ankle, the calf pops open. It does look like the grey ankle piece on that side is slightly thicker that the other and what appears to be causing the interference.
I'm trying to get a feel for how widespread the issue might be before deciding to either exchange him or maybe shave down the area on his ankle tilt that is interfering.
Here are the best photos I could take of the issue.
Standing upright, the calf won't stay closed.
Use a super wide "a" stance, and it stays closed.
Same deal as above, but focusing on just the ankle, first the extreme tilt, everything stays closed.
Straighten out the ankle and it pops open.
It is a bit of a bummer as I do like the figure. Hopefully mine is just a stinker and I'll be able to easily exchange it.
I got a little bit of a similar problem but it is on the left leg and I don't have to make him do the super wide stance. But yes, if the left foot is completely flat the calf won't completely close. Not as bad as yours though.
Jelze Bunnycat wrote:I wonder... any numbers or letters on that particular part?
TF-fan kev777 wrote:Jelze Bunnycat wrote:I wonder... any numbers or letters on that particular part?
No, but there is a circle recess in the area that seems to be the problem and the whole area outside the circle is a bit thicker than I think it is supposed to be. The part in question is pinned on both sides and damn near impossible to photograph (especially with the crappy camera and lack of skills). but visually the one causing the problems seems to be not as flat as the one that cooperates.
chuckdawg1999 wrote:Are you sure you have the rear wheels folded all the way in? I think they have to snap into place.
Return to Transformers Toys Discussion
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Cheetron, cloudballoon, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Jelze Bunnycat, Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot], Sabrblade, ThunderThruster, Yahoo [Bot]