Wolfman Jake wrote:Again, yes, each plastic injection mold lasts for only so many uses, but that's not the point.
I want to preface my response by saying that I'm largely unaware of the history of this discussion forum, so I have no idea how many times or to what extent this subject has been discussed. I'm not even sure if you were replying to me directly or not. If I'm completely misunderstanding your position, I apologize in advance, but I do take strong issue with some of the things you're saying.
Hasbro and Takara can make more molds when the old ones are used up. Mold "degradation" is a fandom boogeyman. It's not a real issue, especially not in this age of manufacturing technology.
I don't see how this line of reasoning follows. Production molds have a finite life span. They are made of metal alloys with limited tensile strength. They can only endure so many production runs before they begin to show signs of heavy wear.
Most toys enjoy a small, comfortable production run of perhaps 100,000 or 200,000 and then their production molds are recycled. That's the industry standard. More rarely, the molds will be pressed into service multiple times. Now, obviously, there are alternative styles of mass-production (LEGO has been producing essentially the same bricks since the 1970's; Mattel's line of Barbie dolls or Hot Wheels cars are, by and large, all the same doll with different clothing or same car with different paint) but typically, a toy represents a unique character, enjoys a unique sculpt, and is quietly retired from service.
Transformers really is the exception to the rule. In recent years we've gotten new versions of toys that have been around since the G1 days, or earlier, and have already been produced dozens of times over. That's not normal. If you study the toys closely, particularly the ones with multiple mold-mates, there is almost always evidence of mold degradation.
There's no such thing as using a "mold" too much and then it's gone forever.
Then is there some other reason you're aware of why Takara has never been able to provide us with G1 reissues of Mirage and Sunstreaker and the Dinobots? Not being confrontational; I'm genuinely asking the question.
Molds made in late 70's and early 80's are likely more costly for Hasbro and Takara to reproduce, so they stretch as much as they can from each, and you get wonky reissues like the G1 Combaticons.
The Combaticons are a great example of this phenomenon because those poor toys have been trotted out so many damn times:
1) G1 Japan edition (launching Onslaught)
2) G1 die-cast versions (neutered launcher)
3) G1 plastic versions
4) Euro Classics (no rub symbol indents)
5) Battle Gaia
6) G2 editions
7) Car Robots Valdigus
8] Robots in Disguise Ruination
9) Armada all-grey "Urban Camo"
10) Wal-Mart "Tiger Force"
11) Takara G1 reissues
The molds were subjected to many modifications and tweaks over the years that it's not even funny. By the time the toys finally came full circle, you got G1 reissues with almost completely different functionality than the vintage G1 units. Some of the changes had nothing to do with mold degradation (adding weapon mounts for G2 Onslaught; giving the Car Robots weapons the ability to combine together) but some changes are absolutely the result of mold fatigue. There are pock marks all over the reissue Combaticons where the molds have begun to degrade. Weapons and accessories no longer fit correctly (Swindle can't hold his own pistol; Bruticus's chest plate no longer locks down).
Now, obviously, a lot of the toys that we get nowadays don't have such a long and sordid history because there aren't too many Transformers on store shelves that have been made available since 1986. We're going to get a new version of Beast Wars Terrorsaur pretty soon (in the form of a one-headed Age of Extinction Strafe), though, who is only a decade younger than the Combaticons, and whose production mold has also seen repeated use. I'll be very interested to get that toy and study it.
Like I said, "mold degradation" is a boogeyman to transformers fans. It's an often blamed but poorly understood phenomenon that helps people place blame somewhere for their unsatisfactory toys because they don't know better.
If there's a long history of fans blaming poorly-designed or badly-engineered toys on simple mold fatigue, I'm not aware of it. I won't speak to that point. With that said, mold degradation is a real phenomenon, demonstrable and measurable, and it surprises me that you're the second person I've encountered now who seems to think it doesn't exist.
A final thought for any who think that manufacturing replacement molds or even reverse-engineering toys back into useable molds for mass production is prohibitively expensive for Takara and Hasbro: Why is the market for high quality knock-offs so profitable?
The short answer is because Zhong Jin is exploiting a consumer demand that the official sources have failed to address.
Of course, Zhong Jin toys don't have to conform to safety regulations, are not subject to drop testing, and don't have to go through trademark approval. They don't pay licensing fees. Perhaps most significantly, they take shortcuts. Some of their products are quite excellent but some of them do not meet the standards of quality I would expect from a genuine Hasbro or Takara product.
My counter-question(s) to you would be: If reverse-engineering molds isn't too expensive for Hasbro or Takara to consider, then why don't they just do it all the time? Why does Hasbro always,
always wait for Takara to spend the money to test and/or restore a mold before they reissue a toy themselves? Why are so many reissues of older toys, especially ones with many mold-mates, always riddled with production flaws that
did not exist on the original releases? Why would Takara spend the money to retool things like G1 Jazz's face or Cliffjumper's face if it weren't necessary? Can you offer some alternate explanation for the pock marks and poorly-fitting accessories that is not related to mold fatigue?
Zob
Posted: Tue May 27, 2014 11:35 am
Looks like Grimlock jizzed his pants .
