The Energon Pub

Hasbro, for some reason thinks it's OKAY to detail the living crap out of the fronts of transformers and their vehicle modes almost to a T, but leaving their backsides un-detailed and filled to the brim with all kinds of kibble. Look at bumblebee from the front:

now the part that bugs me. the rear detailing...


And they do this on SOOOO any figures!
I Liked it when the show's designs were based off of the toys! you can't tell me you've never played a video game or watched a movie without thinking about how much different the toys look from the "real" thing. Not all of us can kitbash, so what's one to do? Pick the best candidate and move on? Minor tweaks make big differences, but sometimes it's just not enough.

... you like checking out TF's arses?

Well the toy has to convert from robot to vehicle, and the movie model has thousands of moving parts, and some cheating was involved too. Be happy they managed to make it look as accurate as it does.

Burn wrote:... you like checking out TF's arses?

yes, it comprises like 3 hours of my every day Burn

Blurrz wrote:That's why the toy is $10. If you wanted good paint application and detailing everywhere on the figure then you'd be paying $40-50 for it.

well, my finances are tight, but would it be THAT much of an issue if they cost so much from the get-go? instead of mech-tech and gimmicks, they should just work on the figures themselves. why do you think the Transformers Prime line looks so perfect?

Powermaster Jazz wrote:Well the toy has to convert from robot to vehicle, and the movie model has thousands of moving parts, and some cheating was involved too. Be happy they managed to make it look as accurate as it does.

I'm just saying, split apart all that kibble to make extra wings and move the tail-lights upward towards the back. Look at leader optimus....Voyager BB Optimus even...
Alot more detail can fit into those small packages. sure there are little imperfections, but it's the MASSIVE ones that bug me! look at vogager blackout and tell me they couldn't have worked a little harder, you know, gotten rid of those so called weapons of his? it's sad when the cyberverse version looks more screen accurate than the vogager....

BeastProwl wrote:

Burn wrote:... you like checking out TF's arses?

yes, it comprises like 3 hours of my every day Burn

To each their own I guess!

BeastProwl wrote:A lot more detail can fit into those small packages. sure there are little imperfections, but it's the MASSIVE ones that bug me! look at vogager blackout and tell me they couldn't have worked a little harder, you know, gotten rid of those so called weapons of his? it's sad when the cyberverse version looks more screen accurate than the vogager....

Some things need to be considered here:
- voyager Blackout was in the 07 line. At that point toy engineering and design was struggling to make the leap to catch up with the movie aesthetic.
- sometimes designers favour exciting weapon gimmicks that totally ruin the figure
- they're mostly designed for kids.

Tale as old as time.

You want detailing but there are costs to consider too. That's why Takara versions are more expensive. Though at times, it's the Takara version that have gutted electronics with extra details, so go figure.......you win some, you loose some.

you get what you pay for. if you want more detail then be prepared to pay for it. most are too cheap to pay for more detail,thus hasbro doesn;t add more detail. hasbro knows they'll be shelfwarmers. examples: alternators,titanium 6 inch & master piece TF toys. everyone wants more detail but cries & doesn;t want to pay more money for it.

BTW,I think the original poster is wrong. that deluxe movie bumblebee is extremly detailed in robot mode on all sides including the back. that deluxe movie bumblebee toy is a 3-D toy. it's got car detail all over the back of the robot mode. remove the car detail on the robot mode & you've still got a extremly detailed robot mode back exo-skeleton. just because the original poster doesn't like the back detail,doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

A perfect example of Transformers toys with 2-D Robot modes are the 1990 TF action masters. that feature generic backs for the robot modes. because Hasbro was too cheap to add alt mode details on the robot mode backs. thus every action master got backs that looked nothing like the original toys nor media robot modes backs. THE LAME-O Hasbro explaination for the 2-D action masters robots modes were the nucleon redesigned the robots & gave them generic robot mode backs. the lame-o hasbro further explanation of the 2-D action masters robots modes was as follows: the nucleon redesigned the robot modes in order to makes the over-all robot mode more fuel efficient,process fuel better,hold more energy in the body,make them stronger,faster & more alive than ever before.

Its a rather damn hard task making a car change into a robot. So you end up with a whole bunch of vehichle parts...

Besides, most of us display our TF facing forward, which conceals thier back... Don't we?

Burn wrote:... you like checking out TF's arses?

Okay. Thread over.

gavinfuzzy wrote:Besides, most of us display our TF facing forward, which conceals thier back... Don't we?

I'm turning all my stuff on display around RIGHT NOW.

RhA wrote:

Burn wrote:... you like checking out TF's arses?

Okay. Thread over.

BB got back

BeastProwl wrote:well, my finances are tight, but would it be THAT much of an issue if they cost so much from the get-go?

Think also of the parents who buy then for their children.

BeastProwl wrote:figures themselves. why do you think the Transformers Prime line looks so perfect?

Not that perfect.

Burn wrote:... you like checking out TF's arses?

well im sure some if not most of us are guilty of this. i know i am, especially if its a fembot lol.

From the two official Arcees I've got and the Delicate warrior version, they don't have much of a robo @ss

ok ok points made!
Just sayin, alittle more work wouldn't hurt.

Although I understand why, it's a shame how often kibble is just tossed onto the back to get it out of the way.