The Energon Pub

Transformers artist Nick Roche has just tweeted an image of some early concept art for Hasbro's Generations Voyager Sandstorm. It appears the Springer toy was then reverse engineered from the second figure, or the artwork itself, rather than the other way round. Check out the mirrored image below!



For comparison:

And they couldn't have made this the box artwork rather than the, in my opinion crappy, drawing of the toy itself?

the art on the box is not bad. it just does not hold a candle to the springer art.

I think I would of like the box art better had it not just been a drawing of the toy, if you know what I mean.

That is a REAAAAAAALLY vague approximation of toy from art.

Sandstorm art has no wheels in shoulders, for one.

I'm not sure how you could say the toy is "derived" from this art, as it's only marginally similar.

I guess it's the same way you can say that skyscrapers are derived from wooden block displays.

Metrosuplex wrote:That is a REAAAAAAALLY vague approximation of toy from art.

Sandstorm art has no wheels in shoulders, for one.

I'm not sure how you could say the toy is "derived" from this art, as it's only marginally similar.

I guess it's the same way you can say that skyscrapers are derived from wooden block displays.

Concept art. Not final design.

The sketch was sent to Hasbro in 2010, and they've been working ever since to design a toy inspired by the drawing.

In the same way that this:


is concept art for this:

Metrosuplex wrote:That is a REAAAAAAALLY vague approximation of toy from art.

Sandstorm art has no wheels in shoulders, for one.

I'm not sure how you could say the toy is "derived" from this art, as it's only marginally similar.

I guess it's the same way you can say that skyscrapers are derived from wooden block displays.

You're right. With the exception of the head, lower arms, chest, waist, upper legs, knees, lower legs (albeit turned 90 degrees), feet and placement and design of the VTOL and props, there are no similarities. Except the gun. That's pretty close.

Maybe someone has trouble with the concept of concepts. I'm actually amazed that they didn't change more in three years.

Luscanun wrote:

Metrosuplex wrote:That is a REAAAAAAALLY vague approximation of toy from art.

Sandstorm art has no wheels in shoulders, for one.

I'm not sure how you could say the toy is "derived" from this art, as it's only marginally similar.

I guess it's the same way you can say that skyscrapers are derived from wooden block displays.

You're right. With the exception of the head, lower arms, chest, waist, upper legs, knees, lower legs (albeit turned 90 degrees), feet and placement and design of the VTOL and props, there are no similarities. Except the gun. That's pretty close.

Maybe someone has trouble with the concept of concepts. I'm actually amazed that they didn't change more in three years.

The point of concepts is to show multiple design ideas for a certain project. As such, they go through multiple revisions before settling on a final design, which may not even look like the original concept at all. And showing multiple designs at once in the same stage is really common if you must know.
And get this: sometimes a design is overhauled at the last minute. Armada Hot Shot is a good example of that, he lost some articulation and kibble was relocated, all for the sake of overall aesthetics.

Wait, so Sandstorm came first, then with a little tweaking, then came Springer?

This is shenanigan is on the same level as Titanium: War Within Starscream being a redeco of Thundercracker!

I always enjoy seeing early concept art for things. Sometimes it just looks so weird when compared to the final version, while other times it's much better. This one is just prety interesting.
This looks more like G1 Sandstorm than the final version.

It looks as though the legs would have become the front wheels and hood, much like the original. I like the concept art, but the final product was much more suited for both Springer and Sandstorm. I really like how the mold makes the transformations for both quite different, despite having the same arms and torso. What a difference a new back plate and lower legs can make.

The tail rotor would have been a nice addition to the toy. Very reminiscent of the G1 original, but that complaint aside, I love my Sandstorm the way it is. The artist rendition prompted me to lift the back part to closer match my G1 Sandstorm. They make a cute couple.

I don't think the Sandstorm concept necessarily came first.

Yes, that is Sandstorm but it's vastly different from the original Sandstorm whose chest was the buggy roof and whose feet was the buggy front. This looks like it was always understood that the figure was going to be used for both Springer and Sandstorm and that's why this concept has Springer-esqu details like the chopper front for a chest.

RiddlerJ wrote:I don't think the Sandstorm concept necessarily came first.

That's what Roche said about this drawing, I wasn't speculating. Though you may be right about having the potential to be used for both molds.

I picked up Springer the other day because he just looked too darn cool to resist. There were 3 Sandstorm figures there as well. I was tempted to get both, but in this recession.... Well, if I find Sandstorm at Ross or TJ Maxx, I'll get him then.

Well, by the responses, it sounds like you could make a Sandstorm out if pepperoni and pizza crusts and still call it "concept art". I'm not arguing over definition, simply calling to question the point of revealing concept art? You can go ahead and say it: "Metro, you're just not a TRUE fan."

I did not know that.

EDIT: concept art usually looks so good that I weep over final, compromised-filled product. You can call it concept art... I'll call it real life.

i would say its more likely that they took this are and looked at the springer toy prototype and said -you think we would get another use out of this mold with this character -and some one said yes


all in all there is no way to know which came first -but does that matter we got 2 triple changers out of it and neither character has been given a decent triple changer figure since the original g1 and lets face it some of the older figures don't hold up that well compared to others

chaosmage42 wrote:i would say its more likely that they took this are and looked at the springer toy prototype and said -you think we would get another use out of this mold with this character -and some one said yes


all in all there is no way to know which came first -but does that matter we got 2 triple changers out of it and neither character has been given a decent triple changer figure since the original g1 and lets face it some of the older figures don't hold up that well compared to others

Not to mention that mold and its remold are possibly some of the BEST triplechanging we've ever seen...

Metrosuplex wrote:Well, by the responses, it sounds like you could make a Sandstorm out if pepperoni and pizza crusts and still call it "concept art". I'm not arguing over definition, simply calling to question the point of revealing concept art?

Simple: some fans like to see how the design process went for a particular figure. In fact, I have Complete Works books of some Mega Man series, detailing the development of some characters including sketches. Pretty interesting to read.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

Metrosuplex wrote:Well, by the responses, it sounds like you could make a Sandstorm out if pepperoni and pizza crusts and still call it "concept art". I'm not arguing over definition, simply calling to question the point of revealing concept art?

Simple: some fans like to see how the design process went for a particular figure. In fact, I have Complete Works books of some Mega Man series, detailing the development of some characters including sketches. Pretty interesting to read.

I have same MM book. You have to admit the concept art is closer to final product, though. Mostly, I'm complaining about how the concept art is mostly ignored with TFs. But that's just an ignorant opinion. The posted Sandstorm concept art looks fantastic.