Right, lets talk about this side
project I was talking about. Its taken a while, as I slowly crawl to
my objective, but the first step has been made. I now sell toys on
the internet. My hobby is now an attempt at a profession.
Now, lets answer some questions.
What do you sell?
Transformers. As you might expect.
Maybe other stuff by the time you read this. Or less.
First off, thanks for looking. Second:
hey, baby steps. Baby steps. Got a lot on order.
Are you going beyond being an eBay
trader?
That's the plan. Just now, I'm doing
what I can between shifts, so its taking time.
What does this mean for this blog?
In the short term? A hiatus. I started
this blog to fill free time, and despite my early optimism, I have
less of that. This is on top of the family matter, too.
So, after the hiatus?
If I sell Transformers, I feel I
can't really review Transformers any more. The potential for
bias, or accusations thereof, is not something I want. So, I'm going
to rework the blog away from such things into more general
discussions.
What happens to the existing reviews?
The internet forgets nothing, so as
they are up, they stay up. I stand by my previous work though.
When will you post here again?
I'm not doing a regular schedule, but
maybe in a month, all being well.
Thanks to all my readers, hope to see
you all back with a new format soon.
Play Patterns: Robot and
tank, C Clip weaponry, pressure missile, spinning saws, a pack-in
comic in the USA.
Points of Interest: A rare
modernisation of a character from the then-controversial Beast
Machines series.
The Good Tankor
has an almost perfect resemblance to the animation model in robot
mode, and strikes an imposing silhouette. All the elements are there,
spinning buzzsaws, opening claws, and an impressive shoulder cannon.
Total joint count is 21, best in the arms due to a non-humanoid
design, but extremely characterful. Switching to tank mode is simple,
and the weapon is C rung based, granting some additional play value.
The Bad This is one
of those toys whom is probably in the wrong size class, many feeling
the character would have been better served as voyager rather than a
stumpy deluxe. As he stands, Tankor suffers from some very notable
hollows in both modes, wheels that don't roll well, and a left leg
that likes to separate at the thigh during transformation. There is
also some misapplied paint on mine, while some examples have two left arms, preventing transformation, and the comic has its
pages out of order too.
The Mediocre Fidelity
to the animation is much lower in tank form, and if you aren't
familiar with Beast Machines, the Visible Head Syndrome will be a
negative. There's been no attempt to work in 5mm functionality, not
that he ever really had accessories in the show, and the
implementation of the buzzsaws leaves them fixed to the forearms.
The Alternatives Most
of the alternatives to Tankor require you to go back to the original
Beast Machines moulds, circa 2000. These vary significantly in price,
likeness, and size, but the tiny Tank Drone toy is well-regarded. Be
warned however that chrome, translucent plastic and balljoints were
very common, and its been 16 or so years. If all you want is a big
and brutal looking military vehicle though, consider Generations
Warpath or Darkmount of a few years earlier.
The Verdict Going
by a checklist, Tankor just isn't very good. He needed a few less
gaps, and a bit more functionality. If you are on-board with the
marmite style, like me, the robot mode more than compensates. Tankor
is probably the most unique Transformer of the past five years, but
that's not necessarily the same thing as being great. If it is to
you, or you're a Beast Machines fan, rejoice, he's quite cheap on the
secondary market. But for everyone else, you can skip him.
Play
Patterns: Beast and vehicle, combiner, 5mm weaponry.
Points
of Interest: A newly combining modernisation of the 1986 original. No
partner legend toy. THIS EXISTS.
The Good His dinobird mode
has 26 joints, 4 in the neck and head, making him very expressive. He
can't wield his weapons in the normal sense, but there 5mm ports on
the wings, and dedicated tabs for tail storage. His shuttle mode
captures the G1 toy, with a sci-fi spin. The torso mode is both
distinctive and attractive, its lynx head, colours and chest granting
much character. For this review, I've been forced to use a few
stand-ins, but Sky Reign impresses, not least due to his combined
sword weapon. He looks good in all three modes, and the play value is
there, and boy, does he stand out on the shelf because he's so weird.
Also, he's vaguely adorable.
The Bad Sky Lynx has been
the subject of repeated reports of loose joints, my example being
effected. The back feet don't always hold a position, and the major ratchets
are too soft. This is problematic in the combined form, not least
because the shoulder assemblies don't lock in place. Its not as bad
as a problem as say a first run of Motor Master, but it is an issue.
Less subjectively, there's a few too many gaps here, and the lynx
head isn't properly hidden.
The
Mediocre Due to his reduced size and combiner role, Sky Lynx has
lost some modes, but you can fudge a lynx form. The lack of a true
robot form will bother some, and I personally prefer to transform the
torso mode differently from the instructions. The shuttle mode
arguably does a better job than the CW Aerialbot moulds at concealing
the robot forms, as while there's stuff under the wing, its not
obviously limbs, and its meant to be there.
The
Alternatives Commander Modesty is so hugely odd that no directly
comparable options exist other than the G1 toy. There's incoming
release of the Liokaiser set which we know includes a repaint of
this, but little else. This leaves almost any CW voyager, but none of
those are beasts.
The
Verdict Sky Lynx benefits immensely from being completely unlike
the rest of Combiner Wars, both visually and in play, while retaining
most of the strengths. This is another one of those toys nobody
expected, a welcome break from the monotony of the line, and has much
to enjoy. However, the loose joints took the shine off things for me.
This is not a consistent flaw, and one I intend to fix, but I would
be remiss as reviewer to not mention it. Its also a marmite concept
that suffers from having to combine with a load of repaints.
Definitely good, but not mandatory.
Reviewing cinematic failure is easy.
Flaws are usually obvious, or numerous, or even interesting, which
make for good material. Some
films can be so bad that writing about them is a safe way
to vent. Yes, you are supposed to maintain some attempt at
objectivity, which is why I make a point of finding strengths and
weaknesses, but catharsis is catharsis. A legitimately excellent film
is more difficult to talk about. On the fanboy level, you don't want
to say too much for fear of ruining the experience. Its like
explaining the joke, or dissectingthe frog, you can't put it back together when you've
finished. Similarly, you doubt if your own response is a reasoned
one. Were you swept up in the moment? Do the nitpicks matter? Do you
have an unacknowledged bias? Or will your opinion presumed to have
one? I've already been extremely hard on the distinguished competition, after all. Going by fan reactions, and the occasional
gulf between critics and those fans, you'd think most films are
either excellent or dire, with nothing in between. This problem
becomes worse when the film is a sequel, especially one which is part
of these new, "universes".
Its at least partially a generational
thing, back in the 80's, 90's, even at the millennium, ye olde
video tape days, honestly good sequels were rare. Franchises did
exist, don't let anyone tell ya different, but sequels were usually
the domain of the lazy cash grab or the niche. This attitude still
remains common in film critics, whom often take the view all works
should be self-contained, rather coast on a previous success. Its not
a baseless complaint though, diminishing returns is a thing, and its
rather annoying to see a bad film presume a follow up. A persistent
doubt is whether you can fairly judge a piece of a whole? And whether
this flaw is a plot-hole or a sequel hook? As you liked the first
film, aren't you sold on the sequel by default? And, when you get
right down to it, multi genre long form story telling is some that
hasn't really been done on screen before. Its not unique to comics,
but its not exactly routine for Hollywood. When it comes to the
Marvel Cinematic Universe, we have all of the above and more. The
Marvel films have yet to produce an actual turkey, a few Ds
certainly, but tending towards Bs for the most part. And people love
them, assuming they don't have a dislike for the genre. But Marvel's
consistent success adds to the review difficulty. We have an idea
what to expect now, there's certainly enough for haters to hate, but,
somehow, the movies keep on surprising us. And when they don't, we at
least have something you can watch twice. The Law of Averages demands
they must do a bad film eventually. Perhaps there was one, and we
just loved them so much, we don't care. Does familiarity breed
contempt? Or maybe this will run and run, like your average soap
opera or Last of the Summer Wine. What will happen first, the end of
the MCU, or the heat death of the actual universe?
Yes, I am stalling for time.
Look, you only need to know one thing
about this film: its another success. If you need to know two things?
The harshest criticism I can make is that it is indeed a sequel. Its
drawing on eight years worth of material, which runs the risk of
alienating new viewers, but just about everything that makes this
film exceptional is made possible by that legacy. Could they have cut
a few characters? Yeah. Would have been a better film? Probably nah.
The airport fight that the trailers feature is a spectacle on a level
we haven't seen since Avengers: Assemble, the sense that another
fanboy dream has been made manifest. Whereas there the joy was that
somebody had finally “got” the idea of a team of heroes with
different powers, this film pitches two such teams against each other
rather than disposalible foes, and its worth the price of admission
by itself. All of a sudden, every single X-Men film looks like a
missed opportunity. But more important than that, it sells the
conflict. The film works because we know the characters, because we
know that they would act like this, and we know what's at stake. Its
like watching your parents divorce, or two mates in a nasty argument.
Its a tragedy that plays out in front of you, as deep bonds are
broken on principle. Who is right? Is the argument even about
government oversight? Neither, and not for long.
Comparisons to Batman V Superman are
impossible to avoid, and while its not really fair to make one, the
contrast is sharp. Even with eight years of continuity weighing them
down, and potential for Robert Downey Jr. to steal the show, the
Russo Brothers has created a narrative that makes a hell of a lot
more sense and doesn't shortchange anybody. Its still the Captain's
film at the end of the day, plot threads from his previous solo
outing being the starting point. As with the Winter Soldier, this
film takes another sledgehammer to the status quo, but is notable for
having something of a downer ending. Perhaps not for the reasons you
might think, and certainly not the ponderous gloom of Bats v Supes,
its a case where the actual villain of the piece wins. Marvel tends
be criticised for its bad guys, because if they aren't Loki, they
tend towards being 2-dimensional in some way, or not being given the
due screentime. The antagonist in this probably won't defuse those
complaints, but does go against the trend, and is used with same
level of intelligence of the rest of the film.
I don't want to say much more at this
point. With Marvel consistency being what it is, you know how you
will likely react to this film. Spider-Man? Yeah, he's great. Black
Panther? Nicely done. Vision and Scarlett Witch get some great
scenes. I will end on this thought. Captain America: Civil War may
not be the best film ever made, but its one of the best Marvel has
ever done, and certainly top ten material.
Images copyright Marvel, used under
fair use provisions
Play Patterns: Robot and
vehicle, “sixth member” combiner to Onslaught, 5mm weaponry,
targetmaster.
Points of Interest: Homage
to the G1 episode “The Revenge of Bruticus”. Rare new mould in
Combiner Wars.
The Good
Nearly everything. The
ship mode is very close to his original gun form, while the robot is
a more of modernisation via the video games. Both look great, and the
robot is almost ideally articulated for the size. There's a balljoint
for the head, great motion in the shoulder through a balljoint/swivel
combo, similar in the hips, and better knees than me. Joint count is
14, the neck being above and beyond the call of duty, so making
natural poses with the gun arm is easy. He operates excellently as a
big gun for Bruticus, being able to store on his back too.
The Bad
To emulate the G1 toy,
translucent plastic is extensively here, most worryingly in the
elbows. Breakages will be a thing to watch for. The forearms are a
weak point, generating kibble in all modes. Achieving the gun mode is
a matter of flipping a handle down, and while this can store on
Onslaught's altmode, it doesn't sit well. There was also a tiny spot
of misapplied paint on my example.
The Mediocre
Shockwave is specifically
designed to work with Combiner Wars gestalt hands, and a bar of
plastic before the peg will interfere with many regular hands, not to
mention the weight.
The Alternatives
As a distinctive G1
original, Shockwave is extremely well supplied for toys, most
recently with a Masterpiece release. Within Combiner Wars, the most
obvious alternative is the Powerglide mould, specifically the Viper
repaint. This would arguably fit the Combaticon theme better, BUT
that's a weaker toy with tabbing issues. There is also the Botcon
2016 Relector pack remoulded from this, which I have, and adore,
but its going to be expensive.
The Verdict
Shockwave is an unabashed
success. Its difficult to image a version of the character at this
size and price done better. As a partner mould to combiner, he's the
best example of the concept. Yeah, he's basically a targetmaster
whereas the other toys tried something new, but its a tried and true
gimmick executed well. I would personally prefer that translucent
plastic wasn't so big a feature, but its early days, and it makes the
toy look good in a 1984 sort of way. Pick him up.
