So, this post mainly exists to express a thought that's been rattling around in my head for a while now. This thought is that Hasbro has got itself tied up in a knot about "cartoon accuracy", and this is actually becoming a negative for the toys in question. This is most evident in the Masterpiece line, and the modern Generations that ape it. I will now spend some time talking about how we got here, before going onto why its bad. Not bad in an “actual problem” sense, but more of a “something which I love is digging itself into a hole” sense. I just have things I’d like to say.
<deep breath>
If we go back to the start, that is 1984 with the Sunbow/Marvel cartoon, we will note that the characters on screen don't necessarily line up with the toys they are supposed to be. Most character models, that is to say the basic blueprint and guide animators would use to draw the characters, were drastically simplified versus their toys. This isn't like how it is with GI Joe, or He-man or similar, where you're taking a human being in odd clothes, and presenting them in different mediums and its not a direct translation. No, Transformers tended to have radically different robot modes from their toys, a big thing as it was the robot mode that defined the character. And character was important, as Transformers was/is a multimedia effort in the vein of Star Wars, and this was a world children were meant to invest in. Why the deviation then? Well, any number of reasons, such as the complicated origin of these toys, but the realities of low budget animation were probably a big one. There is a certain degree of complexity where it becomes unworkable to animate something, and with dozens of toys with wildly different proportions to each-other, Transformers hit that barrier immediately, so everything needed to be simplified. Other media, notably package art, did not necessarily follow this style, although things got consolidated as time went on. For an example of this, I'm not going to go for the obvious low hanging fruit, like Ironhide, or the outliers that were actually pretty good, like Shockwave, or the broader brand unity that Transformers grew into. You can go to the wiki for such things. I will however present the well-known series mascot Bumblebee in toy and cartoon form.
Yes, there was a red Bumblebee toy. Just ignore it, we've got a lot to cover today.
However, this did not continue as time passed. Technology improves, priorities change, oil prices rise. Its an ebb and flow thing, but stuff like the above are now the exception, not the norm. Of course, unavoidably, people will ask why we can't have a toy that looks the 80's cartoon but actually transforms? A "cartoon accurate" one, as it were? Because its often wildy impractical or stupidly expensive to try. The hard truth is that the character models from that time where not designed as 3D objects that changed with internal logic and attempts at technical realism. They were designed to be drawn by an over-worked and under-paid animator in under 10 minutes. This does not however stop the toy designers from trying, god bless ‘em and sometimes it works really well. Some characters do OK, solutions have been found, but some others seem to be trapped as disappointments because somebody keeps favouring their overtly flawed G1 character models. Thus we get toys that either have massive kibble issues or flat-out cheat, which have become more common since the War for Cybertron trilogy started in 2019. Since then, there was a definite move towards mini-masterpieces that favour the Sunbow animation style, especially around the point of Earthrise and the 1986 film getting into Studio Series. For the most part, these were well-received, Hasbro’s efforts paying off off with some legitimate classics like Earthrise Optimus Prime & Cliffjumper, but also notable instances of partsforming, and faux kibble. If you are unfamiliar with these terms, partsforming is where a Transformer comes to pieces to transform, and faux kibble is when a robot mode has decorative vehicle bits that aren’t formed from their vehicle mode. While not inherently bad, these are often viewed as a negative or cheating by people whom like to transform their toys, like myself. Then we had the proverbial canary in the coal-mine with Earthrise Arcee. Now, Arcee invites a prolonged tangent about sexism, but for now let us concern ourself with the fact she didn’t have an 80’s toy, and attempts to replicate her animation appearance in plastic form tend to be mixed successes at best. This however was a new low.
Before I go further, I want to stress something: you don’t need my approval to enjoy what you enjoy. It would be normal to purchase the above toy, and appreciate it as it is. I’m not here to bring you down. However, by the same token, it is not unreasonable for me to point out they’ve prioritised the animation look over the titular transformation aspect of the Transformers toy. I would have liked to enjoyed this toy too, but they sacrificed everything for the appearance of the robot mode. You may as well have had a non-transforming figure at this point, and that’s fine, they were called Action Masters, but I’m just going to gesture towards the brand name. This design philosophy is what Hasbro thinks we all want, where the extent to which something resembles an old cartoon is more important than how it plays and transforms. For a less extreme example, see also: Earthrise Ironhide.
Now,
lets talk about the new Transformers: Legacy toyline. While
thankfully moving out of the G1 bracket to play in other
continuities, Legacy is very much continuing this trend. Blitzwing, a
triplechanger, a tranformer with two vehicle modes, was the toy that inspired this article. It is so
committed to capturing the 80’s animation, it actually creates
faux kibble, the aforementioned fake vehicle bits, to replicate mistakes. To quote the wiki:
Like the majority of new season 2 characters, Blitzwing's character model was designed with only a front-facing image of his toy for reference, requiring the designers to invent a rear-view design from virtually whole cloth. Blitzwing's rear-view model misinterprets how many details visible from the front are supposed to work: instead of the tank turret that is supposed to rest on his back, he instead has a sort of "jetpack" which incorporates both his jet-mode engines (which are actually supposed to be his feet) and his wings (which are supposed to be part of his shoulders). His tank barrel does not even protrude from this backpack, but is instead shifted to emerge from the back of his head.
Additionally, the character model for his tank mode was evidently based on a mis-transformed toy, as it orients the entire body of the tank backwards, with his jet cockpit being at the front, visible below the tank's barrel, instead of at the back.
OK, here's the Legacy robot mode.
And here’s that tank mode in Legacy.
So, the
jet cockpit, if it has to be visible in tank form, not that it
should, needs to be facing the back. That’s how the actual 1980’s
toy worked. Instead the toy designers spent plastic replicating that
nosecone upfront, with a faux kibble bit to complete the effect. They purposefuly made the tank less convincing, and thus a less good triplechanger, so they could be more cartoon accurate. Towards that goal, they also gave the robot mode its own decorative wing backpack, while the actual wings became the legs, as well as the numerous
flaws that can arise from doing a triplechanger, which are
notoriously troublesome projects. Please allow me to hammer
this point home: for Legacy Blitzwing, the designers prioritised
an old character model over other key aspects of the toy, said model
being intended to sell a toy from the 80’s, and which was
fundamentally wrong in the first place. And then they added some
hulk-hands to justify the price point, which look fun, but don’t
fit the 80's style they were aiming for. Does this not seem to be a daft
way of doing things? Here's the jet mode, if you think I'm being hyperbolic.
However, Legacy’s worst offender is however possibly the biggest show-piece in the line: The Stunticons and their combined form, Menasor. While the individual members largely stayed on model back in the day, Menasor was a frequent victim of animation mistakes where the limbs were not formed from the individual robots, and looked more like the combiner was wearing them like some form of cosplay. Not the model was especially close in the first place, as the default resembles a more singular robot whose arms and calves are also cars, rather than five vehicles as one. Just for comparative purposes, take a look at Defensor, Devastator, etc, you’ll see what I mean. Muddying the waters further was the Stunticon leader, Motormaster, whose truck & trailer altmode presented a scale issue with rest of the team, and Optimus Prime whom presented an obvious rival. Thus, the Stunticons in general are a problem whose solution is one that cannot please everyone, because the cartoon model deviates so strongly from both the actual toy, and itself, depending on the studio. Combiner Wars took at swing of at this, and produced a middling result which suffered from engineering problems. A do-over was not unwelcome.
And then Legacy sought to copy the cartoon, including the mistakes.
<sigh>
So, these chaps don’t combine. Not properly. Its more like you dress a skeleton formed from the trailer, with each of the four limbbots being optional. Motormaster meanwhile transforms into the truck cab, and has faux kibble feet that look like a plush slipper version of that altmode. If another robot toyline had done this, we’d be calling it out as bad design. It defeats the object of a combiner team if four of the members technically don't need to be there. They looked at the cartoon, then they looked at the third party scene, and thought this was a good idea to go with. Why? Because nostalgia appeal was more important than making the toy actually transform and combine. Cartoon accuracy first, where said cartoon lacked consistency. I think that’s a bad call.
And, on the other end of the scale, if you’re gonna go this far for the Stunticons, why do the “Prime Universe” toys look like they do? I’m not complaining, but, why? Cost-cutting?
In Conclusion
Ultimately, none of the above matters. None of it. Its a toyline, if you like it, buy it, if you don’t, don’t buy it. I’m not a completionist, and I’d happy to see other people happy. But I’d like it more people realised how self-defeating this this design approach is. You say you want cartoon accuracy? OK, I get it, but there’s a cut-off point where it becomes a negative, and we’ve gone past that point. Ultimately what’s more important? A bad toy with a great likeness, or a great toy with a bad likeness? Personally, I want the great toy.
(Images in this post are Hasbro stock photography and/or are sourced from tfwiki.)
No comments:
Post a Comment