Well said.

I don't entirely agree. The concept art is certainly a more elegant rendtion, but I'd still say that the toy is still an awkward version of both the CGI model and the 3A figurine (I do think the 3A silhouette is better). I mean, a lot of it is really just about getting the relative proportions exactly right. It's not always easy, but for this design, it just feels like it ends up making a big difference.

At least for myself, it's the difference between "This looks FFFFing amazing!" vs "This looks... meh."

By the standards of Bayformers in 2007, I think this would have been a welcome alternative to Gorilla-Kite Starscream - though that's mainly a question of the core aesthetics (especially for people wanting a more traditional G1 style). This design just looks more like how we imagine a "movie Seeker" should look.

However, in terms of overall quality of execution, I don't find that this figure is really any better or more impressive than many movie figures released at that time. The bot mode is a little more solid, but the jet mode is still as big a mess as we've ever gotten.

Although we've picked up a few more interesting engineering tricks here and there, I wouldn't say that the quality and engineering level on newer TFs has really changed for the better since then.

zmog

 

Engineering has definitely been upped. Just look at S-32.

 

This post makes me sad.

 

The jet is from 1960, I really doubt Boeing is concerned with protecting the design, especially since it was partially developed by the US government. Modern military vehicles are often privately designed and copyrighted, but not old ones.

I do understand you just not caring, but it’s still a disappointment. This isn’t a normal movieverse line, the figures cost extra because they have greater detail.

 

Can you point me to where this was or provide a link to it? I want to read what Hasbro said for myself. I finally got a chance to watch the video review and I am still baffled by the "sacrifices" that were made for the robot mode. The vertical stabilizers could have easily been in the shape of the one seen in an F-4. They even could have made the vertical stabilizer it split in half (if needed) for robot mode. In addition, the shape of the wings could have been designed closer to the F-4 wings as well - it would have had zero effect on the robot mode. Those two changes would have made a big difference.

With that said, the robot mode is frickin gorgeous. Sadly, that's the mode Blitzwing will almost exclusively stay in when I get him.

Hopefully Hasbro will take another try at Blitzwing in the future.

 

I'm not sure we've had enough comparison pictures to the real jet and the toy jet in this thread yet. Maybe if we have a few more Hasbro will cancel this toy and make a new one. LOL.

 

Nah! Start mailing pictures of F4 Phantoms to the CEO of Hasbro! That should do the trick.

 

    That'll learn 'em!

#Justice4Phantom

 

Although to be fair, thanks @Purple Heart for the comparison for people who just came to the thread recently to explain to them what the fuss is about

 

Pointing to an exception doesn't prove the rule. There are great figures now, just as there were great figures then. After the dozens of versions of Optimus they've done, I'd still have a hard time saying that there's a clear forward progression. I don't like the look of S-32 at all, but that's mainly about the colour blocking. In terms of the core engineering, the silhouette is pretty good, but it's nothing we couldn't have seen 10 years ago... just smaller  

zmog

 

What are you talking about my man? This Blitzwing, and your average SS series figure in general, are alot more articulated than the 2007 figures. That alone would make people drool over them. I have 2007 Starscream in my table right now (because i dig his giant gattling gun arms) but he is kind of a brick, in a way that we don't really see in modern figures.

 

I disagree. The earlier Bayformers-era figures have a LOT of articulation and moving parts. There's nothing in the new stuff that just was never seen before. There's no paradigm shift, like comparing G1 to the ball-joint era, or comparing Armada to Generations, etc...

If anything, I'd say that the Studio Series has tended to simplify many of designs, and use more "cheats" (as well as shrinking them) - though I consider that a good thing, because too many early Bayformers were overly-complex and messy, and a lot of the newer ones focus more on play value and getting the right robot-mode shape.

In that sense, the style has changed. The new SS stuff feels more solid and less fussy because they have fewer parts (but focus on the essentials).

zmog

 

SS-32 isn't the exception, it's the norm. You're not going to see progression like G1 to ball joints because G1 had almost no possability. In the last 10 years, transformers have just become a lot more efficient. There is a clear difference in how figures looks today vs yesteryear because of the efficiency, and more accurate asthetic because of it.

 

Again, I disagree. The differences are largely superficial, unless by "efficiency" you're actually referring to how Hasbro has simplified, reduced sizes, and lowered the parts-count on most of their mainline figures (while substantially increasing prices)...?

The Studio Series does tend to have somewhat more accurately-shaped figures, mostly due to blocking out simpler forms and using various cheats in lieu of more "perfect" transformations. I've made the argument in the past that the older stuff was often too complex for its own good.

But that's more of an aesthetic choice, not an actual shift in the level of technology or clear advancement in materials or techniques. There's lots to like about many of the new figures, but it's hard to chart it as a progressive evolution. I'm not talking about "style"... pretty much every line in the last decade or so had a distinctive style. They've changed approaches a few times, but the toolset itself hasn't changed much at all since back then.

Also, calling 2007 Voyager Starscream a "brick" sort of implies you don't remember what real 'bricks' are. I hate that old Starscream figure, but I'll give it credit where due.

I've been in this fandom for a good long while now. I don't think you're capable of convincing me your point-of-view is accurate on this. I suspect we're just talking about different things. I doubt either one of us wants to indulge in an exhaustive case-by-case analysis of the past 13 years of retail Transformers. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

zmog

 

If one is capable of acknowledging everything that is relavent, and take into account what they mean, then they should be able tl get a point across.

A lot of things from the mid 2000s featured large, pointless automorph sections, limiting both posability and accuracy. And when figures didn't have large, pointless automorph sections, they just relied on large sections of the alt modes to approcimate the form of a bot.

What I am getting at when speaking about efficiency, is the usage of parts to better appricimate the forms of the actual character designs. Older figures would just transform, but just for the sake of transformation, with many pieces just going somewhere else because it kind of looked like it did in the movie.

Transfornations are all, for the most part, different, so saying "techniques" have not change does not inherently mean much. Partscount is on a case by case basis, but for a majority of the time, it's typically the same. The evolution of transformers isn't akind to bricks to balljoint, but towards accuracy and posability, rather than simply trying to look like a bot.

 

If we're mainly looking at Bayformers, then we can point to a stylistic shift... but techniques and parts-counts ARE relevant.

Ball-joints were a major shift in the 'toy technology' and we haven't had an integration of something that significant for a long while.

But we have seen numerous degradations. When you say "efficiency" what I believe you're referring to is largely a number of coping mechanisms put in place to work around new cost limitations. The molds are simplified. They rely on fewer parts (undeniably, I would say), and the overall construction is more reliant on hollow sections, pin-and-rivet connections, and inferior ratchet-joint substitutes.

In the case of Bayformers, this means more of the technical detail and vehicle forms are simply 'molded in' as surface detailing, rather than being articulated in a semi-functional way (ie: cheats). There is a foregrounding of aesthetics over functionality.

You can certainly argue that this ends up making more accurate figures with easier transformations, and that this is a good thing - it may be a wiser approach, but in terms of innovations and advancements in the actual engineering and available materials/technology, there's nothing new here, and nothing that pushes the overall state of Transformer design forward.

Similarly, I wouldn't argue that Combiner Wars figures are significantly improved in terms of engineering compared to earlier Generations figures. In most senses, they're actually more primitive. However, I do like them better than some of the post-Bayformers Generations, which are (as you alluded to) prone to "transforming for the sake of transformation" - adding complex new ways of achieving otherwise simple effects. I see less of that innovation now, but I don't miss that virtuoso design so much. Sometimes I just want something that looks good and is fun to handle.

I do wish they had sorted out that aesthetic direction back before the cost-cutting measures became so heavy-handed.

zmog

 

When I mean transformers have become more efficient, I mean all parts of most figures have been put to use in order to insure a more accurate and posable figure. I now understand what you mean by major shift in toy technology. Going from hinges to ball joints was a leap in technology, but how to you evolve that ? The best choice I would see happening would be mixing of the two joints, which is what the vast majority of modern figures use. When concerning partscount, it's mostly a baseless assumption. Comparing older figures to their newer versions only points out the refined design, with similar parts counts. The same can be said for transformations, with most modern igures having transformations that are just as complex, but are also refined.

A line such as Combiner Wars is known to just be a ton of cheap and rehashed figures. Newer figures utilize special molds, with fodder figures being thrown in to get the use out of one or two molds, such as Brunt and Cog.

 

I don't think it's a baseless assumption at all (actually incrediblly self-evident!) but I guess we'd have to see some hard numbers and ratios to satisfy you. To me, the simplification has very obviously taken the form of lower parts-counts... with fewer separate elements in just about every limb and joint, etc. This is a very real cost-cutting technique. Moreover, you can see them experimenting with different solutions - for example, Titans Return Astrotrain's hips, using cuts in the single-part thigh joint as a tension-tab for the ratchets. Interesting, but still clearly a compensation for a quality cutback... which doesn't work especially well.

You could also look at figures from the later movie lines and Studio Series for examples of simplified engineering and parts counts. Comparing SS Jazz to TFTM07 Jazz, obviously the new version looks better (since Jazz 07 was never a good figure) but it definitely has a much lower parts-count. It's also about half the size, and costs 50% more.

Transformers lines have been making heavy use of remolds for quite some time now. Combiner Wars has pushed this pretty far, but due to the fact they're working from the Scramble City model, a lot of the recycled engineering is appropriate, and the resulting figures are often more solid and functional than seen in earlier Generations lines (with less fussy transformations). This works well for some figures... not so well for others. But generally, these are the most successful combiners Hasbro has ever made.

Overall, I'd say Hasbro designers have finally figured out (maybe too late) that they need to experiment less, and deliver simpler, better-looking figures. The early Bayformers stuff was remarkably intricate, but not much fun to handle.

I'm not sure what would be as dramatic as integrating ball-joints. Probably because nobody's thought of it yet... we're still waiting for the next big leap forward. The advent of high-level articulation (ankle-tilts for everyone!) happened a while ago, but we've also lost a lot of older, better construction techniques (like screw construction and full spring-based ratcheting).

Every now and again, you see something really cool, like using diagonal swivel joints to achieve interesting effects (like Animated Voyager Bulkhead's ankles), or Siege Jetfire's articulated hands that fold out a 5mm peg when closed into fists. It's interesting to see touches like this, but you never know when they'll be deployed on a larger scale.

zmog

 

I now understand your point. A lot of figures do indeed impliment cost saving measures, but the moajority of the time, the figures aren't ruined by these methods. Some figures, like SS Jazz, may be better and more accurate figures, but they are quite simple. I will say that I disagree with the older, better construction point. These newer figure feel much better than figures from the 2000s. I also disagree with the spring loaded ratchet part. Transformers usually use them, but I'd think they'd find greater success in LEGO style ratchet joints. One half houses the teeth, while the other half houses a rounded, flexible tooth.

 

I just watched PrimeVPrime YouTube review on this figure. The bot mode looks great and there's some nice articulation on it for a Studio Series figure.

I had no intention of getting it, but now I just ordered (pre-ordered?) it off Amazon for a cool $26.86.