LoL, ok. You can literally throw in whatever you want. That doesn't make it true.

Let's compare for lulz:

​

And just for reference. Some other completely irrelevant characters that I think are less classics looking in the face than Breacher are:

- Every movie character toy.
- Mindwipe
- Animated toys.


Now, end of the day, I wouldn't purpose him with my classics, because, he's pretty much the opposite of HFTD Seaspray for me. The head is perfect, but the body aesthetic isn't classics (mainly the limbs).

 

"Face value?" What possible gain could I eke out of bullshitting you about my own aesthetic sense? I'm clearly not the only one who has a similar opinion, either.

And before you ask, I don't give a fig what shelf fans decide Seaspray belongs on. I just picked out that individual statement and decided to make a comment on it.

 

ok, cool - I'll just repost it then - sorry, it got submitted by accident whilst writing first time around:

Help me understand something here, TJ - Breacher:

1. is packaged as a movie verse toy
2. is put in the movie verse acording to his bio
3. is put in the movie verse acording to official fiction
4. has a real world vehicle mode.
5. is over detailed
6. is a new character


All that makes a fairly good argument for why he should be movie verse - however, if we put all of that aside and just go with the fact that you want to exclude him from your movie collection, then why should that automatically make him a classic toy?

To me it feels...wrong to put a brand new character in a collection that you refer to as classics to begin with. Why not just put him with other figures like pcc and make them into their own little universe, why does it have to be classics?

Right with that question posed, I'd just thought I'd give you all something to smile about:



is it an alien or is it human? Going by the logic in this thread it should be a human because it has a human face...right?

 

To me, Breacher has a face that would fit right at home in the AEC trilogy. I'm one of those bastards who has both him AND Seaspray in with my Classics. I also have Hubcap looking confused while trying to man Protector's Mobile Defense Bay...along with Terradive & Space Case bookending my Decepticon ranks. To each their own.

 

meh, if you just look at the heads they do kind of feel like they could go with oneanother:

 

Come guys, why are we prolonging with this argument? Why do you even care where others put Breacher in their collection? Conversely, is it really necessary for you to justify to others which line you put your Breacher?

Like jerminator said, to each his own. As long as you are happy with what your decision, then so be it. You don't really need another person's approval....

 

I don't know what it is, but I'm not putting it in my Alien collection.  

 

Yeah, this was my thinking exactly. The figure wouldn't have looked out of place if he were released as a Scout in 2005 in the Cybertron line. He's got an incredibly anime-inspired face, rather than the... movie-inspired faces.

He's not a Classic character, but "Classics" has become a catch-all for Universe, Generations, etc. especially in regards to shelves. Plus, there have been new characters in a Classics line (almost all the Minicons, RtS Lugnut... not to mention most everyone in the original Universe line).

 

Let me put it this way.

If Breacher were released in 2006 as a Cybertron Scout-class figure, no one would bat an eye at it. People would scoff at the idea of him looking "movie-verse." His face is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally anime-esque.

He's just a non-screen character in the Generations line to me.

 

It's a plastic representation of a robot...  

I can't believe there are people in here who are dictating to others how they should be interpreting aesthetics.
It's already been shown beyond all reasonable doubt (and indeed sanity!) that there is no right answer.

 

And I think that;s a big part of the problem: instead of posting that these are our own biases and perceptions and opinions, we are basing them as undeniable facts.

Clearly we all look at things with different eyes, and seldom can agree on what G1 is or means; so how can there be a hard solid fact that movieverse IS this and NOT that?

For me, I see Breacher and see movieverse. Seaspray won't make it into my Classics shelf for his [lack of] face alone... and his size doesn't help his case either.

It's o.k. that because I exclude figures based on size I am not a true collector; for 4 years now I haven't been a true fan either- and I haven't been one since 1984 or so.

 

Yeppers. That's a very good way of putting it.

 

(lol Drift)

Well, they would be pretty surprised how much engineering and articulation he has compared to Shortround and Ransack  

 

I didn't mean to suggest that anything was a solid fact. I just thought it was worthwhile to offer my take on it considering that I do in fact collect movie toys and I like their look. Many of the regular posters in this section just think of movieverse as "something to avoid."

However, my perspective on Breacher is that he totally fails to look like a movie figure. Hasbro often fails to produce original designs for the movie lines that look a thing like the designs ILM's crew comes up with, but in Breacher's case I don't think they were even trying. There's nothing wrong with that, as Hasbro and Takara seem to enjoy working with a hybrid movie/classics style when producing original characters.

As someone who has massive shelves of movie-type and classic-type toys and who keeps them fairly "segregated," I wouldn't display Breacher with movie toys if you paid me. Sometimes he hangs with my classics, other times he chills with a motley crew of other HftDs, RtS, PCC, etc. Currently I believe he is boxed.

 

I have my collection arranged by character rather than lines, so.... yay?

 

Keep loling, he's not in my collection either ;-)