- With the current TF:Universe packaging, we appreciate the return to character box art, but why is it that nearly all of the art for the characters share the same face? Some fans have said they felt the look was static, lifeless, even creepy; and they don't really match the faces of the figures within. So what's the story with this boxart?
(I'm inclined to ask this as I am very curious about it)
I'm not going to keep this as-is only because we know for sure that a big part of Hasbro's business model is about redeco potential being factored into mold costs. It occurs in TF, SW, GI Joe, Mr Potato-head, pretty much everything they do tries to follow this business model going back almost 50 years to the original Mr Potato-head and GI Joe.How far in advance are redecos of new figures generally planned? Does planning these in advance mean the figure can have a larger budget than others? Universe Sunstreaker and Prowl, for example, with their multiple built-in redecos, got to keep their translucent parts while Tankor had his cut.
That said, if you can rework the question to ask the timeline issue, I'll consider that part.
I'm also curious why they act strangely with light-piping, it can't always be about costs because sometimes they'll actually pay more to paint over it. ... and then I saw your 3rd question.
How's this...While the current team may not be able to answer this, Beast Wars had a lot of figures that were clearly designed to have lightpiping, but did not end up with it. Some of these figures, like Dinobot and Waspinator, had semi-translucent parts anyway. The G2 Flipchangers used for Machine Wars (Hoist, Mirage, Megatron, OtherJet) suffered the same fate, but had this restored for later releases - whereas the beasts did not. Why was lightpiping abandoned as a practically line-wide gimmick?
- Light-piping has been part of the Transformers line for quite a while now, but some figures appear to be designed for light-piping and then have these light-pipe designs circumvented through opaque materials or even paint. Why has the extensive use of light-piping been abandoned as a line-wide gimmick? Why are some uses designed, even cast in translucent plastic, and then painted over?
Skywarp/Thundercracker? That one always reminded me of Dreadwing (the only G2 figure I own).Is there any information available on who the non-Megatron jet mould used in Machine Wars and onward was originally intended to be? Unlike the other three moulds, it's not clearly a previous character.
I can't imagine how they'd answer this one because there are TONS of designs that don't get used, but I'll give it a shot with the following rework:A vague question, but are there any surprising examples where ambitious design elements didn't clear the budgeting? While Energon Ironhide and Cliffjumper suffered obviously for losing their translucent parts (Not to dwell on translucent parts, but..) Cybertron Optimus Prime's cancelled spare tire weapons were a surprise. Some have speculated that Vector Prime, for example, was originally intended to contain a light gimmick.
- Are there any surprising examples where ambitious design elements came close but didn't clear budget? There's always the loss of translucent parts, but there's also stuff like Cybertron Optimus Prime's spare tire weapons, and many have speculated that the Vector Prime figure's chest was supposed to contain an electronic light gimmick to shine through the Cyber Keys (any truth to that one?).
I may hold onto that for a later round, and maybe flesh it out a little more, ask what they think when they do, or why they don't. It depends on what does get included here.Does the design team read toy reviews?
Done!Dominic wrote:I recommend we move this to the general forums, as it could easily cross more than one line.
Dom
-has a few questions to post later.
The movie fits into this very badly, originally I was going to put it in "other media" and then I realized we already knew the answer there to some degree. I am curious but also concerned that asking about how that works with the movie will overwhelm the question. How's this?BWprowl wrote:I've got one:
It's generally assumed that the toys are designed first, and that those designs are then adopted for the other media (Cartoon, Comics, etc.). With Animated though, it seems that this might not be the case. How were the designs for Animated handled? Were the toy designs worked out in tandem with the cartoon designers? Or was it some other process?
Someone else could probably word that more gracefully and open-ended than I did...
- Although this has been bandied about for a while, we're hoping to finally get a definitive answer for TF: Animated on this. With TF, it's generally assumed that the toys are designed first, and that those designs are then adopted for the other media (Cartoon, Comics, etc.; the movie not withstanding). With TF: Animated though, it seems that this might not be the case. How were the designs for Animated handled, were the toy designs worked out in tandem with the cartoon designers, did the cartoon artists take their lead from the toy designs, or was it some other process?
Dom, I reworked your question a little, but I still feel like it could be meatier, wanna take another crack at it?
- With the tech-specs, who writes these? Is there a specific process for writing them?
- With the GI Joe and Star Wars line, they are now offering content pack-ins such as comic-books. Is there any chance of getting something along those lines as a pack-in for Transformers sets?
Could you source us for this please? I don't want to ask a question that's already been answered, yet at the same time I don't want to take a commonly-held misconception as a reason not to ask it.onslaught86 wrote:That one we know - for both the movie and Animated, they were designed as character models first. Animated's were specifically crafted to be very expressive, tailored characters - Prime would look every inch the cartoon hero stereotype shape, for example. Then they were tweaked to make it possible for Hasbro to design them as toys. It's why the movie and Animated toys have some odd engineering, I'd say, and aren't as all-round toylike, being more model-esque.It's generally assumed that the toys are designed first, and that those designs are then adopted for the other media (Cartoon, Comics, etc.). With Animated though, it seems that this might not be the case. How were the designs for Animated handled? Were the toy designs worked out in tandem with the cartoon designers? Or was it some other process?
Ditto for that (source?), and even if we know who writes them asking about the process seems good.Forrest Lee writes the bios, last I heard, with the techspecs being done separately and then matched. There's obvious stat inflation abounding.-Who writes the specs? And, is there a process for it?
I have a question of my own...
- With the TF Crossovers line, we know that those brands (Star Wars and Marvel) design their TFs themselves with input from the TF team. How much input does the TF team give those brands in general, and what kinds of input is given there?
Ok, let's get some more questions coming gang!
