Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

[Sabrblade]

FWIW, the Decepticon Protoforms you're referring to first appeared in ROTF rather than DOTM.

[primalxconvoy]

I'm pulling in Seibertron, TFW, and Instagram in on this to try and get a big sample size, maybe Hasbro will take notice!

No Allspark love?

[EvasionModeBumblebee]

FWIW, the Decepticon Protoforms you're referring to first appeared in ROTF rather than DOTM.

Oh, that's right! Most people had it labelled as DOTM in their lists, but you're right!

No Allspark love?

I actually haven't encountered Allspark before, I'll take a look!

[M. Spector]

I still love my AOE Voyager Scorn so much tho! My vote would defiantly be for Hatchet and, to avoid picking the same faction, AOE Bee, because its a sharp design and badly needs some modern Studio Series love

[primalxconvoy]

I actually haven't encountered Allspark before, I'll take a look!

Check your PM.

[ThunderThruster]

Oh man, you put some hard choices in that poll! Honestly I think TLK Voyager Megatron is already perfect, they could easily just stuff it into SS with some minor changes.

Emerje

There's some way to improve it. Scaling for once and hiding the feet better.
For me the perfect SS TLK LEADER Megs would be this: Take original voyager, add a few transformation steps for the feet and the backpack, fill in the hollow bits, and make it slightly bigger.

Completely agree with this^.

Of the listed 16, I'd be heavily voting for Hound.

[-Kanrabat-]

Oh man, you put some hard choices in that poll! Honestly I think TLK Voyager Megatron is already perfect, they could easily just stuff it into SS with some minor changes.

Emerje

There's some way to improve it. Scaling for once and hiding the feet better.
For me the perfect SS TLK LEADER Megs would be this: Take original voyager, add a few transformation steps for the feet and the backpack, fill in the hollow bits, and make it slightly bigger.

Completely agree with this^.

Of the listed 16, I'd be heavily voting for Hound.

For TLK Megs I'll add the face-changing gimmick and a better integrated arm-cannon. Some people may say "just re-release the old leader then" but no. The old leader suck with his huge backpack and weird bot proportions.

As for Hound, I'd love if HASTAK took "revenge" on WieJiang by copying their "Oversized MPM-ized" K.O and making it to scale with the rest of SS. However, such a toy would have no choice but to be a leader. Especially with all the weapon.

[Rtron]

Nice choices for the poll, of that list, my biggest wants would be Frenzy, Dispensor, and the Decepticon Protoforms. In any other case I'd choose whoever didn't have a toy, save for high octane Bumblebee, because that toy was pretty bad. Although, if you think about it, of those three I mentioned the only one who got a proper toy was Frenzy, and only in the Fast Action Battler line. Dispensor doesn't count because they made him into a truck.

[Cheesinator]

Anyway, saying the character "does not have a design that translates well to toys" is inaccurate. A more competent use of lexis would be "hasn't translated well (so far)", if one can accept it's more to do with subjective opinion than established fact. Still, the OP tried, I suppose, so there's that?

The phrase "does not have a design that translates well to toys" is innately subjective (due to use of the word "well" in the context of toy design, which by definition is always going to subjective rather than factual), so saying it is "inaccurate" is itself illogical.

Aside from that, is there really an argument that Crosshair's design will ever be accurately recreated in action-figure form? I think saying "it is impossible - with technology currently available to mankind - to create a commercially viable action figure that involves solid plastic converting into fabric-like material" is tenable, regardless of one's nitpicking over precise lexis.

On that note (and more on-topic), I like the SS interpretation of the trenchcoat. To me, the frontal profile of the figure is the best version of the character we've seen so far though - as the video review aptly demonstrated - it has its downsides, especially from practically any other angle.

[Sabrblade]

FWIW, the Decepticon Protoforms you're referring to first appeared in ROTF rather than DOTM.

Oh, that's right! Most people had it labelled as DOTM in their lists, but you're right!

They also technically first appeared in the first movie as the Autobot protoforms (all of which used the design that was also used to created the Protoform Optimus Prime toy), with the Decepticon ones first seen in ROTF being modified to all have Blackout's head design.

[EvasionModeBumblebee]

They also technically first appeared in the first movie as the Autobot protoforms (all of which used the design that was also used to created the Protoform Optimus Prime toy), with the Decepticon ones first seen in ROTF being modified to all have Blackout's head design.

That’d be a great retool opportunity if we did get a figure of one version!

[primalxconvoy]

The phrase "does not have a design that translates well to toys" is innately subjective (due to use of the word "well" in the context of toy design, which by definition is always going to subjective rather than factual), so saying it is "inaccurate" is itself.

Thank you for your opinion. Yes, both of the statements used contained subjective opinions. However, the OP's original use of lexis was more of an absolute statement (leaving little room for the possibly of an "accurate toy") which is inaccurate. The alternate term suggested utilised the present perfect ( https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org ... nt-perfect ), which leaves room for a possibly accurate toy in the future (or present).

This is relevant, due to some of us (including myself) who have made inaccurate predictions about G1 cartoon and Bayverse designs being unsuitable for an accurate/aesthetically pleasing, fully-transforming toy (usually before any attempts have been made to create such products). However, SS, SS84, MP, 3P and KO versions of Bayverse and G1 characters have shown the great strides in technological/professional/artistic progress, resulting in more and more accurate toy depictions. For example, I would have never thought the first Bayverse Megatron would ever translate accurately/well into a toy, but the Studio Series Megatron (and, if I recall, the OSKO version) have proved me wrong.

Thus, if it's believed that Crosshairs hasn't received an accurate toy depiction so far, the current evolution of toy design/production would suggest that such a depiction is possible.

However, thank you again for your post...

[D-Maximal_Primal]

In terms of that poll, my answers would be Que and Onslaught, FYI.

DotM Bee is really nice. I love this mold, and I am glad to have 3 versions of it. The DotM tooling was also a nice change, and I think in terms of Bee designs, I think it's my 3rd favorite of all his bodies, so I am glad to see it again.

[Cheesinator]

The phrase "does not have a design that translates well to toys" is innately subjective (due to use of the word "well" in the context of toy design, which by definition is always going to subjective rather than factual), so saying it is "inaccurate" is itself.

Thank you for your opinion. Yes, both of the statements used contained subjective opinions. However, the OP's original use of lexis was more of an absolute statement (leaving little room for the possibly of an "accurate toy") which is inaccurate. The alternate term suggested utilised the present perfect ( https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org ... nt-perfect ), which leaves room for a possibly accurate toy in the future (or present).

And thank you for your response! The statement (that you actually quoted) was "does not have a design that translates well to toys", which contains no direct reference to accuracy of the toy, and is in the present tense so does not preclude that opinion changing for future toys. It's also an opinion, so even if it was about accuracy only, unfortunately absolute terms like "accurate" and "inaccurate" cannot reasonably apply to subjective statements. Also, saying something is "more of an absolute" is something of an oxymoron, isn't it? Something is either absolute or it is not; treating something that is 'almost' an absolute as an actual absolute seems illogical.

(I didn't respond to the rest of your post, because neither myself nor the person you initially responded to mentioned anything about future toys and improvements in technology, which seemed to be what you mostly talked about there. I hope you don't mind)

[william-james88]

Takara has new preorders for Transformers figures today on their site. None of these are exclusive so they can be ordered on Amazon japan as well. And with new preorders we get new stock images too. Below are the ones for Studio Series Crosshairs, Hot Rod and 86 Ironhide.

[primalxconvoy]

The statement (that you actually quoted) was "does not have a design that translates well to toys", which contains no direct reference to accuracy of the toy...

The OP's statement related to a statement of a character design that has resulted in, and will continue to result in inaccurate depictions of said character.

...(It) is in the present tense so does not preclude that opinion changing for future toys...

The present simple use by the OP made it a statement, which has no room for future change (for the future). This is why the present simple is used to present facts, or actions or states that occur often/forever, with no changes. Examples include "France is in Europe" or "Optimus Prime doesn't eat human food":

- https://www.grammarwiz.com/present-simple-tense.html

...absolute terms like "accurate" and "inaccurate" cannot reasonably apply to subjective statements...

They can when critiqued from a lexical/grammatical POV, which is what I did.

saying something is "more of an absolute" is something of an oxymoron, isn't it?..

The use of "more of" in my post was similar to "akin to" and not used as a quantifier. Also, an "oxymoron" is when two words with opposite meanings are used together, usually as a compound word, such as "definitely maybe" (or as my British English teacher suggested, "American intelligence"). However, I believe you meant to critique my imagined mistake as trying to quantify something that was non-quantifiable, such as when someone might state "more best" (as this often occurs with adverbials).

...I didn't respond to the rest of your post, because neither myself nor the person you initially responded to mentioned anything about future toys and improvements in technology, which seemed to be what you mostly talked about there...

My inclusion of that was to highlight the difference between the OP's erroneous use of the past simple and the more accurate use of the present perfect, citing real-word examples or possible situations.

[D-Maximal_Primal]

Crosshairs has such a great headsculpt. i am super excited for both of those deluxes.

Ironhide is also looking better, i am starting to feel somewhat tempted by him

[SpaceEagle]

I'm honestly still excited to get Ironhide and these new pics really help increase that excitement. I didn't pick up the Siege or Earthrise ones (I did, however, get Crosshairs and SG Ratchet) so I think that probably helps with not feeling bad about "triple-dipping" - this mold LOOKS like Ironhide came right out of the TV screen compared to Siege being a fun interpretation and Earthrise being a compromised attempt. (Like I said, I do have Crosshairs and SG Ratchet, I do not dislike either base mold at all.)

[primalxconvoy]

I'm honestly still excited to get Ironhide and these new pics really help increase that excitement. I didn't pick up the Siege or Earthrise ones (I did, however, get Crosshairs and SG Ratchet) so I think that probably helps with not feeling bad about "triple-dipping" - this mold LOOKS like Ironhide came right out of the TV screen compared to Siege being a fun interpretation and Earthrise being a compromised attempt. (Like I said, I do have Crosshairs and SG Ratchet, I do not dislike either base mold at all.)

Apart from Ratchet, I wonder if we'll get any other repaints of this mold, such as a green version, or Energon Towline, etc.

[SpaceEagle]

I'm honestly still excited to get Ironhide and these new pics really help increase that excitement. I didn't pick up the Siege or Earthrise ones (I did, however, get Crosshairs and SG Ratchet) so I think that probably helps with not feeling bad about "triple-dipping" - this mold LOOKS like Ironhide came right out of the TV screen compared to Siege being a fun interpretation and Earthrise being a compromised attempt. (Like I said, I do have Crosshairs and SG Ratchet, I do not dislike either base mold at all.)

Apart from Ratchet, I wonder if we'll get any other repaints of this mold, such as a green version, etc?

I wonder if we'll get a proper SG Ironhide out of this mold, that way HasTak can pull the ol' "black repaint" card while also not really doing something like DK-2 Guard again. Might be an easy to bulk up the SG line and also giving fans an SG 'Hide figure that has colours more closely resembling him.

[First-Aid]

I'm honestly still excited to get Ironhide and these new pics really help increase that excitement. I didn't pick up the Siege or Earthrise ones (I did, however, get Crosshairs and SG Ratchet) so I think that probably helps with not feeling bad about "triple-dipping" - this mold LOOKS like Ironhide came right out of the TV screen compared to Siege being a fun interpretation and Earthrise being a compromised attempt. (Like I said, I do have Crosshairs and SG Ratchet, I do not dislike either base mold at all.)

Apart from Ratchet, I wonder if we'll get any other repaints of this mold, such as a green version, etc?

I wonder if we'll get a proper SG Ironhide out of this mold, that way HasTak can pull the ol' "black repaint" card while also not really doing something like DK-2 Guard again. Might be an easy to bulk up the SG line and also giving fans an SG 'Hide figure that has colours more closely resembling him.

I estimate at least 22 repaints. Just a guess.

[Cheesinator]

The statement (that you actually quoted) was "does not have a design that translates well to toys", which contains no direct reference to accuracy of the toy...

The OP's statement related to a statement of a character design that has resulted in, and will continue to result in inaccurate depictions of said character.

Thank you for your additional response and opinion! I notice you quickly dropped the etiquette established in your original post (which is a shame), but as you set the terms of this discussion I'm happy to continue to observe them. I also hope you do not mind that I amended the HTML in your post, as you (completely understandably) made an error which messed up the quotations and made the post more difficult to read.

Anyway, in response to your actual post, I am hesitant to post this once again (at risk of seeming patronizing), but you appear to keep misrepresenting the original source of all this so I have little choice. The OP began their post with this statement:

"The live action movie Crosshairs does not have a design that translates well to toys."

No text predicated this, so (with even incredibly basic reasoning) one can infer that this refers to the figure that is the subject of the post and nothing other than what is said here. There is no reference to accuracy alone, and no reference to future advancements in toy technology or future versions of the figure. The text is an opinion on the design of the movie design being represented in toy form (which can relate to accuracy, complexity, posability, any mix of the above or anything else) so saying with certainty it is accuracy alone is -at best- conjecture.

...(It) is in the present tense so does not preclude that opinion changing for future toys...

The present simple use by the OP made it a statement, which has no room for future change (for the future). This is why the present simple is used to present facts, or actions or states that occur often/forever, with no changes. Examples include "France is in Europe" or "Optimus Prime doesn't eat human food":

- https://www.grammarwiz.com/present-simple-tense.html

Splendid example, though seemingly a tragic misunderstanding of what 'present simple' means.

Building on your example; a few years ago, the phrase "France does not use the Euro as currency" would be factually accurate. This is no longer the case (you seem to have excellent Google skills, so I won't share links regarding the timeline of France's history). But this does not change the fact that the phrase was accurate when made in the past.

Application of present simple may apply if OP was talking about a future event in any way but (again, I do hope I am not being patronizing) they were very obviously talking about a present day figure that the entire post is dedicated to describing. Using your own link, if they'd said "Crosshairs design doesn't translate well to any figure we'll see for the next decade" I'd be in agreement with you. The very link you shared makes very clear how specific future-relevant phrasing would need to be implement to make the phrase refer to the future rather than the present.

...absolute terms like "accurate" and "inaccurate" cannot reasonably apply to subjective statements...

They can when critiqued from a lexical/grammatical POV, which is what I did.

...I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume I misunderstood or misread (or maybe you made a typo, similar to how you mishandled the HTML?), because even your own posts are trying to argue that the statements you're judging were objective rather than subjective. Otherwise, I'd have to infer that you are now saying that subjective opinion to be factually accurate or inaccurate if the grammar is not perfect, which seems pettily pedantic at best and idiotic at worst.

saying something is "more of an absolute" is something of an oxymoron, isn't it?..

The use of "more of" in my post was similar to "akin to" and not used as a quantifier. Also, an "oxymoron" is when two words with opposite meanings are used together, usually as a compound word, such as "definitely maybe" (or as my British English teacher suggested, "American intelligence"). However, I believe you meant to critique my imagined mistake as trying to quantify something that was non-quantifiable, such as when someone might state "more best" (as this often occurs with adverbials).

I'm afraid "more of" is not the same as "akin to" without some additional qualifiers. There's nothing wrong with saying you made a mistake and meant to use one phrase instead of another (that has a distinctly different meaning).

And yes (regarding 'oxymoron'), that is probably correct! You recognised and explained your mistake better than I did, which is a commendable skill. Assuming you will argue with my previous point, what if I said the use of "oxymoron" in my post was similar to "non-quantifiable"?

(Side note: Interesting flex about your teacher! As a native Brit myself, should I qualify that everything I say originates from British teachers in some form as well?)

...I didn't respond to the rest of your post, because neither myself nor the person you initially responded to mentioned anything about future toys and improvements in technology, which seemed to be what you mostly talked about there...

My inclusion of that was to highlight the difference between the OP's erroneous use of the past simple and the more accurate use of the present perfect, citing real-word examples or possible situations.

I thought you took issue with them using present simple, not past simple? Regardless, your examples overtly used future tense, which OP did not and so they're not really comparable (for the purpose you just described). I think I already addressed your point about OP not using present simple to discuss the future so will attempt to avoid retreading.

Anyway, I do hope you believe me here when I say that *no one* is happier that you're making use of your English studies more than I am! Happy to discuss further and continue this discussion between adults over children's toys.

[primalxconvoy]

Note: The following reply to Cheeseinator has been "hidden" behind spoiler tags, in order to reduce the overall post length.

Thank you for your additional response and opinion! I notice you quickly dropped the etiquette established in your original post... but as you set the terms of this discussion I'm happy to continue to observe them. I also hope you do not mind that I amended the HTML in your post, as you...made an error which messed up the quotations and made the post more difficult to read.

I believe a rapport had already been established and my tone and language was as polite to the one prior. Thus I believed any (linguistic) honorifics or formalities were not needed. Also, due to "nested quotes" causing possible "bloat", I felt it prudent to remove irrelevant quotations. They looked fine to me on my phone (which is in itself a challenge due to the physical impediments of typing and editing text on a busy train and also due to the restrictions/incompatibilities of PC-based websites on such devices) but I am sorry you had problems viewing them.

No text predicated this, so...one can infer that this refers to the figure that is the subject of the post and nothing other than what is said here...

I am sorry that the facts and explanations presented to you, in a clear and concise manner, have stumped you. Just like yourself, I fear that repeating such facts and explanations would otherwise be in vain.

Application of present simple may apply if (the) OP was talking about a future event in any way but... they were very obviously talking about a present day figure that the entire post is dedicated to describing. Using your own link, if they'd said "Crosshair(')s design doesn't translate well to any figure we'll see for the next decade" I'd be in agreement with you. The very link you shared makes very clear how specific future-relevant phrasing would need to be implement to make the phrase refer to the future rather than the present....

Again, it seems that you have been confused by the information presented to you. The omission of any additional time-based lexis does not make the original use of language contain any possibility for a future change in that state. When stating facts (such as "France is in Europe"), they are usually made with permanency in mind, regardless of whether the real-life situations change later on. As other TF figures have shown the possibility of more accurate translations of the source material to toy form (and thus the same for Crosshairs) using language that is so "fixed" was inaccurate.

...I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume I misunderstood or misread...

I believe it was obvious that opinions regarding the character and toy design were subjective, whereas the discussion of lexis and grammar were objective. I hope that clarifies things for you.

I'm afraid "more of" is not the same as "akin to" without some additional qualifiers.

It is in the vernacular and general use where I am from. The full term would be "It's more (of) an absolute (term) than anything else", similar (in use) to "It's (more) akin to an absolute (term) than anything else." ( https://en.bab.la/sentences/english/mor ... thing-else ) I am sorry my truncated use confused you.

And yes (regarding 'oxymoron'), that is probably correct! You recognised and explained your mistake better than I did...

Except no mistake was made. You interpreted my statement erroneously and I simply gave you a possibly more concise way to express your opinion, regardless of whether I agreed with your position or not.

Side note: Interesting flex about your teacher! As a native Brit myself, should I qualify that everything I say originates from British teachers in some form as well?

It was not a "flex", but a simple report of what someone had stated. Believing their opinion to be true would be inaccurate, but it was included as that was the very first example ever given to me regarding this aspect of language. I clarified they were British as it may seem odd to some, at a mainly American-based website, why a (possibly American) teacher would make such a statement about themselves.

I think I already addressed your point about OP not using present simple to discuss the future so will attempt to avoid retreading.

To which I have already demonstrated my position clearly and which you seem to be confused by, but I thank you for moving on from this.

...no one is happier that you're making use of your English studies more than I am!

Thank you and it would be only right to bestow you with exactly the same praise, in the same manner and tone it was given. Please accept them.

(I am) (h)appy to discuss further and continue this discussion between adults over children's toys.

Please accept my apologies over the correction above. I am sure you were simply using the vernacular regarding the omission of the "subject pronoun + to be"? It is something we are all guilty of and I do not view it as an "error" per sec.
As for our discussion regarding toys (possibly aimed at adult collectors, children or both), this is par for the course at this site, so perhaps your point regarding it is moot?
Regardless, thank you for your engagement. I fear that our rather lengthy posts regarding the correct language use to describe Studio Series Crosshairs may be moving into "off topic" waters, so I welcome you to post any replies via PM, if you wish.

[ZeroWolf]

The spoiler tags don't do anything regarding post length. It just makes it look like you have text that you don't want people to look at.

[SpaceEagle]

So uh...
Yeah that Crosshairs toy is still a maybe if that trenchcoat can be fiddled with.