CollectionDX Network

Voyager-class Decepticon Mixmaster

Comments

18 comments posted
Vehicle mode looks good,

Vehicle mode looks good, attack mode looks like a jumbled mess, and the robot mode is hideous. These movie designs are a visual offense.

jacksauce's picture
Posted by jacksauce on 4 January, 2010 - 12:37
I would disagree with the

I would disagree with the opinion that the Bayformers bots are a visual offense, but that's not what I was covering in the review above. ;)
------------------------------
CollectionDX Staff

EVA_Unit_4A's picture
Posted by EVA_Unit_4A on 4 January, 2010 - 13:15
Why do you always include so

Why do you always include so much extra text in these reviews?
I'm not saying this to be mean,just constructive. People don't need to read a wall of text explaining the plot of the movie in EVERY review,most people considering buying this toy have seen the movie.
You always call them the "so-called Bayformers",you always mention your anger at the lack of CGI pictures available online,and you always point out that the repaint figures may still have Automorph features.
I can't speak for everyone here,obviously,but I just skim your reviews at this point,since it seems like I've already read it.

kidnicky's picture
Posted by kidnicky on 4 January, 2010 - 17:00
I do the majority of that

I do the majority of that for newcomers and casual visitors, rather than the CDX regulars. If you've seen it and know the character already, then you can just as easily skip past it; I have no problem with that whatsoever, and I don't expect any comments on the copy/pasting I do all the time in the reviews. (Same reason I say "so-called Bayformers"; people- even on CDX- may not know that term when they first come here.)
I talk to parents in toy stores, and when they ask about these toys, they really don't know anything about them. So when I point them at CDX, I want them to be able to make informed decisions based on what the content of the story is (I know a family locally that banned Power Rangers in their household for it's violent content), and what it represents beyond simply being a toy.

I've addressed this a handful of times on YouTube when asked the same thing there, and I always say:
I make all of these as if they are brand-new, rather than being weeks/months/years old. So, I intentionally don't mention upgrades and other characters/events that appear afterwords. And I've been doing that pretty much since my first years here on CDX.

I like a clean-cut, organized, easy-to-reuse format for my reviews for the consistency of reading- and, for my own sanity- writing & shooting. That way, I only have to modify the story 'n such to match relevant content, rather than just blah-ing(?) my way through it like (nameless) others do here. That's not to say others' styles don't work as well, but just that this is how I work best on CollectionDX.
As a matter of fact, my job has actually become easier now that I don't have to describe minute details that you can already see in large motionless photos! (I often had Writer's Block in dealing with some reviews, so that is a big weight off my shoulders now.)

(In fact, if you look closely at my Mixmaster videos above, you'll see that I cut a little fat off of them as well- I no longer intro myself and the toy verbally because the credits do that for me. It actually cuts out about 25 seconds from the final edits!)
------------------------------
CollectionDX Staff

EVA_Unit_4A's picture
Posted by EVA_Unit_4A on 4 January, 2010 - 17:34
I give you credit

EVA you do a very in depth review honestly I don't even read it all most times but a good job anyway, research is always good. Personally, these ROFT are pretty poor as toys go. There flimsy, mostly poorly designed from reading your reviews and seem to mostly be a disappointment. Does this guys face reminds me of a mix of Predator & a ya jay jay... with chicken legs and orangatang arms. You do good reviews even if I hate the toy and never comment. I miss real Transformers like the Universe line & even Animated. We take the bad with the good that's what this site is about in the end.

Lizardspock's picture
Posted by Lizardspock on 4 January, 2010 - 18:39
In other words, you like

In other words, you like the solid-armor/body plates approach to TFs of old?

Well, I do too. However, I also like the fragmented-armor look of Bayformers (though not necessarily how they so easily shrug-off pain and getting torn apart). Chaotic as they may appear, it is that constant reminder that these are- I don't know why I have to keep emphasizing this- extraterrestrial alien robots which come from a completely foreign biological mindset & ideology to us. They are supposed to look foreign to us, and- again- I really like that idea!
Be thankful though, Trans-fans, that they have (for the most part) humanoid robot forms for us to relate to! Bay's entire point in RotF was to show that they are not as constricted visually as any toy-selling franchise needs to be. And bravo to them for being so bold!
Again, I see it as this: the toys merely reflect what is made for the movie, and the movie is meant for an older audience than the one which regularly plays with toys. (I will not get into the crude humor and sex references here, so don't even bother.)
If the toys are poorly designed, it is not because of what the concept artists for the movie came up with, but the limits that Hasbro and TakaraTomy put on themselves. Blame them for the bad joints and poor articulation and irksome transformations.

Let me put it this way... Which would have been more satisfying visually to show everything that I have said above: color-coded and striking neon-bright blocks of CGI clunking about in very Super Sentai ways, what they came up with for the movies, or something else?
------------------------------
CollectionDX Staff

EVA_Unit_4A's picture
Posted by EVA_Unit_4A on 4 January, 2010 - 20:51
I dislike how the

I dislike how the Constructicons were handled in the film. Having multiples running around without even a hint of explanation is one of the laziest things in an already lazily-conceived movie. We've not bought any of the Constructicons, and won't do so unless the rumored legends class combining version makes it to US shelves. Mixmaster is one of my least favorite robot designs from the movie series, and the toy is just... ugly.

djinniman37's picture
Posted by djinniman37 on 4 January, 2010 - 18:41
Yeah I agree with the

Yeah I agree with the frustration of seeing mutliples of the same Constructicon(s) running about at the same time. At least give them different coloring to imply they're different bots!
------------------------------
CollectionDX Staff

EVA_Unit_4A's picture
Posted by EVA_Unit_4A on 4 January, 2010 - 20:56
You need to do your video

You need to do your video like Thew. He's all about the brevity and thrash metal.

VF5SS's picture
Posted by VF5SS on 4 January, 2010 - 18:52
Like

Like who?

------------------------------
CollectionDX Staff

EVA_Unit_4A's picture
Posted by EVA_Unit_4A on 4 January, 2010 - 20:57
Oh... that's who. I saw most

Oh... that's who.

I saw most of his stuff, and laughed my ass off every time. I think I disagreed with him only 3-4 times.
------------------------------
CollectionDX Staff

EVA_Unit_4A's picture
Posted by EVA_Unit_4A on 4 January, 2010 - 23:47
Thew videos are indeed quite

Thew videos are indeed quite entertaining.

Dkun's picture
Posted by Dkun on 4 January, 2010 - 21:34
i just like his accent
VF5SS's picture
Posted by VF5SS on 4 January, 2010 - 22:11
I have mixed feelings about

I have mixed feelings about parents of young children using sites like these as a resource,if only because we tend to get unabashedly geeky on RARE occasions. :) I'm kind of surprised you walk up to obvious non-collectors and talk in the toy aisle. I'm not some kind of closeted toy fan living in secret shame,but I don't really need to make sure random strangers know I own hundreds of Transformers. Sometimes (allthough they're rarer and rarer) I do run into a fellow collector and shoot the s**t with them. I think the economy has gotten a lot of the local guys around here to quit collecting as much as they used to,though.

lol@Power Rangers being too violent!

My take on the movie designs is that I love how they look in the movie,but they're terrible toys. They're floppy and spindly and fiddly so they can match the movie,but what's the point since they don't really look that much like the movie anyway.
I'd rather lose movie-accuracy if it meant a better toy. Sanjeev will know what I'm talking about,it's one of his "things."

kidnicky's picture
Posted by kidnicky on 4 January, 2010 - 23:23
Absolutely. I gotta say,

Absolutely. I gotta say, it's tough being a Transformers fan and an old-school chogokin/vinyl kaiju fan. My immediate gut instinct pulls me toward things that are visually interesting, but not necessarily too much "work" to play with. Even the older Diaclone and Microman toys were simpler to play with than a lot of modern TFs. Hell, I get more of a kick out of my Gravity Bots Prime than the Leader-class one these days...

And that's the problem: it seems that smaller modern TFs are simple and fun to mess with, but they're usually kinda ugly, flimsy, and don't make for what I'd call a "great" standalone toy. The Leader class toys and other fancy ones (MPs) are solid toys on their own, but their primary gimmick (transformation) is often too tedious for me to bother with.

Now, the movie toys in particular...I like the Leader Prime toys because the truck mode is so badass, but the rest look absolutely terrible. So you're usually left with flimsy, too complex to want to play with, and looks like crap? No thanks.

Oh, by the way, Thew ROCKS! Thanks for posting that link, Andrew. I watch peaugh for concise info and Thew for entertainment. There's no way I'm sitting through nearly 50 minutes of video review of this toy when I can get all the relevant info in a fraction of that...

And lastly, watch the swearing, kidnicky! ;)

--
Sanjeev

Sanjeev's picture
Posted by Sanjeev on 5 January, 2010 - 11:57
Sorry I didn't realise I was

Sorry I didn't realise I was swearing.

Gravity Bots are awesome. I've transformed my regular Optimus movie figure maybe twice in my life,yet I've transformed the Gravity Bot Optiums probably five thousand times. You just can't stop. Yes,it does look like a chubby,funny caricture of the movie character,BUT THAT'S ALL A -TOY- HAS TO BE. When given the choice between a funny looking toy of a character I can throw around without fear,or a fiddly figure I can't breathe on,I will always pick the former.

BTW,I don't know where you can get one now (eBay?) but when the first movie came out,I got a toy called Cyber Stompin Bumblebee. He's a non transformable robot figure with lights and sound (including the season 1 TF theme song) and he has a firing rocket punch!

kidnicky's picture
Posted by kidnicky on 7 January, 2010 - 19:55
I simply could not agree

I simply could not agree with this post more! But you probably already knew that!

And, yeah, I remember the Cyber Stompin' Bumblebee...and Prime, incidentally. I very strongly considered getting one, but once I saw them in stores, I ended up passing. Eh Well.

Gravity Bots, however, are the bomb!

--
Sanjeev

Sanjeev's picture
Posted by Sanjeev on 8 January, 2010 - 16:37
Berlieve it or not, I've

Berlieve it or not, I've also contemplated getting one-or-two of the Grav Bots because I love the flawless auto-transformation simply by standing them up. I've also debated getting just a few FABs in the past.
------------------------------
CollectionDX Staff

EVA_Unit_4A's picture
Posted by EVA_Unit_4A on 8 January, 2010 - 17:08
 
CollectionDX OtakuDX Love is Pop WTF Toy Chogokin.net