|
|
Post by matatabi on Oct 15, 2008 19:49:39 GMT -5
I'm hoping to not offend anything, but I strongly believe that perhaps the Japanese robot toys of today are just not as elaborate as the ones from yesterday. In the past three decades, most of the toys have discarded futurism for post-modern ennui-- wrought with retro-traditional aesthetics-- tinged with with forboding and cynicism. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by quinjester on Oct 15, 2008 20:24:54 GMT -5
I really hoped I'd never have to see that phrase used again once I graduated with my degree in comparative literature  I think in a way you're right; in the past "futurism" was all the rage. The problem is, with a lot of those older shows and literary works (1984? 2001? Anyone? Bueller?), the future became the present, and we were still grounded in basically the same technological era. No flying cars or sentient cyborgs in sight. We have a better grasp of what's possible and what isn't, or at least what we're told is and isn't possible, and what constitutes the "future" of our current world vs. the Jetsons-like "what if's" of the past. Now we have a disillusioned and (at least, partly) educated populace; you can't throw around "futureon zeo-nucleation reactronium devices" in a sci-fi setting without looking rediculous and, ironically, retro. You'll look ridiculous or satirical. Instead, you have to either settle your science fiction basis in the current reality or in the more recently popularized "anachronistic past-fiction". It's far more simple to get a viewing public to accept an alternate past which has evolved different from our own than it is to get them to swallow some "not so distant" (or even quite distant) in which we all still speak the same languages, eat the same foods, but for some inexplicable reason pilot giant humanoid robots. Look at something like Escaflowne; The basis for the show; knight robots and political intrigue, could that HONESTLY work if they were all set 2000 years in the future, swinging laser swords and powered by Soul Fusion Reactors? No, chances are you'd think "Honestly? Robots with swords? After all that time? We have planes that can shoot individual people on the ground from almost the stratosphere, and that's NOW." ... I've forgotten what I was originally discussing, but I don't want to delete everything I just wrote. I may come back to it later. |
|
|
|
Post by xiombarg on Oct 15, 2008 21:58:16 GMT -5
Hmm.. What you are saying Matatabi I think is often the case, but then again there still seems to be plenty of "futurism" type of stuff also. Think of Aquarion, Gravion, or Gurren Lagann.. to me these seem very much grounded in the standard futuristic type of vibe.
|
|
|
|
Post by mowe on Oct 16, 2008 6:25:49 GMT -5
The way I see it is that we are all grown ups now and we see toys differently compare to how we treated them when we were 8.
The 8-years old me would never give a dime about the philosophical position of an anime, not to mention worrying which periodical classification my Volt V belonged to.
I think an 8-years old kid today should find the Lagann Giga Drill as exciting as I did with the good old flying rocket punch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Inwards on Oct 16, 2008 8:05:27 GMT -5
I'm hoping to not offend anything, but I strongly believe that perhaps the Japanese robot toys of today are just not as elaborate as the ones from yesterday. In the past three decades, most of the toys have discarded futurism for post-modern ennui-- wrought with retro-traditional aesthetics-- tinged with with forboding and cynicism. What do you guys think? This seems oddly familiar - zipa.inwards.com/dogma.phtml?page=dogma |
|
|
|
Post by admin1 aka Ed on Oct 16, 2008 9:09:37 GMT -5
If you want elaborate toys......see today's video games. Our medium for "toys" has evolved to digital.
So robot toys are robot digital toys; those are morphing to other creatures on screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00silvergt on Oct 16, 2008 10:35:39 GMT -5
Ed has a point. A point that I have been talking about a long time now. We as older collectors are driving this toy market. Most of the toys are targeted to us, the collectors, there is no "real" drive to create a mass market toy since most of the youth are focused on video gaming as their toys. It is not like when we were younger, when toys were the primary things we wanted and strived for. So the main focus is to create video games that are elaborate, albeit, lately even the video game market has been taking this "shotgun" approach to releasing games that are very similar to each other.
Remember when Toys R US and Kaybee was the place to be, they had exciting, innovative, toys that we would fill our birthday and Christmas lists with? Now, however, they are filled with video games, educational games and toys are not quite to par and exciting. I can scan a full TRU and leave empty handed and disappointed. My kids would also feel the same way. In direct contrast, we can visit an EB or Gamestop and not be able to leave with spending $100-200 in games for them and for myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kidchuckle on Oct 16, 2008 13:26:26 GMT -5
for sure.. games are toys.
basically... what it comes down to games/toys is reliving the show by interacting with it in whatever for it can. I mean its cool that video games can pretty close in pulling off moves/animation that are signature to the show its based off on (if its even based off any toys).
I've always had a hard time picking between games and toys. But it is nice when it converges... it's a new level of experience that one medium can offer vs the other.
for example "Lego Batman" the game is awesome.. I havn't picked up a batman lego set yet.. but I could see myself picking one up.
|
|
|
|
Post by megatroptimus on Oct 16, 2008 14:12:16 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind new lines of neo-retro toys (meaning, new characters done the old way, as if they were designed in the 70s-80s) with retro-futuristic weapons/alternate modes/etc. and bold colors.
|
|
|
|
Post by mechamasterj on Oct 16, 2008 15:13:33 GMT -5
Are you talking about what they have done with recent american sport cars?? New cars with retro looks?
Anywho, I think they are designing toys (robots especially) with the collector in mind. Most models, figurs, arent really toys these days as you sure cant play with them like you use to for frear of breaking them. And most of them are so full of sharp and small peices that you wouldnt let your child play with them either.
Toys back then were meant to be played with and were more durable. Now you only things you can find that are playable are Transformers, GI-joes, That movie of the month toy (Batman, ironman), ben ten, any power ranger type line up, oh and the revival of TMNTs. Lets face it, if they made the toys we love so much today, as playable as these we would loose a lot to there realisim or rather accuracy. W/ the exception of transformers animated which are very well detailed, articulated, and close to the originals while having a great range of playabilty and ben safe as well, also, they are very affordable though thier prices have risen too.
I for one love the new mechas coming out and awesome designs we are seeing. Un fortunately the combattlers have pretty much dindled in size but i love Code geass, Linebarrel, and gurren laganns (though that pays some homage to older mecha).
|
|
|
|
Post by 00silvergt on Oct 16, 2008 18:31:07 GMT -5
Don't forget Happy meal toys, you can play with those...without fear of breakage and even after you broke it, it cost you $3 to replace with 6 nuggets, fries and a drink to boot!
BTW, that's just American car companies trying to bring back the glory days when American cars were the cars to buy. Those designs were considered bold and innovative. Which is kind of funny that they are bringing it back, it work then when Japanese and European cars looked like crap; mostly metal boxes with headlights.
I guess for the nostalgic factor it works, but...I'm still mad that Kitt is a freakin' Mustang!
|
|
|
|
Post by mechamasterj on Oct 17, 2008 10:17:52 GMT -5
OH man are you telling me, they could of at least picked a care that resmbled the original (a corvette?) no they pick the stupid mustang loosing all of Kitts sleekness. Well i guess ford paid out a lot to get the car in the show, just like dodge did with transformers the movie. Glad the animated series (hasnt it always been animated anyway) went on thier own path!
|
|
|
|
Post by 00silvergt on Oct 17, 2008 10:58:43 GMT -5
Yes, Ford sponsored the show, noticed all the Ford vehicles? However, with Transformers, it wasn't really that Dodge paid a lot of money, it was actually lot more simpler than that. All the European manufacturers, Porsche, VW, etc. declined the rights. Michael Bay and company would have loved to have a real Bumblebee, but the Germans were adamant about having their vehicles portray war machines. Funny how 60 years ago, two of the most violent war mongering societies are now the most docile, doves...
Maybe it takes to lose a war outright before a society starts to realize what war is really like?
|
|
|
|
Post by mechamasterj on Oct 17, 2008 13:07:34 GMT -5
I here that however is that just what they want us to know......hmmmmm. Further more, how did they get away with it in the 80's cartoon show? Sure it didnt have the VW logo on it but there was no mistaking it for a beetle. I also think they could of did something to make it at least resemble the original like they did with optimus Prime. They didnt have to have licensed cars in their movie, so i think they were trying to get funding and what not sure maybe VW turned them down but in the end it was the allmighty dollar they were after.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00silvergt on Oct 17, 2008 13:42:43 GMT -5
They had no qualms about it in the 80's. Afterall, it was before the Iraq Invasion and before Germany decided not to support the US...remember? They were making a statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by mechamasterj on Oct 17, 2008 14:50:00 GMT -5
I suppose you have a point......!
|
|
|
|
Post by matatabi on Oct 19, 2008 22:54:11 GMT -5
Hmm...well, maybe I was a teensy bit too rough on today's Robot Toys.
|
|
|
|
Post by sketcher on Oct 21, 2008 15:07:03 GMT -5
... and quoting inwards from zinc panic verbatim, but presenting as your own words.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kidchuckle on Oct 21, 2008 15:29:37 GMT -5
I here that however is that just what they want us to know......hmmmmm. Further more, how did they get away with it in the 80's cartoon show? Sure it didnt have the VW logo on it but there was no mistaking it for a beetle. I also think they could of did something to make it at least resemble the original like they did with optimus Prime. They didnt have to have licensed cars in their movie, so i think they were trying to get funding and what not sure maybe VW turned them down but in the end it was the allmighty dollar they were after. well there are work arounds. I once worked on a car video game... and the cars created for the game had a very similiar look and feel to the real car counterparts. You can get a away it... but you may have some small legal problems (most likely settled out of court... usually not too much trouble.. if you change it enough). But the biggest problems most car companies hate for liscenced games... is having their cars crash or blown up! thats why games like Gotham street racing or any licenced game cars never really get destroyed. Most movies are also like that... for a "featured car" debut etc... But being a Transformers MOvie.. I think they would only go for liscenced cars... i mean its just financially business savy. (one long commercial). |
|
|
|
Post by 00silvergt on Oct 21, 2008 17:19:40 GMT -5
IIRC, the reason they opt not be included in the movie or any transformer related show or items was due to the fact that there is a great civil war between the Autobots (Cybertron) and the Decepticons (Destron) and they simply did not want their cars portrayed as cars that transforms into warriors, fighting a war, for natural resources.
|
|
