|
Post by xiombarg on Nov 22, 2005 16:37:09 GMT -5
FIX deep strike solid? I was tempted to get this But I’ve heard bad things about this, such as MSIA material, tends to droop after awhile of being displayed etc. So how would you rank it against the MSIA Debronium [don’t know if i spelled that one right] in terms of its overall quality? Cause I’m pretty happy with the debronium so if its in the same league….. Mine holds up really well. When handling it I don't have the interchangable parts falling off like with many other Fix figures. All the pieces stay together fairly tightly, but make sure you put it together correctly also. I've seen many posts where people have put it together incorrectly. As far as the material goes, it seems to be the same quality of plastic as the rest of the Fix line. Fix plastic is a little more rigid than the MSIA's rubbery plastic, but the Fix plastic isn't super stiff either like model plastic. It's kind of in between. I can't really compare the MSIA Dendrobium and the Deep Striker because I only have an MG model of the Dendrobium, but I can say it's been the Gundam Fix that I've been the most happy with by far. The details are incredible. I took the Deep Striker into our local shop when I first got it and everyone was floored by it. Even the strict comic book collectors and MTG players had to take a look and were really impressed, so needless to say, it carries a lot of presence. One thing that could be a problem is the stand. Once you set the Deep Striker on the stand, be careful, because in Deep Striker mode it's actually kind of heavy (for plastic) and you can tell that the stand wasn't really tested for what it's holding up. When picking it up, I wouldn't pick it up by the stand.
|
|
|
Post by jwm on Nov 22, 2005 20:55:26 GMT -5
The Lizardoid Master in Doesn't Play Well is a McFarlane figure. It has some articulation in the shoulders neck and hips, but the articulation seems like it was done as an afterthought. I bought a box full of those things at a thrift store once, figuring I'd re-sell them at a profit. Some were carefully opened but most were new in package. Except for the Sea Monster they were all "Tortured Souls" figures. Fantastic sculpts, but I just hated those things. Nobody wanted them either. Not even my niece and nephew. I gave them to the Salvation Army.
JWM
|
|
|
Post by xiombarg on Nov 22, 2005 20:57:22 GMT -5
Oops, I meant to say I only have an MG model of the Stamen..not the Dendrobium. ![::)](http://lemonstre.fr/robot-japan/smileys/rolleye.png)
|
|
|
Post by demizer on Nov 23, 2005 2:22:34 GMT -5
Since alot of you young fellas are bringing up Gundams I thought I'd add my 2 pence.I'm not a big Gundam fan cause alot of them look very similar,but there are exceptions.I just got a New Material Gundam and I love the design,size,heft & gadgetry.But I truly love Musha-Gundam Cloths.Real type and Super deformed.This is mainly because I love Samurai Armor and a robot with it is a natural extension of the Japanese asthetic squared,if you know what I mean.I have almost all of them.I'm waiting for a peice I got from YJ.which I first saw here on the Bandai Museum thread that I had never seen,I have the name down somewhere,also Musha inspired.In general for me vintage is where it's at as far as design goes,but I'm not doctrinaire.If it looks good I dont care.But there is a certain kind of optomistic naive quality to the older stuff that I really dig.
|
|
|
Post by lurkerx on Nov 23, 2005 8:46:50 GMT -5
GUNDAM: But isn’t that the whole point to have the gundams look similar to its predecessors because it’s the whole “timeline” thing if you were to take a military tank from the 70’s and compare it to its counterpart in the 90’s or even to date there’ll probably be very little change in its appearances. Just like when you take a corvette and examine how it has evolved over the decades you will notice that it pretty much retained its styling cues. I do like the musha armored versions as well except that its just too costly what I did end up getting was the Korean Academy Mk-II version its HUGE and has amazingly good quality which [IMO] exceeds or at the very least is comparable/ the same as the Bandai version except waaaaaaaaaayyy BIGGER. I just hate when I type musha gundam on ebay all these SD versions show up, why can't they just re-issue these instead of making more SD stuff. As far as Mcfarlane stuff: i have a few but they're limited to the predator, aliens and terminator franchises nothing more. I can't stand most of his stuff too bloody, too busy, too graphically, unnecessarily gory, too much of stuff I just don't like and very little of those i do like. ![:P](http://lemonstre.fr/robot-japan/smileys/tongue.png) Oh, and I did get the sentinnel that looked very cool and imposing ![:)](http://lemonstre.fr/robot-japan/smileys/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by Kidchuckle on Nov 23, 2005 9:40:23 GMT -5
I have to agree with LurkerX.
When Mcfarlane stuff is done anime style robots... its over stylized.. I mean its so almost there to my liking.. I would hack off some of the stuff they have. I'm not really into much of the "anime american" style robots.
although that Mcfarlane mech looks pretty cool at first glance.. but theres are stuff I would take off.. (too many spikes). I like clean design, or silhouette. for Me Mazinkaiser has gone too far. But if you look at Mazinger 1901 a nice blend of detail and clean. its all about the clean silhouette.
|
|
|
Post by mpchi on Nov 23, 2005 17:18:56 GMT -5
I find that both the classic & contemporary bots are just as attractive, just that they each have their own charm. New stuff like Macross Plus, Gaogaigar, Eva, Raxephon, Dangaioh, Shin Getter, Gasaraki, Gundam 0083, & Super Robot Wars mecha (awww...yeah!), all have great examples of good mecha designs. Besides, we have to take notes that many classic robots wouldn't look as good as how we see today without the updates and modifications on toys and artwork, like how Dancougar evolves from the early bulky too in early TV, to the slick versions in OVAs & movies. SOC sure helps too in refining some of the classic designs. Subtle, but the refinement was there.
I think a good example to see the difference of Anime American(McFarlane) and Anime Japanese design is to compare the Spawn line with the SIC line. Both have a dark gritty look with excessive details on the bots/characters. But the overall design diverse drastically as well. Like some of you guys mentioned, Spawn figures tend to have excessive stuff all over the place, making it having a very massive look with big spikey armors. SIC on the other hand, keep things to minimal, but work inwards with great details and contrasting elements within the simple silhouette. Out of the two, the Japanese approach is definitely more of my cup of tea.
|
|
|
Post by xiombarg on Nov 23, 2005 21:08:05 GMT -5
Guyver kind of has a contemporary look also. Maybe not so much gritty, but lots of detail and a bio-mecha fusion.
|
|
|
Post by Kidchuckle on Nov 24, 2005 9:19:19 GMT -5
there are some pretty gritty looking stuff.
1901 Mazinter and the new getter stuff coming out by fewture.. now thats gritty.. but still pretty clean compared to mcrfarlane. they don't go to overboard.
|
|
|
Post by Omni Existence on Nov 24, 2005 21:19:13 GMT -5
hey omni, wonder who or what anime mecha did todd get inspired with. Dunno. Sounds close to what an EVA is. ![::)](http://lemonstre.fr/robot-japan/smileys/rolleye.png)
|
|
|
Post by mannyD on Nov 24, 2005 22:19:19 GMT -5
yeah, that's "dead on IMO" ![::)](http://lemonstre.fr/robot-japan/smileys/rolleye.png) ... ;D hey guys, did you know: The creator/director, Hideaki Anno, suffered from a long period of depression prior to creating Evangelion; much of the show is based on his own experiences in dealing with depression and in psychoanalytic theory he learned from his psychotherapy. As a result, characters in the anime display a variety of mood disorders and problems with emotional health, especially depression, trauma, and separation anxiety disorder. damn, this explains "a lot" ![:)](http://lemonstre.fr/robot-japan/smileys/smiley.png) .
|
|
|
Post by xiombarg on Nov 25, 2005 3:10:35 GMT -5
I think many of the Super Robot Wars mecha designs are some of the best stuff I've seen for awhile, but whether these rank up there with the classics is a tough one. I guess I can say that I feel many SRW designs are at least as good as any Gundam designs, and to me this seems to be a fair comparison where neither of these line of figures transform or combine, generally speaking. But this is where it's tough for any contemporary design to really compete with the classic DX super robots. When you consider that most super robots combine and/or transform and have roughly %80 die-cast, and were made at a large scale...it's a pretty tall order.
So then how much is transformation worth in a figure? For me, I'm not that big on transformation unless both the robot mode and the vehicle mode are equally cool and have an easily definable form (as in a spaceship, a plane, or truck or whatever). Based on this criteria, it's what makes the Valkyrie and Scourge such awesome bots IMO. I've got a friend though who feels that any amount of transformation is pretty much as cool as what the robot looks like, but to me transformation doesn't make any sense unless the robot and the vehicle modes look "anatomically" correct and functional in what they are supposed to be.
|
|
|
Post by Mechadevil on Nov 25, 2005 18:32:21 GMT -5
Evangelion reigns the new school.
Gundams are typical, I confess some of the "fix" series are pretty, but that's just flashy weapon fat.
the evas are true modern design/concept/ and philosophy
The Big O is another contender with it's Art Deco/ gothamesque approach to mecha design. The story is compelling too.
TM? wealthy geek, all his toys look like mud next to my chogokins, wonder why?....
|
|
|
Post by Omni Existence on Nov 25, 2005 20:59:39 GMT -5
Evangelion reigns the new school. the evas are true modern design/concept/ and philosophy ... but but but... they're organic? They can't be mecha!? j/k ![;)](http://lemonstre.fr/robot-japan/smileys/wink.png) Yeap! Big-O is also a good melding of classic SR looks with a touch of a gothic mecha feel. Plus, that 'Flash Gordon-esque' opening OST really rocks! Sigh.... God rest your soul Freddie Mercury!
|
|
|
Post by Mechadevil on Nov 26, 2005 20:45:41 GMT -5
I have argued that point myself. But in all honesty, Frankensteins creation could be considered "Mecha", as could any golum or homonucleus. If flesh be the materials, so be it. That is why Eva is true modern mecha, even if it is a cyborg made with cloned angel flesh, I'm sure NERV holds the patent.
|
|
|
Post by mannyD on Nov 27, 2005 6:36:29 GMT -5
I have argued that point myself. But in all honesty, Frankensteins creation could be considered "Mecha", as could any golum or homonucleus. If flesh be the materials, so be it. That is why Eva is true modern mecha, even if it is a cyborg made with cloned angel flesh, I'm sure NERV holds the patent. agreed! EVAs are a little harder to categorized at first, but to enumerate the defining characteristics of a mecha: 1. are piloted or remote-controlled limbed "vehicles". 2. are generally war machines, sometimes mass-produced, and are seen as a component of a whole military body. 3. do not act alone in their conflicts. 4. being combat machines, their status varies widely between different settings. EVAs fit in snugly to the definition of a mecha. but the general rule is: Anything large enough to have a cockpit where the pilot is seated is generally considered a mecha. power suits/armor, small cyborgs and frankensteins, are not considered mecha.
|
|
|
Post by Omni Existence on Nov 27, 2005 7:18:51 GMT -5
but the general rule is: Anything large enough to have a cockpit where the pilot is seated is generally considered a mecha. power suits/armor, small cyborgs and frankensteins, are not considered mecha. That's a little contradicting don't you think? By that rule, you're saying that 'things' like the Tachikoma, or the Landmates, or even the Queadluun Rau, CANNOT be considered as Mecha, but the EVA (which is technically a huge @ss cyborg-and a larger percent made of organic matter) is?
|
|
|
Post by Omni Existence on Nov 27, 2005 7:24:38 GMT -5
...Just a follow up: From Wikipedia ~~~~~~~~~~~` In some works of science fiction, mecha (singular or plural) or mechs (singular: mech) are piloted or remote-controlled limbed vehicles. The key difference between mecha and robots (in the English usage of these terms) is that a mecha has a pilot or controller. The term is derived from the Japanese abbreviation for the English term “mechanical,” although English speakers have repurposed the term to mean only the vehicles described above. The original Japanese term of mecha has the broader denotation of all mechanical objects, including cars, guns, computers, and other objects without pilots or limbs.[/b] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So this means if we follow the broader meaning of 'Mecha' which is the Japanese one (where the term originated or was coined), even your celphone is considered 'mecha' and celphones are really teeny weeny. ![;)](http://lemonstre.fr/robot-japan/smileys/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by mannyD on Nov 27, 2005 7:41:20 GMT -5
...Just a follow up: From Wikipedia ~~~~~~~~~~~` In some works of science fiction, mecha (singular or plural) or mechs (singular: mech) are piloted or remote-controlled limbed vehicles. The key difference between mecha and robots (in the English usage of these terms) is that a mecha has a pilot or controller. The term is derived from the Japanese abbreviation for the English term “mechanical,” although English speakers have repurposed the term to mean only the vehicles described above. The original Japanese term of mecha has the broader denotation of all mechanical objects, including cars, guns, computers, and other objects without pilots or limbs.[/b] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So this means if we follow the broader meaning of 'Mecha' which is the Japanese one (where the term originated or was coined), even your celphone is considered 'mecha' and celphones are really teeny weeny. ![;)](http://lemonstre.fr/robot-japan/smileys/wink.png) [/quote] yeah? that's the "original" and "broader denotation" of all mechanical objects ![:)](http://lemonstre.fr/robot-japan/smileys/smiley.png) . in relating to our hobby, we use the "repurposed" definition of mecha (my definition above). you can call ur celphone mecha... but i won't ![;)](http://lemonstre.fr/robot-japan/smileys/wink.png) .
|
|
|
Post by mannyD on Nov 27, 2005 7:45:01 GMT -5
By that rule, you're saying that 'things' like the Tachikoma, or the Landmates, or even the Queadluun Rau, CANNOT be considered as Mecha, but the EVA (which is technically a huge @ss cyborg-and a larger percent made of organic matter) is? oops, forgive my ignorance, i don't even know these "mechas". enlighten us bro... ![:)](http://lemonstre.fr/robot-japan/smileys/smiley.png)
|
|