Jump to content

Old Joes vs New Joes....Serious Debate


imthebigdawg
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hear what you are saying, but I think your post deals with two different ideas: (1) the 25th anniversary is a better representation because all the work that went into "creating" the characters (different than producing them physically) is better demonstrated by the new sculpts. Am I correct in this summary?....you continue then onto another point (2) which "version" best represents the character? If I am right, and this is what you are trying to say, then the ideas are both extremely valid, just different and I think deserve different arenas to avoid confusion....Now the flip side to all this is that I completely missed your point all together and dont know what i am talking about. Could you clarify because I think you have some valid points regarding both topics?

 

You're correct on #1. ^^^ Yes, that is what I am saying. As for #2. the ideas are both extremely valid until you actually itemize their attributes and try to balance it all out. I would predict the plusses of the 25th would outweigh the 80s ARAH by a slight margin.

 

EXAMPLE: If I had say, a spreadsheet created* with one point given to one era or another in a particular category, I'd have to let's say. . .dock the original ARAH a point or two for visible elbow and shoulder rivits, which the 25th hides quite nicely. Maybe call the O-ring/T-joint a draw. Maybe call the 80's ball neck vs. the 25th ball head a draw. Add points to the 25th for more sculpt details and more for their tiny; numerous paint masks. Maybe add or subtract points for accessories as well.

 

But the final goal is not to judge the figures against each other without consideration for the evolution of toy making over time (a.) and what the designers were trying to achieve during that time. . .which is capturing the ideal character as he/she lives in the mythos (b.).

 

ADDENDUM: In a running fictional mythos, no character is ever set "in stone" as long as the stories are still being told. It took 21 consecutive issues of the Marvel series just to evolve Snake-Eyes' connection with Storm Shadow. To claim the character is set "in stone" would mean that the story stopped somewhere without pointing exactly where. Thus, for anyone to claim that "Joe characters are set in stone" is vague, careless, and wholly without merit.

 

 

-PJ

 

*I don't have the time to do this up right though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 251
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ask MOST fans of ARAH mythos about any character, and I bet they have a pretty SOLID (like "stone") mental and even visual impression of them and can tell you all kinds of personal things about the character via 21 consecutive issues of the Marvel series comics.

 

To make another action figure toy of that particular character does nothing to change what MOST fans of ARAH already have in their minds about that character, even if they stick Snake Eyes in a space ninja suit, MOST fans will still identify with the character as he was portrayed in 21 consecutive issues of the Marvel series comics.

 

I think the characters personalities have been very WELL established and are INDEED "set in stone" and judging by the brutal treatment most of the NEW comic book writers receive when trying to move AWAY from any of that, I'd say that only solidifies my assertion on it. "DON'T F@#K WITH {insert character name here}..!!!" seems to be the mentality with the fans, wanting to read NEW stories, about their favorite old characters.

 

Yeah, I'd say they're pretty much "set in stone". ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ADDENDUM

 

To assert that "there is no wrong way to collect" is imposing a rule on a board where the leading posters have asserted that "all opinions are valid." This is contradictory and even defeats the purpose of this very thread. This is actually relevant to all threads including this one.

 

To tell me that I "cannot" say there is a right and a wrong way to collect, is a direct attempt to stifle truly open discussion and serious debate.

 

Does collecting mean simply "to amass a particular thing"? I could be stockpiling toys for any number of reasons, and I think motive has everything to do with where you stand on a particular argument.

 

- Some claim to be collectors when they're really just investors with a peripheral interest in toys.

 

- Some claim to be collectors when they're really attempting to archive the history of a toyline (IMO, a far greater ideal than simple stockpiling).

 

- Some claim to be collectors when more time is spent actually moving the collectible around the collecting community (not a bad thing, but either you're more of a one or the other).

 

- Some claim to be collectors when they still aren't even collecting. They quit for some reason. "I have everything Mego made and my new hobby is toy blogging and toy internet forums."

 

- Some claim to be collectors when they're time is actually dominated by a more artistic pursuit, such as customizing and casting. "OH! But PJ, wouldn't that mean they must collect in order to. . .?" Sure, if you count parts, then yes. But parts aren't the collectible, merely part of it. They're spending more time and money crafting as opposed to actually massing more items that others have made.

 

So in the case of GIJoe, I prefer the term "fan". I understand people hate being put into a box, but then all opinions are indeed equal. . .rrrright? ^_^

 

-PJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snake Eyes was not set in stone back when he was merely a commando with a knowledge of 12 different martial arts, and no mention anywhere of ninja anything.

 

Verdict? The character is fluid and the figure is static.

 

Snake Eyes was not set in stone back when he was re-released in '85. You can't firmly establish where the wolf came from, because the comic and toon have two different continuities!

 

Verdict? The character is fluid and the figure is static.

 

In the Sunbow run, Snake Eyes and Scarlett had no overt romantic involvement, but they did in the comic (and even that evolved).

 

Verdict? The character is fluid and the figure is static.

 

Where did Snake Eyes get his new uniform for the v.3 figure? According to the comic, he stole it from three of his enemies.

 

Verdict? The character is fluid and the figure is static.

 

This is a constant; even into the DIC series and later Marvel issues. Snake-Eyes even dies outside of the Marvel and Sunbow continuity and is later resurrected for a brief time as an "evil ninja". The S6 Snake Eyes was even depicted wearing the black suit as a child. #WTF#

 

Verdict? The character is fluid and the figure (whichever version it was at the time) is static.

 

All 29 versions of the 3&3/4" Snake Eyes figure is a clear indication of that character's fluidity. As of DD's WWIII storyline, he's still not set in stone.

 

-PJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TOY

n.

1. An object for children to play with.

2. Something of little importance; a trifle.

3. An amusement; a pastime.

4. A small ornament; a bauble.

5. A diminutive thing or person.

 

1. To amuse oneself idly; trifle: a cat toying with a mouse.

2. To treat something casually or without seriousness: toyed with the idea of writing a play. See

 

 

FAN

n.

Informal. One who ardently admires: admirer, devotee, enthusiast, fancier, lover. See like, love, praise

 

Informal. A person who is ardently devoted to a particular subject or activity: devotee, enthusiast, fanatic, maniac, zealot. Informal: buff, fiend. Slang: freak, nut.

 

 

FANATIC

n.

A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

One who holds extreme views or advocates extreme measures: extremist, radical, revolutionary, revolutionist, ultra, zealot.

 

 

COLLECTOR

n.

1. One that collects.

2. A person employed to collect taxes, duties, or other payments.

3. A person who makes a collection, as of stamps.

4. An electrode collector.

5. A solar collector.

 

CRITIC

n.

1. One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.

2. One who specializes especially professionally in the evaluation and appreciation of literary or artistic works: a film critic; a dance critic.

3. One who tends to make harsh or carping judgments; a faultfinder.

 

critic synonyms

noun

A person who evaluates and reports on the worth of something: commentator, judge, reviewer. See value

A person who finds fault, often severely and willfully: carper, caviler, criticizer, faultfinder, hypercritic, niggler, nitpicker, quibbler. See praise

 

OPINION

n.

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew).

2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

4. The prevailing view: public opinion.

 

opinion synonyms

noun

Something believed or accepted as true by a person: belief, conviction, feeling, idea, mind, notion, persuasion, position, sentiment, view. See opinion

 

 

 

What's happened, or taken place, with these characters in the LAST 25 years...is set in stone! This is what's being discussed and recognized for their 25 year anniversary.

 

What happens with them in the NEXT 25 years, will be up for discussion then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically Cobra Commander, Storm Shadow, and Snake Eyes were remade between their initial release in the box sets and their releases in wave 1. This is per YoJoe.com.

 

The SE and Stormy filecards reflect the fluid character changes within the 25th ann. collection, as well as their designs, which reflect the character changes.

 

-PJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not following. @hmmm@

 

Are these changes NEW or just in relationship to what was already done with the toy figures from before and staying consistent to how they evolved and changed originally over the span of 25 years? For instance, Storm Shadow from Cobra to Joe and back to Cobra? What is new about their "character" according to the new 25th filecards, that should toss my "set in stone" comment on it's head?

 

 

 

 

and for any "lurkers"...this is legitimate discussion and not "argument", I'm actually intrigued and getting needed info here, so while I run to Krogers for the next hour or so, don't anybody mess up the discussion me and obiwan are civilly having! ^_^

 

SANK YOO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The running changes within the 25th line reflect the running character changes in the ARAH mythos and the Hasbro figure series.

 

Which version of which 25th Snake Eyes is the one that is allegedly "set in stone"?

 

If you say the v.1 homage, that ignores his fluid evolution from '82-'85. If SE v.28 is so set in stone, why did they make v.29 which is largely considered the fan fave (and more iconic)?

 

If you say the v.2 homage, that ignores every evolution of the static figure that came before him (including version 28 on back), and furthermore ignores every version of the character that was depicted in the comics or toons subsequent to 1985.

 

EDIT: I agree 100% with VH about his civility statement. I think we can prove to others that we are capable of doing this without any ad hominem fallacies on either side.

 

-PJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, the definition given for the words "collector" and "fan" in post #205 fully agrees with my statements in post #203. Thus, I prefer to use the term "fan" when talking about Joe enthusiasts, since you don't have to be a fan to collect.

 

Which has an effect on your POV when judging any new release of what you're collecting.

 

If I am simply an outspoken collector, and not a fan, then I have a much more limited selection of stances to argue from. With no knowledge of the mythos that drives the fandom, one guy in a black bodysuit is no different than another apart from liking the goggle variant, or the accessories. The only other difference between the two would be their secondary market value.

 

-PJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and for any "lurkers"...this is legitimate discussion and not "argument", I'm actually intrigued and getting needed info here, so while I run to Krogers for the next hour or so, don't anybody mess up the discussion me and obiwan are civilly having! ^_^

 

SANK YOO!

 

Civil, sure... but the discussion seems to be getting a little weird!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and for any "lurkers"...this is legitimate discussion and not "argument", I'm actually intrigued and getting needed info here, so while I run to Krogers for the next hour or so, don't anybody mess up the discussion me and obiwan are civilly having! ^_^

 

SANK YOO!

 

Civil, sure... but the discussion seems to be getting a little weird!

 

 

I just hope there's a Cliff Notes version released soon......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to take the "set in stone" position. using Snake Eyes as an example, obviously v. 1 was just the rough skecth for the character, but as he evolved over the course of the years new elements were added that, at some point, created a defined "set in stone" character. at this point, nothing new is really being added to his history or character, just ideas that seem to compliment the defined character that has been established, so the character is "set in stone."

 

sure, if SE's was made to talk and his ninja aspect was stripped away, you would have a character that continues to evolve. but, I don't see these characters evolving, I see an emphasis on ideas that merely adhere to the characteristics that have been established years ago.

 

every character has a list of characteristics that are vital to what made that character (and no, short sleeves and gloves don't count! @smilepunch@ ). if you were to list those, and then list the characteristics of these characters in their 25th interpretations, they would be identical IMO, reflecting the static nature of these characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The 25th Storm Shadow(s).

 

Comparing the two filecards and noting that Storm Shadow "once was a Cobra and now he's a Joe" is only a fraction of the changes bewteen the v.1 filecard and the v.2.

 

The card clearly states other changes:

 

- His relation to SE, which is never mentioned in the v.1 file.

 

- His service in SE Asia.

 

- The fact that he was never a Cobra at heart, but merely a lone infiltrator playing along to further his goal for revenge. This is probably the one thing that bugs me the most when fans say, "He should have stayed a bad guy." He never really was a bad guy. He was a wild card character loyal only to his friends. . .who just happened to be "good guys". This is why it was necessary to scramble his brain to meet the demands of the fan majority.

 

- Semi-retirement. This might make him the first "inactive Joe" ever re-released in the toyline.

 

So there's a bunch of changes. That's the attraction of Larry's writing (at the same time, it's also kind of annoying). The information is there, but it's lost if the reader is just giving it a shallow once-over.

 

Larry's writing is like a finger. . .pointing to the moon-- @pow@ Don't look at the finger!

 

. . .or you will miss all that heavenly glory.

 

@haha@

 

-PJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to take the "set in stone" position. using Snake Eyes as an example, obviously v. 1 was just the rough skecth for the character, but as he evolved over the course of the years new elements were added that, at some point, created a defined "set in stone" character. at this point, nothing new is really being added to his history or character, just ideas that seem to compliment the defined character that has been established, so the character is "set in stone."

 

So what you're saying is that when SE v.1 was released, he was not "set in stone" until. . .when? What elements exactly?

 

sure, if SE's was made to talk and his ninja aspect was stripped away, you would have a character that continues to evolve. but, I don't see these characters evolving, I see an emphasis on ideas that merely adhere to the characteristics that have been established years ago.

 

His "gaijin ninja" aspect was stripped away in Sigma 6. That's a major in my book.

 

His 2006 CLASSIFIED figure is only part of one continuity. Another major.

 

The explanations for his lack of speech are ambiguous in the Sunbow, Dic, and the Sigma 6 continuities. That's major #3.

 

every character has a list of characteristics that are vital to what made that character (and no, short sleeves and gloves don't count! @smilepunch@ ).

 

Okay, I'll let that one slide. ;)

 

-PJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and for any "lurkers"...this is legitimate discussion and not "argument", I'm actually intrigued and getting needed info here, so while I run to Krogers for the next hour or so, don't anybody mess up the discussion me and obiwan are civilly having! ^_^

 

SANK YOO!

 

Civil, sure... but the discussion seems to be getting a little weird!

 

 

I just hope there's a Cliff Notes version released soon......

 

One of the tactics of a good debater is to draw his opponents out on the peripheral details until all his opponents are confused and concede the debate in some form.

 

While this is a valid strategy, I prefer to try to keep this as on-topic as my opponent(s) will let me. I have a well-defined assertion that others are now attempting to deconstruct, which is both fair and civil.

 

So far, it is still very much on topic and I hope everyone is able to keep up.

 

-PJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to take the "set in stone" position. using Snake Eyes as an example, obviously v. 1 was just the rough skecth for the character, but as he evolved over the course of the years new elements were added that, at some point, created a defined "set in stone" character. at this point, nothing new is really being added to his history or character, just ideas that seem to compliment the defined character that has been established, so the character is "set in stone."

 

So what you're saying is that when SE v.1 was released, he was not "set in stone" until. . .when? What elements exactly?

 

sure, if SE's was made to talk and his ninja aspect was stripped away, you would have a character that continues to evolve. but, I don't see these characters evolving, I see an emphasis on ideas that merely adhere to the characteristics that have been established years ago.

 

His "gaijin ninja" aspect was stripped away in Sigma 6. That's a major in my book.

 

His 2006 CLASSIFIED figure is only part of one continuity. Another major.

 

The explanations for his lack of speech are ambiguous in the Sunbow, Dic, and the Sigma 6 continuities. That's major #3.

 

every character has a list of characteristics that are vital to what made that character (and no, short sleeves and gloves don't count! @smilepunch@ ).

 

Okay, I'll let that one slide. ;)

 

-PJ

I don't consider Sigma 6 a part of the RAH continuity that the 25th figures are meant to be a part of. whether it actually is I suppose is another debate. as to when that character was set in stone, all you have to do is define what it is that are the defining characteristics of Snake Eyes. when those characteristics were developed, that was when the character becamse set in stone.

 

the point isn't why he can't speak, just that he can't. not being able to speak is the characteristic, not the reaosn why in different media formats. being a ninja is another. and his relationship to SS. being a commando. etc. when those were established to define the character, that was when he was set in stone. but everything since then has merely been ideas to compliment that character.

 

this is just SE's. the same can be done for every other character in Joe lore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider Sigma 6 a part of the RAH continuity that the 25th figures are meant to be a part of. whether it actually is I suppose is another debate.

 

And it wouldn't be a long one at that. You would necessarily have to assert that the S6 figures are not GIJoe figures, and that the S6 toon was not a GIJoe toon.

 

as to when that character was set in stone, all you have to do is define what it is that are the defining characteristics of Snake Eyes. when those characteristics were developed, that was when the character becamse set in stone.

 

If you actually attempted to define the characteristics of Snake Eyes, you would come to alot of contradictions that are not "set in stone" as I have already described above. We're climbing into the loop of the argument now.

 

the point isn't why he can't speak, just that he can't.

 

Can't speak, or won't speak? See my point?

 

being a ninja is another. and his relationship to SS. being a commando. etc. when those were established to define the character, that was when he was set in stone.

 

But they never were. If they were, you would have to point to a fixed time and place where the fixed character continuity exists.

 

What if you never read the comics, but watched the toon every day? The majority of the fans out there define the characters based on the toon. Thus, there is no firm "set in stone" continuity for Snake Eye's relationship to Storm Shadow. . .or to Scarlett for that matter.

 

Makes me wonder what the younger fans reaction to all this is. I imagine if they saw the 25th Snake Eyes file card, they'd get all confused having only S6 to go off of.

 

Thus, the character is set in stone only according to individual preference, which is not objective at all, only a mere majority opinion.

 

-PJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and for any "lurkers"...this is legitimate discussion and not "argument", I'm actually intrigued and getting needed info here, so while I run to Krogers for the next hour or so, don't anybody mess up the discussion me and obiwan are civilly having! ^_^

 

SANK YOO!

 

Civil, sure... but the discussion seems to be getting a little weird!

 

 

Boy..I'll agree with that! @lol@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes me wonder what the younger fans reaction to all this is. I imagine if they saw the 25th Snake Eyes file card, they'd get all confused having only S6 to go off of.

 

Thus, the character is set in stone only according to individual preference, which is not objective at all, only a mere majority opinion.

 

-PJ

 

 

A majority opinion for a valid reason though. There's 25 years worth of concrete character building for these guys, whereas anything thrown in as an extra NOW, is only trying to slap on a few MORE details like a sculptor adding hair-like details to the eyebrows of a full size statue. Most the good stuff is already there, and we know exactly what it is, he just has bushier eyebrows now. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A majority opinion for a valid reason though. There's 25 years worth of concrete character building for these guys, whereas anything thrown in as an extra NOW, is only trying to slap on a few MORE details like a sculptor adding hair-like details to the eyebrows of a full size statue. Most the good stuff is already there, and we know exactly what it is, he just has bushier eyebrows now. ^_^

 

Okay, so now here's where we're at.

 

Resolved: The 25th anniversary collection is of superior design because they more closely reflect the iconic* characters with the updated toy making techniques we have at our disposal.

 

How's that?

 

-PJ

 

*See definition. Or "set-in-stone" if you prefer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A majority opinion for a valid reason though. There's 25 years worth of concrete character building for these guys, whereas anything thrown in as an extra NOW, is only trying to slap on a few MORE details like a sculptor adding hair-like details to the eyebrows of a full size statue. Most the good stuff is already there, and we know exactly what it is, he just has bushier eyebrows now. ^_^

 

Okay, so now here's where we're at.

 

Resolved: The 25th anniversary collection is of superior design because they more closely reflect the iconic* characters with the updated toy making techniques we have at our disposal.

 

How's that?

 

Close, but I wouldn't call it a "superior design". They're definitely more detailed, but in the "design" category, they have flaws in function, which renders them inferior. Look better..YES, but function less as a REAL toy. The original figures were truly toys to be played with (I mean, who ever heard of 40 year old action figure collectors in 1982 as what you do in 2007? ^_^) and they needed to be sturdy, durable and fun to play with, as close as possible to their 12" counterparts but in a much smaller scale.

 

The movie Star Wars practically sold the statue like toys on "emotional attachment" alone (as in, to young kids who seen the movie and knew the characters ALREADY) and didn't need to be as articulated as what Hasbro felt the new smaller Joes needed to be, to even be able to call them G.I.Joe "action figures" to begin with, and that added articulation made them stand out, the cartoons and comics made them soar, but the reputation Hasbro gained (for the style) kept up with them, and they kept trying to improve upon what was already in the lead of the pack, at the time.

 

Now, 25 years later, G.I.Joe and the ARAH mythos and all it's characters, is more like Star Wars was in the late 70's, in that the NAME almost sells the toys all by itself, and the real toy "functions" aren't as crucial to selling them. These 25th figures utilize some newer articulation features, but more as just a gimmick and in an effort to stay within the category that made them stand out so much in the early 80's, and that was the great articulation on such a small figure. It's almost a requirement now, since it was G.I.joe that cut this path to begin with.

 

The 25th figures are great memorabilia pieces, but they lack too much to be considered "superior" to their older versions, in design anyways.

 

DESIGN

 

1. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.

2. The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details: the aerodynamic design of an automobile; furniture of simple but elegant design.

3. A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development.

 

Going by #3 there, the design of the 25th figures affects the function of the figures in a manner that is inferior to other "designs" of the same line.

 

Therefore, on a action figure toy ONLY comparison (apples to apples) I choose the older versions of these same characters, but in their previous superior designs.

 

Just like with women...LOOKS will only get you so far, but if you can't MOVE as well as maybe a LESSER attractive women can...well, you can take it from there!

 

 

 

@smilepunch@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RAH = not equaled since, probably never will be

 

25th a nice trip down memory lane

 

RAH = Awesome detials, fun vehicles and bases and a WIDE WIDE variety of characters and variations

 

25 = a nice trip down memory lane so far...

 

 

 

But I am optomistic that the best of the 25th is YET TO COME

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Find Action Figures on Ebay


×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE