Jump to content

obiwanjacoby

Members
  • Posts

    285
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by obiwanjacoby

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. Yep...you said it perfectly......

     

    I politely disagree. I almost fell in with you, but I nearly forgot my original point entirely.

     

    The 25th captures the mythos more through the sculpting details, accessories, and paint masks.

     

    Sure, the 25th got a few points off for range of motion and maybe a face or two (which is telling), but I think if someone itemized the entire list of attributes of the 25th line without ignoring any single aspect, you would then find the 25th figures of a much superior quality because they (more closely) mirror the details brought out by the comic and original card art that the initial 80s figures could not duplicate.

     

    Does that make any sense? I'm really not trying to talk over anyone's head.

     

    Example: Snake Eyes version 1 is designed and "supported" by high quality card art and a fictional background to sell a very good figure for it's time. See the subtle shading of the card art, the dynamic pose, and the pointed finger. The figure can't do that. If all we knew about was the figure and nothing else, we wouldn't even know he was mute.

     

    But the "ideal" version of Snake Eyes surpasses the version 1 figure, because comic and animation artists get to improve on it. Consequently, the mythos of the character improves as well. . .helping to create the ever popular version 2.

     

    But still the actual figures themselves remain static because they are fixed; tangible representations of an idealized concept. This is why customizers tend to impress us more often than not, because they can re-create the original into something closer to the collective mental picture of what that particular hero should look like.

     

    Picture the perfect Baroness that you could ever imagine Hasbro to create. Now, whatever you imagined her to look like, I guarantee it's not the '84 original (being an improvement and all), or else you're blinded by nostalgia. Furthermore if you're creative enough, the more that Baroness will reflect the idealized version that comic artists and writers have been trying to represent through simpler; more aesthetically striking means.

     

    My point being either you're arguing for the version 1 of everything, or you're arguing for an idealized concept that maybe only a customizer can achieve with alot more expensive materials at hand.

     

    -PJ

  13. I'm a huge fan of this Sparks. I really am digging it.

     

    Same here. I always wanted an "authorized" version of Sparks without having to make a custom or substitute with a TRU Generic Infantry guy.

     

    Love the filecard as well.

     

    That's one toon figure down; now if they would only come out with Big Lob! :P

     

    -PJ

  14. I'd love to be able to get all that Chap Mei stuff around here. The stuff is inexpensive but PERFECT for the Joes, and the vehicles are very detailed and solid little vehicles, surprising for the cost and all you get.

     

    chapmeisoldierforcetr7.png

     

    Oh WOW! They made a Harrier! :wub: Or, it really looks like a Harrier!

     

    That would look so awesome on the Flagg. Thanks for the toy pics, VH! Appreciated.

     

    -PJ

  15. http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/mod/us/leef19.htm

     

    When Testors/Italieri released the F-19 model kit, they claimed that their design of the stealth “fighter” based on the literature that was available at the time and the guesses of aviation experts. As politicians have a tendency to do, they got upset at the release of “secret” information and conducted a congressional hearing over a model kit(?). The shape of the F-19 was strikingly similar to the SR-71 which was a reduced, but not low, RCS design (most folks didn’t know about the low RCS flying wings that Northrop developed in the 1940s which was the basis of the B-2.) For most of the 80s when folks talked about a stealth fighter, they imagined the F-19 or something similar to it.

     

    As many of you know, this particular kit was called the best selling model kit of all time and beat the previously declared model, the original Star Trek USS Enterprise, in record time.

     

    And you know Hasbro had to have noticed that. ;)

     

    -PJ

  16. I always thought that GIJOE designers needed to have stacks of Popular Mechanics magazines, coupled with books on Syd Mead, Ron Cobb, Ralph McQuarrie, Andy Probert and Derek Meddings on their desks.

    Hell, throw in some Joe Johnston, Nilo Rodis-Jamero, Otomo Katsuhiro and Sushei Nagnoka for good measure.

     

    Just add the Joe team or COBRA logos and away ya go.....

     

    Right, it looks to me like that's what they were doing in the 80's, and then quit after they left.

     

    For example, IIRC--the proposed "frisbee" illustration for the then unseen F-117 Stealth was what the Joe Phantom X-19 was based on.

     

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...aw/1281326.html

     

    EDIT: Found this pic.

     

    http://www.oficinamodelismo.com.br/imagens/om1914.jpg

     

    This is a great thread and one of my fave topics.

     

    -PJ

  17. As always, you're putting more drama into an innocent situation or comment.

     

    Much less dramatic than others I'm sure. You see my post containing any dramatic photoshop comments or cartoon caricatures? Cartoon-critique-banners? Giant inch-high bouncing smileys?

     

    Nope. I'm all good here.

     

    -PJ

  18. I think having a fanciful element--carefully wrought--is smart to take with this line. But just where is the line drawn? People used to rip Psyche-out and Crazy Legs a new one every time they were discussed, and the former is really quite outlandish.

    The latter actually is almost a reasonable pararescue/scout type figure, with the big periscope, and his uniform styling.

    I liked them both,because they had intricate features and were 'different"

     

    Crazylegs came with a. . .periscope? :blink:

     

    -PJ

  19. Okay, since I don't have all day and I expected the "fans" to get this alot quicker, here--I'll let you read my crib notes.

     

    http://www.banned/modules.php?o...cle&artid=7

     

    The late great Archie Goodwin came up with the name COBRA at the very first meeting that Marvel had with Hasbro. They only had the ten Joe figures designed at the time and the first question we brought up was, "Who do they fight?" and all we got were blank stares. I asked, "What are they going to do, march around in parades and polish their belt buckles?" After some moments of awkward silence, Archie piped up that perhaps there should be a para-military terrorist organization-- let's say we call it Cobra.

     

    http://www.yojoe.com/faq/hama.shtml

     

    I did the file cards from the very beginning. In fact, it was my idea to do the file cards. I never actually intended them to be printed on the backs of the packages, I just did them (much more detailed!) for my own reference.

     

    My assertion then is this:

     

    The ARAH line was initially a joint product of both Hasbro and Marvel. Hasbro brought their scaled-down everyman without a name and Marvel made the myth. Hasbro was trying to make another Star Wars concept. . .only without the movie.

     

    - I am saying you wouldn't even have a single Cobra Viper without the Joe mythos.

     

    - I am saying you absolutely cannot debate "old ARAH vs. new ARAH" without factoring in the mythos. And in the case of Cobra, some of you are doing it without even knowing it. :rolleyes:

     

    - I am saying that The 3&3/4" line has now come full circle. Over the past ten years it slowly tried to veer away from it's Marvel comics roots. . .but now it's returned full circle.

     

    - I am saying that ARAH wouldn't have even made it 3 years past '82 without the mythos that many of us don't give a crap about. It's what drove the success of each wave.

     

    - I am saying that the 25th is a fusion and absolutely cannot be separated without your fan loyalty, fan knowledge of the product itself, or your own mental objectivity coming into question.

     

    That's it. If anyone wants to run to the mods crying to have me banned, go ahead. But you know I'm right.

     

    -PJ

  20. So was it "low sales" or the "oil crisis" that ultimately ended the era of 12" G.I.Joe?

     

    You're ignoring your own quotes. . .

     

    In 1976 the combination of flat sales and the OPEC oil embargo and resulting "oil crisis" in the US caused Hasbro to redesign GI Joe's body.

     

    . . .and it's taking the thread :OT:

     

    All I was saying to begin with was this was the reason Hasbro stated for reducing the figures. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Hasbro was using the oil crisis as a convenient lie to justify their motive to re-scale.

     

    -PJ

  21. Keeping with Arrow's train of thought here.

     

    When ARAH was first in the R&D stage, they had:

     

    - A basic figure design and scale to compete with Kenner (that's you profit angle).

     

    - An articulation and sculpting angle to try to surpass the quality of Kenner.

     

    - A marketing plan that had to compete with Kenner.

     

    So now the question is. . .

     

    1. What exactly was that marketing plan, and who's responsible for its success?

     

    2. Moreover, who in that marketing group came up with Cobra? Since GIJoe was all Hasbro could think of. Hasbro never invented Cobra.

     

    -PJ

×
×
  • 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