garrick lee (goner4sure@yahoo.com)
Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:01:25 -0800 (PST)


--- "Matt, defender of stuff that is pretty cool!"
<mhanyo1@umbc.edu> wrote:
> just wondering what the general consensus was on the
> list regarding
> so-called "transforming" model kits. I just spent
> about 15 minutes trying to
> get a VF-19 kai to go from gerwalk to jet mode, with
> pieces falling
> everywhere and things not connecting right. I have
> trouble with my MG Zeta,
> as well, as a Gundam it doesn't pose very well, and
> as the wave rider it uh,
> pretty much collapses on itself.
>
> What I don't get is, what's the big deal? They make
> these toys that
> transform - I've got a VF-19 that I took apart and
> painted piece by piece,
> and managed to reassemble it and it still works. Why
> not just make the
> "transforming" kits of higher quality plastics and
> more flexible joints, but
> more expensive?
>
> Any thoughts?
>

exactly my beef with all of the valyrie model kits.
plus, the fact that they need part swapping, when
they're already fragile as heck.

which extends to my beef with the macross plus toys of
toycom release. crud. bandai got it right the first
time with the classic valkyries and the plastic mac7
valks (superb toys!). what the hell is toycom
mucking around with the macross plus valks for? i
still think the yf-19 screw ups are inexcusable (and
combined with the enormous price tag, almost
unforgiveable) -- insofar as the mech design of yf-19
(toycom) is a direct carbon copy of vf-19 (bandai),
with only cosmetic differences, and no significant
structural design differences whatsoever.

the only reason i can think of as to why they are
having a tough time with the fragile valkyrie kits is
that they are prioritizing proportions and technical
accuracy in ALL THREE MODES over workability of the
entire kit.

as for the transformable gundam kits...i don't like
'em. i'm not really fond of transformable gundams in
the first place (amuro complex :P) or gundams with
core fighters.

technically, my problems with transformables are -- it
essentially means that the structure of the suits are
several magnitudes weaker (c'mon, the zeta is
practically hollow in many parts when in mobile suit
mode...ugh). it also means flakey unfeasible
uberfunky mechanics (double zeta, fazz, sentinel,
enough said) and that don't make my day any. most of
the time, gundam transformables are also ugly like
heck (wing gundam, airmaster, psycho, zz).

hobbywise, i just can't stand the thought of paint
jobs scratching as the various parts mesh and grind
together while the mech transforms. ugh. hobbywise,
also, the fragile structure of transformables mechs
reveal themselves all too readily that it kind of
hinders the suspension of belief regarding mecha model
kits (and what they're supposed to simulate).

-garr
long live noble grunt mecha!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Feb 20 2001 - 11:01:39 JST