Franz G Co (darkholy@saintly.com)
Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:19:57 -0500 (EST)


Which is why Bandai must justify having variable kits with a

*drumroll*

PERFECT GRADE VALKYRIE!!! Mwahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha!!!^O^

*raises beam umbrella*

---Original Message------
From: garrick lee <goner4sure@yahoo.com>
To: gundam@aeug.org
Sent: February 20, 2001 2:01:25 AM GMT
Subject: Re: [gundam] "transforming" kits

--- "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/

____________________________________________________________________________
Shop through Barnes and Nobles
http://bn.bfast.com/booklink/click?sourceid=32079226&categoryid=h
help me earn cash too.
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

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



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Feb 20 2001 - 22:20:14 JST