How "canon" should toys' transformation schemes be taken?

[JediTricks]

I have no idea why this one just came to me, but how "story accurate" should a TF figure's transformation scheme be taken? A lot of the toys have transformations that really wouldn't pan out in a "real world" scenario for Transformers: fake wheels in alt mode, heads that can't turn, hollow limbs, that sort of thing. I mean, obviously some latitude must be given for the basic premise of the brand, but something like ROTF voyager Starscream split down the middle, or dlx Ratchet with its hollow chest, those really are hard to swallow as coming together to make working robots. Or what about movie 1 Leader-class Prime, whose head pops out of the cabin that would have to be empty in alt mode to be a believable truck? TF uses a lot of facades and trickery to get away with making a fun toy line, but should we just pull a G1 Ironhide and ignore how ridiculous that transformation is?

[Dominic]

Cool thread idea JT.

I think it comes down to how well the toy represents what it supposed to be happening with the character.

For example, "Legends" Starscream uses a pretty blatant cheat with the robot's chest plate essentially incorporating a facade cockpit. But, it works and the extra cockpit is hidden in robot mode and not too obvious in plane mode. (Airplanes are hard to do at that scale to begin with, and "Legends" Starscream is a good effort for the price point.)

On the other hand, "Legends" scale movie Jazz is terrible. The robot's chest is a facade of the front of the car...and is clearly visible on the car mode's roof. That is not only a blatant cheat, it looks terrible.

At a certain point, we have to accept some deviation from the canonical representations of the characters. Even a line as advanced as SW does not get things perfectly. (After all, the characters have individually articulated fingers in context, but not as toys.)

As long as the facades and hollow pieces are not too obvious or lazily designed, I can usually deal with them.


Dom
-would like more consistency between character models though....

[138 Scourge]

TF uses a lot of facades and trickery to get away with making a fun toy line, but should we just pull a G1 Ironhide and ignore how ridiculous that transformation is?

Yeah, we probably oughtta. It seems like every time we see a character's transformation clearly, it's doing things that the toy version just isn't gonna do. The movie guys are great examples. Look at Blackout's transformation at the beginning of the first movie. It looks like thousands of things are moving around on that dude when he starts changing. Other than Cybertron or sometimes on Beast Wars, I can't think of any show offhand where you could actually figure out how the toy transformed by watching them transform on the show.

I actually wouldn't mind if the fictional depictions of these things took the physical realities of the toys into account more often. Like, if PCC Doubleclutch had any fiction, he'd almost have to be a screwed-up PCC experiment that couldn't hold together, wouldn't he?

[BWprowl]

TF toylines have produced some pretty amazing transformations (it is my absolute favorite aspect of the line, after all. A well-done or interesting transformation can save a toy for me if the individual modes are lacking), but at the end of the day they're just a mechanic to get from one mode to the other. It's *better* if they do so without faux-kibble or partsforming or the like, because it shows more effort on the part of the designers, but given the constraints of the harsh mistress known as reality, I can't give them too much heat if they don't synch up perfectly with how we expect these things to work in-universe.

There's also the matter that sometimes even that universe isn't certain what the canon transformation is (eg: Hot Rod transforming at least three different ways in TFTM). And then there's also the very rare situation where stuff like faux-kibble is canon (The fake roof on Animated Bumblebee's chest is actually supposed to be fake! His character model has the real roof panels on the backs of his legs and everything!).

[Onslaught Six]

When possible, I just assume that things work in a different manner than we're actually seeing. To use your 2007 Leader Prime example, his head must logically be somewhere else inside of his cabin. Where? Who knows, right?

Actually, I seem to remember RID readily placing the heads of most (all?) of its Autobots inside their cabin, in the passenger side. (Or maybe it was the driver's side, being set in Japan.) Take that for what it's worth.

In terms of stuff like a car interior, logically that stuff must fold away somewhere or something. Alternators gave us a look at a line where all the seats and interior details would be present and those designs tended to work--I guess that's part of why the line was popular, even if it wasn't with me.

I think sometimes you also just have to ignore reality--a TF whose legs split in half from his car hood, like Wheeljack, for example. His car engine would have to split in half for that to work...but that raises the question of, does Wheeljack have an engine at all? He's a TF, he should presumably be running on Cybertronian machinery. If he does have an engine, it's surely cosmetic, and offers no actual insight into how he functions. (This was kind of a problem I had with the 2007 film and Bumblebee--that whole Megan Fox looking under the hood scene. There's no reason for Bumblebee to have an Earth engine, so if he does, it has to be cosmetic. I can't imagine TFs running on basic gasoline. As an aside, that's something that the movies failed to address entirely.) Shouldn't a TF, underneath their vehicle mode kibble, be functionally identical to how they were before scanning an altmode? (Unless they end up transforming an entirely different way due to altmode differences, like Grimlock or Optimus Prime in most interpretations.)

Someone (I think Guido Guidi) did drawings of Prime and Megatron some years back with parts of their arms, legs and body see-through so you could see their innards; I wish I could find them again, they might make good research.

[Dominic]

(The fake roof on Animated Bumblebee's chest is actually supposed to be fake! His character model has the real roof panels on the backs of his legs and everything!).

That strikes me as Delbo level "laziness through consistency".

Shouldn't a TF, underneath their vehicle mode kibble, be functionally identical to how they were before scanning an altmode? (Unless they end up transforming an entirely different way due to altmode differences, like Grimlock or Optimus Prime in most interpretations.)

The G1 comics addressed this. TF disguises were imperfect in this regard, with the interiors and engines being obvious giveaways.


Dom
-but Action Masters? They do not have this problem at all....

[JediTricks]

Yeah, we probably oughtta. It seems like every time we see a character's transformation clearly, it's doing things that the toy version just isn't gonna do. The movie guys are great examples. Look at Blackout's transformation at the beginning of the first movie. It looks like thousands of things are moving around on that dude when he starts changing. Other than Cybertron or sometimes on Beast Wars, I can't think of any show offhand where you could actually figure out how the toy transformed by watching them transform on the show.

Beast Machines clouded my memory for a moment and I was aghast at that post until I remembered that the weird morphing was BM, not BW. IIRC, Energon was also careful with canonical transformations, almost to the point of boredom. It seems it's easier to computer-animated transformations than draw them. Then again, TFPrime is cg and it's the worst offender in some ways.

I actually wouldn't mind if the fictional depictions of these things took the physical realities of the toys into account more often. Like, if PCC Doubleclutch had any fiction, he'd almost have to be a screwed-up PCC experiment that couldn't hold together, wouldn't he?

Heh heh, I don't think Hasbro would appreciate the entertainment pointing out that their products are sometimes junk.

When possible, I just assume that things work in a different manner than we're actually seeing. To use your 2007 Leader Prime example, his head must logically be somewhere else inside of his cabin. Where? Who knows, right?

IIRC, the entertainment suggested that his head was "built" so it wasn't in one place, but in many places and it formed during transformation. Can you imagine a TF figure where you had to transform a dozen pieces just to make up the head? Yuck. And it seems quite vulnerable that way.

Actually, I seem to remember RID readily placing the heads of most (all?) of its Autobots inside their cabin, in the passenger side. (Or maybe it was the driver's side, being set in Japan.) Take that for what it's worth.

I don't remember that, but I do remember them playing a little fast and loose with heads appearing wherever the animators wanted.

I think sometimes you also just have to ignore reality--a TF whose legs split in half from his car hood, like Wheeljack, for example. His car engine would have to split in half for that to work...but that raises the question of, does Wheeljack have an engine at all? He's a TF, he should presumably be running on Cybertronian machinery. If he does have an engine, it's surely cosmetic, and offers no actual insight into how he functions. (This was kind of a problem I had with the 2007 film and Bumblebee--that whole Megan Fox looking under the hood scene. There's no reason for Bumblebee to have an Earth engine, so if he does, it has to be cosmetic. I can't imagine TFs running on basic gasoline. As an aside, that's something that the movies failed to address entirely.) Shouldn't a TF, underneath their vehicle mode kibble, be functionally identical to how they were before scanning an altmode? (Unless they end up transforming an entirely different way due to altmode differences, like Grimlock or Optimus Prime in most interpretations.)

When I was a kid, that was the sort of thing we didn't ignore, we made big conversations (or arguments) about whether or not they're realistic enough to have engines if someone checked, or why they'd worry someone would check, and would it look realistic if the car was driving and it didn't have body roll or little nuances you can only get by being a realistic car on the inside as well as out. But why shouldn't TFs only be facades, they are after all Robots in DISGUISE - just because you might wear a Sean Connery mask doesn't mean you have to get a chest hair rug surgically implanted into you to fool a guy across the street. So obviously, there does need to be a discussion about it, your point about the movie and Bumblebee is right on the money, but in viewing the movie, if they hadn't used real cars, it would have stood out as well.

Sorry, I got lost in there, text messages back and forth while typing left me confused. But there definitely is some wiggle room in the idea.

[Dominic]

IIRC, the entertainment suggested that his head was "built" so it wasn't in one place, but in many places and it formed during transformation. Can you imagine a TF figure where you had to transform a dozen pieces just to make up the head? Yuck. And it seems quite vulnerable that way.

That might actually be kind of fun though. Of course, poor quality control could also make it very very bad.


In story terms, gaps in the disguises could be useful. Imagine a Sector 7 or a Machination type faction tracking Cybertronians by monitoring the behavior of otherwise normal looking vehicles.


Dom
-never got over the amount of cheating on G1 toys.

[Onslaught Six]

In story terms, gaps in the disguises could be useful. Imagine a Sector 7 or a Machination type faction tracking Cybertronians by monitoring the behavior of otherwise normal looking vehicles.

This makes a lot of sense to me, too. It's like...most of the TFs don't need to turn into identical versions of their altmodes. Some of them, like Universe Sideswipe and Sunstreaker, don't even turn into actual existing vehicles--they're hybrids between certain models of Lamborghini. So it's like...it'd fool some people, but then if you look at it closely you can tell. I *kind of* think they were trying to do that with Bumblebee having a souped-up engine (which my father claims is all car technobabble) but it doesn't really work out.

[Shockwave]

I think the bigger the toy the more "realistic" it should be. O6 made a good example with Alternators and I think the Masterpiece line represents it well also. but the smaller toys like Legends or WST just don't have the size to warrant "realistic" transformations. Good example: Leader Starscream should have most of his robot kibble hidden in jet mode. Legends starscream? Not so much.