Quickie Transformer thought

Why is it that, whenever a Transformers fan talks about "Generation One," they seem to REALLY mean "the first two or three years, and only those, that Hasbro made Transformers"? There's at least four more years worth of toys before the original line was discontinued, and before "Generation Two" hit the stores in the early '90s to give fans a need to call the original line "Generation One."

Should I start calling the later four (or five) years of the original line "Generation One-and-a-half"? And what should I call the "new" "Generation One" toys that Takara puts out? "Neo Generation One"?

And what should I call Ricochet, recently available in Toys R Us stores with "Generation One" explicitly on the box, despite the fact that it was never available domestically in the United States during the original run, and was called something entirely different when it was originally available in Japan?

Enquiring minds want to know....

The cost of being a fan

When I started this blog, I intended it to be about Transformers once in a while, as well as my musings on Christianity and my perspective on subjects that matter to me as a Christian. The latter has obviously gotten more attention than the former. This is at least in part because the Transformers world has been moving slow lately. Finally I have something new to talk about in this regard....

About a week ago, I was pleased to finally receive my Transformers Club exclusive, a little plane called Skyfall. You can follow this link for pictures, although I should be clear that these pictures are not of "my" toy, but a gallery put up by another Transformers fan (and that Skyfall's the clear blue one). Skyfall was a free toy that came with the cost of a year's membership in the official club. So far, the only other benefits have been a monthly magazine, which only has actual Transformers content every other month; access to the club store, which has members prices which are lower than anywhere else online, but still higher than going to the local toy store (not even including shipping); and about a $50 discount (which is, admittedly, more than the cost of the membership itself) to attend BotCon, the Transformers convention, in September. And this is where the discontent begins....

Since BotCon is to be in Texas, and at a time of the year when my job is starting pick up full steam after the summer lull, I'd already decided that I could not go this year. After seeing the prices for attendance ($120 just to go to the convention for members, assuming you don't want any exclusive toys), I am even more convinced that it is best for me to stay home this year.

But I did hope to be able to get some of the exclusive toys through a non-attendee package. The club does indeed offer such a package, although it is the same price as an attendee would pay if they want to get the toys: $265 for the seven exclusive figures. Now, when you do the math, this comes out to less than $40 per figure, which isn't that much higher than most convention exclusive figures in the past (and some were even higher, though this is very uncommon). And to be fair, the exclusives really are intended to get people to come to the convention, so we can safely say that the club intends the "street value" of these exclusives to be about $140, which translates to about $20 per exclusive, roughly the same as for previous exclusives any larger than the "basic" (read: smallest) size.

But the problem is, you have to get all 7. You can't just get one or two! This puts the exclusive set well out of the price range of most Transformers fans, who've been used to getting only a few exclusives at a convention (I think 4 is the all time previous high, and you could definitely get those sepearately, or at most 2 in a box).

I therefore find myself torn on this convention: not on whether I'll go or whether I'll buy any of the toys. I won't. Simply can't afford it. But I do want to see the current club owners succeed, so that the club can continue to thrive and improve in years to come. But I'm concerned that by pricing so many of the members they obstensively wish to serve out of the market, they won't make the sales they need to continue to make the club succeed.

It should be noted that we've gotten used to lower (if not "low") prices under previous management, which clearly wasn't able to make enough money to survive. The previous owner went bankrupt and left many club promises unfilled. It is unclear whether this was because he didn't price his product and services high enough, or if (as is often assumed) he simply didn't know how to manage funds properly. Clearly, by charging higher prices, the current club seeks to make a profit and avoid bankruptcy due to underpriced services. I only hope that they don't fail because they priced on the other unwise extreme.

Reality? TV

I admit it. I've gotten into watching "The Apprentice" this past couple of years. Last night was the season finale, where Kendra Todd was hired to work for Donald Trump. Although I'm not really a fan of Trump himself, and definitely take issue with some of his decisions in the course of this (and previous) season(s), I absolutely think Kendra was the right choice.

What bothers me at this point is how pathetically they tried to build up the suspense at season end as to whether Trump would hire Kendra or Tana (the remaining possibility). Besides the fact that Kendra displayed strong competence throughout the season (especially displayed during an episode where she almost single-handedly completed a promotional flyer for the Pontiac Solstice when her teammates, including Tana, had abandoned her), her performance on her Final Task outstripped Tana's in nearly every way. Where Tana was critical of her teammates from the beginning and spoke poorly about them (even asking if there was any chance for a trade almost the moment after her teammates were revealed), Kendra took the opportunity to mend fences (all the teammates on both sides were people who'd been "fired" previously) and saw her teammates as valuable contributors to the final task. Where Tana's task had several large-scale mistakes (including the publication of sensitive personal data as promotional material, the loss of an American flag to be used in an Olympic-style processional, and brushing off the Governor of New York), Kendra's potential disasters (including a mishandled meeting hijacked by one of her teammates, and the need to relegate one of her sponsors to a basement display area) were deftly handled and the situation resolved before they could get out of hand.

Do the producers of "The Apprentice" really expect us to believe that there was any question as to which of the two candidates was to be hired? The live finale consisted mostly of Trump and his lackeys saying things that attempted to portray an equal amount of good and bad about each candidate. Yet while there were serious problems to talk about regarding Tana, all the "bad things" they could pull up for Kendra were serious stretches of the imagination. Not untrue, to be sure, but definitely nothing of the same scale. (And to be fair, Tana did have some good points.) When George says to Trump "I'm glad I don't have to make your decision," are we really expected to believe him?

Of course, the fact that "reality" TV isn't all that "real" shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. But I still wish they wouldn't insult my intelligence by suggesting that the obvious is anything less than obvious.

The Wait is Over (or just starting, depending on your point of view....)

The first real Transformers news in quite a few weeks finally broke today: the Transformers comic license has been given to IDW Publishing. While this is definitely good to those of us who've been waiting anxiously for new comic news ever since former publisher Dreamwave folded (in what can only be described as the most acrimonious of circumstances), it really did come out of left field. Many fans were hoping that the license would be picked up by a company called Devil's Due, who publish the G.I. Joe comics. (G.I. Joe and Transformers were considered something of siblings back in the 1980's) Some had speculated that Hasbro would rather give the TF license to a company that was better known, such as DC, the publishers of Batman and Superman.

I'm not at all familiar with IDW.

The press release indicates that IDW has done comics based on several well-known television shows, and I confess to hearing something about such comics in the back of my mind. However, I'm not really a fan of any of those shows (no offense to those who are), and don't know what that means for the TF comic.

There seems little chance that IDW will attempt to pick up the TF storyline where Dreamwave left off. Why should they? I just hope that they don't end up folding, leaving yet another storyline in limbo just as it's getting good.

Having is not so great a thing as wanting. I know it isn't logical, but it is very often true.

Mr. Spock's quote seemed appropriate to some "news" that arrived on the Transformer message boards today, informing us that the first "collector's club exclusive" toy should arrive sometime at the end of the spring/early summer. This actually isn't anything we didn't already know: anyone who signed up to become a member of the new club (if you're interested, here's a link) by the middle of March was told that it would be sent at pretty much exactly that time. What is perhaps notable is the fact that 3H, the former owners of the club, had a reputation for setting back such dates ad infinitum, and so the fact that this news actually does have the same dates is considered a very good thing. I'm also reminded on Hobbes' (as in "Calvin and...") comment about lowering expectations to the point where they're already met....

But back to Spock's quote, I'm still deciding what I want to do with this thing when I get it. It's supposed to be the first part of a combiner that will take five years to complete. Each year, a new part is released. This, of course, not only assumes that I remain a member each year for that long, but that the club will still continue to exist at that time (call me a cynic). Since I don't have the other parts, and won't for so long, I'm toying with the idea of creating packaging for it. Of course, if the club actually puts this toy in a box or on a card, there's no point in my creating one. But usually these come in either an unmarked white box, or in a plastic baggie; neither of which would be suitable for display. Cards are easier to create and print at the size needed, but I wouldn't have a plastic bubble suitable for it unless I buy the "mass-market" version of this mold (oh, I forgot to mention, nearly all "club exclusives" are nothing more than recolors, or at best slight remolds, of existing toys). That wouldn't be a problem with a box (a flat sheet of plastic is easy to grab from practically anywhere), but I don't have a printer capable of printing to paper large enough to contain this size of figure when folded (the Happy Meal toys are pretty much the limit. I can't even do all of them....). I suppose Kinko's (I'll never get used to calling them "FedEx Kinko's," but that's another rant.) could do it, but that would cost a fair bit of change....

But as long as the toy is still something I'm waiting on, rather than something I have in my hands, I can continue to plan and to dream of possibilities. Which isn't such a bad thing....

Working inside the box

Been trying to think of something creative to do with some old Happy Meal Transformers from a few years back. Finally decided that creating custom boxes for them was the way to go. Here's a picture (click on the thumbnail for a larger view).

Creative concepts

This has been the week of the Arts Festival at the seminary in which I work. I have some pretty close friends on the Arts Concerns Committee, and used to be the chair of the committee myself a few years ago, so I generally try make myself available to help out.

These events often give me some cause to ponder the nature of art. Not so much "what is art?" but "what is 'good' art?" Clearly, just because something is popular doesn't make it "good." On the other hand, I often find myself biting my tongue (or not) when so many artists around me seem to criticize art that happens to be popular for being "bad" or "cheesy." Often, I agree with the assessment, but other times, I wonder if the art is being criticized simply because it's popular. I don't claim to have any answers here. Besides the fact that what constitutes "good" art is subjective, I myself still struggle with this question.

For example, some of my friends would suggest that "good" art must cause the viewer to wrestle with the world in which we live. I certainly don't dispute that this is one valuable function that art fulfills, but is art that is simply nice to look at not good art simply because it does not challenge anyone's expectations, but is merely pretty?

Another question: is there a difference between being "creative" and creating "art?" I like to "create" things all the time. For example, I made this custom Transformers package recently for my brother's birthday (see picture at right). The figure inside, I hasten to add, was not created by me. Only the packaging, which I designed to look as if Hasbro (the toy company that produces the Transformers in America) had created it back when this kind of figure would have been created in 1990. Clearly, very few of the ideas here are mine. The aspect of my "creativity" was in bringing it all together in this way. Some might argue that this is the very definition of art. But is it? There's no deep meaning here. Just a gift I created for my brother with the hopes of it being a bit different and special. What if I created such a package (as I'm actually looking to do for other customs) with the intent of selling the custom on eBay (which I may or may not do)? Does that affect it's status as "art?" And if it is "art," is it "good," beyond being technically proficient?

Or, to look at the question of "good art" from a different angle, what makes certain art "cheesy?" This is an assessment I myself have made on occasion. For me, I'd probably call something "cheesy" that "takes the easy way out." That is to say, not just that it is "popular," but specifically that it caters to popular culture (or in the case of "Christian" art, the popular Christian sub-culture) in such a way as to be "safe" and "easy" and to not have any real meaning for the people who look at it. Especially in the case of "Christian" art, I see so much that Christians use to escape from the secular world. If anything, Christians more than most people need to be challenged. We need to know how to engage the secular world, rather than run from it by developing our own sub-set of "art" that allows us to avoid the aspects of the rest of the world we would just as soon not deal with. But for all of that, am I not still engaging in some form of "artistic snobbery?" Where is the line between something that is merely technically proficient and good art? Should I even make such a distinction? Or am I failing to be properly engaged in the world (artistic or otherwise) if I don't seek to make such a distinction?

And so the pondering continues....