Jump to content

Mommar

Members
  • Posts

    14106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mommar

  1. It's just bummer so many of you guys did wind up with VF-4's with missing parts. Are they all different missing parts too?
  2. I'm thinking about buying another Elintseeker for myself and getting a VF-17S for my girlfriend's son just to help out (if there is such a thing.) Do we know if these guys are huge fans of obscure Valks and SDFM styled SDF-1's?
  3. I've never liked this head but based on the pics you've posted so far I'm leaning towards having a 4G and a 4Ku here as well.
  4. It's kind of a friction thing really. If you adjust the bits that insert into the legs correct those tabs will fit into the wings and stay. But they do not lock into the wings, which I think is a mistake.
  5. Any more pics with it painted and finished up now Kurisama? You almost have me a believer.
  6. I don't know guys. If the founders of the company were Macross fans and they were nerdy enough to name their company after a sci-fi anime ship they liked, renaming their company after another ship from a nerdy sci-fi anime ship they like probably doesn't mean they're going to change tactics away from things like Macross.
  7. Yup, they're the reason why I'm here to. Got tired of my crappy Toynami Max 1J and decided to start searching for Japanese made Macross toys. Ran across this website talking about the V2 VF-1's right after they were first produced, did my research and bought one. I've been here following their releases ever since.
  8. Bandai making another tiny VF-1 shows no signs of them picking up any sort of slack.
  9. I would tint the canopies myself if I could.
  10. So when is the next show/event Bandai will show off their goods? I'm hoping to see more photos of this thing in a more complete state or get some new info. I keep liking all three modes the more I look at it. Also, since it's pretty much a new mold design hopefully this means Bandai will milk it with some variant colors, possibly schemes from the game we aren't privy to yet. It's too much to hope but I think with the way it transforms it could REALLY shine with a real life scheme in all three modes (it'll never happen without mods, I know.)
  11. I never have been a fan of that head, even still that fin in fighter kinda bothers me. That being said, you've come the closest anybody ever could to making me a convert. I'm torn over wanting one or not.
  12. I know some of us have been thinking this is bad. I'm wondering, this idea must have been floating around the office for at least a little while. Mr. K already mentioned his wish list for Valks to keep making. Maybe it was just hyperbole, or really just a wish list, but you would think that if they weren't going to have the Macross license anymore he might have just declined to comment on what else he'd like to make.
  13. Actually, I disagree that the 30th Anniversary Fokker (or any of them) are definitive precisely because the canopies aren't tinted. I love the way my older V2's look with the tinted canopies and I don't have a single one with cracking going on. The newer V2's without the tinted canopies look more toy-like and less cool IMO.
  14. Why is that a bad thing. Yamato responded to them that they're attempting to make parts but they need time to produce them. Seems like a decent response overall.
  15. Honestly my least favorite part of the 171 is that the those little chest covers that fold up in Gerwalk/Fighter will launch off of the thing whenever I transform it back into said Gerwalk/Fighter modes. I've watched multiple transformation video's and everything. The tolerance is too tight for me to handle. I just pop them off before transforming now and keep them in a plastic bag when not in Battroid.
  16. It helps when opening the landing gear bay actually.
  17. So the wings fall off... pop the pins first man. Pretty easy to overcome. The arms needing adjusting is slightly tricky but after a few transformations you get the feel.
  18. That might be fun. I'd like to try it in 3D though (as I seem to be the only person to fully use it all the time.)
  19. There is in the PC version. I imagine the 360 version would be the same as well.
  20. I don't understand, what's the main problem(s) you have with transforming it?
  21. Don't forget they also have the updated crotch locking mechanism as well.
  22. Yeah, you're right. Lack of sleep. My other points still hold up though.
  23. Yes, but technically the D survived that battle. It was in Generations that it actually was destroyed. Don't forget the original Enterprise (from Enterprise) survived too. That's 4 to three. The A was technically a refitted decommissioned USS York, and all through ST6 they kept putting off contacting Starfleet by claiming there were things wrong with the ship preventing communication or warp speed that actually weren't true. Really the A worked fine, other than a few smoldering holes in the saucer section by the end, and it was all of the lies and misbehavior (and the fact Starfleet was upgrading the fleet and the Constitution Classes were OLD) that finally got it canned. Yes, in 5 it was buggy (and it's not as bad as movie as people claim.) Other than a big hole in the side of the lower hull the B was able to keep flying, not really that bad in the grand scheme of things. While the E got trashed she kept flying. That's all that counts. If you want to talk about all of the times an Enterprise wasn't shot up in the movies though, there's Star Trek The Motion Picture and Star Trek V. If you've got the budget (and STV had the lowest of any Star Trek Movie) why not show a couple of lumbering vehicles slugging it out?
  24. Over the course of Ten Star Trek movies they've only destroyed two Enterprise, 1071 and D. Granted, the last time they blew one up was way back in Generations so they're due.
  25. Sorry Man, I haven't had time to take pictures of toys recently.
×
×
  • Create New...