mechaninac Posted May 26, 2004 Posted May 26, 2004 I didn't notice that either until you pointed it out. By the looks of that picture it sure looks like the alpha is going to be a chest dragger; that's inexcusable...did Toynami have multiple engineers working on different parts of the toy who never bothered to check with each other to make sure everything fit and matched the line art? The early 1/60 VF-1s from Yamato dragged the gun pod fin a bit, but this is ridiculous. I hope this due to the rear gears not being deployed when they took that picture or that it is just a pre-release sample, and that the final product will have that fixed, but judging from their track record I wouldn't hold my breath.
CoryHolmes Posted May 27, 2004 Posted May 27, 2004 Anybody email Toynami and ask them what's up with that chest-dragging picture?
Wesker99 Posted May 27, 2004 Posted May 27, 2004 Hey what the hell, is it just me or is the chest touching the ground in fighter mode? Kinda off the subject, but the arms of my VF-1J touch the ground when it's in fighter mode too.. I thought that was kinda lame..
GobotFool Posted May 27, 2004 Posted May 27, 2004 Hey what the hell, is it just me or is the chest touching the ground in fighter mode? Kinda off the subject, but the arms of my VF-1J touch the ground when it's in fighter mode too.. I thought that was kinda lame.. Ummmmm no, the arms do not touch the ground. The gunpod has some issues. but even on the 1/48th there is still a noticable distance from the ground. Here it actually looks like the chest is touching.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted May 27, 2004 Posted May 27, 2004 yea no MPC VF=-1s shouldnt have the arms dragging on the ground. If you did everything right and yours does yours is the first i have heard with such a defect.
Pat S Posted May 27, 2004 Posted May 27, 2004 Chest dragging. I don't think the rear landing gear is down. Maybe it's not ready yet?
GobotFool Posted May 27, 2004 Posted May 27, 2004 (edited) This large gap in the lower leg is what bothers me the most. though I'm willing to chalk its presence up as a result of this still being a proto. Edited May 27, 2004 by GobotFool
Cyclone Posted May 27, 2004 Posted May 27, 2004 Chest dragging. I don't think the rear landing gear is down. Maybe it's not ready yet? Nope, check out some of the earlier prototypes such as this guy from Comic-con 2003: http://www.robotech.com/images/content/GIM_640_2_3957.jpg And you can see that with landing gear down the chest block comes dangerously close to the ground. Heck, with the Imai kit which appears to sport a stubbier and shorter central chest block than the MPC has similar problems, even if the MPC avoids some of that droop via the big connect points for the leading edge extentions to snap and lock tight into the intake/torso blocks. Unfortunately Toynami were kinda stuck and chose to follow the line-art way the rear gear are, instead of cheating and and extending them, or doing something entirely different but not series specific (ala the large Gakken's). Cyc
Neova Posted May 27, 2004 Posted May 27, 2004 This large gap in the lower leg is what bothers me the most. though I'm willing to chalk its presence up as a result of this still being a proto. I'm guessing production will have this gap as the cost to "fix" or make new molds are going to be high. I'm worried for this product already. The clown shoes and dragging chest... and this is going to be a revision 1.0 product. Sigh... Even Yamato's are not free from mold or sculpt defects but they do at least try to fix it eventually.
dr_vandermeer Posted May 27, 2004 Posted May 27, 2004 Does anybody have the line art to compare it to? I'm curious to see just how far off the ground the chest is in the line art. Otherwise, it looks pretty nifty to me. Time will tell.
Druna Skass Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 Couldn't they just shorten the lenght the chest sticks out? Though with the supposed release date in about two months I guess we're stuck with this. Ah well, I have my eye set on the red one anyway, hopefuly they'd find a way to fix it...
wwwmwww Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 WOW!!! Just found this tread. I see I've got ALOT to wade through. If I'm not being too redundant what's the latest on a possible Tread/Beta coming out for this Legioss/Alpha? Have any pictures of a Tread/Beta surfaced yet? Thanks, Carl
wolfx Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 Is there supposed to be some sort of missle pod in between the hands/thrusters in fighter mode cause I sorta remembered something like that...unless its only there when the Tread/Beta is connected?
JsARCLIGHT Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 the missle pod you are thinking of was on the Imai kit and was sort of an external detatchable missle rack. I only remember seeing it once for a fleeting second in the animation... but the models and the line art always showed it.
Druna Skass Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 WOW!!! Just found this tread. I see I've got ALOT to wade through. If I'm not being too redundant what's the latest on a possible Tread/Beta coming out for this Legioss/Alpha? Have any pictures of a Tread/Beta surfaced yet?Thanks, Carl They haven't said anything on a Tread, I guess it depends on how well the Legioss sells.
CoryHolmes Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 Actually, Toynami HAS said that they will produce a Beta fighter, should the Alpha sales warrent it.
wolfx Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 Well...if there's a Tread, its gonna be huge. Probably as big as a Konig Monster.
EXO Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 WOW!!! Just found this tread. I see I've got ALOT to wade through. If I'm not being too redundant what's the latest on a possible Tread/Beta coming out for this Legioss/Alpha? Have any pictures of a Tread/Beta surfaced yet?Thanks, Carl Carl (hey I got it right) as far as we know, Toynami is waiting for the response on the Alpha/Legioss to decide whether the Tread/Beta is warranted for construction. Of course this could be a ploy to boost sales. But that's their stand on it so far.
CoryHolmes Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 That's also why they made the Alpha so small, to make a mating Beta fighter to be a reasonable size.
Guppy Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 It's looking good. The plastic still looks the same level of quality as the vf-1 mpc's, but apart from that it's pretty nice. I like the way the tailfins angle outwards.
Black Valkyrie Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 What an interesting Legioss BEAUTIFUL INDEED how much ?
GobotFool Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 What an interesting Legioss BEAUTIFUL INDEED how much ? Same as the initial price for the VF-1 MPC. A little pricy considering the size of the legioss at 1/55 scale. But if they do a quality job in it I'll bite.
Blaine23 Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 That's also why they made the Alpha so small, to make a mating Beta fighter to be a reasonable size. Really? Is that also why they keep the price at $80? You guys will believe anything...
Guppy Posted May 28, 2004 Posted May 28, 2004 The price is the big killer for me. At that scale I would have to pass on buying one for 80 bucks.
melancholic Posted May 29, 2004 Posted May 29, 2004 Man. That Legioss is sweet. Small, but sweet. When/if it drops to $40-50 is when I'll pick one up because a 6 inch tall toy is never worth $80.
CoryHolmes Posted May 29, 2004 Posted May 29, 2004 That's also why they made the Alpha so small, to make a mating Beta fighter to be a reasonable size. Really? Is that also why they keep the price at $80? You guys will believe anything... No, they set the price to whatever they want. Basic rule of business: charge the largest amount you think you can get away with. I'm just saying that they kept the Alpha at 1/55th scale to keep it in-scale with the other MPCs and to make a matching Beta a somewhat more realistic size.
Blaine23 Posted May 29, 2004 Posted May 29, 2004 That's also why they made the Alpha so small, to make a mating Beta fighter to be a reasonable size. Really? Is that also why they keep the price at $80? You guys will believe anything... No, they set the price to whatever they want. Basic rule of business: charge the largest amount you think you can get away with. I'm just saying that they kept the Alpha at 1/55th scale to keep it in-scale with the other MPCs and to make a matching Beta a somewhat more realistic size. I don't see anything at all unrealistic about a 1/35 scale Alpha and Beta for $160 domestic (estimated) cost. My point is sort of the same as yours - they are charging you as much as they can for as little product as possible. The difference is that you seem to be really thankful for it, whereas I think it's a bad marketing move and from a consumer standpoint - not worth it. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks it's more than a bit brassy for Toynami to say, "hey buy this very small toy for $80 in the hopes that we might make a related toy to go along with it, even though we've shown no prototypes or even concept art.... just trust our word. At least this time we're not promising 33% die-cast!" Oh, and for all we know Toynami might decide to charge even more for the Beta, because it's so "scary" big. I've seen the Mospeada lineart and I've seen the Lansay Tread. It's not that much bigger, man. You're being fed a line.
CoryHolmes Posted May 29, 2004 Posted May 29, 2004 My point is sort of the same as yours - they are charging you as much as they can for as little product as possible. And this is news... how? Every company ever started is driven by the bottom-righthand corner of their financial statements. Businesses are ONLY around to make money, regardless of how they go about it. Factories, electronics stores, troubleshooters, anime studios, etc. are soley driven by profit and money. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken, in a big way. I see no reason why Toynami would be any different. Sure, we can bitch, whine, and complain about the prices all we want, but in the end we have no say over how much THEY decide to charge for their product. All that we can do is wait and see if that price is the correct one for the toy. If not, as you've so rightfully pointed out, the price will drop with time; if it is, then the price will stay pretty constant. And I see no other company even trying to put out an Alpha toy to offer any sort of compitition in this area. The difference is that you seem to be really thankful for it, whereas I think it's a bad marketing move and from a consumer standpoint - not worth it. I'm really thankful for any sort of new Alpha toy to come along, since I'm unwilling to shell out the many hundreds of dollars it would take to buy an old Gakken, and the Toynami version is looking much better in terms of sculpt. As for a bad marketing move... well, only time will tell about that. I'm not too happy at the MSRP, but I accept it for the moment. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks it's more than a bit brassy for Toynami to say, "hey buy this very small toy for $80 in the hopes that we might make a related toy to go along with it, even though we've shown no prototypes or even concept art.... just trust our word. That's no different than Yamato and a bigger VF-0 or 1/48th GBP, while being forced to pay out for smaller and inferior toys in the meantime to test the market waters. Yet I don't see anyone raising holy hell over that, You're being fed a line. I didn't say I agreed with it, I was simply quoting the Toynami rep's words for Carl's question.
Cyclone Posted May 29, 2004 Posted May 29, 2004 Go away for a couple of days... 1) Wheels down line-art 2) Legioss - Tread side by side in Armo-Soldier mode Also nice to talk about MPC Beta Fighter/Tread, but in the same breath they confirmed that making one depended upon how well the MPC Alpha's/Legioss sold, they stated that MPC Cyclones were next after the Legioss/Alpha no matter what, so we're talking literal years here... Cyc
Blaine23 Posted May 29, 2004 Posted May 29, 2004 (edited) Again, I see your point completely, but - And I see no other company even trying to put out an Alpha toy to offer any sort of compitition in this area. Well... duh? Harmony Gold pretty much owns the rights out and out. Surprisingly enough, most companies actually respect licenses they don't have. HG excluded, of course. So, of course you don't see anyone trying to make an Alpha. That's no different than Yamato and a bigger VF-0 or 1/48th GBP, while being forced to pay out for smaller and inferior toys in the meantime to test the market waters. Yet I don't see anyone raising holy hell over that, First of all, that's speculation. Yamato has not said, "if you don't buy this, we won't make that" or the inverse. Toynami has. And if you think no one's criticisized the 1/100 VF-0, then you obviously haven't been to this thread - here. Or about 20 less recent ones. Also, I'm merely making a point and expressing my opinion - "when I've raised holy hell, you'll know it, mister". I'll say it yet again, I find the toy too small for the MSRP and I find the "promise" of a Beta/Tread to be a bit flimsy to justify the small size of the toy. For the money being paid, I think they could easily make both at a respectable scale. Or, another crazy theory - charge a fair and representative price for the Alpha (say, $40-$50) and then charge ($100- $120) for the Beta, if the toy's size warrants it. You seem to be cool with it. We disagree and that's that. I don't begrudge you your opinion. Also, Cyc - I thought this pic was more representative of side-by-side between the Legioss and Tread. The pic you just posted seems pretty out of perspective to be called side-by-side. Edited May 29, 2004 by Blaine23
EXO Posted May 29, 2004 Posted May 29, 2004 OT, but what are the odds of seeing the Alpah/Betas and Cyclones in CG warfare in the new game? I don't remember any cut scenes in Battlecry. I think MikeRB was our best hope of seeing these mechs in glorious CG.
Shaggydog Posted May 29, 2004 Posted May 29, 2004 Man, people NEVER get tired of that old price debate, do they? I think this has been going on since page 1. I thought the severe "overpricing" of the q-rau might dampen the debate a bit, since that case seems (to me) much more egregious than this one. I guess the lowering of the price of the Q-Rau could be taken as evidence that price bitching works (at least with Yamato). It might be more effective to speak out about the alpha's price on the robotech.com forum, though. (and please, please don't post some long tortured logic about why the Q-Rau wasn't overpriced at all. That's silly. Yes, it is.)
bsu legato Posted May 29, 2004 Posted May 29, 2004 It might be more effective to speak out about the alpha's price on the robotech.com forum, though. Talk is cheap. If people really have a problem with the MPC's pricetag, they'll vote with their wallets.
CoryHolmes Posted May 30, 2004 Posted May 30, 2004 That's no different than Yamato and a bigger VF-0 or 1/48th GBP, while being forced to pay out for smaller and inferior toys in the meantime to test the market waters. Yet I don't see anyone raising holy hell over that, First of all, that's speculation. Yamato has not said, "if you don't buy this, we won't make that" or the inverse. Toynami has. And if you think no one's criticisized the 1/100 VF-0, then you obviously haven't been to this thread Ah. I'd been told that it was an official pronouncement from Yamato that it was going to happen. Now that I've taken a closer look at the relevent threads, it seems to be the pervading opinion that these are just test-market toys, to see if larger and more complex toys are warrented; and that's exactly what Toynami has said. And yes, I have seen those threads and agree with most of the issues raised in them. I do surf other forums, you know
Recommended Posts