First-Aid wrote: It was another of the things that made the Bayverse bots so unique in TF history...they did things no one even considered before because everyone was locked into a traditional humanoid look. Hasbro and Dreamworks gave MB a basic set of guidelines, but basically said "Here's a blank check...let's see what you can come up with". We got bots without bodies, wheels for feet, cloth trench coats, built in weapon systems, the ability to rapidly alter alt modes (which I never understood why, if they were in disguise, they stuck with the SAME disguise for years to the point where EVERYONE recognized the disguise), and more organic looks instead of the traditional Robby-the-Robot blocky builds. Say what you want about the movies (popcorn fun, that's it though), they made more changes to the way Transformers were thought of and created than at ANY other point. And THAT is why they are so hard to replicate accurately in toy form.
Hear hear!
I have zero qualms with the shortcuts taken with Crosshairs because - as you said - his design is very difficult to implement on a regular toy (I've not seen many mass-produced, non-premium action figures with good-looking, functional trenchcoats), let alone one that has to transform into a car. I understand the appeal of screen accuracy, but Crosshairs in particular (along with Galvatron, Stinger, Devastator, Grimlock, Lockdown) are *never* going to get perfect toy representations because the mass-shifting/transformations in their movie counterparts are simply impossible to do in reality (IMO).
I love that the movies really stretched the concepts for what Transformers can look like, but the trade-off is that we can't get faithful representations of some of those characters. Guys like Crosshairs looking good from at least one angle is a fair trade-off for me
Not because of the movie, or his roll(?) in it, by ANY means. Just purely on the basis of it being a neat toy
