http://starblight.de/beta/blog/?page_id=487%60 Starblight.de 网站发布了一篇关于
变形金刚玩具的开发文章。一起去看看吧,了解一下Hasbro和Takara的开发流程。
From drawing board to store shelf: The development of a Transformers toyBy NevermoreHello and welcome to the first part of a multi-part article series inwhich I will attempt to explain the development process of aTransformers toy. As my basis for this compilation, I use variousmaterials which have made their way into the fandom one way or anotherover the years, for example via Japanese sourcebooks or BotConpresentations. In addition, there are various details which have come upfrom Q&A rounds with Hasbro at BotCon or as part of the(discontinued) Q&A program for fan sites. In some instances, I alsouse information gathered from conversations with (usually former) Hasbroemployees. In case I have misrepresented certain contexts and workingprocedures, I’d be thankful for corrections.
Hinweis: Die deutsche Fassung dieses Artikels findet sich
hier!
Part 1: The concept phase—Hasbro has got some ideas…IntroductionThe development process of the Transformers toys has changed severaltimes over the years: The initial toys from 1984-85 still mostly camefrom the existing stock of Japanese toymaker Takara (or were at leastfar ahead in their development) and were merely released by Hasbro underlicense, with some minor changes to some of the toys, including theircoloration. The toys released in 1986 to accompany the animated
The Transformers: The Movieoriginated as designs by Filipino artist Floro Dery, which subsequentlyhad to be adapted into working toys by Takara’s designers—withoftentimes rather disappointing results. At least since the
Beast Warsline (in development since 1995), most Transformers have been developedin close cooperation between designers of partner companies Hasbro(more specifically, Hasbro’s subsidiary Kenner between 1995 and 1998)and Takara (TakaraTomy since 2006, simply “Tomy” outside Japan).
Hasbro’s designers are mostly responsible for the aestheticappearance of the toys and for the inclusion of possible “gimmicks”,whereas Takara handles the adaptation of the concept into a working,convertible toy. However, this is no strict distribution of tasks, sincedesigners of both companies closely cooperate on each step andcomplement and revise each other’s ideas. Typically, each toy isassigned one Hasbro and one Takara designer. Subsequently, the toys areusually adjusted for the relevant markets. Hasbro has to consider themaximum allowed budget for the respective size class, the main targetaudience (children) and American or European safety regulations, whereasTakara caters more to older fans and collectors, and legal regulationsregarding toy safety are less rigid in Japan than they are in theWest—on the other hand, Japanese Transformers toys are usuallyconsiderably more expensive than their Hasbro counterparts.
There are some Transformers toys that have been exclusively developedby one of the two companies. Usually, these toys show the missinginfluence of the respective partner: Pure Hasbro designs such as
Energon Mega-Dinobot and
High Wire,
Titanium Series Megatron and
Soundwave or
Movie Ultimate Bumblebeestill allow to see the intention behind the concept, but the technicalexecution turns out rather disappointing, or has to take a back seat tothe “gimmick” (Ultimate Bumblebee is essentially built around a largebattery box). Conversely, pure Takara designs such as
Robot Masters Starscream,
Hybrid Style G1 Convoy and
Alternity Bumble are small miracles of engineering which often lack in terms of aesthetics (
Hybrid Style G1 Convoy’s truck mode,
Alternity Bumble’s robot mode) or play value (
Robot MastersStarscream’s robot mode). Thus, the middle ground between Hasbro’s andTakara’s respective approaches, despite the occasionally necessarycompromises, usually represents the safest method to ensure a toy thatis satisfactory in as many ways as possible as the final result.
In case someone is still wondering whether a specific toy has beenco-designed by Hasbro and Takara, or is entirely the work of one of thetwo companies, there are two ways to tell: All Hasbro/Takaracollaborations sport both “Hasbro” and “Takara” (changed to “TOMY” from2007 onwards) copyright markings somewhere on the toy, and the packagingof the Hasbro version features the note “Manufactured under licensefrom Takara, Ltd.” (changed to “TOMY Company, Ltd.” from 2007 onwards).Any toy only designed by one company doesn’t acknowledge the othercompany in either instance.
In the following portrayal, I will therefore concentrate on the toysthat are developed in cooperation between Hasbro and Taraka. Thedevelopment process for toys that are exclusively designed by onecompany is essentially the same, except that one company is responsiblefor all steps of the entire process, and the end result often isn’tquite satisfactory, as illustrated above.
The alternate mode: What is the toy supposed to turn into?The very first thing to be decided on is the intended size. Thesedays, Hasbro uses a variety of standardized size classes with apredetermined price point. The technical limitations of the toy’sintended size and the allocated budget influence things such as thedegree of realism, the number of articulation joints and the maximumamount of paint operations, among other things. With the size decidedon, Hasbro’s designers can start their actual work.
In the beginning of the design process, there is the idea. That canbe of varying nature, depending on the intention: A Transformers toy canbe a mostly unique, original creation (which has arguably become a rareoccurrence in recent times), it can be a new interpretation of anexisting character with varying degrees of artistic liberties for thedesigners, or the toy can be based directly on an existing design, be itan existing toy or even an external design (such as Floro Dery’sconcepts for
The Transformers: The Movie or the Dreamworks designs for Michael Bay’s live action movies).
This basic premise obviously already has a major impact on the firststeps of the development process. With a completely new character,Hasbro can freely choose the alternate mode; a new interpretation of anexisting character shouldn’t veer away too far from the inspiration (
Classics Bumblebeewould have been hard to imagine as a tank or helicopter, for example);and the adaptation of an existing design leaves the designers almost noliberty of choice anymore.
Transformers toys usually start with the alternate mode. That can be acar, a motorcycle, a truck, an airplane, a helicopter, a tank oranother type of vehicle; it can be an everyday device such as amicroscope, a toaster, an MP3 player or a video game console; or it canbe an animal with either an “organic” or a mechanical appearance. Ineither case, the Hasbro designers use references. These days, the Googleimage search is a popular tool for this. Depending on how closely thetoy is supposed to resemble its counterpart in real life, emphasis maybe put on attention to detail, or the designers will be given room tolive out their artistic freedom.
Licensed vehicle alternate modes are a relatively new phenomenon, notleast since manufacturers have only recently begun to pursue theirrights in terms of toy replicas of their designs. For the Transformersbrand, this mainly applies to the
Alternators line and theprotagonists of the Bay movies. In this case, the manufacturer willusually directly provide Hasbro and Takara with references, and in turn,the toy companies will try to recreate the real life vehicle asaccurately as possible, especially since the licensor will usuallydemand an adequate representation of its “brand identity”. GeneralMotors will obviously prefer Bumblebee to look like an actual
Chevrolet Camaro, not like a vague car-shaped thing that has no similarities to a Camaro aside from the color.
However, the size of the toy is also an important factor here—for asmall Legends Class toy, attention to detail isn’t quite as important asfor a larger Deluxe Class toy, not least due to technical constraintsowed to the size (see the Bumblebee comparison below).
The intended target audience can also affect the aestheticappearance—for example, the “Fast Action Battlers” from the first twomovie toy lines, which are aimed more at younger children, were styledsomewhat bulkier and more child-oriented in their alternate modes thanthe toys of the same characters from the “traditional” size classes.
How realistic is the alternate mode supposed to be?If Hasbro doesn’t want to pay license fees to a vehicle manufacturer,the vehicle mode is modified compared to the inspiration in order toavoid legal problems. For example,
Revenge of the Fallen Sideways, in his various toy incarnations, is not an authentic reproduction of an
Audi R8(Sideways’s vehicle mode in the movie), possibly because the sameaversion against “war toys” Volkswagen is known for also applies toAudi, which belongs to the Volkswagen Group. Likewise,
Cybertron Armorhide is a slightly modified first generation
Volvo FH Globetrotter.
Often, Hasbro doesn’t stop at just slightly modifying an existingvehicle design, but combines elements from several inspirations into acomparably unique design. For example,
Cybertron Downshiftis a cross between two different trends among American muscle cars fromthe 1970s: The front end, including the bumper that is contoured to thepointy shape of the front grille, is based on models such as the
Chevrolet Monte Carlo or the
Dodge Monaco, whereas the rear portion, including the green and black coloration and the “vinyl roof”, is inspired by models such as the
Dodge Challenger or the
Plymouth Barracuda (see the comparison below).
Universe Sunstreaker is mostly based on a
Lamborghini Gallardo, but the rear end is a cross between the older
Murciélago and
Diablo models, and some details on the side windows and doors are lifted from the
McLaren F1.
Reveal the Shield Windcharger, in turn, is a cross between the current models of the
Ford Mustang (fifth Generation, particularly the 2010 revision) and the
Chevrolet Camaro (also fifth Generation).
The same considerations also come into play for Transformers toysthat turn into aircraft or military vehicles. For example, the varioustoys of Starscream’s movie version are licensed recreations of a
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, with the technical constraints owed to the toy’s size affecting the degree of accuracy.
Movie Voyager Class Starscreamcarries most of his robot mode underneath the plane’s fuselage, which,admittedly, doesn’t look particularly realistic. Conversely,
Revenge of the Fallen Voyager Class Starscream, an entirely new approach at executing the same design, turned out considerably better by comparison. Meanwhile,
Classics Starscream and
Masterpiece Starscream are unlicensed recreations of a
McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle… but unfortunately, I don’t have the slightest idea how Hasbro managed to get away with
that. Maybe Boeing, the legal successor of McDonnell Douglas, simply doesn’t
care?
The Japanese
Sports Label toys,
Convoy and
Megatron, also have licensed alternate modes, in their case
Nike Free 7.0 shoes. Conversely,
Movie Fast Action Battlers Frenzy is a generic boombox, even though his movie counterpart turned into a
specific model that exists in real life.
For toys with animal alternate modes, Hasbro uses the animals asreferences. Since license fees obviously aren’t a concern here, thedegree of accuracy depends on other factors such as the size of the toy,the intended gimmicks and the general possibilities in terms oftechnical execution. For example,
Beast Wars Cheetor is a fairly generic big cat, not a particularly realistic
cheetah, and his redeco
Tigatron is subsequently not a realistic
tiger either. On the other hand,
Universe Cheetoris a considerably more realistic reproduction of a cheetah… which wouldmake a potential Tigatron redeco look rather unrealistic by contrast.However, both toys have in common that they represent an “organic” bigcat. The
“Transmetal” version of Cheetor, on the other hand, is clearly a mechanical replica.
Beast Machines Cheetor,meanwhile, is supposed to represent a “technorganic” cheetah. Therespective approaches are determined at the beginning of the planningstage of the respective series, subcategory or release wave so the toysfollow a somewhat consistent style. Thus,
Cybertron Leobreaker is a mechanical replica of a
liger, because all
Cybertron toys with animal alternate modes are of the mechanical variety.
Multiple transformations and alternate modes for the same toy arealso possible, such as in the case of the “Triple Changers” (see forexample
Universe Tankor below).
In this case, the level of realism of the individual modes is of lessimportance compared to toys with only one alternate mode. For example,
Classics Astrotrain sports noticeable gaps in his
Shinkansen bullet train mode, whereas his
Space Shuttle mode has obvious train parts on its sides. Likewise, the gaping hole on the rear end of
Universe Tankor’s tanker truck mode is best ignored.
With the
Transformers Animated series (2008), both thecharacters’ robot and alternate modes were designed in a heavilyexaggerated “cartoon” style, which was carried over to the correspondingtoys. In this case, the premise of the toy line dictated the (in thiscase limited) degree of realism as well.
When I say that the development of a toy usually begins with thealternate mode, it doesn’t mean that the latter is designed in itsentirety with all its facets and details before anyone starts thinkingabout the robot mode. It simply means that the question of what the toyis supposed to turn into precedes the question of what the robot mode issupposed to look like. The specifics of both modes are graduallyfleshed out over the course of the development process.
The robot mode: Shape and proportions
Once Hasbro has picked an alternate mode, the next step is to designthe robot mode. Just like in the alternate mode’s case, the initialapproach already depends on the intention Hasbro is pursuing with thetoy. If it’s supposed to be an entirely unique design, the designershave a lot of artistic freedom, although they can deliberately choose todesign a toy as an homage to an existing character. For example,
Energon Downshift was conceived as an homage to
Generation 1 Wheeljack.
If the toy is deliberately intended as a new interpretation of anexisting character, Hasbro will make sure to stay true to thecharacter’s “identity”, just like with the choice of the alternate mode.In addition to the head (more on that below), this also includescharacteristic elements of the robot body which Hasbro wants to paytribute to one way or another. For example, modern toys of Optimus Primetypically transform in a way that allows the truck mode’s windshield toform the robot’s chest, because this was a characteristic attribute ofthe original
Generation 1 Optimus Prime toy.
If the toy is supposed to be directly based on an existing design(such as the toys for the Michael Bay movies), Hasbro’s designers, justlike in the case of licensed vehicle modes, have few artistic liberties,and their job is essentially limited to adapting the existing designinto a toy as accurately as possible under the respective constraints(size, budget, inclusion of gimmicks etc.). However, because of the longlead time of the toy development process, it’s possible that the lookof the original design (like in the case of the movie-based toys) isrevised again, and thus the toys are ultimately based on outdateddesigns by the time they are released.
With the first conceptions of the robot mode, the basic shape of thebody is determined—is the robot supposed to look bulky and powerful,slim and agile or small and frail? Should the robot mode even be basedon human proportions at all, or is it supposed to be resemble an(occasionally even multi-legged) animal instead? The next step is todetermine whether certain parts of the alternate mode are supposed tomake up specific portions of the robot mode (also known as “kibble”among fans) and thereby create a characteristic appearance. Lastly, thedesigners decide which weapons and other accessories and which gimmicksthe toy is supposed to be equipped with. In the case of
Cybertron Evac,for example, the first drafts bore little similarity to the final toy,and it took many revisions until the design started to resemble thefinal version (see the comparison below).
Gimmicks, weapons and other accessoriesThe “gimmicks” can be individualized, but there are also gimmicks that are applied to an entire toy line: In the case of the
Armadaline (2002-2003), those were the “Mini-Cons”, small (transformable)robots that could be plugged onto specific spots on the larger robotsand thereby trigger additional features. Since the Mini-Con dockingports were standardized, any Mini-Con was compatible with any larger
Armada Transformer. The
Cybertronline (2005-2006) replaced the Mini-Cons with the “Cyber Keys”, whichessentially fulfilled the same function. The gimmick for the toy line tothe 2007 Transformers movie, in turn, was named “Automorph Technology”and consisted of mechanisms (executed through gears, levers and/orsprings) that caused parts to be “automatically” moved during thetransformation when other parts were moved.
Gimmicks that span multiple lines are also possible, such as the standardized “C-clips” introduced with the second half of the
Revenge of the Fallenline, which allow to freely swap accessories such as weapons and toolsbetween compatible toys. The intended play pattern can also beconsidered a gimmick: On the one hand, the small “Cyberverse” toys,which replace the “Legends Class” starting with the
Dark of the Moonline, are equipped with weapons that can be freely swapped between thetoys thanks to standardized hands (and which are compatible with thelarger toys’ C-clip accessories on top of that). On the other hand, the“Cyberverse” play pattern also includes vehicles that can be convertedinto bases and battle stations, which in turn can be connected to form alarger playset.
Individualized gimmicks are also not a rare occurrence. The mostcommon one are weapons that can fire plastic missiles via spring-loadedmechanisms. However, the missiles are still not standardized to thisday, which is why they usually cannot be swapped between the toys.Another popular gimmick are electronic light and sound effects, whichare mostly used for larger toys (since the toy needs to allow for enoughspace to incorporate the battery box). A more cost-effective method arelight piping effects, which consist of translucent plastic partsleading through the head that cause “glowing” eyes when the back of thehead is held against an external light source. Other gimmicks arespring-loaded punching mechanisms in the arms, multiple transformationsand alternate modes for the same toy (the most well-known examples arethe aforementioned “Triple Changers”) and the ability to combine two ormore toys, be it into a larger vehicle, into a larger super-robot oreven just using one vehicle as a means to transport another, smallervehicle.
In the case of
Cybertron Optimus Prime and
Leobreaker,the initial ideas for some of the gimmicks were that Optimus wassupposed to be equipped with a jet pack that allows him to fly (in thefictional context of the series, that is); furthermore, the idea thathis robot mode could combine with additional parts of the vehicle modeinto a “hyper mode”; and lastly, the idea that a “partner” figure (whichgained the working name “super lion” over the course of the developmentprocess) could turn into some sort of “gauntlet” that provides Optimuswith special powers. Just like in Evac’s case, the final result onlybears little resemblance to the first drafts anymore (see the comparisonbelow).
The weapons and accessories for a toy are usually individualized, butmany of them can be freely swapped between toys due to the frequent useof standardized 5 millimeter handles (the same size as the Mini-Condocking posts) or the new C-clips. Whereas the weapons were stillconceived as mere accessories during the
Generation 1 era, andthe best case scenario would merely allow them to be attached to thealternate mode (still as weapons), Hasbro has shifted more and moretowards integrating the weapons and accessories into the alternate modeover the years.
“Pretender” Grimlock from 1989 already had the weapon of the main robot double as the tail for his dinosaur mode.
Alternators Grimlockfrom 2005, meanwhile, had his weapon convert into the engine block forthe vehicle mode, whereas the sword could be attached to the undersizeof the car and thereby be “hidden”. In the case of
Universe Tankor, in turn, the blasters of the robot mode could be used as smokestacks on the sides of his vehicle mode as a modified
M978 tanker truck(which was ignored by the instructions), whereas his melee blade formedthe outer hull of the tank. In more recent times, some toysadditionally also allow unused weapons to be stored at designated placesin robot mode.
The gimmicks can also be integrated into the weapons. For example,
Cybertron Override’s spoiler accessory could only be converted into a weapon by plugging a Cyber Key into it. In the case of the
Dark of the Moonline, the weapons themselves are the gimmick and can be converted intolarger weapons by using the “MechTech” concept. On the other hand, theMechTech weapons are not integrated into the alternate mode.
In the case of
Generations Scourge, the gimmicks are the ability to extend his head while in alternate mode (which had already been possible with his
Generation 1 predecessor),the ability to store the weapons inside his wings which can be opened,and the ability to connect the weapons into a larger weapon (see theimage below).
This example also shows that Hasbro’s designers use whateverreference materials they can get their hands on. Up until recently,Hasbro has had no internal reference database, so their designers had torely on an internet search. Scourge’s combined weapon, for example, isbased on Fracas, his 1987
“Targetmaster” version’s weapon. Specifically, the reference image is taken from Targetmaster Scourge’s profile from Dreamwave Productions’
More Than Meets the Eye series of profile books.
The same image is used as the main image of
TFWiki.net’s Generation 1 Scourge article. A coincidence? I don’t think so! I haven’t identified the source for the photo of the original
1986 Scourge toy’s gun yet, however. Maybe it came from an eBay auction?
Planning ahead saves money down the roadFor reasons of cost efficiency, Hasbro usually doesn’t stop atreleasing a newly developed toy just once, but instead often releasesthe same basic toy several times in different colors under differentnames (even if it’s merely a prefix such as “
Stealth Bumblebee“).In order to distinguish these “redecos” further from the initialiterations, Hasbro and Takara often also make use of physicalalterations (known as “retools” among fans, even though that term onlycovers a partial aspect as far as Hasbro is concerned).
The most well-known and simple form of a retool is a new head sculpt.In more recent times, Hasbro and Takara have come to conceive retoolsoften as early as the first concept phase of the initial version of thetoy. That way, it’s even possible to achieve an altered transformationscheme. The modifications are not always limited to the robot modeeither, but can also include parts of the alternate mode. This wascommon during the
Alternators line.
A more recent example are
Generations Wheeljack and
Reveal the Shield Turbo Tracks(which were ultimately released in reverse order). Between them, thecar shell sports differences, the transformation is not identical due tothe use of different parts, the robot mode looks different as a result,the head sculpt is different, and some of the accessories have beenreplaced as well. In this case, the differences had been planned sincethe very beginning (see the image below).
This example once again shows that Hasbro’s designers like to take their references from fan sites: The photos of the
Generation 1 Wheeljack and
Tracks toys’ vehicle modes are from
Seibertron.com, the originals can be found
here and
here.
By contrast,
Generations Scourgewas conceived as Scourge first and foremost, and his retool willpresumably be limited to a new head sculpt (thus far only seen in
Scourge’s instructions).
The head: Recognition value welcomeThe final part of the concept phase is the head. Once again, thefirst question is whether the toy is supposed to be an entirely newcharacter, a new interpretation of an existing character or a mereadaptation of an existing design. However, just like in the case of therobot designs, the heads can also be subject to revisions. For example,one of the first
Cybertron toys was initially conceived as a new interpretation of or homage to
Generation 1 Trailbreaker,and all the various concepts for the head intended for Trailbreaker’scharacteristic force field projector (located above the head in theoriginal toy’s case) to be incorporated into the head design. In theend, however, those plans were never realized for various reasons, oneof them being the fact that the name “Trailbreaker” was unavailable toHasbro for trademark reasons. Thus, the concept ultimately ended up asan entirely different character,
Cybertron Overhaul, and the final toy’s head sculpt bears no similarity to the earlier “Trailbreaker” concepts anymore (see the comparison below).
The movie characters and their toys were also subject to some revisions prior to their release: For example,
Megatron’s head was changed (allegedly due to massive fan protests). While the
Leader Class and
Voyager Class toys and the
“Fast Action Battlers” version use the final movie design’s head, the head sculpt of
Legends Class Megatron is still based on the outdated design. Leader Class
Megatron and
Deluxe Class “Protoform” Starscream were also initially planned with older head designs (as can be seen in the
stock photos on the back of the toys’ packaging, which use early prototypes).
In general, the designers have many options when designing the head,just like in the case of the general body shape: The toy can have ahuman-like face including a mouth and a nose, or it may have a faceplate(similar to a surgical mask); the eyes can be separated, connected orcovered by a visor; and the helmet may be equipped with antennas,“earmuffs” and/or a ridge resembling a mohawk. Alternatively, it’s alsopossible for the head to be based on an animal instead of a human, or itmay not even have an inspiration from nature at all, such as
Shockwave with his cyclops eye and the hexagonal head. The face of
Cybertron Vector Prime, in turn, was based on the classic
Autobot insignia.
With new interpretations of existing characters, the heads can oftendiverge from the original designs. Among other things, this may bebecause the designers alternatively base them more closely on the
Generation 1 toys or on their cartoon counterparts (which often differed from the toys they were based on). For example, the heads of
Alternators Side Swipe and
Universe Sideswipe are very different interpretations of
Generation 1 Sideswipe and his
cartoon version. Likewise, the head of
Alternators Hound is a (very liberal) reinterpretation of the
Generation 1 toy’s head; the head of
Universe Legends Class Houndis a comparably faithful recreation of the original toy’s head(considering the technical limitations due to the toy’s small size); andthe head of
Universe Deluxe Class Hound is much more closely inspired by the
animation model. The heads of
Alternators Swindle (whose toy was originally intended as a new version of
Generation 1 Trailbreaker) and
Reveal the Shield Legends Class Trailcutter, meanwhile, are both a cross between the
Generation 1 Trailbreaker toy’s helmet (in the
Reveal the Shield toy’s case even including the force field projector) and the
animation model’s face (see the comparison below for all the above examples).
Not even Optimus Prime is safe from such variations: The head of
Alternators Optimus Prime from 2006, for example, is inspired by the head of
“Powermaster” Optimus Prime from 1988, whereas the entire
Reveal the Shield Deluxe Class Optimus Prime toy from 2011, including the head, is based on
Generation 2 “Laser” Optimus Prime from 1995.
Next timeHasbro’s designers have done their share of duty for the time being.The alternate mode has been selected, the basic look of the robot modehas been decided on, the gimmicks have been chosen, the head may havealready been designed as well… but what’s still missing is thetransformation. To turn the Hasbro concept into a working, convertibletoy, the Japanese have to get to work. Enter
the Takara engineers!
AcknowledgmentsThanks to
Steve Mapes (
Transformers @ The Moon),
Remy Rodis (
TFKenkon.com),
Anthony Brucale (
TFU.info),
Philip Schwersensky (
Transformers-Universe.com),
SydneyY and
Hook (
TFW2005.com),
Steve-o Stonebraker (
Steve-o’s Transformers Site),
Adam Pawlus (
16bit.com) and
Steve (
ActionFigs.com) for their permission to use the respective images!