Phillip writes about G.I. Joe's problematic naming conventions. Click here to read the article!
25th should remain the tag because thats how the line was introduced.
when we get to the 30th anniversary the figures should still be considered 25th. i view it as a timestamp to when they changed, and the name designates all the figures made within that format. and lets not forget all the reused parts. most of them consist of 25th anniversary pack parts to this day.
looking at these figures all lined up together you can really see the anatomy being off on the earlier figures. i used to use my gijoes as my anatomical template for drawings as a kid, and its very comical looking back at some of my illustrations from the 1980's line. huge torsos and heads with extremely short shins. like the world's tallest midgets. i blame you for my artistic handicap, gijoe! hahaha
the "new sculpt" gijoe vs cobra line is actually pretty cool even though its my least favorite of the three. it doesnt represent my vision of gijoe, but i can totally see how it would be much more appealing to children. which is really more important to me. i want my kids to love the joes when theyre old enough to not choke on their tiny parts. hahahah. the bonus is if they like my toys i wont have to buy them any more. =)
new sculpts is an appropriate term for them since they are new designs. i would have called them "anime" sculpts, but i dont watch anime so i dont really know how accurate that really is. they look very cartooney with over exaggerated features. the biggest pitfall to that was that the style went from anime to 'metal gear' (lady jaye looks like they took her straight from a metal gear illustration. especially the face.) theres no consistancy within that line. the anatomy is all over the place, as is the sculpting styles. some were very realistic looking sculpts, some were extremely saturday morning. and once again, standing side by side most of those figures didnt look like they belonged together.
the old joes are the old joes. still the best of the three. best face sculpts, you could really see the personality in them. i dont think any toy line will ever have a more consistant number of figures in the same format with the same anatomic consistancy and design.
star wars comes close, but they change the format so often im beginning to think theyre just gijoes from space. which is a good thing. star brigade was terrible.
sorry for the ramble im bored and ive already trolled all the other forums i visit.
Head.. Hurting..... Brain going to pop.......
But Yeah I agree with your start I mean New Sculpt doesnt work , neither does calling the 26th joes Modern Era, If you use the Transformers name the Current run shoulb be "classic". Plus I feel that it should be Original Joes (82 - 94), "Generation 2" (97 - 2001 and any orginal sculpts after words such as convention figures, Horror Show and the likes), The Newer O Ring Figures (What should there name be?), and then the new "Classic" line.
But as you stated this does create some problems for figures, Like as you mentioned SDCC Cobra Commander, and the Convention Roddy Piper Figure (He Comes on a 25th card, even though hes final O-ring sculpt.)
As for the figure Numbering I like it the way it is truthfully. Well theres mt 2 cents.
Wanted: 3x Resolute Snake Eyes Glider Packs, 2X POC Spirit Vest, 2X Shocktrooper Helmets, Shocktroopers Please and Thanks!
"Who Are You?" "What Do You Want?" "Why Are You Here?" "Where Are You Going?" -The 4 Ideals of Babylon 5
While I almost never post in the forums and rarely read them, I've used YoJoe as a resource for most of its life and contributed several figure scans in the early years.
I think the suggested revised numbering system would be easier to use. It's a more direct identifier (i.e. this is a Snake-Eyes from 2002, and it's the third version released that year), and since the number (10th overall) is in the URL, that information is still available, as there's no reason to change the page name, just the link display.
However, it would probably be necessary to change the entire archive over at once to prevent confusion for new or infrequent visitors. Imagine going to one page and seeing "2002 (v2) - Joe Blower" and on another "Blower Joe (v7)"
I like your thoughts on calling them by some other names.
Generation 1, 2, and 3 mgiht be fine.
BUT I dont like your yeara based dating system. How are people supposed to know what year a particular figure came out? Many figures have a copyright number on them somewhere but it is often wrong. Wouldn't it just confuse things to find out that the Snake Eyes you are holding is from 2000 even though its dated 1994?
I also agree that the Mcdonalds figures, BTR figures and other offshoots should be part of the numbering scheme.
Check out my weekly webcomic: cy-boar updated every Thursday!
I think that naming them by generation is not a bad idea. However, I think there should be more descriptions of the figures.
1985 Hawk - brown hair
1985 Snake Eyes - visor, Timber
2008 Destro - 2-pack
I know this may be a bit more clunky but there have been times that I wanted to see a particular snake eyes and had to click on a few before finding the one I was looking for.
Man, how did I overlook the BTR figures? Well, BTR Snake Eyes is in the listings now.
I agree a more streamlined toy history breakdown would be good, using the "Generation" term as a guide might work but there are many stubborn collectors who will not let go of the past and it will take YEARS for this to ever be adopted as mainstream collector terminology.
Part of me though likes knowing how many versions of a figure there are without having to count them individually. Currently we can see there are 38 or whatever it is versions of Snake Eyes, but under the new system we would have to count to that number.
I would agree to ditch the clunky "Vintage" - "New Sculpt" - "25th Anniversary/Modern Era" breakdown and adopt a "G1" - "G2" - "G3" system, but I would suggest keeping the number system, V1 being in '82 and V38 being in '08.
G1 - 1982 - 2001
G2 - 2002 - 2006
G3 - 2007 - Present
Of course some G1 figures end up in later years because of Con figures, etc. I think leaving the number system in tact is good but adding the "G" tag would help people know which sculpt era is being used to make the figure. It would also make revamping the figure archive less of a nightmare (which it would be) if you're only adding "G" tags to each figure.
Snake Eyes (1982)
Snake Eyes v2 (1985)
Snake Eyes v10 (2002)
Snake Eyes v29 (2007)
1982 Snake Eyes
1985 Snake Eyes
2002 Snake Eyes
2007 v2 - Snake Eyes
My alternate suggestion;
Snake Eyes (1982 - G1)
Snake Eyes v2 (1985 - G1)
Snake Eyes v10 (2002 - G2)
Snake Eyes v29 (2007 - G3)
That's my initial input.
"Get a life will you people! I mean look at you, look at the way you're dressed. You there, you must be almost 30, have you ever kissed a girl?" - William Shatner
I like Flophouses Idea that way the archives would be updated but also add distinction between the different body types.I think it would be easier to adopt the G1,G2,G3 titles also this way there would be less confusion to new collectors as to what is considered to be "vintage" to a new collector anything that is before the 25th line may be conidered as as such because they dont know which era they were part of .I thought the 25th line were new sculpt until I started reading more about them on these boards the generations tags would help eliminate some of the confusion.
Thank god, someone else thought about this. I brought this up last year and was pretty much dismissed. My only concern now is what the movie line will entail.
Hi, I'm Tim Mizak.
Check out my blog on toys!