You might think Jane Austen and Transformers have nothing in common...and as far as I can tell, you'd be correct. I just figured instead of two short posts, I'd put random stuff together into one.
Let's start with Transformers. I can pretty much guarantee I won't be paying to see this one, since there are about a dozen others I'd rather see first. But other than lackluster reviews, my beef is about how unrealistic the characters seem. I don't mean that I don't believe automobiles can "transform" into self-aware robots intent on destroying or saving Earth. That's all perfectly logical, but when they transform from a vehicle to a robot, it stands to reason that the robot has the same mass as the vehicle. From my rough, eyeballed estimates, the robots are twice as large as they should be, and have at least twice the mass as the vehicles they allegedly once were. For the space taken up by a vehicle in its "normal" configuration, 60-70% of that volume has to be air. Yet when these vehicles transform, they get larger and seemingly heavier (more massive.)
Whatever. Anyway, despite the fact that I rather like the following, I think that calling them action figures (as indicated on the package) is ridiculous. Aren't action figures supposed to do something? Shouldn't they be called inaction figures? Or static figures? Still, the fact that Jane Austen has been immortalized in polyvinyl is amusing to me. (I confess, I ordered Jane Austen off Ebay. Don't judge me! The woman could write. I'll probably end up with Beethoven eventually too.)
No comments:
Post a Comment