On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:27:22 EST, sidecutter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
("Orson
\"Sidecutter\" Christian") wrote:
>"Raksha" <Raksha@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:4113e240.4769598@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Given all of the other organizational inadequacies I've heard about by
>> now, I think one *can* blame this on the organizers. Why didn't stuff
>> like this happen at this year's BotCon?
>
>Stuff like what?
Staffers not knowing what they were doing, sending questioners around
in circles. Attendees being unable to find their way around due to
lack of adequate signs and directions. A voice actor guest left
stranded at the air****t (!!). People being referenced to "page 2" of
a map-and-directions packet which consisted of only one page. People
having to scurry to pack up their artwork halfway through the show
because the art room was only rented for a few hours. Stuff like
that.
>it wouldn't be
>> that big a deal if the organizers said "Sorry guys, we tried our best,
>> but this is the only thing we could get. Bear with us."
>
>Have you even bothered looking/asking to see if this sort of thing WAS
said?
In fact it wouldn't matter if this was said, or if it wasn't said. As
I've already pointed out, any one of those little glitches (some
not-so-little, come to think of it) would be forgivable on its own.
But when they all pile up, and the only response is an endless slurry
of excuses and blame of everyone and everything other than oneself, it
starts to lose credibility.
>Any *one* of
>> a bunch of little slip-ups can be overlooked and forgiven. Any *one*
>> little thing can be attributed to extenuating cir***stance. But a
>> whole avalanche of them all together?
>
>We weren't discussing a whole avalanche, however. The discussion was in
>regards to the late opening.
Actually I *was* discussing the whole avalanche, and said specifically
(to repeat it again) that the late opening in and of itself, with no
other problems in the picture, wouldn't have been a big deal at all.
Re: "remolded" exclusives:
>It was turned into a plot point. As I stated, it was explicitly shown
where
>she turned sides in the Universe comic. Why does it need to be in the
>specs? The specs, if you read them, focus a little more on the
characters,
>which ought to be the im****tant part. The specs tell you more about the
>reasons behind the characters being on the side they're on. Why does it
>need to touch on a mold artifact?
When the "mold artifact" is something as major and glaring as bearing
the wrong symbol for the character's pur****ted faction, then yes, some
mention of it should be made in the specs if there wasn't going to be
any attempt to change the mold or select a more appropriate mold for
the character that was in mind. Such is my opinion, anyway. As an
uncompromising Decepticon sup****ter myself, it's a big deal to me,
what kind of faction symbols the toys have. At least in theory,
because really I couldn't care less about any of the recent toy lines
.... but I point to this as an example of incomplete work and lack of
planning.
>In addition, to remold that emblem, you're talking *another new mold*
like
>the heads, created specifically for a short run of toys. That means
another
>several thousand dollars. That means a higher cost per piece. Which
means
>a higher cost. We're talking another $10-15 added to the price of each
>two-pack sold, give or take. That's just too much to be expecting from a
>company that has stated outright, both before and AFTER the Hartmans were
>seperated, that their money margins aren't *that* big. This is the same
>company that has admitted that Takara forcing them to make 6000 Skywarp
>PVCs, or make none, is seriosuly stressing their cash funding abilities.
Perhaps they should have thought about that in the planning stages,
rather than afterward?
>Now, I
>> publish a magazine myself, and I will quite admit that I've never
>> turned out an issue that I couldn't go back to later and pick out a
>> tiny mistake or something that could have been done better
>
>....What does a mag have to do with this?
Plenty. Because, if I can turn out a none-too-shabby product on a
shoestring budget, without access to professional printers and
typesetters and factory machinery, then I would certainly expect that
a mega-monster budget like GlenCon has, should turn out products that
are damn-near perfect. And, like the person who pulls in $12,000 a
year and can't understand why the guy who earns $90,000 is having
trouble making ends meet, I'm just having a hard time understanding
why this isn't the case.
>A crew that can turn out a
>> box like CatScan from 2002, which was a truly amazing piece of work
>> (never mind that the toy inside it was worthless), should be able to
>> create a PVC card that doesn't cut off Skywarp's tech spec text in the
>> middle of the second sentence. Perhaps a little thing called "quality
>> control" is missing in this picture?
>
>I think not. Frankly, I think you're just finding every possible reason
to
>gripe on 3H.
I, and others, are pointing out the facts. I'll grant you that of the
people pointing out the facts, we range from certified 1H-haters to
those who are (or were, before having run into problems) completely
neutral on the matter. I heard from lots of those, both this year and
last....
> Hasbro has made numerous mistakes, errors, omissions, and
>various screwups on *their own packaging*. Even in your idolized G1.
Yes they have. And when Hasbro screws up, I'm all over them like a
piranha on fresh meat. I've been considerably vocal about my contempt
for a lot of what Hasbro has done, and what Dreamwave has done, and
what some of the licensees have done, for that matter. Given that 1H
has been so desperate to be annointed as "official," the company must
also expect the criticism that's going to be leveled at "official"
products if they screw up.
> Perhaps the quality control came
>> from the other 2 H's whose absence is now making itself felt?
>
>I don't see how one typographical error of note makes for a QC problem.
A whole missing paragraph of a tech spec is *not* a matter of quality
control? Wouldn't you be at least slightly annoyed if you were
reading a novel, and came across half a blank page, cutting off a line
of text in mid-sentence? Isn't it *someone's* responsibility to catch
that kind of thing? And, if that publisher had a reputation for
constantly filling its books with glitches like that, forgetting
authors' credits, missing page numbers, etc. etc., wouldn't you start
thinking that maybe, just maybe, that publisher wasn't very competent?
Or didn't really care much about the quality of its product? Or both?
Now to those who went to this year's GlenCon and had a wonderful time,
sold a lot, found a lot to buy, hung out with friends, and so forth,
all well and wonderful for you. It's hardly my intent to dampen your
good time, not that I should be able to do that anyway. But there
*are* large and legitimate problems in the picture regarding this
convention and the company that puts it on, and I don't think they
should be swept under the rug or be excused with a shrug and a smile.
--Raksha
Broke? Unemployed? Paying too much for gas?
Do something about it! www.johnkerry.com
--------------------------------------------------------
"I am the Plumed Serpent, I strike and I soar!"
--------------------------------------------------------
All-time favorite Transformer: Soundwave ("The secrets
of the Universe reveal themselves to those who listen.")
--------------------------------------------------------
ATTCM - the Transformers at their best!
(request alt.toys.transformers.classic.moderated
from: postmaster@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
provider's address>)
|
