Ugliest toys you know of?

File: trash.jpg (35KB, 520x520px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 520x520px

You could post 99% of the movie transformers toys in this thread.

>>6505459
>>6505473

2007, ROTF, and HFTD lines were very good. It mostly went downhill with the DOTM line minus a few decent figures.

File: 20140913_162119.jpg (719KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 2048x1152px

Pretty much every female figure from Hasbro and Mattel pre 2016

File: r_shockwave026.jpg (58KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x667px

>>6505459

File: image.jpg (284KB, 639x1000px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 639x1000px

>>6505459
As a huge transfag, I have to say that's actually at the better end of the spetrum. Honestly letting ILM have almost total creative control was a mistake. A crap ton of the figures look like a vehicle exploded and sorta formed a robot if you squint.

At least they didn't go with the original idea of having them transform via literal magical shapeshifting. At least until AoE.

File: teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-tmnt-2014-movie-exclusive-action-figure-4-pack-leonardo-donatello-raphael-michelangelo-new-31__88925.1461314978.jpg (63KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 480x480px

>>6505473
pretty much ANYTHING that's from a movie or remotely live-action. the movie TMNT is ugly, but it looks better in the movie than how playmates sculpted them

>>6509924
Christ that's disgusting

File: IMG_0722.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>6509924

>pre 2016

Are you sure about that?

>>6510404
I've seen a couple of her and she's dangerously cross-eyed.

File: 1018821372.jpg (79KB, 846x1200px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 846x1200px

>>6505473
>You could post 99% of the movie transformers toys in this thread.
I so agree with this. Ive seen many ugly toys but transformers have the shittiest toys imaginable.
And the picture you posted can be not from movie only. Ive seen cartoon based transformers looking lika that. Like a plastic brick with retarded proportions.
>>6510026
>pretty much ANYTHING that's from a movie or remotely live-action. the movie TMNT is ugly, but it looks better in the movie than how playmates sculpted them
Yes but not as much as shitty transformers.
Your picture with TMNT at least is an action figure. It has some details and paint. A little kid might dig it.

While i refuse to accept that kids have a major shit taste when it comes to toys...otherwise how do they buy transformers.
When i was a kid i had brain to separate crap toys from good toys judging them by design and quality.

>>6510017
I remember I used to think this design and some of the other Bayformer figs were cool. what the fuck was I smoking?

Movie tie in stuff is definitely the worst.

>>6505459
You really need to define some terms, or all of the toys will fit here, as toy thrives on telling other posters how shit their taste is.

Ugly as in failures to emulate design, ruined by bad jointwork, badly painted, or just a bad design that makes no sense?

Or just "i don't like thing"

File: conceal the shield optimus prime.jpg (96KB, 800x1041px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x1041px

>>6505459

>>6510017
Fuck you blazemaster is cool

File: Storm-AFV-Akuma-Preview.jpg (281KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 2048x1365px

I know it's newfaggy, but Lion King Akuma makes me cringe

>>6511083
>>6511092
Isn't this more about the designs, not the toys?

>>6511122
I could say that about everything in this thread.

>>6511131
I dunno, I think people are actually complaining about the toy itself. Meanwhile the Akuma isn't even out.

>>6511151
You mean all the toys that were designed by someone?

File: tta81854_2.jpg (80KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 600x450px

This line seems so cheap...

>>6510404
That's the strabismus of Venus!

>>6511191
That's what happens when you try to make a line of poseable figures that are even smaller than standard micromen. These should have been shut down at a conceptual phase, it was obvious there would be issues.

File: rm6.jpg (184KB, 800x887px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 800x887px

>>6510927
If you have to photoshop a figure to make it look doofy at worst, then it probably isn't an ugly figure.

>>6511191
I got one of the destroyer for $20 just to play around.

They could have worked if they went for a low price rage. But they ended up being almost $30 for most of them even though it should $15 to get one's money's worth

>>6511576
Agreed. Considering the time period the only thing ugly about this figure is the arm panels and a number of more recent figures are way uglier.

>>6511576

File: loganbike.jpg (38KB, 661x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 661x400px

>lets put wolverines face on the front of the bike

>>6510927
i love the edit but it is still a good figure

File: blazemaster.jpg (66KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 768x1024px

>>6510953
Cool? He's HOT.

But Shockwave looks cool.

File: Dr Zaius.jpg (39KB, 250x333px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 250x333px

>>6515140
>that pose
Sexy

File: crossovers shielder.jpg (96KB, 800x887px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x887px

>>6511576
yes

>>6515064
thank
Annoying that it's hard to find the kibble exposed enough to make it always accurate to the pieces.

File: 02-rockbots-transformed.jpg (205KB, 1024x835px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1024x835px

dunno if it's ugliest or dumbest but these probably qualify

>and for the record I had these as a kid and kid me loved them

File: Revoltech_Logo.jpg (10KB, 492x102px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 492x102px

>>6505459
No question.

>>6515416
Just one question.
Where did revo touch you?

/r/ing that one HYPERREALISTIC line of Dragonball figures they came out with during the turn of the millenium