Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Time for ACTION.
I've been focussing on a new little particular of this blog lately; making sure there are a few different, accurate labels for each post.
Basically, because it's a neat way of finding what you're interested in, without sifting through crap like sand lizards and TMNT vs. the RoboBugs. I mean, me personally, I love crap like sand lizards and RoboBugs, but I realise it may not be everyone's cup of tea (in which case, what kind of sick-ass tea are you drinking?!)
So I've been able to use a few key labels that encapsulate key demographics of this blog: plush... video game... that sort of rot.
But what is a toy blog without a label for ACTION FIGURES? Why, it's hardly a blog at all! FYI, I reckon making the term capitalized, bold and italic makes it much more dynamic.
The only thing is, I came to a bit of a snag... how do you define an action figure, really? Wikipedia gives a fairly robust definition, highlighting some key features of an action figure. Things like accessories, and body articulation.
So then, does anything that comes with nifty weapons and a spinning head fall under the classification of action figure? If so, is Regan MacNeil an action figure?
I know which ones are obviously action figures. The Turtles, Clifford the Rock Climber, etc., they fit the definition to a tee. But then you reach a grey area. The recently departed Ickis, for example, lacks accessories or full articulation, but he otherwise has action figure qualities: is he a contender? How about the posable McDonald's toys, like Robin Hood and Manta Ray? Frankly, I think they stretch the boundaries of 'action' to the umpteenth degree. It's like Christian rock; it's an oxymoron.
Anyhow, I'm opening the floor for discussion (just don't fall in!) - to you, the toy enthusiasts, what makes an action figure an action figure?