Printable View
for me, a confessed articulation junkie, the fact these weren't articulated wasnt even a factor.
I just have no interest in th line.
like I said, they look great (from pics, haven't seen them in person), but I prefer my army guys a bit more fantastic, like GI Joe...
ninjas and shit, y'know?
metal-headed dudes, and hot chicks in leather...
you get me, I think.
It's not the stars or the final verdict that does it for me. It's the mentality that the other stuff on the market holds candlewax to what, in that case, is a pretty kickass looking figure. Illustrated best by the pic showing old and busted next to new hotness. Reading around shows that the glowing review seems to unglow in comparison to some other overly-glowing reviews of especially obscured products.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And robots. Lots of robots.Quote:
Originally posted by Peeker:
for me, a confessed articulation junkie, the fact these weren't articulated wasnt even a factor.
I just have no interest in th line.
like I said, they look great (from pics, haven't seen them in person), but I prefer my army guys a bit more fantastic, like GI Joe...
ninjas and shit, y'know?
metal-headed dudes, and hot chicks in leather...
you get me, I think.
This is my kind of plastic army man...
http://tinypic.com/71hctx.jpg
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Huh? I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean. I assume you're complaing about my reviews, since you used mine as an example, but I can't figure out what you're complaining about.Quote:
Originally posted by Artist formerly known as me.:
It's not the stars or the final verdict that does it for me. It's the mentality that the other stuff on the market holds candlewax to what, in that case, is a pretty kickass looking figure. Illustrated best by the pic showing old and busted next to new hotness. Reading around shows that the glowing review seems to unglow in comparison to some other overly-glowing reviews of especially obscured products.
I split stuff into categories, because of this reason exactly - he gets a great sculpt score but a terrible articulation score. Therefore if you don't care about articulation, you can understand that and adjust in your brain accordingly. Likewise if you do care about articulation.
BTW, if you're slagging on that Plan-B figure, your off base. The body detail work on it is just as good as McToys - actually, the wapons are better - but the head sculpt doesn't carry the same realism. And of course the joints - which do matter to many people - reduce the realism of the sculpt.
Plan-B stuff kicks ass as well, but for different reasons. Every figure came with at least a half dozen cool accessories, and they have swappable heads, a pretty nifty feature. Of course, all that articulation helped too. Different strokes.
So what exactly are you complaining about with my reviews? Enquiring minds want to know...
Michael
MWC
I think he is trying to say the McFarlane is, in his opinion, so much better than any other toy on the market that any comparison whatsoever is inherently inapt. Apples and oranges, that sort of thing.
I cannot agree, but I think that is how he feels.
In this case, as I look at that picture: At a glance, McF's head does look better, but upon closer inspection, that is not due to any superior quality of sculpt. McF's guy just has an idealized, soap-opera hunk mug. Which argues that Plan B's plain feller is probably the more realistic of the two, actually...
<font color="#cd6600" size="1">[ July 11, 2005 04:58 PM: Message edited by: -Dark Angel- ]</font>
I wouldn't say complaining. Like I said, I'm a frequent reader and enjoyer of your stuff.
But what you say about plan-b's stuff holding up is shinola. I have quite a few, and they look like old 5" basic5 point articulation compared to what i've seen of the new mcmilitary toys. I don't want to comment on the guns because I don't have the mcmilitary toys in front of me yet.
What I was trying to get at was that regularly, not just by you, toys of much less awesome recieve much brighter reviews than they really should get, while the McFarlane equivalents get comparatively dimmer reviews. Side by side the mctoys blow the other crap out of the water.
<font color="#cd6600" size="1">[ July 11, 2005 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Artist formerly known as me. ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">plan B's fellow looks like tom hanks to me. I was trying to figure out if perhaps he was something from "saving private ryan" and was meant to be tom hanks, or if my mind is just playing tricks on me.Quote:
Originally posted by -Dark Angel-:
In this case, as I look at that picture: At a glance, McF's head does look better, but upon closer inspection, that is not due to any superior quality of sculpt. McF's guy just has an idealized, soap-opera hunk mug. Which argues that Plan B's plain feller is probably the more realistic of the two, actually...
<font color="#cd6600"><font size="1">[ July 11, 2005 04:58 PM: Message edited by: -Dark Angel- ]</font></font>
i think McF should just change their name and take out the word "toys" since they really aren't. Also, stop using the word "action" in action-figures.... Then just a more accurate name like "McFarlane's Ultra-Realistic Superbly Sculpted (and often mutilated) tiny little plastic statues"... Then they wouldn't get reviewed on toy websites so there wouldn't be any problem. [img]wink.gif[/img]
Jor, all sarcasm aside, I agree.