I'm not quite understanding what you're saying...
I don't mean to be overly negative here, because I read Mike Crawford's and OAFE and everywhere else's toy reviews somewhat regularly. I also mean to point out that I haven't bought many mctoys in recent months. My toy buying habits have been declining and the occasional marvel legends is where I'm at these days.
Let me illustrate.
http://www.mwctoys.com/REVIEW_071105a.htm
That's the review that got me posting.
It's this image specifically.
http://www.mwctoys.com/images/review_mcmilitary_6.jpg
hotlinking is bad, so i'm rehosting it to post in this thread. It's not my image, it's his. I just didn't want it to be his bandwidth.
There. A picture's worth more words than i would type otherwise.
It usually reads to me like mctoys get a raw deal in the writings of the internet toy community.
To give these toys anything less than perfects in areas other than articulation is a mistake. From what I have seen these war toys make all others from the same scale looks stupid.
I'm officially stoked about this line and hope that I'll actually be able to get my hands on an acc pack.
<font color="#cd6600" size="1">[ July 11, 2005 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Artist formerly known as me. ]</font>
I'm not quite understanding what you're saying...
What he's saying is that McF toys get slagged by people alot in regards to their selective application of articulation... all the while being overlooked at the quality of sculpt and paint that is generally used.
Me rocks. Nice ta see ya again. [img]smile.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree - Crawford gave McFarlane a very positive review. [img]confused.gif[/img]Originally posted by Dajistano?:
I'm not quite understanding what you're saying...
Yeah, i suck at being clear. B%!m&n said it better.
And in that pic i borrow for this thread, One toys looks like a cheap DollarTree toy soldier compared to the other.
Nice to see you too btw.
And it was a very positive review. They are all very positive reviews. I just fundimantally disagree with the comparrisons to mctoys and other companies as anything other than jokes.
If you have imagination to play with 6 1/2" toys, as I do, which requires that the toys have articuation; yet don't have the imagination to have mcstatuetoys play with each other over the lack of complete mobilization of toy limbs, then thngs are very off. Those old Military toys in the 6" scale sucked.
<font color="#cd6600" size="1">[ July 11, 2005 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Artist formerly known as me. ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree - Crawford gave McFarlane a very positive review. [img]confused.gif[/img] </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really that, just his post was kind of vague for me.Originally posted by madadman:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Dajistano?:
I'm not quite understanding what you're saying...
But I get him now.
<font color="#cd6600" size="1">[ July 11, 2005 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Dajistano? ]</font>
I've rarely had a beef with McF's sculpting ability, apart from a few likeness issues.
the figs look damn great, they just aren't my kick.
now, if you wanna talk beefs with articulation...
*stops before he causes Baimun's head to explode*
[img]wink.gif[/img]
oh, come on now, they look a little better than that.
Actually, Mike gave articulation like 1 star, but still gave the toy 3.5 stars out of 4.
He's smart enough to realize that a 1 star articulation score on a McF figure does not actually take away from the average score.
<font color="#cd6600" size="1">[ July 11, 2005 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Peter Hoffman ]</font>
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks