A Bone To Pick with Internet Toy Reviews

Printable View

July 11th, 2005, 04:47 PM
ihborbobobo

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.
http://ihbor1.homestead.com/files/re...military_6.jpg

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.

[ July 11, 2005 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Artist formerly known as me. ]
July 11th, 2005, 04:52 PM
Dajistano

I'm not quite understanding what you're saying...
July 11th, 2005, 04:56 PM
baimun

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]
July 11th, 2005, 04:57 PM
madadman

Quote:

Originally posted by Dajistano?:
I'm not quite understanding what you're saying...

I agree - Crawford gave McFarlane a very positive review. [img]confused.gif[/img]
July 11th, 2005, 04:58 PM
ihborbobobo

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.

[ July 11, 2005 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Artist formerly known as me. ]
July 11th, 2005, 05:06 PM
Dajistano

Quote:

Originally posted by madadman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Dajistano?:
I'm not quite understanding what you're saying...

I agree - Crawford gave McFarlane a very positive review. [img]confused.gif[/img] <hr /></blockquote>Not really that, just his post was kind of vague for me.

But I get him now.

[ July 11, 2005 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Dajistano? ]
July 11th, 2005, 05:13 PM
Peter Peeker

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]
July 11th, 2005, 05:22 PM
TCM Hitchhiker

http://tinypic.com/71gwb8.jpg
July 11th, 2005, 05:31 PM
Peter Peeker

oh, come on now, they look a little better than that.
July 11th, 2005, 05:42 PM
0193081

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.

[ July 11, 2005 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Peter Hoffman ]
July 11th, 2005, 05:47 PM
Peter 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.
July 11th, 2005, 05:55 PM
ihborbobobo

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.
July 11th, 2005, 05:56 PM
ihborbobobo

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.

And robots. Lots of robots.
July 11th, 2005, 06:08 PM
TCM Hitchhiker

This is my kind of plastic army man...

http://tinypic.com/71hctx.jpg
July 11th, 2005, 07:34 PM
Michael Crawford

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.

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.

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
July 11th, 2005, 07:52 PM
Darkest Angel

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...

[ July 11, 2005 04:58 PM: Message edited by: -Dark Angel- ]
July 11th, 2005, 07:56 PM
ihborbobobo

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.

[ July 11, 2005 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Artist formerly known as me. ]
July 11th, 2005, 08:08 PM
Tortricidae

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...

[ July 11, 2005 04:58 PM: Message edited by: -Dark Angel- ]

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.
July 11th, 2005, 08:32 PM
Joranthalus

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]
July 11th, 2005, 08:43 PM
Peter Peeker

Jor, all sarcasm aside, I agree.
July 11th, 2005, 11:08 PM
Moviemaniac4

Remember the McFarlane rule...If it has at least ONE point of articulation, it's an action figure [img]tongue.gif[/img]
July 12th, 2005, 12:10 AM
Dajistano

That reminds me.

I think it's time to pack up some of the older figures to make way for the Soldiers. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
July 12th, 2005, 11:22 AM
Andyman

I think many people misunderstand the term "action" in action figure. It's not referring to the toy having action or movement but rather to the character being portrayed as a person of action like a superhero or whatever.
July 12th, 2005, 11:26 AM
Darkest Angel

Quote:

Originally posted by Andyman:
I think many people misunderstand the term "action" in action figure. It's not referring to the toy having action or movement but rather to the character being portrayed as a person of action like a superhero or whatever.

Still inapropos in the case of many McFarlane figures. I mean, all these mutilated, bonded, tortured folks can't really be up to much "action" of any kind...
July 12th, 2005, 11:48 AM
Andyman

Quote:

Originally posted by -Dark Angel-:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Andyman:
I think many people misunderstand the term "action" in action figure. It's not referring to the toy having action or movement but rather to the character being portrayed as a person of action like a superhero or whatever.

Still inapropos in the case of many McFarlane figures. I mean, all these mutilated, bonded, tortured folks can't really be up to much "action" of any kind...<hr /></blockquote>True. But the term "action figure" is a pure marketing concept which makes "Ultra-action Figure" pure hyperbole. [img]wink.gif[/img]
July 12th, 2005, 11:57 AM
Poe Ghostal

Quote:

Originally posted by Artist formerly known as me.:
[QB]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.

See, here's where I keep getting stuck--your metaphors are weird. "Plan-B's stuff looks like old 5" basic 5-point articulation compared to..." etc. etc. When I read that, I think that you're suggesting that McFarlane has a LOT of articulation, which, of course, is patently untrue.

As for the notion that McFarlane is so much better than everything else on the market that it shouldn't even be compared to it--as the only representative here of OAFE, to that I say, "give me an effin' break."

McFarlane has arguably the best sculpting, but everything else about their toys--from the poses they're placed in to the lack of articulation--are decisions they make in crafting a toy, and reviewers (and consumers) have every right to decide how much they like those decisions.

Look at it this way. The New Yorker reviews movies for a very select audience, and therefore, David Denby (their reviewer) will negatively review movies like Batman Begins because he's comparing it to every other movie ever made--not just movies like it. He's also grading on the assumption of a select audience that will always prefer the small art-house movie to any Hollywood film.

Roger Ebert, on the other hand, reviews a movie like BB with the general public in mind, and when he gives it four stars, he's grading it in comparison with similar films--not against, say, Citizen Kane. If you told him to provide an "objective" star rating between the quality of BB and Citizen Kane, I'm sure BB wouldn't get four stars.

MWC (and OAFE, and the Toy Pirate) review for everyone, just like Ebert. And thus, we review McFarlane figures for McFarlane fans as well as the general public, and we have to try and walk a fine line between the two.

Personally, I find your beef with reviews to be a little silly. No offense--you seem like a cool guy--but no toy is so excellent as to be above my snooty critical eye [img]wink.gif[/img]

[ July 12, 2005 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Poe Ghostal ]
July 12th, 2005, 12:41 PM
Andyman

Well wrote Poe...you snoot! [img]wink.gif[/img]

Seriously, I liked your comparison to movie critics.
July 12th, 2005, 12:48 PM
Joranthalus

i like his pants [img]smile.gif[/img]
July 12th, 2005, 12:51 PM
Andyman

Quote:

Originally posted by Joranthalus:
i like his pants [img]smile.gif[/img]

Poe's, Me's or the military dude's?
July 12th, 2005, 01:01 PM
Spore

If anybody cares....

Way back when (like 10 years ago) when I started buying McF figs I thought they were the absolute best toys in the world.... because they simply were. The sculpts were amazing, the ideas were fresh and the lack of articulation wasn't an issue for me because most toys with articulation were friggin' ugly.

In the past couple of years there are companies making awesome toys with awesome sculpts and the newer methods of articulating a figure have become a mostly non-intrusive spectacular bonus. For those other companies that don't use the articulation they are including extra hands and heads to make up for it.

Although McF is still one of the best toy manufacturers they are no longer the best. A beautiful sculpt doesn't fly for me anymore as a sole selling factor. Everybody is producing great sculpts.

If I put a McF toy beside my ToyBiz or Mezco figs I see McF falling behind. The track they are on has been well worn and I think it's time they added some new rails.
July 12th, 2005, 01:06 PM
Poe Ghostal

Quote:

Originally posted by Joranthalus:
i like his pants [img]smile.gif[/img]

Flattery won't make me stop bugging you for reviews, lazy-ass.

As for McFarlane--with the Spawn 10th Anniversary figure, they proved they were capable of creating a great balance between sculpt and articulation. That thing is one of the best action figures ever made (except for its tendency to break--I'm on my second).

But McFarlane clearly has no interest in going the articulated route anymore. That's their prerogative, but--with the occasional exception--they're not a company that interests me anymore.

I like what Mez of Mezco said about articulation:

Quote:

I try to articulate all our product where and when it makes sense. I am not looking to achieve what Toy Biz does with the [Marvel Legends] line. I assume the core consumer is a collector. So with that in mind, I want the consumer to be able to interact with the figure. Some companies do this by adding action features, some by capturing a moment or a pose that is some how iconic or memorable for the source material; for me, I want people to be able pose the figure how they want and then repose it--I wasn?t going for an articulation count, I was going for articulation that counted.



[ July 12, 2005 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Poe Ghostal ]
July 12th, 2005, 01:20 PM
Joranthalus

me? lazy? Do you have any idea how many contest entries i've had to go through in the last month [img]tongue.gif[/img]

For me, it's McF's taking away of articulation.

Not even cut-joints anymore. Sure, it's just a result of the molding process, they can't make the fig all one piece so they have a cut joint, but now the pegs aren't round anymore so they don't move... and to add the final nail in the articulation coffin, they GLUE them.

There's absolutely no reason for that except to try and make a point. Which is fine, but i collect toys [img]smile.gif[/img]
July 12th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Poe Ghostal

Quote:

Originally posted by Joranthalus:
me? lazy? Do you have any idea how many contest entries i've had to go through in the last month

True. And for [ame="http://board.mezco.net/showthread.php?t=3272"]obvious reasons[/ame], I'm glad you did...
July 12th, 2005, 01:28 PM
Darkest Angel

Quote:

Originally posted by Joranthalus:
...but i collect toys [img]smile.gif[/img]

...which brings the entire argument full-circle IMO. I collect toys. McF produces tiny statues. In that singular sense, there may be a basis for saying that McF isn't comparable to other toy companies...they stopped making toys ages ago (and the rare articulated figure they make these days seems designed specifically to look ugly and break).

Jor, you get to work on that carrot yet? I'ma need to see that when yer done.
July 12th, 2005, 02:01 PM
Joranthalus

Not yet. I went back to walmart to get that fig and it was gone. I don't even know the name of the gay man the figure was based on...
July 12th, 2005, 04:05 PM
Joranthalus

He was in a suit, but no tie. The dress-shirt had the top button undone....
July 13th, 2005, 01:24 AM
0193081

I like McF pseudo-statues and toys. [img]smile.gif[/img]

From what I've seen of MWC's reviews, he tends to give McF figures an overall score based on how they work as what they are meant to be...pseudo-statues.

Other sites, such as OAFE...review them in comparison to all the other action figures on the market...which is part of the reason I stopped paying attention to their reviews (no offense). Sometimes they don't see them for what they are...they see them as how they think they should be.
July 13th, 2005, 03:48 AM
Darkest Angel

Does it really matter? Lemme know what he looked like, or I can just pick up any that is in the same/similar outfit...
July 13th, 2005, 06:00 PM
DARTH POOH

Having seen these in person, I have to say I'm pretty impressed. I also favor the variation that's featured of the Marine Recon..Took me a while to find one. Most were the other variation with the helmet as opposed to the floppy hat version. I'm planning to put mine in and around my Aliens and Predators. It's great to see them get such a good review as they truly deserve it. Looking forward to the 'Redeployed' line already ..
I knew that 'Hicks' figure was the beginning of a great new series for McFarlane [img]biggrin.gif[/img]
July 14th, 2005, 12:03 AM
Dajistano

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Hoffman:
I like McF pseudo-statues and toys. [img]smile.gif[/img]

From what I've seen of MWC's reviews, he tends to give McF figures an overall score based on how they work as what they are meant to be...pseudo-statues.

Other sites, such as OAFE...review them in comparison to all the other action figures on the market...which is part of the reason I stopped paying attention to their reviews (no offense). Sometimes they don't see them for what they are...they see them as how they think they should be.

Who runs OAFE, by the way?