2016 Movie Toys

[darthwahl56]

Originally Posted by nellyp

I am pretty sure Playmates does count them. When I got the classic collection Mikey a year ago I showed my buddy and he saw the package had 34 pts of articulation listed which he doubted. So we counted them and that was the only way we got 34.

Before playmates toys that was how I counted Marvel Legends (toybiz) and Star wars figure articulation, the horizontal and vertical joint being the same.

[DVD]

Problem there tho.
Example: Original Star Wars figures had shoulder rotation and hip rotation and neck movement giving 5 points of articulation. Add horizontal moment to the arms and legs, creates a more articulated figure with 4 more points of articulation.
Depends on the use of the word point.

[snake]

I usually count them the way dvd does.

[bgb1018]

Ok, so we're looking at a later April/early May official release on these figures and playsets?

I've been skimming the last 10 pages or so looking for info and I've only gained a vague idea on what's happening with these lol.

Just hoping someone could clarify for me.

[darthwahl56]

Originally Posted by DVD

Problem there tho.
Example: Original Star Wars figures had shoulder rotation and hip rotation and neck movement giving 5 points of articulation. Add horizontal moment to the arms and legs, creates a more articulated figure with 4 more points of articulation.
Depends on the use of the word point.

Though even with the extra movement in the shoulder it still wasn't counted as any more movement when the first Super articluated Clone Trooper was released in 2003 in the Star Wars line.

[snake]

Originally Posted by darthwahl56

Though even with the extra movement in the shoulder it still wasn't counted as any more movement when the first Super articluated Clone Trooper was released in 2003 in the Star Wars line.

Jedi Temple Archives counted it.

[ProactiveMan]

I have a theory about shoulder joints that requires a diagram to explain:



The type depicted on the left is counted as two points of articulation, whereas the one on the right is only one, as the bicep connects directly to the shoulder, rather than a separate ball joint piece. It kind’a is two joints, but maybe as it is only two pieces, they only count as one point of articulation.

I'm probably wrong...

[afterthecredits]

@DVD Really diggin' all the movie figure pics you've been uploading. Do you have any pics of the turtles' shells? Also, do the turtles have wrist articulation this time around?

[Candy Kappa]

most places I've frequented count point points of articulation, not direction the joint can go.



So counting that way, a TMNT Classics Turtle have 32 POA.

[nellyp]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

most places I've frequented count point points of articulation, not direction the joint can go.

http://news.toyark.com/wp-content/up...-Breakdown.jpg

So counting that way, a TMNT Classics Turtle have 32 POA.

It seems you are missing 2 compared to what playmates counted. Is it possible you forgot to count the 2 thigh cuts that, if you actually use them, horribly break up the sculpt? Definitely was not necessary. Same with the individual finger articulation. That was what turned me off of them for the longest time but once I got Bebop and Rocksteady I decided to go for them.

[Candy Kappa]

No, I did count the thigh cut. I forgot something else.

The pin that the fingers are attached to have a ball joint inside the hand so the fingers can tilt and rotate a bit, which would rack up the POA to 34.

It's also possible that the Turtles are meant to have ankle pivot since the feet are connected to the hinge joint by a ball joint, which I noticed when my Leo's foot fell off. But the ball joint does nothing but swivel the foot.

[ProactiveMan]

Wish I'd found that diagram before I drew mine... it's cool.

What do you think of the rocker joints they've put on the new Club Grayskull figures? Better than balls?

[nellyp]

Pixel Dan just put up a video of his Toy fair impressions through his Geek Easy podcast. He mentioned that the reason Playmates never brought their movie toys to show was that the movie studio (I assume Paramount) said they weren't allowed to. Seems a bit odd to me but they may have their reasons. Even though the images were out there on the Internet maybe they didn't want krang shown before the super bowl ad they paid millions of dollars for.

[Etsyturtle2]

Originally Posted by nellyp

Pixel Dan just put up a video of his Toy fair impressions through his Geek Easy podcast. He mentioned that the reason Playmates never brought their movie toys to show was that the movie studio (I assume Paramount) said they weren't allowed to. Seems a bit odd to me but they may have their reasons. Even though the images were out there on the Internet maybe they didn't want krang shown before the super bowl ad they paid millions of dollars for.

What krang?

[Candy Kappa]

I think he means Kra(a)ng

[strawberryfields]

I was going to buy these, but then I remembered the sealed 2014 movie toys I bought 2 sets of haven't looked at or cared about for 16 months...

These things are bad. Almost bootleg bad. I'm just going to get the Mega Bloks movie sets...

[Huzzah]

I'm in the minority I'm sure, but I loved the movie figures, especially after I repainted them, and I'm actually looking forward to the new figs.

[darthwahl56]

Originally Posted by strawberryfields

I was going to buy these, but then I remembered the sealed 2014 movie toys I bought 2 sets of haven't looked at or cared about for 16 months...

These things are bad. Almost bootleg bad. I'm just going to get the Mega Bloks movie sets...

16 months...... you remembered last time you saw them, how nice.

Originally Posted by Huzzah

I'm in the minority I'm sure, but I loved the movie figures, especially after I repainted them, and I'm actually looking forward to the new figs.

Playmates did a good job with what they were given. Were the designs needlessly complicated in the first place, sure, but it's not the toy companies fault that happened. I say as they are," the figures kick butt," and the new stuff will be just as cool.

The 90's movie figures used the same body styles as the figures that were already out at the time for the TMNT. At least the movie figures of today use there own template.

[strawberryfields]

Originally Posted by darthwahl56

16 months...... you remembered last time you saw them, how nice.



Playmates did a good job with what they were given. Were the designs needlessly complicated in the first place, sure, but it's not the toy companies fault that happened. I say as they are," the figures kick butt," and the new stuff will be just as cool.

The 90's movie figures used the same body styles as the figures that were already out at the time for the TMNT. At least the movie figures of today use there own template.

I think Playmates did the best they could with leo, raph, and don, but the Mikey figure was so terrible looking- like his face was made of green clay that had been smothered

Also, the 90's movie figures didn't use the same body styles. I remember them having distinctive scratch marks on their chests... Maybe I'm wrong?

[thundermaster612]

Originally Posted by strawberryfields

I think Playmates did the best they could with leo, raph, and don, but the Mikey figure was so terrible looking- like his face was made of green clay that had been smothered

Also, the 90's movie figures didn't use the same body styles. I remember them having distinctive scratch marks on their chests... Maybe I'm wrong?

no, the distinctive marks thing was correct. Although Playmates could've just added them in afterward because I see many pics of the 90s Raph with no scratches and mine has ones that were molded in.