[TheBlueMarvel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raine24

I really, really, really don't want to do a wall of text here, but... ugh. We've talked before and been totally cool, so maybe we're just talking past each other right now?


This is what I mean, dude; there aren't any "red herrings" here, and the figure's sculpture is totally part of the substance of the figure. We're talking about the Rancor, in all its detail. The geometry of an object is not insubstantial.


It's genuinely cool that this would hit the sweet spot for you, but that doesn't mean that it not hitting the right notes for someone else means they're being disingenuous or incapable of recognizing material/production limitations, it can mean they're seeing something you don't, or simply being less generous in forgiving the alterations.

For example, I think the head is mounted backwards. If it were inverted, so the folds on the back of the head went over the neck, then it would appear to be a continuous piece from most angles, and preserve the relations of the face to the ears. With the whole "head peeking through foreskin" thing going on, every angle puts the part separation on display and reduces the accuracy & aesthetics.

There's a wall at the back of the mouth despite it being a separate jaw that would've eliminated undercut concerns there and allowed a throat to be present. The shoulders are too far apart. The shoulder pads should be part of the upper arm instead of the shoulder joint and could've been cast in a aggressive curve so that they'd naturally lay flush to the torso. The top of the head is the wrong shape. The pinky talon is supposed to be curved inward. The tail is too long/ thin.

You can go from the minuscule to the gross and find something off. It gets things wrong that every previous version of the rancor got right, including the '83 Kenner release. It could be better beyond the paint. Honestly.



It's really cool that they packed in so much articulation, but like 2/3rds of those points are in the hands. Granted, that's where you want them to be, and it's awesome they did that, but that's not nearly as impressive as if they were in load-bearing parts of the build. Again, it's awesome they did that. But it's less "how did they do that" and more "I didn't think they'd bother", you know?


I didn't say poorly designed, and I don't think anyone else did either. I said it was competent and described most of the articulation as rote, which I don't think is untrue. It's not as if they built an elaborate internal armature to articulate and support a silicone exterior skin with shifting internal panels to ensure a consistent volume...

They plugged in their standard pin and disc booleans, scaled up, and moved on. And that would be okay (it usually is!) and if this were any cheaper I don't think anyone would care. But much like a pleather seat in a luxury car, something nobody would think twice about suddenly becomes a deal breaker when they start charging premiums for it.

I wouldn't worry about a wall of text, these pages are unending and, after all, this type of conversation is the reason they exist. There's no text limit and Arkers can always make a choice not to read. I actually think it's exactly this sort of dialogue that is most valuable to manufactures, as it goes far beyond the 'this shit sux'; a largely empty statement devoid of actionable information.

I also wouldn't characterize this conversation as contentious given others I've been in here and disagreement rarely rises to - "we're not cool, now" - we're just hashing out our thoughts.

Your reasoning is perfectly sound, thanks for taking the time to express your ideas. I'd only add that I believe it'd require you to either make that or be involved on the planning side of development to see those great suggestions realized in a Rancor toy. Also, I'm not a toy-smith, but I sincerely believe what you're suggesting would cost even more to produce, even in a limited run like Haslab's.

Maybe we are talking past one another. My response to you previously (and now), similar to many of the dialogues featured on any of these threads, was part direct-line communication and partly an address of everything related that came before. Both generalized and specific, simultaneously. I don't attribute all of the comments made here to you, but when you describe a design choice as ugly, one that I can see working for others since it works for me, it leads me to associate that phrasing in a particular way, even if you didn't specifically express all of what I'm addressing. Conversely, I won't offer much of a defensive stance about the suggestion that I offhandedly dismissed valid criticisms despite my having said that there are things to complain about with this Haslab.

I did truly enjoy reading your thoughtful breakdown and think I'd like your Rancor as well. However, it does make me wonder how you would feel or respond if you put in all that work and thought and read thread-criticisms that suggested it was askew of a subjective mark, not worth the money, or a phoned in effort.