PDA

View Full Version : Articulation is overrated!



El Chuxter
12-10-2009, 02:44 PM
Who's with me?

Two reasons why I say this:

1) Some characters just do not need more than the basic articulation. This is not to say a salt-shaker abomination like ROTJ Mon Mothma is acceptable. However, who really wants to position Malakili doing the hokey pokey? The guy just stands there! That's all he does! He's lame! There's no reason to make him do anything but stand there! I could say the same about so many other characters. Does Sio Bibble need to breakdance? Do you need Uncle Owen practicing the flying crane kick from The Karate Kid? If you answered yes to either of those questions, I pity you.

2) Articulation simply does not work on some figures, particularly females and figures that have exposed skin on joints. Yarna suffered because exposed flesh looks awful when joints are added. Period. There is no exception to this. Slave Leia is a beautiful sculpt, but the joints look like crap, and bring the figure down several notches. The only part that looks great? The one-piece alternate lower body, which has how many points of articulation? Zero! Don't even get me started on that abomination that was SOTE Leia, or how jacked-up both Bultar Swan figures look.

All figures, except when not practical, should have a minimum of neck, shoulder, wrist or elbow, waist, and hip articulation. If possible, tack on some knee articulation. But, if any joint looks like crap, lose it. I don't like pre-posed, scene specific figures, but I'd take them over figures that look like garbage because of too many breaks in the figure. Older figures should be re-made based on shortcomings in the sculpt, rather than lack of a couple of articulation points compared with what's coming out now.

Droid
12-10-2009, 03:26 PM
There were many characters with the six points of articulation that I thought looked better than modern characters with all the articulation they pack in there now.

There are so many characters whose arms never quite look right because they can swivel all over the place.

I would like figures shown sitting in the film to have jointed knees. I would like pilots to be able to sit correctly in their vehicles.

However, I would be perfectly fine with MOST characters not having jointed elbows or knees.

I would prefer a sturdier figure that can stand well with less ugly joints.

Oh, and I hate soft goods. That is all.

gba88
12-10-2009, 03:45 PM
My main want/needs are: neck, shoulders, elbows & knees. I don't care a whole lot about hip, wrist or ankle articulation at all. I feel that all characters should be able to:

1. hold their respective weapon or accessory properly while standing.

2. sit down.

That's it. Oh, and I HATE plastic clothes, but LOVE soft/cloth goods! The molded sleeves on the recent amidala are God awful.

DarkJedi5
12-10-2009, 04:26 PM
I disagree. The line is for kids, so the goal is to make the best toy possible. What good is a figure that only achieves one stance, even if it is a film accurate stance? You can only play with that toy in one context and that makes it a pretty worthless toy. Kids know that the more ways to bend a figure the more fun it is and frankly I agree.

Who says that just because Ponda Baba was standing at the bar in the cantina his figure doesn't need to be able to sit? Who says that just because Malakili never rode a speeder bike in ROTJ he shouldn't be able to? If you are a toy maker and you want to make your toys sell, you need them to be interactive and allow for imaginative play. Limited articulation minimizes that and makes for a less competitive toy.

Devo
12-10-2009, 04:32 PM
The new TPM Amidala? Awful sleeves? I doubt softgoods would look any better there, they'd be sticking out in gravity defying directions everywhere. Sure if you insist on posing the figure with her arms parallel to the ground the plastic sleeves defy gravity because they're obviously fixed in position but why would you want to pose any Queen amidala figure like that?

Anyway, I don't mind articulation. I just hate the lack of consistency in how they execute it. Why are the balljoints on some figures massive and on others a perfectly acceptable size? Why are they recessed and concealed more on some figures than on others? Why are they increasingly using these ugly hinges in the shoulders of some figures where the use of the articulation causes the hinge to jut out in an unsightly manner? Why did it take so long for Hasbro to realise that cutting off a figures lower jaw to facilitate a ball-joint in the head was not an acceptable compromise? They seem to have gotten better at this lately but will it remain so?

I agree with two, no three, of your points, that some figures simply do not need to be SAed, that old figures with great sculpts don't necessarily need to be updated just to add a few joints such as Saga Dengar and I also share your hatred of softgoods.

gba88
12-10-2009, 05:05 PM
The new TPM Amidala? Awful sleeves? I doubt softgoods would look any better there, they'd be sticking out in gravity defying directions everywhere. Sure if you insist on posing the figure with her arms parallel to the ground the plastic sleeves defy gravity because they're obviously fixed in position but why would you want to pose any Queen amidala figure like that?



That's the one! Look at this link: http://www.rebelscum.com/photo.asp?image=/TLC/Basic/BD08Amidala/LC-537.jpg ...and tell me that looks good..... I'm not saying soft goods were the answer, but the sculpted sleeves weren't either.

I actually think the *best* execution is a combination...plastic goods underneath and soft goods over top. It's not a matter of wanting to pose her in different ways, it's a matter of it looking more natural. I just personally think that (if done right), soft goods can look much nicer than attempting to sculpt plastic to "look" like cloth.

autumnsdescent
12-10-2009, 05:06 PM
I passed on the 30th anniversary release of Lando because his elbows were 45's instead of ball joints. Once Hasbro started adding the articulation, I actually felt somewhat "jipped" by previous figures. For me, the articulation outweighs some of the aesthetics. The added articulation is a strong selling point for me, though, and I pass on most figures today if they don't have at least head, elbow, knee, wrist, and ankle articulation. If Hasbro went back to less articulation, they would lose me as a collector. And I've been collecting since '78.

gba88
12-10-2009, 05:11 PM
I passed on the 30th anniversary release of Lando because his elbows were 45's instead of ball joints. Once Hasbro started adding the articulation, I actually felt somewhat "jipped" by previous figures. For me, the articulation outweighs some of the aesthetics. The added articulation is a strong selling point for me, though, and I pass on most figures today if they don't have at least head, elbow, knee, wrist, and ankle articulation. If Hasbro went back to less articulation, they would lose me as a collector. And I've been collecting since '78.

This is a good point. We've seen about every figure possible over the years in less than stellar articulated incarnations. They need to do *something* in order to keep re-releasing year after year. The added articulation is definitely welcome in most cases. I've also bought several versions of figures that I've previously had just because the new versions weren't in "frozen" poses.

There are decades of figures to choose from if you like the semi/limited articulated figures. At this point, I'm fine with *any* figure hasbro wants to add articulation to.

DarkJedi5
12-10-2009, 05:20 PM
Even more disapointing was that it was a "new" Lando, the smuggler one if I'm not mistaken. They used the arms from the VOTC Lando but repainted them and they wound up looking awful.

elvandrik
12-10-2009, 05:53 PM
Articulation is the bomb-diggity! I do agree with the initial statement that characters with lots of exposed flesh sometimes look worse with articulation, but remember that innovations in joint and materials technology will be developed and in a few years someone at hasbro will come up with some genius idea on how to make balljoints look awesome even on exposed skin. Articulation has its aesthetic drawbacks sometimes, but overall the line is better with it.

Devo
12-10-2009, 06:19 PM
I actually think the new Slave Leia looks great...well I'm using the sitting legs so I'm mainly talking about the shoulder, elbow and mid-torso joints. I don't think they could have hidden the joints any better than they did, I think the figure has retained feminine scale and feminine proportions. The articulated legs are OK too although theres ugly lines going through her bum and the legs are a bit short, a bit too 'un-idealised' for me. I use the POTJ version as my standing/action Slave Leia.

If they were doing a new one though it had to be and was always going to be an SA one. What would have been the point in doing another one with only basic POA when we have the POTJ one that still has a good sculpt to this day? Might aswell just rerelease that again. So if it was going to be new it had to be SA.

On the softgoods issue theres 2 things that trouble me: I'm noticing people looking for Royal guard updates....with softgoods. Why? In what way do they think a 2009 attempt at SG on that character would be any different than the 2005 attempt? Likewise with the Emperor. Also I hate that Hasbro is now unlikely to go from softgoods back to all-plastic. They'll remake an all-plastic figure and give it softgoods but they won't go the other way and they won't offer two versions of the figure to cater for the people who absolutely hate softgoods. Theres a few figures now that had never been made before which are being given softgoods and when these look crap theres no prior plastic version to fall back on.

Old Fossil
12-10-2009, 09:37 PM
This is how I see it:

In the Original Trilogy:

Who needs extra articulation:
Heroes: Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie, Ben, Threepio, Lando (in all their incarnations)
Army-builders: Tuskens, Imperial Troops, Rebel pilots (need to sit, climb ladders, pose in their vehicles)
"Action" villains: Vader, Fett and the Bounty Hunters

Who doesn't need extra articulation, just a great sculpt:
The Emperor
Cantina aliens (need to sit, mainly)
background aliens from Bespin & Jabba's Palace
secondary heroes & villains (Lars family, )
Rebel & Imperial officers, Imp. dignitaries, Emperor's Royal Guards
Bespin security & citizens, Ugnaughts
Yoda

Jawas, I'm not sure.

In the Prequels:

Who needs extra articulation:
Heroes (Obi-Wan, Padme, Ep.2,3 Anakin)
Primary villains (Dooku, Maul, Jango Fett, Greivous, probably Sidious)
Clone Troopers (including pilots & elite guards)
most Jedi, probably including Yoda
Trade Federation droids (humanoid type)

Who doesn't need extra articulation:
most background characters (Senators, Trade Federation bosses, pod racers)

Not much rhyme or reason to that, really.

morpheus282
12-10-2009, 10:01 PM
I disagree. The line is for kids, so the goal is to make the best toy possible. What good is a figure that only achieves one stance, even if it is a film accurate stance? You can only play with that toy in one context and that makes it a pretty worthless toy. Kids know that the more ways to bend a figure the more fun it is and frankly I agree.


I think that's what we keep losing sight of. If not for the kids, we'd either be collecting figures from 77-85 or we'd be paying $15 or more a figure.


Who says that just because Malakili never rode a speeder bike in ROTJ he shouldn't be able to?

Malakili on a speeder bike. lol I'll be stuck with that image for a while.



I've also bought several versions of figures that I've previously had just because the new versions weren't in "frozen" poses.

Ditto. I even got the new commander Deviss even though the first (and unnamed) release is currently inside my AT-AT along with the green version. The added articulation makes the new one far superior to the old. Bacara is the same story. The one thing I will say on the negative side is that outside of clones and stormtroopers Hasbro is doing a less than spectacular job of hiding a lot of the joints.

JediTricks
12-10-2009, 10:03 PM
Don't forget to tell those kids to get off your lawns, too. And how you used to walk to school 15 miles, in the snow, up hill... both ways. And how the 1978 Skylark was a better car than these new-fangled pieces of crap with their GSPs and their BBS brakes and their FM radios.

There are clearly positives and negatives to articulation, but these are supposed to be poseable action figures, not chess pieces (hi Tycho!). Quick quiz: Which one of these figures can be poses running to the cannon or swinging onto the skiff?
http://www.rebelscum.com/photo.asp?image=/TLC/Basic/BD17Leia/LC-1452.jpg

My biggest complaint about the aesthetics on the new Leia there is that they used a very thick paint that hides what accuracy there may be in the sculpt and makes her look more generic. I prefer the likeness on the POTJ version in the middle only slightly because of its gentle, thin work on the deco, as well as the superior chain and hair, but the legs are a bizarre pose and ugly as sin at the hips.

Every figure should have a head that can be posed in an expressive manner, and ankles that can let it stand in a myriad of poses, and arms that can go out to the sides. Not every figure needs knee, elbow, or wrists, but most do. Knee articulation is less important than ankle articulation. Try posing a figure using ankle articulation without knee and you'll find it easy, try the reverse with knee articulation and no ankles and you'll find it next to impossible. The majority of figures aren't suffering from the aesthetics you are complaining about, but some of you guys seem to be of the mind that the baby needs to be thrown out with the bathwater.

But that's ok, I understand how it is for some of you geezers. You want your figures to be able to raise their arms and legs like they did in 1978, and anything else is wasteful, dagnabit. If every figure from SW doesn't move like a robot, it's ugly and evil and wrong! Back to the salt shakers of POTF2, right?

PS - please tell me you guys responding here are OPENING your figures. I'd hate to think I'm wasting my time arguing with people who don't even attempt to pose their figures.

DarkJedi5
12-10-2009, 10:33 PM
I even got the new commander Deviss even though the first (and unnamed) release is currently inside my AT-AT along with the green version. The added articulation makes the new one far superior to the old.

According to the photos I've seen Deviss is a straight repaint, no new articulation... am I missing something?



PS - please tell me you guys responding here are OPENING your figures. I'd hate to think I'm wasting my time arguing with people who don't even attempt to pose their figures.

Well, I'm pro articulation but I'm also an opener too. Maybe I'm just a kid at heart but there's no way I could leave a figure in the package, I can't even make it home sometimes without opening one up in the car (though, I've spent subsequent hours trying to find comlinks and blasters). I guess in the end, these are toys and they're for kids. Now, I won't say that they should be made whichever way makes them appeal to kids. I hate action features and superfluous missiles on vehicles are something I could do without but I'd rather the Cloud Car gets made, even if it does come with pop out missiles and whatnot.

TheDarthVader
12-10-2009, 10:37 PM
When the articulation is too much and makes the figure looks stupid is where I draw the line with it. I mean, sometimes enough is enough. Most of the time, I enjoy the added articulation. :) But some figures do not need so much of it.

bigbarada
12-10-2009, 10:39 PM
Who's with me?

Not me.


1) Some characters just do not need more than the basic articulation. This is not to say a salt-shaker abomination like ROTJ Mon Mothma is acceptable. However, who really wants to position Malakili doing the hokey pokey? The guy just stands there! That's all he does! He's lame! There's no reason to make him do anything but stand there! I could say the same about so many other characters. Does Sio Bibble need to breakdance? Do you need Uncle Owen practicing the flying crane kick from The Karate Kid? If you answered yes to either of those questions, I pity you.

I think you are missing the point of what action figures were originally meant to be. They're not intended to force kids into limited play patterns, only allowing them to endlessly recreate specific scenes in the movies over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, ad nauseum. The very best action figures act as a springboard for kid's imaginations. They not only allow them to recreate a scene in the film, they allow them to expand upon the movies in a way that is only limited by their own minds.

If some kid wants to make Snaggletooth into an X-Wing Pilot, then who are we to say that he is wrong? I think Kenner had it right in the old days of the figure line: their goal was to make EVERY figure compatible with EVERY vehicle and accessory (of course that wasn't always possible, but that's beside the point). Nowadays we have collectors complaining that a certain figure is given knee joints when that particular character was never shown sitting down. I'm sorry, but I think that's dumb.


2) Articulation simply does not work on some figures, particularly females and figures that have exposed skin on joints. Yarna suffered because exposed flesh looks awful when joints are added. Period. There is no exception to this. Slave Leia is a beautiful sculpt, but the joints look like crap, and bring the figure down several notches. The only part that looks great? The one-piece alternate lower body, which has how many points of articulation? Zero! Don't even get me started on that abomination that was SOTE Leia, or how jacked-up both Bultar Swan figures look.

I find it kind of ironic that this statement is coming from a GI Joe fan. A line that is notorious for not even making an attempt to hide the metal rivets and screws that hold their figures together.

Also, like JT said, only a few figure seriously suffer from aesthetically unpleasing joints. I think the instances where it is done well far outweigh the occasional instance where super-articulation is done poorly.

El Chuxter
12-11-2009, 12:34 AM
I actually agree that every figure should work with every vehicle. I think it's problematic that most vehicles require specialized articulation on the figures to sit in them.

I have no problem with articulation if it looks good. I have to disagree; there are way too many figures with ugly joints. This is probably going to be a plastic/soft goods debate, with no end, but I think there are more bad joints than well-done ones in the current line. If it works, great. But no figure should be defaced by ugly joints, particularly if it's, say, a fat guy with no shirt who just stands there or a fat woman with six boobs who just stands there, no reason to have fugly joints on them. Exposed skin + joint = ugly.

The current GIJoe line is actually handled better, for the most part, than Star Wars. The only visible connectors are small screws on the inner thighs, and, though there are shortcomings (the shoulders), they are consistent. I don't have to display a Lady Jaye with lousy shoulder joints next to a Flint who doesn't have the same problem. Display Ephant Mon next to hyperarticulated Leia, they don't look right together. (I do hate that every Major Bludd lacks a right elbow joint, simply because it could've been done easily, and the design of his armor/cybernetic doesn't seem to indicate it should be stiff.)

As for kids, there's a difference between cutting out a couple of joints and a salt shaker. I said before, salt shakers aren't acceptable. But if you're trying to appeal to both kids and adults, why put a crappy looking wrist or ankle joint where it's not necessary? Kids will not miss a joint, or, if they do, they're less likely to care. I know you, like me, probably thought it sucked that the vintage Gammorrean hand a fused hand and couldn't move his head. But no one took their Gammorreans back to the store to exchange them for better articulated figures. Kids can and will use their imaginations. I'm not saying to rob them totally of poseable figures, but, on a figure who's unlikely to appeal to kids, go with what looks best. In some cases, this might include a bazillion points of articulation. In others, it won't.

My main issue is the number of collectors asking to re-do figures to add additional joints. I'd prefer resculpts be done based on lacking sculpts (though, for figures like Mon Mothma or the Imperial Guard or the Weequay, I'd make an exception).

JT, you really can't disagree without saying "geezer," can you, Doombot? :p It's not at all a love for unarticulated figures. It's a matter of what figures I want to spend money on. If I've got $5 $6 $7.50 to use on a figure, I'd rather get something new or dramatically improved as opposed to, say, re-doing Dengar and giving him knee joints. Especially given the dire straits Hasbro says the line is in, I'd rather get the figures that (I think) need to be done first, and I'd prefer not to pass on anything (though, at $7.50 a pop, I won't hesitate to if I don't think a figure is worth the price). I'd disagree with you to an extent on ankle articulation; however, I'd say that Hasbro should actually get right the balance on their figures to begin with. The inability to stand figures has been a problem since 1995, and was pretty rare in the vintage line.

I said articulation is overrated; I didn't say it was evil. I see a lot of people who seem to think it's the be-all-end-all in deciding what each figure should be like and which figures should be revisited.

JediTricks
12-11-2009, 04:53 AM
Well, I'm pro articulation but I'm also an opener too. Maybe I'm just a kid at heart but there's no way I could leave a figure in the package, I can't even make it home sometimes without opening one up in the car (though, I've spent subsequent hours trying to find comlinks and blasters). I guess in the end, these are toys and they're for kids. Now, I won't say that they should be made whichever way makes them appeal to kids. I hate action features and superfluous missiles on vehicles are something I could do without but I'd rather the Cloud Car gets made, even if it does come with pop out missiles and whatnot.Oh man, you have it bad. I've learned to not open figures until I get home, I treasure each accessory too much now.



When the articulation is too much and makes the figure looks stupid is where I draw the line with it. I mean, sometimes enough is enough. Most of the time, I enjoy the added articulation. :) But some figures do not need so much of it.Will you cite numerous examples to support your claim? I am curious to see if you think this is a common occurrence or a rarity. I'd hate for 1 bad apple to cast aspersions upon the rest of the line.


I actually agree that every figure should work with every vehicle. I think it's problematic that most vehicles require specialized articulation on the figures to sit in them.And the same question to you, can you cite numerous examples to support this claim? I cannot think of SW vehicles that suffer from this aside from Zam's Speeder which doesn't hold ANY figure for crap regardless of articulation, and the Homing Spider Droid & Octuptarra Droid which share a cockpit interior and require bending knees. Keep in mind though, that's out of 98 vehicles in the modern line. The Ep 2 Jedi Starfighter is a tight squeeze, but it's straight-leggedly so.


there are way too many figures with ugly joints. [...] I think there are more bad joints than well-done ones in the current line.Cite a decent volume of modern examples that you feel fit the criteria from an objective standpoint.


But no figure should be defaced by ugly joints, particularly if it's, say, [...] a fat woman with six boobs who just stands there, no reason to have fugly joints on them.This was a particularly odd example, since you're clearly talking about Yarna but in her ample amount of screen time, there is no moment where she is merely "standing there". Just about every second of her scene she is dancing and moving and reacting to Oola's death.


I think there are more bad joints than well-done ones in the current line. If it works, great. But no figure should be defaced by ugly joints [...] Exposed skin + joint = ugly.Interesting, you claim there are more bad joints than good, and that the problem is when unclothed areas are represented by joints, but I am not seeing a large number of figures that fit the criteria of "nude joints", certainly not more than ones without.


The current GIJoe line is actually handled better, for the most part, than Star Wars. The only visible connectors are small screws on the inner thighs, and, though there are shortcomings (the shoulders), they are consistent.So, you don't mind the gappy, riveted knees that don't even rotate above the knee? Or the generic ball-style hips that have no form? I mean, those hips are uglier than the oversized shoulders you called out. And the other joints aside from those, the head, elbows, wrists, and ankles, are all cribbed from the SW line. I just don't get this.


Display Ephant Mon next to hyperarticulated Leia, they don't look right together. No, because Leia doesn't have an obviously articulated jaw, nor ugly cut-joint shoulders, nor is she a nigh-immobile alien statue in the film.


As for kids, there's a difference between cutting out a couple of joints and a salt shaker. I said before, salt shakers aren't acceptable.Yes, they should have 2 more joints than the standard salt shaker! That's the big difference you're calling out here. 2 joints. Great for sitting in vehicles, terrible for any other play experience except goosestepping. Actually, those classic figures were all great at goosestepping, but not so much for play. When I was a kid actually playing with the figures back in the day, GI Joe was awesome over SW because those Joes could pose and move and fight and express and they could sit in vehicles that didn't just have 90-degree chairs, and for the time they looked really good with that articulation.


But if you're trying to appeal to both kids and adults, why put a crappy looking wrist or ankle joint where it's not necessary?Ankle joints are pretty much always necessary. Not just for posing, for making a figure stand, and for keeping thin-walled legs from wilting (see prequel droids that have ankles vs those without). And aside from 2 Leia figures, what other evidence do you present against the ankle joints?

And what evidence do you present against the wrist joint at all? (I can cite the deep joints on the Clone Wars figures that go too far into the palm of the hands, but I'm not the one levying this claim, and it's an otherwise uncommon issue.)


My main issue is the number of collectors asking to re-do figures to add additional joints. I'd prefer resculpts be done based on lacking sculpts (though, for figures like Mon Mothma or the Imperial Guard or the Weequay, I'd make an exception).I think that's a cheap characterization of those collectors who are asking for modern-quality sculpts, decos, and yes, articulation. Generally the ones that are asking for articulation only, like our recent Aayla question, are asking for figures to not be stuck in weird poses or who can only do the Robot, or can't even emulate their 1 significant scene.


JT, you really can't disagree without saying "geezer," can you, Doombot? :pI could, if you guys could make an argument that didn't come off so geezerly, Gramps. :D


It's a matter of what figures I want to spend money on. If I've got $5 $6 $7.50 to use on a figure, I'd rather get something new or dramatically improved as opposed to, say, re-doing Dengar and giving him knee joints.Then go do that, and don't buy the figures you don't want. Nobody's making you buy re-dos. There are lots of new figures alongside a few re-dos, though as I pointed out, you're not exactly hopping up and down when those precious new figs come out either. So it comes off like you're just grousing for grousing's sake, like a geezer. :p Alls I'm saying iz, if the Depend undergarments fit, Chux...


I'd disagree with you to an extent on ankle articulation; however, I'd say that Hasbro should actually get right the balance on their figures to begin with. The inability to stand figures has been a problem since 1995, and was pretty rare in the vintage line.Well, I've already made some really good cases above, not to mention the whole point that with ankle articulation, you can now use that hip articulation for something other than sitting flat on the ground. But it's not exactly a surprise that vintage figures could all stand, they were all based on a rigid body pose which lacked all dynamic appeal, they stood there like anamatronic Abe Lincoln before someone pushes his 'on' button. | - "what am I?" A Kenner vintage Star Wars figure.

Qui-Long Gone
12-11-2009, 12:12 PM
PS - please tell me you guys responding here are OPENING your figures. I'd hate to think I'm wasting my time arguing with people who don't even attempt to pose their figures.

I open all my figures but don't diarama pose them, but I would say I "action" pose them.....

I love articulation, but on some joints/figures it certianly fails. In general, articulation seems to work flawlessly on most clone/storm troopers, most Cantina/Jabba aliens, Ewoks, Droids, Vaders, and creatures with fur (i.e. Chewie).

*Old Fossil, I agree with you're list....*

As I've said in our DS2 Luke thread, I think some of the heroes articulation is improving (surprisingly), and while I haven't lowered my "expectations," I think that figure (along with the ANH stormtrooper-Solo, slave Leia [wish the paint wasn't so strong], and most Obi-Wans) proves that you can get a good articulation out of a main figure.

I'll go further and say that I think my expectations are so high on main figures that Hasbro will never sculpt and articulate them to my unrealistic aesthetic pleasure...but they're doing a heck of a job on recent (ANH Solo with half stormtrooper gear notwithstanding) figs so I'll keep collecting. The ANH jedi Luke 4-pack jedi resurgence (whatev it's called) is the next big buy on my list....

*I would like them to re-release the VOTC ANH Solo so I can own one! For now, my ultimate Solo goes unrealized....

TheDarthVader
12-11-2009, 02:55 PM
JT, sure! here are some examples:

1. sandstorm han looks like he has two baseballs for knees
2. there are gaps in illum padme's knees where it is not flush due to the knee articulation
3. fx-6 has too many freakin parts that i could hardly figure out where all of those little top pieces go...then you try to pose them and they fall out
4. captain needa has swollen knees...did they swell up from bowing to vader excessively? plus if his ankle is not put together near perfectly you get a figure with (what I call) the funky foot...that is, where the foot does not smoothly mesh up to the ankle. it is usually sideways.
5. attack of the clones bd44 obi wan kenobi's elbows and needs suffer from the funky syndrome
6. beru's elbows look like poop

those are about the only legacy issues i can find right now. :D

Snowtrooper
12-11-2009, 05:50 PM
I'm all for as much articulation that they can put onto a figure. I think that, for the most part, Hasbro has done a pretty good job with joints. As mentioned before, having good articulation on figures allows kids and collectors to use the figures in multiple ways.

The only argument I could make for less articulation would be for figures that have plastic robes or dresses. Figures like Breha and several Padmes have small feet that stick out of the bottom of the dresses and are usually uneven, making them hard to stand up. For these, I'd almost prefer a "salt shaker" type of a figure, if done correctly of course.

Old Fossil
12-11-2009, 08:02 PM
6. beru's elbows look like poop


Could you be more specific? Cat, dog, cow, horse, chicken...? We need to examine this more closely. There may be other instances of poop-elbows in the Legacy collection that have not yet been addressed.

:love:

morpheus282
12-11-2009, 09:18 PM
According to the photos I've seen Deviss is a straight repaint, no new articulation... am I missing something?

Nope, it was me. I thought they'd changed something on it, but after putting them side by side I notice that my love of clones has caused me to re-purchase the same figure.

D'oh!

Mr. JabbaJohnL
12-13-2009, 02:18 PM
I'm on JT's side with this one. There are a few examples of bad articulation - DSII Luke's shoulders, SOTE Leia's knees (though that figure is so irrelevant to me I really couldn't care less) - but on the whole, it's done really well. I do feel that most characters need articulation, and that it rarely looks bad. I take issue with a few figures' joints because they're done so poorly - TAC Mace Windu's elbows and Malakili's knees come to mind immediately, and that's an issue with the way they sculpted the fabric draping and them not integrating the articulation well enough on those examples. But I honestly don't know why you cited the Bultar Swan figures as being poorly done, Chux.

Devo
12-13-2009, 07:21 PM
It seems we each have different ideas about what poorly done articulation is. JT can't stand the knee joints and swivel elbows on the saga Jabbas palace Luke while I would far prefer those over the bulbous knees and elbows of TAC Jabbas palace Luke (and DSII luke being just a kitbash of that one). Some people don't like the knees on the ROTS Count Dooku which is something I find baffling as I think they're perfectly integrated. The evolutions version looks like hes wearing knee-guards in addition to his boots!

Its hard to get any kind of consensus.

TheDarthVader
12-13-2009, 11:10 PM
Thanks Devo. Yes, for me, integration is the determining factor as to whether or not articulation works for a figure.

JediTricks
12-14-2009, 05:50 AM
I open all my figures but don't diarama pose them, but I would say I "action" pose them.....Same here.



JT, sure! here are some examples:

1. sandstorm han looks like he has two baseballs for knees
2. there are gaps in illum padme's knees where it is not flush due to the knee articulation
3. fx-6 has too many freakin parts that i could hardly figure out where all of those little top pieces go...then you try to pose them and they fall out
4. captain needa has swollen knees...did they swell up from bowing to vader excessively? plus if his ankle is not put together near perfectly you get a figure with (what I call) the funky foot...that is, where the foot does not smoothly mesh up to the ankle. it is usually sideways.
5. attack of the clones bd44 obi wan kenobi's elbows and needs suffer from the funky syndrome
6. beru's elbows look like poop

those are about the only legacy issues i can find right now. :D1) Sandstorm Han uses the 2004 VOTC Han knees, one of the earliest adopters of "super-articulation".
2) I don't really see the gaps with Padme Ilum, in fact, I can't even find a picture of such a thing.
3) I have FX-6 on my desk right here, I don't have anything falling off, but it's not really fair to call out articulation with this example.
4) Needa is reusing the legs from 2007's Death Star Trooper figure, which had puffier pants from the boots. That said, that figure doesn't quite nail the look so it comes off weak. Not seeing this "funky foot" issue though.
5) I don't know about Obi-Wan's needs being funky. The knees and elbows are a little boxy perhaps though.
6) They ain't great, but it's lil' Beru so I dunno how much I care.

In any case, it's not only subjective, but also not an overwhelming number.


It seems we each have different ideas about what poorly done articulation is. JT can't stand the knee joints and swivel elbows on the saga Jabbas palace Luke while I would far prefer those over the bulbous knees and elbows of TAC Jabbas palace Luke (and DSII luke being just a kitbash of that one). Some people don't like the knees on the ROTS Count Dooku which is something I find baffling as I think they're perfectly integrated. The evolutions version looks like hes wearing knee-guards in addition to his boots!

Its hard to get any kind of consensus.While to some degree this topic is subjective, I really cannot see how you can place Saga and TAC Luke Palace side by side and not find the crap knees on Saga Luke to be wanting. The "bulbous" nature is a design choice representing the way the pant legs meet the boots, and even if you don't care for that choice, there's still the Saga figure's horrible knee articulation gaps, as seen here:
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa158/JediTricks/img1260791130747.jpg
which TAC Luke doesn't have:
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa158/JediTricks/img1260791130268.jpg
(And that's not even counting how the Saga knee joint looks from the side and the big cuts into the fronts and they're the horrible kind of knee joint that bends forwards as easily as back.)

ROTS Dooku's knees look good standing, but are total garbage kneeling because they bend beneath the knee (http://www.rebelscum.com/photo.asp?image=/ROTS/rots0513dookuspoiler1.jpg). It's hard to get past that, he looks like he just broke his legs.

As for a consensus, that means a majority, it doesn't mean 100% agreement, and I think the consensus seems to be on articulation's side here.

Devo
12-14-2009, 12:32 PM
While to some degree this topic is subjective, I really cannot see how you can place Saga and TAC Luke Palace side by side and not find the crap knees on Saga Luke to be wanting.

Well I feel the same the other way. Sure if you hold the saga figure up against backlighting to clearly illustrate the gaps in the knees it comes off worse. But thats not what I'd call the normal viewing condition for the figure and I just don't feel the gaps are that evident when you're simply holding the figure in your hand. In fact I wonder did you get a badly put together example of the figure because mine doesn't seem that bad. And the saga figure better represents Hamills proportions and build. DSII luke is effectively a POTF2 figure. Bulky limbs, bulky torso, skinny waist. The joints on the TAC and DSII Luke figures seem to determine the bulkiness of his limbs overall - Hasbro could easily have made these joints smaller, as they have done on countless other figures, and accordingly the limbs could have been more in proportion.



ROTS Dooku's knees look good standing, but are total garbage kneeling because they bend beneath the knee (http://www.rebelscum.com/photo.asp?image=/ROTS/rots0513dookuspoiler1.jpg). It's hard to get past that, he looks like he just broke his legs.

I disagree. I don't think he 'looks like' hes broken his legs. I think it might be perceived that it looks like he has broken his legs because you know the leg is bending below the knee which is not natural but in fact it actually looks fine. Bending the ''knee'' doesn't create an unnatural length to either the upper or lower legs - the knee remains where its supposed to be. I don't see a problem. And the alternative, the evolutions Dooku, as I said looks like hes wearing a kneeguard the way the sculpted pantleg juts out when the knee is bent. Its quite likely not something I would have complained about if we didn't already have the basic figure...which also has a better likeness and range of arm motion I might add.


As for a consensus, that means a majority, it doesn't mean 100% agreement, and I think the consensus seems to be on articulation's side here.

I'm pro-articulation too, but I'd prefer if it was more consistently well integrated into figures. Ball joint heads seem to be getting better but shoulders and ankles are increasingly coming up with poor examples. Ankle issues range from adding too much bulk (TAC luke, new scanning crewman, SOTE Leia), having a hinge which is a different colour to the rest of the boot/foot (I'm sure everyone can think of some examples themselves) and improper connection with the leg - resulting in gaps, and positions that are at odds making the ankle appear..yeah..'broken' in this case. Captain Needa is one. I'm not sure but I think the Hoth rebel is another. Oh and also the recent TPM and AOTC versions of Obi-wan.

Qui-Long Gone
12-14-2009, 01:55 PM
(And that's not even counting how the Saga knee joint looks from the side and the big cuts into the fronts and they're the horrible kind of knee joint that bends forwards as easily as back.)

JT, my favorite thing about those two photos is the Thread background! That has nothing to do with this thread, but it struke me as funny thinking of you holding the two Luke's by the arm and dangling them in front of your computer. :D

Back to the discussion! Because of how I keep most of my loose figures in some sort of pose, in general (read: with exceptions), most of the bulbous joints aren't too big a hassle. For example, I have found a couple of nice poses for DS2 Luke that "hide" some the joint flaws on that figure...

JediTricks
12-14-2009, 05:09 PM
Well I feel the same the other way. Sure if you hold the saga figure up against backlighting to clearly illustrate the gaps in the knees it comes off worse. But thats not what I'd call the normal viewing condition for the figure and I just don't feel the gaps are that evident when you're simply holding the figure in your hand.Then:
http://www.rebelscum.com/photo.asp?image=/swsaga/sw0404lukejedifront.jpg
you're:
http://www.yakface.com/TGuide2004/ActionFigures/saga/0404jediluke/lf2.html
not:
http://starwars.carrotnetwork.com/reviews/2004/lukeskywalker/jabbaspalace/04.jpg
trying:
http://www.yakface.com/TGuide2004/ActionFigures/saga/0404jediluke/lb2.html
hard:
http://www.rebelscum.com/photo.asp?image=/swsaga/sw0404lukejediback.jpg
enough:
http://starwars.carrotnetwork.com/reviews/2004/lukeskywalker/jabbaspalace/06.jpg


In fact I wonder did you get a badly put together example of the figure because mine doesn't seem that bad.I own at least 3 of this mold before re-releases and this is the standard build quality, which I think I've demonstrated quite well by citing 3 other, totally unrelated sites' photos of the same problem with different lighting conditions. I think you're remembering this figure through rose-tinted glasses rather than seeing it for how it actually is. Look at the elbows in those photos, those don't look good as you claimed, they look terrible, all mismatched when not moved to the 1 native alignment.


I disagree. I don't think he 'looks like' hes broken his legs. I think it might be perceived that it looks like he has broken his legs because you know the leg is bending below the knee which is not natural but in fact it actually looks fine. Bending the ''knee'' doesn't create an unnatural length to either the upper or lower legs - the knee remains where its supposed to be. I don't see a problem.I don't understand what you are saying, you are directly contradicting what the figure is showing, that the leg is bending BENEATH the sculpted knee - the only way a human body can do that is if the leg is broken. The knee has to bend in the middle of the knee to be believable articulation, if it bends above or below it does not correspond to human anatomy, which is the case here.



JT, my favorite thing about those two photos is the Thread background! That has nothing to do with this thread, but it struke me as funny thinking of you holding the two Luke's by the arm and dangling them in front of your computer. :DIt has everything to do with this thread, those pics were taken in front of my monitor displaying THIS thread. :p I'm holding both Lukes by the head, not the arm. I didn't want to get my camera out and my cellphone doesn't have a flash, so that was the only way to get light onto the subject last night, but I didn't want to screw up their poses so holding them by the head was the only option.

Devo
12-14-2009, 07:22 PM
Then:
http://www.rebelscum.com/photo.asp?image=/swsaga/sw0404lukejedifront.jpg
you're:
http://www.yakface.com/TGuide2004/ActionFigures/saga/0404jediluke/lf2.html
not:
http://starwars.carrotnetwork.com/reviews/2004/lukeskywalker/jabbaspalace/04.jpg
trying:
http://www.yakface.com/TGuide2004/ActionFigures/saga/0404jediluke/lb2.html
hard:
http://www.rebelscum.com/photo.asp?image=/swsaga/sw0404lukejediback.jpg
enough:
http://starwars.carrotnetwork.com/reviews/2004/lukeskywalker/jabbaspalace/06.jpg

I like what you did there. :D You've gone to some trouble to make your point. However, even so, give me a few cut lines over a joint that affects the whole size and shape of the leg in a negative way any day.



I think you're remembering this figure through rose-tinted glasses rather than seeing it for how it actually is. Look at the elbows in those photos, those don't look good as you claimed, they look terrible, all mismatched when not moved to the 1 native alignment.

Its not as though I would never be prepared to like a jedi luke figure more than the 2004 one. I just don't think any of them from 07 onwards are an improvement in any way. I never said the elbows looked good. I just find them the lesser of the two evils that we have here. Ball joints could look great there if they're appropriately sized and they don't look like some kind of ganglion cyst. Clearly you think that is the lesser problem and this is where its subjective.


I don't understand what you are saying, you are directly contradicting what the figure is showing, that the leg is bending BENEATH the sculpted knee - the only way a human body can do that is if the leg is broken. The knee has to bend in the middle of the knee to be believable articulation, if it bends above or below it does not correspond to human anatomy, which is the case here.

The point is it doesn't matter how it is bending, only what it really looks like when bent. I mean yeah if I suddenly found my leg bending below the knee I'd be a tad worried and it wouldn't just be a case of 'yeah but as long as it "looks" alright' but we're only talking about an action figure here. I have it in front of me now with the knees bent and it doesn't look unnatural at all - why care by what unnatural means it got into that position?

Old Fossil
12-14-2009, 09:51 PM
Who says that just because Malakili never rode a speeder bike in ROTJ he shouldn't be able to?

Malakili would likely think you're on to something there.

2-1B
12-14-2009, 11:29 PM
I agree with Chux. My ROTS 2-1B has too much articulation...the knee joints aren't needed and they just make his legs weaker. :(
The 1980 and 1997 versions were definitely superior with less articulation.
And better material, I suppose.

Droid
12-15-2009, 09:42 AM
I agree with Chux. My ROTS 2-1B has too much articulation...the knee joints aren't needed and they just make his legs weaker. :(
The 1980 and 1997 versions were definitely superior with less articulation.
And better material, I suppose.

He's going to say that is the fault of the material used and the effects aging has on those materials over time, not the articulation.

Snowtrooper
12-15-2009, 01:10 PM
Malakili would likely think you're on to something there.

Like the pic. I didn't know Leia was into bald, fat dudes.

Qui-Long Gone
12-15-2009, 04:23 PM
Malakili would likely think you're on to something there.

That pic is so wrong it's right...

El Chuxter
12-20-2009, 01:49 AM
Another example of craptacular articulation gone wrong: Jeremoch Colton. Why give him ball-jointed shoulders if you can't use them without a hideous exposed hinge poking out? And why not give such a one-note background old man figure knee joints rather than ill-executed shoulder joints?

sebillba
12-20-2009, 01:58 AM
Another example of craptacular articulation gone wrong: Jeremoch Colton. Why give him ball-jointed shoulders if you can't use them without a hideous exposed hinge poking out? And why not give such a one-note background old man figure knee joints rather than ill-executed shoulder joints?

He does have knees as well. http://www.rebelscum.com/photo.asp?image=/TLC/Basic/BD42Colton/LC-1743.jpg

El Chuxter
12-20-2009, 02:13 AM
D'oh! I knew there was something that struck me as not right about him right out of the package, but it wasn't the lack knees. I just checked him: his hip joints are totally vintage-styled, making the knee and ankle borderline useless.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
12-20-2009, 01:08 PM
D'oh! I knew there was something that struck me as not right about him right out of the package, but it wasn't the lack knees. I just checked him: his hip joints are totally vintage-styled, making the knee and ankle borderline useless.
What is "vintage-styled"? And he doesn't have ankle articulation; his legs are recycled from the 2005 Bail Organa figure.

El Chuxter
12-20-2009, 01:10 PM
Jeez, I'm going to actually hold the bloody figure in front of me next time I critique it. :crazed: In any case, legs = limited. Shoulders = wonky. Otherwise = nice figure.

JediTricks
12-20-2009, 03:56 PM
The point is it doesn't matter how it is bending, only what it really looks like when bent. I mean yeah if I suddenly found my leg bending below the knee I'd be a tad worried and it wouldn't just be a case of 'yeah but as long as it "looks" alright' but we're only talking about an action figure here. I have it in front of me now with the knees bent and it doesn't look unnatural at all - why care by what unnatural means it got into that position?It doesn't LOOK natural. It looks like he broke his leg, that was my point all along. It LOOKS wrong when moved that way. It looks like he's an amputee kneeling on top of some boots.


Malakili would likely think you're on to something there.Winner!!!


I agree with Chux. My ROTS 2-1B has too much articulation...the knee joints aren't needed and they just make his legs weaker. :( Loser!!! (the fig, not you) Mine is absolutely not having that trouble though, that is some weird business, shouldn't even be possible unless you set him up originally at a steep angle, he's not side-heavy.


He's going to say that is the fault of the material used and the effects aging has on those materials over time, not the articulation.Well, that is true enough, but also, the knee and ankle joints SHOULD have soaked up the energy that led to the wilt. If nothing else, they should have caused it to wilt inwards, not sideways. The directionality of this one is so odd.

I actually don't like how the knee joints on that figure, I think Hasbro got lazy and didn't design the legs to look very good, it should be a straight leg top to bottom (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:ROTS2-1bdroid.jpg) but the toy leg jogs out to the side beneath the knee. This isn't really germane to the articulation topic though, as it's not meant to be an organic-styled joint.


And why not give such a one-note background old man figure knee joints rather than ill-executed shoulder joints?His legs are reused from the Bail Organa figure.


D'oh! I knew there was something that struck me as not right about him right out of the package, but it wasn't the lack knees. I just checked him: his hip joints are totally vintage-styled, making the knee and ankle borderline useless.I don't understand what you mean by vintage-styled, but I think you're mistaken on part of that, the problem should be the lack of ankle articulation.


Jeez, I'm going to actually hold the bloody figure in front of me next time I critique it. :crazed: In any case, legs = limited. Shoulders = wonky. Otherwise = nice figure.Yeah, that might be wise. :p I haven't seen any pics of the shoulder hinges looking that bad either, it's not ideal but I've seen far worse lately.

Devo
12-21-2009, 12:26 AM
It doesn't LOOK natural. It looks like he broke his leg, that was my point all along. It LOOKS wrong when moved that way. It looks like he's an amputee kneeling on top of some boots.

It is clear this contest cannot be decided by our knowledge of articulation..but by our skills with a lightsaber! (Could I have come up with a better quote just now??!!:pleased: )

Seriously though, I disagree. I don't get why you think they look 'broken'. Any other figure in a kneeling position looks exactly the same. Thats why I think you're allowing your awareness that the joint is below the level of the knee to affect how you are visually perceiving it when it actually manages to look no more unnatural in the bent position than any other figure. Perhaps it should look wierd but I just don't see it to be so. It might help settle the matter if other people would lend their opinion but evidently no one else cares. :D ....I hope I don't regret saying that...

bigbarada
12-21-2009, 12:39 AM
It is clear this contest cannot be decided by our knowledge of articulation..but by our skills with a lightsaber! (Could I have come up with a better quote just now??!!:pleased: )

Seriously though, I disagree. I don't get why you think they look 'broken'. Any other figure in a kneeling position looks exactly the same. Thats why I think you're allowing your awareness that the joint is below the level of the knee to affect how you are visually perceiving it when it actually manages to look no more unnatural in the bent position than any other figure. Perhaps it should look wierd but I just don't see it to be so. It might help settle the matter if other people would lend their opinion but evidently no one else cares. :D ....I hope I don't regret saying that...

I never bought this figure, but judging by those pics on RS, those knees look a little strange to me.

Devo
12-22-2009, 02:20 PM
There was only one picture in the RS archive of the figure with a knee bent and yeah I agree that does look wierd. But thats a particularly bizarre pose and camera angle they chose for him, any figure would stand to look wierd with the same conditions. However if you have this figure kneeling (on both knees) before Anakin or if you attempt to have him seated (made impossible due to the plastic skirt) the knees do not look broken! They might look broken if there was an unnatural length to either the upper or lower leg but there isn't.

bigbarada
12-22-2009, 02:25 PM
There was only one picture in the RS archive of the figure with a knee bent and yeah I agree that does look wierd. But thats a particularly bizarre pose and camera angle they chose for him, any figure would stand to look wierd with the same conditions. However if you have this figure kneeling (on both knees) before Anakin or if you attempt to have him seated (made impossible due to the plastic skirt) the knees do not look broken! They might look broken if there was an unnatural length to either the upper or lower leg but there isn't.

When was that figure released? I think I've only actually bought one Count Dooku figure, ever, and that was the animated CW micro-series version from 2003 (http://www.rebelscum.com/CWanimatedDooku.asp).

Devo
12-22-2009, 03:11 PM
Its the 2005 ROTS Dooku basic figure I'm on about. I think I brought him up to illustrate how subjective a subject articulation is. Some people love it no matter what it looks like, some people love it as long as it looks good, some people have conflicting ideas about what looks good etc.