Old vs New comparison...
Hot Toys MMS Iron Man Mk1 DIECAST
- Thread starter chrisstbh
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 6,524
- Reaction score
- 4,968
Lol. Picking on the size of the figure aside, it does look really nice. And I think the original Tony sculpt with updated paint apps looks pretty good. But it’s 25% overpriced considering they just changed out some but not all plastic parts for diecast and threw in a cheap plastic riser stand.
Also, it seems that if you want to light up the LEDs, you have to also hear the annoying whir of the motorized fan; it’s a neat feature but the switch should have allowed you to toggle between just the lights or lights plus motor.
I do like the look with TWO flamethrowers going.
But in the end, I will keep my old v2 Mk I... based on the photo above, I kind of like the duller, scuffed iron as opposed to the more shiny, new v3.
The diecast means nothing to me, and the fact that its all up top just means he'll topple over easier.
But in the end, I will keep my old v2 Mk I... based on the photo above, I kind of like the duller, scuffed iron as opposed to the more shiny, new v3.
The diecast means nothing to me, and the fact that its all up top just means he'll topple over easier.
- Joined
- May 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 10,573
Yeah, 2.0 > Diecast for me on looks alone. That super high polished gloss just doesn't look right to me. Looks too much like it came out fresh from a new car factory. It would have looked fine if they had kept the iron/hammered in details like previously mentioned.
The weird part is the prototype looked perfectly fine. It had the higher gloss over the 2.0 while also maintaining the surface details on it. For some reason Hot Toys just threw all that detail away with production.
As a matter of fact, the entire figure lost all of its armor details from the prototype. Went from having surface detail to just being completely baby smooth in the final production version. Just bizarre and a big downgrade imo.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,637
- Reaction score
- 4,230
After all these Iron Man armours and War Machines over the years, I'm shocked they never did an Iron Monger 2.0.
But if this is their Mark I 're-do' effort, I guess it doesn't bode well for an Iron Monger down the line. As I recall the original was comically out of scale and I'm picturing a more shiny version of that one.
But if this is their Mark I 're-do' effort, I guess it doesn't bode well for an Iron Monger down the line. As I recall the original was comically out of scale and I'm picturing a more shiny version of that one.
Plus the thigh cracks.
- Joined
- May 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 10,573
A diecast with ratcheted joints would be awesome for a new Iron Monger. But zero chance Hot Toys any efforts in doing a new sculpt for that. They would 100% just reissue the original with a new paint on the same sculpt.After all these Iron Man armours and War Machines over the years, I'm shocked they never did an Iron Monger 2.0.
But if this is their Mark I 're-do' effort, I guess it doesn't bode well for an Iron Monger down the line. As I recall the original was comically out of scale and I'm picturing a more shiny version of that one.
jaztermareal
Super Freak
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 1,635
at this point the only way we will get a mk1 tht actually looks right next to the overly tall modern armors is to 3D print our own. HT just do not want to give us what we want until they have done at least 2 half assed versions first.
They are finally doing a MK3 that fits with the other figures but only after doing the MK3 in plastic, a plastic battle damaged version, a plastic construction version and the prior diecast version (not counting the gunmetal and blue versions too) before they finally decided to give us a "definitive" MK3 so following that pattern with HT having done 2 plastic MK1's and now this diecast one that isn't tall enough to fit with the other suits and is lacking detail they will finally make a beefy high detail 2.0 of the 2.0 of the 2.0 in 2030 that matches the current suits. Of course, by then a standard Iron Man figure will be 14.5 inches tall so it will look short /s
They are finally doing a MK3 that fits with the other figures but only after doing the MK3 in plastic, a plastic battle damaged version, a plastic construction version and the prior diecast version (not counting the gunmetal and blue versions too) before they finally decided to give us a "definitive" MK3 so following that pattern with HT having done 2 plastic MK1's and now this diecast one that isn't tall enough to fit with the other suits and is lacking detail they will finally make a beefy high detail 2.0 of the 2.0 of the 2.0 in 2030 that matches the current suits. Of course, by then a standard Iron Man figure will be 14.5 inches tall so it will look short /s
yacobschlomo
Super Freak
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2015
- Messages
- 681
- Reaction score
- 87
With some of the other updates - like Mark 7 and Mark 5 - the new figures blew the old ones out of the water. There was no questioning whether the new figure was worth the price to upgrade. Not so with this one. Just looking at the side-by-side comparison pic, I may even prefer the previous release if I just had him sitting in the display case as I have a lot of lights in my display and the shininess on this may look a bit artificial. .
Last edited:
Ok just to shed some light but not so much, I noticed the die cast one has the helmet sitted higher due to a bigger hinge also on the last pic from sideshow the 3.0 has more neck which make him taller than the 2.0 yes I know it's not much but at least there's something?
heres a side by side comparison with the 85 and it doesn't look that bad? also here's few headswaps from a reviewer i saw in YouTube. I gotta say having that mk5 suit up head on the mark 1 is beautiful.
heres a side by side comparison with the 85 and it doesn't look that bad? also here's few headswaps from a reviewer i saw in YouTube. I gotta say having that mk5 suit up head on the mark 1 is beautiful.
Attachments
Last edited:
Robert Downey Jr is a short guy, his height is 5’8” this means 68” (172cm), because this figure is ”true 1/6 scale”, so 68/6=11.33 inches tall is the accurate height for the figure inside the armor, the armor doesn’t add to much height, the boots sole are barely 2 inches tall. I understand the frustration, but we have to be honest, Robert Downey Jr is a short guy but is an excellent Tony Stark, and this figure is true 1/6 scale.
jaztermareal
Super Freak
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 1,635
we know all that, the issue is that the rest of the iron man line is overscaled, so if stood next to them it looks small. HT need consistency for the line to work, either go true 1:6 scale or go overscaled, mixed approach just ruins displays
Yeah but they upgraded the height of all the iron man armors, plus come hottoys isn't really that accurate in scale, black widow/Scarlett isn't that tiny compared to rdj and rdj isn't that small compared to Evans.
All people want is a consistent height between all the iron man armors or at least making the mark 1 a little bit taller so that it won't look out of place. I mean he did look huge in the movie
And if we are going to base it on height, hot toys or asmus or inart won't make a frodo figure with Elijah woods real height that would be crazy,it would be based on how he was shown in the movie
Attachments
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 6,524
- Reaction score
- 4,968
I agree that height comparison with the Mark 85 really isn’t all that bad. Honestly I think the figure looks really good, it’s just $100 overpriced.
The smoother shiny diecast metal look is maybe more accurate though?Yeah, 2.0 > Diecast for me on looks alone. That super high polished gloss just doesn't look right to me. Looks too much like it came out fresh from a new car factory. It would have looked fine if they had kept the iron/hammered in details like previously mentioned.
The weird part is the prototype looked perfectly fine. It had the higher gloss over the 2.0 while also maintaining the surface details on it. For some reason Hot Toys just threw all that detail away with production.
As a matter of fact, the entire figure lost all of its armor details from the prototype. Went from having surface detail to just being completely baby smooth in the final production version. Just bizarre and a big downgrade imo.
Last edited:
This thread is caught in 'groundhog day' mode.
Every few pages people complain about the height only for the revelation to be made that a lot of the other iron men are too tall more so than this one being too short. Followed, by shots of RDJ, the actual prop suit etc. Then pushed to the next page where people complain about the height.
Every few pages people complain about the height only for the revelation to be made that a lot of the other iron men are too tall more so than this one being too short. Followed, by shots of RDJ, the actual prop suit etc. Then pushed to the next page where people complain about the height.
- Joined
- May 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 10,573
That's why I said to me it doesn't look right the way they executed that. I'm fine with the smoother shiner look but it being void of any kind of surface detail or imperfection at all is my main problem. It's just a giant hunk of glossy smooth factory produced silver. Give it SOMETHING on the surface, anything at all. Some small bumps, grooves and surface detail besides the two dents.
I don't know, it just doesn't read like the correct metal/material that it should be to me.Regardless, this is never anything I would have picked up given their height issue so it is what it is. Just think their final execution of it looks off. Especially for being an upgrade figure to something that's 11 years old.
Last edited:
I love when people justify the figure height based on real-world actor's height... but give a pass to the crazy proportions of all the new armors... and apparently the new Tony's as well.
It's wrong, and you all know it. Don't hide behind lies. You can still like it... like liking a bad movie.
It's wrong, and you all know it. Don't hide behind lies. You can still like it... like liking a bad movie.
Interesting thing in that comparison with the Mk85 is that from the waist/hips down, they are the same length. It’s from the waist up where the Mk1 seems to be more squat.
The whole height discrepancy of older and newer figures—I consider this an older figure since it’s basically a diecast version of the 2.0– is definitely something I’ve been finding more often recently in my own collection. I finally opened a few of my older Cap figures to check on their pleather conditions and momentarily placed the original Winter Soldier next to EG Cap, and he just looks so tiny, it’s fairly comical. I didn’t think I was necessarily a stickler for exact scale, but it looks pretty odd for sure. So much that I don’t think I’d even want to keep the older figures now.
The whole height discrepancy of older and newer figures—I consider this an older figure since it’s basically a diecast version of the 2.0– is definitely something I’ve been finding more often recently in my own collection. I finally opened a few of my older Cap figures to check on their pleather conditions and momentarily placed the original Winter Soldier next to EG Cap, and he just looks so tiny, it’s fairly comical. I didn’t think I was necessarily a stickler for exact scale, but it looks pretty odd for sure. So much that I don’t think I’d even want to keep the older figures now.
Last edited:
Another HT issue: scale
Similar threads
