Marvel Figures

[enyawd72]

I've seen plenty of actual people with ginormous heads, so toys with them don't bother me too much.

I once I saw a guy at Wal-Mart who had the same body/head proportions as Mego 12" Captain America.

I can never un-see that. Never.

[thunderbolt]

Huedell I hear there is an opening...I bet you would fill it.

lol

[thunderbolt]

Jayraytee nothing Huedell says fits anything in your description. He routinely mocks because he encourages conflict. That's the only reason why he exists here. All I indicated to this individual is that EVERYONE who makes figures carries an enormous financial risk and to make such sweeping statements about their state of mind because of not being dissatisfied with every purchase was not exactly being fair or responsible in the process. His opinion on what he likes is one thing. Proclaiming that opinion to be the rationale for a company that is not listening and apparently doesn't care is something entirely different. All I attempted to do is offer some insight. ZICA/Castaway is not FTC. It's not reasonable or logical to assume FTC as a company can take over a year to sample heads. And the fact it came out that way doesn't mean they signed off on it to turn out that way. We've all seen examples (Paul and company included) where the end product was not what they thought they would get. Yet they still have to sell them now. No one wins on a factory miscue. So this idea they are sitting around enjoying this is really baseless. But to my point, I tried to inject some perspective instead of just taking sides for sake of product. This person went around that and tapped the class clown on the shoulder, which for me indicates their intent.

I don't think they enjoy making people frustrated, the repeated problem does make me lean towards a lack of concern on their part. It happened a lot at BBP and killed a couple lines. It could end up blowing the DC line for FTC. I know I passed on Bizarro, Solomon Kane and the Stooges because of the head issues.

[Ninersphan1]

Man the title to this thread in the FTC forum is just a big tease, I thought they had acquired the license and we were going to get FTC takes on the Marvel Megos

Not funny.

[huedell]

lol

Swear I'd laugh with you if I got the joke.

Seriously? Is this addressing bedroom tendencies? Weight issues? Evil? All of the above?

My satire piece on the other hand? Dare-I-say, whether you take the "OK, MIB41 your cheerleading had it coming" basis for my post, MIB's joke(?) was heavier on the crypticness.

It's really sad.

The ol' "He routinely mocks because he encourages conflict. That's the only reason why he exists here. " doesn't fly overall...it doesn't fly even if my post WAS overly cryptic... it doesn't fly if my post wasn't something you agree with...

and it PARTICULARLY Doesn't fly, because (as usual) the intent was pure---but in THIS Case MIB's sensitivity is really showing it's head.

What I mean is: Just what regarding FTC's issues, MIB's cheerleading and the subject matter isn't on point in the Murray FTC meme?

If I was MIB, I'd have to laugh----it's his sentiments to a TEE.

And he should be comfortable with that. Heck, I'm cool with it---despite my qualms with FTC and certain FTC defense stances, there's a part of that attitude (AND the Bill Murray character's speech too) that I respect and think is cool. Heck, even "I" cheerlead for FTC once in a while---AND, not to mention, I own a gazillion FTC figures (mostly thanks to D).

In the past months you've been totally overblowing stuff, so you're looking at the Murray FTC meme as an "attack"...but this is you simply liking FTCs machinations more than I, and then me finding a pop culture analogy I thought all of us could enjoy to comment on it.

So I beseech thee MIB, take down the generalizing a notch, cheerlead all ya want, and enjoy the discussion. I'm more than happy to apologize---but, as I said before, I posted that Murray FTC meme thinking there was absolutely nothing mean-spirited about it, while there was TONS that was on point and actually an attitude that I wouldn't be ashamed to "own" if I was you.

But since I've already been painted with this "conflict encourager" label---the truth and the humor falls on some deaf ears.

I don't know if it'll help MIB---but, sincere public apologies if I hurt your feelings.

[ZICA]

ZICA/Castaway is not FTC. It's not reasonable or logical to assume FTC as a company can take over a year to sample heads. And the fact it came out that way doesn't mean they signed off on it to turn out that way. We've all seen examples (Paul and company included) where the end product was not what they thought they would get. Yet they still have to sell them now. No one wins on a factory miscue. So this idea they are sitting around enjoying this is really baseless.

I'm going to assume the first part of that is referring to the amount of time it took the AJ project, specifically the heads, to be approved. Here's why that happened. The first samples we received from the factory needed to be revised because the heads were too small. They didn't follow my instructions to adjust for the 4% shrink rate of the PVC when they did the pantographing for the molds. Once the problem was pointed out it didn't take long for the factory to correct it and they were given the green-light for production. This is when things really started to go south. Production kept getting pushed back to make time for larger productions runs that the factory was working on for other companies, resulting in the lengthy and very frustrating delay of the AJ project.

When it comes to scale issues on the final product there really is no excuse that a company can use to place the blame on the factory. The simple truth is that the factory will provide samples that show exactly what the final product will look like in regards to the scale. Everything else like the quality of the construction, paint apps, etc. . . are a total crapshoot, especially if you don't have someone there representing your company and keeping a close eye on things.

[wise guy]

Some the heads are big but nobody is forcing people to buy them so I skipped FA Robin, and Alfred , but Dr. Sivanna does have a huge head in Shazam comics ,so I like that one.
I also did not buy Diamond Wolverine because of that huge helmet and ugly face sculpts. I did buy Capt. America even with the modern head having a huge long neck, and
modern Spiderman with a pinhead. The diamond sets costumes also do not fit well without cutting the leggings out because the crotch hangs low and looks pretty bad.
Both FTC and Diamond need to work on these issues until than I will only cherry pick what I wan't . I am spending a lot more on FTC than Diamond

[MIB41]

Swear I'd laugh with you if I got the joke.
Seriously? Is this addressing bedroom tendencies? Weight issues? Evil? All of the above?
My satire piece on the other hand? Dare-I-say, whether you take the "OK, MIB41 your cheerleading had it coming" basis for my post, MIB's joke(?) was heavier on the crypticness.
It's really sad.
The ol' "He routinely mocks because he encourages conflict. That's the only reason why he exists here. " doesn't fly overall...it doesn't fly even if my post WAS overly cryptic... it doesn't fly if my post wasn't something you agree with...
and it PARTICULARLY Doesn't fly, because (as usual) the intent was pure---but in THIS Case MIB's sensitivity is really showing it's head.
What I mean is: Just what regarding FTC's issues, MIB's cheerleading and the subject matter isn't on point in the Murray FTC meme?
If I was MIB, I'd have to laugh----it's his sentiments to a TEE.
And he should be comfortable with that. Heck, I'm cool with it---despite my qualms with FTC and certain FTC defense stances, there's a part of that attitude (AND the Bill Murray character's speech too) that I respect and think is cool. Heck, even "I" cheerlead for FTC once in a while---AND, not to mention, I own a gazillion FTC figures (mostly thanks to D).
In the past months you've been totally overblowing stuff, so you're looking at the Murray FTC meme as an "attack"...but this is you simply liking FTCs machinations more than I, and then me finding a pop culture analogy I thought all of us could enjoy to comment on it.
So I beseech thee MIB, take down the generalizing a notch, cheerlead all ya want, and enjoy the discussion. I'm more than happy to apologize---but, as I said before, I posted that Murray FTC meme thinking there was absolutely nothing mean-spirited about it, while there was TONS that was on point and actually an attitude that I wouldn't be ashamed to "own" if I was you.
But since I've already been painted with this "conflict encourager" label---the truth and the humor falls on some deaf ears.
I don't know if it'll help MIB---but, sincere public apologies if I hurt your feelings.

Huedell my point regarding your post here and with many other threads you jump into is this tendency to derail a topic with a post that mocks or calls people to the mat over a discussion that quite honestly doesn't merit that kind of reaction. This is a hobby. This is not a political chat room or a Youtube comment thread where people just throw out random jabs and jokes with no intention to have a discussion. I didn't like your parody because it took what I was saying COMPLETELY out of context. Perhaps to you and a few others it sounds like mindless cheerleading. But to point, I was stating that everyone takes a measured financial risk in trying to bring these to market. So it seems pretty short-sided to suggest every time someone is disenchanted with a product they buy, it should be reasoned that the manufacturer was negligent and intended to upset them. That tone was the entire reason why I jumped in.

I documented my trip to FTC and met some great people who really showed me how this is SO MUCH more than just a business. It's truly their life. It was an eye opening experience. I took the time to talk about that trip and share that experience right here. I wasn't paid to say anything nice about them and they didn't ask me to write a story about my trip. I simply thought many here would enjoy hearing about it and get a glimpse at a few of the things I saw. I think most people gave it the consideration I would hope and I appreciated so much of the positive feedback I got from that. But EVEN in that thread you couldn't dignify my experience with an above board comment. So I guess if my responses to you feel "overblown" it's because you seem utterly tone deaf when you jump into these discussions and act like everyone should be on the same page when you derail a discussion.

Not everything in life is a joke. Sometimes people just want to discuss the hobby they enjoy. They're not interested in defending their opinions if they just came to the discussion to share them. What is different HERE is the author went after the people who make them. And since I just met the very people whom this person suggests are not really deserving of this license, I thought I better give him a first hand opinion. But I also pulled in everyone else I could initially think of, so my point was inclusive to the industry and not just one company. Obviously that got overlooked when I said I would be ecstatic to see FTC have the license. So if you're offering an apology for anything Huedell, just pay it forward by toning down the comedic rhetoric and offer a simple opinion on the subject. Whether you agree or disagree is not an issue. This is a very subjective hobby. What some see as outrageous mistakes, others might see as charm reminiscent to the Mego style. And then you have everyone else in between those margins. I wouldn't DARE jump into a business like this, because you can't find ten people to agree on the same thing for every figure. What's too big for one, is too small for another, or just right for others. You can't win. So when it comes to people preferring one over another, I'm completely fine with that and encourage feedback no matter the position. But when it transfers to the people making them, I think you've left the boundaries of product preference. Peace Mego-brother.

[CrimsonGhost]

I'm going to assume the first part of that is referring to the amount of time it took the AJ project, specifically the heads, to be approved. Here's why that happened. The first samples we received from the factory needed to be revised because the heads were too small. They didn't follow my instructions to adjust for the 4% shrink rate of the PVC when they did the pantographing for the molds. Once the problem was pointed out it didn't take long for the factory to correct it and they were given the green-light for production. This is when things really started to go south. Production kept getting pushed back to make time for larger productions runs that the factory was working on for other companies, resulting in the lengthy and very frustrating delay of the AJ project.

When it comes to scale issues on the final product there really is no excuse that a company can use to place the blame on the factory. The simple truth is that the factory will provide samples that show exactly what the final product will look like in regards to the scale. Everything else like the quality of the construction, paint apps, etc. . . are a total crapshoot, especially if you don't have someone there representing your company and keeping a close eye on things.

There's no "like" button here, but I like and respect this response 100%. It's good and important to hear how things work and or don't work when producing product overseas. I have slightly more insight than an armchair quarterback (haha) and commend you for weighing in with actual experience.

[tiinacat]

Respect to Zica. good insight

As to all the other nonsense, some of which I found very funny, I wasn't trying to side one company against another, just commenting on how my opinion had changed once I got a product out of the box and up on the shelf, which before was favoring FTC as you can plainly see. And wondering what is being done about it, not attacking any company.[IMG]www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=815397495225377&set=pcb.11652369701 58225&type=3&theater[/IMG]

[Brown Bear]

Huedell my point regarding your post here and with many other threads you jump into is this tendency to derail a topic with a post that mocks or calls people to the mat over a discussion that quite honestly doesn't merit that kind of reaction. This is a hobby. This is not a political chat room or a Youtube comment thread where people just throw out random jabs and jokes with no intention to have a discussion. I didn't like your parody because it took what I was saying COMPLETELY out of context. Perhaps to you and a few others it sounds like mindless cheerleading. But to point, I was stating that everyone takes a measured financial risk in trying to bring these to market. So it seems pretty short-sided to suggest every time someone is disenchanted with a product they buy, it should be reasoned that the manufacturer was negligent and intended to upset them. That tone was the entire reason why I jumped in.

I documented my trip to FTC and met some great people who really showed me how this is SO MUCH more than just a business. It's truly their life. It was an eye opening experience. I took the time to talk about that trip and share that experience right here. I wasn't paid to say anything nice about them and they didn't ask me to write a story about my trip. I simply thought many here would enjoy hearing about it and get a glimpse at a few of the things I saw. I think most people gave it the consideration I would hope and I appreciated so much of the positive feedback I got from that. But EVEN in that thread you couldn't dignify my experience with an above board comment. So I guess if my responses to you feel "overblown" it's because you seem utterly tone deaf when you jump into these discussions and act like everyone should be on the same page when you derail a discussion.

Not everything in life is a joke. Sometimes people just want to discuss the hobby they enjoy. They're not interested in defending their opinions if they just came to the discussion to share them. What is different HERE is the author went after the people who make them. And since I just met the very people whom this person suggests are not really deserving of this license, I thought I better give him a first hand opinion. But I also pulled in everyone else I could initially think of, so my point was inclusive to the industry and not just one company. Obviously that got overlooked when I said I would be ecstatic to see FTC have the license. So if you're offering an apology for anything Huedell, just pay it forward by toning down the comedic rhetoric and offer a simple opinion on the subject. Whether you agree or disagree is not an issue. This is a very subjective hobby. What some see as outrageous mistakes, others might see as charm reminiscent to the Mego style. And then you have everyone else in between those margins. I wouldn't DARE jump into a business like this, because you can't find ten people to agree on the same thing for every figure. What's too big for one, is too small for another, or just right for others. You can't win. So when it comes to people preferring one over another, I'm completely fine with that and encourage feedback no matter the position. But when it transfers to the people making them, I think you've left the boundaries of product preference. Peace Mego-brother.

Couldn't agree more. Bang on explanation Tom.