1/6 Hot Toys - MMS277 - Iron Man 3: Striker (Mark XXV) Collectible Figure

[boylost99]

Oh ya I forgot he wears shoe lifts!

 

[Brainiac]

its probably for stabilization, the armor could be very top heavy with those arms

 

[potato-head]

Some photos taken at Toy Hunters today

There it is guys. My biggest concern about the design. Look where his fingers are...now if the hammers were removed, that means Tony has some EXTREMELY short forearms. Its almost as though his hands/wrist are connected to his elbow joint.

 

[kevb0977]

There it is guys. My biggest concern about the design. Look where his fingers are...now if the hammers were removed, that means Tony has some EXTREMELY short forearms. Its almost as though his hands/wrist are connected to his elbow joint.

WOW!!! How did I miss that? Your absolutely right. Guess I was too busy being impressed with the over all figure that minor (MAJOR) details like that totally skipped me by..., really hope they'll look at fixing that.

 

[Black Sheep]

Is it a possibility that the hands and forearms are 'retractable' when not being worn? Hard to see any type of mechanism, but its a thought.

 

[kevb0977]

Is it a possibility that the hands and forearms are 'retractable' when not being worn? Hard to see any type of mechanism, but its a thought.

Nice idea, I like it when people start thinking up possible reason..., good one.

 

[rocbolt]

There it is guys. My biggest concern about the design. Look where his fingers are...now if the hammers were removed, that means Tony has some EXTREMELY short forearms. Its almost as though his hands/wrist are connected to his elbow joint.

For the tenth time in this thread, you are not seeing the arm correctly. The elbow is not where the circular joint is, it goes farther back, the armor is much thicker than the human arm inside of it. It is not a mistake by Hot Toys either as it matches the movie suit exactly, and from these exact same head on angles it is hard to see the thickness of the whole arm.

 

[Black Sheep]

Gotta justify it somehow, right

Those pics help with the perspective. It is hard to tell in the figure pics, but these movie stills help clarify.

 

[kevb0977]

For the tenth time in this thread, you are not seeing the arm correctly. The elbow is not where the circular joint is, it goes farther back, the armor is much thicker than the human arm inside of it. It is not a mistake by Hot Toys either as it matches the movie suit exactly, and from these exact same head on angles it is hard to see the thickness of the whole arm.

Well thanks for explaining it one more time, made me go take a look at other Iron Man figures to clarify & your right as the hands are in the same place as they should be (by the thighs).

 

[boylost99]

For the tenth time in this thread, you are not seeing the arm correctly. The elbow is not where the circular joint is, it goes farther back, the armor is much thicker than the human arm inside of it. It is not a mistake by Hot Toys either as it matches the movie suit exactly, and from these exact same head on angles it is hard to see the thickness of the whole arm.

Well if the part where the arm bends (circular joint) is not the elbow than whoever is inside breaks his/her forearms every time the suit's arms bend. It looks proportional in the movie stills but not the HT figure. The armor may be thick but the bends should still be the same. This is not a mk43 in a HB suit where mk43's arms do not reach past the elbow of HB.

 

[boylost99]

its probably for stabilization, the armor could be very top heavy with those arms

 

[Motuxmen]

There it is guys. My biggest concern about the design. Look where his fingers are...now if the hammers were removed, that means Tony has some EXTREMELY short forearms. Its almost as though his hands/wrist are connected to his elbow joint.

If you measure from the elbow joint to the wrist joint it should be roughly equal to the knee to ankle joint. And on this figure it is. The forearm is not any shorter then on the other im3 armors. It's well within normal ranges.

 

[potato-head]

I dunno..If you were to put a human in that suit, his fists/hands would inside the "yellow box" near the endge of the hammers.

 

[potato-head]

 

[potato-head]

 

[Motuxmen]

View attachment 155073

Ok so you do understand that a camera lens bends the image, and the fact this is photographed not straight on means your really cool trace means ****? As in Richard. Both images are taken off center, with the arms posed at angles. In the top image the right arm(on the left of the image) is angled away from the lens and angled at both the shoulder and elbow. And that's the arm you seem to have a problem with. But not the other arm in that image.

Then the bottom image the left arm is angled away from the lens (right of the image) and is not perfectly straight at the shoulder and elbow again. And this is the arm that's WTF in your drawing.

The arms are not swapped out from image to image.

If your response is that the arm is wrong in both photos...you can't tell that. You can't even see the left arm. Your drawing is not spot on even with what's there. What you can see without X-ray vision. So unless you know the camera make and model, the lens used, tanf the focal length the image is taken at and know the exact height of something in the image you can't know how long the arms are. The arms are not on a level plane. No way to get exact numbers.

So before you start freaking out about a prototype and then telling others the arms are not right maybe get the real numbers. Or at least get the right info. Your drawing just doesn't make any points.

Edit-your drawing also illustrates that you don't get the point that the arm inside the suit could be under the big round elbow suit joint, imagine the joint is a 2liter bottle on top of your elbow joint. It will move the same as your elbow. As long as the human arm is under the joint there is no issue.

 

[Furyan]

The forearms are short no questions.

 

[potato-head]

Ok so you do understand that a camera lens bends the image, and the fact this is photographed not straight on means your really cool trace means ****? As in Richard. Both images are taken off center, with the arms posed at angles. In the top image the right arm(on the left of the image) is angled away from the lens and angled at both the shoulder and elbow. And that's the arm you seem to have a problem with. But not the other arm in that image.

Then the bottom image the left arm is angled away from the lens (right of the image) and is not perfectly straight at the shoulder and elbow again. And this is the arm that's WTF in your drawing.

The arms are not swapped out from image to image.

If your response is that the arm is wrong in both photos...you can't tell that. You can't even see the left arm. Your drawing is not spot on even with what's there. What you can see without X-ray vision. So unless you know the camera make and model, the lens used, tanf the focal length the image is taken at and know the exact height of something in the image you can't know how long the arms are. The arms are not on a level plane. No way to get exact numbers.

So before you start freaking out about a prototype and then telling others the arms are not right maybe get the real numbers. Or at least get the right info. Your drawing just doesn't make any points.

Edit-your drawing also illustrates that you don't get the point that the arm inside the suit could be under the big round elbow suit joint, imagine the joint is a 2liter bottle on top of your elbow joint. It will move the same as your elbow. As long as the human arm is under the joint there is no issue.

Wow. Temper much? I'm not saying the toy is wrong or etc. In fact i think its one of the best looking suits. I'm just trying to figure out how a human arm fits inside the suit. You don't have to be a a$$ about it. I did two different drawings with different lenghts for two different arms as an example. One arm in one drawing to show what a normal human arm should look like to me, and the other to show what it looks whit the current location of the hands on the figure. You're right that the angle of the pictures aren't helping. I hope show more pictures with a side view and one (similar to the screen grab from the movie). That should explain things better.

 

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

sleep

 

[potato-head]

This is the closest image I can find to a side view of the arm (still not the most ideal angle). The red drawing is a trace of where the hand is on the figure and what I'm guessing the forearm looks like underneath the armor. The Bluish layer is where I'm assuming a normal length hand would end up.