Got a problem with size, do ya?

[B Electronic]

Just a small observation I've made after a year or so on this forum. Every time people dont seem to like a piece, it has something to do with size. The bigger, the better it seems. All thanks to SideShow for making a big Balrog and a big Cave Troll. The Fell Beast wasnt good enough for anyone, because it was small scaled, while I can assure you that the piece is stunningly detailed. Minas Tirith was too small for everyone's liking, as did its companion Minas Morgul. Orthanc has had the same complaints, as do the upcoming Weathertop and Bucklebury Ferry. And now its the Mumak who's under fire.

Now my question is: WHY??

What is wrong with having it in a smaller scale? I've seen the daddy Balrog myself and I was not at all impressed with it. Neither was I impressed by the Predator 1:1 bust. In fact, that one is far too big even though the details look great.

Anyway, I'd like to hear why people only seem to prefer big items.

....so go ahead and inform me already!

 

[HeraldElrond]

Bad eyesight


:hat

 

[cherno]

.

Big price should equal big piece IMO.

Remember when you spent $300 on a balrog that was huge, or a RWOS, or even recently the GOSF?

I think that is the greater part of the thorn that people have in their side.

 

[TheWitchKing]

:explode

 

[elwood49]

Re: .

Big price should equal big piece IMO.

Exactly. Why do you think so many people are disappointed when they pay big bucks for a WK crown or Orthanc? Basically, the only pieces I could see myself paying a high amount for are the big ones that originally retailed for $300.

 

[tomandshell]

I thought Weta's Kong vs. T-Rex statue was too BIG! I only have room to display a very few extra large items, so I always appreciate the ones that are smaller or medium in size. When I saw the mumak in San Diego, it did seem a little smaller than I expected, but I liked the pose more than before. It really seems to be in motion, captured in the middle of its fall. If I put this out with the Attack Troll and Baby Balrog, it would be the main attraction in my creature display. I am also happy with the edition size. (I think that is an area where we all like it small...) I also wonder if the timing has contributed to turning people off...many are comparing this piece to the others that they now KNOW will never come, and the end of the line in July rather than December has left a bad taste in their mouth. Plus, no, he doesn't seem huge for those expecting that. I still like him, though!

 

[Gabberjawa]

I've seen the daddy Balrog myself and I was not at all impressed with it

Are you more impressed by the 'baby' Rog?

 

[CaptainCaveTroll]

Big is beautiful with the exception of the midrift!

'The best things come in small package' is something made up by small people or anyone who has just bought a cheap present.

The bigger, the better is true 99 times out of 100.

 

[BSHERRIS]

Re: Scale

IMHO, size is really not the issue.

Appropriate "perceived" SCALE is the issue. Let me explain...

When you watch the LOTR movies, it is easy to comprehend and compare the relative sizes of say...a dwarf, to a human, to a beast.

When you are collecting statues, your perception of size is based upon the pieces that you are displaying on a given shelf or cabinet. In other words, it is strange to display the Mines of Moria next to a figure of Aragorn or even a Balrog. The scale is just plain funky.

Most large LOTR displays I've seen have figures in one area, environments in another area, and creatures in another area.

Sideshow had the concept of scale reasonably correct early on when they made the first Balrog, Cave Troll, and Witch King statues perceivably larger than say, Frodo, Bilbo, etc...

Where Sideshow went awry scale-wise started with the Fell Beast. This should have been the done in the same scale as the above two beasties. Instead, they appear to have cut the size by 50%, thereby making it difficult to display the Fell Beast either with the creatures or the figures. Same holds true for the second Balrog (which I have to display alongside the Fell Beast). Additionally, the upcoming Cave Troll appears also to be in the scale of the Fell Beast statue.

I don't know what the exact thinking was at Sideshow that caused them to cut the size of their "beast/creature" pieces, but it definitely screwed up people's displays, and I personally wish they had remained true to the scale of their original creature releases.

B.

 

[WetaWork]

Re: Scale

BSHERRIS,

- my thoughts exactly.

 

[jlcmsu]

Re: Scale

I could give a @#%$ less about size really. If its big great if not great! I care about how detailed the piece looks and how cool the piece looks. I know others are different but thats just me.

 

[Viking28]

Re: Scale

I don't know what the exact thinking was at Sideshow that caused them to cut the size of their "beast/creature" pieces, but it definitely screwed up people's displays, and I personally wish they had remained true to the scale of their original creature releases.

It was answered in the chat, they didnt want to many high priced items coming out at once. So they scaled back kept the price down.

 

[Lookin4Precious]

Re: Scale

While I wanted a BIG Battle Troll and a BIG Mumak, but am keeping both because both look like extremely well sculpted and detailed pieces. As long as the statue looks good, I don't think the size matters. I think the $300 Mumak is warranted as it is extremely detailed and not tiny.

A statue where size IS an issue is the Fell Beast. For me, this is WAY too small and the ML looks AWFUL. I really want a Fell Beast but can't get over how disappointing this one is. And YES, i've seen it in person...

 

[RickDTM]

Re: Scale

Gotta go w/ BSherris on this one...the perceived scale is the thing for me. The Cave Troll, Balrog - big in the movie, big as a statue. Fell Beast and the rest of the creatures- big in the movie, small as a statue. I will still keep what I have, but as many others would have "liked" to have had Faramir, I would have "liked" to have had larger scale creatures.

 

[Dark Enemy of Middle Earth]

Re: Scale

The only problem I have with size is the enormity of my next credit card bills following SS shipments over the next few months.

 

[FlyAndFight]

Re: Scale

I posted a similar answer in another thread in another forum...

It's the perceived scale that many of us are after. In many cases, particularly with creatures, if they were impressively large in the film, we expected them to be equally impressive as a large collectible.

A troll, fellbeast and mumak were all breath-takingly large on film and to see them in a "too small" scale, particularly within a series, really is disappointing. I'm not saying to have them all in scale to each other, but to impress one in size as it's 1/1 version did on screen. The original Cave Troll set the standard which all of the rest should have followed. And as bluntly stated earlier:

Big price should equal big piece IMO.

I really like the Mumak and Battle Troll and hope to get them but honestly feel that they specifically would have benefitted and would sell better if they had been larger.

Imagine if Sauron would have been done not in 1/6th scale but in 1/12th or smaller. Yeah, still would have been nice but not as impressive.

 

[TURINS BANE]

Re: Scale

I agree, with what BSHERRIS, said. :toast

 

[gOzum]

Re: Scale

Put me in the BSHERRIS boat too! :ar

 

[VTX]

Re: Scale

Got a problem with size

Sooooooooooo,
:rolleyes
Did she say that or you :rolleyes :rolleyes

 

[Heart Of Stone]

Re: Scale

I don't know what the exact thinking was at Sideshow that caused them to cut the size of their "beast/creature" pieces, but it definitely screwed up people's displays, and I personally wish they had remained true to the scale of their original creature releases.

It was answered in the chat, they didnt want to many high priced items coming out at once. So they scaled back kept the price down.

I'm not sure I can believe Sideshows statement at a time when I have 10 statues shipping all at once !