1/6 Han Solo In Carbonite New Figure by Sideshow.

[JCFETT]

I don't care who gets rich... just make my han solo in carbonite slab levitate you bastards

 

[TaliBane]

Has it been confirmed that this is plastic? I have the original, it is a heavy polystone along with the backdrop of Jabba's palace. I would assume it is plastic with the levitation usage... I think a polystone would be too heavy for that. $250 for plastic is borderline criminal.. they cant claim exclusivity because in a year or so they will reissue this with even less accessories.

This will be reissued in two years' time - just the bare bones carbonite block, no base/support.

Oh, but by then, even just the bare bones block re-release will be $250.

It was confirmed at SDCC to be plastic and there'd be led lights this time. Not sure why the pics don't seem to show the electronics??? That's would seem to be the selling point to me. Kinda like Mauls ankles should have been his.

It's really weird that here it is officially up for PO with full suite of product pics, it's been shown/teased for months at shows and online, and not ONCE have the lights been shown.

What's going on with that? It's a pretty major feature that would at least take a step toward justifying the price, yet they'll never show this key feature at all?

If its plastic why does it need that really thick support rod? This company is so odd

It's an excellent point - while SSC claimed the pretty lightweight Probot couldn't have a clear plastic rod due to weight/plastic fatigue issues (which seemed really unlikely) this carbonite figure would have to be less than half the weight of even the Probot, which itself was very light.

If this really is just hollow plastic, there's no reason at all there couldn't have been a clear plastic rod versus that really pretty ugly/thick metal support bar/forks as support.



It's a bummer SideshowAlex isn't around to answer these questions. But then again, there really aren't logical answers to these Sideshow headscratchers.

And to me aside from the price, the biggest fail on this piece is the fact that yet again, it's a full YEAR from PO to ship date. At the most that time period should be six months. A year to wait for an ordered 1/6 product (and in some cases it's been longer) is unacceptable.

 

[Niltusk]

I'd pay more if the damn thing had a base large enough for Fett and some Troopers to stand on while its in levitate mode.

Very odd design choice.

 

[lttgtimaatisgdaicfi]

I kind of like it. It's not worth 250 bucks but what of this stuff ever is?

 

[LipSmack]

I was mocking a few posters bemoaning a company perceiving a profit grab. Anyhoo.

I still don't get what you mean my "changing complaints". I wasn't looking to change anyone's complaint.

Pretty sure I already wrote that in my response to you.

Just in case you missed it this time, I will make it big.

I wasn't looking to change anyone's complaint.

I think youre confused, I didnt say you were trying to change anyones complaint, I asked how your statement would change any of the complaints, as in their validity or merit. If sideshow was a charity and we complained then yeah it would seem trivial, if their a business id argue we have even more of a right to complain. Was just trying to see what your comment was trying to get at as it made no sense

 

[earthdog]

Magnetic hovering (although very cool) would not work for this. To get the hover height at about 6" would be incredibly difficult and unstable without a top arm with another magnet hanging above it.

Even with that it is really difficult to get something set perfectly to levitate. Think at least 10 attempts if you are lucky. Frustrating. And each fail at balancing it means it falls and could chip or break.

And then once it was hovering it would have a tendency to wobble and rotate.

I'm not surprised magnets were not used.

 

[DBoz]

This makes me very sad. I've wanted a 1/6 Han in Carbonite for years, but this is just way overpriced. I may try to pic it up later if it gets some discounts or I can use reward points to make it affordable, but definitely not preordering.

 

[Unclechopchop]

So now today, a simple slab of plastic has reached the hefty price of $250! And one things for sure, if people are dumb enough to buy and justify the price, the standard figure will surely skyrocket to $400. Think about it.

 

[teleray]

Prices are already insane on the secondary market. Sideshow is just cashing in on what they see as the going rate. Is it ridiculous? Of course. It feels all too much like a tulip mania. At some point it will crash.

 

[sithlord13]

If the side lights up does the metal bar make up part of the circuit?
As I say nice but too dear. Too small a base

 

[Peter_B]

After shipping & postage to Australia, this piece would cost around $380 AUD. I'm with the majority on this one. At least $100 AUD overpriced. Will save my $$$ for Dengar, which i'm pretty certain will be around the $220 - $230 USD price range. Sideshow charging Hot Toys prices is ridiculous. I used to collect a few lines when i first started collecting 1/6 figures back in 2010, but the soaring prices have meant i concentrate mostly on my first love, Star Wars.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[pixletwin]

I think youre confused, I didnt say you were trying to change anyones complaint, I asked how your statement would change any of the complaints, as in their validity or merit. If sideshow was a charity and we complained then yeah it would seem trivial, if their a business id argue we have even more of a right to complain. Was just trying to see what your comment was trying to get at as it made no sense

Well one of us is definitely confused. A complaint is an opinion. I can't validate or invalidate another's opinion. It's based on perspective (a perspective I, AGAIN, share). I'm afraid you are still completely missing the mark of what I was pointing out. Let's just move on. This has become tedious.

 

[klapper]

Well one of us is definitely confused. A complaint is an opinion. I can't validate or invalidate another's opinion. It's based on perspective (a perspective I, AGAIN, share). I'm afraid you are still completely missing the mark of what I was pointing out. Let's just move on. This has become tedious.

Yes. Probably the one who was mocking other people just because they were complaining about ridiculous prices. No one here was questioning the need of profit or considering SS a social program. You just posted a rude comment. Let's move one from here, shall we?


Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk

 

[pixletwin]

You don't get it either sunshine. Bye.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Creighton]

Price point aside. That TJ Maxx looking wardrobe hanger on the back of the block is unimaginative.

 

[teleray]

I'm guessing that metal rod carries the wiring to light the block. The batteries are probably in the base only.

 

[JCFETT]

If the side lights up does the metal bar make up part of the circuit?
As I say nice but too dear. Too small a base

oh damn dude... that might actually make sense. And if this is true.. then this quadruple sucks. You would have to to mod the slab (cut open the back) to move batteries from base into the slab itself, or run wiring which would look like crap, because nobody would keep that ugly ass metal rod. Of course this would need to be modded to a clear rod.

Another $250 collectible we have to spend many hours fixing to make right.

 

[JCFETT]

Actually you know what, I'm not sure I believe this theory, because that's kinda nonsensical. The batteries needed for some tiny LED effects wouldn't need to be a large battery pack, it could be some small coin batteries which could very easily fit inside the hollow slab. The large base is not an explanation for battery compartment. It explains the metal rod, but I don't think this fully makes sense. If this is the case, that's really lame engineering. Because that also means if you want to display without the base, again, you would not get the light fx.

 

[LipSmack]

Well one of us is definitely confused. A complaint is an opinion. I can't validate or invalidate another's opinion. It's based on perspective (a perspective I, AGAIN, share). I'm afraid you are still completely missing the mark of what I was pointing out. Let's just move on. This has become tedious.

I didnt claim you were trying to change an opinion, you tried to change the scenario under which you felt peoples complaints to be petty, I asked how you changing the scenario changes any of the complaints? if you dont understand such a basic concept then maybe refrain from posting until you can grasp what is being asked

either way the comments are plain as day for all to read,

 

[sithlord13]

Actually you know what, I'm not sure I believe this theory, because that's kinda nonsensical. The batteries needed for some tiny LED effects wouldn't need to be a large battery pack, it could be some small coin batteries which could very easily fit inside the hollow slab. The large base is not an explanation for battery compartment. It explains the metal rod, but I don't think this fully makes sense. If this is the case, that's really lame engineering. Because that also means if you want to display without the base, again, you would not get the light fx.

Oh totally it's poor engineering. They should be a remote and a total hover appearance for $250. Also a bigger base so you do the whole pulling the block pose