Action Figure Hot Toys Iron Man 3 1/6th scale Pepper Potts & Mark IX Collectible Figures

[tinlunlau]

I wasn't. I wasn't even talking about her. Paltrow looks great.

I was just addressing a comment about Gal, that Gal was super tiny and thin. Having worked with her for an extended time I know she took a lot of pride in how she toned up (those where her words in fact) for the role. She heard all the comments when she was cast and she wanted to prove she could pull off WW. And from what I Saw, she did. And it's not about being a woman or man. Henry takes about the same thing. Al the gym time to get the right look. Hugh Jackman did as well. Hugh hated it. Going from Les Mis to The wolverine he gained like 70lbs. And he's not exactly a teenager. I just wanted to acknowledge Gal the same I would any other actor that changed their body for a role. It's not easy.

How'd you get a job working on set? I'm trying to get to the go-see for Pacific Rim 2 since I was in the first film. Just praying Guillermo doesn't mention my tractor incident. He had a good laugh over that embarrassing moment.

 

[Motuxmen]

How'd you get a job working on set? I'm trying to get to the go-see for Pacific Rim 2 since I was in the first film. Just praying Guillermo doesn't mention my tractor incident. He had a good laugh over that embarrassing moment.

I've been working now in films for most my life. My family has a vfx studio which helps.

 

[tinlunlau]

I've been working now in films for most my life. My family has a vfx studio which helps.

I used to do BG in Toronto. Stopped for a couple of years for a job with stable pay. And now that I'm quitting next week, I kinda wanna do some BG work again. I still see Guillermo del Toro whenever he stops by Toronto to do his masterclasses at the TIFF Lightbox Theatre. He's a real class act!

 

[patrix1]

Why? Hot Toys, WHy? I only want Mark IX.

 

[ali032373]

From the Cornell University Law website:

Tying Agreement- An agreement in which the seller conditions the sale of one product (the "tying" product) on the buyer's agreement to purchase a separate product (the "tied" product) from the seller. Alternatively, it is also considered a tying arrangement when the seller conditions the sale of the tying product on the buyer's agreement not to purchase the tied product from any other seller. See Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 541 (1992).

Tying arrangements are not necessarily unlawful. Antitrust concerns are raised by tying arrangements to the extent that they are used to maintain or augment the seller's pre-existing market power or impair competition on the merits in the market for the tied product.

Where a tying arrangement is unlawful, it may be illegal per se or illegal under the rule of reason. The requirements for a per se violation are: the forced purchase of one commodity in order to obtain a separate desired commodity or service; possession by the seller of sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to restrain free trade in the market for the tied product; and that the arrangement affects a not insubstantial amount of commerce in the market for the tied product. If the requirements for a per se violation are not met, a tying arrangement may be illegal under the rule of reason if: it results in an unreasonable restraint on trade in the relevant market under § 1 of the Sherman Act; or its probable effect is a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market under § 3 of the Clayton Act.


You can file a complaint with the FTC and get a ruling if anyone is interested.

 

[Motuxmen]

From the Cornell University Law website:

Tying Agreement- An agreement in which the seller conditions the sale of one product (the "tying" product) on the buyer's agreement to purchase a separate product (the "tied" product) from the seller. Alternatively, it is also considered a tying arrangement when the seller conditions the sale of the tying product on the buyer's agreement not to purchase the tied product from any other seller. See Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 541 (1992).

Tying arrangements are not necessarily unlawful. Antitrust concerns are raised by tying arrangements to the extent that they are used to maintain or augment the seller's pre-existing market power or impair competition on the merits in the market for the tied product.

Where a tying arrangement is unlawful, it may be illegal per se or illegal under the rule of reason. The requirements for a per se violation are: the forced purchase of one commodity in order to obtain a separate desired commodity or service; possession by the seller of sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to restrain free trade in the market for the tied product; and that the arrangement affects a not insubstantial amount of commerce in the market for the tied product. If the requirements for a per se violation are not met, a tying arrangement may be illegal under the rule of reason if: it results in an unreasonable restraint on trade in the relevant market under § 1 of the Sherman Act; or its probable effect is a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market under § 3 of the Clayton Act.


You can file a complaint with the FTC and get a ruling if anyone is interested.

Completely asine...

This isn't a tying arrangement. But nice attempt. Second, this is a Chinese company. The U.S. Government can't do much. It falls under international trade. And third...it's a bloody 300 dollar action figure. Please call. And listen to them laugh at you.


A tying is when they say..I'll sell you this ebook for 300 dollars, and you get an action figure for free. Not when they only offer one item as a pack in.

 

[ali032373]

The poster above was making a note about being forced to buy 2 products when he only wanted to buy one. This is actually a very old and sometimes illegal practice known as a Tying Agreement. I was commenting on the same. And yes, you do have a right to file a complaint with the FTC.

your reaction to being presented with facts and law is in fact aggressively and willfully ignorant.

 

[Motuxmen]

It also involves not buying the "exact same" product from someone else. It's a way to under cut the competition on like products (car dealers selling the exact same car) or to effect book keeping. Or include a product that can't be sold legally by having you buy a legal product and the other item is "free".

 

[Motuxmen]

The poster above was making a note about being forced to buy 2 products when he only wanted to buy one. This is actually a very old and sometimes illegal practice known as a Tying Agreement. I was commenting on the same. And yes, you do have a right to file a complaint with the FTC.

your reaction to being presented with facts and law is in fact aggressively and willfully ignorant.

No my reaction is the point is completely wrong. The term does not apply.

And yes you can file a complaint. You can also file a complaint that say hot toys is controlled by Mars men. Get the same result.

 

[Motuxmen]

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...s/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products

 

[Motuxmen]

Key phrase..

Where it has no benifit to consumer...

Products in none standard market...(using "tying" as a way to break into a new market)

Less desirable product as the "tied" item. (Which this doesn't. The Potts figure is available seperate)

This is not tying.
And to further clarify..the only cases ever to have been adjudicated involved bundling of "seperate" products. Not two characters. But something like buying a PC and having it come with Microsoft office. Or buying film and having to pay for developing at the same place.

The tying rule is about limiting competition between companies. Hot toys is not limiting anyone from buying a product elsewhere. If you where to call the ftc or attorney gen they would explain(if they didn't hang up or laugh) that this is not a violation. That the "rule of reason" would apply at most. And it would be a waste of time. It's like calling 911 becuase you broke a nail.

 

[ali032373]

You have some many scattered and edited points I don't know where to start.

A tying agreement is not where a manufacturer offers you something for free in exchange for the purchase of a product (like your e book and free action figure example). A tying occurs when the manufacturer conditions the sale of one item on the purchase of a second, differnt item. Here, you cannot buy the mark 9 alone. it MUST be purchased with Pepper. Therefore the sale of the mark 9 is necessarily conditioned on the consumer's purchase of a separate product (pepper).

Second, tying agreements have been found on the smallest of items so your issue with price is invalid. Ex- if I recall Bic got busted for conditioning the sale of razor blades with pens (two unrelated product, called a horizontal tying) Conversely car manufacturers cannot make a consumer use only it's mechanics in repairs (vertical tying) after the consumer has purchased a car.

third, the FTC gets millions of complaints. And btw, you don't call them, you have to submit a written complaint. So no, they can't laugh at you on the phone. And of course not every complaint is successful. But I never commented on the likelihood of success of the same. just that it's an option if interested.

And your posting about effecting bookkeeping, I really don't even understand what you're talking about. The whole post is muddled and you keep editing.

 

[ali032373]

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...s/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products

So this IS a tied product? Is that why you posted this? Because this talks about the benefits of tying products.

 

[Motuxmen]

Ok...should have been more clear. Technically every single item is a tied sale. Unless you buy an electron or something. But tying as something illegal, this isn't close.

 

[Motuxmen]

You have some many scattered and edited points I don't know where to start.

A tying agreement is not where a manufacturer offers you something for free in exchange for the purchase of a product (like your e book and free action figure example). A tying occurs when the manufacturer conditions the sale of one item on the purchase of a second, differnt item. Here, you cannot buy the mark 9 alone. it MUST be purchased with Pepper. Therefore the sale of the mark 9 is necessarily conditioned on the consumer's purchase of a separate product (pepper).

Second, tying agreements have been found on the smallest of items so your issue with price is invalid. Ex- if I recall Bic got busted for conditioning the sale of razor blades with pens (two unrelated product, called a horizontal tying) Conversely car manufacturers cannot make a consumer use only it's mechanics in repairs (vertical tying) after the consumer has purchased a car.

third, the FTC gets millions of complaints. And btw, you don't call them, you have to submit a written complaint. So no, they can't laugh at you on the phone. And of course not every complaint is successful. But I never commented on the likelihood of success of the same. just that it's an option if interested.

And your posting about effecting bookkeeping, I really don't even understand what you're talking about. The whole post is muddled and you keep editing.

You don't understand is pretty much my point. This is not illegal. You can in fact call the ftc. The book keeping was an explanation as to what the benefit and use of illegal tying is for...

Your example about car manufactures is actually correct. The whole point of this "tying" is limiting of fair trade. This does not do that. Not even close.

 

[ali032373]

Your first good point. However, There are some items that cannot be "untied". For ex you can't buy a car without metal in it. Or say I want to buy shoelaces without the plastic caps. The materials are so integral and intertwined with the product that they become one.

And your comment on the US can't do anything to a chinese company is waaaay off. Once you put an item into the US stream of commerce you open yourself up to a ton of regulation, enforcement, policing, etc. The US can't do anything about commerce laws in China but don't think for a moment a foreign company can just sell products here without any oversight.

And your comment on tying to sell an illegal product makes no sense. you're tough to keep up with because your points are so scattered.

 

[guy66657]

 

[sabin23]

I wonder when they will show off her torso, sports bra look with Iron Man arm.

Will Pepper have a seamless body?

 

[Motuxmen]

The Antitrust Economics Of Tying: A Farewell To Per Se Illegality | ATR | Department of Justice

Again..shows saying this is tying is not understanding what illegal tying is. Two action figures isn't anything to do with it.

Your Car example would be one.
Buying a nail gun and forced to buy all the nails from same company
Buying a PC and being forced to get Microsoft office or other software

It's about one company having an unfair advantage over another company by forcing consumers to buy from them. The 2pack isn't in that realm. The argument isn't about competing companies. It's not illegal. And it doesn't fall under the antitrust law or subsections that tying is "tied" to.

 

[Stryker2011]

Will Pepper have a seamless body?

Unlikely. But perhaps something as close as possible, like their Ada Wong body. With the shirt on, it's hard to tell if she has seemless or jointed arms.