--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This got old a looooooong time ago, but just for the sake of not leaving things unanswered...
@Sandamn:
(and no, I did not read the your post again, I'm guessing you copied and pasted most of the stuff you'd already written before)
Answer: Ignorant and lazy could be used as a description for that.
Why the need to get all personal?
The point is very simple.
Show me one single photo of the creature in Scott's film where it looks like the HT figure.
Show me one photo where the ribbing in the legs is positioned the same way as in the figure.
Show me one photo or screen cap where the face has that same chin and lower jaw as the HT figure.
Just one photo where there's the same number of teeth as in the HT figure.
Answer: The lighting, lenses and angles chosen for the shots played a huge roll in the Alien's overall appearance, that never gets given much consideration. Balaji wasn't a plastic dummy. How do you think they put the skintight suit on him. He was never glued and stitched into the suit the same way twice, etc. That tells me that you have no real idea about the practicalities of the suit, etc.
Actually, if you take a look at "Giger's Alien Book" you'll see that it was quite a straightforward suit with pants, shoes, sleeves, gloves, a chest piece and the head. There's also a few scenes in the different documentaries where you can see how the suit worked, not complicated at all.
I get that you find the HT figure to be a fine representation of the Giger alien; I don't agree with it but that's fine. I enjoy the HT figure the same way as I enjoy the McF figure: nice artist's takes on the subject.
What I don't get and really cannot fathom is that you keep insisting that you don't believe "the photos and spiels adamantly claiming that the details of the Hot Toys figure are inaccurate in some major way are correct" .
Answer: It is Giger's Alien. Anyone can recognize it as such. Nobody that was a fan of the movie would say ' what the hell is that' if you asked them on the street. Perfect, no, but nothing is, is it.
Uhm... all I'm saying is that I don't understand why you keep denying that it is inaccurate despite all the photographic evidence to the contrary. That's all. And you still have shown no evidence to support your denial. I never said it's not unmistakably "Alien".
The HT figure is a fun and cool interpretation, but you cannot seriously argue that it in some way represents some suit or props used.
Answer: I can and the post you're trying your hardest to discredit as nonsense are factual and extremely accurate. You ignore that because you want to win an argument, that's the way I see it.
How are your posts factual? I have not seen you present any evidence to support your claims, whereas I have repeatedly pointed to all the photos on this very same thread where you can see that the suit worn and the heads used are different from the HT figure.
Yes, Scott wanted it to look different from one scene to the next, to be mysterious; and yes, different suits and props had varying degrees of details and proportions, but they all sprang from one original master sculpture and they were all basically the same.
Answer: Yes, that's exactly right, so why contradict yourself and argue the facts. "The Alien was rapidly growing, ageing, changing". Not some static creature as you would have people believe.
How am I contradicting myself? I'm allowing for certain differences, but the point I'm making is that HT's figure is not accurate to any of the suits and props used.
Neither Scott nor Giger made changes to the design from one suit or prop to the next other than what the manufacturing of said suit or prop required.
Answer: Yes, they did. You don't want to acknowledge that, but it's a fact.
Again, show me where the suit's design was changed from one scene to the next. We know there was a smaller suit for the stunt man, we know there were a couple of different heads with more or less detail, but show one instance where the head had more or less teeth, or the ribbing was put in different parts, or the back of the tubes looked like female genitals. You claim you're stating facts, but as always fail to prove it.
There is no suit where the detailing/ribbing of arms and legs is positioned differently from the original sculpture.
Answer: The molding process dictated that, but you ignore what's been written, obviously having no real understanding of the methods used to mold and detail the suits, etc.
So you're saying that the molding process would make ribbing appear in the lower legs where it wasn't sculpted? Is that what I'm not understanding about the methods of molding suits? Please show me a photo of that.
There is no prop where the tubes coming out of the chin or the number of teeth are different from the original sculpture.
Answer: You are exaggerating and writing your own fantasy story to discredit well researched and documented facts as far as I and others are concerned.
How am I exaggerating? Please do show me a prop that shows those differences. Please show me these documented facts.
Yes, in the suits some fingers were fused together (NECA figure) whereas in the sculpture the fingers were splayed (Medicom figure). Sure, the mechanized head had detailed lips and tendons whereas the stunt head didn't. Indeed, Bolaji's suit had the head sit higher above the shoulders (the look on NECA figure) than the stunt double's (the look on Medicom's figure). Quite right, the dome had slight variations from one prop to the other and every company has given it a different shape...
But the point I keep trying to make is that HT just didn't do their homework well enough, they just said "screw it, it's got an elongated head, tubes in the back and an inner tongue, that's the alien right there".
Answer: It's an unmistakable great representation of the Giger Alien and nobody could mistake it for anything else. It's just your personal taste that you're trying to represent as fact. The rest is only your opinion and not fact as far as I and a number of other people are concerned. Fan generated, obsessive fantasy.
Fine, I made an off-hand remark, I accept that wholeheartedly. HT didn't say "screw it", but they did not make their homework right and put in a lot of things that weren't there and changed other things. If you don't believe it, look a t the pics of the suit and compare them to the HT figure.
And there just is no single shred of evidence to support a view that the HT figure does accurately portray any single prop or suit used in the film. Not the face, not the proportions, not the details, not even the tubes in the back! It's about as accurate as their Aliens figure...
Answer: Your views are coloured by your personal taste that you're trying to represent as fact, not by ration assessment of how what you saw in the movie was created. Everything said is researchable and well documented fact.
Hey, don't take my word for it, just look at the pictures of the suit (being worn by Bolaji Badejo) and the pics of the statue. That is more documented than your posts that always fail to show any proof.
Again, it's a nice interpretation made to today's standards of quality, detailing and pose-ability, but nothing else.
I like my HT alien, it's a nice figure, nothing less, nothing more. Certainly a nice addition to any collection.
Answer: Absolutely Ridiculous! Make you mind up! You contradict yourself in so many ways and so many places.
Accept that people see things differently from you and that you aren't right just because people don't see it your way.
Why is it ridiculous? I've never said I dislike the HT figure, I'm just saying it's not accurate. What do I have to make my mind up about?
ANSWER: Do your homework and research everything that was mentioned in the original post I posted, because as far as I'm concerned you haven't really got a clue about what you are talking about beyond the shallow unverified stuff that's been posted by other fans like you.
Stop perpetuating urban myths and childhood fantasy about the Alien as fact.
Stop harassing people that like the figure for what it is. Every time someone says the like it, you and your good buddies come along to tell them they are basically idiot's and hide behind the "I'm glad YOU like it, though" CRAP.
I don't think I'm harassing anybody, I just try to point out that the figure is not accurate when somebody says it is. If others feel harassed by that, I apologize. I find these discussions mostly fun. As far as research, I have the books, have watched the documentaries and posted pics on this and other threads, so I'd say I'm well documented.
Go and make another few thousand NECA posts while claiming to be impartial. LoL
It really is a nice figure. I'm just bummed the diorama background is too tall to fit in behind it 
