Old vs New comparison...
Lol. Picking on the size of the figure aside, it does look really nice. And I think the original Tony sculpt with updated paint apps looks pretty good. But it’s 25% overpriced considering they just changed out some but not all plastic parts for diecast and threw in a cheap plastic riser stand.Teen Tony is clearly in the new Mk I... or a girl.
Such a shame. Third chance and just another toss-off from HT.
Yeah, 2.0 > Diecast for me on looks alone. That super high polished gloss just doesn't look right to me. Looks too much like it came out fresh from a new car factory. It would have looked fine if they had kept the iron/hammered in details like previously mentioned.
A diecast with ratcheted joints would be awesome for a new Iron Monger. But zero chance Hot Toys any efforts in doing a new sculpt for that. They would 100% just reissue the original with a new paint on the same sculpt.After all these Iron Man armours and War Machines over the years, I'm shocked they never did an Iron Monger 2.0.
But if this is their Mark I 're-do' effort, I guess it doesn't bode well for an Iron Monger down the line. As I recall the original was comically out of scale and I'm picturing a more shiny version of that one.
we know all that, the issue is that the rest of the iron man line is overscaled, so if stood next to them it looks small. HT need consistency for the line to work, either go true 1:6 scale or go overscaled, mixed approach just ruins displaysRobert Downey Jr is a short guy, his height is 5’8” this means 68” (172cm), because this figure is ”true 1/6 scale”, so 68/6=11.33 inches tall is the accurate height for the figure inside the armor, the armor doesn’t add to much height, the boots sole are barely 2 inches tall. I understand the frustration, but we have to be honest, Robert Downey Jr is a short guy but is an excellent Tony Stark, and this figure is true 1/6 scale.
Yeah but they upgraded the height of all the iron man armors, plus come hottoys isn't really that accurate in scale, black widow/Scarlett isn't that tiny compared to rdj and rdj isn't that small compared to Evans.Robert Downey Jr is a short guy, his height is 5’8” this means 68” (172cm), because this figure is ”true 1/6 scale”, so 68/6=11.33 inches tall is the accurate height for the figure inside the armor, the armor doesn’t add to much height, the boots sole are barely 2 inches tall. I understand the frustration, but we have to be honest, Robert Downey Jr is a short guy but is an excellent Tony Stark, and this figure is true 1/6 scale.
I agree that height comparison with the Mark 85 really isn’t all that bad. Honestly I think the figure looks really good, it’s just $100 overpriced.Ok just to shed some light but not so much, I noticed the die cast one has the helmet sitted higher due to a bigger hinge also on the last pic from sideshow the 3.0 has more neck which make him taller than the 2.0 yes I know it's not much but at least there's something?
heres a side by side comparison with the 85 and it doesn't look that bad? also here's few headswaps from a reviewer i saw in YouTube. I gotta say having that mk5 suit up head on the mark 1 is beautiful.
The smoother shiny diecast metal look is maybe more accurate though?Yeah, 2.0 > Diecast for me on looks alone. That super high polished gloss just doesn't look right to me. Looks too much like it came out fresh from a new car factory. It would have looked fine if they had kept the iron/hammered in details like previously mentioned.
The weird part is the prototype looked perfectly fine. It had the higher gloss over the 2.0 while also maintaining the surface details on it. For some reason Hot Toys just threw all that detail away with production.
As a matter of fact, the entire figure lost all of its armor details from the prototype. Went from having surface detail to just being completely baby smooth in the final production version. Just bizarre and a big downgrade imo.
I agree that height comparison with the Mark 85 really isn’t all that bad. Honestly I think the figure looks really good, it’s just $100 overpriced.
The smoother shiny diecast metal look is maybe more accurate though?
View attachment 620776
Enter your email address to join: