Masters of the Universe Classics

[Glennfett]

I think it cool 4H are doing Thundercats!
I am also curious to see the 12inch scaled MOTU figures too that other company is doing

 

[Kuwahara]

I get that some people actually wouldn't mind if SM ended up being comparable to the size of CG, it baffles my mind but I get it. However, I don't understand the continuing argument that a SM at the size it is now wouldn't be practical, I have yet to see anyone state a reason as to why. Like, wouldn't a bigger SM be more practical because the bigger it is, the more playability it has, the more in scale with the figures it is, etc.? How does making it smaller make it more practical when the smaller it is, the less it can be used with 7" figures? I suppose some people think the vintage Eternia play set is impractical, or maybe the vintage GIJOE USS FLAG?

 

[MagpieMad]

Kuwahara the main reasons people on the forum have given so far for the SM displayed at SDCC not being practical are the amount of shelf space required and the higher price customers will pay for a large SM, as well as shipping costs, particularly for international customers.

I agree with Jonwes regarding what constitutes an acceptable size, same height as Grayskull with the tower being taller.

 

[Kuwahara]

The shelf space required for the SM shown isn't much different than what would be needed for CG fully opened lengthwise IMO. SM really doesn't appear to be as big as people are exaggerating it to be. Yes, it has a snap on mountain peak that makes it taller, otherwise I don't see how this is TWICE as big as CG or more, like many are exclaiming.

I think what really confuses me is fans have amassed this huge MOTUC collection for the past 8 years or so, and gladly have them on display taking up multiple square feet of a room or basement. NOW suddenly they claim to have no more room, and demand that a play set be made smaller as if it's really going to make a huge difference. AND people are suddenly worried about price after spending thousands of dollars on a toy line for the past 8 years? Really?

This line has never really been international fan friendly in terms of shipping/customs, etc. International collectors should already expect to pay high shipping costs for such an item after 8 years. Reducing the size of SM isn't going to make international shipping significantly better.

"reasons people on the forum have given so far for the SM displayed at SDCC not being practical are the amount of shelf space required and the higher price customers will pay"

I think the reasons given are more of a personal preference or opinion, and don't have anything to do with the play set's practicality. People want it smaller because it better suits their display plans. They want it smaller because for some reason they think it will be cheaper to ship.

 

[MagpieMad]

The shelf space required for the SM shown isn't much different than what would be needed for CG fully opened lengthwise IMO. SM really doesn't appear to be as big as people are exaggerating it to be.

Shelf space is finite, and after 8 years I am extremely selective when purchasing MOTUC. I've only bought 4 figures this year and that's probably all I'll get. I only have the front of CG displayed as that is the most iconic in my eyes. I will definitely be displaying both halves of SM though. The only space big enough for it in my office is 95cm high by 120cm wide. Any bigger than that and I'm out!

I think what really confuses me is fans have amassed this huge MOTUC collection for the past 8 years or so, and gladly have them on display taking up multiple square feet of a room or basement. NOW suddenly they claim to have no more room, and demand that a play set be made smaller as if it's really going to make a huge difference. AND people are suddenly worried about price after spending thousands of dollars on a toy line for the past 8 years? Really?

You're also right that this line has been going for a long time. I was 24 when it started, living at my parents house with no dependents or serious financial commitments. It's now 8 years later and my situation has changed a lot. Plus as I already explained display space is finite, the more stuff you have the less room you have for new purchases. That's common sense.

This line has never really been international fan friendly in terms of shipping/customs, etc. International collectors should already expect to pay high shipping costs for such an item after 8 years. Reducing the size of SM isn't going to make international shipping significantly better.

The size of the item actually makes quite a massive difference to the cost of international postage. Again I agree with you that shipping costs are higher than they should be but that is a topic which has been discussed in this thread ad nauseam over the last 8 years, so I wont go into that

I think the reasons given are more of a personal preference or opinion, and don't have anything to do with the play set's practicality. People want it smaller because it better suits their display plans. They want it smaller because for some reason they think it will be cheaper to ship.

That is a practical consideration for me though. I think we have different opinions about what constitutes a practical consideration. The vast majority of what people say and post is subjective, why do you need to point that out?

 

[teemu]

My CG sits on the floor and so will Snake Mountain. So how the size of SM is now,that's what I want...If they are reducing it,they don't need to go more than 10%

 

[MagpieMad]

Don't get me wrong I'm not asking for a vintage size SM, just so long as it's less than 1m tall and 1.2m wide I'll be happy. I would be suprised if it was bigger than that though.

 

[Kuwahara]

The shelf space required for the SM shown isn't much different than what would be needed for CG fully opened lengthwise IMO. SM really doesn't appear to be as big as people are exaggerating it to be.

Shelf space is finite, and after 8 years I am extremely selective when purchasing MOTUC. I've only bought 4 figures this year and that's probably all I'll get. I only have the front of CG displayed as that is the most iconic in my eyes. I will definitely be displaying both halves of SM though. The only space big enough for it in my office is 95cm high by 120cm wide. Any bigger than that and I'm out!

I think what really confuses me is fans have amassed this huge MOTUC collection for the past 8 years or so, and gladly have them on display taking up multiple square feet of a room or basement. NOW suddenly they claim to have no more room, and demand that a play set be made smaller as if it's really going to make a huge difference. AND people are suddenly worried about price after spending thousands of dollars on a toy line for the past 8 years? Really?

You're also right that this line has been going for a long time. I was 24 when it started, living at my parents house with no dependents or serious financial commitments. It's now 8 years later and my situation has changed a lot. Plus as I already explained display space is finite, the more stuff you have the less room you have for new purchases. That's common sense.

This line has never really been international fan friendly in terms of shipping/customs, etc. International collectors should already expect to pay high shipping costs for such an item after 8 years. Reducing the size of SM isn't going to make international shipping significantly better.

The size of the item actually makes quite a massive difference to the cost of international postage. Again I agree with you that shipping costs are higher than they should be but that is a topic which has been discussed in this thread ad nauseam over the last 8 years, so I wont go into that

I think the reasons given are more of a personal preference or opinion, and don't have anything to do with the play set's practicality. People want it smaller because it better suits their display plans. They want it smaller because for some reason they think it will be cheaper to ship.

That is a practical consideration for me though. I think we have different opinions about what constitutes a practical consideration. The vast majority of what people say and post is subjective, why do you need to point that out?

"Shelf space is finite,"

This is just your opinion. Maybe for you "Shelf" space is finite, but there are other ways to display toys than on shelves, and if you are really that strapped for space, maybe it's time to rethink buying SM period, rather than hoping it's drastically reduced in size to meet your needs. I don't think the size should be reduced just because YOU and many other collectors don't want to put any effort into making it fit into the collection. It's already an insult to many people's intelligence for Mattel to say they want the size reduced so people can display it. I mean, It's a gigantic play set, a reduction in size by 10-20% will still leave it gigantic (but less in scale with figures), so the "No Space" rational is just lame IMO.

"You're also right that this line has been going for a long time. I was 24 when it started, living at my parents house with no dependents or serious financial commitments. It's now 8 years later and my situation has changed a lot. Plus as I already explained display space is finite, the more stuff you have the less room you have for new purchases. That's common sense."

That doesn't apply to everyone though, I adjust things in my home to accommodate my growing collection. If I can do it, many other can to. If they totally can't, then maybe they shouldn't collect toys anymore. You say your selective in what you buy, so perhaps selecting to not buy SM is the best course of action for you.

"The size of the item actually makes quite a massive difference to the cost of international postage. Again I agree with you that shipping costs are higher than they should be but that is a topic which has been discussed in this thread ad nauseam over the last 8 years, so I wont go into that"

I never said international shipping costs are higher than they should be but, with Digital River I don't doubt that. If they can manage to fit SM in the same size box as CG, then shipping price should be a non issue. From what I saw in the SM pictures, with a VERY SLIGHT sculpt modification and if the play set is engineered correctly, it should fit in the CG sized box.

"That is a practical consideration for me though. I think we have different opinions about what constitutes a practical consideration. The vast majority of what people say and post is subjective, why do you need to point that out?"

I've been seeing the, "The size is not practical" excuse from many people on many forums, it may apply to the individual, but not everyone. So I guess my point is, the size shouldn't be reduced to meet the needs of the few people with limited display space. It should remain at a decent scale for the majority of collectors who want SM to be in scale with their figures, and those who think it's too big shouldn't buy it.

 

[Zodach]

Bigger product = bigger cost. Bigger cost = fewer buyers. I think Mattel said at SDCC that they would need to do a presale for this. Will there be a meter with a minimum threshold to go into production? That I don't know, but if there is a lower price point it will be within more peoples' budget. Let's just say as an example this would be priced at $400 at the prototype scale, but reducing the size by 20% would also lower the price 20% to $320. That is a big difference. I know these are not exact numbers, but Mattel needs to keep this at a reasonable price or it could be dead in the water without enough customers willing to buy it.

I would honestly pay the higher price to have Snake Mountain at the larger scale, but I know everyone's financial situation is different. Mattel probably needs to sell a couple thousand Snake Mountain playsets, not just a couple hundred so the price is very important. I would rather have a slightly scaled down Snake Mountain than none at all.

 

[Kuwahara]

Bigger product = bigger cost. Bigger cost = fewer buyers. I think Mattel said at SDCC that they would need to do a presale for this. Will there be a meter with a minimum threshold to go into production? That I don't know, but if there is a lower price point it will be within more peoples' budget. Let's just say as an example this would be priced at $400 at the prototype scale, but reducing the size by 20% would also lower the price 20% to $320. That is a big difference. I know these are not exact numbers, but Mattel needs to keep this at a reasonable price or it could be dead in the water without enough customers willing to buy it.

Bigger product = bigger cost to who exactly? Mattel? Bigger price tag = fewer buyers maybe, but even that I think isn't necessarily the case with MOTUC collectors.

I think the SM that was shown is a huge optical illusion. Let's not forget that CG came with a whole bunch of FLOOR pieces. That's a lot of extra plastic right there, and is no different than the two halves and a mountain peak with SM. Now I agree that the large side of SM is probably wider than one half of CG, and that should be addressed with a sculpt modification to make it fit in the box, but I really don't think SM as a whole is terrible big, definitely not TWICE as big as CG. Further more, let's not forget that SM will be packed modularly, the same way CG was packed.

I would like to think Mattel would want to keep SM at a price the same or slightly above the current price of CG, and they can do it without reducing the scale by 10-20% IMO. I think a lot of what has been said by SLC has been to maintain expectations, and I have faith that SM won't actually be reduced in size too much, but they give us the worst case scenario now, to maybe show us something better in the future. basically head games to stimulate buzz and conversation.

 

[MagpieMad]

I'll be honest my first reply to you took me over 15 minutes and I get the feeling this could go back and forth for a while if I get caught up. So very quickly:

Everything is finite, you cant have infinite space. This is not an opinion, it's a fact!

I explained my situation as you couldn't understand why people are suddenly saying they have limited space or funds.

You said I should be used to having to pay high shipping costs after 8 years, which implies that I have been paying them already. So, whether intentionally or not, you did comment upon shipping costs.

You've been seeing the "Size is not practical" excuse from lots of people, including me, because it affects a lot of individuals. If it affects enough and they choose not to buy it then SM wont be made.

I want a SM no taller than 1m, if it's taller than that I'll move on and spend my money somewhere else, probably HT Star Wars dioramas.

 

[Kuzeh]

I'll be honest my first reply to you took me over 15 minutes and I get the feeling this could go back and forth for a while if I get caught up. So very quickly:

Everything is finite, you cant have infinite space. This is not an opinion, it's a fact!

I explained my situation as you couldn't understand why people are suddenly saying they have limited space or funds.

You said I should be used to having to pay high shipping costs after 8 years, which implies that I have been paying them already. So, whether intentionally or not, you did comment upon shipping costs.

You've been seeing the "Size is not practical" excuse from lots of people, including me, because it affects a lot of individuals. If it affects enough and they choose not to buy it then SM wont be made.

I want a SM no taller than 1m, if it's taller than that I'll move on and spend my money somewhere else, probably HT Star Wars dioramas.

A word of advise my friend

You'll find out that whatever people are commenting on, he'll just state the opposite to antagonize and be condescending...

The fact is SM will be smaller, my guess is that they'll reduce the left (snake) side, as the right size looks to be about the same height of Castle Grayskull.
I trust the 4H, so I am not worried about how it will look.

 

[Joda]

Hmm. I'd actually like something like this, personally.



(Sorry for the bad Photoshop job. ) If you've got to carry over the face from the Mattel Playset, make it a bit larger and put it on the back. The closer to the Filmation version, the better for me. (Even though the toy was my Holy Grail as a child.)

 

[Kuzeh]

Hmm. I'd actually like something like this, personally.

View attachment 198670

(Sorry for the bad Photoshop job. ) If you've got to carry over the face from the Mattel Playset, make it a bit larger and put it on the back. The closer to the Filmation version, the better for me. (Even though the toy was my Holy Grail as a child.)

I think the issue is not the 2 halves, but the height of the Mountain... It looks like the right side can remain the same while the mountain side would need to be scaled down...

 

[karamazov80]

Whatever Mattel wants to do is okay by me, since I would prefer not to waste energy needlessly raging on the toy forum about changes that are never going to happen. But to each their own.

 

[FatHotei]

Whatever Mattel wants to do is okay by me, since I would prefer not to waste energy needlessly raging on the toy forum about changes that are never going to happen. But to each their own.

 

[Kuwahara]

A word of advise my friend



You'll find out that whatever people are commenting on, he'll just state the opposite to antagonize and be condescending...

The fact is SM will be smaller, my guess is that they'll reduce the left (snake) side, as the right size looks to be about the same height of Castle Grayskull.
I trust the 4H, so I am not worried about how it will look.

You know what dude, every indirect, cowardly stab at me only makes you look like a troublemaker. Didn't you add a few of us to your ignore list or something? I guess that's not working out for you, so you resort to provoking more trouble instead. Makes sense.

 

[Kuwahara]

"I'll be honest my first reply to you took me over 15 minutes and I get the feeling this could go back and forth for a while if I get caught up. So very quickly:

Everything is finite, you cant have infinite space. This is not an opinion, it's a fact!"

No, It's a fact for you, not for me. For me, where there's a will, there's a way. If I wanted to be a zombie collector and have every toy ever made from every company in the past 20 years, I could do it. To say it's impossible and a fact is simply wrong.

"I explained my situation as you couldn't understand why people are suddenly saying they have limited space or funds.

You said I should be used to having to pay high shipping costs after 8 years, which implies that I have been paying them already. So, whether intentionally or not, you did comment upon shipping costs."

Semantics? Yup, always the last resort when a person doesn't have a strong argument. Bravo! You said that I said international shipping prices are higher than they should be, but I did not say that. LOL!

"You've been seeing the "Size is not practical" excuse from lots of people, including me, because it affects a lot of individuals. If it affects enough and they choose not to buy it then SM wont be made."

I personally think you and all the other people who want it smaller are in the minority. Just take a look at the latest .org poll based on the subject. That's just one fan site with only a percentage of ALL MOTUC collectors.

"I want a SM no taller than 1m, if it's taller than that I'll move on and spend my money somewhere else, probably HT Star Wars dioramas."

This is where the irony kicks in. You don't want SM to be TOO BIG, and if it is, you wont buy it and continue to collect another toy line. So, you have space for Star Wars dioramas, but not a HUGE SM. Gotcha.

 

[entrari]

I think shelf space is limited more by widths and depth than height. But maybe that's just me. I place the taller stuff on the ground or on the top shelf.
Like this.


Anyways, I think the bigger it is the more figures you can put on it as well so that allows you to free up some space.

 

[MagpieMad]

Kuwahara, I just don't care enough to continue this conversation further and I don't think anyone else wants to read it either.

EDIT: Cool statue Entrari, nice angle for the photo too