NECA: Alien Movie Franchise Figures

[P.]

i *love* this kind of comparing!

 

[Yahzee]

I didn't say it didn't have mistakes, just that it was closer than Sideshow's, especially in some of the details.

...NECA's it's obviously the closest one. Proportions are off because of the need to make it cheaper.

 

[Yahzee]

i *love* this kind of comparing!

....*me too*

 

[Lord Freezer]

...NECA's it's obviously the closest one. Proportions are off because of the need to make it cheaper.

It depends on what we are going to observe. The inclination angle and the size of the proximal "********" of the cannon in the Sideshow is more correct than in the Neca. The Neca cannon has a more appropriate length. If we observe the statue details, we can see a huge number of mistakes. I think that the most respected proportions model are present in the Halcyon.



But there are some mistakes in this statue.

 

[Burnside]

...I want to say...NECA's?

View attachment 288304

If you look at the ***** cannon or whatever that thing is, there should be a straight line on top of the wavy line.
How they could mess that one up? It's right there on a picture

 

[a-dev]

S'pose in this instance I'm less fussed about accuracy. Whether I can get it in the first place and QC & longevity are more concerning...

 

[Yahzee]

If you look at the ***** cannon or whatever that thing is, there should be a straight line on top of the wavy line.
How they could mess that one up? It's right there on a picture

...like I said, that's most likely to do with reducing the size of the thing a little

Sent from my ALE-L23 using Tapatalk

 

[Lord Freezer]

The red line represents the small Cinemachines, the black area the Space Jockey from the movie:

 

[Alpharius]

I was happy when I saw this at the NECA website but after seeing the price and hearing about the materials I'm very disappointed. Call me cheap but I thought this would be a $200 piece. Not impressed with the painting from the pictures I've seen, they've tried to go for the fossilized look which Sideshow lacks but they didn't nail it, plus paint application on NECA figures varies widely. I'd like to see it up close to get a better idea of the paint and also feel the material.

 

[Burnside]

...like I said, that's most likely to do with reducing the size of the thing a little

Sent from my ALE-L23 using Tapatalk

You sparked my interest in knowing how authentic this statue will be. I had an hour of free time, so this is my humble opinion: I wonder if NECA graduated from HT school of not giving a damn or Mr. Windrix was not on the case this time around.

First things first: NECA vs NECA: CINEMACHINES VS Foam

Let's go Foam Replica vs the real thing

I can live with deformities in the ***** cannon angle, I can accept the inconsistencies of the paintjob, but I was certainly not expecting this. I would like the community to correct me if I'm wrong.

This is just unacceptable, at this point I would prefer buying Sideshow for a better sculpt and NECA for superior paintjob

 

[Jay1138]

I'm sure I'm not the only one. But the price on NECA's Jocky seems a but steep to me. It's just a foam statue with NO moving parts or accessories. Should be more like $50-80.

 

[Kenernest63a]

She looks good.

 

[Yahzee]

View attachment 288514View attachment 288515View attachment 288517View attachment 288518
She looks good.

...omg is she yours!?

Sent from my ALE-L23 using Tapatalk

 

[Reinhardt]

NEED NEED NEED!

Regarding the Space Jockey... it's made of foam. Isn't that enough to not consider it? If I'm missing something, please let me know.

 

[Johnny Utah]

There's a new Alien, Predator and Blade Runner film out in thr next year and a half.

 

[a-dev]

There's Vasquez cast in flesh tones standing next to a painted tones Hicks....gotta say that bothers me. What's the thinking behind that if there is any...

 

[Rotfish]

There's Vasquez cast in flesh tones standing next to a painted tones Hicks....gotta say that bothers me. What's the thinking behind that if there is any...

Looks better than Hicks if I'm being honest. At least from what I can tell in those shots.

 

[a-dev]

The inconsistency is somewhat annoying, added to the inconsistency of what parts of the movie the various figures are based on. They could fix all this but I'm not sure they will....

 

[VLAGAS]

There's Vasquez cast in flesh tones standing next to a painted tones Hicks....gotta say that bothers me. What's the thinking behind that if there is any...

Damn I see what you mean. Didn't think it would stand out too much but that side by side is pretty bad in contrast.

Especially when you remember Vasquez being quite a bit darker skinned than Hicks in the movie.

Such a shame that something as basic as this can really hurt the figures, because they have a great sculpt nonetheless.

No logic behind this... Correct me if I'm wrong but Frost is probably back to painted.

They could of atleast had them all flesh toned from here on out.

 

[Rotfish]

Especially when you remember Vasquez being quite a bit darker skinned than Hicks in the movie.

Ah, now that makes sense. I'd say Hicks is the bigger issue; his and Hudson's skin tones are terrible in terms of realism. Much too dark, much too solid.