I welcome ball jointed heads too like on the Rocky figures.
Rocky figures are topless and thus any other kind of joint would look even worse so I can understand it there. Similarly in the case of Dutch where many of the variants have exposed skin below the neckline - again a joint cutting across that would look terrible. But there is no such problem for the USCM figures and yet they've been given ball-jointed heads for no good reason that I can determine. Do I need my marines doing puppy-dog head tilts? Can't say that I do.
And you can still simulate a tilted head where the joint is at the base of the neck - yeah it doesn't look too realistic if the entire neck tilts over but then cuts and gaps across the jawline look even less realistic and you're then forced to put up with those no matter what pose you've got the head in-
''Ewww the neck looks so silly and unnatural tilted over like that when I want to pose him looking inquisitive'' - ANSWER - OK, don't pose him looking inquisitive. When did he ever do that in the film anyway?
Versus
"Ewww whats with these ugly cuts and seperations between his face and his neck, its far too obvious that his head and neck are different sections, thats about as unnatural as you can get'' - ANSWER - So don't look at the figure from any angle other than directly front-on (?!?!?!?!?)
I know which scenario I'd choose.
Personally I can deal with joints in clothed areas and I think for the most part NECA has done a good job of concealing them. But I've hated ball-joint heads with a passion ever since Hasbro started putting them on every single Star Wars figure. That NECA, Hot Toys and Enterbay are also now going with that is absolutely baffling.
And please, no one level the usual ''then buy statues'' argument at me. I'm talking about
one joint here and all I'm saying is keep it at the base of the neck where it is hidden, they wouldn't be any less ''action figures'' in not being able to tilt their heads like puppies.
