And I want to go on record and scrap everything I said. I just got the memo that BATEMAN IS WAYNE!!!!
It's just hard to imagine a stoic, suited up, staight bateman on your shelf with this head not looking entirely goofy. I am always one of the first to defend iminime from tons of unwarrented (in my opinion) complaints, but this time I feel I could lead the charge on the dissapointment. it just reminds me of this...
Never seen those, but I would be interested to check them out. Henry is such an unpleasant movie. I think that's why people don't talk about it much around here, and may not have even seen it. But it is what I would imagine a realistic serial killer would look and act like. I saw it once, and think it is worth seeing, but I don't want to see it again. And I think it's interesting to think about what draws people to wanting some psychopathic murderers on the shelf (Bateman, Joker, Dexter, Jason Voorhees, Alex DeLarge?), but not others. Not that this is the place for such a discussion, but I think people (rightfully) get a little unsettled when something feels a bit too realistic.Henry is a great low budgie flick! I've seen you mention it elsewhere and I was surprised someone else besides my self knew of it(I have the DVD
). You may also like Luther the Geek, Irreversible (subtitles) and I Stand Alone (subtitles). Very different movies but I lump them together for certain reasons.
Although you make vaild points here, I think your statement about 1/6 begging for nothing too specific is a matter of taste. That is your opinion where I am of the opinion that it depends on the figure and the character it represents. I mean if this was say Michael Myers and he was sculpting it with a mask that looked like it was screaming, everyone would say no way that's nuts!! The mask NEVER looked like that anywhere. But when you talk about a human face, what dictates not specific? Whether it be a promo pic or in the movie, it is a look that Bale portrayed for that moment. Any facial expression you have IS a specific look. Whether it be smiling, smurking, laughing, or just a cold stern stare, all of those choices are capturing a certain look frozen in time. So for me, this is a chance to have something extremely out of the ordinary and special. IMO of course.
). I'm only this vocal because I have tremendous passion fot this movie, character and figure.
Everyone has there own take on this which is fine. My take is when you're choosing 1 static look(outfit included) for a figure to represent a character (most characters have tons of different expressions throughout a movie), you should be balancing it between what's most iconic and what's most versatile. And I'm all for things that are out of the ordinary....if they are V2's, V3's, V4's, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I like the screaming look and the message it sends...if it were a third sculpt or framed on my wall. Not what I'd like for the main sculpt of the first Bateman full set (which is so long overdue) that enters the 1/6 world. It takes away all versatility. And how do you think us purists and the accuracy junkies see this. It's a still of a look that never happens in the movie and you can't even see the suit that he's wearing. So the whole thing is not iconic but idealized.
And the lack of versatility is the same reason I'm not for the smirking or smiling idea. That only works if your displaying him with a CD in his hand. That would look very odd with any of his tools of the trade(axe, knife, nail gun). The cold stare is even perfect for something as simple as displaying him with his walkman on or just holding his breifcase:
Like I said before, there's a big reason why that is the most common type of imagery for the character. And that's coming from the author, director, film studio, and only company that made licensed collectibles.
Everyone has different criteria in mind that motivates them when they collect.
