SSC Green Lantern 1/6 Figure

[DelScorcho]

I look at it this way, Hot Toys doesn't do their interpretation of a Captain America movie figure, they do a screen accurate version - because that's what buyers want. Pick an iconic look and commit, don't muddy the property.

An interesting comparison, although a bit "apples vs. oranges". Hot Toys doesn't make them screen accurate because of the fans. They make them that way because they have the license to make the film specific characters.

I think "iconic" is a tricky term. Your iconic version maybe be different from what I consider iconic. The iconic version of a child of the 70s/80s might be different from the iconic version of someone who grew up in the late 90s/early 2000s.

Ultimately, these "iconic versions" wouldn't exist if these artists (or movie studios) hadn't strayed from what was considered the norm. It'll be interesting to see what else comes from this. I know my sentiments may not be shared by every one, but there are hits (deadpool and wolverine look pretty sweet) and there are misses (as some feel about this Green Lantern). But hey, as long they don't put nipples on the batsuit, I'm pretty easy to impress.

 

[teemu]

Pursuant to this, the GI Joe line is a good example of this not working. SS eventually revisited Snake-Eyes and Stormshadow with "canon-accurate" versions, but by then I think many core Joe fans were put off by the earlier redesigns of 12" figs. And why Scarlett wasn't in the first 5/6 figures is mind-boggling to me. Obviously we'll never know but I think those kinds of decisions poisoned the well of the line (but I understand they may have come from outside SS).

Looking at my Sideshow Joe collection,I still think they did a good job with it.I just wished they made MORE of them.

Whaaa? Then you are clearly not a fan of GI Joe. Don't confuse being accurate to the original RAH designs as being simplistic and therefore toy like, the old Joe designs are 1980's military sci-fi pop culture. They were weird goofy designs but that's what we loved about them!
I like some of sideshows original Joe designs, but I feel there was a missed opportunity here to make something iconic and uniquely GI Joe.

Sure,I would of liked the ARAH Card Art designs which would of made them more unique/cartoon/toy accurate etc,but I feel Sideshow has made the best 1/6 scale GIJoes to date based off the GI Joe property we remember....maybe someday Hasbro or another company will step up and give us 1/6 ARAH 80's card art style Joes

--Whether we agree or not, the JOE line did a decent/good job in terms of visually representing the characters in the real/modern world while taking some of their cartoon/toy visuals and updating them for the real world aestehtics/interpretations..

I agree

 

[WWEJedi]

An interesting comparison, although a bit "apples vs. oranges". Hot Toys doesn't make them screen accurate because of the fans. They make them that way because they have the license to make the film specific characters.

I think "iconic" is a tricky term. Your iconic version maybe be different from what I consider iconic. The iconic version of a child of the 70s/80s might be different from the iconic version of someone who grew up in the late 90s/early 2000s.

Ultimately, these "iconic versions" wouldn't exist if these artists (or movie studios) hadn't strayed from what was considered the norm. It'll be interesting to see what else comes from this. I know my sentiments may not be shared by every one, but there are hits (deadpool and wolverine look pretty sweet) and there are misses (as some feel about this Green Lantern). But hey, as long they don't put nipples on the batsuit, I'm pretty easy to impress.

Don't give them ideas.

 

[**16k**]

I

If you are still responding to posts Matt I have a few questions if you don't mind.

Did Batman, Superman, Joker, Harley, Catwoman sell bad? Was this the reason to change the direction of this line due to low sales of the comic accurate figures?

For DC and Marvel lines, this new artistic interpretation, is it here to stay for the foreseeable future?

Also, will this same textured/shiny type fabric used on Green Lantern be used on future releases?

Do you honestly think he'd tell you if they had sold bad?

Not something a company is likely to disclose! It's something you'll know for yourself if and when the line is discontinued, and it will take a few more figs to know that!

Besides, I think they waited for doing their"artistc interpretation" because modifying the look of the two main DC characters would have cost too much of an uproar. GL or Flash are less likely to do that, and yet look at the drama we had only a few days ago

 

[WWEJedi]

I

Do you honestly think he'd tell you if they had sold bad?

Not something a company is likely to disclose! It's something you'll know for yourself if and when the line is discontinued, and it will take a few more figs to know that!

Besides, I think they waited for doing their"artistc interpretation" because modifying the look of the two main DC characters would have cost too much of an uproar. GL or Flash are less likely to do that, and yet look at the drama we had only a few days ago

It was worth a shot.....

That reason right there was the only logical reasoning i could come up as to why SSC would change the design. I am still trying to understand why they did.... outside of the we wanted the characters to look how we like them line i am still stumped.

Flash looked good from a distance at least, so if SSC turns it around i will continue buying and supporting the line. I would not say this line will be discontinued just from one figure being mostly hated on though.

 

[Jroug]

Most brands / lines / etc (toy or otherwise) typically come out of the gate with their best foot forward, product-wise, in hopes of garnering the best sales. With Sideshow, they usually release the more popular figures from a license first (Joe, Marvel, Dc to a lesser extent). From there, you almost always find sales attrition - no matter how good the subsequent product is. There absolutely are absolutely exceptions to the rule, but they are rare.

You may like the Deadpool Marvel Now costume more than the original costume, but the original was used for what, 20 years? Probably 30 artists drew it during that time and variations are minimal. That costume didn't change until 2012 when they -slightly- redesigned it for Marvel Now. I don't think there's any argument which costume is more iconic (although I'd happily buy a Marvel Now version in addition to a Classic look).

The more I think about it, the more I suspect the SS Marvel license is "interpretation" specific, probably at the request of the master toy license holder.

I'd bet DC game them a pass on this as DC Direct is out of the 1:6 game and Mattel was never in it, except for the odd Barbie.

I appreciate the presence of SS on the boards and their willingness to respond to questions, but I doubt they'll ever be in a position to give us a straight answer on this.

 

[DeltaForceChung]

Sure,I would of liked the ARAH Card Art designs which would of made them more unique/cartoon/toy accurate etc,but I feel Sideshow has made the best 1/6 scale GIJoes to date based off the GI Joe property we remember....maybe someday Hasbro or another company will step up and give us 1/6 ARAH 80's card art style Joes

--

The issue quite a few of us would have is having to buy another 1:6 interpretation/version of characters we already purchased from Sideshow.

Then again . . . being true the true JOE collectors/fanatics we are and/or can be at times . . . we'll end up doing it again.

If Matt is inclined, I wish he would once and for all clearly state Sideshow's run on GI JOE is done and over with and get over it or something like that.

If another company picks up the license asides from Hasbro, then picking up where Sideshow left off; however, we all know that is not feasible/possible.

It wouldn't be literally 1:6 interpretations of 80s ARAH style card art JOES, but along the lines of what Sideshow did. At least in my opinion.

 

[DeltaForceChung]

I appreciate the presence of SS on the boards and their willingness to respond to questions, but I doubt they'll ever be in a position to give us a straight answer on this.

--

I've learned over the years that company representatives sometimes cannot give a definitive answer to many questions. Not necessarily that they don't want to, but because they're not in a position to for a variety of reasons from a business/professional perspective.

Matt previously posted he can only give "black and white" responses while interacting/posting within the SSF because of his position at Sideshow. As much as some of us may disagree or question such a stance so to speak, that is the reality when it comes to the business/professional world not just in the 1:6 business/hobby, but other businesses/hobbies as well.

It may be a different situation if say one of us met and talked with Matt in person at the SDCC where he may have more latitude in conversations, but again it'll be up to him based on what he knows he can discuss. His first obligation/priority is to Sideshow. I don't mean that in an negative connotation, but it is the reality and truth.

Someone in a previous post mentioned about having Sideshow bring back the "Ask Sideshow Anything" interaction on their website and I think that's a good idea in terms of Sideshow getting back to its roots so to speak in communicating with their collectors/customers/fans.

 

[DeltaForceChung]

Did Batman, Superman, Joker, Harley, Catwoman sell bad? Was this the reason to change the direction of this line due to low sales of the comic accurate figures?

Do you honestly think he'd tell you if they had sold bad?

Not something a company is likely to disclose! It's something you'll know for yourself if and when the line is discontinued, and it will take a few more figs to know that!

Besides, I think they waited for doing their"artistc interpretation" because modifying the look of the two main DC characters would have cost too much of an uproar. GL or Flash are less likely to do that, and yet look at the drama we had only a few days ago

--

I agree with 16k.

I don't believe Sideshow ever acknowledged a particular offering did not sell well over the years, but some of us paying attention and "reading the between" the lines based on how long particular products remained available for sale and/or was discounted.

If I'm not mistaken, the majority of figures you mentioned sold out eventually by the time the figures were released, prior to that, or sometime thereafter. The only exception to that thus far is Superman given the amount vitriol regarding the head sculpt, the edition size, pre-order cancellations, etc.

 

[nexus]

Every time I drop into this thread I just shake my head at the lost opportunity. Again, I just really don't see why Sideshow didn't stick to the successful PF formula and simply scale accordingly to 1:6 figures.
#1 the head sizes are too large and not based on Superhero proportions like the PFs are. Folks have demonstrated how these can look much, much better with modding bodies or swapping out head sculpts.
#2 The body used makes this look more like a guy going to a cosplay convention than a superhero. GL is not a powerhouse, but as with the PF, no reason he can't be built like a superhero.
#3 To me the material for GL's costume reminds me of something picked up from a thrift store. If they want to use something more high tech, futuristic, why not the same material used for HT's Man of Steel figure? Rather than the homemade look, go with the the sleeker costume design that was on the PF using a tight, muscle defining material and no turtleneck or bulky gloves and boots. Again, I'm sure folks will improve it in the secondary--reworking the head, swapping out the body, tweaking the costume, etc.
#4 Price. Really? I don't have a problem plunking down $219 for a 1:6 Green Lantern, but this unfortunately isn't it. It will be all the more frustrating because I know several folks are going to mod this one and I'll just look and say, "now that's the Green Lantern I would have bought day one."

I've already seen "improved" versions of Batman and Superman in their respective threads.

 

[Sardo Numspa]

That said, I really don't think the "Sideshow take" on classic characters is what fans want.

Conceptually I understand a figure must have the broadest fan-appeal to sell what you need to justify R&D etc. On the other hand, by creating a new take you're potentially losing sales to ALL fans of the character as opposed to connecting to at least one subgroup of fans.

Pursuant to this, the GI Joe line is a good example of this not working. SS eventually revisited Snake-Eyes and Stormshadow with "canon-accurate" versions, but by then I think many core Joe fans were put off by the earlier redesigns of 12" figs.

This is 2 sides of the same coin. Connecting to at least one subgroup of fans is also, essentially, potentially losing sales to all the other subgroups. Also, if they make any mistakes when designing a figure based specifically on one artist's design, they could lose sales to that one subgroup as well. There really isn't a distinct advantage to going with a particular look, vs a more generalized look that incorporates different elements from different artists.
Also, in the same way that many comic elements don't translate well to live-action movies, the same could be said for translating to 1:6 figures (IMO). GL's boots for example. In almost all comic art, boots for the heroes are so form fitting, that there is almost no seam between the boots and the rest of the costume (other than a change in colour). SSC's GL boots have to be able to be removed and put back on, so they need to be big enough to go over the legs and costume. That's all there is to it (Matt has already explained why they need removable boots for this figure).
SSC does have to conform somewhat to the owners of the license (like DC, for example), so it's fair to assume some restrictions. In the same way that LucasFilm/Disney prefer idealized versions of Vader (to hide the imperfections from the actual film costumes), there is a good chance that WB/DC have certain requests as well. A property like Batman, Superman, GL, have comics, animated shows, animated movies, live-action movies, video games and are shown in other mediums. For all we know, they (WB/DC) might not want SSC to create figures based specifically on a specific artist (particularly if that artist no longer works for them).
Matt has touched on a few things, but I'm sure there is much more involved in the design process for these figures, than anyone on the forum would be privy to.

 

[Jroug]

Good. Point. If you're going to mod this to a classic Gil Kane costume GL the only really useful parts you couldn't get elsewhere (for less) would be the ring hands.

 

[Racetrack]

Every time I drop into this thread I just shake my head at the lost opportunity. Again, I just really don't see why Sideshow didn't stick to the successful PF formula and simply scale accordingly to 1:6 figures.
#1 the head sizes are too large and not based on Superhero proportions like the PFs are. Folks have demonstrated how these can look much, much better with modding bodies or swapping out head sculpts.
#2 The body used makes this look more like a guy going to a cosplay convention than a superhero. GL is not a powerhouse, but as with the PF, no reason he can't be built like a superhero.
#3 To me the material for GL's costume reminds me of something picked up from a thrift store. If they want to use something more high tech, futuristic, why not the same material used for HT's Man of Steel figure? Rather than the homemade look, go with the the sleeker costume design that was on the PF using a tight, muscle defining material and no turtleneck or bulky gloves and boots. Again, I'm sure folks will improve it in the secondary--reworking the head, swapping out the body, tweaking the costume, etc.
#4 Price. Really? I don't have a problem plunking down $219 for a 1:6 Green Lantern, but this unfortunately isn't it. It will be all the more frustrating because I know several folks are going to mod this one and I'll just look and say, "now that's the Green Lantern I would have bought day one."

I've already seen "improved" versions of Batman and Superman in their respective threads.

I have to agree. The Batman Tony Mei and Ashkan put together is amazing using the body and parts from the Sideshow version and a new, much better headsculpt. No one can say it's not an improvment on the Sideshow release. I don't understand why these 2 guys working from home in their spare time can make these yet Sideshow with all their designers and millions of dollars can't. For the $200 Sideshow charged on Batman, it should have been like the Mei/Ashkan version out of the box and not cost us extra to modify it.

Especially the headsculpt as you mentioned. The proportions and scowl face they used are just not comicbook like. They used the same scowl face on the Batman PF and yesterday they announced the modern version of that PF but with a new chiseled jawline comic look headscuplt and everyone thinks it's a huge improvement. Hell even the Medicom Batmans have great headsulpts (but the suit and body are not as good of course).

 

[Sardo Numspa]

Also, using those GI Joes as the reference, the V1 Storm Shadow looked almost exactly like the card art (other than the sleeves, really). Even had almost the same accessories....

 

[Sardo Numspa]

I have to agree. The Batman Tony Mei and Ashkan put together is amazing using the body and parts from the Sideshow version and a new, much better headsculpt. No one can say it's not an improvment on the Sideshow release.

I can say it's not an improvement. I personally thought that headsculpt was too small, and the neck looked too long. But again, that's the whole point, is that these are all personal opinions based on each person's aesthetic preferences. I think the only thing that everyone agrees on, is that Supes should be more muscular.

 

[DeltaForceChung]

Also, using those GI Joes as the reference, the V1 Storm Shadow looked almost exactly like the card art (other than the sleeves, really). Even had almost the same accessories....

--

Obviously there are differences and nuances with respect to the 1:6 DC line and the 1:6 GI JOE line.

The GI JOE line have a rich history in terms of cartoons, comic books, and toys (among others) just like the DC line, but GI JOE was a military themed property compared to the DC line that was not military.

The DC line had the opportunity to be open for more "interpretations" based on the characters. So did the GI JOE line, but there were certain said/unsaid expectations with regards to key GI JOE characters and in some ways the same goes for DC characters, but ultimately it's the apples and oranges difference and nuances.

 

[onethousandmasks]

I can say it's not an improvement. I personally thought that headsculpt was too small, and the neck looked too long. But again, that's the whole point, is that these are all personal opinions based on each person's aesthetic preferences. I think the only thing that everyone agrees on, is that Supes should be more muscular.

I'm going to have to disagree there my friend. The Batman head made by Eric Sosa (painted by Ashkan) is smaller than Sideshow's and bigger than Medicom's. I'ts actually perfect size, proportion wise. as far as the neck part being longer. That is based on the fact that Eric doesn't put a plug on the head, plus the hole is not drilled deep enough. So some people just place it on top on the neck as is. If you look at mine. The neck sits lower, because I dremeled the hole deeper.

 

[Sardo Numspa]

I'm going to have to disagree there my friend. The Batman head made by Eric Sosa (painted by Ashkan) is smaller than Sideshow's and bigger than Medicom's. I'ts actually perfect size, proportion wise. as far as the neck part being longer. That is based on the fact that Eric doesn't put a plug on the head, plus the hole is not drilled deep enough. So some people just place it on top on the neck as is. If you look at mine. The neck sits lower, because I dremeled the hole deeper.

Right. I actually sympathize with the companies that produce these figures (SSC or otherwise). Everyone has their own opinion of how these figures should look. As you mentioned, you dremeled a deeper hole to make the head sit better. Excellent! I don't even have a dremel, much less know how to do that without wrecking the figure.
I think some of the comments on this forum, are similar to what I see on some Transformer forums, in that hindsight really is 20/20. If people have to design/create a figure or toy from scratch, considering engineering, materials, articulation, paint, etc., etc., etc., it would be much more difficult, than to take a figure that's already made, and make some small improvements (based on personal taste).

 

[Jroug]

I don't think we're talking about conforming to a specific artist work, we're talking about using a classic costume. Joe Staton, Mike Grell, Neal Adams, ad nauseum all drew the GL costume slightly differently, but it was the same costume. I know with Marvel if they wanted an Art Adams style Hulk figure, they hired Art Adams to do the turnarounds. They didn't put the artist's name on the package for obvious legal reasons. There are zero issues with using a classic costume, however. They'll pay Rob Liefeld a Deadpool royalty no matter what. DC likely won't pay the Gil Kane estate, because his work for hire was done in a different time, under different terms.

 

[Sardo Numspa]

Oh sure... but again, we're assuming that SSC could have complete freedom in choosing the outfit. Matt already mentioned that they do have to consult with the property owners (DC, Marvel, Disney, whoever) and (I'm assuming) get approval on design.