Macularius
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,098
- Reaction score
- 0
Does anybody really have a company loyalty? I'd think that most people would buy what they think looks good...
Hot Toys - MMS 106 - Alien - BIG CHAP collectible figure
- Thread starter wookster
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Sabres21768
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,665
- Reaction score
- 0
I've found that alot of people actually do have a company loyalty.
That, and a 'scale loyalty' as well.
If it's not 1:6, or 1:4, or 1:1...to match the other pieces in their collection...then they just don't want it, regardless of the quality or accuracy of the piece.
Macularius
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,098
- Reaction score
- 0
Terminator_Fan_Game
Super Freak
I dont have a company loyalty but I kind of have a scale loyalty to 1/6.
Ive only "broke the rule" a few times so far with my 2 Terminator Hunter Killers from sideshow, and 2 life size chucky dolls.
Im also getting all 3 variants of the 1/4 scale neca predator when it releases.
I would have to say that I have a preference to 1/6 and life size, but sometimes its just not possible to stay with those scales.
Last edited:
That was the answer to my question.I didnt know what was good due to not owning the other figures.I do have to disagree that posability does make a differents,due to being figures.Just my thoughts though.Im not trying to cause a debate,just adding to the talk.But, I like the Medicom more than the Hot Toys version.
In my opinion though, the 22" NECA Alien is a better, more accurate figure.
Sabres21768
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,665
- Reaction score
- 0
Scale royalty, definitely! This entire forum has a scale royalty to 1/6!
Not true.
I have ZERO company or scale loyalty.
I buy what I like, no matter who makes it or at what scale.
Personally, I'll buy anything ALIEN related, as long as it's "up to snuff". I just don't have unlimited funds to play with, so I try to pick up the pieces that will really give me a good bang for my buck. For example, I have the little Revoltech Alien...which, for the scale and poseability, is actually a pretty nice representation of the alien. Of course it's not perfect, and as is often the case, the face is the biggest let-down, but it's still worth the 30 bucks.
However, I just can't throw down the 150-200 bucks it'll cost to ship the HT Big Chap to Canada...when there might be a better figure released down the road. I think I'll keep my eye out for a medicom big chap though...I really like that one, despite it having kind of soft looking details from what I've seen in pics.
abake
Rex Tremendae Majestatis
I try to keep to 1/6, it's my main area of interest, but when it comes to Alien I just buy anything to looks good to me.
So I have figures of the Giger alien in all kinds of scales and levels of accuracy.
So I have figures of the Giger alien in all kinds of scales and levels of accuracy.
Have you guys sabres/abake, ever seen or bought any of these?
https://cgi.ebay.com/36-Alien-FACE-HUGGER-Sci-Fi-Movies-Vinyl-Model-Kit-1-1-/380284246468?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item588ab519c4
They're vinyl model kits, and pretty cheap. They look quite detailed... I'm not sure how crafty you guys are, I thought I'd see if you knew anything more about them. I might give it a shot myself sometime.
Sandman
Freakzoid
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
Accuracy or inaccuracy. I don't believe that the photos and spiels adamantly claiming that the details of the Hot Toys figure are inaccurate in some major way are correct. I think that many of the photos in this thread are of replica suits, pre-production trial suits, test photos and a mix of originals and modified and unfinished movie originals, who knows with the low resolution and no mention of where they are sourced from or what context they were taken and for what purpose etc. There simply isn't enough verifiable official photos and reference material available to the public to back up any claims that the Hot Toys figure is accurate or inaccurate beyond any doubt. That said, I think HTs should have painted the tongue white and the rear incisors need a slightly sharper profile and a more chromed appearance, but they are relatively easy and minor fixes - we are talking minor paint details and fractions of millimetres here and stuff that's not really apparent from any distance but only really when magnified.
Ridley constantly and very deliberately had the details of the suits modified during filming so that the appearance of the ALIEN was constantly changing so the audience couldn't get a fix on the shape and finer details - he wanted the viewers minds to fill in the gaps with what they imagined they saw, pattern recognition, everyone sees something different, you know... So I'm saying that there is no one version of the suit for any model to be based on that can replicate exactly what is seen on screen, simply because what is seen in the movie is a composite of all the alterations, variations and repairs made to the suits and biting FX head stand throughout the filming process. Moulds were made and remade, no two domes were the same, like the hands and tendons, details around the mouth, teeth, paint etc, etc, etc. The lighting, lenses and angles chosen for the shots played a huge roll in the Alien's overall appearance, that never gets given much consideration. I think it all comes down to what you think some of the proportions and finer details should look like - just as Ridley and Giger intended from the start.
The finer details of any figure or statue are pretty much up to the artist to interpret as he/she sees fit, the feeling they want to convey, their vision, and we see that in almost every photo posted here. But you and Sabres (and others) seem to be inferring that there is a single version of the ALIEN that all artists should adhere to and base their sculpts on, I don't think that's a fact, it really fly's in the face of the facts. Sabres, when you say that "there are those of us who know what it looks like in the light and up close. We know the details. And for us, this didn't measure up." just sounds so wrong to me. I think you guys have formed an image of the perfect ALIEN that appeals to you, I think we all have. If Joseph sat you guys down and started sculpting you an ALIEN, it probably wouldn't be too long before you guys started fighting with each other about your visions of what it should be, you wouldn't be able to agree, you both wouldn't walk away 100% satisfied at the end. My point isn't that that the Hot Toys ALIEN figure is accurate or inaccurate, but to say with absolute conviction that it's not accurate because of a few tiny details is mystifying to me. I think the claims about the lack of accuracy aren't a fact, it's an opinion that's shaped and based on the image you have created in your mind. I think it's all absolute proof of the brilliance of Giger and Scott and one of the reasons that ALIEN has continually thrilled new audiences and cemented it's place as a classic and a benchmark for other film makers, artists, lighting, FX etc, etc, etc. You will never be able to hold up any single figure and say that it is exactly what was seen on screen. Maybe you could if they release an official book that goes through all the mods the suits went through, you might be able to get a reasonably accurate set of figure and a stand for the biting FX head to satisfy the hardest of hardcore fans, but I doubt that there would be enough of a market to justify producing something like that, or if it something that's even really feasible after all these years.
Thanks for the reply. I don't think that I've deliberately ignored anything, I think have thoroughly reviewed every source I can get my hands on, but you seem to be ignoring many of the core points I made, and you are still revolving around the central argument that the HT's ALIEN isn't screen accurate and it's likeness doesn't represent what's seen in the movie; a generic version that Joseph created without giving it all that much respect in relation to the original. I think it is relatively accurate to the screen and Gigers' vision and sculpts, and I don't think that it's wrong to suggest. I don't think I'm the only one that can see things differently for you and the others. Why get hung up on the figure having to precisely imitate a particular facial expression that's seen when the ALIEN is visible? Do you really think that's it's possible without all the lighting and FX, or do you think they play no real part in the Alien's overall appearance in the film?
All of the statues and figures out there are sculpted in positions and exhibit facial expressions and artistic licence that doesn't represent what's seen in the movie, all of them. Where do you draw the line and accept that there isn't a single figure that can represent every scene that we see because there were many suits and heads used that were all built with slight differences. You don't seem to factor that in or acknowledge it in any way.
The nature of the suits and heads constructions, maintenance and repair dictated varying degrees of subtle differences; like the domes shape, ribbing and finer facial details and arrangements etc. The Rambaldi head had a different appearance than the other five or so heads, so using that particular head design would accurately represent the total ALIEN III design that we seen in the film, and it wouldn't have the overlook of the design that majority associate with it, it would look totally different that any statue we've seen out there so far.
As far as I'm aware, Giger made a polyester statue that was formed from a rough plaster cast of Balajio. Then he created his basic design over the polyester form and the basic plaster and cork chip negatives were created from that. The moulded components were cleaned and trimmed before being extensively customised and modified with other latex details, convoluted tubing etc.Finally being painted and airbrushed etc. Other elements and details of the suits and heads were also cast using plaster and plasticine components that Giger carved and sculpted for the hero and stunt suits; like the feet, glove and finger elements etc. The plasterers would make an accurate cast of the polyester masters and then carve and refine the basic and finer details as accurately as the moulding process they were using at the time would allow for. All the latex was hand painted in to the mould in a laborious process that slowly built up layers until the desired thickness in all the areas of the mould was achieved. That same process was used to produce various components of the suit that were also tailored to Bolaji and the stunt-men Eddie Powell and Roy Scammelland for the specific requirement of the days filming.
There were at the very least 6 heads production heads made, one mechanized, one half mechanised, two unmechanized and a few more made of foam rubber etc. for the stunt-men. The plaster moulds used were only capable or reproducing a fairly basic representation because of the complex curves and shapes involved, and most of the fine detail was added using plaster and plasticine, glued on rubber tubes, detailing etc. and thus, no two heads were constructed identically, they all had variations with the shape of the domes and muscle and tendon details around the mouth. Various artist were involved because of critical time restraints. But Giger.would ultimately supervise and help shape and paint all of them to insure that most of the heads stayed fairly faithful and accurately represented his vision; constrained with the limitations of the materials available in the day that were required for the various tasks, and Scott and Co's artistic crimp.
As the heads and suits were patched up and repainted, those minor individualities and peculiarities would obviously become more apparent. But I think that was fine with Scott in light (forgive the pun) of his various comment about wanting the audience to experience a constantly changing ALIEN so they didn't get a fix on the exact shape and details for the purposes of suspense; so we would use our imagination to complete and add additional layers to terrifying images; heightening the fear and suspense surrounding the creature. It wouldn't interfere with what he want to achieve, and ultimately contributed in immeasurable ways to the overall effect.The Alien was rapidly growing, ageing, changing.
The mechanical heads were created using other techniques and Giger would have made sure that those heads were as faithful as possible to his art; fitted it in with the overall look of the other heads as best as possible. Again, those slight differences in the dome and other facial features appearance and dimensions were perfectly and completely compatible with Scott's film vision. Giger originally intended to go in a more organic direction with the set and the ultimate Alien III design but Scott and Co ultimately had the final decision witht he designs and the rest is history.
The mechanized heads minus the lighting, camera lenses/shot angles, FX and tons of KY jelly etc. wouldn't have anywhere near the impact they do without them. His head was the ugliest of the lot, it had a different appearance to the rest because of the extra mechanical features etc. Scott and Co worked very hard and would have gone through many different angles, perspective and lighting arrangement to achieve the final version we see in the film, you can't separate them; they all very much essential to each other. That's why I have to laugh a little when I read people saying that it looks nothing like the shots we see in the film, what else can you do.
I have seen Giger's concept drawings and photos showing the leg "grills' in positions that closely mirror the design of the HTs figure, but again, there really isn't enough material out there to say if the position and features are totally correct or incorrect. The Giger statue argument isn't all that convincing to me because it was only a guide for the moulds and isn't representative of all the positions details on all the suits I've seen. It's not even really known if it was the exact sculpt the ALIEN III is based on, but I think it probably was. I think Joseph wouldn't have been able to avoid it as a reference, I can definitely see elements in his sculpt.
I don't have any real problems with the small paragraph of Hot Toys claims, that probably has more to do with the marketing department than anything Joseph would have claimed. I think he's smart enough to know that it's not something you can claim with any single ALIEN figure, you would need a set of them, and because you would need to recreate the lighting and FX that were used in the original film to achieve that perfect film look, and that's obviously totally impractical in the real world, even for the hardest or hardcore fans. But I basically agree with the asertion that the figure is the best 1/6 scale posable Giger ALIEN available.
I think many sculptors get fixated on recreating the biting scenes and try blending the mechanized heads with the other head shapes and designs, but to me it makes the heads look like they are all mouth, like the NECA and Marmit etc. They have slightly overly exagerated features proportions and details to me. They exaggerate and overemphasise the fierceness' of the monster by playing with proportions and elements of the sculpts and paint. Something for everyones imagination, I guess.
I like them all for different reasons, but I'm realistic enough to know that I'll never be able to own any one version of the ALIEN that encomapses everything that's seen in film. I have many versions, but nothing that will ever perfectly capture what's seen on screen - never. I'm cool with that because I have a good understanding about the techniques use to create what's seen on screen. Even if it is possible, you would still require a set of figures, not a single one.
If you can honestly say that you think the HTs ALIEN doesn't represent; isn't based on Giger's concept and what's seen in the movie then who am I to argue with your perception and imagination etc. I tend to look at things holistically and don't get hung up on minor details that may or may not have been part of the movie used suits and heads. We don't have enough high resolution photos and detailed reference materials available to do that with any real clarity or certainty.
I don't want to get drawn into a hopeless debate over our individual visions and versions of the ALIEN, it's pointless when everyone sees something different. There are certain constants, but they have more to do with the overall shape of the creature, rather than the absolute specifics of the finer details. I don't want to get bogged down in a conversation about the dimensions of convoluted hoses and the relative positions of abstract shapes and element used in the suits and heads design; life is just too short for all that... Well, maybe for a while if we were discussing it face to face.
I'm sure your opinion of the figure will change when you receive it and see it in 3D, I think you'll be happier with it because you've probably only seen 2D photos of it on the web. You would think it's just a giant ugly mouth with many of the pics commonly used to criticise it. That's my take on all this.
Bury this with a few more pages. . . . . It says it all. . . . .
Ridley constantly and very deliberately had the details of the suits modified during filming so that the appearance of the ALIEN was constantly changing so the audience couldn't get a fix on the shape and finer details - he wanted the viewers minds to fill in the gaps with what they imagined they saw, pattern recognition, everyone sees something different, you know... So I'm saying that there is no one version of the suit for any model to be based on that can replicate exactly what is seen on screen, simply because what is seen in the movie is a composite of all the alterations, variations and repairs made to the suits and biting FX head stand throughout the filming process. Moulds were made and remade, no two domes were the same, like the hands and tendons, details around the mouth, teeth, paint etc, etc, etc. The lighting, lenses and angles chosen for the shots played a huge roll in the Alien's overall appearance, that never gets given much consideration. I think it all comes down to what you think some of the proportions and finer details should look like - just as Ridley and Giger intended from the start.
The finer details of any figure or statue are pretty much up to the artist to interpret as he/she sees fit, the feeling they want to convey, their vision, and we see that in almost every photo posted here. But you and Sabres (and others) seem to be inferring that there is a single version of the ALIEN that all artists should adhere to and base their sculpts on, I don't think that's a fact, it really fly's in the face of the facts. Sabres, when you say that "there are those of us who know what it looks like in the light and up close. We know the details. And for us, this didn't measure up." just sounds so wrong to me. I think you guys have formed an image of the perfect ALIEN that appeals to you, I think we all have. If Joseph sat you guys down and started sculpting you an ALIEN, it probably wouldn't be too long before you guys started fighting with each other about your visions of what it should be, you wouldn't be able to agree, you both wouldn't walk away 100% satisfied at the end. My point isn't that that the Hot Toys ALIEN figure is accurate or inaccurate, but to say with absolute conviction that it's not accurate because of a few tiny details is mystifying to me. I think the claims about the lack of accuracy aren't a fact, it's an opinion that's shaped and based on the image you have created in your mind. I think it's all absolute proof of the brilliance of Giger and Scott and one of the reasons that ALIEN has continually thrilled new audiences and cemented it's place as a classic and a benchmark for other film makers, artists, lighting, FX etc, etc, etc. You will never be able to hold up any single figure and say that it is exactly what was seen on screen. Maybe you could if they release an official book that goes through all the mods the suits went through, you might be able to get a reasonably accurate set of figure and a stand for the biting FX head to satisfy the hardest of hardcore fans, but I doubt that there would be enough of a market to justify producing something like that, or if it something that's even really feasible after all these years.
Thanks for the reply. I don't think that I've deliberately ignored anything, I think have thoroughly reviewed every source I can get my hands on, but you seem to be ignoring many of the core points I made, and you are still revolving around the central argument that the HT's ALIEN isn't screen accurate and it's likeness doesn't represent what's seen in the movie; a generic version that Joseph created without giving it all that much respect in relation to the original. I think it is relatively accurate to the screen and Gigers' vision and sculpts, and I don't think that it's wrong to suggest. I don't think I'm the only one that can see things differently for you and the others. Why get hung up on the figure having to precisely imitate a particular facial expression that's seen when the ALIEN is visible? Do you really think that's it's possible without all the lighting and FX, or do you think they play no real part in the Alien's overall appearance in the film?
All of the statues and figures out there are sculpted in positions and exhibit facial expressions and artistic licence that doesn't represent what's seen in the movie, all of them. Where do you draw the line and accept that there isn't a single figure that can represent every scene that we see because there were many suits and heads used that were all built with slight differences. You don't seem to factor that in or acknowledge it in any way.
The nature of the suits and heads constructions, maintenance and repair dictated varying degrees of subtle differences; like the domes shape, ribbing and finer facial details and arrangements etc. The Rambaldi head had a different appearance than the other five or so heads, so using that particular head design would accurately represent the total ALIEN III design that we seen in the film, and it wouldn't have the overlook of the design that majority associate with it, it would look totally different that any statue we've seen out there so far.
As far as I'm aware, Giger made a polyester statue that was formed from a rough plaster cast of Balajio. Then he created his basic design over the polyester form and the basic plaster and cork chip negatives were created from that. The moulded components were cleaned and trimmed before being extensively customised and modified with other latex details, convoluted tubing etc.Finally being painted and airbrushed etc. Other elements and details of the suits and heads were also cast using plaster and plasticine components that Giger carved and sculpted for the hero and stunt suits; like the feet, glove and finger elements etc. The plasterers would make an accurate cast of the polyester masters and then carve and refine the basic and finer details as accurately as the moulding process they were using at the time would allow for. All the latex was hand painted in to the mould in a laborious process that slowly built up layers until the desired thickness in all the areas of the mould was achieved. That same process was used to produce various components of the suit that were also tailored to Bolaji and the stunt-men Eddie Powell and Roy Scammelland for the specific requirement of the days filming.
There were at the very least 6 heads production heads made, one mechanized, one half mechanised, two unmechanized and a few more made of foam rubber etc. for the stunt-men. The plaster moulds used were only capable or reproducing a fairly basic representation because of the complex curves and shapes involved, and most of the fine detail was added using plaster and plasticine, glued on rubber tubes, detailing etc. and thus, no two heads were constructed identically, they all had variations with the shape of the domes and muscle and tendon details around the mouth. Various artist were involved because of critical time restraints. But Giger.would ultimately supervise and help shape and paint all of them to insure that most of the heads stayed fairly faithful and accurately represented his vision; constrained with the limitations of the materials available in the day that were required for the various tasks, and Scott and Co's artistic crimp.
As the heads and suits were patched up and repainted, those minor individualities and peculiarities would obviously become more apparent. But I think that was fine with Scott in light (forgive the pun) of his various comment about wanting the audience to experience a constantly changing ALIEN so they didn't get a fix on the exact shape and details for the purposes of suspense; so we would use our imagination to complete and add additional layers to terrifying images; heightening the fear and suspense surrounding the creature. It wouldn't interfere with what he want to achieve, and ultimately contributed in immeasurable ways to the overall effect.The Alien was rapidly growing, ageing, changing.
The mechanical heads were created using other techniques and Giger would have made sure that those heads were as faithful as possible to his art; fitted it in with the overall look of the other heads as best as possible. Again, those slight differences in the dome and other facial features appearance and dimensions were perfectly and completely compatible with Scott's film vision. Giger originally intended to go in a more organic direction with the set and the ultimate Alien III design but Scott and Co ultimately had the final decision witht he designs and the rest is history.
The mechanized heads minus the lighting, camera lenses/shot angles, FX and tons of KY jelly etc. wouldn't have anywhere near the impact they do without them. His head was the ugliest of the lot, it had a different appearance to the rest because of the extra mechanical features etc. Scott and Co worked very hard and would have gone through many different angles, perspective and lighting arrangement to achieve the final version we see in the film, you can't separate them; they all very much essential to each other. That's why I have to laugh a little when I read people saying that it looks nothing like the shots we see in the film, what else can you do.
I have seen Giger's concept drawings and photos showing the leg "grills' in positions that closely mirror the design of the HTs figure, but again, there really isn't enough material out there to say if the position and features are totally correct or incorrect. The Giger statue argument isn't all that convincing to me because it was only a guide for the moulds and isn't representative of all the positions details on all the suits I've seen. It's not even really known if it was the exact sculpt the ALIEN III is based on, but I think it probably was. I think Joseph wouldn't have been able to avoid it as a reference, I can definitely see elements in his sculpt.
I don't have any real problems with the small paragraph of Hot Toys claims, that probably has more to do with the marketing department than anything Joseph would have claimed. I think he's smart enough to know that it's not something you can claim with any single ALIEN figure, you would need a set of them, and because you would need to recreate the lighting and FX that were used in the original film to achieve that perfect film look, and that's obviously totally impractical in the real world, even for the hardest or hardcore fans. But I basically agree with the asertion that the figure is the best 1/6 scale posable Giger ALIEN available.
I think many sculptors get fixated on recreating the biting scenes and try blending the mechanized heads with the other head shapes and designs, but to me it makes the heads look like they are all mouth, like the NECA and Marmit etc. They have slightly overly exagerated features proportions and details to me. They exaggerate and overemphasise the fierceness' of the monster by playing with proportions and elements of the sculpts and paint. Something for everyones imagination, I guess.
I like them all for different reasons, but I'm realistic enough to know that I'll never be able to own any one version of the ALIEN that encomapses everything that's seen in film. I have many versions, but nothing that will ever perfectly capture what's seen on screen - never. I'm cool with that because I have a good understanding about the techniques use to create what's seen on screen. Even if it is possible, you would still require a set of figures, not a single one.
If you can honestly say that you think the HTs ALIEN doesn't represent; isn't based on Giger's concept and what's seen in the movie then who am I to argue with your perception and imagination etc. I tend to look at things holistically and don't get hung up on minor details that may or may not have been part of the movie used suits and heads. We don't have enough high resolution photos and detailed reference materials available to do that with any real clarity or certainty.
I don't want to get drawn into a hopeless debate over our individual visions and versions of the ALIEN, it's pointless when everyone sees something different. There are certain constants, but they have more to do with the overall shape of the creature, rather than the absolute specifics of the finer details. I don't want to get bogged down in a conversation about the dimensions of convoluted hoses and the relative positions of abstract shapes and element used in the suits and heads design; life is just too short for all that... Well, maybe for a while if we were discussing it face to face.
I'm sure your opinion of the figure will change when you receive it and see it in 3D, I think you'll be happier with it because you've probably only seen 2D photos of it on the web. You would think it's just a giant ugly mouth with many of the pics commonly used to criticise it. That's my take on all this.
Bury this with a few more pages. . . . . It says it all. . . . .
Accuracy or inaccuracy. I don't believe that the photos and spiels adamantly claiming that the details of the Hot Toys figure are inaccurate in some major way are correct. I think that many of the photos in this thread are of replica suits, pre-production trial suits, test photos and a mix of originals and modified and unfinished movie originals, who knows with the low resolution and no mention of where they are sourced from or what context they were taken and for what purpose etc. There simply isn't enough verifiable official photos and reference material available to the public to back up any claims that the Hot Toys figure is accurate or inaccurate beyond any doubt. That said, I think HTs should have painted the tongue white and the rear incisors need a slightly sharper profile and a more chromed appearance, but they are relatively easy and minor fixes - we are talking minor paint details and fractions of millimetres here and stuff that's not really apparent from any distance but only really when magnified.
Ridley constantly and very deliberately had the details of the suits modified during filming so that the appearance of the ALIEN was constantly changing so the audience couldn't get a fix on the shape and finer details - he wanted the viewers minds to fill in the gaps with what they imagined they saw, pattern recognition, everyone sees something different, you know... So I'm saying that there is no one version of the suit for any model to be based on that can replicate exactly what is seen on screen, simply because what is seen in the movie is a composite of all the alterations, variations and repairs made to the suits and biting FX head stand throughout the filming process. Moulds were made and remade, no two domes were the same, like the hands and tendons, details around the mouth, teeth, paint etc, etc, etc. The lighting, lenses and angles chosen for the shots played a huge roll in the Alien's overall appearance, that never gets given much consideration. I think it all comes down to what you think some of the proportions and finer details should look like - just as Ridley and Giger intended from the start.
The finer details of any figure or statue are pretty much up to the artist to interpret as he/she sees fit, the feeling they want to convey, their vision, and we see that in almost every photo posted here. But you and Sabres (and others) seem to be inferring that there is a single version of the ALIEN that all artists should adhere to and base their sculpts on, I don't think that's a fact, it really fly's in the face of the facts. Sabres, when you say that "there are those of us who know what it looks like in the light and up close. We know the details. And for us, this didn't measure up." just sounds so wrong to me. I think you guys have formed an image of the perfect ALIEN that appeals to you, I think we all have. If Joseph sat you guys down and started sculpting you an ALIEN, it probably wouldn't be too long before you guys started fighting with each other about your visions of what it should be, you wouldn't be able to agree, you both wouldn't walk away 100% satisfied at the end. My point isn't that that the Hot Toys ALIEN figure is accurate or inaccurate, but to say with absolute conviction that it's not accurate because of a few tiny details is mystifying to me. I think the claims about the lack of accuracy aren't a fact, it's an opinion that's shaped and based on the image you have created in your mind. I think it's all absolute proof of the brilliance of Giger and Scott and one of the reasons that ALIEN has continually thrilled new audiences and cemented it's place as a classic and a benchmark for other film makers, artists, lighting, FX etc, etc, etc. You will never be able to hold up any single figure and say that it is exactly what was seen on screen. Maybe you could if they release an official book that goes through all the mods the suits went through, you might be able to get a reasonably accurate set of figure and a stand for the biting FX head to satisfy the hardest of hardcore fans, but I doubt that there would be enough of a market to justify producing something like that, or if it something that's even really feasible after all these years.
Thanks for the reply. I don't think that I've deliberately ignored anything, I think have thoroughly reviewed every source I can get my hands on, but you seem to be ignoring many of the core points I made, and you are still revolving around the central argument that the HT's ALIEN isn't screen accurate and it's likeness doesn't represent what's seen in the movie; a generic version that Joseph created without giving it all that much respect in relation to the original. I think it is relatively accurate to the screen and Gigers' vision and sculpts, and I don't think that it's wrong to suggest. I don't think I'm the only one that can see things differently for you and the others. Why get hung up on the figure having to precisely imitate a particular facial expression that's seen when the ALIEN is visible? Do you really think that's it's possible without all the lighting and FX, or do you think they play no real part in the Alien's overall appearance in the film?
All of the statues and figures out there are sculpted in positions and exhibit facial expressions and artistic licence that doesn't represent what's seen in the movie, all of them. Where do you draw the line and accept that there isn't a single figure that can represent every scene that we see because there were many suits and heads used that were all built with slight differences. You don't seem to factor that in or acknowledge it in any way.
The nature of the suits and heads constructions, maintenance and repair dictated varying degrees of subtle differences; like the domes shape, ribbing and finer facial details and arrangements etc. The Rambaldi head had a different appearance than the other five or so heads, so using that particular head design would accurately represent the total ALIEN III design that we seen in the film, and it wouldn't have the overlook of the design that majority associate with it, it would look totally different that any statue we've seen out there so far.
As far as I'm aware, Giger made a polyester statue that was formed from a rough plaster cast of Balajio. Then he created his basic design over the polyester form and the basic plaster and cork chip negatives were created from that. The moulded components were cleaned and trimmed before being extensively customised and modified with other latex details, convoluted tubing etc.Finally being painted and airbrushed etc. Other elements and details of the suits and heads were also cast using plaster and plasticine components that Giger carved and sculpted for the hero and stunt suits; like the feet, glove and finger elements etc. The plasterers would make an accurate cast of the polyester masters and then carve and refine the basic and finer details as accurately as the moulding process they were using at the time would allow for. All the latex was hand painted in to the mould in a laborious process that slowly built up layers until the desired thickness in all the areas of the mould was achieved. That same process was used to produce various components of the suit that were also tailored to Bolaji and the stunt-men Eddie Powell and Roy Scammelland for the specific requirement of the days filming.
There were at the very least 6 heads production heads made, one mechanized, one half mechanised, two unmechanized and a few more made of foam rubber etc. for the stunt-men. The plaster moulds used were only capable or reproducing a fairly basic representation because of the complex curves and shapes involved, and most of the fine detail was added using plaster and plasticine, glued on rubber tubes, detailing etc. and thus, no two heads were constructed identically, they all had variations with the shape of the domes and muscle and tendon details around the mouth. Various artist were involved because of critical time restraints. But Giger.would ultimately supervise and help shape and paint all of them to insure that most of the heads stayed fairly faithful and accurately represented his vision; constrained with the limitations of the materials available in the day that were required for the various tasks, and Scott and Co's artistic crimp.
As the heads and suits were patched up and repainted, those minor individualities and peculiarities would obviously become more apparent. But I think that was fine with Scott in light (forgive the pun) of his various comment about wanting the audience to experience a constantly changing ALIEN so they didn't get a fix on the exact shape and details for the purposes of suspense; so we would use our imagination to complete and add additional layers to terrifying images; heightening the fear and suspense surrounding the creature. It wouldn't interfere with what he want to achieve, and ultimately contributed in immeasurable ways to the overall effect.The Alien was rapidly growing, ageing, changing.
The mechanical heads were created using other techniques and Giger would have made sure that those heads were as faithful as possible to his art; fitted it in with the overall look of the other heads as best as possible. Again, those slight differences in the dome and other facial features appearance and dimensions were perfectly and completely compatible with Scott's film vision. Giger originally intended to go in a more organic direction with the set and the ultimate Alien III design but Scott and Co ultimately had the final decision witht he designs and the rest is history.
The mechanized heads minus the lighting, camera lenses/shot angles, FX and tons of KY jelly etc. wouldn't have anywhere near the impact they do without them. His head was the ugliest of the lot, it had a different appearance to the rest because of the extra mechanical features etc. Scott and Co worked very hard and would have gone through many different angles, perspective and lighting arrangement to achieve the final version we see in the film, you can't separate them; they all very much essential to each other. That's why I have to laugh a little when I read people saying that it looks nothing like the shots we see in the film, what else can you do.
I have seen Giger's concept drawings and photos showing the leg "grills' in positions that closely mirror the design of the HTs figure, but again, there really isn't enough material out there to say if the position and features are totally correct or incorrect. The Giger statue argument isn't all that convincing to me because it was only a guide for the moulds and isn't representative of all the positions details on all the suits I've seen. It's not even really known if it was the exact sculpt the ALIEN III is based on, but I think it probably was. I think Joseph wouldn't have been able to avoid it as a reference, I can definitely see elements in his sculpt.
I don't have any real problems with the small paragraph of Hot Toys claims, that probably has more to do with the marketing department than anything Joseph would have claimed. I think he's smart enough to know that it's not something you can claim with any single ALIEN figure, you would need a set of them, and because you would need to recreate the lighting and FX that were used in the original film to achieve that perfect film look, and that's obviously totally impractical in the real world, even for the hardest or hardcore fans. But I basically agree with the asertion that the figure is the best 1/6 scale posable Giger ALIEN available.
I think many sculptors get fixated on recreating the biting scenes and try blending the mechanized heads with the other head shapes and designs, but to me it makes the heads look like they are all mouth, like the NECA and Marmit etc. They have slightly overly exagerated features proportions and details to me. They exaggerate and overemphasise the fierceness' of the monster by playing with proportions and elements of the sculpts and paint. Something for everyones imagination, I guess.
I like them all for different reasons, but I'm realistic enough to know that I'll never be able to own any one version of the ALIEN that encomapses everything that's seen in film. I have many versions, but nothing that will ever perfectly capture what's seen on screen - never. I'm cool with that because I have a good understanding about the techniques use to create what's seen on screen. Even if it is possible, you would still require a set of figures, not a single one.
If you can honestly say that you think the HTs ALIEN doesn't represent; isn't based on Giger's concept and what's seen in the movie then who am I to argue with your perception and imagination etc. I tend to look at things holistically and don't get hung up on minor details that may or may not have been part of the movie used suits and heads. We don't have enough high resolution photos and detailed reference materials available to do that with any real clarity or certainty.
I don't want to get drawn into a hopeless debate over our individual visions and versions of the ALIEN, it's pointless when everyone sees something different. There are certain constants, but they have more to do with the overall shape of the creature, rather than the absolute specifics of the finer details. I don't want to get bogged down in a conversation about the dimensions of convoluted hoses and the relative positions of abstract shapes and element used in the suits and heads design; life is just too short for all that... Well, maybe for a while if we were discussing it face to face.
I'm sure your opinion of the figure will change when you receive it and see it in 3D, I think you'll be happier with it because you've probably only seen 2D photos of it on the web. You would think it's just a giant ugly mouth with many of the pics commonly used to criticise it. That's my take on all this.
Bury this with a few more pages. . . . . It says it all. . . . .
TL;DR
Obviously most people would like their collectibles to look like the prop at top left. Any alterations from this design are minor...that is the template to go by. The end.
IMO the alien is not supposed to have a very expressionate face... that's one of my problems with the hot toys alien face, especially the mouth...it just looks all wrong. The NECA one looks good from the front, but the profile is pretty ____ty looking. Honestly I think the sega one looks the best, if you're talking about profile views of the head specifically.
Wake
Super Freak
I'm always impressed with the dedication to write a novel expressing views about this subject.
Passionate bunch here.
Personally, I love my HT Alien. Still have him on my desk since the day I opened him. For me, glueing the mouth closed made a world of difference -- has the 'attitude' I remember now if not the accuracy.
Passionate bunch here.
Personally, I love my HT Alien. Still have him on my desk since the day I opened him. For me, glueing the mouth closed made a world of difference -- has the 'attitude' I remember now if not the accuracy.
abake
Rex Tremendae Majestatis
This got old a looooooong time ago, but just for the sake of not leaving things unanswered...
@Sandamn:
(and no, I did not read the your post again, I'm guessing you copied and pasted most of the stuff you'd already written before)
The point is very simple.
Show me one single photo of the creature in Scott's film where it looks like the HT figure.
Show me one photo where the ribbing in the legs is positioned the same way as in the figure.
Show me one photo or screen cap where the face has that same chin and lower jaw as the HT figure.
Just one photo where there's the same number of teeth as in the HT figure.
I get that you find the HT figure to be a fine representation of the Giger alien; I don't agree with it but that's fine. I enjoy the HT figure the same way as I enjoy the McF figure: nice artist's takes on the subject.
What I don't get and really cannot fathom is that you keep insisting that you don't believe "the photos and spiels adamantly claiming that the details of the Hot Toys figure are inaccurate in some major way are correct" .
The HT figure is a fun and cool interpretation, but you cannot seriously argue that it in some way represents some suit or props used.
Yes, Scott wanted it to look different from one scene to the next, to be mysterious; and yes, different suits and props had varying degrees of details and proportions, but they all sprang from one original master sculpture and they were all basically the same.
Neither Scott nor Giger made changes to the design from one suit or prop to the next other than what the manufacturing of said suit or prop required.
There is no suit where the detailing/ribbing of arms and legs is positioned differently from the original sculpture.
There is no prop where the tubes coming out of the chin or the number of teeth are different from the original sculpture.
Yes, in the suits some fingers were fused together (NECA figure) whereas in the sculpture the fingers were splayed (Medicom figure). Sure, the mechanized head had detailed lips and tendons whereas the stunt head didn't. Indeed, Bolaji's suit had the head sit higher above the shoulders (the look on NECA figure) than the stunt double's (the look on Medicom's figure). Quite right, the dome had slight variations from one prop to the other and every company has given it a different shape...
But the point I keep trying to make is that HT just didn't do their homework well enough, they just said "screw it, it's got an elongated head, tubes in the back and an inner tongue, that's the alien right there".
And there just is no single shred of evidence to support a view that the HT figure does accurately portray any single prop or suit used in the film. Not the face, not the proportions, not the details, not even the tubes in the back! It's about as accurate as their Aliens figure...
Again, it's a nice interpretation made to today's standards of quality, detailing and pose-ability, but nothing else.
I like my HT alien, it's a nice figure, nothing less, nothing more. Certainly a nice addition to any collection.
@Sandamn:
(and no, I did not read the your post again, I'm guessing you copied and pasted most of the stuff you'd already written before)
The point is very simple.
Show me one single photo of the creature in Scott's film where it looks like the HT figure.
Show me one photo where the ribbing in the legs is positioned the same way as in the figure.
Show me one photo or screen cap where the face has that same chin and lower jaw as the HT figure.
Just one photo where there's the same number of teeth as in the HT figure.
I get that you find the HT figure to be a fine representation of the Giger alien; I don't agree with it but that's fine. I enjoy the HT figure the same way as I enjoy the McF figure: nice artist's takes on the subject.
What I don't get and really cannot fathom is that you keep insisting that you don't believe "the photos and spiels adamantly claiming that the details of the Hot Toys figure are inaccurate in some major way are correct" .
The HT figure is a fun and cool interpretation, but you cannot seriously argue that it in some way represents some suit or props used.
Yes, Scott wanted it to look different from one scene to the next, to be mysterious; and yes, different suits and props had varying degrees of details and proportions, but they all sprang from one original master sculpture and they were all basically the same.
Neither Scott nor Giger made changes to the design from one suit or prop to the next other than what the manufacturing of said suit or prop required.
There is no suit where the detailing/ribbing of arms and legs is positioned differently from the original sculpture.
There is no prop where the tubes coming out of the chin or the number of teeth are different from the original sculpture.
Yes, in the suits some fingers were fused together (NECA figure) whereas in the sculpture the fingers were splayed (Medicom figure). Sure, the mechanized head had detailed lips and tendons whereas the stunt head didn't. Indeed, Bolaji's suit had the head sit higher above the shoulders (the look on NECA figure) than the stunt double's (the look on Medicom's figure). Quite right, the dome had slight variations from one prop to the other and every company has given it a different shape...
But the point I keep trying to make is that HT just didn't do their homework well enough, they just said "screw it, it's got an elongated head, tubes in the back and an inner tongue, that's the alien right there".
And there just is no single shred of evidence to support a view that the HT figure does accurately portray any single prop or suit used in the film. Not the face, not the proportions, not the details, not even the tubes in the back! It's about as accurate as their Aliens figure...
Again, it's a nice interpretation made to today's standards of quality, detailing and pose-ability, but nothing else.
I like my HT alien, it's a nice figure, nothing less, nothing more. Certainly a nice addition to any collection.
Oh God, not again! Jeez, every single time this thread gets revived we get that crap posted again.
@Wor-Gar: It's not dedication. It's someone else's post that Sandy here feels the need to bring up again for the millionth time, though it's already been answered.
I thought we banned him a while ago... He just drops in every now and then to unload a bomb, then leaves.
@Wor-Gar: It's not dedication. It's someone else's post that Sandy here feels the need to bring up again for the millionth time, though it's already been answered.
I thought we banned him a while ago... He just drops in every now and then to unload a bomb, then leaves.
Sabres21768
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,665
- Reaction score
- 0
Sandman
Freakzoid
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This got old a looooooong time ago, but just for the sake of not leaving things unanswered...
@Sandamn:
(and no, I did not read the your post again, I'm guessing you copied and pasted most of the stuff you'd already written before)
Answer: Ignorant and lazy could be used as a description for that.
The point is very simple.
Show me one single photo of the creature in Scott's film where it looks like the HT figure.
Show me one photo where the ribbing in the legs is positioned the same way as in the figure.
Show me one photo or screen cap where the face has that same chin and lower jaw as the HT figure.
Just one photo where there's the same number of teeth as in the HT figure.
Answer: The lighting, lenses and angles chosen for the shots played a huge roll in the Alien's overall appearance, that never gets given much consideration. Balaji wasn't a plastic dummy. How do you think they put the skintight suit on him. He was never glued and stitched into the suit the same way twice, etc. That tells me that you have no real idea about the practicalities of the suit, etc.
I get that you find the HT figure to be a fine representation of the Giger alien; I don't agree with it but that's fine. I enjoy the HT figure the same way as I enjoy the McF figure: nice artist's takes on the subject.
What I don't get and really cannot fathom is that you keep insisting that you don't believe "the photos and spiels adamantly claiming that the details of the Hot Toys figure are inaccurate in some major way are correct" .
Answer: It is Giger's Alien. Anyone can recognize it as such. Nobody that was a fan of the movie would say ' what the hell is that' if you asked them on the street. Perfect, no, but nothing is, is it.
The HT figure is a fun and cool interpretation, but you cannot seriously argue that it in some way represents some suit or props used.
Answer: I can and the post you're trying your hardest to discredit as nonsense are factual and extremely accurate. You ignore that because you want to win an argument, that's the way I see it.
Yes, Scott wanted it to look different from one scene to the next, to be mysterious; and yes, different suits and props had varying degrees of details and proportions, but they all sprang from one original master sculpture and they were all basically the same.
Answer: Yes, that's exactly right, so why contradict yourself and argue the facts. "The Alien was rapidly growing, ageing, changing". Not some static creature as you would have people believe.
Neither Scott nor Giger made changes to the design from one suit or prop to the next other than what the manufacturing of said suit or prop required.
Answer: Yes, they did. You don't want to acknowledge that, but it's a fact.
There is no suit where the detailing/ribbing of arms and legs is positioned differently from the original sculpture.
Answer: The molding process dictated that, but you ignore what's been written, obviously having no real understanding of the methods used to mold and detail the suits, etc.
There is no prop where the tubes coming out of the chin or the number of teeth are different from the original sculpture.
Answer: You are exaggerating and writing your own fantasy story to discredit well researched and documented facts as far as I and others are concerned.
Yes, in the suits some fingers were fused together (NECA figure) whereas in the sculpture the fingers were splayed (Medicom figure). Sure, the mechanized head had detailed lips and tendons whereas the stunt head didn't. Indeed, Bolaji's suit had the head sit higher above the shoulders (the look on NECA figure) than the stunt double's (the look on Medicom's figure). Quite right, the dome had slight variations from one prop to the other and every company has given it a different shape...
But the point I keep trying to make is that HT just didn't do their homework well enough, they just said "screw it, it's got an elongated head, tubes in the back and an inner tongue, that's the alien right there".
Answer: It's an unmistakable great representation of the Giger Alien and nobody could mistake it for anything else. It's just your personal taste that you're trying to represent as fact. The rest is only your opinion and not fact as far as I and a number of other people are concerned. Fan generated, obsessive fantasy.
And there just is no single shred of evidence to support a view that the HT figure does accurately portray any single prop or suit used in the film. Not the face, not the proportions, not the details, not even the tubes in the back! It's about as accurate as their Aliens figure...
Answer: Your views are coloured by your personal taste that you're trying to represent as fact, not by ration assessment of how what you saw in the movie was created. Everything said is researchable and well documented fact.
Again, it's a nice interpretation made to today's standards of quality, detailing and pose-ability, but nothing else.
I like my HT alien, it's a nice figure, nothing less, nothing more. Certainly a nice addition to any collection.
Answer: Absolutely Ridiculous! Make you mind up! You contradict yourself in so many ways and so many places.
Accept that people see things differently from you and that you aren't right just because people don't see it your way.
ANSWER: Do your homework and research everything that was mentioned in the original post I posted, because as far as I'm concerned you haven't really got a clue about what you are talking about beyond the shallow unverified stuff that's been posted by other fans like you.
Stop perpetuating urban myths and childhood fantasy about the Alien as fact.
Stop harassing people that like the figure for what it is. Every time someone says the like it, you and your good buddies come along to tell them they are basically idiot's and hide behind the "I'm glad YOU like it, though" CRAP.
Go and make another few thousand NECA posts while claiming to be impartial. LoL
This got old a looooooong time ago, but just for the sake of not leaving things unanswered...
@Sandamn:
(and no, I did not read the your post again, I'm guessing you copied and pasted most of the stuff you'd already written before)
Answer: Ignorant and lazy could be used as a description for that.
The point is very simple.
Show me one single photo of the creature in Scott's film where it looks like the HT figure.
Show me one photo where the ribbing in the legs is positioned the same way as in the figure.
Show me one photo or screen cap where the face has that same chin and lower jaw as the HT figure.
Just one photo where there's the same number of teeth as in the HT figure.
Answer: The lighting, lenses and angles chosen for the shots played a huge roll in the Alien's overall appearance, that never gets given much consideration. Balaji wasn't a plastic dummy. How do you think they put the skintight suit on him. He was never glued and stitched into the suit the same way twice, etc. That tells me that you have no real idea about the practicalities of the suit, etc.
I get that you find the HT figure to be a fine representation of the Giger alien; I don't agree with it but that's fine. I enjoy the HT figure the same way as I enjoy the McF figure: nice artist's takes on the subject.
What I don't get and really cannot fathom is that you keep insisting that you don't believe "the photos and spiels adamantly claiming that the details of the Hot Toys figure are inaccurate in some major way are correct" .
Answer: It is Giger's Alien. Anyone can recognize it as such. Nobody that was a fan of the movie would say ' what the hell is that' if you asked them on the street. Perfect, no, but nothing is, is it.
The HT figure is a fun and cool interpretation, but you cannot seriously argue that it in some way represents some suit or props used.
Answer: I can and the post you're trying your hardest to discredit as nonsense are factual and extremely accurate. You ignore that because you want to win an argument, that's the way I see it.
Yes, Scott wanted it to look different from one scene to the next, to be mysterious; and yes, different suits and props had varying degrees of details and proportions, but they all sprang from one original master sculpture and they were all basically the same.
Answer: Yes, that's exactly right, so why contradict yourself and argue the facts. "The Alien was rapidly growing, ageing, changing". Not some static creature as you would have people believe.
Neither Scott nor Giger made changes to the design from one suit or prop to the next other than what the manufacturing of said suit or prop required.
Answer: Yes, they did. You don't want to acknowledge that, but it's a fact.
There is no suit where the detailing/ribbing of arms and legs is positioned differently from the original sculpture.
Answer: The molding process dictated that, but you ignore what's been written, obviously having no real understanding of the methods used to mold and detail the suits, etc.
There is no prop where the tubes coming out of the chin or the number of teeth are different from the original sculpture.
Answer: You are exaggerating and writing your own fantasy story to discredit well researched and documented facts as far as I and others are concerned.
Yes, in the suits some fingers were fused together (NECA figure) whereas in the sculpture the fingers were splayed (Medicom figure). Sure, the mechanized head had detailed lips and tendons whereas the stunt head didn't. Indeed, Bolaji's suit had the head sit higher above the shoulders (the look on NECA figure) than the stunt double's (the look on Medicom's figure). Quite right, the dome had slight variations from one prop to the other and every company has given it a different shape...
But the point I keep trying to make is that HT just didn't do their homework well enough, they just said "screw it, it's got an elongated head, tubes in the back and an inner tongue, that's the alien right there".
Answer: It's an unmistakable great representation of the Giger Alien and nobody could mistake it for anything else. It's just your personal taste that you're trying to represent as fact. The rest is only your opinion and not fact as far as I and a number of other people are concerned. Fan generated, obsessive fantasy.
And there just is no single shred of evidence to support a view that the HT figure does accurately portray any single prop or suit used in the film. Not the face, not the proportions, not the details, not even the tubes in the back! It's about as accurate as their Aliens figure...
Answer: Your views are coloured by your personal taste that you're trying to represent as fact, not by ration assessment of how what you saw in the movie was created. Everything said is researchable and well documented fact.
Again, it's a nice interpretation made to today's standards of quality, detailing and pose-ability, but nothing else.
I like my HT alien, it's a nice figure, nothing less, nothing more. Certainly a nice addition to any collection.
Answer: Absolutely Ridiculous! Make you mind up! You contradict yourself in so many ways and so many places.
Accept that people see things differently from you and that you aren't right just because people don't see it your way.
ANSWER: Do your homework and research everything that was mentioned in the original post I posted, because as far as I'm concerned you haven't really got a clue about what you are talking about beyond the shallow unverified stuff that's been posted by other fans like you.
Stop perpetuating urban myths and childhood fantasy about the Alien as fact.
Stop harassing people that like the figure for what it is. Every time someone says the like it, you and your good buddies come along to tell them they are basically idiot's and hide behind the "I'm glad YOU like it, though" CRAP.
Go and make another few thousand NECA posts while claiming to be impartial. LoL
Sandman
Freakzoid
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
Welcome back Dwibzle.
Care to guess how long before you get banned again?
Stop talking troll rubbish, I'm not him and I've NEVER been banned from here or anywhere else. Go make another few thousand NECA posts while claiming to be an impartial adult. Stop being so arrogant and obnoxious while you're at it. Look it up in a thing called the dictionary. Now get your pathetic little gang together to start a flame war, don't disappoint me, will you. Just my opinion.
Last edited:
Sabres21768
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,665
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks for the tip...Dwibzle.
Anyone else smell that?
Smells like...ban.
Yummy!
Anyone else smell that?
Smells like...ban.
Yummy!
