Iron Man 2: 1/6th scale Mark II (Armor Unleashed Version)

[venom]

I could see a DX mark 1 happening, just having the whole set of Armour detachable from a tony figure would be badass, maybe a little stand to hold all the Armour up so you could display stark next to it or something.

 

[LipSmack]

I think hot toys could get away with a " Diorama series mk 1", like a hall of armor display piece, then you can keep the first version as an actual " figure " and have a second one for display, most should be satisfied

 

[dedguy]

Yeah I don't doubt it's possible to see a new Mark I or that there is demand for it, the Mark III just seems more likely strictly from a cost/benefit perspective.

Right now though I'm just keen to see if Hot Toys addresses any of the concerns people have had about the Mark II.

- The abdomen not having articulation
- The arms being just the BD Mark III's arms when they should be new
- The neck being too long
- Shoulders too big

Am I missing anything? I think other than those things it looks pretty spot on. The hips/legs in particular are now pretty much perfect.

 

[dedguy]

Okay here's my proposed alterations. Original on the left. Basically tried to fix all the things I mention above. The head looks too small in some of the promo pics and interestingly just making the head closer to the body makes it look larger. I didn't do anything to alter the size of the head.

 

[Centurion]

I don't think people care as much about who wore the suit, so long as they can finally get a reasonable priced Mk II. As for people selling their original Mk II's, they probably just see that this new one looks a bit better anyway, so why don't get sell their original one's for a pretty penny AND be able still get a much better looking Mk II for their collection? It's a win-win for them

This.

 

[Geil]

Holly this thread is growing way too fast.... Will take me some time to catch up but guess what I whipped out IronMan and watching it on Blu-Ray right now on a decent LCD
All well lit scenes so far clearly show the Mark being Hot Rod Red... I really don't understand this back and forth, is it really so hard to just grab the Blu-Ray to watch it? Watching the scene where IM saves the ejected pilot and guess what Hot Rod Red....
Admit darker scenes where parts of the suit are in shadow or darker looks like maroon but since when do you reference colors in the dark?
I just want an accurate MIII and that is red

 

[Centurion]

people seem more interested in getting the head than anything else.

Fixed!

 

[dedguy]

Holly this thread is growing way too fast.... Will take me some time to catch up but guess what I whipped out IronMan and watching it on Blu-Ray right now on a decent LCD
All well lit scenes so far clearly show the Mark being Hot Rod Red... I really don't understand this back and forth, is it really so hard to just grab the Blu-Ray to watch it? Watching the scene where IM saves the ejected pilot and guess what Hot Rod Red....
Admit darker scenes where parts of the suit are in shadow or darker looks like maroon but since when do you reference colors in the dark?
I just want an accurate MIII and that is red

Did just that, looks like a pretty low saturation dark red to me. In other words, maroon. Depending on the lighting it kicks back a fair amount of blue as well, which makes it more purple. Lighting can drastically change how colors display on film as can atmospheric stuff like smoke and fog. I tried to sample a good range of colors and also grab the most saturated samples I could find. Getting a bit off topic here but:

These first two are probably the most accurate to how it would look on display as it's inside in a well lit even white balance environment. The first I believe is the actual suit while the second is the CGI suit.

It was hard to grab a screencap from the trailer (I don't have a BD player in my computer so I used the 1080p trailer) where the suit was in focus during this scene. The aforementioned atmospheric distortion really drops the saturation on the reds.

Compare that to Iron Man 2 where the suits are all a much brighter more saturated candy apple red.

You can even see that difference in the hall of armor display. Even in the dark bad lighting here you can clearly see the difference in color.

 

[budafett]

Yeah I don't doubt it's possible to see a new Mark I or that there is demand for it, the Mark III just seems more likely strictly from a cost/benefit perspective.

Right now though I'm just keen to see if Hot Toys addresses any of the concerns people have had about the Mark II.

- The abdomen not having articulation
- The arms being just the BD Mark III's arms when they should be new
- The neck being too long
- Shoulders too big

Am I missing anything? I think other than those things it looks pretty spot on. The hips/legs in particular are now pretty much perfect.

I think you've pretty much nailed it!

The fact it doesn't have abdomen articulation is very weak in my opinion.

 

[Geil]

Did just that, looks like a pretty low saturation dark red to me. In other words, maroon. Depending on the lighting it kicks back a fair amount of blue as well, which makes it more purple. Lighting can drastically change how colors display on film as can atmospheric stuff like smoke and fog. I tried to sample a good range of colors and also grab the most saturated samples I could find.

I agree lighting will change the perception of the colors but that is why I said based on even a 50/50 appearance of both colors in the movie I would choose red because it fits the script and possibly comic better.
another way to go about it is:
- a red in darker environment could be perceived as maroon (the dio shows that perfectly on the new Mark)
- maroon in a brighter environment could it be perceived as red?
- so if the latter is not true and I see any well lit scenes clearly showing red then one should conclude the suit "should" be red?
- seriously before you come back to defend this further and go beyond the point of no return, go grab a digital or dvd copy and maybe more members can grab their old copy of this move out from storage and put this to rest. Not sure why I have to defend what I can clearly see from the best source material available to me.

 

[tuyethuy]

Hi guys,

what DX stands for? Like batman DX, joker DX? They are more desirable and more expansive than regular version?

 

[venom]

DX pretty much means it has a hell of a lot more accessories, has PERS (movable eyeballs), and its usually pretty expensive.

 

[Centurion]

and that's the bottom line....more expensive.

 

[vodoun]

and that's the bottom line....more expensive.

Personally I'd love to know the inconsistency in prices. The Batman DX was $189, Joker DX was $189 - $199, Michael Jackson DX was $189 - $199. Indiana Jones DX goes up to $234.99, Jack Sparrow DX is $219.99, while a DX Bruce Lee is $199.99.

A MMS Sweeney Todd is $219.99 and an MSS Iron Man 2 Mark II is $209.

The numbers are all over the place. So how does DX justify being expensive, when there's MMS figures for pre-order that costs just as much as a DX. Or more.

 

[Devil_666]

what DX stands for?

HT has never really said but I always thought DX stood for Deluxe.

 

[vodoun]

HT has never really said but I always thought DX stood for Deluxe.

 

[bandito]

DX= PERS and usually at least 2 (or more) display options. Primarily just PERS.

 

[vodoun]

A very expensive pair of frail eyes. What's PERS like in current releases? I've yet to break a set, I usually put it in one position and leave it.

 

[Marvel-ous]

It is CLEAR as day that the Mark III's color steers on the maroon side more than a candy red. The HT BD Mark III was all wrong. The first HT Mark III was a bit too dark, but it has the right overall direction. And yes, there is a discrepancy in the movie between what Tony says and the end result, but it is what it is. BTW, the diaper on the new Mark II is awesome!

 

[shockwave]

I'd rather see a new Mark I than a third mark III

Agreed.

But somehow I'm thinking monkey1) that there might be a BD WM or DX WM in the works.