Hot Toys - MMS - Ironman - Ironman Mk II Diecast Collectible Figure

[Hologram AI]

Yeah I get less and less impressed with each IM release. This figure still has a "dated" look like the Mark 3 DC did. I don't see this being much different besides the waist but maybe it is better.

 

[MegaPrime33]

How is this better than the unleashed? Because I def like the unleashed better.

 

[jki&Cri]

It seems the same as the mk3 diecast but with a little articulation at the waist.
Let’s hope,at least, the scale has been corrected.

 

[TurdFurgusonsHat]

Just used what was left of my sideshow points and ordered this pretty cheap. All in on the diecasts 1-7 so had to even though this was never my favorite armor. Looks good to me in the pics but I doubt I'll like it as much as the V or the VI.

 

[Dino_Ranger_White]

Kind of looks… meh? I did not PO this one, in fear of the Mark III syndrome,
but honestly I don't think it looks nearly as good as the Mark IV, V or VI die cast.
(and hopefully, the Mark VII -- GET ON THAT ONE HOT TOYS!)

 

[Brett Banner]

Looks good, would like to see it next to the Mk 3 for comparison, for sure. Those tiny holographic figures are seriously the lamest exclusive items ever.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[bebe13junior]

This is definitely the same size as the MK3. Waist articulation and hides the shoulder gaps better. But show me a picture where we see improved ankle articulation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bebe13junior]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brett Banner]

...Great.

Guess I shouldn’t hold out for a revised Mk 3 then?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dino_Ranger_White]

Well, there it is folks. EPIC PASS.

Sadly, looks like there will never be a proper "Original 7" Diecast Iron Man Set. Oh well.
I never owned the DC Mark III, but this seems even shorter than that was, lol.

To quote Thor… "He looks so petty… and TINY"

 

[duo_maxwell_1017]

...Great.

Guess I shouldn’t hold out for a revised Mk 3 then?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Isn't wrong to compare the Mark VI to the Mark II? The Mark VI is much beefier and heavily armed suit. The Mark II didn't have much of an armament of weapons.

 

[moose]

Hum much smaller then I expected , so they went the cheap route and used the MK3 diecast and updated the waist.

 

[Brett Banner]

Cool little article about the Iron Man 3 movie prop armors on display at Disneyland. They should all basically be the same height. More pics at the link.

https://collider.com/disneyland-iron-man-hall-of-armor-images/

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Motuxmen]

Iron man 3 was made by an entirely new crew, director, and the props where all done by a new company. Those HoA displays and full display suits are irrelevant. The people from IM1 have stated they made the mk3 as a flight suit with limited fighting capability. The people from IM2 stated, even in the art of book if I recall, that the subsequent suits (4/6) where made larger, bulkier and for more space/comfort. Hot toys has the 3d digital files for all the suits. So the suit makers for the actually movies made it clear the first suits where purposely smaller and had less function and the people who made the figures have access to the actual blue prints for the suits...I’d say they made the figure based on that info and it’s accurate.

 

[Dino_Ranger_White]

Isn't wrong to compare the Mark VI to the Mark II? The Mark VI is much beefier and heavily armed suit. The Mark II didn't have much of an armament of weapons.

The weapons or the room for comfort have no impact on his overall height… at least not that drastically.
While I agree that the Marks 4-6 were bulkier in the films, something in the scale of this figure is just plain off.

The upper legs (above the knee) are way stubbier than the Mark VI.
The helmet size looks too smaller, as well.

Either way, even if the movie suit was shorter… the figure just does not display well next to the
other suits. If you are displaying him by himself, I am sure he looks fine.

Tony still has to fit into the suit, and there would not be that big of a height difference
unless RDJ shot up a foot in height during those years, lol.

 

[duo_maxwell_1017]

Iron man 3 was made by an entirely new crew, director, and the props where all done by a new company. Those HoA displays and full display suits are irrelevant. The people from IM1 have stated they made the mk3 as a flight suit with limited fighting capability. The people from IM2 stated, even in the art of book if I recall, that the subsequent suits (4/6) where made larger, bulkier and for more space/comfort. Hot toys has the 3d digital files for all the suits. So the suit makers for the actually movies made it clear the first suits where purposely smaller and had less function and the people who made the figures have access to the actual blue prints for the suits...I’d say they made the figure based on that info and it’s accurate.

I agree, and Budget Stark posted something on Facebook showing the suit height.

 

[dukefett]

Someone posted on FB that the "official" heights of the Mark 2/3 is shorter than the following armors. If HT went by that then they're accurate.

 

[DasMuse]

It's even less impressive than the original reveal.

 

[yacobschlomo]

Still the same guy in both suits though. A body can't stretch to fill in the difference in heights for the suit. If you think Hot Toys got it right this time, then they got it wrong when they first released the Mark II/III figure 6 or whatever years ago it was. Every figure has increased in height with the exception of this one. It really looks off having them side by side, but if you display them separately you wouldn't really notice it anyways. My main issue with this suit is that it's not the significant upgrade we've seen with the other diecast figures.

 

[Dave_W]

I'd say they're supposed to be the same height. CG size is irrelevant as it can change from shot to shot.