SSC - Marvel - 1:6 scale Wolverine figure

[WhoaItsJBot]

SSC posted this earlier.

 

[Lee in MI]

I'd take no Wolverine over a Hugh Jackman every time. Otherwise it's like taking Jar Jar Binks in place of C-3PO in your Star Wars collection. Actually, scratch that, not egregious enough. It's like taking Jar Jar instead of Luke Skywalker.

Well both example's are a false equivalency. While I've never been a huge Jackman Wolvie fan, he is no where near as exasperating as Jar Jar.

OT: I still think SSCs seems to still be trying to find their niche in 1/6th. They can't seem to keep any line going for more than a few years. Most seems to end wayyyyy too soon. Even this Marvel line seems to have undergone some rewrites even before the first figure made it out.

I'm hoping they give us some good looking figs but I think their approach is a bit duplicitous as it's kinda comic and kinda movie/realistic while at the same time being neither one. Makes for a strange balance that could be problematic to execute as it could find itself on an island by itself in regards to people's collection and collecting habits. Kinda like the DCD DC "12" line. If they had stopped with just a few, that set would suck as it doesn't really relate to anything else on people's shelves. Thankfully, they made enough and went deep enough that it kinda stands on it's own...but it's still on it's own.

 

[Pixelpiper]

I wasn't trying to compare the character on an annoyance level, just that I feel Hugh Jackman is a worse representation of the X-Men as Wolverine than Jar Jar would be as a stand-in for Luke Skywalker as a representation of Star Wars as a whole. Jackman embodies zero qualities anyone who read any Wolverine comic would expect. He's a decent actor and I like him in a lot of other roles, but whatever he's playing in those X-Men movies is no more Wolverine than I am the Queen of England (that's a popular one).

 

[Motuxmen]

I wasn't trying to compare the character on an annoyance level, just that I feel Hugh Jackman is a worse representation of the X-Men as Wolverine than Jar Jar would be as a stand-in for Luke Skywalker as a representation of Star Wars as a whole. Jackman embodies zero qualities anyone who read any Wolverine comic would expect. He's a decent actor and I like him in a lot of other roles, but whatever he's playing in those X-Men movies is no more Wolverine than I am the Queen of England (that's a popular one).

I disagree. He's not perfect but he's closer to wolverine then you are to the Queen. Lol I read wolverine. I have every issue or his solo, nearly every xmen issue he's in..multiple wolverine tattoos(comic ones)...I think I'm a pretty big wolverine fan. And he's more wolverine then a huge amount of actors that played comic characters are. I buy him more then most I mean. And given how many different ways the character has been written and drawn there's no " true" version of the character.

 

[Lee in MI]

I wasn't trying to compare the character on an annoyance level, just that I feel Hugh Jackman is a worse representation of the X-Men as Wolverine than Jar Jar would be as a stand-in for Luke Skywalker as a representation of Star Wars as a whole. Jackman embodies zero qualities anyone who read any Wolverine comic would expect. He's a decent actor and I like him in a lot of other roles, but whatever he's playing in those X-Men movies is no more Wolverine than I am the Queen of England (that's a popular one).

Yeah I can see your point. He is truly the "movie" Wolverine. Nothing more other than some aesthetic takeaways from the source material. He's never "felt" like the character in the comics to me. I like him in the movies but there was some getting used to it at first...then again...and again

 

[Pixelpiper]

I'd love to see a proper Wolverine in film. But I think Fox would have to sell the rights to WB and get their DC production teams to take it over. I don't have much faith in Marvel either as they're just ruining the entire MCU making forgettable movie after forgettable movie (every sequel has been from "meh" to terrible).

 

[Pixelpiper]

I disagree. He's not perfect but he's closer to wolverine then you are to the Queen..

You're clearly at the other end of the spectrum, a super-fan. I'll assume that's what brings it back full circle. After three or five movies one might have gotten used to Kelsey Grammar playing Wolverine.

Now, as an actor he may have been able to pull it off if he had been given any direction instead of simply allowed to do his own thing, and if the studio had used some FX wizardry to change his appearance like WETA did in the Hobbit for the dwarves.

 

[Theokan]

I'd take no Wolverine over a Hugh Jackman every time. Otherwise it's like taking Jar Jar Binks in place of C-3PO in your Star Wars collection. Actually, scratch that, not egregious enough. It's like taking Jar Jar instead of Luke Skywalker.

I also didn't like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine at first, but over time I've come to accept him as Wolverine in an alternate universe, and for that specific version of X-men he really owns the role. It's like Old Man Logan, a fan favorite, yet not exactly the Wolverine we're used to seeing. If Marvel gets to use the rights in their movies at some point we might see a more savage Wolverine, teeth and hair and all.

As far as Hugh Jackman figure, I get to pose him really crouched down and claws out, in ways he doesn't act in the movies, so it fixes most of the problem for me. His portrait is pretty ideal for Wolverine imo, it was mostly his tall and perfect posture that deviates from the comics.

But then that was before SSC's comic Wolverine, everything might change if this line kills it.


---

 

[Motuxmen]

You're clearly at the other end of the spectrum, a super-fan. I'll assume that's what brings it back full circle. After three or five movies one might have gotten used to Kelsey Grammar playing Wolverine.

Now, as an actor he may have been able to pull it off if he had been given any direction instead of simply allowed to do his own thing, and if the studio had used some FX wizardry to change his appearance like WETA did in the Hobbit for the dwarves.

I'm a fan (I guess you could say super fan) of the character. I don't have jackman inked on me. I still prefer the comic version. But I don't think the movie version is nearly as bad as you do. And the idea that you would rather see DC and WB do it then marvel is crazy to me (and if you didn't know I worked on batman v superman and working on justice league when it ramps up) DC doesn't exactly have any more current credibility then marvel. They have bungled the two most visible comic characters on the planet (superman and batman) as many times as gotten it right...they have been unable to get any stability or continued box office presence, while marvel turned gotg into a hit franchise. After green lantern you have more confidence in DC then marvel? I'm only basing this on stuff already out, as batman v superman isn't out yet so doesn't count. WB has three superman movies (I like returns but not majority do, so I left it out..mos, reeves first two superman films is the three) and five batman movies (nolans three and two burton films...though not all nolans are liked I think most did like them all)..all that in 30 plus years. Marvel didn't start its studio till 2006...and they have nearly as many (and if you count the Sony and fox films more) acclaimed movies then WB. If you question marvel that's one thing...but to say WB would be better...I see no evidence that would support that if you think marvel has failed...

As for the making Logan shorter...I don't see any reason why they would. Yes Hugh is way to tall. But making him look smaller does nothing good for the character visually. Yes they made the hobbits shorter. But they where supposed to be 2 foot tall. Not just a short normal person. The amount of work and money required to do that is not worth the gain to the film. No ones going to not go see xmen becuase Wolverines not 5ft 2. They may complain about it..but people always complain. With the hobbits..if they where normal sized that would dissuade people. The only issue I have with he movie wolverine (outside of no costume) is the writing. That's got nothing to do with jackman. They didn't write him as large arcs in the comics did (angry, feral, ****, badass). More like a wounded lost love sick animal. At least the first few films. That's not on the actors. I still enjoyed them, but it was a different take.

 

[ridetofight]

Thanks for the pic, J Bot! I want that to mean they are somewhere close to announcing this for preorder, but I know they're nowhere close. We're just worms on a hook.

 

[Shaun & Ed Fan]

They need to get Wolverine out sooner than later to go along with Deadpool!

 

[MxBxM]

I thoughy this was close to release. Finally, a decent Wolverine figure to look forward to

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[WhoaItsJBot]

It's not even up for PO yet... Still a long wait.

 

[markecho]

Yeah I though I read months ago that they pushed Punisher to release before Wolv because they were still tweaking him.
So if Punisher expected to ship Sept next year, and gets delayed a month or so (if everything goes as normal) then Wolv at least a year away?

 

[MxBxM]

Wasnt it revealed at the same time as Deadool?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[WhoaItsJBot]

Wolverine was shown at SDCC 2014, and was teased before that. He won't be out until 2017 at this rate.

I wish another company would get the rights to Marvel figures that would actually take it seriously. I want classic Ultron, it'll take SSC years to get to that.

 

[Craig Walker]

I'll buy this Wolverine the minute they put it up.

C'mon SS !!!

 

[WhoaItsJBot]

It's supposed to be up for PO before the end of the year.

 

[Craig Walker]

Awesome

 

[BurningRage]

Up for order next week