Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - efranks

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 192
91
Other Toy Lines / Re: Star Trek
« on: June 4, 2013, 10:29 PM »
Actually, DST is doing just that, although with TOS-era figures right now.http://www.startrek.com/article/first-look-deluxe-kirk-and-spock-action-figures-from-diamond-select-toys

It'll be interesting to see where this line goes.

They're 7" and not all articulated.  But, yeah, they are doing a somewhat limited series of ST toys, but not really action figures and not in the 3.75" scale.

They did Stargate in the past also, but they were 6".  If they could get back into that at 3.75" and still do the pack-in build-an-accessory, I'd be in.  I'm just not in at anything over the 3.75"/4" scale.  I'm all about compatibility with the tons of action figs I already have, and those are in the SW/Joe/IJ scale.

   E...

92
Other Toy Lines / Re: Star Trek
« on: June 4, 2013, 07:05 PM »
As much as I'd have liked to see a line from Hasbro for this new ST movie, I really don't believe it was a good toy movie.  They're not like Superheroes with cool costumes and funky weapons/powers, they aren't military-esque figures w/ a lot of equipment and most of the ships are huge and outside of doing playsets or scale models they aren't like an X-Wing or TIE Fighter where figs really fit in them.

It's probably too expensive for some of the smaller companies, but if Neca or DST or someone with equally quality manufacturing could get into this it would be the best way to go.  The 5" Playmates line that ran back in the 90's was well done but they were based on a TV series so there were lots of set pieces and accessories that made sense for figures.  W/ the movie, not so much.

It's gotta be very cost prohibitive, but I wish there was a company like DST that could get on a bunch of licenses for Sci-Fi properties and do limited run series.  ST, Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Stargate, other properties like that, where they could do a set of core characters and then one wave of secondary chars and then be done.  Limited stuff for comic and specialty shops, hit the geeks where they leave, and then move on.

   E...

93
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Computer programming for kids?
« on: May 30, 2013, 09:20 AM »
You should check out the SCRATCH programming system: http://scratch.mit.edu

   E...

94
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: X-Men/Wolverine Movies
« on: May 24, 2013, 09:26 AM »
Physically, Hugh Jackman didn't really match up with the image of Wolverine for the first X-Men.  In fact, he wasn't the first choice for the role.  That had actually been Dougray Scott.  But somewhere along the way the role of Wolverine got recast, and as a result Jackman has essentially been carrying the franchise.

Dougray Scott was originally cast as Wolverine but he couldn't do it because he was tied up with Mission Impossible II.

I'd argue that anybody basing casting judegements off of height in this day and age is a moron.  They easily make tall guys look short and a midget look like the tallest guy in the room.  I think Jackman's facial expressions and overall look made him a clear choice from the start, but maybe I was in the minority with that opinion. 

I don't disagree, but you know how comic geeks are, they want the movies to be exactly like the comics until they don't...which usually only happens if the movie ends up exceeding their expectations.

I think Jackman has done an excellent job as Wolverine, don't get me wrong, but he didn't necessarily stand out as an obvious choice the first time.  Unlike Downey as Stark, though, I think Jackman could be replaced as Wolverine at some point.  It's harder for me to picture someone else in Downey's role, though.

   E...

95
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: X-Men/Wolverine Movies
« on: May 23, 2013, 12:16 AM »
IIRC everybody wanted a short, stacked guy with a bad attitude to play Wolverine and here comes Jackman, who wasn't exactly jacked up before the role, and he's like 6'2", and he was more famous for doing theater at the time.

He didn't really jump off the casting page as the type of guy you'd cast in that part.

   E...

96
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Xbox One
« on: May 21, 2013, 03:50 PM »
The most interesting announcement, for me, was the live-action Halo show by Spielberg.  But it sounds like you'll need the Xbox One to watch it?  I don't know, I missed some of the info, I'm at work.

Still, the name? Blah.  It's like MS isn't even trying...or actively trying to make their **** less interesting.  I'm sorry, but I've been able to watch plenty of TV and interface with online social media without ever owning a console so why did that seem to be the big selling points today?

I don't play enough console games to know if this is all stuff people wanted, but most of my friends that game a lot just want a fast system with kickass games and don't care for all the extra stuff.

   E...

97
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Official Television Thread
« on: May 17, 2013, 12:08 PM »
I've been watching Defiance but I don't really care for it that much.  There's not that much interesting to me, I don't really get where they're trying to go with it...eh.

As far as the 2013-2014 season goes, blah.  It's all crap with the possible exception of SHIELD.  Everything just looks terrible so far.  I haven't done a final look at everything, but what I've seen so far is not interesting, it all has a been there, done that feel to it.  There's not much original. 

I'd rather still have CSI: NY and the original Law & Order back compared to anything new they showed, they're spinning off Chicago Fire, which I like, with another lame cop show and the comedies?  I don't watch network comedies.  At least CBS had the common sense to not go with that NCIS Red show they tried to spring on us.

My main complaint is that my cable feed doesn't include The CW because I think they've got probably the best lineup of any of the networks.  And I'm not happy that FX is splitting off with a second channel that's going to lose me a couple of shows I do watch, like It's Always Sunny and The League.

   E...

98
The Bullpen / Re: Iron Man 2 Toys
« on: May 15, 2013, 12:27 AM »
I just saw a bunch of stuff at 5 Below that I'd never seen also.  A couple of the armors were kind of cool...never knew they existed.

   E...

Were they the Iron Man 2 line or the follow up "Armored Avenger" line that featured the Concept Hammer Drone? That's the one figure I wish I could still get since it closely resembles the armor Whiplash wears at the end of the movie.

Oh.  I have no idea.  The packaging looked similar to the IM2 stuff and in one of the stores I found two of the Hammer Drones, green and silver (Forget actual designations), along with all these other IM armors I'd never seen before.

I found the concept armor Hammer Drone one time at TJ Maxx quite a while back but the other IM figures with him weren't what I was seeing over the weekend.

   E...

99
The Sequel Trilogy / Re: Star Wars Sequel Trilogy Speculation
« on: May 13, 2013, 04:39 PM »

No matter what they end up doing, I have to be honest, I'm not really looking forward to these new films.  I'm especially not looking forward to a film every year.

Why?  ???

Because I was content to think that we had the "whole" story according to Lucas.  That from here on out we would have the Clone Wars, for some period of time, a live action TV show (also from Lucas) and that everything else fell into the EU which I could largely ignore since my opinion has always been that if it wasn't in a film from George, it didn't really "count."

Now we have a new trilogy plus some other one-off films, which may or may not have much input from Lucas, that will be considered (at least for the trilogy) canon.  Love him or hate him, the six films plus The Clone Wars all came from Lucas and his vision.  Now, we have someone else doing it and I can't seem to get excited for it.

Did I like Abrams' Star Trek?  Yes.  But other than character names, it didn't feel a lot like the Star Trek that I grew up loving; which was mostly created while Gene Roddenberry was still involved.  The Original Series, Next Generation, the movies up to The Voyage Home (The Final Frontier was an exception), even Deep Space 9 which came on the heels of Next Gen.  Most of the stuff through the rest of the 90's and 2000's?  Varying degrees of crap.  So Abrams may have given me a good movie, but the fact it was Star Trek was almost incidental. 

I'm worried I'm going to feel the same way about future SW films.

And from a strictly collecting standpoint?  I'm out.  There are still things that I'd like to see made to be purchased, but even thinking about collecting stuff from these new films leaves me shaky.  I don't have the room, don't want to invest the money and from the work side of things, can't imagine what it's going to be like trying to cover it for a collecting website.  That thought alone is almost so overwhelming that I'm seriously thinking about either closing my whole site or moving to a straight pop culture site, covering everything, so that I don't feel that I have to cover everything.

   E...

100
The Bullpen / Re: Iron Man 2 Toys
« on: May 12, 2013, 10:29 AM »
I just saw a bunch of stuff at 5 Below that I'd never seen also.  A couple of the armors were kind of cool...never knew they existed.

   E...

101
The Sequel Trilogy / Re: Star Wars Sequel Trilogy Speculation
« on: May 12, 2013, 10:22 AM »
Even though it's possible that we could see the Skywalker and/or Solo kids in the movies, I think everyone may be sticking with the (possibly incorrect) assumption that ANYTHING we know about the EU will, in any way, be used or even kept as we move forward into these new films.

While I like some parts of the EU, there's so much contradictory stuff out there, some generated by new EU stories and some by Lucas himself as he made the prequels and The Clone Wars, that I won't be surprised if they dump all of it.  Or most of it, and start over with a clean slate.

I would like to see Fisher, Hamill and Ford at least have cameos in VII to kind of pass the torch, but them move past that and not see them again in the new trilogy.  But I don't really want any of them to be part of the main plot. 

No matter what they end up doing, I have to be honest, I'm not really looking forward to these new films.  I'm especially not looking forward to a film every year.

   E...

102
The Bullpen / Re: Marvel Universe
« on: May 3, 2013, 01:22 PM »
I actually found the 3-packs at retail the other day.  Target.  Picked up the X-Men pack for Rogue but passed on the others.  Even though singles are $10, it still doesn't feel like a good deal at $25 for the set.  Part of it may be that I think the Wolverine figure is terrible and I'm really only in it for Rogue.  Although, Longshot isn't a bad figure.

   E...

103
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Iron Man (Movie and Sequels)
« on: May 3, 2013, 01:00 AM »
Yes (and it's awesome). No (or, sorta).

   E...

104
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Official Movie Thread
« on: April 29, 2013, 02:45 PM »
Monsters University opens two weeks before Despicable Me 2  and it's possible that they could cannibalize each other's audience, plus DM2 opens against The Lone Ranger which could have an impact even though they aren't after the exact same audience.

But, I didn't realize that the first DM movie did that well.

   E...

105
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Official Movie Thread
« on: April 29, 2013, 12:15 AM »
With Iron Man 3 opening later this week, kicking off the real 2013 movie season, I thought I'd look at last year's predictions for the top 5 and pick mine again for this year.  Here's how the top 7 sorted out for 2012:

1 The Avengers
2 The Dark Knight Rises
3 The Hunger Games
4 Skyfall
5 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
6 Twilight: Breaking Dawn 2
7 The Amazing Spider-Man

I picked, in no order:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The Dark Knight Rises
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2
The Avengers
The Amazing Spider-Man

And had The Hunger Games as my wild card to knock out The Amazin Spider-Man.  I also thought Hobbit, TDKR and Twilight would be in the race for number 1 but The Avengers owned all...TDKR did take number 2, though...even though it was over $175 million behind.

I never saw Skyfall coming.  It way over-performed for a Bond film and I think shocked everyone taking over $300m.  Good for the Bond franchise, though.

This year there are some biggies, but most of them are sequels.  I think I'm looking at these for the top 5, again, in no particular order.

Iron Man 3
Star Trek Into Darkness
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

And I'm back and forth on number 5.  I think it'll be either The Hangover Part III or Monsters University.  I'm not sure how Hangover will be, 2 was down and I think this could drop out as well but Monsters University...eh.  There's usually one good animated film each year and Monsters, Inc did do $289m.  Thor: The Dark World could get up there with the bump from The Avengers although Thor did a relatively low $181m.  It did outperform Captain America...it could do a lot better this time around with a trailer that's pretty solid.

The next round of films with some potential, IMO, include:

Fast & Furious 6
The Lone Ranger
Pacific Rim
The Wolverine

I think The Wolverine sinks on the poor performance of the first film, while the Fast & Furious films have been doing better with Fast 5 ringing up $209m when they added The Rock, who is back again. 

We've also got Man of Steel but unless it's huge and gets good word of mouth, I expect a lot of people to pass.  World War Z is coming but that type of movie usually has modest box office, there's a new 300 film and Kick-Ass 2 is coming, but both franchises started kinda low.  I guess Ender's Game and The Mortal Instruments could do something, w/ Mortal Instruments trying to cash in on the TWilight and Potter crowd while Percy Jackson also has a sequel, that might not do much.

   E...

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 192