What's so special about this armour that people like? Why

The reason why this suit goes for way more than the others is because it is bulky as fuck, and like 5x bigger than any of the other IM suits.

The ML was Build a Figure, which already makes it more than a standard figure since it came in parts. The Hot Toys was way more because this is a line of figures that's already $200-$300 for a standard figure, nevermind a big as fuck thing like the Hulkbuster.

>>6009030
Didn't the Hot Toys one have a bunch of lights and moving panels and such?

>>6009222
Most hot toys Iron Man suits do.

>>6009222
Yes.
and half of another ironman suit inside it aswell.

>>6009020
its a big, mean, bulky, chunky motherfucking piece of metal that will fuck your shit up
that's why people love it
I'm preparing my wallet to get raped for the Sentine Re Edit figure, anyone has it? seems really cool wiht those LEDs and another iron man head inside it

>>6009222
https://youtu.be/0zDJcoqP5GE

>>6009020
He's a big guy.

>>6009942
For you.

File: HPIM2126.jpg (103KB, 548x631px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 548x631px

here's something appealing about mecha in non-mecha setting.

Also, this is conjecture, but I suspect the whole boom in Hulbuster popularity stemmed from a toy. Namely the Toy Biz Marvel Legends Hulkbuster. the original comic Hulkbuster wasn't that crazy big, it was a set of armor worn over the standard one. Not eve bigger than the Hulk. It only showed up briefly and wans't mentioned for years.Toy Biz re-imagined this as a much larger armor where tony was clearly much smaller inside the armor than in the comic version. Later when the armor reappeared in the comics soon after, it was clearly inspired by the Toy Biz version.


>>6009298
I have it, and its fantastic. If yu liek Iron Man, its well worth a buy.

>>6009292
Which also has lights and moving panels.

>>6009020
It's bascily a cross over between Capes and mech/Warhammer fans

File: hulkbuster90s.jpg (42KB, 400x374px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x374px

>>6009953
Nope.
Hulkbuster armor was always popular, ever since its first apperance. Even this ugly thing was highly sought after.

Also, movie Hulkbuster is shit.

>>6009020
>What's so special about this armour that people like?

Most of the IM armors through all the Marvel movies have been the same, with slight changes in the gold-to-red ratio for coloring and detail, to the point were people were bored, but the Hulkbuster is big and different, and, most important to collectors, considered the most power Iron Man armor, in terms of brute strength and armor protection.

File: image.jpg (235KB, 1556x874px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1556x874px

>>6009988

You are shit, this thing is fucking beautiful.

File: michael-bay.jpg (27KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 620x465px

>>6010109
>overdesigned
>bits and bobs for the sake of looking busy
>shit to crumble off from the hulk slapping it around
Go away, Michael Bay.
We don't need your transformers ideas around these parts

>>6010378
Did you want movie Iron Man's armor to be a spandex suit with a breastplate over it?

kek, i forgot how much i missed the unironic autism on this board

>>6010378
>>overdesigned
>>bits and bobs for the sake of looking busy

But this is literally every modern hollywood tech and robot design.

> keep thinking you know who i am
A-are you subjectanon? you sound like him

>>6010611
>But this is literally every modern hollywood tech and robot design.

Are you defending the shit show that is Hollywood mecha design?

>>6010614
no not defending it. just saying it's not a particularly insightful observation, and comparing the Hulkbuster design to Bayformers is pretty extreme.

>>6009222
It hasn't even released yet. The fucker has been delayed like 6 times

>>6010614
It's not that he's defending it, it's more like he's admitting he doesn't care for the comics and only likes the hollywood designs because it's his first time seeing the armor.
Most people prefer their first time experiencing something over the original, like Alien Ant Farm's cover of "Smooth Criminal" over Michael Jackson's.

>>6010378
You don't know shit about mechanical design and you're just spewing buzzwords and memes, to even compare that to bayformers shows your level of retardation. Most pieces in movie Hulkbuster have some kind of moving function, to assemble or to be used in combat. Thus they need to be able shift around securetely and that's why it has "bits and bobs" connecting pieces to other pieces.
You're the kind of guy that if you had never seen a forklift ir a bulldozer before you'd surely as day call them overdesigned.

>>6011195
I guess this makes sense in the mire of your own mind

File: steampunk nerf.jpg (3MB, 4056x1248px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4056x1248px

>>6011279
It's an unrealistic walking robot suit for a smaller robot suit. There's no reason to add the bits and bobs to it when the normal suit already exists without them.

It doesn't matter if the stupid bits and bobs move around, because they don't actually do anything. They're as useless as any steam punk crap added onto a nerf gun and doesn't make it anymore believable, except to people who think steam punk crap looks useful.

As already mentioned, it's just a stupid typical hollywood overdesign.

>>6011317
He can spin, pneumatic pump and release all his limbs. He needs to open up to fit a whole man already in a suit inside. It's shipped piece by piece from fucking space. The fact that you're trying to simplify a huge otherworldly piece of sci fi technology to accommodate your simple design argument shows how weak it is.

>>6010378
Oh no, they made it look like a machine in a live-action setting

File: Iron-Man-3-Hot-Toys-Bones-Iron-Man-with-Limbs-Flying-Around-Separated-e1405093076912.jpg (73KB, 724x600px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 724x600px

>>6011340
>normal suit already fits a man
>larger armor needs to be more complicated to fit a person inside that
hurr?

>The fact that you're trying to complicate a huge otherworldly piece of sci fi technology to accommodate your REALISTUK design argument shows how weak it is.
Remember the bulky single use datapads in Star Trek and how overcomplicated they are compared to our simplified design multi-tasking pocket phones?

Seriously, you might as well be arguing about how steampunk is only believable because there's geegaws all over the place.
It's supposed to be a heavily armored suit and you see all those exposed pieces? Use your brain.

It's a stupid overdesigned typical hollywood look.

>It's shipped piece by piece from fucking space
What does this matter?

>>6010388
This is why I really like the Marvel Select Hulkbuster and I even use it in my MCU display, because it looks like that.

File: hulkbuster hasbro.jpg (370KB, 1591x1600px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1591x1600px

>>6011357
Best design, even though it looks like they only upscaled this

>>6011354
>normal suit already fits a man
>larger armor needs to be more complicated to fit a person inside that
>hurr?
It obviously would, articulating armor on top of armor is an engineering feat, that's why there are no real power suits within power suits, much less an iron man tier suit to begin with.

>Remember the bulky single use datapads in Star Trek and how overcomplicated they are compared to our simplified design multi-tasking pocket phones?
Gee, what we think the future will look like does not always match up with what it actually is. What a shock.

File: Iron Man Armor MK VI.jpg (83KB, 990x516px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 990x516px

>>6011782
>articulating armor on top of armor is an engineering feat
No, it isn't.
The Iron Man armor already moves like a human, so how does wearing armor over armor make a difference?
It's fictional anyway and all the other Starks treated it like it was no thang.

>Gee, what we think the future will look like does not always match up with what it actually is.
The point is that Hollywood loves to overexaggerate shit just because they're too stupid to actually envision something more complicated without needlessly adding more shit to make it complex looking.

And way to ignore the point that armored stuff protects stuff like joints and other delicate components instead of leaving it out in the open like the movie Hulkbuster.
All the other Hulkbusters do a great job of looking like it's actually armored instead of being an oversized humanoid hydraulic press with all its joints exposed and clasps waiting to be tugged off

I wish Hasbro still made a Micro Machines line just so we could have a chance at oversized stuff like this being made. Shiar, Space Jammer, Kree spaceships, the Xmen Blackbird, etc etc... such missed opportunities to sell us more awesome junk.

File: subjectanon_every_thread.jpg (36KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 700x400px

>>6012081
remember the good ole days before Hollywood ruined everything!!?
why doesn't Ironman have sculpted abs and nips on his armor? like some adonis greek warrior! not like these dumb details they have now.
also why does he need led HUD display aim assist eyes? overdesigned! just two slits in the helmet pls.
also why doesn't Ironman dance anymore? remember the Irontusi?

>>6012081
>>articulating armor on top of armor is an engineering feat
>No, it isn't.
yes it is. I guarantee you can't find a real life example that even comes near the level of movement the movie hulkbuster displayed

>The Iron Man armor already moves like a human, so how does wearing armor over armor make a difference?
The iron man armor is already a busy design as it is, and that's just a suit of armor for one person.

>It's fictional anyway and all the other Starks treated it like it was no thang.
yeah, who would have guessed iron man like armor is fictional, or that different continuities handle things differently.

>The point is that Hollywood loves to overexaggerate shit just because they're too stupid to actually envision something more complicated without needlessly adding more shit to make it complex looking.
Fucking duh, they make futuristic things look detailed and more complex than they will probably turn out, it's more interesting a design choice than boring, simple shapes. It's like being upset a lightsaber isn't just a metallic tube.


And way to ignore the point that armored stuff protects stuff like joints and other delicate components instead of leaving it out in the open like the movie Hulkbuster.
Have you actually looked at real armor? Joints can't be protected because if they were, the armor couldn't move.

File: bomb suit.jpg (37KB, 473x721px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 473x721px

>>6012709
>you can't find a real life example that even comes near the level of movement the movie hulkbuster displayed
It's fiction.
There's no real life examples of the Iron Man suit either, because they're all fake. Inserting someone with armor on into another armor suit isn't hard. Most armor is just bulk, and the iron man suit is basically already skintight, so what stops someone from entering a walking juggernaut like the Hulkbuster? Nothing.
It's fiction. There is no limitation besides the one the creators imposed on it and the design they decided on is just typical overcomplication.
You think the IM suit is actually doing anything in there? He's just sitting or standing inside with maybe hand and feet movement and that's it. Just like the Iron Monger suit from the first movie.

>The iron man armor is already a busy design as it is, and that's just a suit of armor for one person.
It's little different from real life armor though. All the joints are covered, flexible. The chestplates are firm and solid. It's armored protection, without all the flesh or bits and bobs being exposed. Basic knight shit.

>they make futuristic things look detailed and more complex than they will probably turn out, it's more interesting a design choice
Oh please.
They make things that are laughed at decades later and we laugh at so many designs from them today.

You think people weren't laughing at how cheap Star Trek looked back in the day? Same shit with TNG and making fun of all the microwave panels. Today we laugh at that and more, because of how outdated and wrong they got things.
Fiction where they did research and tried to actually envision the future, we still look at it in awe and respect, like 2001.

>Have you actually looked at real armor?
Yes, and that's why i disagree with you. You, on the other hand, don't know how well protected humans and tanks are.

>>6013099
>It's fiction
Once again, completely shocking. But the iron man armor in the movies is supposed to give the illusion of realistic, that's why we don't see the 60-90s designs on screen
>Most armor is just bulk, and the iron man suit is basically already skintight, so what stops someone from entering a walking juggernaut like the Hulkbuster? Nothing.
The movie iron man armor is made out of metal plates, meaning it doesn't bend and flex like modern day armor materials, like Kevlar. Try sitting even the most flexible medieval knight suit inside another and do anything at all, things will not work out.

>You think people weren't laughing at how cheap Star Trek looked back in the day? Same shit with TNG and making fun of all the microwave panels. Today we laugh at that and more, because of how outdated and wrong they got things.
Star Trek had a pittance for a budget, thus their props reflected it. You think anyone laughs at Aliens, star wars or terminator for their outdated "futuristic" designs? hell to the fuck no.

File: fiercest killers in the insect kingdom.jpg (146KB, 808x561px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 808x561px

>>6013323
>the movies is supposed to give the illusion of realistic
>by making them look overcomplicated with bits and bobs sticking out everywhere, just like IRL
WHOOOOSH
>that's why we don't see the 60-90s designs on screen
Instead, we're treated with the 00-10s equivalents instead, because hollywood.

>Try sitting even the most flexible medieval knight suit inside another
What does this matter? IM is just sitting/standing around in there like Stane was in the Iron Monger. Again, what would prevent an armored person from moving inside even more armor? Maybe if the armor was cumbersome, but the IM suit isn't with all that human-like movement and reflex actions. Those EOD suits are actually way more impeding than the IM suit moves.

>You think anyone laughs at Aliens,
Space truckers + horror movie. Grit n grime for the sake of sp0oo0ky and everyone knows it
>star wars
Actually, yes and even in canon universe they mock their pieces of junk. It's all supposed to look as used as a Toyota Hilux in an African civil war.
>terminator for their outdated "futuristic" designs?
You mean robots being nothing but cheap grunts to blow away the human race? I don't think there's much to really discuss

All of them fit within their universe. The movie Hulkbuster? Versus the slickass flexible as fuck IM suits? Sure, you can argue it's an inverse for the IM suit being so agile looking, but you could get the same effect the comics did by putting thickass armor plates.
The only reason i can see them making it look like it'll jangle like a trash bin after a car demolish derby is because of the director/designer trying to infuse his own shit to pretend he created something amazing, instead of riding on the coattails of a cash in flavor of the month based on something that was already written and designs for them.

>>6013354
alright, once again I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you shit all over it to push your lunacy.

the bit about aliens gave it away. Get fucked attention whore.

>>6013358
>can't refute anything, doesn't know anything about Alien
Here's a nice documentary called Truckers in Space.
Learn something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDh1V49Uovk

>>6013359
>all these classic sci-fi movies are laughed at!
>Look, this will prove it!
yeah, no, fuck off.

File: cobra in syria.jpg (164KB, 1000x807px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1000x807px

>>6013362
oh, you were talking about that?

I was referring to the fact that they're overly busy for reasons stated.
Space truckers, technicals, and cheap grunts without much thought for their survivability. Their shit is outdated on purpose.
They all fit within their universes, yet that Hulkbuster? Nope.

>>6013374
the hulk buster fits as well as the iron man armor itself.
now if you think the iron man armor is also a busy design, sure, then your point holds some water.

Can we just fucking delete this thread? It's barely even /toy/ related at this point.

File: Hulkbuster IM2.jpg (274KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1200x1600px

>>6013377
Only two of them are really considered busy.
One was the original that was made out of craps in a cave and the other one was made to be as flexible as possible.
The rest are less busy than most any knight's armor. They armor protects the person and its inner workings. Just like the armors in the comics.
Again, the Hulkbuster just has all the bits and bobs hanging out, just to look busy and complex. Again, the comics continues with the design of the IMs, except it looks stronger and durable with the added bulk of the extra armor and size.

>>6013354
>>6013385
Hollywood should hire you, a 37 yr old autist manbabby shitposter, as a consultant for the art direction on their comic book movies.
I'm sure that would go well, don't you?

>>6013385
The movie design had no more bits and bops than that toy. What you're seeing and your tiny brain is converting to busy design are all the joints underneath the armor plates. But you won't understand that and will make a long stretched reply with null points about your own perception of sci-fi, like the massive force of autism that you are.

File: HBTeamUpCap.jpg (467KB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 1632x1224px

>>6013962
Are you blind?
Where are the pistons, gears, and other internal bits even modern construction vehicles try to cover up?
Where are all the Squaresoft Trademarked Multi-Clasps?

>>6014176
>Where are the pistons, gears, and other internal bits even modern construction vehicles try to cover up?

Yes everyone knows oiled machine parts and engines love nothing more than being exposed to dirt, rain, & pigeon shit.