Where did this big guy suddenly come from? Should I order or

>>6340978
Proportions look awful on him.

>>6340978
looks thin for bane

>>6340990
>>6340996
The arms are fine. Hardy wasn't really that buff when he played Bane. If anything, his lats need to be bigger but they probably sacrificed the sculpt so you can have the swapping feature with the coat on.

>>6340990
>>6340996
>>6341041

Nah the proportions are definitely absolute shit on this figure. It looks terrible.

>>6340978

And the paint job too... damn, his skin is atrocious. And his head is two sizes too big. The more I look at this picture, the more disgusted I get.

File: Bane.jpg (83KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x800px

>>6340978
The real problem is that the chest is too narrow and the arms are a bit underscaled and too short--you can tell by the fact that his hands don't fall at the correct height for human proportions. It's kind of funny how nobody seems to be checking such basic things, this is literally stuff you learn in a beginner's life drawing or anatomy class. I corrected both problems here, think it looks a lot better.

>>6341051
>>6341053
Well it's a whole lot better than anything we've gotten by far.

>>6341093
The chest problem seems more like an issue caused by the removable coat.

>>6341096
>The chest problem seems more like an issue caused by the removable coat.
Yeah, if I buy him, he'll keep the coat on.

>>6341096
Sacrificing proportions for something like a removable coat is a fucking travesty in a high-end collector's figure. If you're selling a collectible and want a coat, INCLUDE A SWAPPABLE TORSO. That way people can just pay a little more and have a perfect figure. And sure, some people will get mad about the higher price, but look at what they did instead--ended up creating a shitty compromise of a figure that NOBODY likes.

>>6341117
>that nobody likes
The reaction in this thread and the Mafex beg to differ.

Plus I plan to have him always with his coat so i don't give a shit.

>>6341122
"It looks awful so I'll hide it with the coat" does not equal liking it. It means people are settling because there's no better Bane out there.

File: bayne.jpg (120KB, 744x1063px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 744x1063px

>durr he not buff enough for Bane!

Earth to McFly! Bane in the movie wasn't super beefy either!

>>6340990
>>6340996
>>6341051
>>6341053
>>6341117
Somebody get these hotheads outta here

>>6341093
Not everyone's body is proportional like basic anatomy. Some people have short arms. Tom Hardy for example is a manlet and has short arms.

>>6341176
Good job

>>6341122
>"It looks awful so I'll hide it with the coat"
and
>I like Bane with his coat on
are not the same thing

File: Hardy Bane.jpg (275KB, 1694x1080px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1694x1080px

>>6341174
This. Like I mentioned before, Hardy Bane wasn't that buff. The arms are fine, even the vest size is fine. The complaint about the arm length is ridiculous considering how his pants are meant to slightly sag down well below his crotch.

The only real issue lies in the sculpt of his lats/back muscles (or lack thereof), which was probably done as a compromise to make room for the coat feature. In turn, it makes his torso look smaller than it should be even though the vest size is actually pretty close to accurate.

File: missing lats.jpg (34KB, 360x288px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 360x288px

>>6341202

Continuing my point, it's mostly noticeable when you look at the back shot of the figure where he's missing a huge chunk of "skin" portions on his back that should be jutting out of the side of the vest. In this regard, it looks like the parts where the arms go into were hollowed out to make room for the coat to sit naturally.

Personally, I'm okay with it. It's obviously not perfect but at least it makes room for both looks and it's not really a deal-breaker for me considering how good the rest of the figure looks.

File: Bane.jpg (71KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x800px

>>6341202
>The complaint about the arm length is ridiculous considering how his pants are meant to slightly sag down well below his crotch.
This is a bad justification, since molded plastic toys cannot do low-crotched pants. It just doesn't work without fucking up your proportions or mounting the hip joints really weirdly low. Sure, Hardy's pants might sag below his crotch in the movie, but on the toy, there is very little sag at all. His crotch is pretty much placed exactly where it should be inside the pants.

And sag or not, the proportions are FUCKED. The wrist should align with the bottom of the crotch, and as you can see from this overlay, his fists END slightly above his crotch. Yes, there is some variance in human proportion, but not by this much usually--and Hardy IS a fairly normally proportioned person. Face it, they fucked up.

>>6341209
D-D-D-DEAL BREAKER

>>6341234
>This is a bad justification, since molded plastic toys cannot do low-crotched pants.
Not arguing about Bane, but this is a pretty silly point to make when a lot of toy companies have attempted sculpting pants with a sag in mind. NECA has even done this for a lot of their human figures, hence a long history of awkward crotch articulation schemes until the very recent use of "diaper" crotch pieces.

>>6341053
For you

This figure is terrible.

File: 1427081826917.jpg (45KB, 680x683px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 680x683px

>>6341280

How tall is it? I wouldn't touch a Bane unless it's guaranteed to be the biggest figure in any given collection.

>>6341370
Mafex does relatively okay scale so it's either A. going to be at LEAST as big as their Batman figure or B. Bigger than their Batman figure. Either way it's bigger than the S.H. Figuarts figures guaranteed.

>>6341372
Eh. 1/4 scale or bust.

>>6340978
This guy isn't that big for me

$75 at BBTS.

You know, I think BBTS should just bail on imports. People were already too poor to pay $50 for this stuff. They don't have a chance in hell now.

>>6341374
>not wanting a 1:1 scale Bane statue

hothead

>>6341542
The only reason they stay afloat with their high prices is that they pay thousands of JewTubers modicum amounts of money for advertising their site out their ass.

>>6341540
Trying way too hard.

I rarely buy from BBTS because 99% of what I want can be found cheaper elsewhere.

They also have little concept of "sale price". They might mark things down but will up them to normal price after a couple of weeks. I think they're still sitting on those G1 Piranacon reissue sets, the ones no one wanted because of changed colors(we need more PINK dammit!) and shitty QC. Drop them to $20 each and get rid of them already!

Shipping prices also tend to be shit, $7 budget speed service for a tiny thing?

>Shipping prices also tend to be shit, $7 budget speed service for a tiny thing?
You're not going to be happy with shipping prices anywhere if you only ship one thing at a time.

>>6340978
The arms are my biggest let down because they look so plain, smooth and clean as if they are out of a completely different toyline. The back of the arms is not so bad and has a good amount of dents. Maybe they are tiny bit too short but I think it's ok.

I kind of want to wait out for a Figuarts but the coat + extra arms feature seems essential to me now and I have a feeling they won't copy it. At least the height would be accurate to the actor.

>>6340978
Isn't a big guy

>>6341619
They were on deep discount for months and still never sold out before going back to full price.

>>6341176

>Mommy tells them something! Those bad guys don't like my shitty toy! Waaaaah!

>>6341682
first class is $4 or less. I get that all the time on eBay.

File: hothead.jpg (69KB, 376x304px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 376x304px

>>6341777
>not realizing this thread is filled with shitty /tv/ memes

File: OMG.jpg (464KB, 2652x837px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 2652x837px

>>6341803
>>not realizing this thread is filled with shitty /tv/ memes

like what?

>>6341266
No, I addressed that.
>It just doesn't work without fucking up your proportions or mounting the hip joints really weirdly low.
I guess I should have said they can't do it WELL. Toy companies have tried, but it always look awful. NECA's diapers included.

>>6341176
was this post part of your plan?