3.75" Amazing Spider-Man Figure From Hasbro Revealed

lol okay.

Im glad they bare making good figs also, but this guy was just flat out calling me a liar......

I never called you a liar. I said you were wrong.

You said multiple times they were the "same exact thing as XMO". The above pictures showed that while they work very similar to the regular ball joints, they are not the same thing. They look noticeably different so that it is not a giant ugly ball at the tops of each leg, which was my entire point: they are a different style.

I was wrong about them being the same as Iron Man though.

"

Its the fact that you said "You're factually incorrect and simply blind" when in fact you were. I dont care how high and mighty you think you are, or that you may be right sometime.

You need to knock the "Tude" out of it......

They are still ball joints all movie lines are ball joints...may be a new style but still a freaking ball joint.....and I said that it might not be a "Ball" but its still a Balljoint.

My problem with ball joints was never how the joints work. It's always been how they look, which is ugly as all hell. They weren't as bad on the Iron Man 2 figures because they were robots and mechs, so they kind of got away with it. But on the XMO figures or the recent Spider-Man line? They look god awful. I always find them distracting.

This new style looks a lot better.

Im glad they bare making good figs also, but this guy was just flat out calling me a liar......

@spacemonkey- I understand that Zeo thinks that Cap's line are "not ball-jointed" in terms of appearance but talking about joint technicalities - it's clearly a ball-jointed. I'm happy with the new style though because ball on the hips are really ugly to watch except for Movie War Machine. Still, they're a little short. hahaha...

Im glad they bare making good figs also, but this guy was just flat out calling me a liar......

I never called you a liar. I said you were wrong.

You said multiple times they were the "same exact thing as XMO". The above pictures showed that while they work very similar to the regular ball joints, they are not the same thing. They look noticeably different so that it is not a giant ugly ball at the tops of each leg, which was my entire point: they are a different style.

I was wrong about them being the same as Iron Man though.

Spacemonkey, I wouldn't let it get to you. That Zeo dude gets in this kind of semantic argument with everyone. I should also say, though, that I recall many conversations on this board during which his contributions have shed light on issues that had previously been obscure. He's got a very aggressive style of writing, which I think leads to this kind of situation.

I just wish the MU creative people would quit being evasive and lay their thinking plain. Initially we heard a lot of side chatter about a sort of a backstage war going on between factions in the sculpting department for MU. Then it seemed as if there was a winner, and a loser, and then an exodus of some group of sculptors--presumably the ones responsible for the original Daredevil mold and any other stuff you might find disagreeable in the line--and now we have the new Cyclops mold, and a new Hulk mold, and stuff that looks great. I had always assumed that the losers of that conflict ended up in the movie lines, putting ball joints on figure after figure, though of course I have no real basis for this assumption. And now, to make things more confusing, Hasbro is using the Wolverine line molds as if they were awesome, and incorporating them into the MU line. So now the MU line has a bunch of ball-jointed figures in it and a host of new scale issues (since the movie line figures never seem to be quite exactly in the same scale as MU). And the movie lines, like a manic depressive, have huge ups and downs in sculpting, character selection and articulation, and they keep messing around with the articulation in all sorts of experiments that hardly seem necessary in the first place, since between GI Joe and MU they have a full host of high-quality articulation schemes. So why do they develop these godawful new hip joints for the Captain America figures? I have a feeling that once this line is retired those joints--a real failure, to my eyes--will start seeping into the MU line, and why should that be? I'm just perplexed by all of this. One day I'd love to hear the story of how the Marvel figures were actually designed and developed.

I strongly prefer ball joint hips. On T-Bar hips, if the leg is extended outwards, the paint and plastic on the leg become dented and rubbed off from the top of the crotch socket hitting it (crotch socket is a great term). But I also prefer the movie lines (talking both movie and comic versions in the movie lines) to much of the MU main line figures, so I have a different aesthetic than most here I think.

Im glad they bare making good figs also, but this guy was just flat out calling me a liar......

You know what the ridiculous part is? These joints still don't have the range of motion that Hasbro's G.I. Joe line has.

I shouldn't say range of motion--they don't have the ease of motion that the Joe line has had for 30 years.

Still, ball joints, t-bars, or whatever--I'm still glad they're making relatively decent comic figures at all :).

I just don't get why they don't switch over to MU articulation for these movie figures? None of these ball joints are even slightly satisfying. The MU waists with the hip swivels cover all the bases the Cap figures do, with the added bonus that you can actually manipulate them without going through a complicated rotation of the hip.