Queen Studios: Iron Man Mark 7 Life-Size Statue

[Underoos]

Originally Posted by EStark

Its too big. The statue without the base is too tall. Tony Stark is 5'9 in the MCU (RDJ is shorter).
This bothered me about the Mark 50 with the long legs. I cant imagine an average size person in that giant nanosuit, with a tiny head.
I hope the Mark 3 won't be this tall.

I think that's more of a MCU height discrepancy issue than Queen's fault. I've seen so many different heights listed for Tony and his suits over the years.

Proportionally I can't see a person fitting into any of Tony's suits. If the suits were proportionate to an average person they would be shorter and bulky like a cosplayer's and that wouldn't look as cool on screen.

[nearmint]

What do you guys think of the paint? Seems really flat to me.

[generalszabo]

Originally Posted by nearmint

What do you guys think of the paint? Seems really flat to me.

Proportions all wrong and paint is unimpressive- IMO

[Phoenixblazes]

Originally Posted by nearmint

What do you guys think of the paint? Seems really flat to me.

It's probably flater than it should be. But at the same time its not supposed to be a shiny cherry red either.

The problem is that for years, most statue companies have been painting all the Iron Man armours a way too shinny cherry red, probably because it looks more appealing. But now Queen, and even Hot Toys are going with a more matte like paint, because it's actually more movie accurate imo.

Though Queen probably has gone too far, as it seems to have lost that metal like look. In the movie it might've had a duller metal tint, but it still looked metallic, however here it's too dull.

[Phoenixblazes]

Originally Posted by generalszabo

Proportions all wrong and paint is unimpressive- IMO

Which has been said of every Iron Man piece ever released.

The legs have always been problematic, as they've always been completely CGI in the movies, where at least the upper body armour is actually based off a physically worn object.

Though imo, the helmets have a tendency of being on the small size on Queen Studio pieces.

[generalszabo]

They could have made it more realistic by decreasing the thigh gap and not having a tiny head

[IcedDog]

Originally Posted by Phoenixblazes

Though Queen probably has gone too far, as it seems to have lost that metal like look. In the movie it might've had a duller metal tint, but it still looked metallic, however here it's too dull.

I think that's fair, it looks better and more metallic in the promo pics (imagine that!). The other thing I noticed is the head doesn't sit square, it's tilted slightly to it's right...not by a lot, but just enough so that it seems like a mistake rather than an intentional head turn. That said, overall it's still a killer piece, especially when you look at it from an angle...

[Brent72]

Originally Posted by EStark

I hope the Mark 3 won't be this tall.

Are they making a 1:1 Mark III?

[Iko Iko]

Originally Posted by nearmint

What do you guys think of the paint? Seems really flat to me.

Agree. I don't like how Queen is painting these recent Iron Man pieces (this and the recently released 1/4 scale piece) with such a matte finish.

[Underoos]

I feel like I need to get my eyes adjusted. I can't tell that there's much of a difference between the paint on the finished product and the prototype.