>>5899486>toylines like this maintained a pretty good balance between appealing to children and collectors.Past tense.
Since then we've moved on with figures that have gimmicks but aren't made of cheap looking glossy plastic, low detail, and shitty articulation.
This Thing in the 90s wouldn't have waist articulation if it had sound effects, muchless have ball-type joints everywhere, if it was made back then. Nevermind the collector quality paint and sculpt.
Fuck, even Mattel's crap today is better than 90s shit.
>>5899487I'm sorry, but NO U!
If you hadn't noticed, everything I've said in the past is accepted when a toy is no longer available in stores anymore or if a new version is coming out. Making everyone who said i was wrong just sound like store owners trying to get rid of their stock.
Of course, you're trying to say I'm wrong that 90s shit isn't shit compared to modern toys or even ones over a decade old like this Thing. this figure still holds up, even if the movie never did.
