MattyCollector "Mattel Hoverboard" discussion

I saw this in persona nd got to hold the protoype. IT SUCKS!!!

The "hovering" technology is stupid. It barely moved 3 feet. It's VERY heavy for the size and the footpad is raised up about 1/4" while other parts were recessed.

VERY DISSAPOINTED! :cry


Gutted I ordered one now. I can imagine what's going to happen here:


All the loyal fans with preorders get this innacurate one, then they will 'improve' it for the future releases. :thumbsdown

Somebody email them this thread!
 
whatever was the point in getting those real ones in for accurate measurments and so on , looks like the desinger had a quick glance at the movie and went to town
 
Somebody email them this thread!
They have been keeping an eye on this thread even before the pre-order process started. But I have no idea why they are not implementing suggestions.

Ask Matty - Back to the Future Hoverboard
Some fans have already posted their concerns in the Ask Matty Forum meant for the BTTF Hoverboard. Toyguru usually tends to answer questions in most of the threads. Once he returns from Comic Con, he might address these issues. In the meantime if anybody wants to voice their concerns directly to Mattel, go ahead and ask questions by creating own your threads there.
 
Is it real lenticular or just a simple (and bad) print? In the video it looks to me like a print.

It's a bad print. This is what the actual hero hoverboards look like with the real lenticular...

A0mtE.jpg


And also:

http://i.imgur.com/zrKty.jpg

As you can see, these all have the same material but in different lighting/wear and tear they can look very different. The top link best shows the actual color of the lenticular. The only companies I have tracked down where the ACTUAL SCREEN USED MATERIAL can be produced is:

Rowlux Illusion Film - Click the 3D Option. It would have to be custom made in standard "pink" because they don't have the color on file. A run was once done in "hot pink/hot purple" by some replica makers but this is NOT ACCURATE. Pictures of the boards have been floating around and maybe confusing the designers.

Sommers Plastics - Interestingly, this is the EXACT COMPANY that they used in 1989 to make the material. Again, it would have to be custom made in "pink"... not hot pink.

The material is called "3D Honeycomb Lenticular".

I have seriously been researching this stuff for years along with many of you on this board. PLEASE pass the information on and let's help the designers! I don't want what the cheap replica was showcased at the booth showing up on my door step in November.
 
Last edited:
Here is the thing. We know Mattel is a business and that whether we want it to be true or not, some corners need to be cut and one only knows the cost of producing these on a large scale. I get that SOME liberties may need to be taken, and these are TOYS and not 100% fine quality replicas.

BUT.... a member on the Matty site made a great point. These aren't just major flaws, the "near final" board fails on silly things too. For example, why mess up easy details in the graphics?

Check this out. SDCC Board:

Photo by abbyluna • Instagram

Screenused Board:

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/419342_10150660488724844_682370501_n.jpg

Where is the spacing below Hover and on top of Board?

The Mattel logo on the screenused is parallel with the green line, but on the SDCC board, its skewed.

Then there is this:

holes.jpg
 
Last edited:
This review by Ojobenito on the Matty Collector site was a great read and pretty much sums it up nicely:


http://forums.mattycollector.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8481097447/m/7731084567

"So, the hoverboard has finally been spotted at Comic Con 2012 and I'm very disappointed.
Scott, from Mattel, said in the beyondthemarquee videos that the hoverboard from Toy Fair (and the one they spotted on that videos) was just a "look-a-like" model, and that the final version would look much better and closer to the screen-used. They also hinted here at the forums that the hoverboard that was going to be showed in SDCC 2012 was going to be a near-final (if not final) product. And what do we have? A WAY worse hoverboard than the look-a-like model. You can chek out a close-up photo from the SDCC hoverboard here:
Photo by abbyluna • Instagram

So, for now, two types of errors for me. Some bigger than others.

BIG errors:
- Where's the honeycomb lenticular-style sticker all across the hoverboard? That plain pink sticker is cheap and awful. The look a like model was not holographic/lenticular, but at least it had the honeycomb design sticker.
- Where's the velcro on the green zig-zag stripe and on the pink stripes near the handles hole and the footpad? Once more, the look a like model had velcro.
- The footpad doesn't look nothing near the original hoverboards. The light green wide stripe (that it's supposed to be velcro also), doesn't go until the edge of the footpad, and the pink rubber stripe to hold the foot doesn't have the fur that the movie version had. I can't clearly see if it has fur or not, but if it has, it's fewer and shorter fur that it should have.

Minor errors:
- What's up with the letters spacing to the edge? The "HOVER" word is touching the bottom limit (the H is connected to the pink colour of the hoverboard itself), and the "BOARD" word is almost touching the upper limit. I mean, Bob Gale went to Mattel with a couple of originals hoverboards. We saw in the videos some guys from Mattel with CALIBERS measuring everything in the original hoverboards. How did they measure it? The words are not even CLOSE to their limit. There's almost 1-2cm of yellow colour spacing between the words and the edge. You can clearly see it here:
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...4844_682370501_n.jpg
The look a like model had smaller words, but the spacings were right done.

- The bottom right yellow part of the sticker is not that big. It was much more accurate in the "look a like" model.

- The footpad LOOK like it's carved on the hoverboard, not just on top of the board itself, but I can't confirm this.

So, overall, I think the "look a like" was closer to the original thing that this hoverboard presented at SDCC 2012. And it's sad, because we put out hopes in it and it's just getting worse. Stop scrambling your heads about the hoverboard "gliding" and all that nonsenses, and make it as much screen accurate as you can, because that's what you promised, and for the looks of the SDCC 2012 hoverboard, it's going the opposite direction. Making it less accurate (maybe to make it cheaper to produce, I don't know). I just want to point out the errors to improve the product. I'm not angry, just surprised and hoping a better final product.

PS: The product box is cool ;-)


EDIT: New photo arised on the net. http://24.media.tumblr.com/tum...dS1r3eltro1_1280.jpg
We can see at the background that another hoverboard is inside a display along the 6" mini-hoverboard. That model looks like it has the lenticular sticker and maybe that's the final version. I can't see in the photo if it has velcro or not. The lenticular sticker looks like it's there, but with the bottom-right yellow decoration on the sticker still incorrect. Much closer to the original in the look a like model.
I don't understand then why the booth babe model' hoverboard is so awfully looking. If I was wrong before and the hoverboard is better than that, I'm deeply sorry and I'll edit this message.

EDIT 2: New photo, with a closer look of the hoverboard under the display. http://distilleryimage3.s3.ama...4522000a1e8aaf_7.jpg
So, the lenticular sticker is there, but the "cells" or "scales" on the holographic pattern are bigger that they should. Not a big problem, but a noticeable one and with an easy fix. I still can't believe how measurements errors can happen when they showed us people taking measures and with calibers on the videos...

What's almost clear is that the green and pink stripes are not made of velcro, like the "look a like" model Mattel did months ago or like the originals. Why no velcro? Are we going to do some "do it yourself" work at home to make it a good replica?


EDIT 3: Let's see the bottom of the hoverboard with a declaration from the team doing the hoverboard replica (and my reply XD):
http://i49.tinypic.com/2myojd2.jpg

The bottom of one of the hero screen-used hoverboards:
http://www.proparchives.com/co...listings/m/14048.jpg

Seriously... was it so hard to do it right? You could've ask some fans or put near-production designs before produce them to check any flaws before doing this mess (and I think 99,99% of people who ordered the hoverboard don't mind about the sounds or that useless "it gently glides for 2 feet") We wanted what you promised, the best replica Mattel was going to ever do. And things like the "no velcro" (it shouldn't have on the bottom part but it does have velcro on the top part green and red lines), the bad scale of the honeycomb pattern (it's way bigger than it should be), the screwholes, the bad spacing of the "hover" and "board" words with the edges of the yellow box containing them (this is funny because THAT is exactly what you showed us you were measuring with calibers on the videos.... it's good to have calibers, yeah, but you didn't measure properly at all), or the wrong footpad (the light green strip of VELCRO goes until the end...) makes this "replica" less "replica". And you've been telling us for months that it was going to be accurate as a Mattel toy never has been. Well... yeah... kind of...
I mean, it's not that hard. I noticed all this flaws in 10 seconds and you didn't noticed in a whole year? Something's wrong here...

Edit 4: The gravitation pads are much larger than they should be, too. The black parts of the pads are touching the edge of the hoverboard, and if wee see the original hoverboard I posted or the photos from Bob Gale's original hoverboards we can see the pads are not that large and there is some sticker to the sides of them. Once again... I don't know how can be so many measure errors. Maybe they should have measure with a ruler and not with a caliber if they don't kow how to use it.

I will make a composition this night with all the differences... To see if they can fix it in time. I won't put my hopes on it, but let's try it...


outatime"
 
Where is the spacing below Hover and on top of Board?

This doesn't really bother me as much as the real prop varied on this. The picture below is of the hero board. I would rather them copy the hero instead of the printed board that was made later because of production costs, but to each his own:

http://www.hillvalleycity.com/museu...hoverboard/assets/Hoverboard screenshot 2.jpg


To add to the problems you mentioned, the actual magnet dimensions are way off, especially the inside brackets.... they look completely squished! Don't they have the actual measurements from the pit bull magnet cast?

What about the footpad? Looks way off...

I understand costs have to be cut, but come on! This looks like it costs 2 dollars to make!

http://distilleryimage3.s3.amazonaws.com/741fdfb8cbde11e1a94522000a1e8aaf_7.jpg
 
In all honesty, I am not too worried about all of this, in fact, it just makes me look more forward to the final product.

The same exact type of gloom and doom about it accuracy and function was posted on the GBfan board about the GB trap. In the end it came out fantastic and Matty hit a home run with it. The secondary market for the trap shows just how well they really did. Given the efforts they have made to get the resourcing and references, I have no doubt the final product with the hoverboard will be another home run hit.

I know there are concerns and they can definitely improve with what they showed, which as prototypes, is what they are going to do. The time schedule is tight though and I know that has to be a concern.

The displayed pieces are working models. I would not worry too much but I would do my best to be constructive in criticism. And again, it IS a toy replica, not a screen film accurate to the T expensive high end prop replica. I am like a kid before Christmas in looking forward to this, because I understand what it is suppose to be.
 
... The picture below is of the hero board. I would rather them copy the hero instead of the printed board that was made later because of production costs, ...

I would be happy with a printed (stunt) board, if it's a well done replica. To me the stunt board has the same status as the hero board, since you can see that board in some important scenes.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
And again, it IS a toy replica, not a screen film accurate to the T expensive high end prop replica. I am like a kid before Christmas in looking forward to this, because I understand what it is suppose to be.

But the prop is not an expensive prop to begin with. Even if it's done with the highest grade materials with hand applied parts, it's not that complicated or expensive. Building it like a "toy" should not be an excuse to be inaccurate. They promised they would make it 100% screen accurate in their ads. For $140 bucks, it should look a lot better than it does now. We are not talking about a $25 dollar toy here...
 
Roland: Here is a comparison to the lenticular hero board from the same angle as your screenshot. I am more partial to this board! To each their own... ;)

9RR7K.png
 
I would have been happy if the darn thing came with zero electronics. I don't recall the hover board ever vibrating, and adding vibrating mechanics to the toy itself just makes it feel like a lot of loose parts inside. Not good.
 
"But the prop is not an expensive prop to begin with. Even if it's done with the highest grade materials with hand applied parts, it's not that complicated or expensive. Building it like a "toy" should not be an excuse to be inaccurate. They promised they would make it 100% screen accurate in their ads. For $140 bucks, it should look a lot better than it does now. We are not talking about a $25 dollar toy here..."

No, its not expensive, which is why you should not expect that much out of a toy company producing a toy replica.

Matty noted it would be screen accurate, given there were multiple models with different graphics and some pretty beat up, that give them TREMENDOUS latitude in how they may finally choose top make a screen accurate piece. I looked but I did not see a 100% claim and such would be impossible given the above noted multiple screen boards used in the movie. And yes IT IS advertised as a A TOY REPLICA, not the highest grade prop replica.

By the time they take R&D cost, promotion, production cost and licensing cost along with a low volume of numbers produced, the price is darn good for a toy of this size and features.

I think a lot of the appointment here is because expectations are set unrealistically high.

Not only that, but having witnessed the same reactions with the pre-release information of the trap, I think Matty is getting a bit of undeserved grief right now.
 
I think a lot of the appointment here is because expectations are set unrealistically high.


There is a point where accuracy and the cost to produce don't go hand in hand.

For example, they could have easily gotten the magnets the exact measurements. They didn't. They could have copied the lenticular bubbles perfectly. They didn't. They could have gotten the correct color from the original the background. They didn't. The SDCC demo one was neon purple!! They HAD the original props. They said they would make it screen accurate. Sure, there are plenty of differences between the screen used ones (I agree), but a neon purple background???

If you can't get the absolute basics right after all this time, there is no excuse.

The only thing I am hoping for is that this is strictly an early "works-like" model and the better "looks like" is being ironed out.
 
It was noted at the show they were works prototypes, so here hope they do iron out those issues.

Honestly, I think and hope Matty's main problem with this has been communication and public relations, they were caught unprepared for the enthusiasm for this project and the ability to talk about how they were continuing to refine their product. Most manufacturers like to talk about results, not the ensuing process, although Matty has gotten off to a great start with their videos early on. ( And given the particular interest with a forum like this, they may be caught unaware of just how geeky popular such discussion like this really is with us and the public at large). They just have to keep up with what they started and realize the strengths of this prop as well as the others they have and continue to produce.
 
There is a point where accuracy and the cost to produce don't go hand in hand.

For example, they could have easily gotten the magnets the exact measurements. They didn't. They could have copied the lenticular bubbles perfectly. They didn't. They could have gotten the correct color from the original the background. They didn't. The SDCC demo one was neon purple!! They HAD the original props. They said they would make it screen accurate. Sure, there are plenty of differences between the screen used ones (I agree), but a neon purple background???

If you can't get the absolute basics right after all this time, there is no excuse.

The only thing I am hoping for is that this is strictly an early "works-like" model and the better "looks like" is being ironed out.

I agree. It's simple things that wouldn't affect the cost at all. If they do produce these horribly inaccurate boards, I can't wait to hear what they say when they release statements on why they don't look like they should. If they say it was a price issue, then we all know that's a load of crap. I'm starting to feel bad for the people who pre-ordered a board. They're not going to get what they ordered. What Mattel promised.
 
This thing looks like crap. Mattycollector continues to insult the intelligence of their consumer base. I am PISSED that this thing is not damn near perfect, considering Bob Gale had the actual prop(s) and the SFX supervisor Michael Lantieri consulted with Mattel.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top