MattyCollector "Mattel Hoverboard" discussion
- Thread starter hound97
- Start date
jazzygeoffery
Well-Known Member
Awesome. Things just had to get worse before they got better 
Are pink fur and neon green Velcro easy to find at fabric stores, or will we have to do some searching?
Are pink fur and neon green Velcro easy to find at fabric stores, or will we have to do some searching?
Awesome. Things just had to get worse before they got better
Are pink fur and neon green Velcro easy to find at fabric stores, or will we have to do some searching?
After searching and finding the wrong fur and velcro at a few eBay sellers from Hong Kong, I finally found two german online sellers, who probably have the correct material. I'm just waiting for the delivery, but I'm very hopeful: it looked very good on the pictures.
LOL...who's graphics do you think they are referencing?!
I don't know! Maybe they have finally learned how to use Google.
:lol
autoprops713
Sr Member
Oh no Grant, where did you find this?? :lol
I'm guessing the large magnet size is due to the "toy" gliding feature?
I'm guessing the large magnet size is due to the "toy" gliding feature?
Clock88
Well-Known Member
Possibly! But all this recent "accuracy" talk just kind of rubs salt into the wound a bit... especially after that youtube announcement.
I made the composite myself... I used some of the images from the youtube videos (recent one with scott and SDCC) as reference and made a mock up from the high quality prop image. I layered it on top to make sure it was correct, and this is a 99% accurate representation of the Matty hardware.
The only thing they got right is the brick size and the base of the magnets (black parts)!
:facepalm
Just let me say: They might even produce a version without any magnets and they are still screen accurate!
(But don't show this picture to Mattel! :lol)
plasmapulse
New Member
I watched BTTFII yesterday because of all the talk about the HB and the only thing off I noticed was the obviously crude/damaged stunt board Marty offers the little girl after the Griff-gang crashed.
Never noticed the lack of magnets in that scene. But I am still failry new to the HB-scene. So much to learn...
Never noticed the lack of magnets in that scene. But I am still failry new to the HB-scene. So much to learn...
Yes, the board looks really damaged in that scene. But it's the hero board, not the stunt board.
steveo3002
Sr Member
hehhe they never realised in years to come people would have blu rays they can stop and see these details ...youd never notice it at the movies
DL4567
Sr Member
Any idea about the beveled edge? Will it be beveled top and bottom instead of rounded over like the top of the SDCC '12 display case board?
Thanks for all of your help and info. It is really appreciated.
Last edited by a moderator:
autoprops713
Sr Member
I think this might answer your question DL4567. I had to remove a LOT of personal comments from this one. It tells me there is a lot of scrambling going on over there because a lot of "eyes" are on this. If nothing else it will help the product but a few things went too far (and maybe too quickly) and unfortunately they rushed at pouring the foundation. Latest update...
SDCC graphics were roughed out at Mattel and 'cleaned up' in Asia so there would be something ready for Comic Con. The SDCC board was just a stand in. The graphics were just a print out from the plotter and mounted to the boards. The team was told specifically to show some 'progress' since the NYTF board.
These are not meant to be 'excuses' (there are none) but rather explanations. Since the sculpt is fixed, meaning the recessed channels for the pink velcro is fixed, the graphics have to derive from that. Looking at many screen shots and screen used boards (including Bob's) there are slight differences in each one. Some differences are 'major'. Angles of the bands (pink, white, yellow, green, even layout of lenticular bubbles) vary from board to board. The problem with having 20-30 props to choose from is which one do you use as a master. The more research you do, the more differences you will find. We were told that almost each shot of the boards (Marty's, Griff's, Data's, Whitey's, Spike's), it was of a different board. When the BTTF production team spoke, we had to take notes, and then follow up with the production board.
Complaint: yellow bands are off. The pink overlaps the yellow on the bottom, creating a 'quadrilateral' instead of a 'triangle' (lower right corner). SDCC has this 'problem'. Well, there are screen shots of a board that also has this 'problem'. Band angles are another problem. Not only do they vary from board to board, but some seem 'more parallel'. Anyway, the size and angle was adjusted to show less 'overlap'.
Another complaint, the lettering was really rough. The lettering was soft and rounded, as if someone traced it in Photoshop. Lettering has been fixed, totally redone. Basically, retraced in Illustrator with crisp edges. Again, there are many slight variations on the lettering on the screen used boards.
The lenticular 'bubbles' are another thing. While there is little to no hope of getting real lenticular, the board will be some "foil printing" that is suppose to look close to the lenticular. The sizing, shape, and angle of the bubbles are being reworked to match Bob's boards (which were photographs of lenticular). They are trying their best at this.
While not 'perfect', these updates are way better. That being said, there is no guarantee that somewhere along the line things do not get messed up. This is already late and the graphics needed to go out today for development. So, now it is a waiting game until the FEP's come in.
Bevels: It should be about a 0.20" bevel, 0.40" flat, 0.40" bevel on the 1" thick board. The SDCC board is split in half, about 0.5" and 0.5". Top is radius, as stated. Because of the 50/50 split, it only leaves about 0.2" of 'flat' for side graphics. Possible solution is to cheat the graphics taller, not sure if this will be fixed. Bottom bevel is at about 0.5", which makes the label smaller...while making the hardware look even bigger than it already is.
Red Mounts look 'short'. There should be about 20% more 'meat' on the flat parts. Looks like the red mounts are duplicated for top and bottom discs, just like the screen used. Remember I mentioned that the bottom mount does not kick up with the board? There is a step from the board to account for the kick of the board. On one of the SDCC boards, the screw holes had a raised lip, about 0.1".
Mag Discs: There is a lip on the silver disc. That inner lip should be were the black bevel starts. But, there is about 0.35" lip before the black begins. I think this has to do with bigger surface area for gliding. Because of this extra lip, all the hardware is sized up to match it. This also causes the red mounts to be 'short', overall length from tip to tip of red mounts is about right. Since diameter of discs are larger, this makes red mounts short, and all hardware look bigger and wider...does not make sense?
Battery Pack: Again, larger due to up-sizing of hardware, and possibly to fit the batteries. Also missing a 'counter sink' for the screw holes, possibly to fit batteries.
We all hoped for at least a 9/10 on this. I think because of certain limitations and 'directions', the best we can hope for at this point is about 7.5-8/10.
For comparison, I believe the Nike Mags are a 9.5/10...even without the power lacing. There are some things that are just a tiny bit off from screen used. Thing is, according to Tinker Hatfield, they restarted the project three times. Nike did not have the overhyped marketing that Mattel has. They had everything made, and then did some viral marketing. Mattel did (their version of) viral marketing, then tried to make the board to live up to the hype. I also know Nike 'lost' money on the mags after speaking with R&D employees. Mattel will be in the same boat with the hoverboards.
SDCC graphics were roughed out at Mattel and 'cleaned up' in Asia so there would be something ready for Comic Con. The SDCC board was just a stand in. The graphics were just a print out from the plotter and mounted to the boards. The team was told specifically to show some 'progress' since the NYTF board.
These are not meant to be 'excuses' (there are none) but rather explanations. Since the sculpt is fixed, meaning the recessed channels for the pink velcro is fixed, the graphics have to derive from that. Looking at many screen shots and screen used boards (including Bob's) there are slight differences in each one. Some differences are 'major'. Angles of the bands (pink, white, yellow, green, even layout of lenticular bubbles) vary from board to board. The problem with having 20-30 props to choose from is which one do you use as a master. The more research you do, the more differences you will find. We were told that almost each shot of the boards (Marty's, Griff's, Data's, Whitey's, Spike's), it was of a different board. When the BTTF production team spoke, we had to take notes, and then follow up with the production board.
Complaint: yellow bands are off. The pink overlaps the yellow on the bottom, creating a 'quadrilateral' instead of a 'triangle' (lower right corner). SDCC has this 'problem'. Well, there are screen shots of a board that also has this 'problem'. Band angles are another problem. Not only do they vary from board to board, but some seem 'more parallel'. Anyway, the size and angle was adjusted to show less 'overlap'.
Another complaint, the lettering was really rough. The lettering was soft and rounded, as if someone traced it in Photoshop. Lettering has been fixed, totally redone. Basically, retraced in Illustrator with crisp edges. Again, there are many slight variations on the lettering on the screen used boards.
The lenticular 'bubbles' are another thing. While there is little to no hope of getting real lenticular, the board will be some "foil printing" that is suppose to look close to the lenticular. The sizing, shape, and angle of the bubbles are being reworked to match Bob's boards (which were photographs of lenticular). They are trying their best at this.
While not 'perfect', these updates are way better. That being said, there is no guarantee that somewhere along the line things do not get messed up. This is already late and the graphics needed to go out today for development. So, now it is a waiting game until the FEP's come in.
Bevels: It should be about a 0.20" bevel, 0.40" flat, 0.40" bevel on the 1" thick board. The SDCC board is split in half, about 0.5" and 0.5". Top is radius, as stated. Because of the 50/50 split, it only leaves about 0.2" of 'flat' for side graphics. Possible solution is to cheat the graphics taller, not sure if this will be fixed. Bottom bevel is at about 0.5", which makes the label smaller...while making the hardware look even bigger than it already is.
Red Mounts look 'short'. There should be about 20% more 'meat' on the flat parts. Looks like the red mounts are duplicated for top and bottom discs, just like the screen used. Remember I mentioned that the bottom mount does not kick up with the board? There is a step from the board to account for the kick of the board. On one of the SDCC boards, the screw holes had a raised lip, about 0.1".
Mag Discs: There is a lip on the silver disc. That inner lip should be were the black bevel starts. But, there is about 0.35" lip before the black begins. I think this has to do with bigger surface area for gliding. Because of this extra lip, all the hardware is sized up to match it. This also causes the red mounts to be 'short', overall length from tip to tip of red mounts is about right. Since diameter of discs are larger, this makes red mounts short, and all hardware look bigger and wider...does not make sense?
Battery Pack: Again, larger due to up-sizing of hardware, and possibly to fit the batteries. Also missing a 'counter sink' for the screw holes, possibly to fit batteries.
We all hoped for at least a 9/10 on this. I think because of certain limitations and 'directions', the best we can hope for at this point is about 7.5-8/10.
For comparison, I believe the Nike Mags are a 9.5/10...even without the power lacing. There are some things that are just a tiny bit off from screen used. Thing is, according to Tinker Hatfield, they restarted the project three times. Nike did not have the overhyped marketing that Mattel has. They had everything made, and then did some viral marketing. Mattel did (their version of) viral marketing, then tried to make the board to live up to the hype. I also know Nike 'lost' money on the mags after speaking with R&D employees. Mattel will be in the same boat with the hoverboards.
Last edited by a moderator:
MooMooEgg
Sr Member
Man, there's so much drama going one regarding these boards. It really sucks that they (seem to) have blown their chance with this prop... but I really, REALLY hope that Mattel can get their act together and somehow give us something that's 95% accurate/acceptable to make me scream "@*#&$#, I wish I preordered when I had the chance". :cry
plasmapulse
New Member
I think a few members here might be willing to part with theirs.
And can't they just use Roland's graphic? He knows his stuff obviously.
I'm not sure the foil-printing is a good idea either. Let's hope for the best.
And Dave, thanks for the continuing inside info.
Last edited:
Clock88
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the info, Dave.
Is the guy typing up this email working on the project currently? Or is he sort of "getting info from down the hall"?
So there is no chance for the hardware to be fixed because it's part of the sculpt (not just the board)? Would it be really expensive to fix because of it's cast in steel at the factory?
Scott has seemed to appreciate the suggestions on the board of the hardware flaws (as if they will implement the changes), but if the hardware is totally finished it would seem like a lost cause. I wish he would just come out and say it if that's the case. In the you tube video, he even mentioned, "We KNOW that the rivets and things are off..." (pointing at the bottom hardware).
I don't know a great deal about the mold making process.
Thanks much
Is the guy typing up this email working on the project currently? Or is he sort of "getting info from down the hall"?
So there is no chance for the hardware to be fixed because it's part of the sculpt (not just the board)? Would it be really expensive to fix because of it's cast in steel at the factory?
Scott has seemed to appreciate the suggestions on the board of the hardware flaws (as if they will implement the changes), but if the hardware is totally finished it would seem like a lost cause. I wish he would just come out and say it if that's the case. In the you tube video, he even mentioned, "We KNOW that the rivets and things are off..." (pointing at the bottom hardware).
I don't know a great deal about the mold making process.
Thanks much
Ojobenito
Well-Known Member
I still can't understand how can't they made the battery pack look correct, with the "counter sink" for the screw holes. Are you telling me that a 1-2mm depth hole on each screwhole will screw up all the battery compartiment? The board is empty, there is plenty of space. That should be fixed.
The rest.... ok...if they redo some drawings and get a good lenticular surface (even if it's not 100% lenticular, but it looks like it), and OF COURSE, get a good drawing, shape and SIZE on the "lenticular pills or cells", I'm ok with it.
The rest.... ok...if they redo some drawings and get a good lenticular surface (even if it's not 100% lenticular, but it looks like it), and OF COURSE, get a good drawing, shape and SIZE on the "lenticular pills or cells", I'm ok with it.
