MattyCollector "Mattel Hoverboard" discussion

[Ojobenito]

Finally no changes on the hard parts of the board. I still think that my theory about the reason is still valid. They made a mold (not accurate one) for the toy fair board and a couple of prototypes. The mold for making the board is the most expensive thing in the whole manufacturing process (some thousand dollars), so after Gale bring his boards, Mattel knew their mold was not accurate, but discarding a mold is not profitable at all. You have to make lots and lots of toys from the same mold to be profitable. So, the mold has always been the same.

About the velcro, from the photos and what I understand from Matty posts, I think the places where pink velcro will be applied are kind of "carved" in the board. I mean, the board is not flat. It has a little "rectangular hole" in the pink stripes place, and then the velcro is applied on that hole, so the velcro stays at the same heigth that the sticker, and not glued on top of it. The sticker is divided in 3-4 parts, it won't be one sticker with the velcro on it.

 

[steveo3002]

why does it have to be toy spec ?

do many kids know what bttf is ? compared to all the cool gadgets kids can have now are they gona want a plastic lump that does nothing except hovering noises

 

[Jeyl]

His best answer is his question: "What does RPF mean?" lol:lol

One word... RPF - Topic

Kind of reminds me of JonTron's take on how he thinks Team Sonic is run even when they continually make bad games.

LINK
The moment comes in at 1:31.

 

[autoprops713]

why does it have to be toy spec ?

Because it is almost impossible to have an item like this at Mattel without someone (usually high up) that will say "You guys are nuts....if it looks like a toy, and we're a toy company.....we are going to spec it like a real toy! Now go add some lights or sounds and make sure a kid can ride it!!". I'm sure at the beginning it was intended to be just collector item but I'm afraid more and more internal people got involved. Have you ever heard the saying "designed by commitee"?

 

[plasmapulse]

Mattel would have produced it the same way in 2015. The prop represents a toy. Now we get the toy the prop represents. That is actually pretty cool. Not a prop-replica but probably what the bttf prop builders intended the HB to look like on screen; a plastic toy.

So despite all issues there may still be something to look forward to. Not what was expected but still interesting.

 

[tripoli]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uHFN9AZGcA&feature=youtu.be

 

[brivette007]

Video: Back to the Future Hoverboard Prop Accuracy - YouTube

Nuts, you beat me to it. :lol

Man is he pleasant in that video :rolleyes
"There was a BIG sign next to it that said 'not final', but I know sometimes it's hard to see the signs." :darnkids

I mean, that sign sure looked big to me, I almost couldn't miss it:rolleyes

 

[Jeyl]

Well, I'm going to be there at NYCC and I'm going to make darn sure I get pictures and video of the "final product" that will be presented there.

 

[Gary Weaver II]

I just want to know for sure if the bottom magnets are going to stay the "train wreck" they currently appear to be. Graphics aren't so much of a deal breaker to me due to all the differences between boards in the film. However, the magnets for all the boards were nearly identical and this LICENSED board is nowhere close.

It's even more frustrating if they won't allow the pre-orders to be cancelled. Like a good many others I ordered based primarily on the video posted where they brought in the screen used boards for reference and PROMISED they would be followed to make a "perfect" replica.

-Gary

 

[autoprops713]

Video: Back to the Future Hoverboard Prop Accuracy - YouTube

Haha...probably one of the most "defensive" videos I've ever seen coming from a large company. Man, you know there's some pressure building there. Why show 2 of something that is not close to what it will look like? To throw us all off a bit?

"SO NOT FINAL!"

Until its final and then they'll blame China. "We sent them the correct specs...they gave us this! Damn, sorry fans" :lol

 

[Jeyl]

Haha...probably one of the most "defensive" videos I've ever seen coming from a large company.l

As someone else pointed out, it is funny how rushed this video looks as well. The quality is terrible, the placement is off, the sound isn't clear and the handling of the camera is some of the worst I've ever seen coming from a major studio. Take some hints from Factory Entertainment guys.

 

[Steamboat Spidey]

Haha...probably one of the most "defensive" videos I've ever seen coming from a large company. Man, you know there's some pressure building there. Why show 2 of something that is not close to what it will look like? To throw us all off a bit?

"SO NOT FINAL!"

Until its final and then they'll blame China. "We sent them the correct specs...they gave us this! Damn, sorry fans" :lol

Haha I agree with them being defensive too! They're like "Oh s***, WE GOTTA GO SOMETHING! Like you said, autoprops, I'm almost guessing they don't have anything other than the two that they showed thats why they didn't show the "final" one that will be shown at NYCC. They'll have time to actually work on it some more. And god forbid the NYCC model wont be what they said it would be :rolleyes

 

[TheNickFox]

Well, at the very least, I may have just found my excuse to go to NYCC. :lol

...if only to see how inaccurate this board may still be by then.

-Nick

 

[Gary Weaver II]

The video struck me as super defensive as well. It's worth noting that they didn't really address any DIRECT concerns. They more or less skirted around it all and then tried to point to their past work as a justification for how could the Hoverboard is going to be.

I don't have a lot of faith in what I'm seeing right now.

 

[tripoli]

The tactics I have seen as well the degrading quality control and service over the past year at Matty is a huge concern to me. Thier public relations has always been lacking and their marketing just needs a flat out over haul.
The ONLY thing that has given me confidence has been the track record on the GB props which has be incredible.

This is a first time pre-pay order system and whether they realize it or not, they have a lot riding on what the end product of the hover board turns out to be. Given the lack of responses and then the lack luster responses along with this, I am worried honestly. However, I would love to give them the benefit of the doubt in hopes they do come through with what they promised at the beginning. THAT is not looking good right now, especially with the side stepping they have been doing now.

At least there is a step in the right direction with them opening up to address the issues, even if they have not said anything of relevance yet. That's the next big step.

 

[Clock88]

What REALLY concerns me is we are hearing two completely different stories.

Story A (from Scott): The looks-like model (display case) is not even close to the final.

Story B (from the design team): The looks-like model (display case) is MUCH better representation of the final board than the works like (sound demo model). The only changes will be foil printing and possibly the "pill size" on the graphic.


Quotes from Scott (ToyGuru).

"The board we had at Comic-Con here... SO. NOT. FINAL! (refers to display case model)"

"...Clearly, we are really far from final."

"... We KNOW the size difference from a lot of these rivets. VERY. EARLY. MODEL"


Design Team

In the design team response, they said that the looks-like model (display case) WAS a much better representation of the final (opposite of what Scott is saying). The only changes would be the "pill" size (which is BS because that graphic is completely screen accurate anyway) and printing it on foil (which will look terrible if they don't know what they are doing). We have given them the correct sources for the lenticular. Design also mentioned that the measurements of the magnets were accurate, but anyone can tell they are WAY off.

This is frustrating.

EDIT: I want to believe Scott, obviously.

 

[autoprops713]

The hard parts on the underside including the magnets MAY be the right size but the decal size and graphics are not correct. Visually then the graphics make them look incorrect.

They shouldn't be saying very early model since I'm sure some of you guys held this at CC. Unless it was made out of resin or wood it was probably plastic and came out of a very large and expensive steel tool. The overall board including bevels is done. They would be way behind and over budget if they changed this.

I also agree the foil thing is a bad idea. Its risky and I'm not sure worth the extra effort.

Clock88, check your PM.

 

[egoing]

Could Mattel have used a Rapid prototyping machine?

 

[Clock88]

Got the PM. Thanks!

His says it "looks" like the magnets are off because of the sticker size.

This is not the case.

1. The inside metal disks are way too big (on the looks-like model). See below.

2. Look at the painted silver disk on the "works-like" model below. It's the correct size this time, but the bevel should just connect to it and not be painted in the interior. Why is this?

The slope should simply just connect to the painted silver part in the works-like model!! Can they not make the inner disk the right size?!?!?!

ARRGGGGHHHHHHHH.................

I need to calm down.

 

[autoprops713]

To me the magnets don't look that bad. Maybe a little larger because of that sliding feature (back to the toy standard issues)? The magnet brackets however look like hell. I have no idea whats going on down there but I doubt they will address or fix these areas.