Recently, I was taken to task in the comments section of one of my figure reviews. The commenter believed I am generally too lenient on the figures I review, and that my grading system did not reflect the actual quality of the figure. In my response, I explained I review figures based on the idea that I’m reviewing it for those who would be interested in this particular figure, not objectively against every action figure ever made.

The analogy I used was movies: can a movie like Finding Nemo be objectively compared to Citizen Kane? One could try, but if I wrote a movie review where, in my head, I’m constantly thinking to myself “Would someone who thinks the Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever like Finding Nemo?” the end result would be pretty damned weird, and probably unreadable. No matter how great a film it is, Finding Nemo is a film intended for a young audience, while Citizen Kane is not, and trying to review one based on the other for the purposes of making a recommendation to someone strikes me as silly.

The same goes for trying to review, say, The Seventh Seal for an audience who loves action movies. You can either water the review down so much you end up just writing banal ad copy, or you try to get some sense of the audience who is most likely to want to see this film (or buy this figure) and review it based on similar works.

However, I admit my “X out of 5 ravens” system is flawed. If I were being fair, a figure like Captain Atom, a good but very average example of DCUC, should get a 2.5 rating, whereas Deathstroke and Hawkman would get 4-5 and a flawed figure like the too-short Sinestro or the ill-conceived Starfire should be a 2 or less. However, I’m often reluctant to give lower scores, simply because I have a hard time putting down the work of others (unless I think no real effort was put into the project).

The commenter who questioned my reviews expressed a preference for the greater detail in the sculpting and paint applications of McFarlane toys over simpler (if more articulated) figures such as DC Universe Classics. Another toy reviewer recently described the Masters of the Universe Classics sculpts as having “regressed” from the MOTU2K line; again, that’s only true if you believe greater detail equals “better.” The Horsemen have a very specific design aesthetic in mind for MOTUC, and in my opinion, they’ve nailed it with every release so far. While the figures aren’t as detailed as MOTU2K, I think it’s wrong to say they’re “regressive.” They’re just different. Are JLU figures inherently inferior to DCUC simply because they’re not as detailed?

While I’ve considered writing a response to this idea with some basic art theory (greater detail does not necessarily mean “better”), in the end it’s really just a matter of opinion. But it has made me rethink how I write my reviews (yet again!). I thought about how I read other collectors’ reviews, what I look for when I read them, and what sort of information I ignore.

And I came to realize a few things. For one, as long as photos are included, there’s no point in evaluating the quality of the sculpt or the paint applications–the readers can see for themselves. All the readers need is the basic information, such as the figure’s articulation, accessories, quality, durability, and value. Beyond that, I can provide my usual commentary about the character and such forth, but there’s no reason to wrack my brain trying to think of a creative way to say “it’s a great sculpt” or “the paint applications are sloppy.”

And so, moving forward, you’re going to see what I like to think of as more “efficient” reviews here at PGPoA, starting with Kalibak later today. I will retain the raven rating  system, but it will only be a representation of how much I personally like that particular figure.