NECA DC Comics Prop Replica Batman '66 Batarangs

[Jczernich]

Check it out! Batrope included!

https://toynewsi.com/139-50084

Here is the ordering link:

https://store.necaonline.com/collection ... p-replicas

[SteveA]

]I saw those in NECA's Newsletter. Don't know that I can get behind them. They claim to be screen accurate reproductions of Batman's folding Bat-a-Rang and both Robin's and Batgirl's.
Question ?: If it's screen accurate, why are the painting it Black. All Batman and Robin's Bat-A-Rangs where metallic Blue. Looks just like the Mattel version to me. Also all of them have no substance, they look flat. Adam and Burt's Bat-a-Rangs had form to them.
And the price point is a little high, for that price you can get the Bat-A-Rangs from molds of the original. Granted maybe 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation but more screen accurate than these.
I think I'll have to give then a hard pass this time. But keep up the good work NECA.

[Jczernich]

I saw those in NECA's Newsletter. Don't know that I can get behind them. They claim to be screen accurate reproductions of Batman's folding Bat-a-Rang and both Robin's and Batgirl's.
Question ?: If it's screen accurate, why are the painting it Black. All Batman and Robin's Bat-A-Rangs where metallic Blue. Looks just like the Mattel version to me. Also all of them have no substance, they look flat. Adam and Burt's Bat-a-Rangs had form to them.
And the price point is a little high, for that price you can get the Bat-A-Rangs from molds of the original. Granted maybe 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation but more screen accurate than these.
I think I'll have to give then a hard pass this time. But keep up the good work NECA.

They don't look flat to me! I think it is a good opportunity for those who missed out on the Mattel 1966 Utility Belt to get a '66 Batarang.

[AndyFish]

Doesn't look flat to me either-- and I know "cheap" is relative but I thought they were a bargain. I ordered a Batman one-- the Mattel Batarang is very flimsy-- I think this is more solid. I had one of the cast Batarangs years ago and like the real thing it was pretty rough looking in person. Like Chuck's Cowl's, I like that this fits my vision of what the prop should look like.

Your link is to the '89 version--1966 BATMAN BATARANG

If you scroll down on that page it'll take you to the Robin/Batgirl two pack.

[Jczernich]

Doesn't look flat to me either-- and I know "cheap" is relative but I thought they were a bargain. I ordered a Batman one-- the Mattel Batarang is very flimsy-- I think this is more solid. I had one of the cast Batarangs years ago and like the real thing it was pretty rough looking in person. Like Chuck's Cowl's, I like that this fits my vision of what the prop should look like.

Your link is to the '89 version--1966 BATMAN BATARANG

If you scroll down on that page it'll take you to the Robin/Batgirl two pack.

Thanks! Fixed it!

[Batfanman]

They look to be actual 1:1 size.

[Chuck Williams]

SteveA. , I get what you are saying about "flat". I agree the "bodies" are squared off compared to the originals.

Companies are not doing themselves any favors when they bang the "Screen Accurate" drum and it's off at first glance.
Lynne and I talk about this a lot. "Replica" get tossed around a lot too..

"Inspired by" is a term we like when there is a lot right about something but circumstances/info keep you from making something "accurate" or a "replica" . "Authentic" is another good word.

At the same time they are an excellent alternative to the Mattel toy version.
At $30 I could afford to throw it at something! LOL!

[BATWINGED HORNET]

I see no problem with the Batarangs, as 1:1 scale prop replicas from the series fall under the "here today, gone tomorrow" category, unlike the seemingly endless Batmobile replicas and action figures. I do not expect NECA (or any other company) to actively produce 1:1 scale Bat '66 TV props for years to come. If it was as iconic in and out of fandom like the TOS Phaser or Communicator--yes (as nearly 50 years of Star Trek prop toys and screen accurate version prove), but that's not the case with Batman, so if a company releases something as one-of-a-kind as a Batarang, I'd believe potential buyers might gloss over the item's inaccuracies.

[Jczernich]

Here is another view of the Batarangs at the NYCC NECA booth:

https://www.toyark.com/wp-content/uploa ... es-155.jpg

[SteveA]

SteveA. , I get what you are saying about "flat". I agree the "bodies" are squared off compared to the originals.

Companies are not doing themselves any favors when they bang the "Screen Accurate" drum and it's off at first glance.
Lynne and I talk about this a lot. "Replica" get tossed around a lot too..

"Inspired by" is a term we like when there is a lot right about something but circumstances/info keep you from making something "accurate" or a "replica" . "Authentic" is another good word.

At the same time they are an excellent alternative to the Mattel toy version.
At $30 I could afford to throw it at something! LOL!

Thank you for the post Chuck,
I'm Glad someone got what I was trying to say. You did it much better. An affordable cosplay, but not an alternative to a real screen accurate collectible.

[Chuck Williams]

I see no problem with the Batarangs, as 1:1 scale prop replicas from the series fall under the "here today, gone tomorrow" category, unlike the seemingly endless Batmobile replicas and action figures. I do not expect NECA (or any other company) to actively produce 1:1 scale Bat '66 TV props for years to come. If it was as iconic in and out of fandom like the TOS Phaser or Communicator--yes (as nearly 50 years of Star Trek prop toys and screen accurate version prove), but that's not the case with Batman, so if a company releases something as one-of-a-kind as a Batarang, I'd believe potential buyers might gloss over the item's inaccuracies.

Interesting point.

It's only when a company uses the term "accuracy" and it doesn't pass the first glance. Then it's irksome.

I'm a "if you are going to do it any way, why not do it right" kinda guy...

They produced a bat-a-rang. Would it have cost more to do it well?
I can't see that it would except that they used a less talented model maker.
Seems like a wasted opportunity.

[AndyFish]

Ha- I see the flat now-- the bat itself is flat faced.
Screen accurate? No. Fun? Yes. Cheap? Ditto.

[Ben Bentley]

I agree with Chuck and i've said the same myself countless times - the hyperbole about "Screen Accuracy" etc, will always be to the detriment of otherwise fun items inspired by props and costumes from the shows we love, when the end products fail to put their money where their mouths are.

As many of you will recall, I went "in-on" Paragon FX pretty hard when their Bat Communicator and Cuffs were announced for this exact same reason - the unapologetic and totally misguided hyperbole about maximum research and accuracy, which simply was not present in their protos let alone the final items that reached market. The major difference in this instance however is that NECA's upcoming prop offerings are in the region of $30, not $300+. Context will always be king, even when companies are willfully making their own lives harder by throwing around words they have no intentions of living up to. Apples and Oranges, or McFarlane and Hot Toys, if you will.

[rsaffle]

I’m out of town and just discovered these. They did bring on a gleeful smile. Please keep the 66 stuff coming. It will be a sad day when we have nothing new to look forward to.

[BiffPow]

I’m out of town and just discovered these. They did bring on a gleeful smile. Please keep the 66 stuff coming. It will be a sad day when we have nothing new to look forward to.

Well, Randy, if NECA and you could strike a deal, there could be a LOT of 1966 Batman stuff coming!