Plastic Soldier Review: Toy Soldiers of San Diego WWII Greatcoat Germans

 

Overview: This is a set of 16 WWII German soldiers in greatcoats made by Toy Soldiers of San Diego in 60mm scale.  The set has a somewhat ambiguous timeframe, given that the soldiers wear early-war uniform items like M35/40 greatcoats, helmets, and jackboots, while also being equipped with an MG42 machine gun and a sniper with an M43 cap (more appropriate for a late-war look), making the set most appropriate for a post-Stalingrad scenario on the Eastern Front (up to and including Berlin 1945), or a Battle of the Bulge scenario in the Western Front.  If you remove the sniper and MG42 gunner, then this set becomes suitable for earlier-war situations like the Norwegian Campaign of 1940 or the later stages of Operation Barbarossa in the winter of 1941/42.  I feel like they should have either included an MG34 if they wanted to go early-war, or have late-war uniform features such as M42 helmets and coats, ankle boots with gaiters (or felt winter boots), and helmet coverings like rope netting or chicken wire which typified late-war troops.

Sculpting: Despite my nitpicking of the temporal accuracy of this set, I must say that the sculpting I have seen on this set is second-to-none; from the soldiers' facial expressions to the way things like their coats and scarves look like they're flapping in the wind, the details of this set is truly amazing (down to there being hobnails on the undersides of the boots!).  One thing about this set that truly stands out for me is how they accurately depicted each soldier's gear; apparently, no two German soldiers ever wore their kit the same way, and this set shows that off accurately.  Also, unlike most other figures I have bought, these soldiers come with quite detailed bases, with each figure looking like it's standing on a pile of rubble.  Indeed, the only real complaint I have about the sculpting in this set is that the stick grenades some of the figures have stuffed into their belts are much smaller than the ones that are being thrown.

Note the variation in what gear each figure has, and how each figure wears it.

Note how the coats and scarf look like they're flapping

Compare the size of the grenade being thrown with the ones in their belts

 

 

 Molding:  The figures are molded in a very soft plastic, making it possible for such phenomenal detail to be included, but this comes with the drawback that when I got them, some parts (generally rifle barrels) were heavily bent.  This was relatively easily corrected by soaking the bent parts in hot water until they straightened, then soaking them in cold water to keep them in the desired shape (although sometimes multiple treatments were required).  While there was generally little or no flash, on some figures there was some rippling/pooling near where the figure was cut off from the sprue (although it's generally difficult to see once the figures have been painted).

Packaging: For such a high-quality set, the packaging is very basic, just consisting of a plastic bag with a folded cardboard label.  I think this is part of why they arrived in the condition that they did; the plastic bag offered no real protection for the figures, in addition to keeping them packed quite tightly together.  The label has basic information about the product, but no historic info or painting/modelling guides.

Selection: The set comes with 2 figures in each pose, making for a total of 16 figures.  In total, the set has the figures equipped with 4 Mp38/40s, 2 Mg42s, and 10 Kar90ks (including the grenade-thrower, sniper, and casualty figures), making for a convincing infantry squad (although I think I would have preferred it if they replaced the casualty figure with either a spotter for the sniper, or an assistant machine-gunner).

Scale: At 60mm, these are larger than the standard Airfix 54mm figures, but not overly so; I think part of what kind of offsets the size difference is that the figures are in greatcoats, so part of these figures' bulkiness can be attributed to them wearing those heavy coats compared to the temperate-weather uniforms being worn by most other figures.  They are quite large compared to Mars' Red Army infantry, but I think that's more of a case of Mars making their Red Army figures undersized rather than these being oversized.  That said, they do scale much better with TSSD's own 60mm scale Red Army figures.

 

Left to right: Airfix British infantry, Mars Red Army infantry, TSSD Greatcoat German, TSSD Red Army infantry

Overall: Despite my nitpicks about the accuracy, I must say that this is a truly outstanding set, with some of the best sculpting I have ever seen.  In addition, sets of soldiers in winter gear in this scale are somewhat rare, so this set is a must-have for anyone wanting to depict winter combat.

The Shining vs. The Shining

 Thoughts from someone who's a fan of both King and Kubrick

I'm both an avid reader of Stephen King's works, and an avid viewer of Stanley Kubrick's films, so it's quite natural that I'd eventually hear about the controversy over Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of the Stephen King novel The Shining.

Much to my surprise, the room didn't immediately burst into flames when I put these next to each other...

 

I'd say that overall, when it comes to film adaptations of books, I'd rather have a loose adaptation that makes for a good standalone film than a super-close adaptation that makes for a mediocre or poor film.  Also, both mediums have their own strengths and weaknesses, and what works well in print might not translate well on screen (or vice-versa).  Indeed, many of the most iconic scenes in the Kubrick adaptation of The Shining weren't in the book, while many scenes in the book that I liked (including the fire hoses attacking Danny like snakes, or when Danny is playing in a concrete pipe in the hotel playground and hears something scratching and crawling around in the pipe with him) would have been either difficult to pull off special-effects-wise, or would have been confusing on screen.  Also, it must be kept in mind that films are meant to be viewed in one sitting, while books can be read on-and-off, so a lot of content has to be cut for time as well.

This wasn't in the book...

Neither was this...

In the book Jack used a roque mallet, which just doesn't look as menacing as an axe...

One of the biggest controversies about the changes was the decision to change the sentient topiary animals into a hedge maze.  While part of this was probably due to the technical difficulty of making convincing animated/animatronic topiary animals, especially in a pre-CGI world where the only options would have been Harryhausen-style stop motion, puppets, or actors in suits (although The Empire Strikes Back was filmed at around the same time, and it made Yoda and the AT-AT walkers quite convincing using puppets and stop-motion), I think the maze worked better thematically with the visuals used to depict the hotel itself as a maze-like environment, with its distinctly labyrinthine carpet pattern and long hallways.

 I think another factor that inadvertently made me a defender of the Kubrick adaptation was that I got into Kubrick before I got into King, so I saw the film first and then read the book; one unintended consequence of doing so was that it raised my expectations of the book to frankly unattainable heights.  In the discussions of the book vs. the movie that I read, King fans seemed to praise the book as some kind of transcendent masterpiece that the film absolutely butchered, so when I did read the book I was let down somewhat by the fact that it was (to me at least) a very good but still flawed book rather than the magnum opus it was hyped as.

Some other thoughts and observations on the two works:

• I think that a big part of why King hated the film so much was because the book was an extremely personal work for him, as he wrote it (in part) to deal with his own alcoholism and drug addictions, so I think that had Kubrick adapted a different one of King's works and changed it in a similar matter King probably wouldn't have objected to the same extent
• Of the 4 films Kubrick made between 1971 and 1987, The Shining is the only one that doesn't have any kind of narration; A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket both had voice-overs of the main protagonist (often quoting the books verbatim), while Barry Lyndon had a third-person omniscient narration (compared to the book's use of a self-serving first-person narrator with the occasional editorial note)
• Another change I liked was making the nature of the Overlook Hotel's haunting ambiguous for much of the film, up until the ghost of Grady unlocks the pantry door; before then, the audience is left to wonder about how much the possibility is that the hotel is haunted, and how much is it the effects of the isolation of being alone in a place that manages to be both claustrophobic and agoraphobic at the same time.  Another factor lending credence to the idea that the ghosts are all in Jack's head is that whenever he interacts with a ghost before the pantry scene, there's a mirror present, and the first ghost Jack talks to is wearing a maroon jacket that's the same color as Jack's jacket:
  
  
  
  
  
• If Jack used a roque mallet like in the book, it would have been a lot less menacing, and a lot more looney tunes-like for me; when he hit someone with that mallet, my first thought probably would have been something like "Are there now going to be stars or birds circling around the victim's head, or is a comically large lump and "NO SALE" sign going to stick out of the top of their head?"
• One of the criticisms I've heard about Jack Nicholson's portrayal is that he's crazy from the start rather than starting out good and then descending into madness, but in the compressed timeline of the film I feel that this was necessary (plus, when he does snap, he's appropriately menacing)
  

My first and last films, by medium

 The other day, I saw a selection of short films from the Manhattan Short Film Festival at the Palace Theater in Danbury, which made me realize I hadn't seen a feature-length film since 2019, which in turn made me think about the subject of this post, namely what the first and last films I saw (or bought) in the various formats there have been over the years.  Here's my list:

In theater: 

The first film I saw in the theater was All Dogs Go to Heaven, but the first film I actually remember seeing in the theater was Super Mario Bros (the 1993 film).  The first film I went to without my parents was The Fifth Element (I went with a friend), and the first film I went to on my own was Clerks 2.  The last feature-length film I saw in the theater was Darkest Hour; I was never much of a cinema-goer, and lockdown really killed off that habit.  That said, since lockdown's end, I have gone to 3 short film festivals at the Palace Theater, 2 of which were international short film collections and one of which was a collection of science fiction short films.

On VHS:

I don't remember what my first film on VHS was, but I do remember the last two VHS tapes I bought: 28 Days Later, and a 3-episode tape of Father Ted (Titled "Nuns! Nuns! Reverse! Reverse!", and containing the episodes Competition Time, And God Created Woman, and Grant Unto Him Eternal Rest).

On DVD: 

The first film on DVD my family owned was Rat Race; I don't recall what the first DVD I bought for my own use was, but I think it might have been either A Bridge Too Far, or Lock, Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels.  As of this post, the most recent DVD I have purchased was The Odessa File.

On Blu-Ray:

The first Blu-Ray I bought was The Lego Movie and the most recent one was Big; I purchased both because they were a dual-format DVD/Blu-Ray set.  I only got a Blu-ray player last Christmas, so the first film I actually watched on Blu-Ray was Clerks, which my brother had given to me for Christmas the year before (he bought a Kevin Smith-signed copy from Jay and Silent Bob's Secret Stash).

Plastic Soldier Review: Mars Red Army WWII Infantry

 

 

 

Overview: This set depicts a group of Soviet Red Army infantrymen in the winter uniforms introduced in January of 1943 (featuring traditional shoulderboard rank insignia and standing collars) and in use during the winter months for the rest of the war, up to and including the Battle of Berlin (in the Red Army, summer clothing was usually issued in May and the Battle of Berlin occurred mostly during April of 1945 so most Red Army troops in Berlin were still wearing winter gear).  

 

They are wearing a mixed set of uniforms, including the telogreika padded jacket and trousers, greatcoat, and gymnastiorka tunic with the plash-palatka rain cape (I'm not sure how historically accurate this would be, with members of the same squad wearing such a variety of uniforms at the same time...).  Headwear is a similar mixture, with some wearing the M1940 helmet, others wearing the ushanka fur cap, and others wearing the pilotka wedge cap.  The uniforms are rounded out with sapogi boots.  The troops with their rain capes on have their equipment covered up, but the remainder of the troops wear typical Red Army gear, including ammunition pouches, entrenching tools (either in a carrier or tucked into their belts), and the veshmeshok pack or small haversack.  The officers are wearing leather Sam Browne belts with mapcases and pistol holsters.  

 

The troops are armed with typical small arms of the time, including PPSh and PPS 43 submachine guns, Moisin-Nagant rifles, Tokarev pistols (carried by the officers) and a Degtyaryov machine gun.  In addition, one soldier has a captured German Mp38/MP40 slung across his back, and another is carrying an ammunition container for a Maxim gun.

 

Sculpting: The sculpting is well-done, with a variety of quite interesting and dynamic poses (I particularly like the pose of the soldier in the greatcoat working the bolt of his rifle, and the soldier in the rain cape firing the PPSh).  The only questionable one I found was the officer with his arm in a sling; would someone with an injury like that still be leading troops in battle, even in the Red Army?  While the detail is somewhat basic and "flat" (especially the slung MP40), all the typical equipment is present on the figures and accurately-depicted.  As far as I could tell, there were no major anachronisms, missing equipment, or other inaccuracies in the sculpting.  Also, all the figures stand up easily, with no balance issues.

 

Packaging: The set came in a cardboard box with stylized artwork on the front and a painted example of each figure on the back.

Molding: The figures are molded in a very hard dark green plastic, with no parts bent or broken off.  Like other Mars models, however, the flashing was very bad, and had to be carved away before painting (a somewhat difficult task, given that the parting line was in the middle of each figure's face).

Selection: Two of each pose are included, except for the machine gunner (who only comes one to a set).  Put together, they generally make for a convincing unit (although like I said earlier, I'm not sure how accurate it would be for one unit to wear such a variety of uniforms at the same time), although it might have been a better selection to have two machine gunners and one officer.

Scale: The figures in this set are somewhat on the diminutive side for 54mm scale, even compared to other Mars figures (let alone 60mm figures).

Left to right: Airfix Afrika Korps, Mars Red Army, TSSD 60mm Red Army

With Mars British Infantry

Overall: While I have some reservations about the set's accuracy and the flashing, I think this set also has a lot going for it with its excellent poses and representation of an often-overlooked force from WWII; all in all, I'd say the whole is better than the sum of its parts.

The whole set (minus one figure; see below for details)

One figure was painted with Tamiya Copper paint and now serves as a statue on my East German-themed model train layout

Plastic Soldier Review: Pegasus Hobbies WWII Soviet Naval Infantry

• Overview: This set depicts a group of Soviet naval infantry in naval-style Square-Rig uniforms from the Great Patriotic War.  They are appropriate from the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa to about 1943, when naval infantry switched over to using khaki army-style tunics and trousers, with only their naval-style caps and shoulderboards as well as their striped telnyashka undershirts differentiating them from their Red Army counterparts.  They are equipped with a variety of small arms, including Moisin-Nagant bolt-action rifles, Tokarev semi-automatic rifles, PPSh submachine guns with drum magazines, Degtaryev machine guns, and one sailor is equipped with a captured German Mp38/40.  In addition, most have stick grenades in their belts, and the commander (wearing a pea coat) is holding binoculars and has a holstered pistol.  Following the norm for Soviet forces at the time, equipment is fairly minimal, with most sailors wearing belts with a single ammunition pouch, a bayonet, and a gas mask pouch slung over their shoulders (once it became apparent that there was no threat from gas attacks, most soldiers and sailors repurposed this into a small haversack).  The standing machine-gunner has belts of ammunition which he is wearing bandolier-style. They are wearing calf-length leather boots, probably the sapogi that were also standard-issue for the Red Army for most of the war.
• Sculpting: Overall, the sculpts are excellent; the poses are dynamic and varied, with attention payed to particular details like the cap ribbons on the running figures flying back.  Faces are also well-sculpted with realistic expressions.  The figures had their arms molded separate from their torso, which made painting somewhat easier when painting the body parts that would have been behind their weapons.  The only design flaw I noticed was that some running figures had balance issues, and fell over easily.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Molding: The figures were made from a somewhat brittle dark blue hard plastic, which unfortunately somehow managed to have a "worst of both worlds" situation; that is, the plastic was both prone to breakage (although I think only one rifle sling was actually broken) and the arm pieces were quite warped, requiring many straightening sessions that involved dipping the pieces first in hot water, then bending them to shape, then dipping them in cold water afterward in order to keep their proper shape.  I also found it somewhat difficult to figure out which arms went to which torso after they'd been cut from the sprue; I realize this was partially my fault, but they could have also molded numbers on the bottom of the figure bases, not just had them next to the figure on the sprue.
• Packaging: The packaging was a straightforward cardboard box, and did a good job keeping the models free from damage.  The printing on the packaging was simple but well-done, with a photograph of the painted figures against a scenic backdrop on the front cover and a photograph of them against a white background on the back, along with a short paragraph about Soviet Naval Infantry.  There are no other guides or manuals included in the packaging.
• Selection: The group makes for a believable naval infantry squad, with a good cross-section of different weapons and poses.  None of the poses are re-used, and there's a good balance between standing, kneeling, and prone figures.  My biggest disappointment with the selection was that only one figure was wearing machine gun ammunition belts, when it was far more commonly-worn early in the war and a really iconic look for early-war naval infantry.
• Scale: They seem a bit on the smallish side compared to Airfix figures (let alone Toy Soldiers of San Diego 60 mm figures), but scale well with Mars 54mm figures:

  

  Left to right: Airfix Afrika Korps, Pegasus Naval Infantry, TSSD Red Army Infantry
  

• Overall: Despite a few niggles, I found this to be a visually interesting and well-made set of a rarely-depicted aspect of WWII, and think that these would look right at home storming the beach!

My naval infantry in action:

New Blog category: Plastic Soldier Review

 Recently, I have been getting back into my former hobby of collecting and painting plastic soldiers (primarily in 54/60mm scale) and as a result have decided to post some photo overviews/reviews on the sets I've been getting and painting.  Each review will discuss the following characteristics of each set:

• Overview: This part of the review will discuss what each set is supposed to be a depiction of, what kinds of uniforms, weapons, and equipment they have, and which timeframe this set is suitable for; some sets might only be appropriate for a very specific campaign or scenario, while others might be appropriate for a period of several years or even decades.  Inaccurate or anachronistic aspects of the set (if any) will also be discussed in this part of the review.
  
• Sculpting: Historic accuracy aside, how good is the sculpting of the set?  How detailed is everything, and how well-rendered are things like the facial expressions, poses, etc?  Are there any "design flaws" to the set that come from sculpting, like issues with balance, crew-served weapons fitting figures' hands, etc?
• Molding: How well-made is the set in terms of the material and its molding?  Is there a problem with flash, are the mold halves misaligned, or is there some other problem of this nature?  A well-sculpted set can be let down by poor material or manufacturing quality, while conversely a more basic set can be redeemed (to an extent) by being well-made.  Also, when it comes to plastic soldiers, there are generally two types of plastic that manufacturers have to choose between: either a harder plastic that is more brittle, prone to breakage, and difficult to mold with fine details (but less susceptible to warping), or a softer plastic that can take fine details but which is more prone to warping; this part will mention which type was used.
• Packaging: What kind of packaging does the set come in?  How well does it protect the product?  Is it generic, or specific for that particular set?  Does it come with any kind of overview or painting guide or other information?  Is there any deceptive, inaccurate, or misleading aspect of the packaging?   
  
• Selection:  How many of each pose is included?  How well do the figures go together as a unit?  How typical or believable is the composition?  A set consisting of a general, a downed pilot, and a commando on a raft (no matter how well-made it is) will inevitably suffer in this category compared to a more "basic" set that makes a convincing infantry squad or artillery crew.
• Scale: How well do the figures in this set fit in with other 54/60mm figures?  I generally use an Airfix 54mm soldier as the "standard" to judge whether these figures are under-or-oversized.
• Overall: My overall thoughts on the set: I'm generally willing to forgive some quality issues or other shortcomings if the set depicts an interesting or rarely-depicted subject matter; that said, sometimes a problem in one area can bring down my opinion on the set as a whole.  Also, if there are any other aspects of the set (good or bad) not covered by the above categories, here is where they will get mentioned.

As well as the review itself, I will also show painted examples of each set, and give painting advice based on my knowledge of the subject matter (corrections and additions welcome).  I do not intend on giving a numbered score or letter grade to any of the sets because I don't think my opinion can be summed up in that manner, and I also don't plan on including a buy/don't buy recommendation; each review is just my thoughts on that particular set of plastic soldiers.

Luke's Random Thoughts Relaunched!

 Over the last few years, I have been focusing my attention on my Youtube channel and as a consequence neglecting this blog; as a result I have decided to essentially start anew with this blog and am now relaunching Luke's Random Thoughts.