NEW PRODUCT: AUG TOYS: "Dune" Paul Atreides' 1:6 scale collectible doll

AUG TOYS "Dune" Paul Atreides' 1:6 scale collectible doll
Dune is a legendary Hollywood science fiction masterpiece created by Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures and directed by Denis Villeneuve (director of Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 ), the new godfather of science fiction films. The film is based on Frank Herbert's well-known science fiction novel, starring Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Josh Brolin, Stellan Skarsgård, Zendaya, Chang Chen, Jason Momoa, and Javier Bardem.
Dune is a legendary Hollywood science fiction masterpiece created by Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures and directed by Denis Villeneuve (director of Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 ), the new godfather of science fiction films. The film is based on Frank Herbert's well-known science fiction novel, starring Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Josh Brolin, Stellan Skarsgård, Zendaya, Chang Chen, Jason Momoa, and Javier Bardem.

AUG TOYS "Dune" Paul Atreides' 1:6 scale collectible doll product features:
AUG TOYS has created a 31cm tall doll with more than 30 movable joints based on the shape and proportions of Paul Atreides in the Dune movie, which perfectly reproduces Paul's body shape.Meanwhile, the AUG TOYS production team restores the formal dress of Paul Atreides in House Atreides in 1:6 scale according to the texture, material, and line proportion of the movie costume. As the son and heir of the great Duke of House Atreides, Paul is wearing a gown with his father to welcome the decree from Padishah Emperor . During the solemn and grand ceremony, Paul's dress was decorated with exclusive gold trim on the shoulders and collar of his family and rank. In order to guarantee the collectibility of the product, AUG TOYS has picked the more durable leather material to make the boots , so they are more collectible. In terms of head sculpture,a wax-painted head sculpture [another translation reads: "a wax-like painted head sculpture"] regarding the role of Paul played by Timothée Chalamet (Sweet Tea) is equipped. In terms of accessories, in addition to the nine interchangeable hand shapes, the AUGTOYS team has specially restored the hovering light that appears several times in the play and has a light-up function. Furthermore, Paul's learning process of the encyclopedia and books is also essential. Thus, the pain box is a must-have for Dune fans when Paul is tested by Sororities!s learning process of the encyclopedia and books is also essential. Thus, the pain box is a must-have for Dune fans when Paul is tested by Sororities!s learning process of the encyclopedia and books is also essential. Thus, the pain box is a must-have for Dune fans when Paul is tested by Sororities!

Product No.: DL001
Product Barcode: 6972842530042
Release Date: Approximately 3rd to 4th quarter of 2022
Scale: 1/6

Product List:

-Basic head sculpture
-30 articulated movable elements
-9 interchangeable hands including
-A pair of natural hands
-A pair of holding hands
-A outstretched hand
-A pair of gloved hands holding an object
-A pair of natural and gloved hands

Clothing:

-One hat
-One army green gown
-A pair of pants in an army green gown
-A pair of black boots (leather material)
-A black trench coat (with built-in wire)

Accessories:

-Encyclopedia
-Hover lamp
-Books
-A pain box
-Specially designed with the House Atreides family logo on the floor and character name tags


**The picture shown is not the final product prototype, pending licensee approval.
**Any changes to the product details will be announced through our official account.


















#newproduct #AugToys #Dune #PaulAtreides #male #Sci-Fi #movie

That was quick! Looks pretty good, although I've never heard of the company. Has the Legendary logo, so is it licensed?

It is licensed, and they are a new company, though they claim that members of the company have been in the business for more than 10 years.

I agree, that was fast. But perhaps that is how it should be. That said, while I think it does a pretty good job of capturing the look -- from what I have seen in promotions, haven't actually watched this version of Dune -- I'm not interested in renditions from this version. The Sci-Fi series, sure. Even the original movie, also. But this hasn't captured my interest. Which is not this company's fault.

That’s sort of what I responded to the rep for Aug Toys — the books were boring as f@#k, and make War & Peace seem like an action thriller, so I had a hard enough time getting through the original movie which had some god awful acting and a hobbled script, so I had no interest in this movie (despite hearing good things). I wish them good fortune, though, and hope the sales do well enough for them to continue if the figures turn out as good as the promo.

I also think it necessarily plays into the equation that, absent whatever emotional connection you may bring to this from the narrative, it isn't very inherently visually interesting -- it's not like a Darth Vader or a Terminator or a Predator or even a Flash Gordon. And they even increased this chilling effect, by making him in his appealing but bland uniform instead of the more obvious choice Sand Stillsuit (which I imagine they hope to make later).

"I wish Aug well but this is not for me" is my reaction also. Then again, I haven't seen the movie so that may change. There was a time I loved the Toy Vault LOTR figures styled after the original illustrations, and I couldn't imagine getting the Elijah Wood Ian McKellan etc versions, but boy that changed eventually. [Not planning to see the movie for a while, but for a positive reason: spoilers are not an issue, so I'm waiting to enjoy Parts I and II together].

I did watch the new movie and even though I agree with Mark about the books and I thought the original movie was awful TBH this movie wasn't that bad.

this figure seems very close to the movie character and could see some one recreating the clifftop grave yard scene but like all things it will be interesting to see what this looks like in hand.

Stryker2011 wrote:I wish them good fortune, though, and hope the sales do well enough for them to continue if the figures turn out as good as the promo.

I second that. You were approached by the Aug Toys rep? How did that happen?

Moonbase Alpha Male wrote:I also think it necessarily plays into the equation that, absent whatever emotional connection you may bring to this from the narrative, it isn't very inherently visually interesting -- it's not like a Darth Vader or a Terminator or a Predator or even a Flash Gordon.

Excellent point... although it occurs to me that he is a bit like Kylo Ren... minus the cool, if silly, mask and the cool, if silly, lightsaber.

Delanie wrote:I did watch the new movie and even though I agree with Mark about the books and I thought the original movie was awful TBH this movie wasn't that bad.

Good to know, thank you. If you have seen the Sci Fi series, how does this compare to that?

No, I wasn’t actually approached by the rep personally. They are actually a member over at the Freaks, and interestingly, the Old Site. They posted an introductory thread showing a promo of this license, and I posted roughly the same comment at the time.

Hope there will be other figures from it, otherwise not of much interest on its own.

I'm likewise not hugely into the Dune story.... I appreciate the massive influence it had on the sci-fi genre at the time, but oddly I'm more into the things that it inspired than the orignal novels themselves.

That said, this adaptation looks interesting for what it is, and I've heard decent things about it, so I will probably give it a try once I have a chance.

skywalkersaga wrote:Hope there will be other figures from it, otherwise not of much interest on its own.

I'm likewise not hugely into the Dune story.... I appreciate the massive influence it had on the sci-fi genre at the time, but oddly I'm more into the things that it inspired than the orignal novels themselves.

That said, this adaptation looks interesting for what it is, and I've heard decent things about it, so I will probably give it a try once I have a chance.

Just saw this today Sky. Looks like they are making a Gurney Halleck as well.

Thanks for that, csyeung!

Thanks, Craig. This one looks more interesting to me, of course with the caveat that my judgement is not based on having actually seen the source movie.

Nice, probably won't be the last of them. The headsculpt didn't quite catch Paul's likeness, that witty intelligent prettyboyness.
The uniform design is not that fancy and spectacular, agree, but I guess it fits the Minimalist design of his Norwegian home planet.
Gurney looks much better. Now we have two 'Good guys'. Would be interesting to see someone in a Stilsuit or a Sardaukar:




I get Dune is not a series for everyone. It took me some time to get into the first book. It's a lot of detailed world building, geo-/stellar politics, intrigue, secret societies and noble houses playing the long game, detailed in-world mechanics, like the importance of the planet's climate and the technology to adapt, how the differnet 'native' and external cultures shape life on the planet, the importance of water and the spice/worm ecosystem to the point of the planet itself being a character. Non traditional combat with energy shields forcing soldiers to close combat, psychological warfare and 'non magical' mind control abilities (the Force. Ahem.) A mighty mutant guild with the monopoly to interstellar travel, which even the mighty Emperor has to accept, the resource for that stellar travel only found on that one desert planet.

In Star Wars (often compared, but actually very different. Also not fair as Star Wars was written as a movie, haha.) all that is mostly background props for the archetypal character drama, action and space battles in focus.  It's SciFi on the surface but a classic hero story as pointed out several times before here.
Dune seems like the classic good vs evil and a Chosen One story on the surface, but Paul (and other characters seemingly 'in control'), despite all his abilities, follows prophecies manufactured and set in motion long time ago by manipulative schemers, to the point his real 'free will' in all that is questionable.

The TV series in structure, events and dialogue was close to the book, but felt more like a school play, costumes looked low budget and the special effects are rudimentary and overall uninteresting or at least a badly aged interpretation.

But the 1984 movie was a horrible mess I think. The main theme music was not bad, everything else, nah. Not much more to say.

The new Dune movie was by far the best adaption, beautiful cinematography, impressively detailed and arranged shots, interesting atmosphere created by color, contrast, light and composition, untypical droning music and sound (or well placed lack of sound in some scenes). The art style was great, brutalist mega structures, some good  costumes and a lot of non generic looking future technology,  I watched it in Cinema, my only cinema visit this year yet, actually...
While I agree some characters in the book feel kind of unemotional or inhuman, many of the main characters have to be high functioning over-achievers to survive in their position, or are even 'bred' to be. Gurney and Duncan (Brolin and Momoa) have a much more 'normal', relatable personality. I bet there will be an Idaho/Jason Momoa figure in a Stilsuit some day.

tl:dr blablablabla

Agree with you on basic assessments of the previous adaptations, Ovy. Still haven't seen this one as I'm waiting to finish The Expanse before I watch it ... my mind can only deal one sci-fi thing at a time.

If I'm being honest, the casting for Paul is one of the things I find least appealing about the latest Dune adaptation (which otherwise looks quite well made). Feels like Timothee Chalamet has been in every damn thing lately, and I'm just tired of him now. He might be a good actor, idk, but I wish they'd cast someone else in the main role -- I would have jumped to see it, in that case. Maybe I just can't get past the stupid meme that compared his appearance to a pointed medieval shoe.

I absolutely loved the original book. To me it's still one of the best sci fi works out there. So it's odd to me to see so many who were either indifferent, or outright hate the book. Different strokes, for different folks, I guess.
I really enjoyed the latest movie too. Epic in scale, and much more faithful to the source, than its predecessor, and infinitely better put together.
While Chalamet might not have been my first choice, he did a great job as the reluctant "hero", thrust into action. He won me over by the end of the first act.

The figure likeness is actually really good, and captures the outward coldness of the character at the start of the movie. The choice to make the dress uniform, rather than the stillsuit, may be a little dull. That being said, it's a very good likeness to the movie costume, especially the coat, and I particularly like the floating light accessory. If it looks like this in-hand, it'll be an excellent licensed figure.

Saying that, I won't be buying this one. The uniform is just a little too plain. But I really hope they do a Chani, and Duncan in stillsuits. I'd buy them in a heartbeat.
Likewise the Gurney figure looks interesting. Though that Josh Brolin likeness could use some more refining.

Interesting points, Ovy -- and others. I actually liked the 1984 film ok, for what it was, with the realization that it was inadequate for the task it had set itself. I preferred the Sci Fi series; it seems to me that any sort of reasonably detailed treatment would have to be in series form. This I cannot bother to see. Since this was brought up, I don't get the appeal of Chalamet either. But I'm pleasantly surprised that I recognized Brolin in the second set, in Craig's post.

Notwithstanding my lukewarm comments about this figure above, I would be instantly buying a Stillsuit figure, especially if they (wisely and charitably) made it suitable for army building, with heads of specific characters or just random Fremen.

Count me very much on the pro-Dune side. Dune and I go way back -- put it this way, I actually own the loose multipart issues of Analog Science Fiction Magazine that preceded the first edition. And I am so thankful Disney didn't get their hands on Dune because, I genuinely believe, they would have sabotaged it the same way they sabotaged John Carter, willingly taking a big loss in order to gloss over how much their greater asset Star Wars borrowed from John Carter (as it did from Dune).

I'd actually love hear more on that topic (Dune, John Carter, Star Wars, Disney), MBAM.

GubernatorFan wrote:I preferred the Sci Fi series; it seems to me that any sort of reasonably detailed treatment would have to be in series form. This I cannot bother to see.

Some time in 2023, you could watch the current Dune together with Part 2, for a minimum of 5:10 hrs (2:35 hrs x 2, or even more if Part 2 is longer, or if there is an Extended version of Part 1). So I can agree that “it seems to me that any sort of reasonably detailed treatment would have to be in series form,” but the two Villeneuve movie parts will be significantly longer than the 2000 TV Series (which was 4 hrs 20 min total). And movies are still bigger than TV.

Moonbase Alpha Male wrote:Some time in 2023, you could watch the current Dune together with Part 2, for a minimum of 5:10 hrs (2:35 hrs x 2, or even more if Part 2 is longer, or if there is an Extended version of Part 1).  So I can agree that “it seems to me that any sort of reasonably detailed treatment would have to be in series form,” but the two Villeneuve movie parts will be significantly longer than the 2000 TV Series (which was 4 hrs 20 min total).  And movies are still bigger than TV.

This is a fair point. But there are two flaws, both of them on my end: the thirst for instant gratification; and this is not actually the reason I'm not really drawn to the present film (i.e., that it is only Part 1, and that it might not cover enough or in enough depth) -- that reason is probably largely subconscious. But I do wish them well. Eventually, I will probably see it -- perhaps well before Part 2 appears. As for the Sci Fi series, there were two; the second one was perhaps called Children of Dune. I'm not sure exactly how these different attempts align with Herbert's volumes and how much ground they cover individually or in full.

GubernatorFan wrote:I'd actually love hear more on that topic (Dune, John Carter, Star Wars, Disney), MBAM.

Well, I may need to put on my tinfoil, conspiracy hat, and start ranting, but ok.  At the time the John Carter movie came out, Disney was very fresh from its then frighteningly expensive acquisiton of the Star Wars license.  The number of things that Lucas "borrowed" from John Carter (and Dune, and Flash Gordon, etc) was substantial.  I do not begrudge Lucas for this in the slightest, artistically it was a fully legitimate creative act of fusion with respect for his inspirations and predecessors.  But at the studio "branding" level, it is argued that they perceived the forthcoming John Carter film might devalue the Star Wars brand, if people (knowing that John Carter originally came first) saw it as somehow lessening Star Wars or making it less original.  So once Disney paid $4.05 Billion for Star Wars, and at the same time took over control for the near-finished John Carter film, the argument is that Disney (notwithstanding the loss it would take on John Carter) intentionally set it up to fail.

IMHO John Carter was pretty good (not absolutely great) and it should have performed much better than it did.  It is a proven fact that Disney slashed the promotional budget to mere fraction of what had been intended, and much less for a movie of its kind.  The "official story" is that Disney supposedly slashed the promotional and advertising budget at the last minute based on poor performance in the test screening in the last month before it came out.

Here's some proof for my conviction that actually the deliberate decision to sabotage John Carter was made inevitably long before these "test screenings" in the last month.  Something that you and I and all our friends at OSF are keenly aware of (but critics and media writers wouldn't normally know) is that the development curve for Toys must be at least 6 months to a year in advance.   Toys would be inevitable for a Disney movie of that size, especially one so Star Wars like.  We know that basically it was the sale of Toys from SW New Hope that made it possible to pay for making Empire Strikes Back.  In the normal course John Carter Toys would have been inevitable.  In my mind the fact that Disney didn't license any John Carter Toys whatsoever proves that they had cut the movie loose months or a year before supposedly it was some poor performing test screenings in the last month that made them pull the plug, and send John Carter out with virtually no advertising.  Normally by 2012 standards there would have been John Carter toys in the stores a month or two before the opening, necessarily unaffacted by test screening or anything else in the last month.  What follows is IMHO the only explanation that fits the facts.  John Carter didn't flounder, John Carter was murdered.  And as the Latins say about solving crimes, Cui Bono?  Who benefits?  The Star Wars Brand does, by comparison.  Endeth the rant.

GubernatorFan wrote:This is a fair point. But there are two flaws, both of them on my end: the thirst for instant gratification; and this is not actually the reason I'm not really drawn to the present film (i.e., that it is only Part 1, and that it might not cover enough or in enough depth) -- that reason is probably largely subconscious. But I do wish them well. Eventually, I will probably see it -- perhaps well before Part 2 appears. As for the Sci Fi series, there were two; the second one was perhaps called Children of Dune. I'm not sure exactly how these different attempts align with Herbert's volumes and how much ground they cover individually or in full.

The subsequent publication history of Dune is equalled perhaps only by the two Asimov Foundation and Robot series, and maybe Lord of the Rings, in terms of getting other authors to write long trilogies based upon every Herbert/Asimov/Tolkien laundry list, Christmas card, or scrap of paper that they could find iin their discarded wastebaskets, usually ratified by an author's family member or friend.  I recall Children of Dune but I think it doesn't come into this.  My understanding (I stand to be corrected) is that Villeneuve Dune I and 2 will parallel the 3 parts of 2000 TV Dune and Children of Dune is entirely something separate, though still directly written by Herbert himself, not one of the above family improvised sequels and offshoots.  (The 1984 is its own weird mix of course).  My friend, I think there is a reasonable chance that you may love the Villeneuve Dune, in 2023 or sooner, and if you do, and say so here. I promise not to say "Nyeah Nyeah I told you so."

Moonbase Alpha Male wrote:Well, I may need to put on my tinfoil, conspiracy hat, and start ranting, but ok.  At the time the John Carter movie came out, Disney was very fresh from its then frighteningly expensive acquisiton of the Star Wars license.  The number of things that Lucas "borrowed" from John Carter (and Dune, and Flash Gordon, etc) was substantial.  I do not begrudge Lucas for this in the slightest, artistically it was a fully legitimate creative act of fusion with respect for his inspirations and predecessors.  But at the studio "branding" level, it is argued that they perceived the forthcoming John Carter film might devalue the Star Wars brand, if people (knowing that John Carter originally came first) saw it as somehow lessening Star Wars or making it less original.  So once Disney paid $4.05 Billion for Star Wars, and at the same time took over control for the near-finished John Carter film, the argument is that Disney (notwithstanding the loss it would take on John Carter) intentionally set it up to fail.

IMHO John Carter was pretty good (not absolutely great) and it should have performed much better than it did.  It is a proven fact that Disney slashed the promotional budget to mere fraction of what had been intended, and much less for a movie of its kind.  The "official story" is that Disney supposedly slashed the promotional and advertising budget at the last minute based on poor performance in the test screening in the last month before it came out.

Here's some proof for my conviction that actually the deliberate decision to sabotage John Carter was made inevitably long before these "test screenings" in the last month.  Something that you and I and all our friends at OSF are keenly aware of (but critics and media writers wouldn't normally know) is that the development curve for Toys must be at least 6 months to a year in advance.   Toys would be inevitable for a Disney movie of that size, especially one so Star Wars like.  We know that basically it was the sale of Toys from SW New Hope that made it possible to pay for making Empire Strikes Back.  In the normal course John Carter Toys would have been inevitable.  In my mind the fact that Disney didn't license any John Carter Toys whatsoever proves that they had cut the movie loose months or a year before supposedly it was some poor performing test screenings in the last month that made them pull the plug, and send John Carter out with virtually no advertising.  Normally by 2012 standards there would have been John Carter toys in the stores a month or two before the opening, necessarily unaffacted by test screening or anything else in the last month.  What follows is IMHO the only explanation that fits the facts.  John Carter didn't flounder, John Carter was murdered.  And as the Latins say about solving crimes, Cui Bono?  Who benefits?  The Star Wars Brand does, by comparison.  Endeth the rant.

I see what you mean. There are theater goers who would be discouraged by poor reviews, and I seem to remember something along these lines going on about the John Carter film. For my part, I prefer to make my own mind, usually. I did see it eventually and did not dislike it, in fact I rather liked it for what it was (not every science fiction needs to look and feel like Star Wars or Star Trek for me) -- keep in mind I had never read the source text and had no expectations to be dashed whatsoever. I wouldn't have minded to see another installment, and I wouldn't have minded to see action figures and other toys. I recall Triad Toys did a John Carter figure, but I believe it was more generic or at any rate not specifically based on Taylor Kitsch' rendition of the character. But thank you for the explanation and the partial demonstration -- which was both reasonable and convincing.

Moonbase Alpha Male wrote:The subsequent publication history of Dune is equalled perhaps only by the two Asimov Foundation and Robot series, and maybe Lord of the Rings, in terms of getting other authors to write long trilogies based upon every Herbert/Asimov/Tolkien laundry list, Christmas card, or scrap of paper that they could find iin their discarded wastebaskets, usually ratified by an author's family member or friend.  I recall Children of Dune but I think it doesn't come into this.  My understanding (I stand to be corrected) is that Villeneuve Dune I and 2 will parallel the 3 parts of 2000 TV Dune and Children of Dune is entirely something separate, though still directly written by Herbert himself, not one of the above family improvised sequels and offshoots.  (The 1984 is its own weird mix of course).  My friend, I think there is a reasonable chance that you may love the Villeneuve Dune, in 2023 or sooner, and if you do, and say so here. I promise not to say "Nyeah Nyeah I told you so."

I did not know that these works had such an afterlife. I looked it up again specifically (I remember I did some basic research -- not extending to reading the books themselves -- after getting curious when I watched one of the series), and while the 1984 and present films are based on the original Dune novel, the Sci Fi 2000 series was based on it too, and the Sci Fi 2003 series was based on two sequels by Herbert himself, Dune Messiah and Children of Dune. Herbert wrote six Dune books, but apparently his son and a co-author have published many more, including one last year, one this year, and one set to come out next year. That is impressive indeed. I agree with you -- there is a reasonable chance I will both see and like the Villeneuve Dune. And I am not averse to admitting I was wrong -- technically I've just said that what little I have seen of promotional materials does not draw me in, and I have no attachment to the actor playing the protagonist. That does not inspire me to see it, but it says nothing about the film itself.

I read the Barsoom (John Carter) books… and… yeah, Disney ruined that movie (which was, a somewhat cobbled together, and not done well, compilation of the first three books in the series — only taking very loose elements from all three, but making up sort of their own crap story to go along with random scenes, some of which weren’t in any of the books). If they had done the books right, the movie would have been rated X for excessive, full-frontal, nudity — both male and female. The books were entertaining, but fall more in the Fantasy, rather than Science Fiction, category.