>>10515656You're saying this either because you're a troll and/or have only seen shitty overly bright photos of a glossy toy that washes out detail and makes it look cheap.
In person, they're far more impressive, hence the great sculpts always been creamed over by reviewers since the 90s.
And it's not because
>they only looked good for their timebecause since the late 90s and early 00s, lots of toys started getting better paint jobs, better than most toys today, so there were a lot of ace figures to compare them to.
Was there room for improvement? Yes, but as they were with their basic paint jobs, they looked great. Just adding a matte spray increased their acuity five fold, like looking at the actor from 20 feet away.
>>10515659yeah, there's been proportion problems, but loss of detail never. Pic of upscaled remold, which will always have less detail than the original, yet still looks impressive despite that detail loss (read: loss of detail is so miniscule you won't notice until you're eyeballing it from 2 inches away and have the original right next to it)
