>>8012574>gigantic nose>beady eyes>looks fantasticBut i guess this is why you have no problems with the plastic showing through the paint, because your vision isn't that good.
You can't see the individual dots, but you sure as hell can tell how blurry and cheap it looks, just like the print quality on 70s and 80s comic books.
>Are things not allowed to be good for their time? Is the original Star Trek retroactively shit because it doesn't look good now?uhhh... if we were talking about 1960s toys, it'd be a whole other thing.
Except we're talking about some of the most overdone license in the universe, where hundreds of companies have already produced near perfect to perfect looking replicas.
Maybe if it was YOUR first figure, you might love it, but holy fuck, the rest of the world had already moved on from shitty sculpts since the 00s. For 2015, that's a F tier sculpt.
>Care to post a better looking 1/12 ANH Han Solo?I don't own any 1:12 Han Solos, because i don't settle. We've already had near perfect 1:18 replicas and i want wait until they release something that good again. Sculpt wise, i'd give that Han a C-, but overall a D, because shit paint. It'd be better without that low res print.
Wait, that's a lie, i own stormtrooper Han Solo, because a hero helmet stormtrooper was sorely missing in 1:12.
