>>7880803>Except in all the copious evidence that seems to display the contrary. Pretty easy for a colorist to overlook parts, especially since colorists aren't usually involved that well into comics they're painting and only follow the directions when the artist/ink/editor remembers to write it in right. Again, cherrypicking a couple of panels from 22 page comics in dozens of comics by dozens of artists over dozens of years isnt helping your case, especially when the line art itself shows there's no depth
http://is2.4chan.org/toy/1574981044754.jpgWhen multiple artists draw everything else with depth consistently and literally show how the pink part works
>>7877946 >>7877990 >>7879067 >>7879432... i don't know why this is even an argument.
Again, these are artists who know how to draw a human. They know their anatomy and how to draw with perspective. You're arguing against a very basic knowledge of perspective. You can cherrypick a couple examples of bad art or bad coloring, but that's literally just a couple dozen panels vs the thousands of panels where he's been drawn/colored correctly.
>Except for the fact that in all modern appearances he is shown with a distinct mouth. I have no beef with this, especially since Carnage's modern interpretations are much bulkier and amorphous than how Carnage was drawn before, and the old version is exactly what Mafex is accurately sculpting.
But still, even the modern art harkens back when it was just a pink mask covering the human's mouth
>>7879067 >>7879432 But again, you'er going to ignore point blank evidence of how the costume works, both written and drawn, because you're just a contrarian.
See every page on this thread where Carnage appears more than once and note almost all of them have just a flat pink color where the mouth is supposed to be. It's always outnumbered by any inconsistencies that you're arguing are the majority. See pic.
