>>5902626>hue hue hue if i keep on just name calling and just stating "ur wrong" i winI know you know next to nothing about me and you're only trying to save face on an anonymous message board, hoping someone will agree with you and somehow that makes your little pretend world true. It will never be anything more than your bitter tears and delusions. Nothing you say really matters, but just know that i love you.
>>5902729>Thats not at all the beast I saw when I googled it.It's like everything you've said: ignorant shit.
>bad anatomical sculpting and horrible black paint washes and bridge trollsoh geez, you're really going to pull this shit about a hairy ape man that is appropriately called the Beast? Can't even believe you hate washes, but whatever, that's your opinion.
> If you're seeing subtlety in this figure then good for you.So you really can't see anything other than being angry in this image?
Remember when i asked if you were literally autistic? The different levels of the mouth and just the angle of the head can and do convey different expressions and actions.
Also, it still looks like Jim Lee's rendition.
>My point still stands.Your point is shot to hell, because it was never like the comic book and obviously based on the cartoon.
And all you've done since then is basically say "nuh uh" and not even providing any proof for any comic book version that actually looks like that cartoon. Shit, you can't even use Wildman's XMen ADventures Beast, since his style was different from the cartoon.
>The figure is an icon of the character at the time. Jim Lee was the most iconic style for all the XMen at the time. It's why they brought in artists that had Lee's style after he left. Joe Madueriraieea managed to break from that formula, but oh shit, it's not even in that original Toy Biz style. Again, that figure is only an icon of the cartoon version. A shadow.
