>>8358194>You're the only one who seems to think so.So your only defense is to Ulimate Spiderman being protrayed as a scrawny kid thinner than a 5'6" female is
>nuh uhLOL
>They even based the unmasked Peter head off of Bagley art.Yep and it's why it's a shame the sculpt is shit for Ultimate Parker. If it's based on Miles, good for him if he's supposed to be aged up, but Parker? Classic example of Hasbro's cheapness leading to inappropriate bodies and scale creep.
>Thank you for repeatingAnd? Again, i admit my mistake for assuming a manlet's body as being king of manlets 616 Parker and that only proves how bad teh sculpt is for Ultimate Parker.
>I'm seeing more complaints about the line not scaling with itself Same shit with MLs, but again, you'd have to be blind not to have noticed people screeching about McFarlane choosing 1:10 and Icons being 1:12 instead of Hasbro's scale creep 1:11 ML line... which is actually very inconsistent because theygo back to 1:12 whenever they actually do make a brand new mold that's appropriately s culpted.
>Except all those comic facts that a movie causal couldn't possibly knowLOL, you mean how you tried to pretend that you were talking about an aged up Ultimate Peter Parker (why else would you even talk about 616 Parker? fucking non sequitor)? The fact that you're ignoring the fact he's scrawny as hell in all the pics I've posted? The fact that you thought Miles was created before 2010 and his being aged up happened after that? OR how about how you think scale doesn't matter, because who cares that the characters aren't the right heights?
All your arguments all sound like they come from some apathetic moviecasual's view.
You can claim that you own Spiderman 1, but again, you don't know shit and you've proven nothing, instead denying facts with "nuh uh" and "whatever"
All just to defend a retard, where oyu even lie that he didn't claim DC toys would sell so much better if they were as cheaply made as Hasbro's toys.
