>>7892063>You claimed that painted prototypes are praised and I retorted that painted prototypes are hardly an indication of what a finished product looks like. That isn't moving the goalpost, it's making an argument why you can't judge painted prototypes since 9/10 toys don't turn out as good as the prototypeYou're ignoring my entire point though, in that painted pieces are just as flawed whether they're prototypes or production figures, yet praised nonetheless.
Again, i point out that McFarlane's older figures were also praised despite having the same flaws.
MLs got a huge amount of praise for Toy Biz upping their game and when the license was sold, /toy/ shat on the Hasbro MLs for those cuts to the paint apps, but you're probably too young to remember any of this.
Again, you just sound like a contrarian because you're butthurt about something and need to vent your anger.
>Look at the shoulders and the where the cape attached to the costumeSeriously, it's like you're being dumb on purpose, almost like you have no real argument. Prototypes pieces aren't attached the same way as production figures, which is why his proportions seem different. The paint itself also creates that illusion of being bigger on the prototype, which again is why paint is superior.
That cape? Shit changes from prototype to production, so it's not surprising the thinner cape wouldn't make it intact.
The sculpt is still identical though. You can count the ridges in the hair, the way the abs are formed, the nose, the jawline on the production figure.
And again, I've already said that collector lines generally look the same from prototype to production. Certain lines might not though...
