Can anyone explain the logic behind McFarlane Toys' paint application decisions?
>>11826836Nope, it's truly one of the world's great mysteries.
>>11826836Paint costs money.
>>11826836It's McFarlane, he ain't got to explain shit my nuggy.
what seems to be the problem officer?
>>11826844(You) mean America is greedy. Those tariffs are from the US gov't. Hence forth (you) pay those tariffs.
>>11826842>>11826944Here's the thing: Why do the black wash on this specific part of the back at all if you know you don't have the money to finish it and it will look bad half done? Plus the rest of the figure doesnt have it--only this part. So why do this part on the back of all places? Just make it all match.
>>11826842Not OP but it looks like all the bone parts have some sort of wash, but they chose different colors (brown vs black)
>>11826970Looks like a masterpiece compared to some of the shit he's released in the Spawn line.Looks like the pieces are probably given a wash unassembled, and then put together. Either some pieces got a heavier wash, or they weren't able to match colors or something. Still isn't even close to the worst things he's released in this line. I'd rather have mismatched washes, than shitty, bare plastic that look like preschooler toys.
>>11826992I have the CotS figure. The bone spike "wings" at the top are not different pieces from the "bone backpack" piece, so it isn't a case of attaching a differently painted piece to another. Instead it's painting one piece in two different ways. The wash ends for seemingly no reason half way through the bone wings.It's really perplexing. Especially when I can see paint on the part of the bone wings that didn't get a black wash, so it isn't like the back of the wings that didn't get the wash are unpainted. It's almost like someone filled out the paperwork wrong about what paint to apply in a segment of the wings and the factory just gave them what they asked for, even though it was obviously wrong. I expect a lot of McFarlane Toys' problems are on the design side rather than the factory side except a few cases of breakage like Batman year two arms and such.And yes it's definitely still a better figure than Reaper which is just a clusterfuck of problems, part of it being due to his design not working well with the way McFarlane Toys' torso articulation is setup, but also the ugly texturing choices the sculptor(s) did on him and the fact that the color choices are garish.But do keep in mind Reaper was $25 and this is $30. We're at the point where they shouldn't be screwing up these figures for the prices they are charging. But they still are.
>>11826836I remember when McFarland was known as the company that always put a wash and decent pain apps on it's figures. Love their old Wizard of Oz figures.
hubris
>>11826836McFarlane is just flat-out incompetent.>Covers some figures completely with thick lumpy paint for no reason>Doesn't apply any paint on others
