Talk:Package art
Beast Machines
I think... I theeeeenk... that the only instances of CGI models being used on the packaging were for the Mega toys, and they didn't actually appear on the FRONT of the boxes (Cheetor might've still been there?), but on the BACK, in the vicinity of the bio-card. I know this was definitely the case with Tankor... - Chris McFeely 00:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Optimus Prime
I won't argue too hard against replacing a run-of-the-mill Ordinary Joe example with the Shining Icon -- Prime's art was my first thought when I was starting this page -- but I really don't want to see this article become burdened with a ton of Optimus Prime images. Better to stick with a wide variety of characters. Also, I really liked the Rollbar art because it so aptly illustrates the exaggeration inherent in most G1 art; it'd be nice to find a home for it on this page somewhere. -- Repowers 07:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I wanted to use G1 Prime's art because it's the most well known and one of the best 1984 art. Supercon Armada Prime's art is there because it's the only neutral white background packaging art from Armada that I know of on this wiki (the other being Powerlinx Optimus Prime). As for exaggeration, I'd say that's mostly for the first half of G1. During the Masters era and there after, the standard of packaging art was quite high. --FFN 07:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Eh. Thunderwing there has about 50 joints, none of which exist on his toys. (Still not as extreme as the Throttlebots, though. At least his toy HAS joints. And feet.) -- Repowers 07:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, you mean the art making the character (and thus the toy) look like they have natural joints and articulation that allows the cool posing that toys today can't even dream of doing? --FFN 07:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Eh. Thunderwing there has about 50 joints, none of which exist on his toys. (Still not as extreme as the Throttlebots, though. At least his toy HAS joints. And feet.) -- Repowers 07:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The movie's "computer-rendered" headshots
Do we really know those are CGI? They could very easily be paintings. --ItsWalky 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was about to say. I'm pretty sure they're paintings. I'm sure the movie bots' headshots use CGI renders as a BASE, but do we really think they made CGI models of allllllll the non-movie bots' noggins? I severely doubt it. --M Sipher 18:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was just me making an ass-umption, working from memory and without looking too carefully. I'll readily defer to your more artistically-experienced judgment. On close inspection they pretty obviously aren't the movie models. -- Repowers 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
