Why a change?[]
What happened to the version from prior to these two? I could have sworn it was a full body shot from "Dark Heart". The current one shows less than half of the character, and the one before that is blurry and frankly, a poorly drawn background shot. --BoneGnawer 11:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- No. The other picture was a shabby character model. Blue Devil is one of those unfortunate characters who do not gave a decent body shot in the run of the entire show. There was one in the beginning of "Hunter's Moon", but we only see him from behind. Despite not being ideal, the current one adheres to our rules. ― Thailog 17:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Two things
- 1. A character model is preferable to a shot where the majority of the character is obscured. If no clear shot exists, but a character model does, then the character model should be given preference in those few instances.
- 2. I distinctly recall a shot of Blue Devil fighting the dark heart robots in the Dark Heat episode. I'll see if I can grab that shot.
- The character model was far from shabby. If you look at the group scenes from Initiation, you'll see that the same unaltered character model was inserted into the shot. But that issue aside, I could have sworn someone had already uploaded a shot from Dark Heart before these two images, but perhaps I imagined it. Anyway, there's my ideas. --BoneGnawer 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
1. A character model is preferable to a shot where the majority of the character is obscured. If no clear shot exists, but a character model does, then the character model should be given preference in those few instances.
- We never agreed to that. In fact, you stated:
The only use I see for model designs is to illustrate changes in the character model as in Batman I. The character models provide a full-body view of the character that a screenshot may not be able to provide. That full-body view is desirable when comparing changes to the character over time.
- I'm aware of that previous statement. This is a new statement. I now do see a second valid use, which I have described above. --BoneGnawer 11:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)