When Good Card Art Goes Bad (As A Figure)

[r07a23c]

Looking over my collection this evening, it occurred to me that sometimes the card art didn't always translate well to a figure. To be expected of course, but sometimes more noticeably on some figures than others. A few thoughts:

Repeater: The card art portrays a no-nonsense, muscle headed machine gunner, ready at a moment's notice to shred Cobra's forces to pieces. The figure looks as if he's having an allergic reaction to shellfish.

Leatherneck (V1): The card art depicts the definition of a "Dirty Dog". You can practically smell the battle toughness. The figure looks like Magnum P.I. at a costume party. Maybe it's because he appears to be wearing sensible loafers rather than combat boots.

Shipwreck (V1): I LOOOOVVVVE this figure, but while the card art shows us a hard drinking, quick tempered bar brawler, the figure appears to be on the cusp of saying "rib-it".

Of course, this works the other way as well: I always felt the Sneak Peek figure was much kinder to the character than the card art. This was one of the first Joes I got new as a child, and I never cared for the picture. I don't know if it's the baby face, or the expression that looks as if he was caught mid- bowel movement, but the card art for this one has always disturbed me.

Any others off the top of your head(s)?

*BTW, I absolutely ADORE all of the above figures (Well, maybe not Sneak Peek ), and this thread is totally meant for fun. I'm simply bored.

[Lt. Night Viper]

I think this could be said about a lot of figures actually. Firefly and Flint come to mind.

[Falcone]

82/83 Scarlett and Cover Girl.

[Bravo]

Spearhead looked better on his artwork.

Raptor's face looked more villainous and less like a cosplayer.

And of course, General Hawk 1991's helmet doesn't even come close to his cardart's helmet.