Talk:Indiana Joe: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:I'll tell you why, because the animators either got lazy or didn't have enough time/money to give him a face... Do the characters even question why he doesn't have a face? - [[User:Smashgoom202|Smashgoom202]] 13:18, 17 December 2008 (EST) | :I'll tell you why, because the animators either got lazy or didn't have enough time/money to give him a face... Do the characters even question why he doesn't have a face? - [[User:Smashgoom202|Smashgoom202]] 13:18, 17 December 2008 (EST) | ||
No, it isn't even mentioned. They genuinely just left him faceless because they were too lazy and didn't care. Personally I think they should have stuck with it, but went with the faceless gimmick all the way - would have been money. | No, it isn't even mentioned. They genuinely just left him faceless because they were too lazy and didn't care. Personally I think they should have stuck with it, but went with the faceless gimmick all the way - would have been money. {{unsigned|GreenGuy}} | ||
Revision as of 18:46, December 17, 2008
|
This article is part of PipeProject Mario Cartoons, an attempt to create and improve episode, character, location and item articles from the three Mario cartoon series on the Super Mario Wiki. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the PipeProject Mario Cartoons page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Is there any reason why he doesn't have a face? Is that a reference to anything (like, Indiana Jones-related, maybe)? YELLOWYOSHI398
No clue. I didn't really know how to comment on it without resorting to speculation, so I didn't go into detail. -- Booster
- I'll tell you why, because the animators either got lazy or didn't have enough time/money to give him a face... Do the characters even question why he doesn't have a face? - Smashgoom202 13:18, 17 December 2008 (EST)
No, it isn't even mentioned. They genuinely just left him faceless because they were too lazy and didn't care. Personally I think they should have stuck with it, but went with the faceless gimmick all the way - would have been money.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreenGuy (talk).
