So this is what I was trying to convey, that I’m always curious as to what gives an art piece its appeal.
Here’s the concept art.

I don’t want to throw anyone under the bus, maybe it wasn’t finished, but I saw the render of that concept art and was like uh… that doesn’t feel very appealing as the concept art does. But what is it? Yeah sure the lighting, the modeling, the composition, etc, etc, but then what do I have to do? Model more? light more? do some push ups and run 2 miles and then it’ll happen?
Then someone with skills could take it as it stands and make the right choices and it will suddenly feel alive. But what did he do different? What choices did he make as he was working? I’ve always find it fascinating, that it all boils down to eye and tiny choices adding up to greatness.

This on the other hand, from the references Kent compiled, looks killer. I wonder what choices were made that ended up with this result compared to the one above. Gather up the scientists, we need science on top of this ASAP.
