Forum - View topic

REVIEW: Cutie Honey Sub.DVD

I usually don't trust the reviews on here, but this one is pretty bias. Of course the reviewer recommends Re: Cutie Honey. But I guess I'm not surprised.

I know the animation isn't the best, but you realize the series came out 40 years ago? This is typical for a Toei series of that time frame. I know some episodes were rougher than others, but as a whole it wasn't anything out of the ordinary.

Also what's the big deal with Honey showing skin? Why does this lessen her a female character? Are women not allowed to be sexy? Goku spends most of Dragon Ball Z without all his clothes on, and no one ever barks at that. Honey is no bimbo. She's strong, independent, and doesn't give up. Her sexual image doesn't take away from her at all. Plus you have to realize the fact the only strong, and independent characters in the show are female. There's only about 5 males in the show, and they're all more or less useless. [/b]

Eastern Star should be commended for delivering the show in the first place—in its entirety, uncut, despite its limited commercial appeal—but not so much for its bare-bones release and dodgy subtitles.

Also the fact they commend Re: Cutie Honey, where Honey was dumbed down to literally being nothing but a pair of tits.

At least 73 Honey didn't need a rude, tsundere, lesbian cop to help her fight her battles. But hey, it's a newer anime by Gainax so of course it's better.

Mosaic wrote:

Also the fact they commend Re: Cutie Honey, where Honey was dumbed down to literally being nothing but a pair of tits. At least 73 Honey didn't need a rude, tsundere, lesbian cop to help her fight her battles. But hey, it's a newer anime by Gainax so of course it's better.

As a fan of older titles, I can understand how you wouldn't favor Carl's opinion on the original Cutie Honey, but if you look at it from a more modern perspective, the average viewer isn't going to find it as appealing as those of us who really enjoy old series or are into anime history, and that's a perfectly fine tone for him to take. For those people (and this is not an invitation to attack them), Re: Cutie Honey most likely will be more appealing if only by virtue of its more polished look. "Better" or "worse" can be translated to "more or less appealing to a contemporary audience."

I love old stuff. I can't wait to get my Dear Brother and Creamy Mami DVDs, I devour 70s and 80s manga in French and Italian translations, and I collect a lot of series books from the early 1900s. But over time I've come to learn that not everyone is going to get as excited as I am when I find three-quarters of the Ruth Fielding series at Goodwill, and the failure of AnimeSols' Pastel Yumi set helps to attest to that. So rather than getting upset when a reviewer doesn't recommend an older series to a modern audience, it might be easier (and less frustrating) to discuss why you love it with like-minded people.

Oh great. and another reviewer mistaking the anime to be a Nagai work.

Dynamic Pro only pitches the basic concept to Toei, which is then made into a show. Sometimes Nagai would design the monsters like he did with Mazinger Z, but that's about the extent of his involvement with any of the Toei adaptations. Toei has their own writers. They don't need Nagai to pen out the weekly scenarios for the anime. Masaki Tsuji, a good friend of Nagai was one, for example.

Most of the things you attribute to Nagai, aren't even Nagai. You want Nagai? Read the Cutie Honey manga. None of this motw bullshit has anything to do with him. It was made in this format because like a lot of the shows in the 70s, these anime were made for kids to be watched on a weekly basis.

In short, Nagai has very little to do with the anime adaptations, and it's not like the anime is even adapting the manga anyways, considering they both ran at the same time leading to great divergence between both works.

The reviewer seems to be implying that Anno somehow improved on Nagai's work. That's what upsets me, because it shows great ignorance on his part. For starters, Anno didn't even work on RE:Cutie Honey. It was mostly left in the hands of Hiroyuki Imaishi.

Second, works like New Cutie Honey and RE:Cutie Honey are actually much closer to Nagai's original manga in tone than the 1973 Cutie Honey anime. The anime was just harmless Toei kid stuff, like a lot of other Toei stuff at the time. It was the same deal with the shoujo Cutie Honey Flash of the 90s also by Toei. Again, it had little to do with Nagai himself other than the original 70s concept.

I usually don't trust the reviews on here, but this one is pretty bias. Of course the reviewer recommends Re: Cutie Honey. But I guess I'm not surprised.

I know the animation isn't the best, but you realize the series came out 40 years ago? This is typical for a Toei series of that time frame. I know some episodes were rougher than others, but as a whole it wasn't anything out of the ordinary.

Also what's the big deal with Honey showing skin? Why does this lessen her a female character? Are women not allowed to be sexy? Goku spends most of Dragon Ball Z without all his clothes on, and no one ever barks at that. Honey is no bimbo. She's strong, independent, and doesn't give up. Her sexual image doesn't take away from her at all. Plus you have to realize the fact the only strong, and independent characters in the show are female. There's only about 5 males in the show, and they're all more or less useless. [/b]

Mosaic wrote:

I usually don't trust the reviews on here, but this one is pretty bias. Of course the reviewer recommends Re: Cutie Honey. But I guess I'm not surprised. I know the animation isn't the best, but you realize the series came out 40 years ago? This is typical for a Toei series of that time frame. I know some episodes were rougher than others, but as a whole it wasn't anything out of the ordinary. Also what's the big deal with Honey showing skin? Why does this lessen her a female character? Are women not allowed to be sexy? Goku spends most of Dragon Ball Z without all his clothes on, and no one ever barks at that. Honey is no bimbo. She's strong, independent, and doesn't give up. Her sexual image doesn't take away from her at all. Plus you have to realize the fact the only strong, and independent characters in the show are female. There's only about 5 males in the show, and they're all more or less useless. [/b]

This show was targeted to a young hormone-filled male audience. The main character is yes a sexy girl, but she is "objectified" in a very real sense. In fact the series was so out of line that it was taken off the air. Think about that ! Japanese parents complaining about indecent characters airing on tv.

Kekko Kamen is also a strong female independent character. Would you say that she is a symbol of feminism ?

This show was targeted to a young hormone-filled male audience. The main character is yes a sexy girl, but she is "objectified" in a very real sense. In fact the series was so out of line that it was taken off the air. Think about that ! Japanese parents complaining about indecent characters airing on tv

Kekko Kamen is also a strong female independent character. Would you say that she is a symbol of feminism ?

How is Honey being 'objectified' if she has a well-rounded personality? Sexual objectification assumes no familiarity with the subject beyond her lady parts. o_O