Forum - View topicAstro Toy with Rob Bricken - Queen's Blade Nanael
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||||
I'll try to help with this, but doesn't the character in the series display her breasts? I've not (nor ever will) see the series, so I'm not sure. RARELY is a figure offered to remove clothing if said character doesn't do it in the series. If this were the case, the figure of Haruhi above would probably be the best selling figure this year. The option is, most likely, to allow the owner to have the figure be displayed as she would in the series. If anyone does buy this for the sole purpose of breast display, I'd say their age is around 13 years old. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Lonecow
Posts: 52 |
|
|||||||
Well Haruhi and Naneal are both voice by Aya Hirano, so with a little imagination, some glue and a lot of luck I can see that happening.... |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Ai no Kareshi
 Posts: 561 Location: South Africa |
|
|||||||
|
Honestly, DomFortress, I wouldn't blame anyone who read that post of yours I commented on for thinking that you wrote it simply to mention the fact that you have a girlfriend. Even after reading your follow-up explanation I still fail to see how any of it pertains to the figure, the review or current discussion.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Redbeard 101
Oscar the Grouch
Forums Superstar  Posts: 16963 |
|
|||||||
Today's lesson in trolling brought to you by people who want to ruin conversations. Seriously, if all you're going to do is troll and start linking random pictures to keep your trolling going, then please leave. We were actually having real discussion in the thread which given the topic is amazing in itself. Don't ruin it for the rest of us with your petty trollish comments.
So you think her views on the figure are extreme? You need to get out more then I would say. There's nothing extreme about her views at all really. Even if you don't agree with them that hardly makes them extreme.
Yes it is possible to enjoy the female form on an appreciatory level while still recognizing the nice physical features. Be it breasts or legs or butt etc. The thing is there is a difference between that and pure objectification of women/the female form. The figure "reviewed" here (if it was really reviewed at all) is not artistic in terms of equality or sensuality. It's just eye candy. It's objectification with no other purpose for the clothing removal then to satiate otaku pervy fantasies. There is not other point to the nudity of the figure here beyond that. So yea, that kind of objectification can be seen quite easily as demeaning. As for your little hypocrisy comment, you should not speak for "virtually all men" because unless you're a mind reader you're not qualified too. There are plenty who would not appreciate the male objectification, and the glamored image of what a "real man" is supposed to look like. And there are also quite a number, myself included, who do not appreciate the male objectification in many/most yaoi mangas. The thing is if a man comes out and says that and complains they are more times then not labeled as either being "some sort of homosexual" or just stupid. I have gone to yaoi panels at cons and seen this very situation play out just like that. The stigma is if a man has feelings and emotions and finds something like that objectifying either he's gay or somehow not a real man. That doesn't give those who are offended by it much incentive to stand up and say something less they be ostracized by those they know. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
walw6pK4Alo
 Posts: 9322 |
|
|||||||
No one ever just buys the figures for the breasts. The bottomline that Rob completed neglected in his review of the Queen's Blade anime was that MegaHouse can goddamn make a figure. It's the quality and being a fan of the source material first, the nudity second. Most of them look better with their clothes on anyway, because they're not just the same sailor uniform that we always see. And why are people seemingly content with Ikki Tousen and its figures? Nearly all the ones I've seen include some kind of cast off or extremely ecchi pose. And if you think any of these are bad, you haven't seen some of the garage kits that are produced. Go to any blog and check out the latest from Wonder Festival. I'll throw my question again, are there people here that routinely collect 1/8th and larger figures? Or perhaps even people who routinely follow the releases of figures and wish they had the expendable income to get them all? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Redbeard 101
Oscar the Grouch
Forums Superstar Posts: 16963 |
|
|||||||
|
Sorry about the multiple posts. I was getting that stupid 504 timed out message and didn't realize they were all going through. Can a mod please delete all but one? I started deleting some but now that someone else has posted I can't delete the rest.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Redbeard 101
Oscar the Grouch
Forums Superstar Posts: 16963 |
|
|||||||
Sorry but that first statement is utterly wrong. Plenty of people, mostly men but I suppose a few women perhaps, are buying that figure, and othbers like it, because they can display it nude. And that fact is the first and most important part to them. I sadly know a few like that. I avoid them like the plague now a days but suffice to say I can guarandamntee you they would buy it just for the breasts. You underestimate the sheer lecherousness and perverseness of some fans heh. As for the second question I routinely buy 1/8 figures. Well, I routinely buy 1/6, 1/7, and 1/8 figures. I have quite the sizeable collection. I follow series for the most part that I am watching or enjoy. I also will just browse through HobbyLinkJapan's website or others like HobbyFan or HobbySearch for new figures. Sometimes I find some for hows I have never heard off but I love the figure. Case in point I just received this figure from a show I know nothing about. I simply liked the figure itself and the outfit so I got it. Plus it was on a reduced price clearance so I got it for 40% off heh. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Seljuk
 Posts: 139 |
|
|||||||
If I may, I think you are trying a bit too hard to extend this neo-feministic chain of thinking to the model. I don't think anyone really can 'appreciate' a model of a non-existent character. It can't really be the basis of objectification, seeing as it was, and always will be, an object. While it does take full use of the female form to be attractive, if the clothes were not able to be removed, would you still have the same mindset? I'll agree that, especially with what I just stated, that it is a form of wish-fulfillment, if you will. The fact that her clothes can be removed is a fact that can't really be argued from any other angle. However, I, and many others, would certainly find this figure sensually appealing. Especially in terms of art- seeing as this is a figure. Artistic equality though....when does being PC cross the line to being overly sensitive? You're also kinda throwing around an ad hominem argument there, if your implication would be that only pervy otakus would be interested in this figure (heck, even the implication that only they would be interested in the clothes removal part). (I kind of rallied against your points here, forgive me if you were just talking about the clothes-removing aspect) Also, just as a side commentary, it's interesting to see two schools of thought clash in this thread. Old feminism, where showing your body was supposed to be self-empowering, vs new feminism, where women do not wish to be viewed as pornographic objects, especially in media. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||||
One of my posts was deleted by accident, but maybe you should review the quote by lgw before calling anyone a troll. I simply interrupted the "conversation" to dispel the notion we collectors buy figures like this to buy plastic boobs. I pointed out a hypocritical reply by a user. At least I didn't call them a troll for doing such. Next time you want to interject from the sideline, do so without the name calling. YOU just trolled with this reply. And again, calling out the hypocrisy.
Reading comprehension is your friend. The picture isn't random. Go back, re-read the posts, then comment. And don't tell people to leave. It's not my fault you can't connect the replies.
I sit here absolutely stunned at the audacity of this reply in this thread. I've made my point, so we're done here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
egoist
 Posts: 7762 |
|
|||||||
|
Just wonder why she's kinda cute on this figure but not on the anime. Guess it's because she can't talk.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||||
|
10 pages on naked figures. My mind is blown.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
rinmackie
 Posts: 1040 Location: in a van! down by the river! |
|
|||||||
|
I can believe it, Zac. And here I was hoping we'd "get back on track". I told myself I wasn't going to post here anymore. But gosh darnit, the arguments just gets more and more ridic.., I mean, interesting. The best part so far was when littlegreenwolf claimed 40's style pinups were artistic but this figure wasn't.
Sorry, lgw, but I'm with PJ on this one. From what I can tell the only difference between the pinup pic PJ posted and the figure of Nanael is that you have the option of seeing Nanael's naughty bits, while the pinup is (barely) covered. The removable dress aside, both women are designed to be sexually appealing. The pinups were the "porn" of their time and the only reason they weren't naked is because nude photography wasn't permitted at that time. Not only that, one of the most famous pinup girls, Marilyn Monroe went on to become the first woman to pose nude in Playboy. And I'm sure people back then would be extremely surprised to know that we consider pinup girls to be art nowadays. Those girls were called pinups because they were put up in servicemen's living quarters. True, they may have reminded a guy of the girl back home but they also reminded them of 'something else". 
Somehow, I seriously doubt WW2 servicemen sat around discussing the artistic merits of Betty Grable's rounded bottom. But back to the figure, which while I wouldn't definitely purchase it, I would consider it if I had that kind of money to throw around. Would I pose it nude? Probably not, but I would have that option. Which is one possible reason (besides sexual gratification) someone would buy it. You can display it clothed or nude, your choice. Sexual gratification would NOT apply in my case, since while I can appreciate female beauty, I am straight and happily married. (Plus I prefer yaoi. Objectification of gay men! I know, I'm bad!  ) So why would I want to purchase Nanael? Because with or without her dress on, I think she's a pretty figure.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
littlegreenwolf
 Posts: 4796 Location: Seattle, WA |
|
|||||||
|
Well Zac, Rob did say nipples tend to get people overexcited, and some guys like to defend their porn.
Are there any people in this thread who see collecting PVC figures as demeaning? I apologize if anything I’ve said makes you people find it’s more… umm… I don’t see what I’ve done to you people, but I’ll apologize either way if I pushed my views on you. Am I pushing my views, or am I explaining the aspect I find offensive of the Nanael figure? Oh boy, you're confusing me now because I don't remember saying collecting figures was demeaning. I’m guessing you mean I’m claiming that people who buy this figure automatically demean women. Nope, never said that. I said several times, over and over, that I don’t hold it against anyone who buys this figure and puts it on display on their shelf. I’ve also said several times I don’t have a problem with figures that display nudity.
I never said it wasn't art. I've stated before porn can be considered art already. I said Nanael is not FINE art. Again, you really aren't reading what I've wrote. And I know why it exists. It exists because there's a niche of fanboys who get an immature kick out of seeing plastic boobs whenever they want, and boobs they can touch. This is a toy designed to appeal to the sexually driven. It's a sex toy. I didn't say everyone who buys it is one of those types of fanboys, there are always exceptions which I already have acknowledged.
I'm really wondering why you think I'd find a problem with this figure. You really aren't paying attention to the problem I have with the Nanael figure, even though I've had to state it at least 5 times already. Lemme ask you this: Why do YOU think I would have a problem with it? All right, just so I can get this straight and I can address the claims, I’m being called a hypocrite because I enjoy a number Gil Elvgren’s works, but I frown upon the act of focusing on Nanael’s breast, an act of sexual objectification? I see Gil Elvgren’s work as art, possibly even fine art, and Nanael as hands-on porn that sexually objectifies a woman’s body part. Gil Elvgren was a fantastic artist. As a man you may feel he’s objectifying the women due to how you interpret his work, but as a woman and an artist all I can see is brilliant composition and beauty of the female form. He doesn’t just focus on a body part, and his work can’t be called lewd. But again, you criticize me for being a fan of his and claim I’m hypocritical for liking him but disliking this Nanael for being demeaning to women for the reason I've already stated. Do yourself a favor and look up Gil Elvgren, maybe even pick up one of his artbooks next time you’re in a bookstore. His paintings and drawings are gorgeous, and he didn't just paint pin-ups. He did plenty of other work, lovely paintings where women were fully clothed as well as paintings of men, on top of plenty of advertising work (at lot of those pin-ups, believe it or not, were for advertisements) not involving pin-ups for companies such as Coca-cola, and he even helped develop the iconic Coppertone girl logo. The women I see in Elvegren’s work, nude or in their underwear, I do not find sexually objectifying. I see them as great studies on the female form, and there’s plenty else Elvegren gives you to appreciate about the work outside of the model’s cleavage. Not for one moment do I think nude women or women in their underwear in art demeaning. Here you have a nude women, breast exposed, etc etc. The nude woman is the focus, and I find her lovely. Some men, especially back in the 1600s, probably got wild fantasies off of looking at this, supporting an argument that depending on the viewer, Botticelli is sexually objectifying the woman. I don’t find this picture at all offensive, or sexually objectifying a woman, and the only other woman I’ve come across to think this would be a couple of super-uber conservative women who would support a castration through the Vatican again. It’s a lovely work that shows the beauty of the human body, and also tells a story. Here’s another one. This one probably got men’s blood boiling back in the day more so than the Venus above, but still it’s considered fine art, and I find nothing wrong with Titan having this woman sprawled nude on a couch. Nothing is focusing on any particular part of the woman’s body, and there’s plenty more with the work to distract you from her unmentionables. Gorgeous work, and in my opinion Elvgren continues the tradition, but with more clothes and personality. I don’t find nude women any of these situations sexually objectifying or insulting. There is no single point in focus with these old paintings or with Elvgren’s paintings to insinuate that that’s a specific body part in the painting is what the viewer’s focus should be. I’m an art student. I go out and search for art books for influence and inspiration as well as reference to help me get to my goal of becoming a professional illustrator. I look at Evergen’s work and I see great skill, colors, and style of an era gone. I’m not blind and never said Gil Elvgren was without his faults: I’ve admitted I’ve had problems with a couple of his works, mainly those that depict women in stereotypical situations, but I do not find his women, nude or in their underwear, demeaning. Whether they’re being sexually objectified in these paintings is questionable, but whether Nanael’s breasts are being sexually objectified is not in doubt, and anyone who says anything otherwise is lying to themself here. I don’t hate the Nanael figure because she’s nude, I think with the clothes on it’s a fine figure. I just have a severe dislike for the purpose of the clothing removal feature, which is to focus on her breast. I’m not out to call all pin-ups demeaning, or PVC figures. I’m only calling these figures that have the idea that you can take off their clothes for the purpose of exposing their breast when the figure would otherwise be a lovely figure, demeaning because it reduces the figure to hands-on porn that objectifies a woman’s body part, and at that point I start to lose all respect for it on an aesthetic level. Going onto why I think this would just be a repeat of my earlier posts. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||||
Are you saying that the figure being sexy had absolutely nothing to do with your purchase of it? Like not at all, not even a little bit? I mean, guys buy posters with Playboy playmates on them and display them all the time. It's pretty normal. I realize you're trying to fight the stereotype of the weird pervert who has shelves full of half-naked anime girl statues and takes videos of himself... uh, I probably shouldn't go any further with that, but it's perfectly OK to buy a figure or a poster or whatever because it has an attractive woman on it. I don't think anyone would seriously scream pervert and cry sexism if you bought that Haruhi figure because you thought it was sexy, among other reasons (good sculpt, likeness, pose, paint, whatever other reasons people buy statues). |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||||
Not even one bit. Even now, I don't see it as sexy. Weird, I know, but I never had a thing for "bunny girls". The scale of the figure is what was the determining factor. Not many 1/4 scale figures get released. However, there are some in my collection I'll say are damn sexy as hell, including: 
Strictly bought because of the design.
Of course it is. But at least you're not going around and stating this only applies to pin up images and not figures.
Okay, stop. Please don't twist my words around. This is not what I said or implied you said.
*sigh* I absolutely can not fathom how in the world you can dismiss the Gil Elvgren image I posted above and not see the clear and distinct objectification of several of her body parts and call it "fine art" while calling the figure porn. I'm not angry with your comment, just confused. So, with that, I'll bow out and simply agree to disagree with your opinion on the entire matter regarding "art", "fine art", "objectification", and "porn". I need some Aleve right now. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group