Post: #26

(07-17-2018 10:13 AM)Rotten Wrote:  She Ra is He-Man's sister. She also murdered He-Man.

He Man was a best selling toy for 5 years in the 1980s. In 1986, He-Man had 400 million dollars of Toy Revenue, had a hit TV show, had several hundred million in liscencing fees, a movie in production, and was valued as a one billion dollar intellectual property.

The key to the success of He-Man was cynical corporate market research. This research told them that 5 year old boys hate being bossed around and feel powerless. He-Man's slogan was "I have the power," and this was repeated in the cartoon, toy packaging, and advertising.

Little boys could have the power with He-Man. Until they couldn't.

See, the He-Man toys were big sellers with girls too. About 20% of buyers of He-Man toys were for girls, and this 20% was such a big number that He-Man toys were a #1 girls toy, outselling Barbie. There were girl He-Man characters. The line was inclusive from the beginning, but all of the figures were really juiced plastic moulded figures, without a lot of the features in girls toys like outfits and brushable hair.

The toy executives saw the success of He man among girls and created the sister She-Ra for girls. She-Ra borrowed He-Man's slogan "I have the power," and borrowed the plots from He-Mans cartoon. But the She Ra dolls were 9 inches to He-Mans 5 1/2, and had pink unicorns, brushable hair, and changeable outfits.

Once little boys saw their little sisters shouting "I have the power," playing with girly pony unicorns, and She-Ra dolls that were so much bigger than He-Man ( that made He Man look like a wimp), boys abandoned He-Man in droves. Sales for He-Man fell off the cliff. He-Man didn't have the power any more, that was given to his sister.

And once boys stopped playing with He-Man, girls stopped playing with She-Ra. The extensive market research for boys was not done with girls. That market research would have told them that those girls were buying He-Man in large numbers to play with the boys, not because of the value of the toys themselves.

So, by killing the appeal of He-Man for boys (the power fantasy), they also killed He Man for girls. He-Man is toxic even in 2018, nobody can find buyers for it.

Disney's Star Wars changes were able to rapidly destroy Star Wars toy sales by similarly betraying the same audience. When Toys R Us died, it's shelves were full of 2-5 year old Star Wars toys that never sold.

The girls who watched "She-Ra" as a kid, watched "Tomb Raider" and supported the genre of "90 pound waifs beat up 300 pound wrestlers" As adults.

So, was She Ra ahead of its time, or just the toxic poison that destroyed 1 billion dollars of shareholder value? Powerful girls cartoons are mainstream these days. And will girls support a She-Ra who kind of looks like Disney's Tarzan?

Excellent post - that is what is being done to Star Wars.

Women love Star Wars too, we don't owe men anything, we will henceforth cater everything to women:



And your flop is female.

This She-Ra will do the great job of appealing to 1-2% of the lesbian and SJW female population - way to make a show.

Hollywood has been trying to subvert female power-fantasies since a long time. They even tried it with Conan and this Red Sonja chick in the 1980s:



Arnold in his prime was not man enough for her.

Post: #27

I had buckets of he man toys as a child, inherited from an older cousin. By the time I got them the show was over and we had all moved on to turtles.

Post: #28

I remember She-Ra cartoons from when I was a young boy.

I didn't quite like that a girl was the main character but overall I liked that series because it had a lot of cool action and it looked awesome. And It had strong good male characters too. Obviously I would prefer He-man but I just got to see what was on air at that time, there was no internet.

A particular thing I want to note is that for some reason all cartoons look more shitty today then they looked in old times.

Look how beautiful the original animation was, appreciate the detail of human body animation, the nuances of depicting small facial and body muscles as well as intresting backgrounds with depth.    

And the modern shit, note that all characters look ugly and details of human body are toned down to make fatness less ugly
   

This is not limited to this cartoon alone. Observe the devolution of a classic cartoon Tom &Jerry:

The original technicolor cartoons from the Hanna-Barbera 1940-1958 period are beutiful. Characters had nice rounded bodies, and could show emotion and plasticity. Backgrounds were beautiful. They even turned attention to some shadows, note the fireplace lighting change. These episodes also had the best plot.
   
Even the cartoon animal women of this era look sexy
   

Gene Deitch (1961-1962) period. Note the drop in quality of animation. Colors are more robust there is no gradual change and no shadowing. Backgrounds are still interesting but less beautiful and less detailed. If you watch the episodes they are still somewhat interesting but with less depth.    

Chuck Jones (1963-1967) period. Backgrounds are just lines and different colored rectangles mostly. Characters are robust and robotic.
   
   

Tom and Jerry Kids (1990-1994) Th animation tries to become better with return to the fluidity of the technicolor era, but the colors are not so bright and distinguished. Also despite this age carrying the "kids" suffix, these cartoon are the most violent and least imaginative, the episodes have no interesting plot and are just about a very mean cat suffering in hands of an even meaner sadistic mouse, that despite trying to look cute acts like a demon.
   

Post: #29

And finally the present day Warner Bros era. Look at the total flatness and 2 dimensional of that crap. it looks worse then amateur cartoons submitted by amateurs on newgrounds.

   


Here you can see the how Donatello the ninja turtle looks in the various reboots of the show. The latest are in 3d. Does 3d makes it look better? No. The middle portion is peak beauty and it goes downhill from there.

   




We can clearly see how cartoons turn from art into products more and more by the time. Both the art and the content becomes more and more shallow. Maybe the good technologies on how to make something beautiful are being lost and will become a mystery for our future selves like Roman concrete or Damascus steel. The progress doesn't always move forward.

Post: #30

The bottom line is that since the early 2000s cartoons (and video games, special effects in movies, etc) are not drawn by human hands anymore, and like all things made by machines, have no soul.

Post: #31

He-Man & She-Ra had the worst disguises ever:







Nope, can't tell who it is...

Post: #32

It was still a good character and cartoon about real evil (but not too evil), about a distant magical SF land.

Women were women and men were men. Now it's gender-fluid fatties teaching you about mental problems.



Hehe - even that would not be possible - woman cooking, cooking badly at that, being a housewife - those things must not be depicted. Oh - and Calvin being a super-active boy doing boy-stuff - no way.

Post: #33

He-man - the only character who introduces himself, then punches you in the face.



And, the obligatory:



Apparently, a new He-man will make an appearance. But, to preserve kids' feels, he won't represent unrealistic views of male physicality.

Post: #34

Don't look so shocked.

Much like Western video games and Western comic books, the Western animation industry as a whole has been absolutely shot through with these types for years now, and is basically verging on its own "GamerGate" flashpoint. Feels like every other day, some artist or showrunner on a kid's show is going ballistic on Twitter at his/her/"xir" fans for not liking the taste of the Representation Kool-Aid. And for whatever reason, I've noticed these bitchfits get particularly ugly when it's about something in...a cartoon.

I don't know, man. It's weird when you read about some 39-year-old genderqueer storyboard artist saying he wants to knock a dude's teeth in with a bicycle chain for Tweeting something mean about some cartoon that hasn't even aired yet. But I guess that's where we're at.

Post: #35

(07-17-2018 05:48 PM)Canopus Wrote:  ...
Don't look so shocked.

Much like Western video games and Western comic books, the Western animation industry as a whole has been absolutely shot through with these types for years now, and is basically verging on its own "GamerGate" flashpoint. Feels like every other day, some artist or showrunner on a kid's show is going ballistic on Twitter at his/her/"xir" fans for not liking the taste of the Representation Kool-Aid. And for whatever reason, I've noticed these bitchfits get particularly ugly when it's about something in...a cartoon.

I don't know, man. It's weird when you read about some 39-year-old genderqueer storyboard artist saying he wants to knock a dude's teeth in with a bicycle chain for Tweeting something mean about some cartoon that hasn't even aired yet. But I guess that's where we're at.

As with all things 'reee-steria'.
It's due to the fact that they're basically mentally stunted & petulant juveniles. Regardless of numerical age.

Post: #36

(07-17-2018 08:12 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  It's due to the fact that they're basically mentally stunted & petulant juveniles. Regardless of numerical age.

Let's not kid ourselves. The look of these things is intentionally meant to polarize and provoke. These artists are agent provocateurs by design. Might as well be wearing wool pussyhats. Weaponizing preexisting IP from an earlier "cisnorm" era is how they've chosen to socially engineer. This is then directly supported by media reporting since the people who enter into media journalism are also thinking of themselves as lefty activists. So when the inevitable shitstorm arrives (which is exactly what they want to have happen) the story is suitably slanted in order to make guys who don't like it seem just as bad as Harvey Weinstein.

(07-17-2018 03:09 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  
Arnold in his prime was not man enough for her.

Red Sonja wasn't much of a movie but Brigitte Nielsen was at least all female. Her personal life may be a train-wreck of divorces and alcoholism but she just had a child at 54.

Post: #37

(07-17-2018 10:34 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:12 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  It's due to the fact that they're basically mentally stunted & petulant juveniles. Regardless of numerical age.

Let's not kid ourselves. The look of these things is intentionally meant to polarize and provoke. These artists are agent provocateurs by design. Might as well be wearing wool pussyhats. Weaponizing preexisting IP from an earlier "cisnorm" era is how they've chosen to socially engineer. This is then directly supported by media reporting since the people who enter into media journalism are also thinking of themselves as lefty activists. So when the inevitable shitstorm arrives (which is exactly what they want to have happen) the story is suitably slanted in order to make guys who don't like it seem just as bad as Harvey Weinstein.

Don't really see our two assertions as contradictory.
Yes, those sinister swines at the top of the Cabal who create & impose their agenda are very cognizant of the how & why.
Yet the Useful Idiots doing the groundwork are not capable of thinking on grand scales & their stunted amygdala results in their juveniles behaviour & deluded fantasies.

Post: #38

I figured out why she looks so familiar

she is a male blood elf from WoW:

Post: #39

I'm glad to grow out of cartoons a long time ago.
Now who is going to make a modern remake of Johnny Bravo?
Serial daygamer who will be interpreted as sexually harassing women today.

Post: #40

Johnny bravo is too good for today's audience. But if you want to see a parody of johnny bravo in realistic setting:

Post: #41

She-Ra still includes 'he'.

Shouldn't it be Xir-Ra...?

Post: #42

(07-17-2018 10:16 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 09:46 AM)Alsos Wrote:  there is something weird about men wanting sexual titillation from a children's cartoon character.

And what evidence is there that classic She-Ra was designed the way she was specifically to satisfy adult male sex fantasies?

In modern anime I think the female characters are oversexed (The difference then vs. now is quite stark with the Starblazers/Yamato reboot) but I think an idealized healthy feminine body with a narrow waist and some boobs is perfectly healthy in kid programming for the target demographic of these shows. It also provides a sort of sexual gateway-drug for boys as they go into puberty and age-out of cartoons. Why does it have to be equated with fetishes or pedophilia? To go down that road is to buy into the current feminist dogma about toxic masculinity.

Was in a hurry and bungled my point there. I agree that having female characters with idealized feminine body shapes is fine - not trying to flog the SJW "muh Barbie is unrealistic!" line here. Rather, I see on the horizon a backlash against even simple idealization, as more people wake up to what goes on behind the scenes in the entertainment industry and (rightly or wrongly) perceive this idealization as sexualization.

There's a parallel in the science fiction and fantasy genres, and how normie readers have had their eyes opened by the Sad Puppies affair, the Moira Greyland book, the Clarke and Asimov revelations, the Heinlein biography, etc. The truth of that community was ignored or brushed off or minimized for years, until it couldn't be. The normie audience is now boomeranging back to the other extreme, rightly or wrongly finding nods to pedophilia and other perversions everywhere in SF/F and rejecting works and authors perceived to be suspiciously focused on weird sex and strange sexualities.

In short, I see a future of cartoon heroines with toned-down figures and more modest costumes as part of a larger, generational rejection of decadence and degeneracy.

ETA: it's only part of the issue, as questor observes above. There isn't just the growing perception of hidden sexual messages inserted into children's entertainment by pervs working behind the scenes, but the recognition that mass entertainment is increasingly (and increasingly unsubtle) about pushing ideological themes.

Post: #43

Like the comic thread most female "hero movies" are set to fail for one major reason

Realism vs fantasy

For men seeing a physically fit, charismatic, talented hero gives us something to achieve and want to emulate. We know that those are works of fiction but want to be as close as humanly possible to a batman or a superman or a sherlock holmes, Jason Bourne, James bond or wolverine etc. We also have real-life heroes who fit most of those points like Chris Kyle, or looking back in history to MANLY figures such as Marcus Aurelius, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Ernest Hemingway etc

Women, on the other hand, have to find the perfect balance between realism and fantasy. Lets face it there aren't many actiony female heroes of the past, Most "physically fit women" are physically fit for looks. Even with that said the most physically fit women are still outdone and beaten by the average gym rat. So that's where realism comes to play, women don't want to feel weak. If they see a strong figure EVEN IF its a female it upsets them. They have no desire to work hard to be in shape for the offchance they might have to save a life or themselves. So creators know they have to create strong women figures that don't look strong. They know having a flabby girl get the guy gives flabby women the chance. They know having a skinny girl take out a 220-pound bodybuilder gives women a feeling of being strong.

So this is the dilemma. Sacrifice realism a convincing story and the male crowd for fantasy and action, Or have a realistic movie with a great story but minimum action

In my opinion the movie that did this PERFECTLY is Alien, The first hunger games also.

Post: #44

(07-18-2018 10:01 AM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  Like the comic thread most female "hero movies" are set to fail for one major reason

Realism vs fantasy

For men seeing a physically fit, charismatic, talented hero gives us something to achieve and want to emulate. We know that those are works of fiction but want to be as close as humanly possible to a batman or a superman or a sherlock holmes, Jason Bourne, James bond or wolverine etc. We also have real-life heroes who fit most of those points like Chris Kyle, or looking back in history to MANLY figures such as Marcus Aurelius, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Ernest Hemingway etc

Women, on the other hand, have to find the perfect balance between realism and fantasy. Lets face it there aren't many actiony female heroes of the past, Most "physically fit women" are physically fit for looks. Even with that said the most physically fit women are still outdone and beaten by the average gym rat. So that's where realism comes to play, women don't want to feel weak. If they see a strong figure EVEN IF its a female it upsets them. They have no desire to work hard to be in shape for the offchance they might have to save a life or themselves. So creators know they have to create strong women figures that don't look strong. They know having a flabby girl get the guy gives flabby women the chance. They know having a skinny girl take out a 220-pound bodybuilder gives women a feeling of being strong.

So this is the dilemma. Sacrifice realism a convincing story and the male crowd for fantasy and action, Or have a realistic movie with a great story but minimum action

In my opinion the movie that did this PERFECTLY is Alien, The first hunger games also.

I think you're hitting on two good observations here.

First, that authentic art is about the ideal. No, you or I will never look like He-Man, and no, no girl will ever look like (original) She-Ra, or Barbie. That's not the point of those characters. They are idealized forms of particular elements of their respective character types, something to aspire to in regards to those particular elements (fitness, athleticism, heroism, leadership, beauty, grace) rather than replicate in minute detail. Just look at the tragic figures who do attempt to "become" Barbie or Ken or whatever. Unfortunately, too many people are too literal-minded to recognize that distinction. It's healthy and admirable to emulate the healthy and admirable aspects of a fictional or real-life hero or success story - the select ideals they represent or embody - with moderation and within the limits of one's own abilities and life context. Taking it to an extreme, in either degree or scope, rather misses the point.

Tied to this is the notion that everyone must have the same ideals and role models. I as an individual cannot be allowed to pick and choose which ideals are important to me in which priority, and who to me embodies those ideals in a form to which I can aspire, because I might choose wrongly. Barbie is a perfect example of this: because someone sees Barbie as an unrealistic ideal and cannot grasp the emulate/replicate distinction, she demands that the ideal be destroyed...instead of just eschewing it in favor of an ideal that she finds more acceptable and appropriate.

Second, that modern culture has been corrupted by marketing to the lowest common denominator and/or the easy way out. Modern culture tells us that achievement just takes being lucky, anyone can do it, everyone deserves it no matter who they are or what they've done do earn it. You don't have to be disciplined or assertive, you don't have to put in long hours developing character and skills and knowledge, you don't have to face tough choices and endure hardship, you don't have to put in any effort to making success happen or making yourself worthy of success. Strive to emulate ideals of dedication, character, form, knowledge, or function? Why bother with that? Too much work for something you're entitled to have anyway. It's a wish-fulfillment fantasy that underlies most of modern popular culture: I'm special because I exist not because I work hard at it, and if I just wait all good things will come to me on a silver platter without any effort on my part, and if they don't it's because some nefarious villain is keeping from me what I am entitled to. The Hero's Journey comes to me.

It's sad, really. We had such potential as a civilization.

Post: #45

(07-18-2018 09:58 AM)Alsos Wrote:  idealization as sexualization.

You can't extricate a healthy well-formed woman from guys seeing it and having sexual thoughts. This is true of cartoon characters too, let's face it. An image is an image whether it's flesh and blood, celluloid, pixels, CGI, or hand-drawn. The image creates mental associations and sensations.

Feminism wants to pathologize male arousal as a form of CONTROL.

(07-18-2018 09:58 AM)Alsos Wrote:  rejecting works and authors perceived to be suspiciously focused on weird sex and strange sexualities.

I think the only rejection going on is when the sexuality originates with male desire.
Anytime men assert that desire, flirting, catcalling, or male creators inserting sexy women or sexy situations, it's to be shamed. The flipside, though?

That explains why a story about a mute homely woman using a captured merman as a fucktoy wins an oscar. It's okay in said film for the mute lead and fat black woman to have a conversation about what kind of hardware the merman has, but would a movie with a guy kissing and telling about one of his conquests would be picketed.



And what about the scene in Wonder Woman where she sizes up Chris Pine's hardware? Flipping male gaze over into female gaze is considered OK.

Playful discussions about that scene, this fixation on sizing up men, is considered perfectly acceptable, whereas male nerdrage over She-Ra not having boobs is not.

There are no universal principles at work here because it's not about principle. It's about...CONTROL.

(07-18-2018 09:58 AM)Alsos Wrote:  larger, generational rejection of decadence and degeneracy.

Again, it's about control and it's very one-sided. Women want to feel entitled to go on slut-walks, free the nipple, or post pictures of themselves pissing on the side of the road ala Miley Cyrus without greater society looking down on them.

Meanwhile, they applaud Netflix's 5-second eye-contact rule.

It's all about applying double-standards in order to tamp down male sexuality into the narrowest range of acceptable behaviors, narrow enough for Henry Cavill to go MGTOW.

If we haven't hit the rock bottom of the gynocracy yet, we're damn close now.

Post: #46

A lot of it is also projection. A lot of the women writing and producing this stuff are angry that such cases never happen to them. It's all just another attention seeking activity for them. So remember guys, most things women do are shit tests. This is all happening cause guys giving these girls this power aren't putting them in check.

Post: #47

He makes a good point.

Idealizations of bodies and characters don't mean sexualization. They are ideals of the feminine and masculine. Take this out and you are left with a story-arch that appeals to no one in our dichotomous species.

Now - if we had evolved out of slugs - maybe.....

Post: #48

(07-18-2018 12:07 PM)BlueResolute Wrote:  A lot of it is also projection. A lot of the women writing and producing this stuff are angry that such cases never happen to them. It's all just another attention seeking activity for them. So remember guys, most things women do are shit tests. This is all happening cause guys giving these girls this power aren't putting them in check.

Not to mention the creepy male "allies" they surround themselves with will never satisfy their The Rock / Hemsworth Thor / He-Man fantasies.
While they being blue-haired fatty freaks, will never illicit any interest from any men of actual worth.

Post: #49

This brings up a point that i always wanted to address (probably off topic but I didn't want to waste space and create a new thread)

the fact that self-help in every avenue is MASSIVELY dominated by men

I've befriended alot of women and every last one of them that reads either reads "woke" type books or fantasy/romance novels. rarely anything philosophical unless its marketed as a "woke" book and NEVER a self-help book. I've asked many women both online and in person why they don't get self help books and they claim it makes them feel as if something is wrong with them. If they do buy a self-help book then its a book on managing relationships or understanding human nature (psychology which women enjoy)

A large part of my day is spent at the gym and it's heavily dominated by men also.

I'm sure alot of guys on here have been to seminars and noticed the very small percentage of women. I know I have.

Women don't even know how to network without using sex as a reward.



Why is this? Do women just feel they're too good to improve unless it's their bodies or face? Why do men often have a strong brotherhood but women have such weak and fragile sisterhoods. Feminism is an example. There are so many internal clashes.

Can somebody help me understand female nature

Post: #50

(07-19-2018 12:55 AM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  ...
Can somebody help me understand female nature

A few thoughts.
- Innate female desire is largely related to successful child bearing. Find good mate. Produce viable offspring.
- You don't need to climb mountains or invent whole new political paradigms in order to plop out a couple of kids to a half decent guy.
- In order to spend time with young kids for years on end, it may help to be a touch juvenile in mentality.
- Once kids are acquired. Said kid is the center of their world. There may be a bit of socializing or gossiping as per old school tribal structures. Yet still no need to climb mountains nor invent much.

Then in the modern world which offers so, so much in the way of opportunity. Without a man to tell them what to do; many chicks become insecure & uncertain at all the choices on offer.
So couple a juvenile mentality with too much choice & it may well drift into realms of fantasy.
Wishing to be 'saved' or for romance to bloom out of mere happenstance. As opposed to relying on actual work & effort.