Bikini Armor Battle Damage - Hypocrites and Sexy Art

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
knightlautrec said:
Gross. They gave both characters horrible hog bodies with no shape. It seems like they are the ones who don't understand female anatomy.

And lol at giving her facial hair "because mainstream comics are too cowardly to do it". This blog really is pathetic and all sorts of projection. Yeah we get it. You're gross and fat and have a moustache. Stop changing characters to be ugly just because you are.
Click to expand...
I liked the detail on Enchantress' leggings, but that has to go as well. While Frank Cho does have some issues with same face syndrome, I think calling him a human dildo was extreme on their end. Besides, I've seen more sexist artists like Frank Miller and Brooke McEldowney out there. They just hate him because he won't bow down to them.
 
knightlautrec said:
Gross. They gave both characters horrible hog bodies with no shape. It seems like they are the ones who don't understand female anatomy.

And lol at giving her facial hair "because mainstream comics are too cowardly to do it". This blog really is pathetic and all sorts of projection. Yeah we get it. You're gross and fat and have a moustache. Stop changing characters to be ugly just because you are.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of this response to the redesigns..."This is rude. I understand not liking an artist work but to deface it. That’s wrong. These two characters see themselves as hyper sexual. To cover them up because they make you uneasy is even more wrong. I just don’t get it."

There's something kind of sad about seeing pretty things get defaced in the name of ugifying.
 
Yaoi Huntress Earth said:
What part of Enchantress (the one in green) being a beautiful, manipulative, seductress of loose morals do these people not get? It's why it helps to know a little about the character you're redesigning first.
Click to expand...


IMG_0065.jpg
IMG_0068.JPG
 
She definitely models the characters after herself, as wider and more rounded features, prominent eyebrows are characteristic of our Slavic faces. Sure, you can find some variety, but noses and cheekbones are mostly within the same range.
Also, a redhead barbarian remodeled reminded me of faces that one Polish porn artist draws.

And why are Enchantress's feet hidden in the redesign? Is the artist afraid of foot fetishists? Does she herself have a foot fetish?
 
Yaoi Huntress Earth said:
I forgot to add this set of redesigns they did. Ivy looks fine, but Tira of course has to have the W.C. Fields nose.
Click to expand...

My mortal enemy, Ivy Valentine’s declining standard in outfits. Ugh. I chose her because I love to play her when I do get to play SC (not often these days), and because she’s supposed to be a Machiavellian Immortal Super Villain (sort of), and boy, do none of the lingerie designs communicate any of this.
Click to expand...

She, of course, has no idea what she’s talking about.

Ivy’s entire motivation throughout the series is to destroy the Soul Edge, so that she and her father can be free from its curse, and so that she can release all of the souls caught by it. The only times she’s evil is when Nightmare is manipulating her. She’s not exactly heroic but her motivations, at their core, are good. And she’s far from machiavellian. Out of the whole cast she’s pretty much the only one that bothers forming long-term plans, but that’s not saying much.
 
Whitesnake said:
She, of course, has no idea what she’s talking about.

Ivy’s entire motivation throughout the series is to destroy the Soul Edge, so that she and her father can be free from its curse, and so that she can release all of the souls caught by it. The only times she’s evil is when Nightmare is manipulating her. She’s not exactly heroic but her motivations, at their core, are good. And she’s far from machiavellian. Out of the whole cast she’s pretty much the only one that bothers forming long-term plans, but that’s not saying much.
Click to expand...

It's also a common fan theory Ivy's dominatrix like attitude and outfits (save the SC4 one, even the people who buy this theory thought that was just too ridiculous) are compensation for the fact she never have a kid. She can, but she worries, with reason, she'll pass on her shitty, fucked up fate to any children she might have, and even getting laid might risk that possibility, so her sexual frustrations are dissipated via her sadomaschistic fighting style and outfit choice.

Not sure how much stock I put in that theory, it largely presupposes several assumptions based on a few facts, but if it is valid, then her entire shtick makes all kinds of sense. And even if that fan theory is bullshit, she's clearly a woman who is quite comfortable with her sex appeal and enjoys flaunting the hell out of it for her own sake, so to de-sexify her is basically slapping her character's raison d'etre in the face.
 
In fact, you can ask Ivy why she dresses like that in 6 and she basically says "I liked the look of it."
 
Whitesnake said:
She’s not exactly heroic but her motivations, at their core, are good.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that's putting it mildly and underselling her bad aspects. Ivy wants to wipe out every trace of Soul Edge entirely. This includes everything it has tainted, and yes, that includes people, even innocent people, up to and including herself. The only reason she isn't evil is because, thus far, she hasn't committed wholesale massacres of those afflicted by Soul Edge's curse, unlike Patroklos. She's all bark, which is what keeps her likeable as a character, unlike Patroklos who is the most widely hated character in the Soulcalibur series, but the fact remains that she is willing to cross that line if it ever comes to it.
 
Icy's not even trying to hide the site's irony anymore- all the proof you need is the previous post with Hellbender and Enchantress:
Icy said:
While we here at BABD believe that woman characters should be more than just eye-candy (and dead, from the way they’re usually dressed), we should probably remind people that women can also look hot while also being protected in battle. Most of the examples here are plate armor, but trust me, it’s possible with other types of armor as well.

So if, for example, a character is out there fighting, but she also uses her Womanly Wiles to get the Men to her side, she can, like… wear armor… and do that also?

And honestly, even if armor was just fundamentally un-hot (would that be “cold” then?), she probably has more than one outfit. It’s just that maybe you shouldn’t wear your little black dress to beat some dudes up. Unless you’re Superman, he’s got literally 0 excuse.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Have they ever thought that maybe having all of your characters be dressed in bland, samey plate armor can get kind of boring and doesn't show off their personality in the slightest?
They talk about how they're experts at designing characters yet they have no idea what makes a character appealing to an audience.
 
madethistocomment said:
They talk about how they're experts at designing characters yet they have no idea what makes a character appealing to an audience.
Click to expand...
And that you shouldn't mess up a character's design out of spite. (See Erica HEnderson's Squirrel Girl comics.) I've said it before, you can have ugly female characters and make them look great, but don't do it as a middle finger.
 
Pina Colada said:
Icy's not even trying to hide the site's irony anymore- all the proof you need is the previous post with Hellbender and Enchantress:
Click to expand...

"While we here at BABD believe that woman characters should be more than just eye-candy (and dead, from the way they’re usually dressed), we should probably remind people that women can also look hot while also being protected in battle. Most of the examples here are plate armor, but trust me, it’s possible with other types of armor as well."

Okay, fair enough. I mentioned it before but I do understand the logic behind the IDEA (keep that in mind) of creating better costumes for female superheroes. However, I do believe context is just as important when making these changes. Adding more layers does not equate to a more solid design. It just makes things look more cluttered.

"Most of the examples here are plate armor, but trust me, it’s possible with other types of armor as well."

Fair enough they admit they only use the plate armor for blander redesigns, but I find it a bit hypocritical that they only make this change with plate armor and nothing else.

Hell, I'm not even a fan of the other extreme either. Not all women need double d's and an hourglass waist to be considered a woman. There are many varieties of styles for women in-between that are still perfectly acceptable.

Strangely enough, I can admit that only slightly changing the design is a better option to do. Many creators who draw the same characters usually have their own spin on things, but the problem with BBAD is that it's not done to be something within reasonable limitations. It's done out of spite.

"It’s just that maybe you shouldn’t wear your little black dress to beat some dudes up."

This. This is the problem. What if they want to wear that little black dress to beat up bad guys? Black Canary literally defeats bad guys in fishnet stockings. Bayonetta defeats angels while wearing only her hair. And keep in mind some of these characters choose to wear these to fight crime instead of using regular gear. Because they have the competence and confidence to do it.

If BBAD really cared about better designs they wouldn't target these types of characters. But it's not about that. It's about how some women are prettier than them so they have to bring them down to their level.
 
Tanti-Fanti said:
"While we here at BABD believe that woman characters should be more than just eye-candy (and dead, from the way they’re usually dressed), we should probably remind people that women can also look hot while also being protected in battle. Most of the examples here are plate armor, but trust me, it’s possible with other types of armor as well."

Okay, fair enough. I mentioned it before but I do understand the logic behind the IDEA (keep that in mind) of creating better costumes for female superheroes. However, I do believe context is just as important when making these changes. Adding more layers does not equate to a more solid design. It just makes things look more cluttered.

"Most of the examples here are plate armor, but trust me, it’s possible with other types of armor as well."

Fair enough they admit they only use the plate armor for blander redesigns, but I find it a bit hypocritical that they only make this change with plate armor and nothing else.

Hell, I'm not even a fan of the other extreme either. Not all women need double d's and an hourglass waist to be considered a woman. There are many varieties of styles for women in-between that are still perfectly acceptable.

Strangely enough, I can admit that only slightly changing the design is a better option to do. Many creators who draw the same characters usually have their own spin on things, but the problem with BBAD is that it's not done to be something within reasonable limitations. It's done out of spite.

"It’s just that maybe you shouldn’t wear your little black dress to beat some dudes up."

This. This is the problem. What if they want to wear that little black dress to beat up bad guys? Black Canary literally defeats bad guys in fishnet stockings. Bayonetta defeats angels while wearing only her hair. And keep in mind some of these characters choose to wear these to fight crime instead of using regular gear. Because they have the competence and confidence to do it.

If BBAD really cared about better designs they wouldn't target these types of characters. But it's not about that. It's about how some women are prettier than them so they have to bring them down to their level.
Click to expand...
It's interesting how these rules never apply to men. Where they will make them handsomer and more scantly clad.
 
GethN7 said:
It's also a common fan theory Ivy's dominatrix like attitude and outfits (save the SC4 one, even the people who buy this theory thought that was just too ridiculous) are compensation for the fact she never have a kid. She can, but she worries, with reason, she'll pass on her shitty, fucked up fate to any children she might have, and even getting laid might risk that possibility, so her sexual frustrations are dissipated via her sadomaschistic fighting style and outfit choice.

Not sure how much stock I put in that theory, it largely presupposes several assumptions based on a few facts, but if it is valid, then her entire shtick makes all kinds of sense. And even if that fan theory is bullshit, she's clearly a woman who is quite comfortable with her sex appeal and enjoys flaunting the hell out of it for her own sake, so to de-sexify her is basically slapping her character's raison d'etre in the face.
Click to expand...

I've never thought of it other than her and Volgo obviously being two sides of the same coin and their designs comes from there. They're Bondage(Volgo) and Dominance(Ivy), Sadistic(ivy)/Masochistic(Volgo).
Her character being a posh aristocratic bitch with a whip, where anyone she smacks around are beneath her, that heavily leans into the dominatrix angle, while Volgo is constantly gagged and bound like a hardcore fetish slave.

Bayonetta ran a similar theme but better.
 
Fagatron said:
If the idea is to make people think dressing provocativley is bad, you'd think they'd be happy to have "dresses like a ho" as a quality of supervillans.
Click to expand...
It's the whole "evil is sexy" thing that they hate since they believe scantly clad villainesses demonizes feminine sexuality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom