The Willow Polystone Statue

[Stampe]

34 pages of ........ some kind of discussion about a statue with a es of 250 that after a week isn't even sold out.

And I for one can tell the difference between a character in a tvshow, a lifeless figure/statue, a fantasy and reallife women.

 

[Darklord Dave]

All collectibles are idealized to a certain extent, especially this particular line. Would Willow in high school wear something like that? She did on Halloween, almost that costume exactly, only more revealing. Granted, that's not what is depicted here, but it's not accurate to say the character didn't dress that way. And later in the series she frequently dressed more provocatively. One could look at this as kind of a pastiche of the character throughout her existence - it's a combination of the high school Willow with the more confident uber-witch of later years. Buffy never sat in a chair like the first maquette has - it's more a overall representation of the character from throughout her run.

I don't think the bust line is unrealistic or an exaggeration either. To be frank I never would have even dreamed that their could be a complaint that this is an over sexualized version of the character and I'm sure the question didn't even come up during development of it.

 

[binky]

All collectibles are idealized to a certain extent, especially this particular line. Would Willow in high school wear something like that? She did on Halloween, almost that costume exactly, only more revealing. Granted, that's not what is depicted here, but it's not accurate to say the character didn't dress that way. And later in the series she frequently dressed more provocatively. One could look at this as kind of a pastiche of the character throughout her existence - it's a combination of the high school Willow with the more confident uber-witch of later years. Buffy never sat in a chair like the first maquette has - it's more a overall representation of the character from throughout her run.

I don't think the bust line is unrealistic or an exaggeration either. To be frank I never would have even dreamed that their could be a complaint that this is an over sexualized version of the character and I'm sure the question didn't even come up during development of it.

This line is clearly a fantasy line, not any canonical representation of Buffy or Willow or Faith (from the shadow pic). Buffy never sat on a demon throne and Willow never wore that outfit and never had a werewolf teddy bear. In looking at the preorder page more closely, Trevor's headsculpt is lovely, but it's not Alyson Hannigan. Buffy is not SMG. It's clearly not a literal translation of the show. I know that's how you have to approach it in order to not drive yourself crazy obsessing about what could have been if the Whedonville franchises still had juice and manufacturers were fighting for rights to it.

However, these are Buffy pieces and have to maintain some relationship to the show, right? It seems pretty unambiguous to me that this Willow is a season 3 representation, due to the hair and the werewolf references. Up to that point, Willow certainly did not dress that provocatively. It wasn't in her character to. Her bizarrely un-stylish and at times mother-dressed-me-today outfits were a part of her character. The whole point of the Halloween episode is that the prostitute outfit was a costume--be someone you're not for the night. Okay, at the end, when she survived, she ditched the ghost overlay and walked down the street in the hooker clothes, but that was it.

I'm still in the middle of season 3 in my marathon right now, but from what I remember of season 4, she wore a lot of tomboyish outfits. Then after she came out as gay, season 5 and 6, she (and Tara) started wearing earth-girl outfits. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I don't remember her ever wearing a miniskirt without tights. That tells me that part of the style Sideshow was going for was to sexy her up a bit. Why they did this, I don't get because it wasn't Willow. Up to season 7, she had to ask (Kennedy) really? when she got hit on.

Whatever. It's Sideshow's concept of Willow. Folks who are aligned to that aesthetic and don't mind straying from the original will like it. Those who don't will either have to compromise or wait for something better to come along. I think the reason I am so disappointed is that I don't think another opportunity will present itself for this franchise. So shoulda woulda coulda.

 

[Blackthornone]

Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I don't remember her ever wearing a miniskirt without tights. That tells me that part of the style Sideshow was going for was to sexy her up a bit. Why they did this, I don't get because it wasn't Willow.

You can paint her legs any color you want.

Let's be thankful she wasn't sculpted by Picasso.

 

[risingstar]

To be frank I never would have even dreamed that their could be a complaint that this is an over sexualized version of the character and I'm sure the question didn't even come up during development of it.

Which suggests, on least on some level, a disconnection with a segment of the fanbase. A rather vocal segment, I might add, though I'm not sure if they're historically a statue purchasing population. However, from what we can gather from the arguably diverse posts in this thread, this isn't just another Spiderman statue as some fans are taking great offence to things. I imagine everyone is entitled to his or her perspective. I'm trying to remember the last time I've read such polar opposites as these on a statue. Nothing pops up.

 

[YoNoSe]

Isn't Buffy a Marvel brand, which is the same company that made Stripperella? What else would you expect? It's the nature of the genre and how most people in the genre think, including those who manufactures and publish stuff for it. Based on that, the audience that objects to the sexiness of the statue is not necessarily the INTENDED audience. That part of the fan base is likely just a happenstance, who the Buffy characters probably weren't even originally intended to appease in the first place. However, I could be mistaken.

No offense but you really are just going on and on about things you obviously don't know anything about. Why bother?

 

[risingstar]

No offense but you really are just going on and on about things you obviously don't know anything about. Why bother?

You mean Buffy isn't a Marvel brand?
I could swear Buffy was an Avenger at one time.

Buffy a Marvel brand. That's the second time this dude raised my eyebrow.

 

[YoNoSe]

I could swear Buffy was an Avenger at one time.

It really is a shame that she wasn't considering who's directing the Avengers movie.

And also because, hello, Buffy/Hulk team-up? It writes itself!

 

[Blackthornone]

No offense but you really are just going on and on about things you obviously don't know anything about. Why bother?

It appears I did not know about this particular thing. I read a Stan Lees interview where he talked about Buffy and the kind of concept it struck him as and I assumed it was a Marvel character, like Blade. I was mistaken. That is why I phrased my statement you quoted as a QUESTION, "Isn't Buffy a marvel brand...?" It was a question, it has been answered. Thank you. I phrased it as a question intentionally.

 

[BuffyGirl]

Huh, Buffy, a Marvel brand. For me, that would suck.

Anyways, I am thinking I want to have someone paint my Faith when she's ready. i will put this in the faith section too. I want her pants black!

 

[Blackthornone]

By the way, I saw an episode of Buffy this morning, the one in which Spike was introduced. It seemed like SMG and Allison Hannigan and the guy playing Spike didn't take the whole vampire thing seriously. It was like the two girls didn't really believe in vampires and Spike was just on a TV show having a good time. The mentor of Buffy acted like he took his role seriously, and the guy who played Angel seemed to take his role seriously, and the woman playing the female vampire who hired Spike to kill Buffy seemed to take her role seriously. Does this change in later shows? Was this just an off episode when the actors weren't particularly focused, or were they always like that? They just didn't make the whole vampire hunting thing believable. I'm hoping that they got more serious later. In the movie, Kristy Swanson made it seem totally believable. She had just the right mix of popular chick that was capable and took vampires seriously.
I really want to give this show a chance, but it is tough when the main characters don't come across like they really believe in the premise of the show, which is vampire hunting, I assume. They WERE very convincing as coming across as the average teenager who is concerned about socializing and popularity and all that.

 

[YoNoSe]

The rule of thumb that I give people is if you like smart TV you'll love Buffy. Don't be fooled by the premise or the tone. It will surprise and challenge you.

 

[sueworld]

I really want to give this show a chance, but it is tough when the main characters don't come across like they really believe in the premise of the show, which is vampire hunting, I assume.

Well you assume wrong then, It's steeped in metaphor. It's about a young womens journey through life but writ large.

As to not taken their roles seriously? Err, wtf?

All collectibles are idealized to a certain extent, especially this particular line. Would Willow in high school wear something like that? She did on Halloween, almost that costume exactly, only more revealing. Granted, that's not what is depicted here, but it's not accurate to say the character didn't dress that way.

She only wore that outfit once, and even them she felt so unsure and self conscious doing so. IMO It's far from an proper representation of what went to make up the character.

I don't think the bust line is unrealistic or an exaggeration either. To be frank I never would have even dreamed that their could be a complaint that this is an over sexualized version of the character and I'm sure the question didn't even come up during development of it.

Maybe It helps when you're a women, and so can't speak from a place of male privilage.

 

[Blackthornone]

Well you assume wrong then, It's steeped in metaphor. It's about a young womens journey through life but writ large.

As to not taken their roles seriously? Err, wtf?

In this particular episode, SMG simply did not make the idea that she was a vampire killer to be believable. She came across to me like to kill insects would be all she really had the guts to handle, and to kill a rodent would be very traumatizing. She just didn't come across as hard enough to be able to handle killing. Wasn't believable as a killer or a slayer in that episode. She TALKED it, but she seemed much too affected in how she delivered the speech about how she knew what to do, and how to kill. Maybe I expect more realism. Some actors don't seem to have the type of persona to be able to be convincing as people who kill. She didn't seem tough enough psychologically to be believable.
On the other hand, I didn't think Pierce Brosnan was a convincing James Bond in his first Bond film, but by his second film, he had become accustomed enough to the role to be believable, and be a great James Bond. Before that, he didn't really seem tough enough, or gritty enough. He came across as too pretty and a ladies man type.
SMG Didn't seem gritty enough in the episode I saw. She seemed too fem and delicate, and just not tough enough. Not all female actors are really believable in tough roles.
Linda Hamilton is great at gritty and tough, as is the leading woman on the TV show Chase. Ill have to see a later episode to really judge SMG's toughness.

 

[sueworld]

Watch the whole run of the show hon. Watching just one season 2 episode isn't going to tell you anything. A TV series has the luxury of slowly developing it's characters and storylines, unlike one off movies.

SMG was wonderful in the role. Buffy goes through hell and high water during the seasons, so don't write off things this quickly for as the old phrase goes "You ain't seen nothing yet".

 

[Something Sexy]

It looks pretty damn close to Willow to me.

 

[binky]

My standards for probably the last Sideshow Willow collectible we'll see are pretty high. Based just on the prototype:

CONCEPT (50%): 5.5
EXECUTION (50%): 8
- HEAD: 9
- BODY: 7.5
- OUTFIT: 7.5
- BASE: 8
OVERALL: 6.75

The prototype to me is a conceputally flawed but well-done piece. Actual production can only bring the in-hand score lower unfortunately.

Buffy scores better:

CONCEPT: 8
EXECUTION: 8.5
- HEAD: 8
- BODY: 8
- OUTFIT: 8
- BASE: 9
OVERALL: 8.25

My Buffy's paint (hair and face) lowered the in-hand score I gave her to 8.

Hopefully they fix Faith's body and change to a half-shirt rather than the bra. I wouldn't object to her denim jacket but that seems like a long shot. If she turns out well, I'll happily get her. She's my favorite slayer.

 

[BuffyGirl]

The rule of thumb that I give people is if you like smart TV you'll love Buffy. Don't be fooled by the premise or the tone. It will surprise and challenge you.

 

[sarakawa]

I think these pieces look great...then again, I am a guy. I remember seeing buffy's piece at comicon for the first time and thinking how amazing it looked with her likeness and all. If I had the space, I would buy her, willow, and faith just because they all look fantastic. I may have to settle for just one of em in the end...not sure which one but it's prob between faith and willow.

 

[binky]

I think that's a strength of this line. Any one of these statues works fine as a standalone piece. Maybe not so much Faith as she wasn't as central a character as Buffy or Willow, but still, I can see just owning Faith if she turns out the best.