Re: Ranting over the new Rainbow
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:52 pm
Very good point Babydoll.
https://forums.rainbowbrite.co.uk/
Heh, you seem to be missing the same point that I think Hallmark is. It's as if nobody who had a hand in RB in 2003, or now, realizes that there was more to the franchise. You talk about emotional attachment as if it only applies to the toys. Rainbow Brite was MEDIA-DRIVEN. Hallmark didn't just dump some dolls on the shelves in the 80's and profit a billion dollars off of it. There were television specials, there was a full-length feature film, there were TV commercials, there was whatever went on in the greeting card aisles; she even had her own breakfast cereal. The toys are practically nothing without the marketing, and somehow Hallmark has overlooked that in this decade. It's very very hard to get Kids hooked on a franchise just by dangling a doll in front of them. Maybe once upon a time that would work, back when televisions were luxury items, PC's (and all forms of entertainment/communication that came with them) were non-existant, movies were rare and expensive weekend treats, and globalization in the toy markets was still in its infancy. Barbie, for instance, was provided with practically no recommended personality profile, and could be roleplayed any way the children wished. The doll left everything up to the imagination. Mattel was so religiously dedicated to this point, that they opted NOT to put Barbie into the "Toy Story" film, because they didn't want a movie slapping a pre-defined personality onto their doll. But now, Mattel has completely flipped-flopped on that philosophy. They let her appear in "Toy Story 2", and in a whole slew of CGI Barbie movies. Looks like Mattel discovered the need for a change there. Another great example is Lego. A decade ago, the model themes they released left the roleplay to the imagination. What do they have now? Star Wars Lego, Batman Lego, Spiderman Lego, Indiana Jones Lego. All their top-sellers now are riding on the success of film franchises. Hallmark has somehow been missing this, even though it's how they did it the first time around.Cypher wrote:I can't say anything until she's actually released, but I'm happy for now. I guess since I never collected Rainbow Brite as a kid, I don't have the same emotional attachment everyone else does. I like changes now and then because I always hope the change will come out for the better. Besides, I've seen a lot of people on the net draw Rainbow Brite as a teen and drew her that way a few times myself, and after seeing a lot of these I wondered why everyone feels compelled to draw RB in an older incarnation. Maybe it's because people want their childhood heroine to grow up with them, a reminder that growing older won't change anything. After all, do we all have such little faith in Rainbow Brite herself? Think about it for a second. Why would growing up a little change her? Wouldn't she still be as sweet as she was in her childhood, as caring of others? The company said as much when they claimed that they would honor the look of the original and position her as a role model for girls.
Now a brief, stripped-down excerpt from that discussion (it applies to all superheroes, not just Superman)movies.ign.com wrote:
Given the astounding commercial success of the grim and gritty Dark Knight, Robinov says Warners's upcoming DC movie slate is "going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," and the next Superman movie will be no exception.
Not sure if it might be relevant to why we're not seeing eye-to-eye on some of these things, but I might as well comment on this and tell you that both I and a lot of my playmates could quite often imagine ourselves as characters in a high-fantasy world. In fact we used live-action roleplaying more often than we used action figures/dolls. The only times I resorted to those toys really was for solitary play. Even my avatar, is a bit of a homage to my childhood aspirations of becoming some kind of inter-stellar warrior. I also might as well tell you (in case you didn't know from reading some of my other posts) that I'm male. But that doesn't mean I can't hold somewhat of a feminine outlook on certain things. I like a number of things that 99% of society would deem far too girly for me to be into without it being caused by some kind of severe psychological disorder.I preferred dolls that were either...
1) In the realm of high fantasy, completely dissociated from myself and my world. Actors in a drama, characters to drive a plot. I, in a similar process to the way I write now, was an omniscient observer, orchestrating the plot but not a character in the story (one reason I don't write in first person).
I'm not sure if this example also includes some high-fantasy elements or not. For characters like Ariel, I'd tend to think yes, but I'm guessing you're referring to characters/plotlines that a bit more down-to-Earth, such as Jem. All your specific examples except for Barbie (ok, you mentioned Stacy & Kelly too but it seemed to be more of an afterthought) are very whimsical in nature. Until I'm certain, I won't comment too much more on this, except to say that I never had a problem with adult heroes. If I did, I'd have been limited to a VERY narrow realm of entertainment. Regarding the beauty stuff, you went much further into it later in your post, so I'll comment on it there.2) Adult women or on the threshold of adulthood. They were decidedly feminine, they were beautiful, they embodied all the physical qualities little girls aspire to have when they grow up. Don't you worry about the shallow factor, either; smart girls will have smart heroines. Mine were always on the road, seeking adventure, doing useful things, challenging the constraints of society...the beauty, that was just an added bonus. Indulgent fantasy, if you will. The belief perhaps that everyone will see your inner beauty if you're a good person. Dolls are static objects and must display those traits symbolically, on the outside, but every child knows her doll is a good person anyway, right? (Unless you're playing the villain.)
Heh, I always tended to think that a lot of the point behind many toys is the preparation of children for the adult world. In fact, I'd say toys are even more crucial than a lot of the academic training, because kids can learn a lot more about what will be expected of them in their adult lives by pretending to be adults. So I'm really not shocked that you didn't have anxiety about growing up. Very few people EVER do. But your lack of fear of growing up may also be the result of your unique philosophy on the subject. You see no reason for growing-up to strip away the better part of your former self. This is something that, as you said, hardly anyone does.Fact is, having mostly grown up dolls to play with, I didn't have much anxiety about growing up myself. Certainly I enjoyed the Peter Pan story a lot better than I do now, but I never had that dread of aging that the story hinges on. Change was a good thing if it brought me closer to the beauty of Ariel, who was my idol at the age of six. Too many people in this world grow out of their toys, something I find very sad. But I've also encountered a good many people on the internet who wallow in their nostalgia and only ever talk about their toys with that whiny refrain: "I miss my childhood." This is perplexing to me. I am now 23 and every year I have grown, it's brought me new experiences and new wisdom to shape my philosophy about the world. I don't collect toys and watch cartoons to deny that I have grown older. I think a healthy way to play with toys is not to deny any part of yourself, but to connect your life in an unbroken circuit, acknowledge that you are all the ages you ever were, that you're also an adult with an adult intelligence...capable of writing novels, for example.
Alright, I must be misinterpreting this part completely, because it seems like you just stepped into bizarro-world. About not being taken seriously for being too girly, I 'guess' maybe you're talking about the proverbial giggly blonde. As for women being condemned for trying too hard to look beautiful... I have a rather off-topic question: is your planet close enough to Spectra to see it with the naked eye, or do you need binoculars? I have never lived in this world you speak of. When was the last time you watched "Entertainment Tonight?" I see beautiful women idolized and practically worshipped by our society. Go and tell Jessica Simpson about this contempt for women who are too beautiful. She gained ten pounds, and the press, critics, and fans all ran out to warn Godzilla that a new contender was in town. Beauty magazines are photoshopping flab out of photographs. Certain TV stations have spent millions on cutting-edge technology that can enlarge the breasts of their news anchors, automatically in real-time for live broadcasting. There's china's little switcheroo with the little girl who "sang" at the Olympic Ceremonies. Britney Spears just made an epic comeback after being completely out of her mind for years, and she summarized her grand resurrection in one of the sickest songs she's ever done (I'm sure you know the one I'm talking about. I'll refrain from posting a link to it here for the benefit of any kiddies who go to this site). One of the verses in a nutshell is telling the world that it doesn't matter what she's done... she's hot, and that's all that matters. You mentioned early on about the hope (hinted at by heroines) that people will see past the physical and realize your inner beauty as long as you're a good person. Society's obsession with celebrities has more than proven the exact opposite: As long as you're gorgeous on the outside, you can be as ugly as the city of Sodom on the inside.There is still a lot of gender objectification in this world, and that's very unfortunate. If a woman is perceived as being too beautiful and paying too much attention to her appearance, let alone too "girly," she is not taken as seriously as the less girly types. I don't support the slutty bratz look, but why is it so wrong for a doll like Rainbow to have a feminine body? Should we be instilling that kind of shame into our little girls? There is nothing inherently sexual about having a big chest unless you dress inappropriately, yet when they see it on a doll, people complain. So...why not? Let's see what "tween" Rainbow looks like. Let's be comfortable with our adulthood. I think Hallmark knows what they're doing. They're catering to all the age groups at once. Most little girls nowadays like to have dolls that embody their latent femininity. Us Gen-X'ers have grown up knowing that Rainbow Brite didn't grow up with us. Isn't it fun even in the slightest to see her finally catch up to us?
Starvoyager wrote:Alright, I must be misinterpreting this part completely, because it seems like you just stepped into bizarro-world. About not being taken seriously for being too girly, I 'guess' maybe you're talking about the proverbial giggly blonde. As for women being condemned for trying too hard to look beautiful... I have a rather off-topic question: is your planet close enough to Spectra to see it with the naked eye, or do you need binoculars? I have never lived in this world you speak of. When was the last time you watched "Entertainment Tonight?" I see beautiful women idolized and practically worshipped by our society. Go and tell Jessica Simpson about this contempt for women who are too beautiful. She gained ten pounds, and the press, critics, and fans all ran out to warn Godzilla that a new contender was in town. Beauty magazines are photoshopping flab out of photographs. Certain TV stations have spent millions on cutting-edge technology that can enlarge the breasts of their news anchors, automatically in real-time for live broadcasting. There's china's little switcheroo with the little girl who "sang" at the Olympic Ceremonies. Britney Spears just made an epic comeback after being completely out of her mind for years, and she summarized her grand resurrection in one of the sickest songs she's ever done (I'm sure you know the one I'm talking about. I'll refrain from posting a link to it here for the benefit of any kiddies who go to this site). One of the verses in a nutshell is telling the world that it doesn't matter what she's done... she's hot, and that's all that matters. You mentioned early on about the hope (hinted at by heroines) that people will see past the physical and realize your inner beauty as long as you're a good person. Society's obsession with celebrities has more than proven the exact opposite: As long as you're gorgeous on the outside, you can be as ugly as the city of Sodom on the inside.
FanChan wrote:A part of this post caught my eye, and I have to say something about it.
Starvoyager wrote:Alright, I must be misinterpreting this part completely, because it seems like you just stepped into bizarro-world. About not being taken seriously for being too girly, I 'guess' maybe you're talking about the proverbial giggly blonde. As for women being condemned for trying too hard to look beautiful... I have a rather off-topic question: is your planet close enough to Spectra to see it with the naked eye, or do you need binoculars? I have never lived in this world you speak of. When was the last time you watched "Entertainment Tonight?" I see beautiful women idolized and practically worshipped by our society. Go and tell Jessica Simpson about this contempt for women who are too beautiful. She gained ten pounds, and the press, critics, and fans all ran out to warn Godzilla that a new contender was in town. Beauty magazines are photoshopping flab out of photographs. Certain TV stations have spent millions on cutting-edge technology that can enlarge the breasts of their news anchors, automatically in real-time for live broadcasting. There's china's little switcheroo with the little girl who "sang" at the Olympic Ceremonies. Britney Spears just made an epic comeback after being completely out of her mind for years, and she summarized her grand resurrection in one of the sickest songs she's ever done (I'm sure you know the one I'm talking about. I'll refrain from posting a link to it here for the benefit of any kiddies who go to this site). One of the verses in a nutshell is telling the world that it doesn't matter what she's done... she's hot, and that's all that matters. You mentioned early on about the hope (hinted at by heroines) that people will see past the physical and realize your inner beauty as long as you're a good person. Society's obsession with celebrities has more than proven the exact opposite: As long as you're gorgeous on the outside, you can be as ugly as the city of Sodom on the inside.
Maybe it is a matter of complete mis-interpretation, or it could just be the fact that you haven't been there (and can't, being male). This all boils down to discrimination. As much of a not-radical-feminist as I am, I'll still be the first to say that women are still discriminated against. The only difference between now and fifty years ago is that we can make a legal fuss about it.
It amuses me that you bring up Jessica Simpson to try to make your point. Sure, she makes millions, she's successful, she's famous, but no one's denying that. No one's denying that beauty can get you ahead in life. But come on. When's the last time you, or anyone, took Jessica Simpson seriously. Part of her whole image is being the ditzy blonde that no one pays any serious attention to. If she really is that way, then that simply prooves that money and a good agent are all you need in Hollywood. However, I question if she's really that way, in the same light that Ozzy Osbourne is not as much of an imbucile as his reality show made him out to be (I've seen the guy in concert, he's quite put together and is fairly easy to understand, it's just that his tv image relies on something else). If that's the case with JS, then that rather prooves our point - no one cares about a gorgeous blonde with smarts.
This I do agree with...thing me and Starvoyager are arguing is the view of beautiful. Why do people think they need to change Rainbow's look to a more Barbie-esque look to make her more appealing? I think the original Rainbow is beautiful....it's a commentary on our society when little girls need to see someone be a certain shape with a certain look to be considered beautiful. You ever see the Dove soap campaigns to make girls feel better about themselves? The commercials always show girls of all shapes and sizes and colors etc....With the new design...it should have been unnecessary I think is the point. I certainly don't disagree with you on the fact that beautiful women are thought to be more stupid or whatever...I completely agree with you....but at the same time why does this mean they have to change Rainbow? She was already beautiful...the problem lies in societies view of what beauty is. Beauty is not one mold.Now, to the original point - beauty, taking extra care of yourself, plastic surgery; none of these things will make a woman a surgeon, or an astronaut, or a physicist. In fact, taking extra care of your appearance often causes your colleagues or future colleagues to look down on you, precisely because of the Hollywood portrayal of beauty=ditzy that you see in Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears. In fact, if a beautiful woman does make it high up on the corporate ladder, it's generally assumed by those involved that she has a daddy with a lot of money, a really good lawyer pulling the discrimination card, or that she slept with someone. You don't think that way, and maybe you've never been able to be present in such a situation to experience it first-hand, so you can't see how other people would think that way, but I'll tell you that it happens. Often.
As Starvoyager pointed out before we are part of what seems to be a very rare group of people...we know what it feels like to be looked at in certain circumstances and have people act weird...my own family does it to me for gods sake.....I agree the things like black stereotypes is retarded...i'm not in the least racist....but at the same time...some people of other races CAN BE (but not always..therefore stereotypes are bad yes) overly sensitive to absolutely nothing......We were walking to a restaurant over the weekend and we had to walk downtown...I will openly admit I looked at this group of "black guys" when we were walking but not for too long...let me explain why though....We live in such a politically correct time that open discrimination is most times absent; but what we have no is far worse. We have discrimination that's harder to proove, harder to see, so those who don't experience it, such as yourself, don't believe it's there. I used to think discrimination against black people was all but gone except in hicks and white supremists, until I started talking about it with a certain black friend of mine (one who does not in any way - save for loving fried chicken, but who doesn't - emmulate the black stereotypes). He opened my eyes to the little ways it happens, the lack of eye-contact, moving to the other side of the street, women shifting their purse to the far side. These aren't things anyone else would notice; some of these people probably don't even realize they do it (I was guilty of some of them without realizing it); but when it's happening to you, you notice, and it hurts a whole hell of a lot worse than just having someone out and out saying it where everyone can hear. I, for one, make it a point not to do those things, to make eye contact, smile, engage in conversation, any time I can, with everyone.
I agree with this. For two reasons...the one you gave and the fact that (and I hope Starvoyager isn't upset i'm mentioning this...he might have wanted to bring it up himself but maybe he can elaborate) people like him have actually been FIRED...and told later they WERE better at the job....becuase they were REQUIRED to have a certain amount of people of another race on staff. He was told he was better suited for the job but the guy of the other race got it simply because of the fact he was another race. If they were going to do this couldn't they have at least picked someone who could do the job even better than Starvoyager?Little things of this sort happen to women, too. Especially when they're beautiful. You may not see them, but they're there. I'm not talking about chivalrous actions - opening the door, helping carry a heavy load, etc, I approve of these things - but things like ignoring a woman when she offers to help a group of men with something, especially if it's an activity considered 'masculine', such as fixing a car, or hauling heavy things.
I will say one thing. I think Affirmative Action was the worst thing that could have ever happened to minorities, including women (not to mention what it's done to white males). In a white-male dominated position, if there is a woman or someone of a different race, it's often assumed that they were only hired due to AA, and so aren't taken as seriously, or given as much important work as other people. And heaven forbid they actually are there due to AA, and aren't suited for the job. That only reinforces the idea. AA tells us that we can't get the position without a little bit of help. We can't compete with the white male, so why try? Just slap down the discrimination/minority card and you can get what you want, whether you're qualified or not (to a certain extent). It also cheats those white males who worked hard their whole life, are perfectly qualified for the job, more qualified than anyone else, but the company needs to meet their AA quota, and so give the job to someone less qualified. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't work for me.
Okay, so, I should say something about Rainbow Brite in here somewhere, right?
RB was a huge role model in my young life. She was strong, smart, taken seriously by her comrades (save for Krys at first, who rather emmulated the whole 'women can't possibly do a man's job' philosophy), and at the same time was absolutely beautiful. She wasn't afraid of getting dirty and threw her whole self into the situation, no matter how dangerous. She was spunky, with a fantastic personality. That's what I loved about Rainbow Brite, that's what I tried to become growing up. I like to think I achieved that.
I personally don't see that in the new Rainbow Brite design. But we only have one or two pieces of art to go by. I like that she's pretty, I just hope they don't make her too girly, those aspects of Hollywood femininity I've always tried to escape - the gobs of make-up, the extra-perfect hair, the fear of getting dirty, etc. Hopefully they will use the internet or something of that sort to give her some kind of personality so girls can actually have a role-model that exists beyond just the aesthetics of dolls.
Also, just on a totally other aspect of my observations of the art, is it just me, or does Starlite look to have shrunk in the process of growing Rainbow up? I don't know if that was just to balance the piece of artwork, so Starlite isn't overbearing, but he looks a bit pony-ish, despite the still-skinny legs.
Hrm I kinda felt Brian was 12 or under so...would that mean they're actually going to make Rainbow not only look older but actually be older? Sixteen or something perhaps?FanChan wrote:Heh, just look at Brian whenever he rode Starlite. He certainly didn't make Starlite shrink.
Brian was 10 in Peril in the Pits...he says that he's almost 11TheWendybird wrote:Hrm I kinda felt Brian was 12 or under so...would that mean they're actually going to make Rainbow not only look older but actually be older? Sixteen or something perhaps?FanChan wrote:Heh, just look at Brian whenever he rode Starlite. He certainly didn't make Starlite shrink.
Ah yes there you go...I always liked to think he was the same age as the number on his top haha But anyhow...I guess they've either aged Rainbow to be older than that or Starlite has shrunk?Chibi Rachy wrote:Brian was 10 in Peril in the Pits...he says that he's almost 11TheWendybird wrote:Hrm I kinda felt Brian was 12 or under so...would that mean they're actually going to make Rainbow not only look older but actually be older? Sixteen or something perhaps?FanChan wrote:Heh, just look at Brian whenever he rode Starlite. He certainly didn't make Starlite shrink.