Ranting over the new Rainbow

[TheWendybird]

Or it could be it is just an example design. Will probably be fixed up.

I really like the new RB's outfit but I think her facial features need to be changed a bit to be a little more cute. The new SSC has her face a tiny bit but the rest went out the window so don't even say they are the same. it is only their faces now the pets seem to be dropped now too.

Personally it's not that I think SSC looks the same as she use to. But that she's more so than the new Rainbow looks like the old rainbow. There is still more similarity than there is with the new and old Rainbow Brite.

[*C9*]

Not since recently they have switched over yet again they just look like fashion dolls now. Playmates has the new license and changed quite a bit. We haven't seen the complete rb change I think she looks closer to the old one than SSC. Being a collector of both but that is just my opinion though. Taking away the ages and facial features RB is much closer. Ican't stand seeing SSC in outfits that resemble nothing like they used to.

[TheWendybird]

Not since recently they have switched over yet again they just look like fashion dolls now. Playmates has the new license and changed quite a bit. We haven't seen the complete rb change I think she looks closer to the old one than SSC. Being a collector of both but that is just my opinion though. Taking away the ages and facial features RB is much closer. Ican't stand seeing SSC in outfits that resemble nothing like they used to.

They're ruining all our favorite toys *cries*

[FanChan]

They've also done quite the number on Polly Pocket. However, I for one adore those little chibi-fied My Little Ponies, with the big heads and skinny limbs. I think they're absolutely adorable *-*

[TheWendybird]

They've also done quite the number on Polly Pocket. However, I for one adore those little chibi-fied My Little Ponies, with the big heads and skinny limbs. I think they're absolutely adorable *-*

I just re-bought a My Little Pony i had when I was little off ebay...i think the line of ponies was called "brush n grow" where you pull the tail out and it gets super long...I bought this one named Bouquet I had when I was real little...i can't wait to get her *squeals* I think the new ponies are okay ..more okay than other re-designs of things i've seen but I still prefer the old school

[*C9*]

And they did a new version up of the ponies we call them G4s now they look even less like ponies >.> I have no idea what they are doing.

[Cypher]

Sorry for the delay, I meant to get back to this sooner. A few more people jumped on the bandwagon and had great things to say, so I'll try to just clarify a few points or respond to some good opinions. I apologize for the length...

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.

This is a very good point and I admit I didn't consider the media influence. But for all we know, Hallmark could be planning on developing a new series. Given the recent success of Care Bears and Strawberry Shortcake, they might figure out that they need a cartoon this time around. (I'll be the first to admit I don't like the new Care Bears series or redesign, and although I have no complaints about SSC's redesign I don't like the show because it lacks the fantasy element. As a fantasy/sci-fi junkie, this was a big disappointment for me.) Fans of RB have wondered if they could just air the old show on TV again, but I don't know if that would work so well. The cartoon was an 80's product through and through and it shows. 80's cartoons were much better than they are now, we all know it, but I wonder if today's children and their overprotective parents would relate to old school RB. They're used to cartoons that have been dumbed down for them and overly sanitized, and some of those overprotective parents complain at even the least hint of danger, let alone "scary" villains. Here's a question for you: if the old TV show was advertised correctly, do you think today's kids would take to it? (The kids whose parents are generation x-ers are another story entirely.) I might also add that the DVD releases are not doing so well. The U.S. hasn't even seen an official episode release, and the movie appears to be out of print--in some used DVD stores, you can sell it back for as much as $10, that's how rare it is. Alright, this could be the fault of the manufacturers for not cranking out enough copies, but are people actually buying the film? I've seen several on ebay for outrageous prices that don't sell, and one or two in Borders bookstore; they just sit there on the shelves...and sit there...and still there a few weeks later.

So why is Rainbow being depicted the way she is in fan art? Simple. It's what the fans of her turned into when they grew up. And I don't just mean taller and more anatomically-developed. You'll also notice that quite a few of the drawings don't just add breasts to her, they also have her intentionally drawing attention to them; both with the posing, and with a tighter, more revealing outfit. And there are other images that take this idea far further.. This is being done because many of these fans are more perverted (one of the rather common side-effects of growing up, particularly in the modern age). As a result, this is what the fans want from their more grown-up superhero: to make them feel better about themselves. And there's no need to stop at fanart to support this theory. On Robot Chicken, she's shown off her undies, chugged scotch, cut Murky & Lurky to pieces with a chainsaw. And then there's those skanky Halloween Costumes that have come out in the past few years, which have been stunningly popular sellers.

No, I don't think the fans are trying to tell themselves that growing up changes nothing. Growing up has already changed them, and they know it. As a result, they're trying to tell themselves that growing up also changes the shimmering superheros just as it did them. If a child superhero that one looks up to, survives the transition to adulthood unchanged, it would undoubtedly instill the individual with a sense of failure.

Had to preserve this one in it's entirely because you hit the nail on the head. I was of course referring to the tasteful fan art and the portrayals of a decorous older RB (there are a few of those somewhere). I'm not a fan of the sexed-up RB striking suggestive poses, the halloween costumes, Robot Chicken portrayals, constant reference to "star sprinkles" as drugs, etc. By growing her up, I'm not at all suggesting that she should be aware of her "allure" and purposefully draw attention to herself in that way. At the same time it is a hard balance to strike because of what you pointed out about Superman--nobody wants a totally perfect superhero.

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 guess everyone's different in that regard. Live-action role play gradually lost its appeal to me after the age of five or so. Inter-stellar warrior...heh, you too? I'm somewhat of a space case myself, only I envisioned myself as more of an envoy to alien worlds than a warrior. I do indeed know you're male by now, though it's interesting that I couldn't tell at first. I've been surprised a few times before on internet forums, but I like the ambiguity. I think it's great that people can talk like intellectual human beings without always being aware of gender and the assumptions that go with it. And being very girly myself--for starters, I'm not too into sports, I like pop music equally as well as rock, I love bright colors--it always makes me happy to find that there are men out there who like "girly" things. There are plenty of tomboys in the world and that's fine with me, but I always wondered if it went the other way, because I hadn't met too many (heterosexual) guys who liked "girly" things (for lack of a better word). I guess I wanted that affirmation that communication can go both ways and that stylistic preference is not a gender-based thing but something based on personality and character.

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....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.

Oh, well, see, I'm a fantasy/sci-fi writer and you don't become one unless you've pretty much been one all your life. It was always high-fantasy for me unless I played with my sisters and friends, who preferred down-to-Earth. I had a few child protagonists too, but I think the adults outnumbered them.

You find it sad, perhaps even wrong, that people become too old... or more accurately BELIEVE they've become too old, for childish things, which I very much agree with. I think you're misinterpreting the "I miss my childhood" sentiment though. Though I can totally relate to the desire to be physically younger, (and I think just about everyone can, just because of the additional freedoms that come from it vs. being old, needing 5 minutes just to walk out the door to the car, and being on a super-strict diet/exercise routine for health reasons, not to mention fear of Death depending on your personal views), this isn't the great tragedy of aging in my opinion. It's what you already stated: the total abandonment of childhood instead of achieving a healthy balance between childishness and responsibility. I see this being the same tragedy that is metaphorically referred to in Peter Pan (in case you are, do NOT use the Disney Cartoon as a basis, read the novel and learn a little about the author to see what his inspiration was). The reason the nostalgics are crying to have their childhood back, isn't simply referring to a personal physical transformation: it's referring to everything that goes with it.

I can easily sympathize with people who wish they had the energy of their youth like you said, seeing as I have some bothersome health problems myself (breathing issues). I just think it can get to be a rearview mirror outlook on life if you long too much for your childhood. Sure, I had less health problems in my childhood, but moving on with life is a source of strength.

You say you still play with toys/dolls, but I don't know to what extent. Feel free to elaborate on this, because I'd like to know if you, at age 23, are actually not above pulling some dolls out, and play-acting with them. If you actually do that, then you are a rare creature indeed. And if you do things like this, I'm equally interested in knowing if you have ever found anyone to play with. This is where the nostalgics' cry for a return to childhood is focused: not on themselves, but on their environment. On days when I'm visiting my folks, I see children out the window playing on the same street that I once did, and it is downright painful to know that I can't go out there and join them; not because I'm physically/emotionally/mentally unable to, but because any parent who peered out the window and saw it would immediately go into a complete panic. And even if the parents didn't, the kids in all likelyhood would, because of warnings from parents, teachers, etc. This has of course, nothing to do with WHAT I am, only what I appear to be. Paranoia about pedophelia is at an all-time-high, and shows no sign of calming down any time soon. And even if it did, it's never completely going away. And because the disorder can't be detected in a person prematurely, there's only one way to spot a pedophile: look for an adult person with an interest in children. "Oh... how lovely. Alright, well, we might as well continue playing tag until the cops get here... you're it!"

Elaboration time! Yes indeed, I still play with toys and dolls at 23. (Playmobils too! You know, those German toys that look sort of like Legos.) Affected voices and all that good stuff. I suppose it's a lot like voice acting, getting into character, exaggerating the personalities of your characters, etc. Hehe, rare creature...I must be an alien from another planet, like you said later. I play with my sisters--they are currently 18 and 15 (my 22-year-old sister doesn't play; she's the "normal" one of the bunch). We're all too old for this stuff by society's standars, but I'm glad I actually have siblings who share my philosophy. Sad to say though, every year we seem to play less, just because everyone's always busy--I was in college the last four years, and they're both in high school now so they're too busy with homework to do much playing. I have a couple of guy friends around my age (22 and 18, brothers). I visited them once when I was in 10th grade and they were both not above playing with toys (Playmobils again)--in fact I think they enjoyed that vacation a great deal. Don't know if they would succumb now, though; 7 years or so have gone by.



I never tried playing with young children as an adult. It's just too awkward with the parents like you said...I think I'd run up against a lot of the same problems you do. People are less afraid of a woman approaching their children, but the distrust is still there; why is that girl trying to play with my kids? Is she...you know...mentally challenged? I don't want her around my children! The only way I could play with children and not have anyone be suspicious is by babysitting. Even then, you're right that it's tricky; kids are sensitive beings and cry easily if the game is not going their way. Well enough if they're crying because their sibling did something to wreck the game, and you as the babysitter can sort it out. The moment you enter the game, you accept the knowledge that you can be responsible for making that child cry.

Luckily, I have had the fortune of meeting and befriending a handful of children during my adult life, and also the fortune of their parents eventually understanding what I was (even if they were nervous at first). But all of these incidents were the result of me being approached by children rather than the other way around. Even then though I've always known I was playing with fire, or perhaps more accurately, a rotweiler. They're really sweet and fun, but there's always the chance that it might suddenly decide to tear your face off. All someone would've had to do is have a momentary surge of vindictiveness, make a false allegation, and legal Hell would've been unleashed. Thankfully, I'm a total financial loser, unlike a certain condemned pop singer, which greatly reduces the advantages of spinning wild tales.

Very true indeed. I sympathize with you completely. It's great though that you're actually brave enough to make the effort. I limit myself to family play time, which doesn't happen as often as my sisters and I would like. If I play by myself, it's in silence because it's just too weird doing all the voices by yourself, you know? Kids do it all the time. Sadly, age has made me self-conscious about some things, after all.

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 and TheWendybird analyzed this one in great detail, and Fanchan in particular got what I was trying to say--namely, that women are objectified and often not taken seriously. Sorry about the communication breakdown. Yes, you're right, our culture idolizes these supposedly "beautiful" women, but worship is not the same as respect. I feel that even when society glamorizes women, it's still all about the hype--the dirt, the scandals. The real core of these people is lost beneath all of that, and maybe, as you said, the personalities of these women aren't even that interesting. In fact, I would say that most of the women who are idolized in the media aren't interesting enough as people for me to really care about them, but the world is convinced they are interesting, just because they're looking at the shell instead of the substance.



On the flipside of the coin, we get women who are intelligent but are objectified anyway. I admit when I wrote that comment, I had been doing a lot of research on The Bangles because their band history interested me. Those women had something to say; they wanted to be respected for their music as an all-female group, but the media glamorized their image and spun them out of control. I thought in particular of Susanna Hoffs and how no one was interested in any of the Bangles except for her. According to their interviews, she wasn't trying to be the lead singer or the diva, but because the public judged that she was the "beauty" of the group, she was propelled into the media time and again, to the resentment of the others. I thought this was a bit unfair, really, because I honestly didn't see anything exceptional about her looks compared to the others, and anyway the talk should have been centered around their music, right?



I might also add that I have my own opinions on what kind of look is beautiful; I don't really find any of those modern stars--Britney Spears et al.--to be anything but ordinary. Everyone could look like them if they gobbed on that much makeup and hairspray. Also, I realize that by talking about beauty earlier, I might have sent out the impression that I'm one of those ditzy girls who spends a lot of time preening or is otherwise vain of her appearance (uh-oh). Suffice to say I never wear makeup unless I'm performing on stage (all that goop feels nasty), I don't put any product in my hair (I rather like it poofy), and being just under 5 feet tall I definitely don't conform to society's standards of the tall, lanky, long-limbed supermodel. But I'm totally fine with that. The only complaint I have is against society's measuring stick: one mold of beauty--as you, Fanchan, and TheWendybird pointed out--and if you don't conform to it, people will write you off. I just don't believe that's the only exemplar of physical beauty, let alone inner beauty which is the most important of all. (And it might be more subtle, but there is a standard that men are supposed to emulate as well.) It's all just objectified nonsense.

My issue with Rainbow being more 'mature' (and I mean that physically) isn't an aesthetic issue, since there are artists who's "teen" depictions of Rainbow I have been OK with the look of. For one, it's the clash with the story. Either A: Rainbowland is a Neverland-type place where nobody gets older, or B: Everyone who lives there is immortal and doesn't grow old anyway....Additionally, as a result of this, a child-like figure doesn't automatically equal being mentally/emotionally child-like. They're able to take care of themselves quite well without parental supervision. They do chores, they cook, they tend gardens, they have complex relationships, and they make responsible decisions. For them, being physically "five" isn't much of a hindrance, and there's really no need for them to grow. But that doesn't mean they aren't still gaining experience from their countless years.

True that. There really is no need for her to grow up, but the reason I think it's an interesting change to explore is because we, as human beings, do grow. We don't look perpetually five. Rainbow Brite can either stay young and wise forever not unlike some kind of immortal faerie, or she could reflect human age by growing up as well. Both, I think, are valid choices, and which aspect a person prefers to see in his/her superheroine is ultimately subjective. Also, remember The Beginning of Rainbowland as opposed to the later episodes (i.e. Queen of the Sprites)? Blame it on the animators, but she somehow looked younger in the first episodes. Her eyes were larger (an anime indicator of youth). She looked as though she was the age she appeared. In later episodes the wide-eyed childishness is a bit diminished, reflecting perhaps her immortality and the experiences she gathered along the way. She may not have grown much, but the growth is there nonetheless.

But then, I find the original Rainbow design to be beautiful. And with the update, my problem isn't so much the body type, it's the face. Something about it looks fake and superficial. Her expression borders on insincere. So forgive me if I'm a bit uneasy about it.

Oh, of course the original design is beautiful. I think she's adorable the way she is. Again, I just don't think that growing up should change her or detract from her charm (a natural aging, mind, not a glamorized Barbie). I realize her look might become insincere to the original design if the manufacturers screw it up. Therein lies the danger. I'm not worried about the face so much just yet--it's an illustration. Being a 23-year-old alien from another planet who loves to loiter in the toy aisle and take just about every toy box into my clammy little hands, I can say that the box illustrations often deviate a great deal from the actual product inside. Now we wait until the product comes out to pronounce final judgment.


Oh, and if I understood you correctly, then congratulations to you and TheWendybird on your engagement.

~Marysia

[TheWendybird]

Well I must say you make much more sense I think now that it's all been explained haha And thanks for the well wishes! I know Starvoyager read this I dunno if he's gonna reply yet tho?

[Starvoyager]

This is a very good point and I admit I didn't consider the media influence. But for all we know, Hallmark could be planning on developing a new series. Given the recent success of Care Bears and Strawberry Shortcake, they might figure out that they need a cartoon this time around. (I'll be the first to admit I don't like the new Care Bears series or redesign, and although I have no complaints about SSC's redesign I don't like the show because it lacks the fantasy element. As a fantasy/sci-fi junkie, this was a big disappointment for me.) Fans of RB have wondered if they could just air the old show on TV again, but I don't know if that would work so well. The cartoon was an 80's product through and through and it shows. 80's cartoons were much better than they are now, we all know it, but I wonder if today's children and their overprotective parents would relate to old school RB. They're used to cartoons that have been dumbed down for them and overly sanitized, and some of those overprotective parents complain at even the least hint of danger, let alone "scary" villains. Here's a question for you: if the old TV show was advertised correctly, do you think today's kids would take to it? (The kids whose parents are generation x-ers are another story entirely.) I might also add that the DVD releases are not doing so well. The U.S. hasn't even seen an official episode release, and the movie appears to be out of print--in some used DVD stores, you can sell it back for as much as $10, that's how rare it is. Alright, this could be the fault of the manufacturers for not cranking out enough copies, but are people actually buying the film? I've seen several on ebay for outrageous prices that don't sell, and one or two in Borders bookstore; they just sit there on the shelves...and sit there...and still there a few weeks later.

The most they've told us so far that 'might' give an indication of something that could be called a Cartoon, is the mention of "Rainbow's Digital Space."This probably means Flash Cartoons (which is pretty much the only kind of cartoon that exists anymore in the Western world). And that actually could have something to do with the redesign. The flatness of it, particularly the hair, looks like something that would be much easier to animate in Flash than the original RB.

I'm OK with SSC's new look too for the most part. I don't like the lack of fantasy in it, but her appearance is fine to me. Unlike RB's redesign, SSC at least still looks child-like, innocent, and full of fun.

As far as the original cartoon goes, naa, I don't think it'd be enough. Not because of the plot, but simply because there isn't enough 'show' to work with. It doesn't even really classify as a television series (I was pretty dissapointed when I found out how few the episodes were). I don't see what there would be that would scare parents today. There's nothing particularly scary about the RB villains. Murky and Lurky are hilarious, and their plots have no lethal aspect to them (unless you count the time where Lurky want 'bats' with the Grunge Buggy and almost ran everyone over... but that was just him being an idiot). The Dark Princess? She's clearly more dangerous and is inadvertendly causing an apocalypse-like scenario, but that's offset by her having the emotional and mental capacity of a 5-year-old spoiled snob. Then again, if modern parents are taking issue with their 14-year-old being into scary stuff, then they must be doing a pretty lousy job. I just saw Twilight and got a really freaky dose of reality about what teenyboppers are into now.

No clue how well Starstealer did, but I sure struggled trying to find a copy. I wanted to have two and keep one packaged, and only ever managed to get one. If there's fans who still want the movie, unless they've visited here, they probably have no idea there's ever been a DVD release.

Had to preserve this one in it's entirely because you hit the nail on the head. I was of course referring to the tasteful fan art and the portrayals of a decorous older RB (there are a few of those somewhere). I'm not a fan of the sexed-up RB striking suggestive poses, the halloween costumes, Robot Chicken portrayals, constant reference to "star sprinkles" as drugs, etc. By growing her up, I'm not at all suggesting that she should be aware of her "allure" and purposefully draw attention to herself in that way. At the same time it is a hard balance to strike because of what you pointed out about Superman--nobody wants a totally perfect superhero.

There's a difference between having no flaws, and never being confronted with a real challenge. Superman's personal struggles are primarily emotional rather than physical. With Rainbow I see the opposite. As far as I'm concerned, her spirit can't be broken, but that doesn't mean she can't be defeated or conflicted. For one, a Brian/Krys love triangle comes to mind, and would fit right in with common tween plot hooks.

I guess everyone's different in that regard. Live-action role play gradually lost its appeal to me after the age of five or so. Inter-stellar warrior...heh, you too? I'm somewhat of a space case myself, only I envisioned myself as more of an envoy to alien worlds than a warrior. I do indeed know you're male by now, though it's interesting that I couldn't tell at first. I've been surprised a few times before on internet forums, but I like the ambiguity. I think it's great that people can talk like intellectual human beings without always being aware of gender and the assumptions that go with it. And being very girly myself--for starters, I'm not too into sports, I like pop music equally as well as rock, I love bright colors--it always makes me happy to find that there are men out there who like "girly" things. There are plenty of tomboys in the world and that's fine with me, but I always wondered if it went the other way, because I hadn't met too many (heterosexual) guys who liked "girly" things (for lack of a better word). I guess I wanted that affirmation that communication can go both ways and that stylistic preference is not a gender-based thing but something based on personality and character.

I still try to do it when I can. It can be some good exercise too. http://www.cpvipers.co.uk/images/battle1_Renewal_06.jpg

It's hard to say how I ended up like I did. I think I would've had a good balance of masculinity/femininity no matter what. Both of modern society's extremes drive me bats; the cliqey gossip & designer shoes thing, and the easy-chair beer-drinking Sunday-night football thing. There 'are' heterosexual guys like this, but the pressure on them is far greater. Girls more or less have had far more social freedom in recent years. If they're typical girls, nobody says anything. If they act more masculine, they get praise from everyone for having the guts to break the mold that men allegedly forced them into during the cro-magnon era. But guys who have a feminine side? They still have to hide in the closet. I might as well add in here another element of the "new" RB that will probably end up bugging me to a degree. Even if it's as good as the old one, I might have more trouble getting into it this time. There was guy appeal in the old version. I seriously doubt there will be any of that this time around. It's just not in the cards anymore for entertainment companies. They focus entirely on their target audience, and ignore everyone else.

Oh, well, see, I'm a fantasy/sci-fi writer and you don't become one unless you've pretty much been one all your life. It was always high-fantasy for me unless I played with my sisters and friends, who preferred down-to-Earth. I had a few child protagonists too, but I think the adults outnumbered them.

Heh, another one, eh? I've been writing sci-fi since I was about 10, on my Commodore 64's word processor.

I can easily sympathize with people who wish they had the energy of their youth like you said, seeing as I have some bothersome health problems myself (breathing issues). I just think it can get to be a rearview mirror outlook on life if you long too much for your childhood. Sure, I had less health problems in my childhood, but moving on with life is a source of strength.

Ick, yeah that'd be a problem. I've been stuck with losing a lot of my fitness in the past couple years. One of the side-effects of not having anyone to play with for years, and now having weather so nasty that there's only 3-4 months out of the year where it's warm enough for us to go out and do ANYTHING. I definitely need to get into gym stuff soon to keep it from degrading further, but then oh the joy of joys, spending potentially hundreds of dollars per month. Generally though I think acting younger keeps people younger (which in turn increases longevity later on), essentially the same as getting good exercise, but more fun than just running on a treadmill everyday.

Elaboration time! Yes indeed, I still play with toys and dolls at 23. (Playmobils too! You know, those German toys that look sort of like Legos.) Affected voices and all that good stuff. I suppose it's a lot like voice acting, getting into character, exaggerating the personalities of your characters, etc. Hehe, rare creature...I must be an alien from another planet, like you said later. I play with my sisters--they are currently 18 and 15 (my 22-year-old sister doesn't play; she's the "normal" one of the bunch). We're all too old for this stuff by society's standars, but I'm glad I actually have siblings who share my philosophy. Sad to say though, every year we seem to play less, just because everyone's always busy--I was in college the last four years, and they're both in high school now so they're too busy with homework to do much playing. I have a couple of guy friends around my age (22 and 18, brothers). I visited them once when I was in 10th grade and they were both not above playing with toys (Playmobils again)--in fact I think they enjoyed that vacation a great deal. Don't know if they would succumb now, though; 7 years or so have gone by.

Yeah, I know Playmobil. I had an awesome pirate ship from that way back in the day. Well there's one thing I definately don't have. Not only am I an only child, there isn't a single kid in my entire family. The "grown-up" transformation has always boggled my mind. I never understood why being grown-up in some ways has to take over what people do with their spare time. Once the opposite sex comes into play, that's usually what changed people. Normal people tend to shun their friends once they go after a mate, and things are never the same again. Friendships that were unbreakable suddenly aren't even a priority anymore.

I never tried playing with young children as an adult. It's just too awkward with the parents like you said...I think I'd run up against a lot of the same problems you do. People are less afraid of a woman approaching their children, but the distrust is still there; why is that girl trying to play with my kids? Is she...you know...mentally challenged? I don't want her around my children! The only way I could play with children and not have anyone be suspicious is by babysitting. Even then, you're right that it's tricky; kids are sensitive beings and cry easily if the game is not going their way. Well enough if they're crying because their sibling did something to wreck the game, and you as the babysitter can sort it out. The moment you enter the game, you accept the knowledge that you can be responsible for making that child cry.[/quote]

Heh, interactions with the parents I think have been more scary than meeting the future potential inlaws for the first time. Usually I just find that talking with them once or twice on their level, they quickly realize I'm actually intellectual, which I'm sure just has them scratching their heads more. Somehow they usually just figured it out. Except for one situation where after a year, suddenly someone decided that maybe I was dangerous and told their kids not to play with me anymore. I'm still confused by that one. With the crying, I can't ever remember it happening. I still keep a good level of control in a babysitting type manner, but kids never realize I'm doing it. I can usually read who will or won't be ok with being the villain, or being 'slain', and whatever other situations can lead to feelings being hurt. Surprisingly, the same pattern applies in the MMORPG world. Adult RPers tend to have the same range of mentalities. Some want complete control over EVERYTHING that happens with EVERYONE's characters, and others are much more open-minded and like being surprised by the outcome of the scenarios.

Very true indeed. I sympathize with you completely. It's great though that you're actually brave enough to make the effort. I limit myself to family play time, which doesn't happen as often as my sisters and I would like. If I play by myself, it's in silence because it's just too weird doing all the voices by yourself, you know? Kids do it all the time. Sadly, age has made me self-conscious about some things, after all.

I'm sure if I had younger family who played, I'm sure I'd be doing that. Though... my dad likes game consoles and has been playing co-op games with me since I was 5, so I guess technically I still do that a little. That's obviously not the same as playing with the kiddies though. I got to do a TON of playing on my own when I was little (which may or may not have somewhat of an impact on why I still play so much). Some of solo play has actually helped to develop my sci-fi tales.

Fanchan and TheWendybird analyzed this one in great detail, and Fanchan in particular got what I was trying to say--namely, that women are objectified and often not taken seriously. Sorry about the communication breakdown. Yes, you're right, our culture idolizes these supposedly "beautiful" women, but worship is not the same as respect. I feel that even when society glamorizes women, it's still all about the hype--the dirt, the scandals. The real core of these people is lost beneath all of that, and maybe, as you said, the personalities of these women aren't even that interesting. In fact, I would say that most of the women who are idolized in the media aren't interesting enough as people for me to really care about them, but the world is convinced they are interesting, just because they're looking at the shell instead of the substance.

Heh, it's kinda interesting that this Susan Boyle thing came out when it did because she's shaken up the norm so much. 'course, people will probably forget about it within a couple weeks and go back to "idiocy as usual" like they always do. It certainly made a good point though. Most of the things you mentioned here affect guys too though in one way or another, and is more of an issue with humanity as a whole rather than one sex. All of society is superficial and despite all of our "enlightenment" we've acquired over the past few millenniums, humans are still operating on an "appearance first" basis. You mentioned that you like the ambiguity of the internet when it comes to identity, and this is one of the first things I found incredibly fascinating about it, back when all we had were local dial-up bulletin board systems. After all the crap I'd been seeing in highschool, I found the 'blinders' of keyboard-based communication very intriguing. A way of talking to others that enables you to see their mind first, instead of their body, seemed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. The "dirt" being the focus isn't just an issue with women though. There's no such thing as bad publicity for a celebrity, regardless of whether it's a man or a woman. More people liked Bill Clinton as a result of the sex scandal. Monical Lewinsky was out to ruin his reputation, and instead, all she managed to do was empower it. Not only did his polls skyrocket, but now millions of women were swooning over this perverted adulterer of a man.

On the flipside of the coin, we get women who are intelligent but are objectified anyway. I admit when I wrote that comment, I had been doing a lot of research on The Bangles because their band history interested me. Those women had something to say; they wanted to be respected for their music as an all-female group, but the media glamorized their image and spun them out of control. I thought in particular of Susanna Hoffs and how no one was interested in any of the Bangles except for her. According to their interviews, she wasn't trying to be the lead singer or the diva, but because the public judged that she was the "beauty" of the group, she was propelled into the media time and again, to the resentment of the others. I thought this was a bit unfair, really, because I honestly didn't see anything exceptional about her looks compared to the others, and anyway the talk should have been centered around their music, right?

Heheh, right. 'course, if music was society's most important focus when they look at musicians, then Michael Jackson would still have been playing his role as the King of Pop during the past 15 years.

I might also add that I have my own opinions on what kind of look is beautiful; I don't really find any of those modern stars--Britney Spears et al.--to be anything but ordinary. Everyone could look like them if they gobbed on that much makeup and hairspray. Also, I realize that by talking about beauty earlier, I might have sent out the impression that I'm one of those ditzy girls who spends a lot of time preening or is otherwise vain of her appearance (uh-oh). Suffice to say I never wear makeup unless I'm performing on stage (all that goop feels nasty), I don't put any product in my hair (I rather like it poofy), and being just under 5 feet tall I definitely don't conform to society's standards of the tall, lanky, long-limbed supermodel. But I'm totally fine with that. The only complaint I have is against society's measuring stick: one mold of beauty--as you, Fanchan, and TheWendybird pointed out--and if you don't conform to it, people will write you off. I just don't believe that's the only exemplar of physical beauty, let alone inner beauty which is the most important of all. (And it might be more subtle, but there is a standard that men are supposed to emulate as well.) It's all just objectified nonsense.

Heheh, nice. With the makeup thing, I've even thought that Britney sometimes looked like a clown, and that's not an exaggeration, that's just literally how much vibrancy she had in her makeup color. It's good that you don't care about burying yourself under 5 layers of products trying to conceal the fact that people have this thing they like to call skin. And, oh, yes... men are being held to a standard... it may not be as prevalent with the makeup, though, with the recent rise of metrosexualism, I really wonder if that may change within a couple decades. But with the dress... good grief. The workplace was mentioned earlier with how women are less often taken seriously than men. The workplace is an absolute terror on man's fashion. Men get ONE choice when it comes to the work-place dress code: slacks, dress shirt/jacket, and tie. That's IT. Women can wear everything between that, and the cliche Bombshell Secretary with the short red skirt, cleavage-emphasizing top, stilettos, and red stockings. If someone were to wear the male equivalent, he'd be coming to work in a neon-green and chrome speedo, and then he'd be leaving for the unemployment office 5 minutes later. I always found it strange, with all the rules about sexual harassment in the workplace, it's still perfecly OK for a girl to flaunt herself around like a peacock.

The objectified nonsense, is exactly what the corporations want though. The consumerist/capitalist system can't survive without this kind of crap. People spend $50 to get a shirt with a dumb logo on it when they could get an identical shirt without the logo for only $10. The "fashion police" actually exists, in the form of peer pressure. You wear the wrong clothes, and you get shunned. Ultimately what it boils down to is, "You either buy our product, or you become an outcast."

True that. There really is no need for her to grow up, but the reason I think it's an interesting change to explore is because we, as human beings, do grow. We don't look perpetually five. Rainbow Brite can either stay young and wise forever not unlike some kind of immortal faerie, or she could reflect human age by growing up as well. Both, I think, are valid choices, and which aspect a person prefers to see in his/her superheroine is ultimately subjective. Also, remember The Beginning of Rainbowland as opposed to the later episodes (i.e. Queen of the Sprites)? Blame it on the animators, but she somehow looked younger in the first episodes. Her eyes were larger (an anime indicator of youth). She looked as though she was the age she appeared. In later episodes the wide-eyed childishness is a bit diminished, reflecting perhaps her immortality and the experiences she gathered along the way. She may not have grown much, but the growth is there nonetheless.

If Hallmark was doing this Harry Potter-style, I'd agree with this. Harry Potter got older, more or less at the same rate as the target audience. The books were written for one specific generation of children. If they were doing that with RB, then it'd make sense, but they're 20 years too late for that. This has nothing to do with catering to the fans. It's just about switching target audiences because they apparently can't figure out how to make it work for the toddlers anymore. Once again, I see this as hasty. Hallmark is doing things based on false conclusions. The old RB could've worked in one way or another. The reason it didn't is because of mistakes, not because the franchise wasn't still capable of making money.

As for my personal feelings, I'd prefer RB stayed the same. Very little hasn't been utterly ruined by the passage of time, so it's nice, once in a while, to see something that survives.

I noticed the differences too. I could never be sure if this was intentional though, or just due to a change of artists. Hallmark's lack of consistency/quality-control with RB is well-known, and this would just be one more of countless examples.

Oh, of course the original design is beautiful. I think she's adorable the way she is. Again, I just don't think that growing up should change her or detract from her charm (a natural aging, mind, not a glamorized Barbie). I realize her look might become insincere to the original design if the manufacturers screw it up. Therein lies the danger. I'm not worried about the face so much just yet--it's an illustration. Being a 23-year-old alien from another planet who loves to loiter in the toy aisle and take just about every toy box into my clammy little hands, I can say that the box illustrations often deviate a great deal from the actual product inside. Now we wait until the product comes out to pronounce final judgment.

Oh, and if I understood you correctly, then congratulations to you and TheWendybird on your engagement.

when I said "Insincere" earlier I was referring to the design itself. Earlier I mentioned that SSC still looks cute and innocent in her current incarnation, though quite obviously she's behaving a bit older. This RB design, just doesn't have that at all. If we're really lucky, that drawing isn't the basis for the dolls, but between that and the kind of dolls that are being directed at Tweens nowadays, the odds aren't very good.

Hehe, thank you. It hasn't happened 'officially' yet... we're currently in the jewelery production process.