Boss Fight Studios 1/12 and EPIC HACKS

I don't think being weirded out is necessarily the same as judging someone. With that in mind, I will never understand some peoples' obsession with nipples on action figures and it will probably always weird me out.
 
I think Sonja has no anatomy because it's just the Champagne Blank intended for whatever customs, due later this year.

I can take or leave how much detail they put on a breast - but first I do want equality, And it's funny how many wrestling figures are just hairy dudes in Speedos but they shy away from the hot body, hair and nipples.

But second, my favorite XESRAY gladiator is Berenice, mostly because she looks like Kassandra from Assassin's Creed, and her nipples are just actively against the articulation and the armor set up they have going. If you move the torso at all, she's just popping out all over the place. It wouldn't even matter if she didn't have nipples because it's still stupid to pop out like that. And I don't even care about the popping out. I think it's stupid because you have no articulation thanks to that armor, but you do have to keep her in a very very particular position in order for it to look correct.

I would love to swap that out with something custom or one of the other gladiators, but I've seen so much breakage-footage on YouTube even though these figures are supposed to come apart, I've just never wanted to.

Also, credit to NECA for giving Mirage Casey a proper package considering he is providing us with the gray sweatpants experience. I thought that was pretty cool.
 
I always enjoy seeing people discuss the anatomical accuracy of figures, I like seeing the arguments for and against. For me, it's pretty simple - if a character has armor that is meant to come off, then I would prefer to see correct anatomy under there. To me, and perhaps only to me, if you can take the armor / clothing off to the bare skin, then what is the point if the body isn't accurate? That's for female characters and male characters, by the way.

Do I want to display my figures naked? Generally, no (though there are exceptions - the LC Hellwitch with the removable top is on my shelf with her tits out). Those Xesray Gladiator women were great figures, and I had them for a while (sold them off, unfortunately). If I recall, you could remove their tops but they had painted g-strings, essentially. So it made sense that they did not have sculpted vaginas. I don't want a naked, dong-out Conan on my shelf, but if you give me the option to remove all of his gear/clothes then I'd rather see something down there.

Perhaps that makes me a weirdo, and it's certainly possible :ROFLMAO: I typically prefer that my figures don't have removable clothing to begin with, so I think that's why I'm in this space - making the clothing or armor removable means it is a play feature, so no reason to be shy at that point.

As for the missus, she's hilarious. Whenever a new female figure comes in, she looks it over to see if it has a nice butt, or a pretty face, and will dog on it if it doesn't. When she handled Sonja, her exact comment was "why does her skirt move so easy if there's nothing under there? Oh, wait, butt! Ok..." :ROFLMAO: different strokes, and all that. I don't see myself painting nipples or sculpting them (or vaginas), but I guess I don't think oddly of those who do.
 
TheRealSmallville said:
For me, it's pretty simple - if a character has armor that is meant to come off, then I would prefer to see correct anatomy under there.
Click to expand...
But why, though - I guess is where I'm at?
I could see it if the purpose of the figure was to either be naked or be clothed, so you need options for both. But if the purpose is to be able to take the clothing off just to put on different clothing - why does it even matter what's underneath? The point of the sculpt under the clothing is to give the clothing/body the correct shape/proportions. Not to be anatomically accurate. To your point - the play feature (usually) would be choosing which clothing is on the figure, not the idea of not having any clothing at all.

Like with Eamon's figures of Darkwolf, the Nord, and the upcoming Conan; you can strip them all down to Naked Ken Doll and see their plastic flesh-colored featureless lump. But they're not meant to be -displayed- that way, so who cares that there's nothing there? Why slap a fucking cock on there, or waste money painting underwear, when it literally doesn't matter?

To be fair; 'why' here is probably more of a rhetorical question, because I imagine the answer is 'that's just what my brain wants.' And I'm not trying to argue about what someone prefers. There's no point in that. I guess I'm just stressing how little sense it makes to me and why it's not something I think I can ever understand.
 
Damien said:
But why, though - I guess is where I'm at?
I could see it if the purpose of the figure was to either be naked or be clothed, so you need options for both. But if the purpose is to be able to take the clothing off just to put on different clothing - why does it even matter what's underneath? The point of the sculpt under the clothing is to give the clothing/body the correct shape/proportions. Not to be anatomically accurate. To your point - the play feature (usually) would be choosing which clothing is on the figure, not the idea of not having any clothing at all.

Like with Eamon's figures of Darkwolf, the Nord, and the upcoming Conan; you can strip them all down to Naked Ken Doll and see their plastic flesh-colored featureless lump. But they're not meant to be -displayed- that way, so who cares that there's nothing there? Why slap a fucking cock on there, or waste money painting underwear, when it literally doesn't matter?

To be fair; 'why' here is probably more of a rhetorical question, because I imagine the answer is 'that's just what my brain wants.' And I'm not trying to argue about what someone prefers. There's no point in that. I guess I'm just stressing how little sense it makes to me and why it's not something I think I can ever understand.
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose if the point of removing the armor is just to switch it to different armor, then I guess that would be a little different than what I was trying to say in my post. I was thinking more in the realm of "you have only one armor set, and it's completely removable down to skin". Weren't the Xesray Gladiator women like that?

If you only have one set of clothes, and they give you the option to take them off, then I see no reason for that play feature to exist other than to have sculpted parts under there. I guess I don't understand what the point would be in being able to remove everything if its not to see their parts...doesn't that mean that the play feature is to be either naked or fully clothed in that scenario? So I guess that's why my autistic ass says it would prefer to have sculpted bits lol Otherwise, what is the point of removable armor if they don't give you multiple armor options? It doesn't mean you have to display them that way, but there are people out there who like that stuff and some of you were just talking about whether you get judgy or not lol

For the record, I also mentioned that I prefer if my figures don't have removable armor. That typically solves that problem out the gate.
 
TheRealSmallville said:
Well, I suppose if the point of removing the armor is just to switch it to different armor, then I guess that would be a little different than what I was trying to say in my post. I was thinking more in the realm of "you have only one armor set, and it's completely removable down to skin". Weren't the Xesray Gladiator women like that?

If you only have one set of clothes, and they give you the option to take them off, then I see no reason for that play feature to exist other than to have sculpted parts under there. I guess I don't understand what the point would be in being able to remove everything if its not to see their parts. So I guess that's why my autistic ass says it would prefer to have sculpted bits lol Otherwise, what is the point of removable armor if they don't give you multiple armor options? It doesn't mean you have to display them that way, but there are people out there who like that stuff and some of you were just talking about whether you get judgy or not lol

For the record, I also mentioned that I prefer if my figures don't have removable armor. That typically solves that problem out the gate.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I think the point is almost always swappability. Like, just because a figure doesn't come with more stuff doesn't mean OTHERS don't. The point could also be a buck system where it's cheaper to have one body and make new secondary attachments for the various releases. Both XesRay and Vitruvian HACKS are examples of both philosophies where the buck system means only making new secondaries AND you can and are intended to swap those secondaries around between figures.

Epic HACKS Red Sonja is the same. She uses a buck system for cost reasons, AND literally comes with different secondaries so you can choose how she's dressed. So anyone saying 'well, she needs nipples for when I undress her' is, in my opinion, just being kind of weird.

Either way, in both cases you aren't really intended to just display the figures naked.
 
Damien said:
To be fair, I think the point is almost always swappability. Like, just because a figure doesn't come with more stuff doesn't mean OTHERS don't.
Click to expand...

I guess I hadn't really thought about it from that angle. I'm not typically swapping armor / clothing on figures, so I guess that probably didn't occur to me. As I said, I don't generally want to display any of my figures naked, and I suppose that also ripples out to not wanting to swap clothing, so I can see where you're coming from on that. That's a great point.

Damien said:
Either way, in both cases you aren't really intended to just display the figures naked.
Click to expand...

And, again, I don't generally wish to display any of my figures naked lol But as for what is intended or not intended, I think companies know that if the option to go naked is there then at least somebody is using it for that. And in that sense, I don't see any harm in figures being at least somewhat anatomically correct. If you don't want cocks and vaginas on the figures, I would generally agree they don't need to be there - however, nipples I think should be included for the simple reason that if you can remove armor then maybe you want your characters to be shirtless. Male and female. Action heroes of the 80's rarely kept their shirts on for long, and if you're displaying a figure of Rambo or Conan, for example, then why not look accurate? Nipple it up, I say!

Ultimately, I don't actually care if we're being honest. I just saw a topic and decided to chime in. If a figure has nipples (or more), then you don't need to display them that way. I don't either. But maybe there's somebody who does want to display them that way, so more power to them I say. They aren't hurting me or my collection any lol
 
TheRealSmallville said:
I guess I hadn't really thought about it from that angle. I'm not typically swapping armor / clothing on figures, so I guess that probably didn't occur to me. As I said, I don't generally want to display any of my figures naked, and I suppose that also ripples out to not wanting to swap clothing, so I can see where you're coming from on that. That's a great point.
Click to expand...
To be fair, it's only at the forefront of my mind because it was one of the primary elements of Vitruvian HACKS and I was -heavily- invested in that line for quite a few years. It's also where, I think, I first saw people sculpting and painting nipples on action figures.

However, also totally fair point that there's a lot of shirtless dudes in the action figure world and it IS kind of weird that they don't have nipples. So you can't win, I guess.
 
Tbf, I would prefer my male figures have nipples too, if they're shirtless. And i would display some of them that way if I had more options. Anything like Hercules or Conan, but maybe they come with a removable shirt, I would probably pull off the shirt to show more of the sculpt. And I would prefer them to have nipples and be properly painted. That would look weird af without them. My autistic brain doesn't like things being wrong. And any naked body without nipples is wrong, unless they lost them for some reason.
 
Lol, I was like, more of they burned off or for whatever reason were cut off. If theyre burned Im not 100% sure how they are after that.
 
I'm seriously considering painting some sort of slight undergarment on Sonja. The fact that both belt pieces can shift or ride up makes her look incredibly weird (and if she was anatomically correct it would add to the weirdness factor even more). I know Sonja's costume has never made a whole lot of sense from a practical point of view, and we're talking about a fantasy character that fights giant snakes and wizards, but having an exposed undercarriage is a suspension of disbelief I just can't muster. I mean...maybe in a fight it would give her an advantage to flash her vajajay off to distract an opponent, but I cannot believe ANYONE would go riding horses all across a continent and not wear some drawers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top