bikiniarmorbattledamage:

Meg Foster’s costume weighed a reported 45 lbs., and the actress sustained bruises to her groin from the breastplate she wears throughout the film. Constructed of fiberglass, Foster has said the breastplate restricted her movements a great deal, which is why Evil-Lyn is never show sitting during the film. Foster as also said that the discomfort from the costume helped inform her performance, as the weight and design of the costume forced her to puff out her chest during every take, thus generating the character’s slinky posture.

But people assure us that designs like this are totally practical for real armor… 

– wincenworks

(h/t: @cubefrau – nsfw)

Today’s throwback: real-life evidence of how uncomfortable lingerie-shaped armor is.

Another amazing thing about this costume is how they went out of their way to make it look nothing like it did in the cartoon (on the right there’s redesign from 2002 reboot, for comparison). 

image

So yeah, not only was the movie character redesigned from scratch*, no-one took it as an opportunity to at least make the costume wearable for a living, breathing woman.

~Ozzie  

*To be fair, basically all characters were

A note about Female Armor Bingo Sundays

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

We have previously updated some bingos after they have been posted, however we will not be doing this unless there is an important reason.

Here’s why:

  • Female Armor Bingo is intended as a fun way to encourage critique of popular media and thus draw attention to troubling tropes. Too much pressure to make every bingo perfect takes away the fun and derails the conversation away from the intended purpose.
  • Many of the terms are deliberately vague so as to cover the many forms the trope takes and thus it can become very subjective.
    Nitpicking over details again derails and also encourages the mentality that “No one can criticize you for x, provided you do y.”
  • When people submit bingo cards to us, they’re marking off the points they see – if they miss a point or two on a card that’s already over half full then it doesn’t really diminish from the core point: The armor is disrespectful to women in general and part of a prevalent and harmful trope.
  • Sadly, Female Armor Bingo is not an empirical measuring device – we’ve had absurdly objectifying outfits that didn’t score bingos either due to technicalities or how the squares happened to be filled out. They were still objectifying and deserving ridicule.
    Just like the famous Bechdel Test, the bingo is supposed to shed light on a bigger trend in popculture, not to meticulously analyze who and what “passes”.
  • Finding new content for the blog, checking submissions, researching and writing posts, etc. is time consuming and a much higher priority than tweaking bingos that are already entertaining and on-point.

While it’s great fun to joke about the exact score and keep a tally of the highest scoring bingos it’s not essential for every bingo to be 100% accurate and correct.
So from now on we’ll be limiting edits after posting to important and noteworthy events – like that time we discover that against all odds, Fran’s outfit was worse than we dreamed.

~Ozzie & – wincenworks

As the Female Armor Bingo is nearing its third anniversary next month, it’s good time for a reminder that the game’s main goal is to help the audiences observe and point out prevailing harmful tropes of female warrior costume design. Not to narrow down definition of sexism, let alone judge which outfits are “sexist enough” to criticize based on the score.

That said, as updating the board is our unofficial yearly tradition – do you, readers, think some squares should be changed or adjusted to reflect any common design problems that aren’t addressed yet?

~Ozzie

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

Hey Nintendo, I have an idea for a game for you – make a new Zelda game but use bits of these comics from 1990 as the concepts.  The bits where Zelda is kicking ass, rescuing the innocent and helping people overthrow evil.

– wincenworks

(ht: Kotaku)

So, Nintento… since you’ve taken a pretty good first step in this direction, just reminding you that any time you want to make Legend of Zelda game where the twist is you play as Zelda from the comics – the world is ready.

Any time.

Any time is good.

ANY TIME.

– wincenworks

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

simonjadis:

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

About Female Fantasy Armor by ~Kaptain-Kefiah

Read More

Absolutely excellent post. As a viewer, I’m absolutely distracted (by the mostly nude man), but there’s no way that I’d be facing him on the battlefield going “and now I’ll just wield this polearm and … oh no, he’s hot!”

By far my favorite point is that there is a difference between telling a realistic story and a naturalistic story. naturalistic story tells a story that is completely plausible in our world. No wizards, no dragons, no secret vampires, no alien invasions. Telling a realistic story is telling a story that is logical and consistent and makes sense (even if the setting is in a fictional world or in a reality very different from our own).

PS: About the chainmail bikinis, specifically? Don’t say “oh okay but what if she were wearing it like a joke and then ended up being stranded somewhere in that,” because then it’s clear that, as a writer, you’re just using a “crowbar” to force your character into a bikini. Same thing if the bikini armor is somehow magical and sufficiently protective—it’s obvious and awkward because you obviously just wanted an enchanted bikini in your story.

There are plenty of opportunities to make characters wear less clothing. For one thing, people in the privacy of their homes tend to wear less (and everybody loves a good in-the-room shirt-change—they’re almost mandatory on supernatural dramas). Also, an kind of shape-shifter who does much more than swap faces is going to have a clothing problem. Unless you are using fairytale/Harry Potter magic where clothes transform, too, most versions of werewolves are going to have issues with their clothing. Same thing for someone who turns into a hawk or vapor or a fire golem or a giant squid.

But if you’re telling a story about a fantasy world and you want a warrior man or woman who is under-dressed, consider other things. Take Young Justice (the recent television series). Superboy often ends up with his shirt partially or completely destroyed, because while he is all but invulnerable, his shirt is made of cotton and does not take as well to being slashed at by claws or set on fire or hit with a blast from an energy weapon.

An invulnerable warrior would not necessarily have invulnerable clothing or armor, and if there were some rare material that was nearly as invulnerable as the warrior herself/himself, it might be expensive. I think that it’s a bit of a cheap move, but someone who is invulnerable and on a tight budget might spend the money on “modesty” armor that can survive a blast of dragonfire or being gnawed on by a pack of wolves. After that, you keep the story engaging and stakesy by deciding upon that unbreakable warrior’s vulnerabilities (drowning, starvation, suffocation, inhaled or ingested poison, magic, telepathy, kryptonite, whatever).

But even if you got yourself a dragonscale loincloth or a diamondmail bikini, you’d still wear clothing of some sort over that. And it probably wouldn’t be skintight. You don’t have to be ashamed of your body to not wear a catsuit—you might just want to be comfortable or not stick out like a nothing-to-the-imagination thumb in the middle of a crowd.

(You needn’t make such a character completely indestructible — there are a lot of superpowers that make a person not need actual armor, including unbreakable skin (which leaves you immune to cuts, not to bruises and crushing attacks) and regeneration (like a vampire or Wolverine), though most regenerators would probably want armor anyway)

Great response! simonjadis makes some really good points!

mod note: best parts bolded for emphasis

This week’s throwback: a real blast from the past! Comprehensive explanation of why “bikini armor makes no sense” is a completely different issue from “bikini armor is unrealistic". 

As we explained in many posts before and after this old reblog, bikini armor is such an inherently absurd concept that it shatters suspension of disbelief for even most lavishly fantastic setting (particularly if male armor is conveniently not skimpy in comparison). 

When there are so many more reasonable scenarios to put fanservice in your work than fashioning female armor into lingerie/fetishwear (and there always are), “fantasy isn’t supposed to be realistic” rhetoric just won’t cut it.

~Ozzie

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

sandandglass:

The Creative Act of Listening to a Talking Frog

Kermit the Frog gives a talk on creativity and creative risk-taking

We touched upon the subject of how taking no creative risks leads to creating content that is not only unoriginal, but also casually offensive

Also, more often than not, the belief in effectiveness of tired formulas seems to go hand-in-hand with this weird conviction that anything an artist makes is inherently “creative” and therefore should not be criticized. Or revised. Which is, to say the least, a pretty damn disingenuous attitude.

~Ozzie

more about “creative freedom”

Given this week’s trend on showcasing games so generic that they can literally be using the same assets it seems appropriate to bring back these wise words from Kermit the Frog about creative risk taking.

Also to not-so-subtly hint that there’s a whole lot of potential for creative exploration in the realm of badass women who are not dependent on appealing to the male gaze or wearing ridiculous “armor” to show off that they don’t need armor.

Just saying.

– wincenworks 

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

One of these is from satrical RPG parody game,one is a promo for a pornographic parody and one character from an Applibot game.  Applibot claims to make “high quality fantasy” games.

When you’re more ridiculous than ridicule and more porny than porn, it’s time to reconsider your design principles and concept of “high quality”.

– wincenworks

As a follow-up to our last video post illustrating the amazing originality of “sex sells”-based game design and marketing, this week’s throwback is the reminder that arbitrary sexualization basically serves as its own porn and parody already, defeating the purpose of the real things.

Keep in mind that, as far as we know, Applibot does commission original “sexy” artwork for their games instead of stealing and/or asset flipping existing images, yet most of their designs fit squarely into the trend of generic impossible metal bikinis (and sometimes are just outright horrific – open the link at own risk)

So yeah, while directly ripping off someone else is obviously wrong, perpetuating generic sexyness with your own stuff does no good to the industry either.
And most likely will lead to having your generic stuff stolen by the asset flippers anyway.

~Ozzie

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

thefingerfuckingfemalefury:

The image chosen to go along with this parody headline is so perfect…

Another example of how amazingly acute Point & Clickbait’s satirical articles are.

Let’s take a moment of thoughtful appreciation for the fact that they devoted an article to concisely sum up a huge chunk of our “creative freedom” tag.

~Ozzie

The ongoing saga of people getting outraged that Blizzard uses their beta period as a beta period and adjusts the game.  It’s worth mentioning that Blizzard also removed a tasteless masturbation joke at the same time.

Perhaps one day, Blizzard will be the kind of company who upon declaring their game is to improve representation will fix these issues before they publicly showcases a beta with finished art.

– wincenworks

More on Overwatch on BABD | More on Blizzard on BABD | More satire on BABD

Ordinarily we wait longer before we bring back posts but it seems that there’s been a recent event involving a certain product we post about from time to time, and the response by certain demographics has been woefully predictable.

In case you missed it: Blizzard has revealed via a comic for people who enjoy Overwatch and want more fluff (x): Tracer lives with her female romantic partner.  How did the aforementioned demographic reply?

image
image
image
image

(Best view on Twitter: here, here and here)

So yes, predictably it turns out that the people who are used to being pandered to constantly don’t actually appreciate creative freedom – they just think it makes a cool catchphrase (or magic incantation in some cases).  

There was, however, a bright side: the response from women who celebrated that Overatch’s mascot character was confirmed to a lady attracted to ladies, and loudly reaffirmed their appreciation of as well as their right to representation.  That was truly awesome.

– wincenworks

Modesty

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

kristaferanka:

So yesterday, Kelly Thompson released an article for She Has No Head! where she discusses 6 recent Female Superhero costume designs that she feels are an improvement of what came prior.

Amongst the designs that were chosen was my Psylocke design, which is in the company of artists like Meredith McClaren, Ross Campbell, Mark Brooks, Jamie McKelvie, Phil Noto, and Jesus Siaz. Not a bad group of artists to be grouped with, if I do say so myself.

Basically the gist of the article was about costumes should be designed by artists who also know fashion and design, rather than just pencilers who will have to be drawing that character for their book, and how when the right person is tasked to design the costume that it will have a far better outcome. She went through and chose characters who she felt needed the update, and talked about how the redesign was an improvement. 

Characters like Psylocke, Glory, Poison Ivy, Ms Marvel, Jubilee, Valkyrie, and Domino. 

And as anything involving comics, hatred quickly followed the heels of this article. what else would you expect, right?

But within the comments, a few points were being brought up that puzzled me that I sort of wanted to address, Instead of my initial reaction which was to get into a comment war. Thankfully, that was a path I didn’t go down because I had things I needed to do with my day and I couldn’t waste it in what would undoubtedly become an insult match.

One of the ideas that kept coming up was the notion that there is a trend in current female costume designs that the designer must pander to screaming feminists by covering the character from head to toe and take away all of the characters sexiness and by result make them boring. 

Now I’ll be honest, I don’t like being yelled at by feminists. But I also don’t like to be yelled at by womanizers, or kids, or anyone. So I want to just rule that out as a motivation. No one wants to get yelled at. 

Secondly, sexiness is subjective. A character can still be considered “sexy” even if it doesn’t fit with your tastes. To say that by giving a Female character a piece of fabric to cover her ass cheeks up is ruining her sexiness, ALL that means is that YOU think that an exposed ass is sexy. There is absolutely no way to make a blanket statement about that. Some people think a baggy shirt on a girl is equally as attractive as an uber skin tight shirt.

Sexiness has NEVER been a factor when I design a character. Sex appeal ONLY comes into play when the characters PERSONALITY dictates that as a factor.

The CHARACTER must be first and foremost the inspiration and guideline for all the decisions made when trying to design the clothing. NOT what you want to see on a characters to get your rocks off. I find that frankly immature, and an insult to the character you are trying to do justice to. 

Granted, what is “correct” by the character is also incredibly subjective. Everyone see’s a character differently. This is Fact. This is the exact reason that everyone has different favourite characters, we each see something different that attracts us to them. The best a designer can hope for is that their interpretation can ideally appeal to the largest majority possible of that characters fan-base. No one wants to have a design that fans hate, but you can’t please everyone. 

And just to speak for myself, modesty was never a factor. I never approached storm’s, or psylocke’s, or spiral’s design with the sole intention of hiding their skin. The amount of real estate that ended up being covered or not was ENTIRELY dictated by my attempt to respect the character. There was no “psylocke has to be fully covered because it would be indecent for any of her skin to be showing”. I wanted to have her covered because I felt that a character who is performing stealth assassinations would want as little wound-able flesh showing. 

My go-to example of a character that should be showing skin is, of course, Emma Frost. Here is a character who prides herself on her looks. She is an incredibly confident character mentally, and likes to show off herself physically. Emma Frost flaunting it works because it works for HER. She likes control, she likes power, and one of the best tools for that is her body. She can turn heads with her body, she can command attention with it. She wouldn’t even need to use her telepathy to have someone lose focus. Emma Frost is incredibly intelligent, she knows what she is doing. There has to be a REASON for the skin. 

Even with male characters. Namor doesn’t need to cover up anything because he is indestructible. Armour would give him no benefit, and would probably hinder him. In fact, having Namor show off skin actually helps to tell a lot about him as a character. It shows his confidence, it shows he isn’t afraid to be attacked, and it largely makes sense given he lives in water. 

Colossus doesn’t need full covering, because all he has to do is become metal, and he has his own protection. 

There has to be a REASON.

To what tactical function would a spy need her cleavage hanging out? Does it help a character who is an acrobat?

There is nothing inherently wrong with cleavage, but it needs to be based on either the characters personality or by what they do. I cannot stress this enough. It cannot just be cause the artist felt like drawing a zipper down. 

Fan-Service is no longer a logical reason to do anything. The Story should be the Fan-service by being a good story and doing the character justice, and the art should support that. 

And, an Artist’s tastes are an entirely defendable reason for something, but dont try to pass it off as anything else. You can argue that it makes sense for psylocke to wear less clothing because she wants less covering her to hinder her mobility, and that does hold some water to it. It does make sense to a point. But to say the stripes of clothe on her serve any other function that just for appearance sake is laughable. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong about just saying something is drawn that way because thats what the artist likes. I do it all the time. There are things that I draw a certain way, that Ross draws a certain way, that Mark draws a certain way. It’s one of the weird double-edged swords about comics, but a lot of the audiences participation with the comic is determined by the artist and their tastes. It’s just one of those things where the artist holds a lot of power in their hands, and as such, there is a level of accountability that the artist owes the readers, but the readers arguments must come from a place of logic, rather than just “You ruined her because I want to see more tits!!”. No one has time for that

Covering characters works. Uncovering characters work. The character determines what will or will not work. There is no mandate. There are no threats. At least there weren’t for me when I designed X-force. I had incredible freedom to design as how I saw fit. As I assume how it went for the other artists that designed the marvel costumes. 

I find it funny that out of the 6 costumes in that article, 5 were designed by guys. I think that just goes to show that there isn’t this gender mental block that makes men unable to design practical costumes for the opposite gender.

Anyone can design any costume for any gender as long as they approach it with with respect and understanding. 

And thats my rant on that haha

Excellent commentary about priorities and goals in character design.

It’s baffling to me how some creators can spend time pondering over the exact history of a character, or how to compose a shot to homage to a classic work, then turn around and decide that it is VITAL that a female character has to be as sexy as possible even if it goes against all other aspects of her and her story.

I mean really, I would think the way they dress would be considered far more important an aspect about the character’s expression than the occasional line they drop about what school they went to.

– wincenworks

Took the liberty of bolding the most relevant parts for emphasis (and to break down the great wall of text that this article is).

~Ozzie

As a followup to the article about X-23′s newest costume, it’s time we brought back this comprehensive post explaining how superhero costumes have to be designed with a character-driven purpose* in mind. And sex fanservice sells” is no such purpose. 

~Ozzie

*which is not the same as “character totally personally would choose to dress like that~!”