FA+
Shop
My Unpopular Opinion
5 years ago
General
People keep talking about how fans forced them to change Sonic so we can get them to change Lola, too!
You're wrong.
The Sonic movie's first design was intentionally bad because they knew fans were going to cry about it, no matter what. So they made something supremely worse than their intended finished product so that they could say "Look how bad this was! We listened to our fans and fixed it!" That way they look like they care and the fans are appeased; a classic win-win situation. In reality they never planned on using the bad version in the first place and used the viral notoriety of the fan's backlash to boost awareness of the film and springboard into higher success. It was a ploy. A commercial tactic. The fans did not get them to change Sonic!
This is the same deal. The fan's backlash over Lola's redesign is a platform to boost awareness of the film, a film I didn't even know about until this whole thing blew up. Hmmm... Guess it worked!
Unlike the Sonic situation, the company will not change Lola to appease a bunch of horny bunny lovers. The film is not targeted at fans of the first film. You are not the "fans" they are looking for. You are the target of commercial manipulation and are being used to highlight a bigger agenda. This isn't about gender neutrality or feminism. This is about agitating people in just such a way to make sure the maximum number of people hear about it. Your outcry for change is nothing more than free advertising to them!
*Real Talk*
I like Lola's new design better than the old one. It fits more naturally with the other characters. It is visually less jarring and I feel more comfortable with her.
If I had a poster of the original Lola Bunny up in my room, it would feel about the same as if I'd cut the centerfold out of a men's magazine. A poster with the new design feels more benign. More readily acceptable.
"I don't want to be horny anymore! I just want to be happy..."
You're wrong.
The Sonic movie's first design was intentionally bad because they knew fans were going to cry about it, no matter what. So they made something supremely worse than their intended finished product so that they could say "Look how bad this was! We listened to our fans and fixed it!" That way they look like they care and the fans are appeased; a classic win-win situation. In reality they never planned on using the bad version in the first place and used the viral notoriety of the fan's backlash to boost awareness of the film and springboard into higher success. It was a ploy. A commercial tactic. The fans did not get them to change Sonic!
This is the same deal. The fan's backlash over Lola's redesign is a platform to boost awareness of the film, a film I didn't even know about until this whole thing blew up. Hmmm... Guess it worked!
Unlike the Sonic situation, the company will not change Lola to appease a bunch of horny bunny lovers. The film is not targeted at fans of the first film. You are not the "fans" they are looking for. You are the target of commercial manipulation and are being used to highlight a bigger agenda. This isn't about gender neutrality or feminism. This is about agitating people in just such a way to make sure the maximum number of people hear about it. Your outcry for change is nothing more than free advertising to them!
*Real Talk*
I like Lola's new design better than the old one. It fits more naturally with the other characters. It is visually less jarring and I feel more comfortable with her.
If I had a poster of the original Lola Bunny up in my room, it would feel about the same as if I'd cut the centerfold out of a men's magazine. A poster with the new design feels more benign. More readily acceptable.
"I don't want to be horny anymore! I just want to be happy..."
First, I doubt Sonic's design was deliberately bad as a PR stunt. Iirc they delayed the film and spent a lot of money re-doing the effects. They wouldn't have done that if it was a PR stunt.
I don't think Lola's redesign is a PR stunt to gain controversy. You could make an argument that the re-draw memes are astroturf. I think the redesign was done to try and appeal the blue checkmark crowd since they assume the fans of the first film and those who only know "shut up and jam" memes will see the film regardless.
You might be right that they don't care about furries, but this isn't a kids film either. It's just the latest in a long line of 80s and 90s remakes/reboots intended to get money from nostalgia and to renew expiring copyrights.
As for the design being more benign. I don't know. I don't remember any complaints about the original design being too sexual for a kids film. It's also hard to square that with similar censorship in other cartoons and games.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
I don't think Lola's design was a publicity stunt; I think people's reaction to it is giving them the opportunity to feed off of it's notoriety instead of "making them change" anything.
Okay, here's a complaint: her original design was too sexual. It made me uncomfortable then and makes me annoyed, now.
Everyone hates them neutralizing "sexy" characters, but no one minds when someone sexualizes a "neutral" character. I'm tired of everything revolving around sex. I'm tired of pretending I'm not bothered by it.
I struggle to think of an example of that happening, whereas there's lots going the other way.
"I'm tired of everything revolving around sex."
I've got bad news for you. The design being less sexy won't mean there's less sex. It could even mean there's more.
The She-Ra reboot was a great example. The characters were covered up and made less sexy in appearance, but the villains are defeated by a gay kiss.
But in the official media itself, no. Every character is being covered up and made less sexy visually.