Life-size Busts Male Female Disney

[ukshaun]

I caught some news a while back with regards to Disney and Female Life-size busts and not wanting to 'go there..'. which means Black Widow isn't going to happen anytime soon. Unlike DC who allow both Male and Female Life-size busts.

This got me pondering..
I guess this makes Disney's decision somewhat sexist.
What about equality? i wonder what actresses will make of Disney's stance?
Isn't this denying the likes of Scarlett Johansson to rake in even more money?

[qz33]

It's racist.

[generalzodlives]

Does that mean Captain Marvel was a fluke? Though I suppose you didn't get to see her full face so maybe likeness wasn't an issue for that one.

[Augen]

Disney saving me from dropping $4K on Jaimie Alexander Lady Sif life size bust. Considerate of them.

[Augen]

Originally Posted by generalzodlives

Does that mean Captain Marvel was a fluke? Though I suppose you didn't get to see her full face so maybe likeness wasn't an issue for that one.

They can do female that are covered. So, for example, if their was a live action Spider-Gwen (or Ghost Spider) then would be an issue. A fully exposed female face was the major issue for Disney.

[qz33]

Think harder. Just imagine it.
What super accurate lifesize busts have been done of Marvel males? Like Captain Marvel Thanos and Vision are highly altered.
Biology isn't fair, society isn't fair. A chick's face is way more a money maker than a guy's, in the aggregate.
Yeah they sign on for toys and what not but actresses start seeing some LIFESIZE ACCURATE busts of themselves available to the general public and come contract time agents may be trying to renegotiate or even cause someone to willingly breach their contract in defiance.

Originally Posted by Augen

That was the biggest news for me, for some reason Disney won't allow 1:1 busts of actresses the way it is fine with actors, because...???

To me should be up to the actress if they are comfortable with it. I think if someone was such a fan willing to drop $3K on a bust of me feel honoured, but not up to me.

Originally Posted by qz33

It's a male dominated hobby.
Accurate female sculpts could certainly be put to... unintended purposes.

Originally Posted by Augen

Look, I'm sure there are people that do...things with their statues of all sclaes. I have friends that work in hospital and trust me, people do things with any household object for not their intended purposes.

There isn't consensus on this or Gal Gadot Wonder Woman wouldn't be made. I'm not sure the worst consequences of making them would be that frankly a person wouldn't do without them.

Originally Posted by pdenham

Always a chance they could relent at some point.

I would think this is a Disney edict, not necessarily the individual actresses.

Disappointing to be sure- but with those off the table now, there's a little more clarity on what options are as far as stuff in this price range for the foreseeable future.

To that end, I'm a little surprised Todd still has Alita available. I wonder if anyone that was considering that one was waiting to see some potential Marvel females first?

Originally Posted by qz33

Could be either way. Lots of actresses naturally realize the focus on their looks. Scarlett Johansson, Natalie Portman, and Gwenyth Paltrow were already established and had negotiating power prior to the Marvel movies. Could just be easier to have a blanket policy than to trickle down to actresses' individual contracts.

But yeah I'd still say it's Disney and it just being a knee jerk better safe than sorry reaction. Over time seeing the males do well they could relent. Could just be a money move too. There'd be just so much more fervor for the females.

And I wasn't referring to individual "acts" but gray market recasts and such especially giving a license to a Chinese company. A highly accurate Scarlett "doll" would get a lot of attention and not the kind Disney would prefer.

Originally Posted by pdenham

The possibility of recasts being used for other product never even entered my mind.

I could see Disney lawyers being sharp enough to be aware of that potentiality.

At the same time, no one is really stopping any of those doll manufacturers from hiring talented sculptors themselves and working towards likenesses that skirt the line between "inspired by" or sort of resembles and blatant trademark infringement (or however an actor's license is legally classified).

Since 1:1 is off the table, I wonder how long it will take to see a good 1:2 of the female characters?
Like everyone else I'm curious and looking forward to seeing how well they do the 1:4 scales in polystone- but if they dropped the news tomorrow that they were doing 1:2s of Black Widow and Scarlet Witch for the US market, I'd be jumping out of my skin in anticipation.

As well as stocking up on a years supply of Ramen.

Originally Posted by Augen

I think if demand is there people make such products already. I guess we will see if Gadot "dolls" start popping up all over or not soon with QS and IS coming out.

Originally Posted by qz33

No but assembling that talent and getting to such a design is a much more significant hurdle than having a licensed company pay for, do all the work for them, and all they have to do is make casts. Especially if the licensee has access to proprietary assets.
There have never been products so accurate as these recent busts. So maybe just a little trepidation.
And Disney is in a much better position to be as conservative with their licenses as they please than Warner Bros. MCU is a gold standard.

As accurate as these IS/QS products are I wish they would get away from polystone all together.

Originally Posted by BigMo

Interesting that Captain Marvel bust came out then, they got away with it because her face was half covered. But that could be the only Female Marvel Bust we ever get. I think the price just went up on this.

[qz33]

Plus you have to look at it in terms of what Disney can control.
Queen Studios is a Chinese based company? They can't just yank them through the U.S. court system if they don't wanna play by the rules.

[Brandon]

I agree with Disney's restrictions being sexist. It doesn't matter if a bust is of male or female, it can still be 'abused'. Although female busts are a bit more susceptible.

But Disney is known to play it safe, so I doubt they'll ever lift this restriction. And with all the money they make elsewhere, they couldn't care less about the little profit they'd make from these.

[qz33]

Male ≠ Female

Google's 1st definition:
dis·crim·i·nate
/dəˈskriməˌnāt/

verb
1.
recognize a distinction; differentiate.
"babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion"


sex·ist
/ˈseksist/
adjective
characterized by or showing prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
"old-fashioned sexist attitudes"


BUT now what if instead of "against women" we replace "for women"? Does that change the game?
Now does that necessarily imply "against men"? You think most these birds had enough sway to convince a Disney sized corporation to negotiate an additional percentage of EVERY product based on their likeness?

Maybe just maybe women might not be as eager or may be more apprehensive than men to have a super accurate portrayal of their appearance for sale to the public. You think every guy would be thrilled with it?
Or maybe you just don't believe women to be more sensitive to their appearance compared to men but then I'd say some truths are held to be self evident.

[Gyro Zeppeli]

How about we get an official source first before getting too conclusive? Are there any articles with sources for this?