FA+
Shop
12892
Views
Views
1327
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Fanart
Species Rabbit / Hare
Size 2000 x 1128
File Size 882.5 kB
Report this content
More from eltonpot
Listed in Folders
My 1st attempt at drawing her. Oddly enough.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Fanart
Species Rabbit / Hare
Size 2000 x 1128px
File Size 882.5 kB
Listed in Folders
Butbutbut... she's a strong, capable female now and breasts apparently aren't compatible with strong, capable females!
I always found this argument weird, it's essentially like saying "But she was only a B-Cup, so obviously they weren't very important." The problem with this is severalfold. First, this particular aspect of the design change is obviously pretty noticeable given the number of people to comment on it, so it's a little disingenuous to say it really didn't matter or anything. After all, for whatever reason, this clearly mattered to the design team. The second issue is that the filmmakers are on record saying that this design change was made because they wanted Lola to be a strong female character. Thing is, I think it's actually pretty insulting to women to say that they can't be strong unless they look less feminine. Women should not have to be ashamed of their bodies, yet here Hollywood is clearly treating an aspect of womanhood as if it's somehow shameful.
And guess what, I say this as a person with no strong attachment to Lola Bunny. She wasn't my first furry crush, I never saught out Lola leads, and even now I'm more or less uninterested in the prospect. At the same time though, I do like the type of characters the original Lola from the first space jam represented. She was in essence, an incarnation of the femme fatale archetype, which is a type of character that uses their femininity and sexual appearance to their advantage. This is a very old archetype, and it can be really good when given the proper attention, plus, historically it's been very well received by feminists by in large.
So yes, I'm a fan of this archetype and it pains me that Hollywood has suddenly decided to reject it. What's more, the fact that they've rejected it because they think women should look more conservative and modest is really mindboggling to me. Though, to be fair this was a family film so they could've gotten away with toning it down a little, but this was a little excessive, and was done for some fairly poor reasons if you ask me. Still, it's not really important or anything, it's just a little bit of an eyeroll.
And guess what, I say this as a person with no strong attachment to Lola Bunny. She wasn't my first furry crush, I never saught out Lola leads, and even now I'm more or less uninterested in the prospect. At the same time though, I do like the type of characters the original Lola from the first space jam represented. She was in essence, an incarnation of the femme fatale archetype, which is a type of character that uses their femininity and sexual appearance to their advantage. This is a very old archetype, and it can be really good when given the proper attention, plus, historically it's been very well received by feminists by in large.
So yes, I'm a fan of this archetype and it pains me that Hollywood has suddenly decided to reject it. What's more, the fact that they've rejected it because they think women should look more conservative and modest is really mindboggling to me. Though, to be fair this was a family film so they could've gotten away with toning it down a little, but this was a little excessive, and was done for some fairly poor reasons if you ask me. Still, it's not really important or anything, it's just a little bit of an eyeroll.
Not to disparage other artists, genuinely to each their own and diversity is the spice of life (not in the least limited to artistic expression and depiction.) But this is a genuine pet peeve I have with a lot of fanart and rule 34.
Not that a character is drawn with an exaggerated body type or features, even to extreme extends, that's cool. But more so when it becomes the overwhelming and default norm for a character for whom is not accurate to their design. Characters such as Renamon, Blaze, Krystal and to extent Rouge come to mind. The former two are almost defined in their canon by subtle features - and it's somewhat a shame that exactly those body types are quite rare in art in which they are depicted.
Not that a character is drawn with an exaggerated body type or features, even to extreme extends, that's cool. But more so when it becomes the overwhelming and default norm for a character for whom is not accurate to their design. Characters such as Renamon, Blaze, Krystal and to extent Rouge come to mind. The former two are almost defined in their canon by subtle features - and it's somewhat a shame that exactly those body types are quite rare in art in which they are depicted.
Original Lola had a fine design, it was just her personality that sucked, she was just a fetishized tomboy, kind of like a sporty version of Minerva Mink. The Lola from the New Looney Toons show was WAY funnier, the quirky ditzy type which lends itself WAY more to the kind of comedy Looney Toons was famous for and a good foil for Bugs.
I commend you for drawing her with her real breast size from the first movie: https://uploads.dailydot.com/2021/03/lola-bunny-space-jam-makeover.jpg?fit=scale&fm=pjpg&h=350&ixlib=php-3.3.0&w=700&wpsize=fp_800_350 and for making one of the nicest renditions of her I've seen. =D
Comments