NEW PRODUCT: JF STUFIOS: Children of Twilight Series A "Edward" 1/6 Action Figure

JF STUFIOS Twilight Children SERIES A "Edward" 1/6 action figure
Deposit: 100
Merchant price limit shall not be lower than:
Number: JF Twilight series 001
Official price: 898
Deposit: 100
Opening date: February 22, 2012
Closing date: March 22, 2012
Shipment time: third quarter of 2012
Product List:
High quality head carving X1
Hand shape x 3 pairs hand shape
Clothing accessories:
* 1 a shirt
Gray coat *1 PCS
The belt * 1 a
Jeans *1 piece
* 1 piece of leather shoes
Imitation wooden doll floor *1













#newproduct #JFStudios #ChildrenofTwilight #Edward #male #movie-based

The veins on the neck are a nice detail, not sure if that will make it to production. I'm not a big twilight fan but looks like a decent representation for those that are.

I guess Robert Pattinson is having a bit of a renaissance, lol.

It looks ok for what it is, though the material used for the coat seems a bit odd.

I am not a Twilight fan (except when it comes to making fun of it, maybe), but it is not bad. Just hope they don't expect top dollar for it. And... not that I'm complaining about that, but does he shimmer in the sunlight? Anyway, Go Team Jacob! LOL

Anne Rice began the ruination of vampires and Stephenie Meyer finished the job.

shazzdan wrote:Anne Rice began the ruination of vampires and Stephenie Meyer finished the job.

Yep. Vampires went from scary monsters to romantic wusses.

Tragic, really.

Stryker2011 wrote:

shazzdan wrote:Anne Rice began the ruination of vampires and Stephenie Meyer finished the job.

Yep. Vampires went from scary monsters to romantic wusses.

Tragic, really.

I disagree with this completely. First of all, neither of those authors invented the idea of an attractive or romantic vampire. See almost any gothic romance or gothic literature that predates it. Even Stroker's Dracula had a level of 'sex appeal', as did Sir Christopher Lee's Dracula (literally a bodice ripper type!). Secondly, those particular books may have been popular in their own genre, but they were still highly niche --  it was only the film adaptations of both of those stories (and the film visuals) that actually went mainstream and which entered mainstream consciousness. If you hate the visuals and the casting of those types of vampires, then blame the directors of those films. And finally, to zero in on those two female authors and their portrayal of vampires through the female-gaze is to completely ignore directors like Joss Whedon who also popularised the 'sexy vampire' in the tv show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which was certainly influential in spreading the appeal to teen and young adult audiences.

The male gaze still heavily dominates all visual media, and likewise dominates this hobby. And yet people still feel the need to put down anything that appeals to a different demographic (such as characters created to appeal to the female gaze). It actually greatly upsets me to see these kinds of comments here, especially when it's basically preaching to the choir. I'm sure most others here hate Twilight, too. I myself have no love for it, it's just cheesy YA romance at best, and has its own off-putting aspects that I dislike intensely. And likewise, I am not even a fan of Anne Rice or her Vampire novels. But I will defend the existence of these types of vampire depictions. Certain aesthetics and interpretations appeal to different demographics. And those things existing do not inherently 'ruin' anything. If trends arise, then blame the media and the industry for running with them and ignoring and/or failing to utilise older types of interpretations. I think it's disingenuous to solely blame those specific authors who literally just wrote about their own personal fantasies (whether one likes those or not). There was obviously already an audience for that kind of thing, or it would not have had such an appeal in the first place.

"Sex appeal" is not the same as "sparkly girly-man".

Buffy was a fun show. Spike was my favourite semi-regular character. He was almost a proper vampire.

I think the best vampires in modern fiction were in Stephen King's Salem's Lot.

shazzdan wrote:"Sex appeal" is not the same as "sparkly girly-man".

I'm not arguing that it is. I'm saying that authors like Meyer were just catering to a demand that already existed, in a genre that is specifically directed toward teenage girls. It's understandable that you would not like that, but claiming someone single-handedly 'ruined' vampires just because of their own fanciful interpretation of them is imo unfair and untrue. Yes, there were a handful of knock-offs of Twilight that came in its wake, but most of those eventually petered out and haven't actually had that much staying power, imo. The longest lasting was probably something like The Vampire Diaries tv series, but that was always going to be unappealing to actual horror-vampire fans seeing as it was a cheesy CW show aimed at teenage girls. As as far as I'm aware, those vampires weren't 'sparkly', they were just 'pretty', which is fairly standard fare for that kind of show.

I think people exaggerate the influence of Twilight in relation to vampires. While Twilight did have influence within its own subgenre of supernatural YA romance, the actual concept of vampires is old enough and steeped in enough folklore and history (both cinematic and literary history and in general) that it has easily persisted and stands well enough on its own. And since the two were brought up together, I would say that Interview with a Vampire was far more influential when it comes to cinematic interpretations, but it was the film by Neil Jordan (who, in my opinion, actually has a decent eye for gothic horror) that made it so.

I’ve read Stoker’s Dracula several times, and there is NO a romantic sex appeal in that book, despite that horrible Coppola film trying to suggest otherwise, and though I enjoyed Christopher Lee’s Dracula movies — not one of them followed the book, pretty much at all. Dracula is barely even physically present in the book; his only real appearances take place in the beginning when Jonathan Harker stays at the castle, and the very end when he’s destroyed— otherwise, he’s just a “presence” of pure evil — no romance whatsoever. All that stuff was extrapolation by folks “reading between the lines” — in other words, adding what they thought was there, but wasn’t. I’ve read letters, etc., from Stoker himself, and Dracula was never meant to be a tragic or romantic figure. All of that to say, I think Dan was spot on when he said Anne Rice started that trend. It’s not my cup of tea, and if women want romantic vampires, that’s cool to each their own (my feelings toward romanticizing vampires, is no different than my objection to Wolfgang Petersen’s godawful reinterpretation of the Iliad with the movie Troy).

What you're saying here is different than the previous claim that the romantic type of vampire 'ruins' vampires in general. One can argue about where exactly that interpretation originated all day, but ultimately that's not the point. Your personal preferences are of course understandable, but what I took issue with is the claim that a folkloric figure can somehow be 'ruined' just because another interpretation you don't like also exists.

Who is gonna buy both this fig and the upcoming Lugosi fig and have 'em fight? Please post pics when you do!

davidd wrote:Who is gonna buy both this fig and the upcoming Lugosi fig and have 'em fight? Please post pics when you do!

LOL, that would actually be hilarious.

Well, since others are bringing up all sorts of external vampire references, how about True Blood vampires? I found the show quite a bit ridiculous, but usually fun, suspended somewhere between almost over-the-top crazy and an interesting rationalization of fiction within a realistic framework. I wouldn't mind figures from the show just for the fun of it (they can also double as modern somewhat southern and somewhat rural civilians), but I guess at this point I'm curious to see what our vampire experts thought of the series. I have not read the books.

GubernatorFan wrote:Well, since others are bringing up all sorts of external vampire references, how about True Blood vampires? I found the show quite a bit ridiculous, but usually fun, suspended somewhere between almost over-the-top crazy and an interesting rationalization of fiction within a realistic framework. I wouldn't mind figures from the show just for the fun of it (they can also double as modern somewhat southern and somewhat rural civilians), but I guess at this point I'm curious to see what our vampire experts thought of the series. I have not read the books.

I'd love some from that series, too. I'm actually surprised they never seem to have made 1/6 figures of any of those characters yet. It's a travesty there aren't any decent Anna Paquin figures, for instance. We've also mentioned Deborah Ann Woll before....a figure of her would be great to have for both True Blood as well as for Daredevil/The Punisher. And I would not say no to an Eric Northman (Alexander Skarsgård) figure, lol. ;D

The first few seasons were actually pretty interesting— but once it was revealed what Sookie “is/was” it just became ridiculous.

Stryker2011 wrote:The first few seasons were actually pretty interesting— but once it was revealed what Sookie “is/was” it just became ridiculous.

Yeah, the show was better just focusing on Vampires (and/or a werewolf or two). But I wasn't keen on the idea of blending it with all the

Spoiler:

.

Yeah, that’s when it lost my wife and I. When it was purely supernatural was cool, but the fantasy elements just got dumb. And the whole love triangle thing was also absurd. I actually liked Deborah’s role as the reluctant virgin/teen vampire trying to have a relationship with the mortal guy; I thought they were more interesting than the main characters, and the voodoo and witchcraft elements were often interesting. I never read the True Blood books, so I’m not familiar with the original source, or how closely the show followed them.

You bring up points I can relate to in my own feelings about the series, insofar as I remember it. I did watch the whole thing, but some parts worked better than others. Vampires and Werewolves apart (they were already together in the Underworld franchise, fairies and minotaurs and werepanthers tended to spin out of proportion. But I must say even the wacky parts were rather well done.

i dont think this looks like pattinson at all. i mean i can just about tell who its supposed to represent with the presentation, but if i saw the head on its own i would have now chance haha

shazzdan wrote:"Sex appeal" is not the same as "sparkly girly-man".

Buffy was a fun show. Spike was my favourite semi-regular character. He was almost a proper vampire.

I think the best vampires in modern fiction were in Stephen King's Salem's Lot.

i reckon the best 2 vampire movies in recent history are
let the right one in
and
a girl walks home alone at night.
but thats just me

teamweapon wrote:
i reckon the best 2 vampire movies in recent history are
let the right one in
and
a girl walks home alone at night.
but thats just me

Not just you -- A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night is one of my top fave movies!!!

skywalkersaga wrote:

teamweapon wrote:
i reckon the best 2 vampire movies in recent history are
let the right one in
and
a girl walks home alone at night.
but thats just me

Not just you -- A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night is one of my top fave movies!!!

pity her follow up movie was an absolute STINKAH!!!!! hehe

I didn't pay much attention to Robert Pattinson's acting ability when I was younger but when I saw him in Tenet he immediately became one of my favorite actors. I wonder if there are more head sculps of him since doing a 1/6 Neil would be pretty easy if you had a nice light suit or military gear.

Vampires? I'm out, don't care if they are oldschool or newschool. But I enjoy reading your discussion.

I guess that actor has tried a lot to drop the burden of being that popular vampire character. Just like Daniel Radcliffe trying to get rid of Harry Potter with playing a psychotic naked stable boy, a talking farting corpse, growing out horns, playing that young Russian doctor or having guns nailed to his hands.

I think the head would work well for an Astraverse character.

I quite liked Pattinson in Tenet as well and I think he'll probably do well as the new Batman. Expect to see more sculpts after that releases, especially if it does well.

Radcliff is also doing the Weird Al biopic and looks nothing like the harry potter he once was haha.