NEW PRODUCT: BY-ART : 1/6 LIGHTNING GIRL action figure BY-019

BY-ART : 1/6 LIGHTNING GIRL(雷电女） 可动人偶 BY- 019
1.正常头雕 Head carved *1
2.带头盔头雕 Helmeted *1
3.素体 Rubber body *1
4.披风 Cloak *1
5.裤子 trousers *1
5.手型 Hand type *6
6.上身甲 armor for upper body *1
7.裙甲 Skirt armour *1
8.右臀环 Ring of right arm *1
9.下臂甲 lower arm armor *2
10.护膝 Kneepad *2
11.小腿护甲 lower leg armor *2
12.鞋子 Shoes *2
13.锤(LED发光) Hammer（With LED light-up function） *1
14.底座 Bracket *1

















#newproduct #By-Art #LightningGirl #female #movie-based #comicbook

LIGHTNG GIRL?

If they're gonna spell it like that, they shoulda gone with LIGHTNG GRRL!

So she's like... Thor-ette?

Why do there have to be girl versions of all the male action figures? Why not go the other way, and have boy versions of the girl action figures? Cat-boy? Miraculous Manbug? Poison Ivan?

And no, before any accusations commence, I am not being sexist. What I find sexist is that, rather than creating new, interesting, engaging, independent female protagonists or antagonists, the comix and movie companies are simply rehashing male characters as females. And then the China-based toy companies are trying to circumvent licensing by creating thinly disguised knock-offs of characters based on other characters. It's all gettin' kind of old, at least to me, but I'm not a hardcore comix fan, so disregard my opinions.

And what's the deal with the hyper-realistic face sculpt digital mock-ups detailed down to featuring bad complexions? Are the new face sculpts being released actually this detailed, or are the in-hand releases considerably less detailed than the digitally illustrated pre-release images? Are collectors actually wanting figures with zits and pockmarks and moles and stuff? Or are the digital pre-release illustrations based on hi-def face photos rather than on actual prototype castings?

I suppose this figure would be fun to have if one were working on creating a diorama of a circa-2005 Comic Con, back when costumes were made from papercraft and EVA foam.

I already got the HT on order. Only reason would be maybe to get a rooted head parted out. By-art used to only do heads.

It’s not bad, but despite someone finally making realistic looking blonde rooted hair, it’s really the wrong color for the character who had bleach-blonde hair in the movie. The sculpt itself isn’t great as far as Natalie’s likeness, but it’s a decent enough head sculpt for a generic female.

I agree with everything that has been said. Nice to have "real" hair, but here it is nice in itself without being right for the character. The likeness also struck me as being less than ideal, while still recognizable. David raises some great points. Actress Michelle Rodriguez (Scowl Girl, if she has a not-so-secret superheroine persona) once made a comment about this in relation to racial recasting of established characters (why not create original, creative, new superheroes instead of trying to redefine existing ones), and of course she got into trouble over it with the Woke crowd.

GubernatorFan wrote:I agree with everything that has been said. Nice to have "real" hair, but here it is nice in itself without being right for the character. The likeness also struck me as being less than ideal, while still recognizable. David raises some great points. Actress Michelle Rodriguez (Scowl Girl, if she has a not-so-secret superheroine persona) once made a comment about this in relation to racial recasting of established characters (why not create original, creative, new superheroes instead of trying to redefine existing ones), and of course she got into trouble over it with the Woke crowd.

While it'd be ideal to make new characters without a legacy name, there are various reasons that this is not done. The first being that they usually lack traction with the fans. As much as they call for one, the new characters are not heavily supported at launch. When they're not supported at launch, it is difficult to gain visibility because the books get canceled. The second, which some of you may have heard is that with a legacy name, the companies can claim they are not new characters and reign in royalty checks. The most recent being about the news about Winter Soldier who is technically Bucky so it doesnt count as a new character and thus not due the same royalty checks to the creators. Third is once you create a character for the big two, you no longer own the character, why not create your own character and reap all the benefits at a smaller publisher? All this has lead to creators reluctant to create solely new characters for the big two. It's like a neverending cycle. From my point of view, we will keep on getting the reuse of legacy names until something drastically changes starting on top.

davidd wrote:LIGHTNG GIRL?

If they're gonna spell it like that, they shoulda gone with LIGHTNG GRRL!

So she's like... Thor-ette?

Why do there have to be girl versions of all the male action figures? Why not go the other way, and have boy versions of the girl action figures? Cat-boy? Miraculous Manbug? Poison Ivan?

.

This is an actual character from from the latest movie, Love and Thunder. I've not seen it yet, but Jane (Thors girlfriend) essentially takes over his role, while he's off finding himself with the Guardians, or something like that.

So, it's not a girlification of a famous character. It's a character from a movie, and I believe she might be from the comics themselves too? I'll defer to a Thor comics expert on that one though.

Ghost808 wrote:

davidd wrote:LIGHTNG GIRL?

If they're gonna spell it like that, they shoulda gone with LIGHTNG GRRL!

So she's like... Thor-ette?

Why do there have to be girl versions of all the male action figures? Why not go the other way, and have boy versions of the girl action figures? Cat-boy? Miraculous Manbug? Poison Ivan?

.

This is an actual character from from the latest movie, Love and Thunder. I've not seen it yet, but Jane (Thors girlfriend) essentially takes over his role, while he's off finding himself with the Guardians, or something like that.

So, it's not a girlification of a famous character. It's a character from a movie, and I believe she might be from the comics themselves too? I'll defer to a Thor comics expert on that one though.

I confirm the character she plays is "Mighty Thor", directly inspired from the comics, tho the context is slightly modified but it's a Marvel character created around 2015, not a "female version" of the Thor we know.

I watched the movie recently too, not really to my taste but if one enjoyed the "Ragnarok", it's in the same style, same director as well

Interesting analysis, Craig. It certainly explains this from a marketing and financial point of view, upon which so much depends in practical terms. Which is not to say that it makes it right, in my opinion.
As for female Thor, you guys are absolutely right, that is an actual Marvel character, not something invented for the newest movie or a cosplay-type action figure line. But its origin still seems questionably derivative and subject to the kind of criticism raised by David. My problems with this are manifold, but a major one is the notion that, like James Bond, the position and identity of Thor could be filled by more than one individual. It is bad enough that Norse gods are in some sense mortal (and that is a quirk of Norse mythology, not of the Marvel universe).

GubernatorFan wrote:Interesting analysis, Craig.  It certainly explains this from a marketing and financial point of view, upon which so much depends in practical terms.  Which is not to say that it makes it right, in my opinion.
As for female Thor, you guys are absolutely right, that is an actual Marvel character, not something invented for the newest movie or a cosplay-type action figure line.  But its origin still seems questionably derivative and subject to the kind of criticism raised by David.  My problems with this are manifold, but a major one is the notion that, like James Bond, the position and identity of Thor could be filled by more than one individual.  It is bad enough that Norse gods are in some sense mortal (and that is a quirk of Norse mythology, not of the Marvel universe).

I gotta say I found Marvel's editorial line very fragile if not questionable during the last decade, rebooting most of their iconic characters to feel more inclusive... I would have prefered to see new characters with new challenges and contemporary subjects, rather than transport heroes designed in the early 60's and force them into our 2000's society. Marvel used to be a fantastic idea and concepts factory, so it's a bit disappointing from them to my eyes

Glad you agree, Alex (not that you have to agree). That it not to say that a modernized adaptation of something is not ever successful. I, for example, enjoy Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet. But I see it more as a quirky tongue-in-cheek adaptation than as the definitive rendition of Shakespeare's play. Generally, it seems to me that the more successful departures from originals ought to go all the way -- either in transposing the time/place and/or the nature of the characters. But it is the less complete changes/departures that jar and annoy. That's my impression, anyway.

blackpool wrote:... I would have prefered to see new characters with new challenges and contemporary subjects, rather than transport heroes designed in the early 60's and force them into our 2000's society. Marvel used to be a fantastic idea and concepts factory, so it's a bit disappointing from them to my eyes

I honestly hope they will continue to bring back and reinvent these characters, because they already have such a vast catalogue of stories to draw from. Not all good, but hindsight is always 20/20, and they can benefit from that when reinventing/modernizing these characters. It would be a crying shame to let all those stories fade away.

GubernatorFan wrote:Interesting analysis, Craig.  It certainly explains this from a marketing and financial point of view, upon which so much depends in practical terms.  Which is not to say that it makes it right, in my opinion.
As for female Thor, you guys are absolutely right, that is an actual Marvel character, not something invented for the newest movie or a cosplay-type action figure line.  But its origin still seems questionably derivative and subject to the kind of criticism raised by David.  My problems with this are manifold, but a major one is the notion that, like James Bond, the position and identity of Thor could be filled by more than one individual.  It is bad enough that Norse gods are in some sense mortal (and that is a quirk of Norse mythology, not of the Marvel universe).

If it can cheer you up, rumors are going strong about Tom Hardy being the next James Bond! That is a very good example anyway of what I find questionable in some "reboots/remakes". The 007 books depicted a very specific character, and while it can be modernized, I find it pretty childish to turn him into a woman instead of creating a new character... From a Alias to Atomic Blonde, there are plenty of examples of good female spy characters without having to "cancel" an iconic hero to make him fit some kind of political agenda. Tomb Raider's Lara Croft is a great character too, who doesn't need to have a hat and whip, neither to be named Dr Jones! To me it only proves a lack of understanding and work (I seriously hope this "cancel" everything that doesn't fit today's standards is gonna end soon)

Diana wrote:

blackpool wrote:... I would have prefered to see new characters with new challenges and contemporary subjects, rather than transport heroes designed in the early 60's and force them into our 2000's society. Marvel used to be a fantastic idea and concepts factory, so it's a bit disappointing from them to my eyes

I honestly hope they will continue to bring back and reinvent these characters, because they already have such a vast catalogue of stories to draw from. Not all good, but hindsight is always 20/20, and they can benefit from that when reinventing/modernizing these characters. It would be a crying shame to let all those stories fade away.

I totally agree those Marvel stories and characters shouldn't be left behind, I believe most of them could be sent to screen or reread leaving them in their original context (not everything has to be modern and contemporary ) but it's a complicated work to reboot them correctly, fully understanding the why and when they were created.
They all reflect a time and context, very often political, and this is what makes them difficult to just bring back. A good example is captain America, they did just fine modernizing the character, passing his shield to the younger generation, yet keeping his background of american soldier from world war 2, and its unique context of the western world being a symbol of freedom fighting fachism. Imagine a captain america who's origin would be the questionable war in Vietnam, or the second war in Irak... The meaning would be very controversial, the symbol totally different...

I'd really prefer that they keep creating original characters like they used to for over 50 years, or work more on the many undevelopped characters they have, instead of rebooting everything to please the latest audience. The guardians of the galaxy, Spawn, the wildcats, Fathom, Gen13, there are tons of examples of good comics creations from the last 20-30 years, totally independent from the iconic captain america, iron man or spiderman... Why stop being creative now?

As another example, some of you may have heard about the recent controversy as an old character will appear in the next Captain America. A female hero named "Sabra", israeli soldier turning into a supes at night to fight palestinians. I'm very sceptical of the outcome honestly (it was already a hazardous concept in the 70's to my eyes, but much more understandable at the time of the Kippour war between Israel and a league of Arab countries led by Egypt and Syria)

blackpool wrote:
If it can cheer you up, rumors are going strong about Tom Hardy being the next James Bond! That is a very good example anyway of what I find questionable in some "reboots/remakes". The 007 books depicted a very specific character, and while it can be modernized, I find it pretty childish to turn him into a woman instead of creating a new character... From a Alias to Atomic Blonde, there are plenty of examples of good female spy characters without having to "cancel" an iconic hero to make him fit some kind of political agenda.

In real life a specific character can change gender. For instance there's the case of Philippa York, formerly known as Robert Millar, professional cyclist. The wiki-article is a bit confusing,because she didn't compete in cycling as a women (and it would in fact not be possible to compete in male cycling after a change of gender). A secret agent however could still be a secret agent after a change of gender.

If it's possible in real life, it should be possible in fiction. Although granted if they made a movie with a female Bond, it'd just be a movie with a female Bond and not about the change of gender. A change of gender would probably be handled poorly in an actionmovie.

Barbara Brocolli specifically ruled out Bond ever being a female. If you want a female secret agent then create your own character and leave Bond alone. There are plenty of good movies already - Salt, Long Kiss Goodnight, Atomic Blonde, Red Sparrow, Nikita, etc.

shazzdan wrote:If you want a female secret agent then create your own character and leave Bond alone. There are plenty of good movies already - Salt, Long Kiss Goodnight, Atomic Blonde, Red Sparrow, Nikita, etc.

Exactly this. But Hollywood is so devoid of any real creative talent, that they have to steal someone else’s creation.

TravelGuide wrote:

blackpool wrote:
If it can cheer you up, rumors are going strong about Tom Hardy being the next James Bond! That is a very good example anyway of what I find questionable in some "reboots/remakes". The 007 books depicted a very specific character, and while it can be modernized, I find it pretty childish to turn him into a woman instead of creating a new character... From a Alias to Atomic Blonde, there are plenty of examples of good female spy characters without having to "cancel" an iconic hero to make him fit some kind of political agenda.

In real life a specific character can change gender. For instance there's the case of Philippa York, formerly known as Robert Millar, professional cyclist. The wiki-article is a bit confusing,because she didn't compete in cycling as a women (and it would in fact not be possible to compete in male cycling after a change of gender). A secret agent however could still be a secret agent after a change of gender.

If it's possible in real life, it should be possible in fiction. Although granted if they made a movie with a female Bond, it'd just be a movie with a female Bond and not about the change of gender. A change of gender would probably be handled poorly in an actionmovie.

I don't question gender change in real life, neither would I for a fictional character if it's the wanted purpose or narrative,  but I think we're going totally off topic...
I was talking about fictional characters reboots, and the "respect" of the original creation they come from. James Bond was written as a dandy don juan, sexist if not totally misogynist to say the least, that was in the 50's. The books are quite crude in some parts, and his behaviour toward women is often very disrespectful, which I undertsand is nowadays very politically incorrect and not fitting at all our current society... The recent films actually soften that aspect of the character, yet without obliterating it, as it is the essence of 007.

So why not create a character that actually fits the current agenda? I don't have any problem with having a woman as a special agent, but let's do it well, make her original, unique, with her own character and style, not just a shadow of James Bond (Shazzdan listed some very good female spy characters that are just as interesting as 007)

Anyway I believe casting a woman for 007 has quite nothing to do with James Bond going transgender, that's really another story

a nice looking mighty thor. it is nice to see a thor that looks like it can articulate in 1/6. every HT thor has looked rigid and statue like. the materials don't look to be of highest quality, but again she loos like she can actually move in that suit. i suppose we'll have to see an in hand to see if she is worth it.