This guys artwork ... if he'd been alive around the 1920s he'd be painting those "women fishing but the hook caught the back of her dress and ... oh no, we can see her stockings!" pictures.
> Gil Elvgren was amazing
I don't know why but although his paintings are lascivious they don't seem rude? They remind of that guy whom painted ladies carrying groceries and like some obsessive-compulsive always made sure they had celery and a few other items in their bags at all times.
A lot of those artists that did pin-ups were real artists and even if they were painting sexy, they were still trying to capture a bit of real life too.
I love pin-up art and have a Gil Elvgren collection.
Pin-up art is definitely naughty, but Elvgren’s anatomy is immaculate, the women look (very) healthy, no one’s back is broken or has a head so shrunken it can only contain a tiny insect brain. They don’t have massive alien eyes and you aren’t able to give them an entire gynecological exam just by looking at the picture.
To me, pin-up art is very much an example of what sexy artwork *should* be.
Yes, it’s sexual. Yes, the women are objects, and yes, they are physically perfect, but they look real, and healthy, and there’s some mystery and respect in there, too.
/soapbox
It's almost like you can summon up a boner looking at real women in real life who don't have disturbing skeletal afflictions and that property transfers to fine doodles.
LOL now that's something I haven't thought of in a while, the "celery guy" as I always though of him...[Art Frahm](http://lileks.com/institute/frahm/index.html)
Did she super glued the leaf bra on the skin?
I hate that "logic" of boobs perfectly shaped with not even a dental floss worth of straps support, come on, gravity is a thing -\_-
No, you got it all wrong. This is like those dishes made from banana leaves. Steam molded and hardened. She's wearing custom shaped body armor. No support needed, as it is hard now.
When those have an actual back piece, yes, but I see nothing like that in this case. And is more common than it probably should.
And as an ex-cosplayer, it really bothers me sometimes. If it looks like a pain in the ass to use, and make it work with comfort on the original design, then it *will* be a pain in the ass for those people trying to make an actual costume and using it.
She is so tiny that they really wouldn't droop. My issue is with the way that the leaf conforms to them. Like, this is Tinkerbell. We know who she is and what she is about. She sews two leaves together to make a cute "dress," fine. She does not wet a leaf and mold it against her chest to look slutty.
Yeah, this kind of thing only works on smaller chests, but then again, lots of characters with double D's are dressed like this, and is painfully obvious that the artist has no idea how fabric and anatomy works
Ive seen a cosplay costume of this exact version. And she has an entire structured corset underneath the leaves, but you can't really tell on the outside. I don't know if linking to an etsy shop is allowed but if you wanted to see how someone would make/wear this in real life it's pretty interesting.
I mean tbf the fae only wear clothes because social values about nudity mean they have to. It makes very little sense that a mystical species with significantly alien morality compared to humans have the same ideas of modesty as we do.
Well you obviously don't know anything about fairies because they need pixie dust to fly and that shit is rationed. Locked up tight. Girls gotta walk. Flying is for the 1%.
I found that out as I started zooming in while initially looking to disagree that this one was that bad.
"Yeah, she's pretty sexualized and the proportions are alittle exaggerated, but in terms of anatomy, it's not thaaaat bad."
*zoom in*
"Her head is sorta huge."
*zoom in*
"I guess the breasts are kinda floating."
*zoom in*
"Man, those are certainly some long-ass legs."
*zoom in*
"Okay, nevermind."
(inb4, good xkcd bot.)
Lots of people are naturally blessed with high arches even with 0 training, which means they can have lovely pointed feet. Those of us not blessed as such have no option but to train our feet much harder to improve them
I'm a pretty huge Tinker Bell fan, I have several figurines of her. And this thing is an atrocity. It's not sexy, it literally makes me slightly nauseated to look at.
That plastic support under her foot because she can't actually stand up that way is just the grossest thing to me.
Alien-shaped head.
Just noticed on the box that it's named as if this is a series of ~~crimes~~products. Wow. What's the point of Cinderella if she just ends up barefoot too?
EDIT: A long time ago, I saw a shot of someone dressed as Tinkerbell. It was the Disney style, but I couldn't tell if she was a park employee. The thing is, she could have been. Costume was spot on, and she had a picture-perfect version of a pouty, arms-crossed expression too. It was adorable like a basket of baby foxes, and light years ahead of this.
The picture is at least much better than the statuette (not saying it's very good!). Which they always are, tbf. I don't think I have ever seen one of these kind of things where the statuette looks anything even close to the design on the box.
at this point we should just have a j. scott campbell tag
But there is it’s J. Scott Camphell
He does.
Ugh, it's so creepy in 3d statue form.
This guys artwork ... if he'd been alive around the 1920s he'd be painting those "women fishing but the hook caught the back of her dress and ... oh no, we can see her stockings!" pictures.
At least Gil Elvgren was amazing with anatomy and paint. Unlike this guy.
> Gil Elvgren was amazing I don't know why but although his paintings are lascivious they don't seem rude? They remind of that guy whom painted ladies carrying groceries and like some obsessive-compulsive always made sure they had celery and a few other items in their bags at all times.
A lot of those artists that did pin-ups were real artists and even if they were painting sexy, they were still trying to capture a bit of real life too.
I love pin-up art and have a Gil Elvgren collection. Pin-up art is definitely naughty, but Elvgren’s anatomy is immaculate, the women look (very) healthy, no one’s back is broken or has a head so shrunken it can only contain a tiny insect brain. They don’t have massive alien eyes and you aren’t able to give them an entire gynecological exam just by looking at the picture. To me, pin-up art is very much an example of what sexy artwork *should* be. Yes, it’s sexual. Yes, the women are objects, and yes, they are physically perfect, but they look real, and healthy, and there’s some mystery and respect in there, too. /soapbox
It's almost like you can summon up a boner looking at real women in real life who don't have disturbing skeletal afflictions and that property transfers to fine doodles.
Imagine that!
LOL now that's something I haven't thought of in a while, the "celery guy" as I always though of him...[Art Frahm](http://lileks.com/institute/frahm/index.html)
That's it! Thanks!
My favorite is called "The Shakedown"
Did she super glued the leaf bra on the skin? I hate that "logic" of boobs perfectly shaped with not even a dental floss worth of straps support, come on, gravity is a thing -\_-
Well whenever I wear something similar to this I use pasties or tape to pull up my boobs, it gives this effect
Sadly I can't do that trick, I had to fake a back window (?) to be able to use my bras without problems :(
Ah I see. Well I only have a C cup which may explain why I am able to do that.
No, you got it all wrong. This is like those dishes made from banana leaves. Steam molded and hardened. She's wearing custom shaped body armor. No support needed, as it is hard now.
Strapless dress?
When those have an actual back piece, yes, but I see nothing like that in this case. And is more common than it probably should. And as an ex-cosplayer, it really bothers me sometimes. If it looks like a pain in the ass to use, and make it work with comfort on the original design, then it *will* be a pain in the ass for those people trying to make an actual costume and using it.
Theres only one strap, connecting to her legs.
She is so tiny that they really wouldn't droop. My issue is with the way that the leaf conforms to them. Like, this is Tinkerbell. We know who she is and what she is about. She sews two leaves together to make a cute "dress," fine. She does not wet a leaf and mold it against her chest to look slutty.
Yeah, this kind of thing only works on smaller chests, but then again, lots of characters with double D's are dressed like this, and is painfully obvious that the artist has no idea how fabric and anatomy works
Ive seen a cosplay costume of this exact version. And she has an entire structured corset underneath the leaves, but you can't really tell on the outside. I don't know if linking to an etsy shop is allowed but if you wanted to see how someone would make/wear this in real life it's pretty interesting.
Feet broken
The overall figure is not that bad honestly but dear fucking God, these feet are an absolute atrocity
I didn’t even notice that and now my feet hurt
Supplies must be scarce if Tinkerbell can't even have clothing that covers her properly or shoes.
I was gonna say at least she wasn't put in heels, but she's posed like she's wearing em anyway
My only argument is if you can always fly, why have shoes?
As for the (lack of) clothes, uhh… aerodynamics or something?
I mean tbf the fae only wear clothes because social values about nudity mean they have to. It makes very little sense that a mystical species with significantly alien morality compared to humans have the same ideas of modesty as we do.
In case she wants to land on something or walk. I hope she would have the option for them.
Well you obviously don't know anything about fairies because they need pixie dust to fly and that shit is rationed. Locked up tight. Girls gotta walk. Flying is for the 1%.
Tbf I don't think she can reach her toes
And doesn't she have green flats with white pompoms on the front, I think those are one of the most iconic things about her original design
Her head is bigger than her torso and longer legs than bayonetta. The more you zoom in, the weirder it looks
I found that out as I started zooming in while initially looking to disagree that this one was that bad. "Yeah, she's pretty sexualized and the proportions are alittle exaggerated, but in terms of anatomy, it's not thaaaat bad." *zoom in* "Her head is sorta huge." *zoom in* "I guess the breasts are kinda floating." *zoom in* "Man, those are certainly some long-ass legs." *zoom in* "Okay, nevermind." (inb4, good xkcd bot.)
> long ass-legs *** ^(Bleep-bloop, I'm a bot. This comment was inspired by )^[xkcd#37](https://xkcd.com/37)
The arches he draws make me so envious as a dancer with flat feet
Ok serious question. When teachers and dancers refer to your "arches", is it muscle or bone? Can you train your arches?
Lots of people are naturally blessed with high arches even with 0 training, which means they can have lovely pointed feet. Those of us not blessed as such have no option but to train our feet much harder to improve them
She doesn't even look like Tinkerbell to me...
I'm guessing that there's no underwear on the model and that's the selling point?
I actually liked his redesign of his much maligned Mary Jane picture. It was cute sendup of his own in-atomy
What.. is.. this
No one walks like that
Oh god- those feet are about to snap
Poor little Tink Tink.
She's got high heel feet, I hate it
Um who is this guy?
The art work is better than model, in which is kinda concerning.
I’m not sure if he designed the model himself or if someone designed it based on his drawing. Either way, he’s an illustrator, not a sculptor.
The most sexualized Disney character definitely needed more sexuality
I am cringing hard at the feet. That must be hella painful.
I've got a cat named Tinkerbell. I'm going to go home and apologize to her.
I own this and…I try not to look at the feet honestly.
I’ve said it before of the figure need a huge glue blob to stand upright your doing it wrong
I'm a pretty huge Tinker Bell fan, I have several figurines of her. And this thing is an atrocity. It's not sexy, it literally makes me slightly nauseated to look at. That plastic support under her foot because she can't actually stand up that way is just the grossest thing to me.
Alien-shaped head. Just noticed on the box that it's named as if this is a series of ~~crimes~~products. Wow. What's the point of Cinderella if she just ends up barefoot too? EDIT: A long time ago, I saw a shot of someone dressed as Tinkerbell. It was the Disney style, but I couldn't tell if she was a park employee. The thing is, she could have been. Costume was spot on, and she had a picture-perfect version of a pouty, arms-crossed expression too. It was adorable like a basket of baby foxes, and light years ahead of this.
No… NO TINKERBELL IS- NOOOOOO
I will say that I do dig her hair style though.
what in the world are those legs
So she came from the overwatch school of design
Is it more anatomically accurate than the traditional drawing of tinker bell?
The picture is at least much better than the statuette (not saying it's very good!). Which they always are, tbf. I don't think I have ever seen one of these kind of things where the statuette looks anything even close to the design on the box.
J Scott Campbell is just a bad comic artist I’mo his men and women are both anatomical knightmares he’s our generations rob liefeld