Current Events > Sooo, why is Lola Bunny over-corrected?

(+) Yeah! (+)

superman 2000 posted...

My question is why the deliberate decision to remove her boobs in the first place, especially when every other character looks the same as they did in the first movie.

Because every other character was not controversial for being over sexualized, and her having perky rabbit titties was part of that

---

superman 2000 posted...

She doesn't look more athletic now.

This is actually realistic, if this is the comparisons. Her back in arched in one and not the other. That's just how poses work.

---

Spooking posted...

Laura Croft is also flat. People are afraid of boobs nowadays.

""""""""""""""""flat"""""""""'''"'"''

---

By CE's line of reasoning, women with small breasts or flat chests aren't feminine (or even women or female at all, apparently). You are all so essentialist and pornsick.

---

lolife67 posted...

She does to me. She looks like a lot of women basketball players I've seen. You also seem to be under the impression that if you can't see her breasts protruding then they aren't there.

In terms of facial expression, maybe, but she literally has smaller arms now. You know you build muscle by playing sports.

Again, I don't really care about the sequel. But she has had a slight reduction of the arms as well as the chest.

who gives a fuck its a cartoon

What do you mean by over corrected

---

I mean at least she still got dem thighs

But the less furries we have the better.

---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

why do you care about bunny boobies

---

superman 2000 posted...

Getting rid of her breasts just denies her a basic aspect of femininity, and reinforces the idea that the very existence of breasts is problematic.

what the fuck are you talking about

---

I care more about how she's written than how she looks. She was pointless in the original, and only existed as sex appeal. And if they remove the sex appeal part without giving her morecharacter, then she's even more irrelevant.

---

superman 2000 posted...

Why are you confused? Are you unaware that Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, Sonic the Hedgehog, etc. are just stylized cartoon animals with human traits?

That's not what you said. You said they were humans with animal traits. Huge difference. A girl with cat ears and a tail is human with animal traits. Lola is a fucking rabbit standing on its hind legs.

---

BloodMoon7 posted...

Lola is a fucking rabbit standing on its hind legs.

Youre being disingenuous lmao.

---

superman 2000 posted...

We can both plainly see that she is now as flat as Bugs Bunny himself. There's not even the slightest bit of protrusion in the chest area. Here are Kim Possible characters in cheerleading outfits:



by your logic, they would suddenly look more athletic if they didn't have boobs. Your line of reasoning is confusing.

No. My logic is that she looks like real life athletes, period. Every woman isn't built the same so her being "flatter" than those Kim Possible girls is wholly irrelevant to my point. She may have a smaller bust than those girls or it could be that cheerleader outfits are designed to be appealing in a way that basketball jersey's aren't, who knows? That doesn't mean she doesn't look like an athlete.

eston posted...

Because every other character was not controversial for being over sexualized, and her having perky rabbit titties was part of that

So we've already addressed that her boobs weren't even designed to be distracting. But just for you, here is a picture of OG Lola Bunny:



And here is how she looked in some of the Warner Bros. comics after Space Jam:



What exactly about this design do you consider offensive?


---

She barely has boobs in the original. Are people mistaking fan art for official art again?

---

Progressives want female features to be completely sanitized.

---

MrToothHasYou posted...

what the fuck are you talking about

She was a somewhat sexualized character, but had normal breasts that weren't distracting. They corrected her by taking away the sex appeal. They over-corrected by taking away her boobs. Having boobs doesn't automatically mean a character is sexualized.

---

FortuneCookie posted...

In terms of facial expression, maybe, but she literally has smaller arms now. You know you build muscle by playing sports.

Again, I don't really care about the sequel. But she has had a slight reduction of the arms as well as the chest.

Most young women in sports aren't that toned and look more like new Lola than the previous version. And since this film is meant to appeal to kids, having the character look more like a young athlete than an grown woman makes a bit more sense to me.

superman 2000 posted...

She was a somewhat sexualized character, but had normal breasts that weren't distracting. They corrected her by taking away the sex appeal. They over-corrected by taking away her boobs. Having boobs doesn't automatically mean a character is sexualized.

But she barely had boobs in the original SJ.


---

BloodMoon7 posted...

That's not what you said. You said they were humans with animal traits. Huge difference.

You took it too literally. My point was that arguing "real bunnies don't have boobs" is silly because these characters are anthropomorphized, which means they're meant to EFFECTIVELY be human.


---

Bunnies don't have boobs

---

spikethedevil posted...

But she barely had boobs in the original SJ.

Which is my point. She had proportionate breasts that didn't call attention to themselves, and yet the creators still made a point to get rid of them. Why is that?

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Bunnies don't have boobs

Already addressed.

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Youre being disingenuous lmao.

She's a lot closer to an animal than she is to a human. Only furries would say otherwise. Not that I have anything against furries. It's cool if you're a furry.

---

lolife67 posted...

No. My logic is that she looks like real life athletes, period.

How? Her arms are flabbier, and besides the breast reduction, she's just wearing a jersey that covers more. What logic are you using to say she looks more athletic, besides "not all sporty women have visible boobs" (which is irrelevant because many athletic women do have visible boobs)?

---

superman 2000 posted...

You took it too literally. My point was that arguing "real bunnies don't have boobs" is silly because these characters are anthropomorphized, which means they're meant to EFFECTIVELY be human.

She's meant to be a talking cartoon rabbit. Not that your point doesn't still stand, it's a cartoon, realism doesn't apply and she can have huge milkers. But c'mon bro. That's a fucking rabbit, why are you being like this?

---

BloodMoon7 posted...

She's a lot closer to an animal than she is to a human. Only furries would say otherwise. Not that I have anything against furries. It's cool if you're a furry.

I mean, shes like 40/60. She clearly has the build of a human. Human legs and arms. Human eyes. Human hair. She legit has hips. Human hips.

She just has a rabbit tail, mouth, and fur. I dunno how someone thinks shes more rabbit.

---

Imagine caring this much about a kids movie.

---

>_>

You guys really gave her a good look over... Looks like a rabbit to me though, I can't see it myself.

---

Again, needs to be said.

The main difference is the fact that in the first movie she wears a crop top, which is going to flow more naturally around breasts.

In comparison, wearing a basketball jersey like she is in the second movie, especially one that is loose, will not accentuate anything.

Unless there is an example of her wearing something similar in the second, that is the main difference in design.

---

BloodMoon7 posted...

She's meant to be a talking cartoon rabbit. Not that your point doesn't still stand, it's a cartoon, realism doesn't apply and she can have huge milkers. But c'mon bro. That's a fucking rabbit, why are you being like this?

Being like what? I'm asking a question, and most of you are making a ton of assumptions in response. It's like just because the subject matter is "boobies", you people assume the worst. I'm just wondering why they removed a harmless aspect of her design. She didn't have Jessica Rabbit boobies, but we know the creators made a specific point of getting rid of her sex appeal. So the decision to get rid of her boobs entirely just feels very corporate and over-corrective.

---

Lonestar2000 posted...

Imagine caring this much about a kids movie.

This always strikes me as a weird response, considering we're on a video game message board. But as usual, the assumption that someone cares too much is a baseless one.

---

superman 2000 posted...

We can both plainly see that she is now as flat as Bugs Bunny himself. There's not even the slightest bit of protrusion in the chest area. Here are Kim Possible characters in cheerleading outfits:



by your logic, they would suddenly look more athletic if they didn't have boobs. Your line of reasoning is confusing.

The girl on the right could poke an eye out with those things wtf

---

superman 2000 posted...

Yeah, I'm noticing that this board isn't really the place to expect nuanced thinking.

"Feminism is out to get me" is nuance now?
---

ChrisTaka posted...

The girl on the right could like an eye out with those things wtf

LMAO Kim Possible was very stylized.

---

Lost_All_Senses posted...

Because you shouldn't be watching a kids movies for boobs.

Shut da fuck up. Jasmine had a great rack and I'll cherish those childhood memories forever

---

Webbernet posted...

"Feminism is out to get me" is nuance now?

The fact that you don't see the irony of using a strawman argument in response to someone complaining about lack of nuanced thinking, only proves my point.

---

Kim Possible rocking some big ol double-Ds. Her friend cones where her boobs should be.

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Again, needs to be said.

The main difference is the fact that in the first movie she wears a crop top, which is going to flow more naturally around breasts.

In comparison, wearing a basketball jersey like she is in the second movie, especially one that is loose, will not accentuate anything.

Unless there is an example of her wearing something similar in the second, that is the main difference in design.

I don't know if you posted this already (it's hard to keep up with everyone's replies), but this is the first fair point I've seen. Yes, they did make a point of showing more "skin" with her OG jersey.

---

superman 2000 posted...

How? Her arms are flabbier, and besides the breast reduction, she's just wearing a jersey that covers more. What logic are you using to say she looks more athletic, besides "not all sporty women have visible boobs" (which is irrelevant because many athletic women do have visible boobs)?

She doesn't at all look "flabby" lol

And I already said I was comparing her to women I've seen/know in real life. "Reality" is the logic I'm using.

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Again, needs to be said.

The main difference is the fact that in the first movie she wears a crop top, which is going to flow more naturally around breasts.

In comparison, wearing a basketball jersey like she is in the second movie, especially one that is loose, will not accentuate anything.

Unless there is an example of her wearing something similar in the second, that is the main difference in design.

Exactly. He's assuming she doesn't have breasts because they aren't popping out but that's not how jersey's work (not to mention she'd also be wearing a sports bra.)

superman 2000 posted...

What exactly about this design do you consider offensive?

I don't consider any part of it offensive and I'm not sure why that's your takeaway.

---

eston posted...

I don't consider any part of it offensive and I'm not sure why that's your takeaway.

So what is your point? You said her boobs were part of the sex appeal they sought to get rid off; I rebutted by saying her boobs were never problematic.

---

lolife67 posted...

And I already said I was comparing her to women I've seen/know in real life. "Reality" is the logic I'm using.

OG Lola has small boobs and (at the very least) semi-defined legs. New Lola has no boobs and Bugs Bunny legs. Again, your logic doesn't seem grounded in reality.


---

superman 2000 posted...

OG Lola has small boobs and (at the very least) semi-defined legs. New Lola has no boobs and Bugs Bunny legs. Again, your logic doesn't seem grounded in reality.

That's because you keep ignoring that women in real life wearing what she is will look the same way she does. You clearly don't want to get this so it's kinda pointless for me to keep going.

Can we all agree that the Looney Tunes Show Lola is the worst of all and ruined her character?

Pretty much all the 21st century depictions of her have been awful.
---

lolife67 posted...

Most young women in sports aren't that toned and look more like new Lola than the previous version. And since this film is meant to appeal to kids, having the character look more like a young athlete than an grown woman makes a bit more sense to me.

As a sequel, she would be older. I get they're doing the whole "toons don't age" thing, but her getting younger doesn't make sense. And I don't think that's what they're going for. Less sexy seems to be the top priority.

She still looks fine. But the director made a point of how "inappropriate" the original version was.

superman 2000 posted...

So what is your point? You said her boobs were part of the sex appeal they sought to get rid off; I rebutted by saying her boobs were never problematic.

Clearly her previous appearance was problematic to some because, as you said, she was designed for sex appeal and was controversial for it. I don't have to be personally offended to be able to see that. And I don't know why you complain about people on CE not having nuanced discussions when that obviously isn't what you're after. You just want people to agree with you.

---

This topic reminds me of the uproar of Jill not wearing a skirt anymore on the R3make boards.

---