Lola Bunny's Desexualized 'Space Jam 2' Redesign Sparks Intense Debate

[GenesisNemesis]

https://www.newsweek.com/lola-bunnys-des...te-1574012

 Lola Bunny looks a little different in the new Space Jam movie Space Jam: A New Legacy and her new desexualized appearance has sparked a debate on social media. 

In the original 1996 Looney Tunes movie, starring Michael Jordan, the anthropomorphic rabbit Lola Bunny had more of an hourglass figure and wore small shorts and a cropped sports top. Around the release of the first film in 1996, animator Tony Cervone said: "We kind of pumped her up more in the feminine attributes department."

But director of Space Jam: A New Legacy, Malcolm D Lee, told Entertainment Weekly that he was caught off guard by the first movie's "very sexualized" depiction of Lola Bunny, and said: "This is 2021. It's important to reflect the authenticity of strong, capable female characters."

 

That is NOT the sexualized female bunny character I remember from my childhood. I am outraged. Outraged! 

[Fireball]

https://www.newsweek.com/lola-bunnys-des...te-1574012

 Lola Bunny looks a little different in the new Space Jam movie Space Jam: A New Legacy and her new desexualized appearance has sparked a debate on social media. 

In the original 1996 Looney Tunes movie, starring Michael Jordan, the anthropomorphic rabbit Lola Bunny had more of an hourglass figure and wore small shorts and a cropped sports top. Around the release of the first film in 1996, animator Tony Cervone said: "We kind of pumped her up more in the feminine attributes department."

But director of Space Jam: A New Legacy, Malcolm D Lee, told Entertainment Weekly that he was caught off guard by the first movie's "very sexualized" depiction of Lola Bunny, and said: "This is 2021. It's important to reflect the authenticity of strong, capable female characters."

 

That is NOT the sexualized female bunny character I remember from my childhood. I am outraged. Outraged! 

I saw that picture elsewhere. People get wrapped around the axle for some crazy shit. It's a fucking cartoon, and I've seen none of them with Busty (or not) Bunny in them. Maybe I'm the wrong person to comment, given that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The implication in Lee's comment is that sexy women cannot be strong and capable, it seems to me.

[trdsf]

The number of times Bugs engaged in cross-dressing in the classical Warner cartoons, why bother?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I simply cannot understand why anyone cares if an anthropomorphic animated rabbit has big tits or not. Especially when it's in a sequel to a movie who's primary goal was to cash in on the Michael Jordan's popularity, not provide quality entertainment. People should be more upset that James is taking Jordan\s place than at the lack of rabbit boobs.

Honestly, if people are going to be pissed, they should be pissed at the obvious Hollywood cash grab instead of any of the details about it.

[Inkubus]

I saw that picture elsewhere. People get wrapped around the axle for some crazy shit. It's a fucking cartoon, and I've seen none of them with Busty (or not) Bunny in them. Maybe I'm the wrong person to comment, given that.

Oh they'll get their tits in the wringer if they copped what Ken and Barbie were up to.

[trdsf]

I will also add that the so-called "de-sexualized" Lola looks a lot more like a traditional Warner character than the original Lola did.

[epronovost]

So the furry community is pissed because Lola isn't as fapable as she used to be.

[Dancefortwo]

Do we all remember Jessica Rabbit from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? 







I assume she wasn't supposed to be a rabbit but she sure was a sex pot.   I remember reading that men were really turned on by Jessica.  I mean reeeeeeeeally turned on.  Like the kind of turned on that they were touching themselves.  LOLOLOL!

[Szuchow]

So the furry community is pissed because Lola isn't as fapable as she used to be.

Not only furry community. One of Poland far right MP's also cried bitter tears cause of this.

[epronovost]

So the furry community is pissed because Lola isn't as fapable as she used to be.

Not only furry community. One of Poland far right MP's also cried bitter tears cause of this.

What makes you say he isn't a furry? There is a sizeable far right furry fandom. Nazi can be all sorts of kinky, pretty much like anybody else.

[Vera]

I made the mistake of clicking on the link *and* reading the comments... the amount of people (womenfolk too!) who are personally "offended" because she has smaller breasts is astounding. It really isn't about fandom or issues or anything of the sort - some (a lot of) people just need their daily dose of outrage and self-righteous indignation. At least in the past it was only family members who got to hear those miserable gits yelling at their newspaper/radio/TV.

(To be able to convince yourself that what's-her-boobs is a celebration of bigger-breasted women and not the ridiculous fantasy of a teenaged masturbator is a whole other level of oblivious )

[Szuchow]

So the furry community is pissed because Lola isn't as fapable as she used to be.

Not only furry community. One of Poland far right MP's also cried bitter tears cause of this.

What makes you say he isn't a furry? There is a sizeable far right furry fandom. Nazi can be all sorts of kinky, pretty much like anybody else.

I meant to say that not only people who openly identify themselves as furries cry about this. 

As for mp - I neither know nor care if he is a furry but being outraged about such things shows to what lows whatever passes for Poland politics has fallen.

[Vera]

Do we all remember Jessica Rabbit from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? 

I assume she wasn't supposed to be a rabbit but she sure was a sex pot.   I remember reading that men were really turned on by Jessica.  I mean reeeeeeeeally turned on.  Like the kind of turned on that they were touching themselves.  LOLOLOL!

My mind is still trying to avoid exploding by *not* focusing too much on *what* exactly is keeping this dress in its place  

But of course, it's not like we haven't had those (and many others)...










Boy, those sure look comfy, Imma gonna get me some for when I go biking.


Of course, it's not like this type of fashion miracle are something new. I give you: men wearing helmets and strategically placed dick-ribbons (not my word, wish it was, but it isn't)

[Dancefortwo]

Do we all remember Jessica Rabbit from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? 

I assume she wasn't supposed to be a rabbit but she sure was a sex pot.   I remember reading that men were really turned on by Jessica.  I mean reeeeeeeeally turned on.  Like the kind of turned on that they were touching themselves.  LOLOLOL!

My mind is still trying to avoid exploding by *not* focusing too much on *what* exactly is keeping this dress in its place  

But of course, it's not like we haven't had those (and many others)...










Boy, those sure look comfy, Imma gonna get me some for when I go biking.


Of course, it's not like this type of fashion miracle are something new. I give you: men wearing helmets and strategically placed dick-ribbons (not my word, wish it was, but it isn't)

I was an art major at one time and we had live nude models in our drawing class.  I remember before a class the art instructor warning us that men tend to draw women with larger than usual breasts and women draw men with larger and more muscular backs and shoulders.  Sure enough, after class we all compared our work and if it was a female model the men gave her a cup size larger breasts than the women and a male model had women drawing them like Atlas lifting the world while the men gave them normal muscles.  Maybe it's driven by evolution or something.

[Vera]

Sure enough, after class we all compared our work and if it was a female model the men gave her a cup size larger breasts than the women and a male model had women drawing them like Atlas lifting the world while the men gave them normal muscles.

Maybe it's driven by evolution or something.

It is and evolution really messed us up, but good. Not only are we constantly in heat (usually until well after we’re not even capable of reproducing any more), driven to distraction (and destruction) by it, but we seem to have ended up with the most utterly useless trait by which to choose/be attracted by prospective procreative partners – beauty. And no, beauty is *not* synonymous with health and fertility, not by a long shot.

The worst is, though, that this utterly useless attraction to an utterly useless trait is so strong that it colours how we perceive and treat way more than just our prospective procreative partners. And if anyone tries to convince others and themselves that no, they are in no way influenced by the way people look… well, they’re lying to themselves.

Ted Chiang’s brilliant (and oft-mentioned by me) story, Liking What You See: A Documentary (where scientists come up with an app of sorts that prevents you from perceiving people as either beautiful or not) he includes this commentary in the end:

“Psychologists once conducted an experiment where they repeatedly left a fake college application in an airport, supposedly forgotten by a traveler. The answers on the application were always the same, but sometimes they changed the photo of the fictitious applicant. It turned out people were more likely to mail in the application if the applicant was attractive. This is perhaps not surprising, but it illustrates just how thoroughly we’re influenced by appearances; we favor attractive people even in a situation where we’ll never meet them.

Yet any discussion of beauty’s advantages is usually accompanied by a mention of the burden of beauty. I don’t doubt that beauty has its drawbacks, but so does everything else. Why do people seem more sympathetic to the idea of burdensome beauty than to, say, the idea of burdensome wealth? It’s because beauty is working its magic again: even in a discussion of its drawbacks, beauty is providing its possessors with an advantage.”

The most pathetic part is that instead of admitting how totally driven by our instincts and something so useless we are, we elevate the attraction to beautiful people to something way more than it is, something transcendental and sublime, not to mention attributing all sorts of other, totally unrelated attributes to beauty.

(And no, it’s not a case of sour grapes, as I’ve been misunderstood here before (when someone suggested that I, too, can find a partner because not everybody’s looking for beauty, because of course I can feel (strongly) about this *only* because I'm too ugly and can’t find someone to fuck Was the perfect illustration to my point about “beauty” and our instincts to procreate actually…).


All this being said, human beings can be utterly fascinating to watch and when not influenced by this type of attraction, as one of Chiang's character in the story put it, when you remove this pernicious effect from your perception of people, it's like something more essential about them is revealed (no, not their soul or any such nonsense. It's just that people can be mesmerising to watch regardless of "attractiveness").

[Assassin]

Just a few more decades until she's male.

[GenesisNemesis]

Just a few more decades until she's male.

I mean, I wouldn't care if that happened, either.

[Dānu]

Her name was Lo-la, L-O-L-A- Lola.

[Assassin]

Just a few more decades until she's male.

I mean, I wouldn't care if that happened, either.

Nice, very woke of you.

[GenesisNemesis]

Just a few more decades until she's male.

I mean, I wouldn't care if that happened, either.

Nice, very woke of you.

Uh, no. I just don't care what gender a fictional character is. But whatever.

[Vera]

Uh, no. I just don't care what gender a fictional character is. But whatever.

Such a SJW you are. Also a cuck.

/sarcasm

(I actually get worried when that poster *agrees* with me )

[GenesisNemesis]

Uh, no. I just don't care what gender a fictional character is. But whatever.

Such a SJW you are. Also a cuck.

/sarcasm

(I actually get worried when that poster *agrees* with me )

As an evil SJW communist, I do hope Assassin gets sent to the gulags. 

(Also sarcasm). Or is it? Muahahaha.

[mordant]

Sure enough, after class we all compared our work and if it was a female model the men gave her a cup size larger breasts than the women and a male model had women drawing them like Atlas lifting the world while the men gave them normal muscles.

Maybe it's driven by evolution or something.

It is and evolution really messed us up, but good. Not only are we constantly in heat (usually until well after we’re not even capable of reproducing any more), driven to distraction (and destruction) by it, but we seem to have ended up with the most utterly useless trait by which to choose/be attracted by prospective procreative partners – beauty. And no, beauty is *not* synonymous with health and fertility, not by a long shot.

The worst is, though, that this utterly useless attraction to an utterly useless trait is so strong that it colours how we perceive and treat way more than just our prospective procreative partners. And if anyone tries to convince others and themselves that no, they are in no way influenced by the way people look… well, they’re lying to themselves.

Ted Chiang’s brilliant (and oft-mentioned by me) story, Liking What You See: A Documentary (where scientists come up with an app of sorts that prevents you from perceiving people as either beautiful or not) he includes this commentary in the end:

“Psychologists once conducted an experiment where they repeatedly left a fake college application in an airport, supposedly forgotten by a traveler. The answers on the application were always the same, but sometimes they changed the photo of the fictitious applicant. It turned out people were more likely to mail in the application if the applicant was attractive. This is perhaps not surprising, but it illustrates just how thoroughly we’re influenced by appearances; we favor attractive people even in a situation where we’ll never meet them.

Yet any discussion of beauty’s advantages is usually accompanied by a mention of the burden of beauty. I don’t doubt that beauty has its drawbacks, but so does everything else. Why do people seem more sympathetic to the idea of burdensome beauty than to, say, the idea of burdensome wealth? It’s because beauty is working its magic again: even in a discussion of its drawbacks, beauty is providing its possessors with an advantage.”

The most pathetic part is that instead of admitting how totally driven by our instincts and something so useless we are, we elevate the attraction to beautiful people to something way more than it is, something transcendental and sublime, not to mention attributing all sorts of other, totally unrelated attributes to beauty.

(And no, it’s not a case of sour grapes, as I’ve been misunderstood here before (when someone suggested that I, too, can find a partner because not everybody’s looking for beauty, because of course I can feel (strongly) about this *only* because I'm too ugly and can’t find someone to fuck Was the perfect illustration to my point about “beauty” and our instincts to procreate actually…).


All this being said, human beings can be utterly fascinating to watch and when not influenced by this type of attraction, as one of Chiang's character in the story put it, when you remove this pernicious effect from your perception of people, it's like something more essential about them is revealed (no, not their soul or any such nonsense. It's just that people can be mesmerising to watch regardless of "attractiveness").

Very nuanced and well-said.

Not every man is fixated on female beauty, much less grotesquely exaggerated / plastic surgery-"enhanced" beauty. I could be fairly described as a sapiosexual (one who is attracted to intellect / intelligence). While I don't pretend to be un-swayed by physical beauty, all other things being equal, it takes a back seat to intelligence, simply because it's by turns hard and vexing to sufficiently admire the dense enough to want to live with them and make life decisions with them about things like spending money or raising children (or having children to begin with, for that matter). In my salad days, I had a couple of sweet-but-dim types flutter their eyelashes at me (and they were at least above average in the looks department, not prudes, etc) but I couldn't bring myself to encourage them. I somehow knew how it would end. In any event they tend to be pretty reliably religious and in retrospect, I doubt they could have evolved with me, religiously or politically. At some point they'd have run home sobbing to mommy.

My stepson has had one love interest so far and she was ... plain, to put it kindly. This simply didn't register with him. She was on his debate team. Another sapiosexual, if ever I saw one. He was shyly asking us for advice on tasteful gifts to help woo her. Alas, it didn't work out for other reasons, but you can take it to the bank, if he marries a beauty it will be almost pure happenstance; at most, icing on the total cake.

[Dānu]

I'm not picky. I just want to get laid.