Scrubs: @BEARDSTR0KES: Didn't the producers say they shrunk her breasts before release cause of feminist complaints? That's probably the look she was meant to have.
USAgent: @Scrubs: Yeah, the creator made that dumb decision. He even made the statement that seeing Elizabeth 34 was like "looking at your own daughter" and was asking for people around the world to stop. What a maroon.
Froggy: Remind me a bit of Zimmerman's work, actually, the guy drawing only one type of body shape every single time. Putting stupidly big boobs on every characters.
I don't remember a law being passed saying you're forced to look at and enjoy work involving my models. If you could bring up the statute online, I'd love to see it.
And yes, every single model I do looks like this. Nevermind Paine, Rebecca Chambers, Tali, Bodymorph Liara, Bodymorph Elizabeth, Bodymorph Chell, Sheva, Jack, Samus, Bodymorph Elsa & Anna, Lilith, Commandant Steele, Maya or Gaige. You know, also known as every character I've made minus maybe five.
Froggy: There's indeed no law telling us to enjoy your work and your models.
But maybe then you shouldn't create pic telling us that the Elizabeth we like is shit and that yours is a goddess. 'cause that's a bit Hypocritical of you then.
Skorpio: @LordAardvark: Dude I am not taking that from you. You certainly put lot of work into that stuff. I respect that.
I just personally don't like way oversexualized characters. Like putting tramp stamps,piercings and shit-ton of dark makeup on Liara/Elizabeth. Reminds me of Shadman but minus dicks on every chick (thanks for that)
And OK I didn't even know you made so many models. I mainly saw your pics/gifs with Elizabeth, Liara and Elsa+Anna.
LordAardvark: @Froggy: I'm not even sure what the point of this argument is. Once again - and as you, yourself, have admitted - there is no law forcing you to look at the things I make.
These wallpapers are for the people who LIKE them. If you don't like the wallpaper, then just don't grab it. It literally is that simple. In this case, for the people who agree with the quote, then this wallpaper is for them. For those who disagree with the quote, then it is NOT for them. It is literally that simple.
This wallpaper is not part of a crusade to systemically eliminate all instances of Elizabeth that are not curvy. Its existence is not lessening the existence of elements with canon Elizabeth. This wallpaper existing does not, in any way, negatively affect you or anyone else, unless you allow it to.
I am not sure if perhaps I someone misconstrued that this wallpaper is the beginning of a campaign of the complete and utter annihilation of existing Elizabeths. If that is the case, then I apologize - it was never my intention.
This wallpaper is simply for people who enjoy this iteration of Elizabeth, and agree with the quote. By no means am I trying to say this is the absolute objective truth and that any alternatives must be destroyed.
@Skorpio: First of all I greatly appreciate the fact you're actually be civil about this. Let me make that perfectly clear.
However, allow me to provide some constructive criticisms to avoid things like this in the future: don't make uninformed statements. Just because you don't know about these models doesn't mean they don't exist, which means you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations without them. If you're going to criticize a common trait amongst a person's work, make sure that it is ACTUALLY a common trait amongst their work, and not just a common trait amongst WHAT YOU KNOW of their work.
Again, I am not trying to be rude about this. I am trying to be constructive. I can see that you realize you made your generalization from a smaller subset of my work than what the full corpus is, and I am assuming that you realize the mistake in making such a generalization.
As a final note, Shadman is my primary inspiration for my oversexualization. I am simply pointing this out to validate your personal dislike: you dislike Shadman's form of oversexualization, I draw inspiration from Shadman's form of oversexualization, ergo you dislike my form of oversexualization.
What more, the fact you brought it up actually means that I am succeeding in that regard. So even though you didn't mean it as a compliment, you accidentally gave exactly that. And I thank you for that as well.
Just to be perfectly clear with the both of you (and the dozens of others who I am sure share similar opinions and choose not to share them), I am not responding because I am upset that people disagree with my opinions. I have absolutely no problems with opinions opposing my own, and I even have no problem with sharing these opposing opinions - after all, that is the point of an open forum, to be able to discuss opposing ideas.
The only reason, and I mean the ONLY reason, I responded is because of the blatant misinformation in Skorpio's post. It is OBJECTIVELY wrong to say that "every model I make" is like this. I primarily wanted to clarify that. I simply threw in the other responses because I was already responding, so I may as well address them.
Comments
She looks pretty good nude with her original proportions, there she looks like a cheap porn-whore with sylicone tits.
Meh.
- Reply
I don't remember a law being passed saying you're forced to look at and enjoy work involving my models. If you could bring up the statute online, I'd love to see it.
And yes, every single model I do looks like this. Nevermind Paine, Rebecca Chambers, Tali, Bodymorph Liara, Bodymorph Elizabeth, Bodymorph Chell, Sheva, Jack, Samus, Bodymorph Elsa & Anna, Lilith, Commandant Steele, Maya or Gaige. You know, also known as every character I've made minus maybe five.
But maybe then you shouldn't create pic telling us that the Elizabeth we like is shit and that yours is a goddess. 'cause that's a bit Hypocritical of you then.
I just personally don't like way oversexualized characters. Like putting tramp stamps,piercings and shit-ton of dark makeup on Liara/Elizabeth. Reminds me of Shadman but minus dicks on every chick (thanks for that)
And OK I didn't even know you made so many models. I mainly saw your pics/gifs with Elizabeth, Liara and Elsa+Anna.
- Reply
These wallpapers are for the people who LIKE them. If you don't like the wallpaper, then just don't grab it. It literally is that simple. In this case, for the people who agree with the quote, then this wallpaper is for them. For those who disagree with the quote, then it is NOT for them. It is literally that simple.
This wallpaper is not part of a crusade to systemically eliminate all instances of Elizabeth that are not curvy. Its existence is not lessening the existence of elements with canon Elizabeth. This wallpaper existing does not, in any way, negatively affect you or anyone else, unless you allow it to.
I am not sure if perhaps I someone misconstrued that this wallpaper is the beginning of a campaign of the complete and utter annihilation of existing Elizabeths. If that is the case, then I apologize - it was never my intention.
This wallpaper is simply for people who enjoy this iteration of Elizabeth, and agree with the quote. By no means am I trying to say this is the absolute objective truth and that any alternatives must be destroyed.
@Skorpio: First of all I greatly appreciate the fact you're actually be civil about this. Let me make that perfectly clear.
However, allow me to provide some constructive criticisms to avoid things like this in the future: don't make uninformed statements. Just because you don't know about these models doesn't mean they don't exist, which means you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations without them. If you're going to criticize a common trait amongst a person's work, make sure that it is ACTUALLY a common trait amongst their work, and not just a common trait amongst WHAT YOU KNOW of their work.
Again, I am not trying to be rude about this. I am trying to be constructive. I can see that you realize you made your generalization from a smaller subset of my work than what the full corpus is, and I am assuming that you realize the mistake in making such a generalization.
As a final note, Shadman is my primary inspiration for my oversexualization. I am simply pointing this out to validate your personal dislike: you dislike Shadman's form of oversexualization, I draw inspiration from Shadman's form of oversexualization, ergo you dislike my form of oversexualization.
What more, the fact you brought it up actually means that I am succeeding in that regard. So even though you didn't mean it as a compliment, you accidentally gave exactly that. And I thank you for that as well.
Just to be perfectly clear with the both of you (and the dozens of others who I am sure share similar opinions and choose not to share them), I am not responding because I am upset that people disagree with my opinions. I have absolutely no problems with opinions opposing my own, and I even have no problem with sharing these opposing opinions - after all, that is the point of an open forum, to be able to discuss opposing ideas.
The only reason, and I mean the ONLY reason, I responded is because of the blatant misinformation in Skorpio's post. It is OBJECTIVELY wrong to say that "every model I make" is like this. I primarily wanted to clarify that. I simply threw in the other responses because I was already responding, so I may as well address them.