Thank you kindly for composing a thoughtful response to my question, what is the point of making an art piece of a licensed character that is (arguably) far from the source material? I am honestly curious what the reasoning is, and I can see the validity of what you say, which I think boils down to, Sideshow was attempting to appeal to the broadest audience it could in order to fill the 250 plus however many regular orders it wants to turn in order for it to be a profitable venture. I will try to respond in kind.
First, I have to say that Buffy was not a typical mash-mouth fantasy show with a predominantly male audience. A good portion (possibly the majority) of the audience was female. I think this has to do with the fact that the lead is a female hero, specifically, as were most of her crew by the end of the series run. What portion of Buffy's fanbase male or female would bother buying an expensive collectible statue I can't say, but I'd wager it would easily be more than 250. The show was reasonably popular, and the fan base very loyal from what I can tell.
The reason I believe my hypothetical true-to-the-character statue would sell better than this fantasy version is that of the 3 populations Sideshow seemed to be looking for with this statue:
1. those who think it is a good statue as is
2. Willow fans who think it is "good enough"
3. random non-fans who collect beautiful girl statues
while excluding group 4, fans who want an authentic representation of a popular character and/or actress.
I believe those in group 1 would still have bought the statue even without the inflated chest and enhanced height, with character-correct clothing, and in a normal pose. I also think group 2 would become much larger, drawing from group 4. I think the adds would be far in excess of the losses from group 3. Partly this is because, yes, I agree, Sideshow did not go as far as they could have sexing up Willow (I shudder to think what they could have done--think Gentle Giant's Slave Leia statue).
That's about as much on the business side of making statues as I think I can take, so I'll stop with that now. As for why I believe groups 1/2/4 would still appreciate a statue of a skinny, flat-chested, nerdy school girl, honestly, I think if you followed the show, I think you would more readily see why such a character could still be appealing--even adorable, and yes, why one would want a very expensive statue depicting such a character on your display shelf.
As for the bit about my niece, god forbid, no, I didn't say that because she's getting hit on online (at least I hope not--her father would have a fit). It's the EVERY DAY objectification of women that she will need to live with just growing up in this type of society reflected in the attitude that a smart, brave, but under-endowed woman is not worth admiring as-is--that gets me worrying for her.
BTW, why did you assume I am female?
Anyway, that's where I'm coming from.
All excellent points on the statue.
As far as your niece or any other female growing up in Western Society, when have women NOT been objectified? In fact, women are objectified in just about every society on Earth, are they not? Now, if you are talking about the more recent impact of rap videos that have become more mainstream, which reduce women to the level of sex toys and men to money grubbing pimps, yes, that is definitely a problem. I think it best to keep your children sway from that stuff. It is degrading to the human condition, and quite frankly, I believe it is done to dumb down society and dis empower people, in order to make them easier to control, thus distracting them from focusing on real issues in the world, or seeking real self improvement. I think there will always be objectification of women in Western Culture in particular, partly because it is a by product of putting women in advertising in order to sell things, by associating various products in a positive way with human beings, making those products seem more relevant and needed for human life. Sometimes there is objectification of men, too, with chiseled chested shirtless men posing for cologne or whatever, but women are most often selected, simply because women are better looking than men. Women have ALWAYS placed more emphasis on their physical appearance than men do on themselves, as women in general are most concerned with clothing and fashion, hairstyling, and jewelry far more than most men are. I see that as something that the women themselves are responsible for perpetuating. If you are going to advertise something for human beings to buy, you are going to make it seem to most relevant to them and make the product most easy to relate to, and thus you will put a human being in the ad. You are not just going to put ANY type of human being in the ad, you are going to put the most attractive human being in it, and the most attractive gender at that, the fairer sex, women.
The most beautiful people have always been the most likable to most people, being treated like royalty compared to the average looking person, whether male or female. The fact that there is TV and the internet now to make the images of particular beautiful people more widespread DOES seem to increase the pressure on people to look great, and raises expectations of everyone's physical attractiveness. This applies to men as well as women, so women are not singled out in this regard. All my life, I have never felt that they are.
Interestingly, the average breast size of females has increased 25% in the past 15 years, because of the artificial growth hormones fed to livestock.
As far as a REAL female being seen as truly attractive, that comes mostly from charisma, and NOT from breast size. If a woman has a pleasant personality and is an interesting person, (because they have done interesting things, and because they have developed themselves as people, that will give them charisma, that is far more attractive than mere breast size. Of course, you can't just go out and BUY being and interesting person that has charisma, you have to develop it yourself). A lot of girls who have physical beauty believe that developing talent of any kind is totally unnecessary, and focus predominantly on their looks, which only works for 3 or 4 decades tops.
These girls who have no talent are the same ones who are PREOCCUPIED with fashion and celebrities and the media, and popularity, and spend most of their free time yapping on the phone, gossiping to one another. The MORE intelligent, creative girls don't buy into the whole superficial lifestyle, and actually develop themselves a bit, and become interesting people. As far as a smart, brave, but under-endowed woman is not worth admiring as-is-, the question is, to WHO?? I think MOST people are superficial and are not deep thinkers and are not particularly insightful or intelligent. These are the kind of males who have the least respect for women. If THESE kinds of males find your niece less attractive, that's a GOOD thing. Some people look at at all wrong. It discourages the people of superficial character from wanting to take advantage of her. That can be a blessing growing up, so long as she really DOES have a head on her shoulders. It makes it easier for her to focus on what's important growing up. Then, like a lot of other women who grew up awkward, she can be seen as a beautiful woman and appreciated most by the people who are the most worthy.
Now that I consider it, the actress playing Willow certainly falls into the interesting person category, and so I suppose that to artificially sex up the statue is to compromise the integrity of what the character is all about, and so threatens it's authenticity in that capacity, as well. But like I said before, it's a HUMAN issue in sexing up a female statue and putting sex before artistic integrity, and is not just an issue of the objectification of women. To me, the statue just happens to be a woman. Making male characters more muscular than they actually are is just as objectifying, and if you object to objectification, just as offensive.
