I wasn't knocking it, I assure you. I agree with your comment, actually, though I'd take it a step further and say it's more than a societal response.JimB said:
Zero Suit Samus has a great character model
- Thread starter Matthew Jabour
- Start date
Wait... the heels articulate to maintain support even when moving?! That is actually a very cool and practical design point, then! Especially if it means they also articulate the other way - mildly retracting to prevent them from snagging/twisting when she's moving. Articulated heels like this are the absolute best thing to wear in combat - The heel provides the support and stability to stand your ground, while the arch of the foot keeps the wearer on their toes, greatly enhancing reaction time, dynamic balance, and mobility. Being flat-footed in combat is a very bad thing ("Stay on your toes" is more than just a saying), and articulate high heels are extremely useful in preventing flat-footing, maintaining dynamic balance, and staying on one's toes.Zak757 said:
The only problem with high heels in motion (And it's a big one), aside from idiots/wimps who can't figure out how to balance or have underdeveloped calves - but that's a problem with the person, not the shoe - is the heels getting in the way of movement, snagging on the ground, and applying destructive torsion to the ankle. Heels that don't snag solve that problem, and not being a flat-footed wimp solves the other, making the heels extremely useful.
"Heels" are the bits of a foot attached to the ankle, or the spiky bit of the shoes were talking about. "Heals" is the present tense, third person form of the verb that refers to repairing an injury in a living system.
Sorry to be That Guy Who Harps On Spelling Errors Despite The Message Being Clear, but that mistake has come up a jillion times now and it's kind of driving me crazy. Samus Aran is wearing high heels, not high heals. There is no such thing as high heals.
Sorry to be That Guy Who Harps On Spelling Errors Despite The Message Being Clear, but that mistake has come up a jillion times now and it's kind of driving me crazy. Samus Aran is wearing high heels, not high heals. There is no such thing as high heals.
I've noticed that two in the last page or so. It'd only make scents that you'd point it out.JimB said:
A six page topic about high heels, ladies and gentlemen. Uh... persons and gentlemen.
I have two questions for the people who are so vehemently opposed to the high heels. If you're not a fan but kind of indifferent, or upset about another aspect of her design/personality, this does not apply to you.
If high heels weren't exclusively feminine, would you still find them to be blatantly sexual? It seems to me that, as the heels aren't pornographic, the only thing sexual about them is the notion that they are a fetish for some. I submit to you that this is only the case for the same reason that bras and tube tops are fetishized. Hell, even why breasts are fetishized: because they are typically representative of women. Of course, some guys have tits (HIS NAME- WAS ROBERT PAULSON), but the vast majority of tit-having, bra wearing, high heel sporting people are women. If someone is sexually attracted to women, it's not unthinkable that they may have a fetish for feminine things. People can find anything sexual. I'm sure we can all agree that the shoes aren't pornographic. They don't reveal any extra bits of her body as a bikini or a nightgown would. If it were commonplace to see men wearing high heels, would you still find them to be overtly
sexual?
Assuming the answer to the above question is "yes", don't think that this says more about your feelings toward high heels than it does the intentions of the artist?
I have two questions for the people who are so vehemently opposed to the high heels. If you're not a fan but kind of indifferent, or upset about another aspect of her design/personality, this does not apply to you.
If high heels weren't exclusively feminine, would you still find them to be blatantly sexual? It seems to me that, as the heels aren't pornographic, the only thing sexual about them is the notion that they are a fetish for some. I submit to you that this is only the case for the same reason that bras and tube tops are fetishized. Hell, even why breasts are fetishized: because they are typically representative of women. Of course, some guys have tits (HIS NAME- WAS ROBERT PAULSON), but the vast majority of tit-having, bra wearing, high heel sporting people are women. If someone is sexually attracted to women, it's not unthinkable that they may have a fetish for feminine things. People can find anything sexual. I'm sure we can all agree that the shoes aren't pornographic. They don't reveal any extra bits of her body as a bikini or a nightgown would. If it were commonplace to see men wearing high heels, would you still find them to be overtly
sexual?
Assuming the answer to the above question is "yes", don't think that this says more about your feelings toward high heels than it does the intentions of the artist?
You are asking if a contextual object was removed from its context, would we still respond to it in the context we do. That question is nearly impossible to answer, but at a guess, I'd say yes, since high heels have no practical applications and exist only to change the shape of a person's calves and ass.The Inquisitive Mug said:
Are you arguing that only pornography is sexual?The Inquisitive Mug said:
No. Symbols have generally recognized meanings. That is the basis of communication. It's possible the artist not only misunderstands what high heels exist for and what their intention is but also assigns some entirely other meaning to them, but I will need actual evidence of that rather than intimations of something being wrong with me before I am likely to accept that as the case. It's kind of like how people say, "Well, maybe the director wasn't trying to invoke Jesus imagery in Man of Steel when he told Henry Caville to hold his arms out cruciform style while floating in space:" if that's true, then the artist is not only ignorant to a degree I can scarcely believe, but he's also just plain bad at his job.The Inquisitive Mug said:
To be fair, I don't think Nintendo is to take the blame for this one. This mostly falls under Namco Bandai. Lest we forget, this Smash (and technically all others before it) is being produce by a third party and Nintendo actually is pretty lax on changing character design. I mean, sure, we're not going to see DOA style crap but Mario Strikers Charged and Star Fox Assault do show a precedent for this.Dragonbums said:
Also, I honestly think that this is a case of unintentional sexism. I'm honestly having a hard time picturing someone thinking those chunky heels as sexy. The fact that those heels seemed to have a lot of thought put in how they function (inasmuch as someone who doesn't wear them think they can function) and that they were addressing how ZSS has little heavy hitting moves support this. That is, of course, not to say that people shouldn't be annoyed by this (still didn't think the outrage needed to be as big as it eventually did, though) as the fact that the industry is so use to sexism tropes that they don't realize it is a problem onto itself.
In any case, I do think that the model is a much better one than Brawl's, at least in clothing design minus said rocket boots. There actually is color variation in the suit itself and they replaced the boob socks to something more realistic. The actual body looks pretty similar to Brawl's, as not much needed to be changed.
Well, the heel was definitely elevated, but are also connected to the rest of the foot as one big piece, so your both kinda right?A_suspicious_cabbage said:
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130815152300/ssb4/images/a/a1/Untitled.png
Personally I think they look stupid and can't imagine how she's supposed to fit her foot in her power armor with that. That's about as far as I want to go into this conversation though.
What about the people who are opposed to the high heels because we think they look ridiculous and are a stupid change to the design of the character, and not because of any "sexualized" argument (because let's not split hairs, the Zero Suit has been "sexualized" from day one, adding heels doesn't change that in any way)?The Inquisitive Mug said:
Incidentally, I'm in that camp. No, that does not apply to those people either. The high heels look dumb.shrekfan246 said:
That is EXACTLY what I am asking. I am asking if people who are of the opinion that the heels sexualize Samus would feel that way if the high heels were removed from the feminine context. You offered a fairly straightforward yes. Thank you for your response, though I must say you seem a bit put-off. It wasn't intended as some trick question. But couldn't "looking cool" or "looking stylish" be a practical application? Hats make my hair flat, but that doesn't mean that they exist only to change the shape of a person's hair. Besides, this is Zero Suit Samus. She was going to drawn with sweet calves and a rockin' ass anyway. If that's the only argument as to the intention of the heels, it's still possible that the heels are only there because the artist thought they would look cool. They don't, but hey, that's subjective.JimB said:
Obviously not. I- what? You seem a bit defensive. I only bring it up because pornography is inherently sexual. It's kind of the entire reason it exists? The purpose of my question was to determine why people find the heels sexual, and why they have a problem with it. Are they under the impression that heels are universally perceived as a sex symbol? Are they upset about the perceived sexualization because heels are an inherently feminine symbol, and they feel that in the wake of Other M the last thing Samus needs is more focus on her gender? If it were pornographic, there wouldn't even be a debate. That's the reason I was "asking if a contextual object was removed from its context, would [you] still respond to it in the context [you] do", as you put rather incredulously.JimB said:
And while we're on the subject, what is a "contextual object"? Are you implying that some objects, specifically high heels, serve the same purpose and represent the same things in every situation on every person at every point in time, even high tech ones worn by a space warrior in a cybernetic skin suit? If that's the case, where'd all this discussion come from? This thread would have been two posts long. "Do the heels sexualize Samus?" "Heels = Sex, GG no rematch kthnxbye"
JimB said:
Regarding the first three sentences, thank you for your response. It's good to understand exactly where you're coming from. Regarding the rest, if you're making the claim that the heels are inherently sexual, doesn't that put the burden of proof on you? Also, I hope that you're not implying that I made "intimations" that anything was wrong with you. I don't think you are, but just checking because that seemed to come out of left field.
Just like your answer above, as the one making the claim, the burden of proof rests with you. Of course, you're definitely entitled to your opinion. You may even be right on both accounts. But let's not pretend that until you're proven wrong we should all default to your point of view. I absolutely think that it was a total Jesus reference, and I have a lot of evidence to support it, but that doesn't mean that the people who disagree are necessarily wrong. Until I get something concrete, like Zach Snyder coming right out and saying "Yep, total Jesus reference", people are free to disagree. Same with the Samus thing. Opinions are nice like that.JimB said:
I wouldn't say Day One, the point of the Zero Suit in Zero Mission was about vulnerability rather than sexuality: Samus, perhaps prematurely in hindsight, removes her armor after a job well done, then she gets jumped by more pirates and her ship got trashed, meaning she couldn't get the Power Suit back on and was pretty much stuck behind enemy lines with nothing but an emergency weapon that can't even kill the Pirates patrolling the area. It actually speaks to her badassedness that she pulls it off.shrekfan246 said:
It was actually Smash Bros itself that went and made the Zero Suit into a viable fighting alternative for Samus (though it does make sense. After that one time, it's reasonable to assume Samus spent some time learning to fight better out of the Power Suit and upgraded her pistol).
In this case, I can't see anybody thinking those boots were sexy when they designed them. More likely, it's just the admittedly dumb assumption that heels are cool for anything other than fashion. Like the Knight Sabers' hardsuits in Bubblegum Crisis.
As for her breasts... How can you tell? I mean, Samus has always been on the large side, but looking at the picture I still don't notice any change from Brawl except for maybe with a side-by-side comparison.
Yes, I know the point of the suit was to showcase her vulnerability.SAMAS said:
It's still a very tight, form-fitting outfit designed in such a way as to show off Samus' figure.
And yes, I also understand why it's designed to look the way it does, given the Power Suit and everything. But that doesn't take away from the visual factors of how it fits Samus.
Okay...SAMAS said:
But I fail to see how that prevents it from being a tight, form-fitting outfit which quite effectively compliments Samus' body type.
Look, I won't argue with you that the design for Samus in the Zero Suit has become more sexualized over the years since its first inception, but the thing was never not a latex bodysuit.
I am a bit put-off, but not because I thought it was a trick question. Rather, I think it's kind of a nonsensical one, kind of like asking, "If you weren't calling a black person that, would you still think '******' is an offensive term?" I do not understand the value of divorcing a problem from the context it exists within and then trying to apply that vacuum understanding to the original situation. It's a suggestion I only ever see in discussions about feminist issues, and one I just don't get.The Inquisitive Mug said:
Not at the expense of the character's integrity.The Inquisitive Mug said:
Yes, and that's problematic too, but I've been ignoring it because it's not the specific problem at hand. The only question I'm bothering to consider is about the heels themselves, and high heels are body-changing devices that generally hurt to wear for more than, say, forty-five minutes or so. They are in no wise practical, nor of any use in a combat scenario, so they are not there for Samus's benefit. They are there for the audience's.The Inquisitive Mug said:
You said that since the heels aren't pornographic, they're only sexual to people who fetishize them. That seems to mean that only fetishes and porn are sexual.The Inquisitive Mug said:
Not that I'm aware of.The Inquisitive Mug said:
I think you asked that question very weirdly, but alright, I'll accept that it was your intent.The Inquisitive Mug said:
I doubt it, since symbols, by their very nature, cannot be universal. It is impossible to get a single consensus among all human beings about what a subjective image means. I believe it is generally understood that the only purpose of high heels is to make women more attractive to men, but universally? No.The Inquisitive Mug said:
I can't speak to that for anyone other than myself. High heels being feminine is not inherently problematic, any more than, I don't know, than chest hair being masculine is inherently problematic. My objection is that high heels are symbols of the pains a woman is socially expected to take in order to be attractive, and if Samus wants to suffer pain to be pretty while wearing combat gear, then something has gone terribly wrong.The Inquisitive Mug said:
I was using the term to describe a physical object that has a symbolic meaning because of the constructed social mores about it. Another example would be, say, a fedora. On its own, it's just a hat, but I think if you draw it on a person, due to the associations with certain social groups, we will understand it to be symbolic of a hipster and/or tosser.The Inquisitive Mug said:
In a court of law, maybe. To a degree, the burden is on me, but when you're asking for proof of the invisible thoughts inside another person's head, all I can do is look at that person's behavior and from that make inferences. To truly settle the matter, a burden also exists on that other person--the artist, in this instance--to explain himself. "Maybe it doesn't mean that" is a claim all on its own, because unless a person saying such a thing can say what the symbol does mean, it's just an attempt to make a denial from an unassailable ground, like when theists say that we can't know God doesn't exist, where the obvious implication is that we should therefore act like he does.The Inquisitive Mug said:
Yes, people are free to disagree, but I'm not sure why you bring it up. Has anyone been suggesting that people aren't free to disagree? Has anyone been trying to shout down or silence the opposition? Is this one of those situations where--and my apologies if this seems offensive, but it's something that comes up often enough I feel the need to ask--expressing a dissenting opinion is considered oppressive against those who disagree?The Inquisitive Mug said:
theNater said:
1) Samus' shoes have benefits (the aforementioned flight/rocket kicks) that may override whatever impediment they carry.
2) Looking at how she actually moves in the video the shoes don't impede her movement.
3) It's a video game! Link and Mario's hats should be falling off everywhere unless they're pinned to their hair. The Fire Emblem guys would be constantly battling their cape to fight effectively. Peach and Zelda - have you ever seen a fighter in a dress!?
As for the argument that she's never worn anything like that in the past... so? How is that an argument at all?
Yes.theNater said:
Fair enough, but the point I was making is that the games (outside of Fusion/Other M) don't give enough insight in Samus' character to argue whether she would or wouldn't wear those shoes. You disagreed (which is fine) but put forward the same, in my opinion mis-observations, that I had just criticised. By all means argue against what I said, but try to bring something new.JimB said:
Well there's the rocket tube argument but I'm not going to go there, because fiction. In any case, what choices some hypothetical rocket shoe designer makes is hardly relevant isn't it? Maybe the shoes were designed for a Lady Gaga concert so she could zip around above the crowd and cause a spectacle, and people loved them so much they decided to produce and sell replicas to the general public. And Samus thought "Hmm, I could do without the heels and the fluro trim, buuuut... ROCKET KICKS!!! Shut up and take my money!"JimB said:
Again, showing your ignorance. ZSS was shit in Brawl - far too weak to be any good. The new shoes boost her attack and agility without sacrificing anything (except fashion sense). They added the boots to balance her out a bit and make her a more competitive player. You could argue they could have just tweaked the numbers a bit, but why not add some flair and spectacle where you can?JimB said:
... in a game where players jump off thin air. -__- Clutching at straws here buddy.JimB said:
Pretty much every Smash Bros bout I've been in has been 90% aerials. Have you ever played the game before?JimB said:
Also, just to make your analogy more fitting, if he was wearing flippers on the land at the bottom of a swimming pool would he still be a moron? It's not like Samus isn't in air while she's on land.
She wears the zero suit inside her power suit. The rocket heels are not part of her zero suit. They're additions to her outfit. Just because her name is "Zero Suit Samus" doesn't mean that her entire ensemble is part of her zero suit. The gun-whip and hair tie aren't part of the zero suit either. Also, in case you missed it, ZSS is a separate character to PSS this time. There's no longer going to be any in-game transitions between the two, meaning Samus will never have to wear the power suit over the heels, or find somewhere to take them off and store them whilst in the power suit.JimB said: