Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 7676159" data-attributes="member: 8461">If we wanted to start somewhere, we should note that you've misinterpreted what I said... apparently deliberately, this you acknowledge that your summary of my position is a strawman. Not once did I assert that "not having full-frontal nudity in much of your art will cheese all the fans off." Rather, what I said was "Having artwork that departs from the original descriptions creates a point of contention" among the core audience. That's the key element.It's not about the level of nudity (though it should be noted that you also came up with the "full-frontal" bit out of absolutely nowhere, as well), so much as it is about staying true to the source material as much as possible.Now, I suppose you could raise a stink that I didn't include a qualifier that any generalization won't apply to absolutely everyone in a given group, but that's taken to be understood. If your biggest complaint is that the things that go without saying aren't actually said, then you really don't have much to complain about.Again, nobody's saying that the "naughty bits" have to be bared. Even in Burroughs' original description, it was noted that Dejah Thoris had jewelry on; while it may be skimpy, one could very well posit that that's the equivalent of some sort of bikini, etc. That's more skin showing than the Disney version had, but at the same time not pushing the envelope too far.See above for why this is a false dichotomy. There is a middle ground between "absolutely nothing" and "put her in a dress."Er, what? Yes, the art and the game mechanics are two different things; has anyone suggested otherwise?So now you're responding to a point I never raised in the first place? This is even more pointless than that deliberate misquote you led off with.Yeah, but you can offer opinions when someone actively solicits them, hence the point of this thread. And again, where did I ever say that it had to be all or nothing? You're really arguing against a phantom, here, rather than what I've said.I think that "near-naked beautiful women" are fairly universally taken to be salacious between then and now.There's something to be said for the idea that when something is that niche to begin with, going one layer deeper won't make that much of a difference. Likewise, no one has said how much or how provocative the art should be. It's not like anyone's expecting the book to be filled with racy pictures to the exclusion of all other types of artwork. Hence, I seriously doubt that this could be extreme enough to be called an additional layer of niche.</blockquote>

Verification