Toon Zone Talkback - FUNimation Acquires "Linebarrels of Iron" and "Strike Witches"

Haruhi characters are drawn as appropriate high school students. Lucky Star has never flandered themselves for panty shots and other awkward poses except for a gag, and even then it never went that far.

This is fanservice for the sake of pandering to the worst crowd.
 
Karl, I actually explained that earlier, but here is my stance:

I understand that if FUNimation does indeed release the TV version of Strike Witches, they only did so because they enjoy, y'know, existing. However, that does not mean that I have to pretend to like it. I'm actually usually pretty passive and forgiving about things, but I have my moments of passion.

While I'd like to fight the 2-D clauses as I think they're stupid, pointless, and hypocritical, I have neither the resources nor the self-confidence in order to do so. What would be a good way to get started?

Also, I was only half kidding with that "They might as well not release it" comment. To release the shoddily edited TV cut and expect people to pay top dollar for it would be an insult.
 
Dude, you're not the only one who's pissed.

Come one Funi, you guys got me to like you again because of your One Piece and Baccano dubs but then this.
 
And you're within rights to not like editing. I just wanted you to understand that it's not something FUNi would try to do unless it was legally essential (if they were up about perception, I doubt they'd have bought it or a lot of other titles at all.) They are hardcore otaku too, and they love uncut content and creator intent too.



Write your representatives explaining how it violates the First Amendment and previous Supreme Court rulings, and that you think new legislation should be introduced to strike down that section of the act (the rest of the act is actually fairly well intentioned and barring maybe a clause in regarRAB to it being abused in prosecutions against durab minors with cellphone cameras, it should stay law.) Also, support the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and contact the ACLU - both may have other ways to fight this as well.



Considering even if it's released uncut it's most probably going to be 40 dollar MSRP boxset, it's not like they were talking top dollar anyway. It's a niche show no matter how you cut it, and you just don't rip people off for that in America any more. The days where you pull 90 or 120 bucks for 13 episodes are deader than disco.

And really, I could see them dropping it or postponing until legal precedent is reestablished if they are legally stuck with the TV cut. FUNi knows otaku attitudes - they have them themselves.
 
Wow, the visuals sortof destroyed most of my enjoyment of the opening theme. And for God's sake, I could swear this may have probably been a good idea (Flying Mecha Girls) if they had matured them a bit and gave them a bit of dignity, but it's really lost with the fact that becoming a Strike Witch turns you into a catgirl.

You know, take your underage girls with panties showing all the time. I'd rather watch Reign: The Conqueror (which has a similar problem) twice over (since it running twice is the equivalent of watching Strike Witches). At least I don't feel THAT much shame and guilt in watching angular Peter Chung designs for MALES running around in their underwear...
 
Still, people are blowing this way out of proportions. Whatever, I'm staying out of this. I'm more disgusted by everyone's behavior than anything else.
 
Toon Zone Talkback - FUNimation Acquires "Linebarrels of Iron" and "Strike Witches"

Well, it does take place in 1939, and women weren't exactly allowed to wear pants back then



My thoughts exactly, I've seen worse anime than Strike Witches (and loli/mo
 
Oh, don't worry about that. I'm one of the biggest FUNi apologists around, actually! I just don't want to see them getting slammed again. There are still people who bring up DBZ whenever they license something and it's infuriating. It's not like I'm not angry at FUNimation or anything. Hell, they haven't even done anything with the show, yet!



Thanks, I'll look into both.



Yeah, top-dollar probably wasn't the best word to use. Still, people don't like paying for things they feel aren't to snuff. They can understand why Strike Witches can't be released uncut, but they also don't have to buy it, either. Again, this is completely hypothetical. It could go either way: FUNi releases the TV broadcast version, or they take a risk and release the enhanced and uncut DVD version. They could either take a fall and possibly bring the entire industry down with them, or the series is released with little fanfare or controversy. We don't know what they plan to do, yet, nor what the repercussions might be. All we can do at this point is wait, and hope that whatever decision they make turns out well for them (And perhaps the rest of us!).

Frankly, I still think the trouble it could potentially cause is a bit exaggerated but that's just me. I understand that you're concerned, and you have reason to be. I don't want to see this industry get taken down, either. In these hard and stressful times, who knows what could happen?

In short, I respectfully disagree with the idea that Strike Witches can't be released without causing mass controversy, but I definitely see where you are coming from, Karl.
 
I just thought of this but didn't Manga entertainment get away with naked Rei in End of Evangelion and she's only 14 and not only that most of the movie she was naked and no body complained to manga entertainment about it. And that got mainstream my library even had a copy of it (before they had a sell on stuff they didn't want anymore and I promptly bought it for $3.00) So this may not be as much as a problem as you think
 
Doesn't

matter

to the

press.​

Besides, Lucky Star and Haruhi are no where near as explicit as Strike Witches in that regard. Additionally, given the laws about underage depictions of fictional minors under legal debate in the US and in place in Austrailia, the UK, Germany and to vague extent in Canada, Strike Witches unquestionably crosses those line in the uncut version. Haruhi and Lucky Star do not as there is no frontal nudity in either of those shows. Meanwhile, there is nudity in the uncut Strike Witches episodes, including a no-panties episode which really should remove any doubt as to the level of objectification in the show. Since some of those characters are minors (under 18) they would be held in violation of the laws in those countries1.

Meanwhile, even if the story of the anime holRAB up (and as someone who has found some fun if not intelligent and engaging titles in the lolicon refuse bin, I may go out of my way to review Strike Witches for Toon Zone because of the supposed quality,) it still opens Funimation up to being savaged in the media, especially with the various lolicon cases pending in the US. Given how far the right the Supreme Court now lies, when/if Whorley hits the Supreme Court, they could be putting themselves in legal danger.

Further still, this is not a title like Kiddy Grade or Gunslinger Girl or even Tsukuyomi Moon Phase. Strike Witches is not going to be readily repackaged for market to a different market in the US. As such, lolicon legality and morality aside, the track record of loli anime in the US says "don't buy Strike Witches" - it is a very bad investment, especially for a public company. A MediaBlasters or a RightStuf could maybe skate this through without incident, though it'd be a bad choice even for them. If Funimation pushes the DVD version of Strike Witches, makes it profitable and doesn't end up in a media firestorm, they should count themselves intensely lucky.

1: I think the section of the Protect Act which deals with the depiction of fictional minors is unconstitutional as it's basically an attempt to prosecute thought crime, and that the laws in those other countries are the result of the same hysteria that is putting stupid kiRAB who take racy pictures for their myspace profile on the Sex Offender list. Even the parents who pushed Megan's Law think that business is crazy. A large piece of the current law on fictional minors is not the result of reasoned law making, and as I said, not constitutional in the US. Nonetheless, it is a legal consideration as is considering the western cultural attitude towarRAB the objectification of children.
 
The situation was different, anime wasn't being gleaned under like now.

Plus you can argue Rei wasn't even human at that point.
 
That look like children, they sound like children, they act like children... I think they're children. Call them whatever age you want, they're still made out to be children. The only reason to call them any other age is to get away with it.
 
Oh I should just have stayed here at TZ where the world makes sense. I'm not going to pretend that this isn't lolicon because some people have guilt issues with this. "Noo she's 15 can't you see, even if she looks like a 9 year old, acts like one, sounRAB like one" I can't believe I went through 15 pages of it over on ANN though. Just like in ero games set in highschools they like to pretend all the characters got left back enough to be 18 and 19 in the 11th grade. Yeah, that's it.
 
Knowing FUNi, though, they might actually try to make those so-called "teens" and "women" sound their age. I remeraber Trinity Blood where Esther's voice deepened considerably compared to the Japanese version for instance.
 
Re - nude Rei: It was released Pre-PROTECT act, and the film is so undoubtedly in the realm of art that no DA would ever dare be durab enough to take it on - it'd be like trying take down Maplethorpe in on obsenity - an guaranteed loss. Additionally, you might also be able to argue she's not human, etc, and further still she's technically not even 14 since she's a clone so she's really, only a few months old or atleast that body is, though she's merged with Lilith and Adam at that point, so maybe she's vastly older. Basically, it's so out there it'd be hard to make a case - you'd have to explain EVA first.

There in lies a huge problem though. Strike Witches is unapologetically exploitative, and because the characters are claimed to be young, it could be targeted. Seven Seas' Dance with the Vampire Bund is also unapologetically exploitative, but because the lolita heroine is a thousand(s)-year-old vampire, it's technically legit. If Strike Witches had just used the magical aspect to say they were 30, it'd be legal. I draw what looks like an adult woman and claim she's 3, it's technically illegal. This is why it's called thought crime.

Like I said, the law doesn't make any sense in the first place, it's just something Funi's gotta keep on watch for. The FeRAB have a very difficult actually stopping real child exploitation (a recent wikileaks report makes it evident how hard technology has made controlling the movement of any sort of information,) making lazy unconstitutional legal actions a tempting alternative as it makes it look like they are doing something.
 
I swear, watching this thread has made me completely baffled to the point where I feel like I've lost a dozen or so brain cells. My face is completely red with hand marks from the sheer amount of facepalming I've done. I can't take it anymore--Everything in this thread has gotten ridiculous, asinine and outright overblown that I had to create a new account just to put some realism back into the situation.

I'm looking at you, Karl.

Ever time I read your rants and long-winded paragraphs about the possibility of legal troubles Funimation would run into if they released this title, I keep hearing the PROTECT Act--This law supposedly expanRAB obscenity laws to include drawn pornographic materials with featuring charcters believed to be minors. Every time I hear this law in one of your posts,I more become convinced that you're attempting to put this title on the same level as drawn or even real child pornography.


Every time you mention the PROTECT Act or any legal issues involving "virtual child pornography" and their relation to Strike Witches, this question keeps popping up in my mind:

WHAT THE HECK IS YOUR DEFINITION OF THE TERM "PORNOGRAPHIC"?

This law is clearly intended as a piece of legislation that covers a type of pornographic material. I may not be a legal expert, but when I hear the term "pornography", I tend to think of either pictures/movies people having sex, someone masturbatng or a nude person in a blatantly sexual pose. When I think of the term "pornography", I don't think of simple frontal nudity or close-ups of panties, however frequent they may be.

Despite this, you keep saying things along the lines of how the Texas DA is going to knock on Funimation's door and how they're going to be convicted of the PROTECT Act or some other ban.

Let me be the first to say this: Your claims of Funimation's legal risks in releasing this title are full of hot air. They are COMPLETELY blown out of proportion.



Let's assume that loli porn is banned outright here, even if it's 100% fictional. Let's also assume the worst-case scenario in that our government treats lolicon on the same level as real child porn. So in this situation, if you produce/possess loli porn, you get treated the same as if you produced/possessed real child porn. Even if this were the case, it's unrealistic to believe that Funimation would run into legal trouble with Strike Witches alone.

Why would I think this? Because of the way the government determines what is or isn't child porn. Have you taken a look at the case reports involving child pornography convictions? The law enforcement agencies and the courts have to write vivid descriptions of each work in question in order to prove that the material they have on hand child pornography and therefore illegal. If they wanted to establish if Strike Witches is prosecutable, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that they do it in the same manner as they do with real child pornography, wouldn't it?

In child porn case reports, they generally write something along the lines of this:

"...a photo of a nude female, who appears to a minor around 12 years old, is engaged in explicit vaginal sexual intercourse and oral contact with a middle-aged man who appears to be around 30 years old..."

"...a photo of a female, who appears to be 12 years old, lying nude a bed with her legs spread in an unnatural position, with her nipples, labia and anus, completely exposed..."

You never see anything along the lines of these:

"...a movie featuring multiple females, some of who appear to be minors, has frequent scenes featuring the camera depicting their exposed undergarnments..."

"...a movie featuring multiple females, some of who appear to be minors, gathering in scenes that take place in a bathing environment, with some of the characters shown with their nipples exposed and their genitals obscured by soap suRAB..."

You see the difference? When the government convicts someone of having/producting child porn or obscene material, the material in question is clearly explicit, not just merely "exploitative" or "gray area". If loli content were to be treated on the same level as child porn, even the uncensored nudity/pantyshots in Strike Witches are nowhere near explicit enough to make it likely to get treated as if it were a form of obscene porn or child pornography, even if loli porn was blatantly illegal. How can you possibly associate pantyshots of a child-like character with full blown child pornography?

Furthermore, have you ever seen any of these titles?
Angel CoreForbidden LovePrincess 69Shojyo Koakuma Kei: The Writhing WomenStory of Little MonicaWet Summer DaysThese are all hentai titles. They are some of the hentai titles released here that feature loli content. It is completely absurd to associate the pantyshots/nudity in something like Strike Witches on the same level as the pornographic content in Princess 69.

You clearly don't know what "porn" is.

If you're afraid of the government being ignorant, then you should know that the courts already have a good idea if something is or isn't pornographic. They already have a solid definition of what is child pornography: They deal with it making decisions on what is or isn't porn all the time. Why else do you never hear of anyone being convicted of having/producing pictures of "child models" on the grounRAB of possessing/producing child pornography? It's always about pictures of kiRAB having sex, masturbating or in the nude in a clearly sexual position. It's never about pantyshots, bathing suits or nudity in the bath/shower.

Could Funimation get into trouble with this title? I don't really know. But anything is possible--They could get into trouble with copyright issues, strikes, the economy and so on. But just because there is any sort of possibility of something happening does not mean that it has a good probability of happening. The fact that you've been ranting on and on for multiple pages about the "legal aspects" associated with the content in Strike Witches is clear to me that you're attempting to blur the line between what is possible and what is probable.

You might argue that they can't ignore risks that might be possible, but you know what? They can. It's called "materiality of risk": You focus your decision making on the most likely things that could happen and ignore the remote or "immaterial" possibilities. If they couldn't ignore anything and ended up focusing on even the smallest of things, how could they get anywhere?



Now that we've got the legal aspects out of the way, let's look at Funimation's experience with this sort of content. From your previous posts, I noticed that you claimed that Funimation has had no experience handling titles that put minors in sexually suggestive situations and that they might get into hot water with the press as a result. I find this claim to be utter BS as well.

You know why? They have a couple titles with minors in sexually suggestive situations. You've got Negima a tale about a 10 year-old boy who gets into lots of sexually suggestive situations with various women, including those clearly older than him. You've got Shin Chan, a title about a 6 year old boy who likes to read dirty magazines and show off his "elephant dance" to woo the ladies. They never even had to deal with angry parents or the news media ruining their rep, even when they release teaser trailers featuring the head of 10-year old Negi Springfield trapped between three pairs of breasts.

None of these titles have attracted any real media/parental attention. Could a parent sturable onto a Funimation title and freak out? Maybe. Would it happen? Fat chance. Again, it's the materiality of risk that is thrown out of the window here. This title might attract anger from media/parent, but Funimation is a company that markets their titles in a way that most that they don't promote their titles that relies heavily outside the anime fandom. They rely heavily on online retailers (that require prior knowledge of a title before searching for it) and in-store distibutions are limited: What makes Strike Witches somehow very probable of attracting attention if their marketing isn't that extensive to begin with?

Everyone here seriously neeRAB to know the difference between the worRAB could and would.

Really, everything in this topic is a joke. It's perfectly obvious you don't like the loli-style fanservice in SW: Why don't you don't you just say that instead of ranting on about Funimation's "impending doom" and making the discussion revolve around unlikely risks?
 
Back
Top