Jump to content

Actress Salma Hayek Blasts Hasbro's Eternals Marvel Legends Figure Based On Her Character Ajak Calling It "Creepy"


JayC
 Share

Recommended Posts

There is a saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity, but Hasbro's Marvel Legends brand-team might be thinking otherwise after this week actress Salma Hayek went on national television and blasted the Marvel Legends figure based on her Eternals Ajak character which has been released as a Walmart exclusive.

This happened on ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live the other night which you can check out below. The part about the Marvel Legends figure starts at time mark 13:15.
 


During the segment she says the figure and the headsculpt makes her look creepy. Fellow Eternals co-star Kumail Nanjiani who was on with Hayek went on to say it looked like she had E.T. head. For the second headsculpt that is included with the figure she didn't like that one much better saying she looked very sad.

Eternals-01.jpg

Eternals-02.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. I saw this on online video. A lot of eyes have seen this. It is a damn shame that when we finally get a figure of Selma Hayek there's actually no "figure" to it. Maybe this is what Hasbro needs to get their act together. Sad thing is, it'll probably result in another price increase to us.

Oh, and don't worry guys, I'm sure we can take it at face value when Kumail says the movie is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really good.

Seriously, still hoping for the best though. Love Selma and Kumail actually seems like a fun cat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I would be happy to pay extra $ to get an accurate head portrait the first time around versus having to buy a 2nd follow-up Hasbro figure. I really appreciate Selma's candour: Some of the Eternals figures are pretty off in terms of their portraits, and it's not like the matter can be blamed on Hasbro having to make figures based on preliminary designs for this Marvel movie. It's a shame when you see what Hasbro can do for MCU figures, like the Guardians of the Galaxy - Volume 2 figures or the recent WandaVision Scarlet Witch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 11:05 AM, leokearon said:

I wonder if Hasbro will respond to this

With a fake/polite reply: "It's difficult to materialise in plastic the beauty of Mrs. Hayek but we try our best"

I hope also Angelina complaints about her doll, it looks like a moribund dying version of herself, those squalid legs, OMG!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 5:45 PM, Legender said:

With a fake/polite reply: "It's difficult to materialise in plastic the beauty os Mrs. Hayek but we try our best"

I hope also Angelina complaints about her doll, it looks like a moribund dying of herself, those squalid legs, OMG!

Probably. Still it would probably be better than the we just googled one image excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so glad she called Hasbro out on this. They crapped this thing out, it doesn't look like her in any way.  Not only did they get the face wrong, they really got the body wrong ( and that seems to have been on purpose). We have people here on the forum who are "fine" with her deflated chest ; in some warped mindset, they think this the way to not "oversexualize" female characters. Because somehow a larger bosom is "wrong" or "hypersexualized" (and its Hasbro's job to combat this), or its not "appropriate" in comics or action figures. The arrogance. 

The Jessica Jones figure, face and body, is an almost dead-on likeness for Krysten Ritter. But you cannot use that body for a woman like Salma Hayek, anymore than you would use the Everett Ross body for Favreau. 

Its ridiculous, and its hypocritical, because not only did they get Jon Favreau's face correct for the Happy Hogan figure, they made a bigger body for him and everyone loved it!

In other words they attempted to make the figure as accurate to the subject as they could.  Jon Favreau is a big, stocky dude. Salma Hayek is a busty woman. Any drawing, model sculpture, or action figure should reflect this.  I can certainly understand that getting real life faces is tricky and its not always going to land. But they can certainly get bodies better, they certainly could get the comic versions better. Instead of crapping out the same preteen mold they use far, far too much.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 1:27 PM, Atlantis said:

I am so glad she called Hasbro out on this. They crapped this thing out, it doesn't look like her in any way.  Not only did they get the face wrong, they really got the body wrong ( and that seems to have been on purpose). We have people here on the forum who are "fine" with her deflated chest ; in some warped mindset, they think this the way to not "oversexualize" female characters. Because somehow a larger bosom is "wrong" or "hypersexualized" (and its Hasbro's job to combat this), or its not "appropriate" in comics or action figures. The arrogance. 

The Jessica Jones figure, face and body, is an almost dead-on likeness for Krysten Ritter. But you cannot use that body for a woman like Salma Hayek, anymore than you would use the Everett Ross body for Favreau. 

Its ridiculous, and its hypocritical, because not only did they get Jon Favreau's face correct for the Happy Hogan figure, they made a bigger body for him and everyone loved it!

In other words they attempted to make the figure as accurate to the subject as they could.  Jon Favreau is a big, stocky dude. Salma Hayek is a busty woman. Any drawing, model sculpture, or action figure should reflect this.  I can certainly understand that getting real life faces is tricky and its not always going to land. But they can certainly get bodies better, they certainly could get the comic versions better. Instead of crapping out the same preteen mold they use far, far too much.

 

I think the strangest part of all of this, toning down the sexuality of the figure, and toning down Salma's breasts is....um so why does Angelina Jolie's figure have a huge chest?? almost comical in size??

no sense made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 1:27 PM, Atlantis said:

I am so glad she called Hasbro out on this. They crapped this thing out, it doesn't look like her in any way.  Not only did they get the face wrong, they really got the body wrong ( and that seems to have been on purpose). We have people here on the forum who are "fine" with her deflated chest ; in some warped mindset, they think this the way to not "oversexualize" female characters. Because somehow a larger bosom is "wrong" or "hypersexualized" (and its Hasbro's job to combat this), or its not "appropriate" in comics or action figures. The arrogance.

Man, I’m not sure why you keep wanting to have this conversation, but this is a willfully ignorant, incredibly obtuse take that describes exactly zero people’s real opinions on the matter. I have never, ever, ever seen anyone on this board claim that all female figures need to be thin or flat-chested, or that depicting ladies accurately is over-sexualizing them. This is conservative talk-show host levels of paranoid victimization complex.

Here are some of my real opinions that may be part of the foundation upon which this bizarre fiction is built.

1) There are widespread differences in the way that most characters’ bodies have been depicted in comics (rightly or wrongly), which have led to a variety of opinions—none of them inherently right or wrong—about whether a given action figure’s proportions are accurate.

2) Related to the above is the fact that the comics industry is recovering from a period (namely the 90s, and thereabouts) of intensely over-sexualized depictions of women. It may be tempting to read that statement as confirmation of some of your previous claims, so let me explain. If we were to pick ten ladies at random from any given property, you would expect a variety of body types. Some would be curvier, and others thinner, stockier, or more muscular. In the 90s, by contrast, virtually every female comic character was that idealized but unlikely blend of thin but muscular, while still being unimaginably curvy. There was no diversity, and they looked that way because a bunch of men chose to draw them that way. Now, whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is theoretically up for some debate, but it’s the very definition of hyper-sexualization. These characters didn’t all always look like that, and—for a variety of reasons—many of them have subsequently ceased to look like that. There is now much more diversity in the way ladies are depicted in comics. Some of them (Rogue, Emma, etc.) are still quite curvy, others are thinner or more muscular.

3) There are a lot of people (read: not all) on here who lament virtually every female figure failing to be on the Moonstone body. These people are not interested in body diversity. They are interested in hyper-sexualized depictions of women. That doesn’t mean that you fall into this category, but some people on this board do. Maybe some of these people only read comics in the 90s, but that doesn’t really change anything. See above.

4) Hyperbole about “every” female figure being “rail thin” or having the “body of a teenager” serves nobody. I wholeheartedly agree that Hasbro should have more body diversity in the sculpts available to them (especially for women), and I agree that their depictions of ladies lean a little thinner on average than they probably should, but the vast majority of ladies they release are clearly adults (though I’d believe most of them haven’t had kids), and it demeans rather than serves your argument to maintain otherwise. It’s tempting to believe that a lot of people on here just have really unrealistic ideas about average female proportions. For instance, there are plenty of figures sporting what I would call big chests that I routinely hear decried as flat-chested.

5) Hasbro sometimes gets things wrong, whether by mistake or for budgeting purposes (see Cyber). I can’t speak to the example with Salma Hayek because I’ve never closely studied her proportions, and I don’t really care about the movie figures. I’ll take your word that it’s a bad representation of her body. On the other hand, I can say at a glance that the face-sculpt they gave her bears little resemblance. Do you think that was an intentional decision on Hasbro’s part? If not, why would you assume the body was somehow a calculated inaccuracy? It’s likely they just blundered it.

6) Loudly and publicly obsessing over the anatomy of female figures is a direct barrier to more interest and participation from women in this hobby, which I think is a huge bummer. This is another easy opinion to mischaracterize, so let me try to be clear. I’m not saying women don’t do this too, and I’m also not saying that all women will be put off by this. I’m merely saying that many women who stumble upon boards like these, in the budding days of their interest in a hobby like this, will read these types of posts and immediately pick up on the loud but unspoken message that this a dude’s club where they aren’t welcome. This isn’t extrapolation, conjecture, or speculation. This is the message I hear from women in my life every single time I talk with them about their clear but unrealized interest in geeky hobbies. I’ve owned a game shop for nearly thirteen years, so please believe me when I say that my sample size is immense.

By all means, proceed with your crusade, but please stop mischaracterizing people’s complaints (or lack thereof). Nobody takes issue with curvy women or accurate depictions in action figures. “Curvy” and “accurate” are just extremely subjective concepts in this (general, not specific) context, and the idea that every woman needs to be depicted as ultra curvy but also perfectly thin-fit is a lot more prevalent than you seem willing to admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh.  Selma pointed out what many of us have mentioned before - the neutral expressions that Hasbro chooses make the character look bored or sleepy, and it is not a very natural expression for a superhero or dynamic character to have.  It is a very fair criticism, although at least her figure came with an alternate head.

I didn't interpret her remarks as being a critique of the "likeness" per se, i mean yeah its not among ML's best but i doubt she has much frame of reference for how great action figure likenesses can get.

She certainly wasn't complaining that the boobs weren't big enough or whatever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 1:27 PM, Atlantis said:

I am so glad she called Hasbro out on this. They crapped this thing out, it doesn't look like her in any way.  Not only did they get the face wrong, they really got the body wrong ( and that seems to have been on purpose). We have people here on the forum who are "fine" with her deflated chest ; in some warped mindset, they think this the way to not "oversexualize" female characters. Because somehow a larger bosom is "wrong" or "hypersexualized" (and its Hasbro's job to combat this), or its not "appropriate" in comics or action figures. The arrogance. 

The Jessica Jones figure, face and body, is an almost dead-on likeness for Krysten Ritter. But you cannot use that body for a woman like Salma Hayek, anymore than you would use the Everett Ross body for Favreau. 

Its ridiculous, and its hypocritical, because not only did they get Jon Favreau's face correct for the Happy Hogan figure, they made a bigger body for him and everyone loved it!

In other words they attempted to make the figure as accurate to the subject as they could.  Jon Favreau is a big, stocky dude. Salma Hayek is a busty woman. Any drawing, model sculpture, or action figure should reflect this.  I can certainly understand that getting real life faces is tricky and its not always going to land. But they can certainly get bodies better, they certainly could get the comic versions better. Instead of crapping out the same preteen mold they use far, far too much.

 

I don't believe for a second that Hasbro screwing the pooch on any aspect of this figure was intentional. She probably has one of those faces like Mark Hamill and Chris Evans that just doesn't translate well to face printing for whatever reason. And saying her body was intentionally toned down doesn't hold any water when you see that Angelina Jolie's figure has the right proportions and she certainly isn't small-chested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 8:54 PM, Ironspider428 said:

I don't believe for a second that Hasbro screwing the pooch on any aspect of this figure was intentional. She probably has one of those faces like Mark Hamill and Chris Evans that just doesn't translate well to face printing for whatever reason. And saying her body was intentionally toned down doesn't hold any water when you see that Angelina Jolie's figure has the right proportions and she certainly isn't small-chested. 

I plainly  said that getting faces can be tricky and its not always going to work. If you're just going to ignore what I'm saying to bolster your point you're not being honest. 

Mucking up the face and tossing it on the wrong body- when you yourself stated they got Jolie's correct- just doesn't make sense. So yeah it seems intentional. I'm gonna say it again, its about accuracy. If they can get make a  face for Favreau and then make a new body mold for him ( which is great because it can be used for other characters too, like what they're doing for Hammerhead), then they can do it for others, and they should have.  This problem is prevalent when it comes to their treatment of a majority f of the female characters, and its totally unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2021 at 8:15 AM, Gigantor said:

Maybe if they didn't gender swap the character in the 1st place, we wouldn't be having this Convo. So glad I don't collect MCU figs.

You think if the figure was of a male they would have gotten the likeness right? 🙄 Give it a rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2021 at 8:31 PM, Gigantor said:

FYI, this is what the real comic based Ajak looks like...the resemblance to Salma is striking!

ZCelrIs.jpgSns979x.jpg

Despite the interesting look AND being one of the few marvel characters with Mayan connections AND (most importantly) being the only Eternal who can "talk to Celestials", I'm hard pressed to think of one interesting line of dialogue AJak has ever had, let alone an interesting subplot or character arc.  Not in Kirby's Eternals, not in Thomas' Thor run, not in Gaiman's series.  Of course i'm old so i could well be forgetting something, but as it stands the mcu character could hardly be much less memorable than the comic version.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • JayC locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...







Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE