The iDOLM@STER

.....What?

Both of them have their midriff exposed, one wearing tube tops and the other has what appears to be orange brassier exposed.

I seriously have no idea what kind of bizzaro logic was involved in you concluding that they are played for cuteness.

The fact that despite those things the outfit isn't actually sexy combined with Maria being one of the people to wear it. Maria as a whole tends to be played for cuteness so those two things combined scream that they're meant to be cute and not sexy.

It's not sexy (if you do find them sexy, either keep it to yourself or do go see a therapist), no, but it exposes a lot of skin in an inappropriate way for their age. What the hell kind of "playing for cuteness" involves dressing up prepubescent girls like that? No sane parents would ever approve their children like that.

The outfits are more cute than sexy. How is that not being played for cuteness? Shit dressing them in said outfits isn't really inappropriate when we both agree the things aren't sexy.

Honestly I'm not a parent but something like that? I wouldn't let them wear it to school but I wouldn't have any issue with my daughter wearing something like that If it was part of her job and she was safely with people I trusted. At least I would hope I'd be the type of parent to think that way.

Now if it were something sexier I might have agreed but those outfits? Those are tame compared to some of the other outfits you can see them in in the actual card game.

I don't find them sexy. Doesn't mean it isn't played for sexiness. No one uses that kind of dressing for cuteness. Closest example I can think of is child beauty pageants and that is under heavy criticisms of child sexualization.

Also, yes it's tamer than the game examples. So what? That justifies nothing, that only speak ill of the game's choice of the illustrations.

edited 11th May '15 8:30:53 PM by dRoy

I don't see how they're played for sexiness when they aren't sexy. Do they have elements that you would play for sexiness? Absolutely but those elements alone don't mean that they are being played for sexiness.

How are they being played for cuteness? Well the outfits themselves are more cute than sexy and two thirds of the characters wearing them are portrayed as cute more often than they are sexy.

Them being more tame than the actual cards matters because if they were going for sexy they could have easily went with some of the more provocative card art than what they did.

Uh, they do. If they don't, why would there be such elements?

Outside of maybe Love Laika and Ranko, ALL the units are played for cuteness. You don't see THEM wearing any objectionable outfits.

Just because they stored the worst, doesn't mean the bad stops being bad.

Something is not quite right with this picture.

...it's asymmetrical?

Yeah I honestly have no idea what he's pointing out either.

Cinderella Girl heads have been photoshopped onto Love Live bodies

Yup! For some reason i was under impression that those who knew @Mas would also at least heard about Love Live! XP

Man, only about a month from the next half of the series!

On that topic, question for you guys.

Do you prefer the first anime, or Cinderella Girls?

Personally, i like CG many times over. It might be just me, but girls, particularly New Genereation, feel more down to earth and relatable. In addition, Takeuchi P is just all around great character. Oh, and the first episode was just so damn perfect. Except it showed bare amount of Mio. Then again nobody cares about Mio.

... What?

I find it amusing that neither of us could tell.

The heads are Cinderella girls, but the eyes are also Love Live which totally threw me off. I thought it was CG art drawn in the Love Live style.

@Original vs CG: Hard to say. Watching some of the original episodes made be remember why I liked it so much, a lot of fun, vibrant characters. I'd be lying if I said I liked them all. You could take out Yayoi, Azusa, and Yukiho and get no peep of protest from me. But that applies to CG as well, I can't even remember the names of the five or so girls I don't like.

I can definitely say the original has had more of an affect on me than CG has, but it was my first idol show, so it's basically the standard for which I judge all the rest. iM@S has been one of the few times I enjoyed the character-of-the-day episode format. On the other hand, I have appreciated CG's tighter plot.

Speaking of tighter plot, who here thinks that the anime, both seasons, could benefit from tighter cast?

Because personally, i think at least quarter of CG girls are either redundant or doesn't have interesting enough potential for story. I would have axed the lolis, Miria and Rika first. The latter barely made it into 50th place in the popularity poll, and the former not even in the list. Also,Chieri and who was that girl, the fat one. They hardly do anything in the anime. In that team, only Anzu is the one who has more meaningful interaction with the other girls, at least in relative terms.

That reminds me; outside of the first and 7th episode, Uzuki has a very little screen time, considering her being in NG.

I don't watch this series for the plot so no I don't think it would benefit from a tighter plot.

I'm not as invested in many of the girls, so I'd welcome a more plot focused show.

Be it plot or characters, smaller cast means more focus on individual members, which only means good things, for the most time. I prefer Wake Up Girls' seven and Love Live's nine.

In another topic, today is 7/2.

72.

So. Who here knows the significance of this number?

Dude, that's just wrong and you know it.

It's Chihaya's measurement for her chest.

edited 1st Jul '15 9:50:57 PM by Dorkus

Very relevant.

I've actually seen people who recognize that memetic number without ever watching/playing Idolmaster.

Pre-air! And yep, looks like Karen and Nao are in. Which means Rin-based drama incoming.

edited 7th Jul '15 5:33:23 AM by MyssaRei

So...

...Would that result in a lot of TakeP involvement?

I just want other Cinderella Girls in, with more focus.

x3

...Why?