Some might point and say sexism, but I think it's consistent with established tropes. There are piles of analogies between sex and aggression (the Latin word for “sheath” is vagina). An image of a penis-like shark attacking a nude woman is another to throw on the pile.
Accessible internet probably took the wind out of their sails. Media has become less porny over time, and the younger generations have even expressed an aversion to it.
Fetish content is *RAMPANT* when you know the techniques that are being used, for example. Edging is *very*, *very* popular in clickbait content, for example.
The classic haunted house trope where the family sinks all their money into a house and father gets slowly possessed by a demon is meant to evoke the fear of financial troubles causing your partner to become abusive.
The Xenomorphs in Alien are meant to evoke the fear of rape and child birth.
Unsuspecting woman alone in a vulnerable situation attacked by a vicious creature— I can see why they thought the penis angle fit better.
Well, you're right about the Latin meaning of vagina. How does that illustrate the existence of analogies between sex and aggression?
Relatedly, the slang (or 'real') word for penis is/was weapon in old English.
So? Sharing an extremely general trait with many things including swords isn't an analogy to swords. Is wine analogized to aggression because guns have barrels?
Besides scabbards, the other prominent use of vagina in Latin was to refer to the husk of grain. Do you conclude that an analogy is being drawn between sex and nourishment? Sex and worthlessness?
Wouldn't that conflict with the idea that the use of the word vagina is an analogy to aggression? How can the same fact be evidence both for and against that idea?
> Relatedly, the slang (or 'real') word for penis is/was weapon in old English.
Why do you think this is related?
I see what you did there.
IIRC, there are some films in public domain for having "failed" to do this as well.
Not if you're an illustrator doing work for hire. It's not unreasonable or unusual for the company who commissioned the art to own the copyright. It doesn't always work that way, but there's no reason to think Kastel was robbed without us knowing the actual terms of his contract with Universal. I assume he sold the copyright to Universal, and Universal fumbled the copyright after that, but that doesn't mean it reverts back to Kastel.
That law has been replaced and you now get copyright automatically.
Sounds like you could accidentally make someone else's art public domain by forgetting to include them on the copyright page...
edit well, perhaps that's part of the reason the copyright laws were updated.
Art director Alex Gotfryd came up with the concept of the Shark and the Swimmer, while Paul Bacon did the original drawing.
At this point what’s to distinguish Kastel’s painting of a shark and a swimmer from anyone else making a painting of a shark and a swimmer?
Sure, someone else could make a similar painting, but mostly people didn't; they just copied his painting (or copied a photo of his painting, whatevs)
>In 1974 Allison Maher Stern posed horizontally on stools & pretended to swim for a cover of this book
There was a time when Universal and others would put the primary hero props from their movies straight into their prop warehouses to get rental income from them for other productions. Some clever chap realized there was only a $300 damage/loss fee on each item, and word spread throughout the production personnel in Hollywood. Lots of irreplaceable props were suddenly "stolen" from productions.
I was involved in tracking one down to return to Universal (now in a museum) and the guy who had it made a fatal mistake of boasting about it one time in a forum. He wouldn't give it up, even with a letter from their lawyers, but we realized the writer of the movie lived nearby, so we had him go knock on the guy's door and it was handed over then.
I don't know what the value of the original painting would be. I got to see the BTTF posters before the painter, Drew Struzan, shipped them out to the buyer. I was surprised how cheap they were, I think he sold the three of them for $90K/piece. Mary Steenburgen was glued onto the third poster since they cast her late, after the painting was finished.
At last, one person who did his homework!
That's what I thought after seeing the first image, the "vagina with teeth" which in my eyes just look like a weird woman's mouth with just some teeth added around... what a terrible work, probably the authour hadn't seen a shark in his life? nor he researched then even a bit, to get some references.
finnh•7mo ago
That explains why the swimmer, at least, looks a bit fake.