Just updated my web site with some detailed pictures of the Aeon Flux statue. Let's see id I can get this link to work :-)

-- William (stateofflux@yahoo.com), September 29, 2000

Answers

I think that's exploitative.

-- Frostbite (mbkrooks@bellsouth.net), October 05, 2000.

What is the background of this statue? Who's the artist, was it just admiration or did some one artist cast it and a company mass produce and paint it. How many are there? What sort of cast is it made of. What paint was used? What's the artists name, what year did it come out? Lastly, did it come in a box? oh, was it sold only in one state, and was it affiliated with MTV at all? Sorry for so many questions but I've wondered this for some time and everytime I see it not one explaination is given of its origins. Also, do you know what it originally sold for and where did it sell?

-- Barb e. (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 05, 2000.

That post cracks me up... Frost, are you channeling the spirit of Daria?

-- Paul (gilbreathfamily@worldnet.att.net), October 05, 2000.

Don't give her any ideas, Paul, she's wry enough as it is, besides, that was an astute observation on her part.

-- Barb e (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 06, 2000.

I'm not disputing that, but c'mon, I'm sure William didn't mean to chop off her head ;), & besides, it was a great dig at over-zealous feminists.

-- Paul (gilbreathfamily@worldnet.att.net), October 06, 2000.

Not that I'm anti-feminist. BTW, I just took a closer look at the face (which I'd seen before, but didn't remember), & now I understand everything. Good lord, that's ugly! Now it's my turn to ask; what "artist" is reponsible for this travesty?

-- Paul (gilbreathfamily@worldnet.att.net), October 06, 2000.

I agree, it's bad. But maybe that's just because I'm not into that sort of thing...

-- Matthew Rebholz (matrebholz@yahoo.com), October 06, 2000.

The creation of the picture was for the use in a pictorial record of the statue. How it is interpreted is up to the individual. I guess it could be viewed in many different ways. From my perspective this is really interesting. The actual image used was an error as it was originally intended to be smaller and a picture of the entire statue. But now it is up there for all to see (and it can't be missed) it starts to throw up so many questions. Some might ask, what was the intention, was there an intention?, how some one reads/reacts to it (or anything!) can say something about themselves.

I can't remember the exact reason why Peter chose revealing outfits for Aeon but I am certain they were'nt intended for the most superficial reason.

-- William (stateofflux@yahoo.com), October 06, 2000.

oh yeh, the questions

The statue was sculpted by some guy called Greg Aronowitz, apparently he is well known (although I had never heard of him). It was actually a licensed product and is a commercial venture. I think they were supposed to be limited (probably a few thousand). It is very heavy so it is some kind of resin I believe, although I think it was originally painted on a production line of people as it was painted terribly. I think they were released about 1998. You can check out all the details by clicking on this picture of (your friend and mine) Gildemere

-- William (stateofflux@yahoo.com), October 06, 2000.

Personally, I think it's rather well done. Ok, the face isn't an exact likeness, but it's also no Barbie doll with Aeon's clothes, there was a genuine attempt to capture Aeon, the facial likeness is shy of perfection, and the paint job suggests hired help, (no wonder if it was mass produced). The body is great, I ask you, is that not Aeon's body, right down to the longish arms, and the detail on the costume is wonderful, also the color of her skin is a good choice. Too bad you didn't get me to do the face. I would have nailed it. Likeness's are difficult for most artists, and the fact that he did the body this well says a lot for his talent, remember, it was done from a one dimensional drawing! Who knows what Peter's ideas regarding Aeon's sexy outfits are, it's the one mystery I prefer to keep, actually, I imagine he wanted to create a character that fit MTV's voyeuristic, sexist image of woman, but he pulled a switch, this is a woman with the body of a bodybuilder, it's lean and muscular. If you cast a woman like this to play her in the movies I think there'd be real controversy. The only real things they probably liked about her is her semi-nude outfit and her gunplay. Personally, I would love to own one of Aeon's outfits, in particular the one in the Purge with the cute black jacket, I think it's really classy.

-- Barb e (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 06, 2000.

I tend to agree, without the head (or to be more precise the face) the statue isn't that bad. I have thought about re-sculpting the face but would'nt know where to start and also realise it could end in disaster. I have also seen this statue (inferior in my opinion) before.

-- William (stateofflux@yahoo.com), October 06, 2000.

Who did this one? I hope someone thought to present one of these to Peter Chung as a token of gratitude for creating their market in the first place, (everyone in the L.A. riot got something but Rodney King)!

-- Barb e (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 06, 2000.

Barb, don't you mean a *two* dimensional drawing?

-- Paul (gilbreathfamily@worldnet.att.net), October 07, 2000.

Ok, in retrospect, the statue isn't all that bad. Compared to the one above, you can really tell which is authentic, and which one is the copy (insert your own Last Time For Everything joke).

-- Paul (gilbreathfamily@worldnet.att.net), October 07, 2000.

The only reason I'm here is because she's up there.

-- Barb e (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 07, 2000.

That first statue: The body? Excellent. The face? An inexact replica, but forgivable. The hair? Decent. It's a shame that real-life 3-D can't replicate one of my favorite parts of Aeon - those rich purple highlights. But the hands and feet, dear God! The hands, the hands especially! Barb is right, the arms are perfect, thrillingly long and anatomically incorrect. But attached to the ends - shudder. These grotesque fat mitts torn from a G.I. Joe action figure. Poor Aeon's gloves are practically bulging with barely contained cellulite. Two of my other favorite parts of Aeon's design are those thrilling, powerful, skeletal hands, with musculature visible even under leather and about six joints per finger. So otherworldly, so obviously facile - just like the rest of Aeon. *sigh* Still, a good attempt.

-- Charles Martin (cmmartin@princeton.edu), October 07, 2000.

Oops, I meant the one above my last post, not the first statue. That one is alright, the *second* is a poor attempt.

-- Paul (gilbreathfamily@worldnet.att.net), October 07, 2000.

LOL - "Fat mitts torn from a G.I. Joe action figure" Few lines have made me laugh that hard.

-- Barb e (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 07, 2000.

Am I hellucinatin or is it that statue (first one shown) on the table behind Peter Chung in the interview (Real Video) clip) at the MTV. site located here:

http://Mtv.com/sendme.tin?page=/mtv/tubescan/animation/aeon/index.html

-- Sean Merli (smerli@earthlink.net), October 09, 2000.

Paul, for the life of me, I can't think of why it is 2 dimensional, you're right, but what are the 2 dimensions? After all, isn't is pencil on paper? Doesn't that add up to, er, flat? Yes, it is 2-d. BTW, tried to pull up the last link, it's got to be uploaded, evidently, anyone see it?

-- Barb e (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 15, 2000.

As for this latter statue, it doesn't seem so bad too me, but I can't imagine jumping any roofs in THAT jacket.

-- Barb e (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 17, 2000.

To see those clips you need the Real Player. from real.com and it is a Real) pain in the ass to get and to use so I will summ-up: Peter sitting in front of table realvideo clip is sooo blurry that it's hard to see but I'm almost positive It's that statue and some other stuff I can't make out. He talks about how he did'nt expect the show to be picked up thus the killing of the main character in the first season, so he decided to keep killing her when it was picked up intead of some formula resurrection....then he talked about how it was surprising and cool to see that some of the more provocative scenes were allowed to air eg: sex through a hole in the wall, sperm c/u, ect....supposably there are more parts to this interview to come but that remains to be seen...Remember when MTV was cool?

-- Sean Meat Puppet (smerli@earthlink.net), October 17, 2000.

Tell me about it. Or, was I just younger and more accepting of crap? Hmmm... no, it must have been better. LTV, Aeon and the Maxx are proof of that. Now it's Britney, Carson and god-knows-what. Ugh.

-- Matthew Rebholz (matrebholz@yahoo.com), October 17, 2000.

Recent Archeological findings suggest that the "M" once may have ment "MUSIC" but now, as we know, it stands for "MORE re-runs of crappy shows doling out dogmatic hipness to the salavating youth consumer"...

-- Sean "Sforzando" Merli (smerli@earthlink.net), October 18, 2000.

Does anyone know who owns MTV? is it a group, an individual, a corporation? Have they changed hands since Aeon Flux was on air, do you think? I've often wondered what drives them politically and commercially. They obviously pander to the drugged youth, is there so much money to be made there? After all the young as a rule have not much in the way of funds, (and if you blow it all on drugs...less)! If I'm not mistaken, Eric Clapton and George Harrison both recently said MTV's choices musically are poor, but they seem to be a law onto themselves. Please don't tell me the owners are Eli- Lilly.

-- Barb e (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 18, 2000.

Course, I realize that probably half or better on this forum don't know who the hell Clapton and Harrison are, the other half are wondering why I picked as examples an ex-junkie and his stoner friend (who's wife he stole). I picked them because they were creative geniuses who would definitely appreciate Aeon Flux, and the level it reaches.

-- Barb e (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 18, 2000.

MTV is owned by Viacom, one of the really big media conglomerates (others being Turner, Disney), and just like any other network, it's #1 priority is ratings. What makes MTV a little bit different, is that their popularity is dependent on keeping abreast of (and shaping) trends. Ironically, the "cool parts" of MTV (fractal imagery, animated programs) may have been more about cashing in on the drug culture than anything else. But given today's decidedly anti-drug climate, they'll probably stick to a steady diet of Dr. Drew Pinsky and "Scared Straight" from now on.

-- Paul (gilbreathfamily@worldnet.att.net), October 19, 2000.

I do get voyeuristic pleasure out of watching Loveline... It's one of the few gems of the network these days. Did anyone ever see "Downtown" last year? It didn't seem to stay around very long, I wish I had paid it more attention. It didn't seem to be going anywhere especially daring, but it was a nicely done show. Much better than "Spy Groove" (which I haven't seen much lately... but then, I don't sit around watching MTV like I used to...)

-- Matthew Rebholz (matrebholz@yahoo.com), October 19, 2000.

Viacom, hmm. Oh, well, let's face it, musicians have always had a love affair with altered states. It's probably not Mtv at all, so much as the music world. Can't exactly accuse Daria of drug abuse, but I'm not so sure about the parents of B&B. They were way cool back then. Everybody was into it, I can't tell you how many friends of mine watched.

-- Barb e (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 19, 2000.

Got Real player installed again, (I once overloaded my c drive and had to wipe it out, and all..) and now SAW this interview, it is GREAT! I never saw or heard Peter 'in action' so to speak. I like his voice, I like the part where they show Peter with Aeon behind him in 'last time' saying 'you're me, lovely', heheh. Oh, BTW, that IS the statue, must've received it as a gift, nice. Hey, MTV playing that is an important event, they have him still on their mind!

-- Barb e (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 20, 2000.

They posted that interview and the first part of an episode months ago, saying that the second part was coming extremely soon. They never came, I am guessing that what ever they were planning was scrapped.

-- William (stateofflux@yahoo.com), October 20, 2000.

Bummer.

-- Barb e. (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), October 24, 2000.