odditycollector: Supergirl hovering in black silhouette except for the red crest. Cape fluttering. Background is a roiling, raining sky. (Default)
odditycollector ([personal profile] odditycollector) wrote2006-04-19 08:34 pm

This would have been easier if I could draw.

I really should know better, but I clicked on a link to the DC message boards, topic of the new Frank Miller cover.

In summary... this is why I’m going to stay way the hell over here okay thanks. However, one exchange did catch my attention and would not let me shake it as it might have a sane person.

[livejournal.com profile] maelithil:
Depicting [women] as an ass, a pair of tits, some gorgeous thighs is doing them a disservice. Distilling them into nothing but their sexual attributes is objectifying. And that's exactly what this cover does.


Random Fanboy:
And notice that Superman's chest is OFTEN a whole panel unto itself. Not Superman fighting the bad guy. Not Superman standing full figure. Superman's chest. Just his chest. His huge, massive, S-draped, extraterrestrially muscular chest. Is Superman being objectified? Is he being used? Should I cry for Superman?


And. Just. What? This is the counterexample?

But! Maybe it’s not that his logic is just that scary. Maybe it's hard to understand what she’s talking about because it really, honestly is that there’s no comparable example featuring a male denizen of the DCU. I mean, even the occasional Nightwing crotch shot *tries* to have context.

Obviously, something had to be done. For The Good Of Fandom.

Luckily, much like Miller, I have no shame.

 
Totally Appropriate Covers (with bonus, never before seen script excerpts!)

 



Hal’s flying away from us through a generic starfield, nothing interesting to see except him. Have him wriggle around, giving us a good shot of his package. Add some details, something fancy for the fanboys to drool over, but don’t let it draw attention away from the point of the cover – that Kyle has nothing, NOTHING, on my boy Hal.

 



Be careful with this one – we don’t want Supes to come off as too powerful, too imposing. Maybe have him lean a bit, off balance, the better to show off his *well filled* briefs. He's fiddling with the waist line, such a cock *heh* tease. He knows he’s got what we want, and if we turn the cover, he’ll let us have it.

 



Well, we’ve done just about every variation on the theme by now, so let’s go back to the basics: Black on black, a full cover shot of Batman’s ass. Add in the utility belt for colour – give it that Sin City look. Show me thick, powerful legs under that latex or whatever the hell he wears. Clenched butt muscles. Make it obvious this is no BatGIRL we’re talking about.


free hit counter

Re: Yeah right....

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-04-29 10:05 pm (UTC)(link)
Okay. I don't care that you and [livejournal.com profile] divalea are discussing this, but you are going at least pretend to be civil while doing it *here*.

This -->
And just for your info, I don't give a flying crap about owning a LG, blog, or myspace account, even if it is somehow inconvenient to you. So nut yourself up if that's what gives you kicks.
Fails the "civil" test.

(And yes, of course, this applies to [livejournal.com profile] divalea as well, but it doesn't seem like she's having difficulty.)

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-04-29 10:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Thanks! And it's good to meet you.

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-04-29 10:14 pm (UTC)(link)
And you wouldn't have thought so, given that he probably has temperature controlled fabrics in that suit! ;)

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-04-29 10:15 pm (UTC)(link)
*g* I always *wanted* a worshiper! (Now I *finally* won't have to sweep the temple myself...)

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-04-29 10:18 pm (UTC)(link)
Heh! I've always thought it stood for "Direct Crack," personally, but this may be due to the large Silver Age influence...

(And I'm glad to oblige - from what I hear, that is never any fun at all.)

Re: You are my hero!!

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-04-29 10:24 pm (UTC)(link)
Glad to hear it!

Hee! That was actually something I was told about these - "wow. really homoerotic." Which wasn't quite the effect I was hoping for, no. *g*

Re: Yeah right....

(Anonymous) 2006-04-29 10:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Your reasoning is delusional and irrelevant (and just odd). What does "standing in water" or "depicted in danger" have to do with anything. I fail to see the relevance to any one of your points.

A tit is a tit, an ass is an ass. The character is being exploited in a T and A fashion, more so than the villianized Miller cover because she's naked. How can you justify one form of female exploitation as opposed to another. Wether you are selling it to a general audience or not, is also irrelevant. If I can google it so can others.

You have made it clear that your against female exploitation, yet you have a clearly exploitive piece of art for sale. Do you not see that contradicts your view point and eliminates any credit it may have, not only to me, but to everyone else on this subject?

My statements were never ment to give you a bowel movement. Nor were they ment to scare, crush, or worry you. You can sell as many prints of whatever you like to whomever you like. Good luck with your art, all the power to you.

Thanks for correcting my spelling of "hypocrite", I'll return the favor by posting the definition of it for you:

hypocrite:

1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

For some more enlightenment: http://www.hardcoretruth.com/Hypocrisy/


P.S: There's no "a" in pedophile.

Re: Yeah right....

[identity profile] divalea.livejournal.com 2006-04-30 05:01 am (UTC)(link)
"For some more enlightenment: http://www.hardcoretruth.com/Hypocrisy/"

Yes, I feel completely enlightened by a site with misleadingly-named links to get rich quick schemes, and 150+ point screeds about Liberals.
Or the one about being an honest hypocrite. Priceless.

"P.S: There's no "a" in pedophile."

Variant spelling, legitimate. See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paedophile. Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

That would be a real dictionary, published by Merriam-Webster, not a definition supplied by "Hard Core Truth."

And now I'm done!


(Anonymous) 2006-04-30 07:09 am (UTC)(link)
that's hot as hell! I'd freakin' love to these comics!

Re: Yeah right....

(Anonymous) 2006-04-30 01:34 pm (UTC)(link)
""Wow. You must be reading the same comics I am - those chosen to avoid the entire conversations drawn from a woman's crotch level, breast shots with protruding nipples, backs at 90 degrees to better show off both boobs *and* ass, splash page kicks centered on the camel-toe.""

My statement here is regarding the comparisons of your covers to Millers WW cover. Not other books, interiors or splash pages.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

""The idea that the only fair argument is one is the *exact position* as Miller's cover in particular is just silly. You're *reaching*, here. If it's because you feel uncomfortable around the male images, you might want to think about that.""

Reaching? Who created this topic, and is stretching (to the point of dislocating your shoulder) to illustrate a false comparison. if your going to make a fair comparison, make an accurate one.
I had a good laugh at the pics too btw, I'm not going to post them on my desktop or anything, anytime soon. What am I suppose to be thinking about may I ask? Is it supposedly the same thing your thinking of when looking at Millers WW cover?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Oh, please. Those comments were made in good fun - no one is seriously taking from this that male objectification would be any better a thing in mainstream media."

Ah, I see, because it's "all in good fun" that makes it okay then. All we gotta do is get DC and Marvel to put a "all in good fun" sticker on all their books and we should have no complaints, right.
No one's taking this seriously? Really? So you can vouch that none of the posters would go out and buy bulging Superman #1 if it came out tommorow. Or say if you had the power to switch the exploitation factor balance from women to men you would'nt do it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------


""So yes, everyone, *do* feel free to continue to objectify Hal & co! After all, the comments here are *far* more controlled than a couple I've seen around comic book images featuring women, and turn about is entirely fair play.""

It's interesting to see that the one demographic, that use to have a good argument to look down on their male comic bretheren, can drag their knuckles on the ground with the best of them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here I had to laugh. You're in *comics* fandom and you think *this* is a "shotgun rant"? Where were you when they very-slightly-altered Batman's costume? When they made Star Boy black? When you got offended at the images in this post?

I was'nt talking about regular fanboy rampaging. I'm refering to that kneejerk reaction most female readers have after seeing a shot of a idealized, female they didn't like. Such a rant inspired this topic it looks like.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Or is it that it's fun to complain and rant about stuff you have no control over, are'nt the target audience for, and are'nt a fan of."
""I love this line. It's so ambiguous. I couldn't figure out if you were suggesting complaining implied I wasn't a fan of comic books, or that I had no right to complain because I wasn't a fan of *T&A*.""

Ambiguous? I'll clarify....
Are you a DC editor? No? then you have no control over the book.
Are you a 15-35 year old male? No? then your not the target audience.
Do you collect All star Batman and Robin? No? Then it sounds like you aren't a fan.

Re: Yeah right....

(Anonymous) 2006-04-30 01:37 pm (UTC)(link)
(Sorry had to break my post into two)

""You may only be upset about ass shots if you are a fan of them!" That logic is just *beautiful*. Right up there with anything in Catch-22.""

This made up logic you fabricated here is your own, I have no idea what your talking about.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

""I find it hilarious people keep comparing comics to the porn industry as a *defense*. It makes me feel all possible points have already been made in my favour.""

I was'nt refering to porn I was refering to gay porn, the point I was trying to make is, I don't control it, I'm not the target audience for it, and I am not a fan of it. Therefore it makes perfect sense for me to go onto a message board about it and rant till I'm blue in the face right?

If you as a female reader hate female exploitation in comics, as bad as you seem to, and it's as bad as you make it out to be, why get into a media that had it before you got there, has it currently and will still have it when your gone? Suddenly your going to find reasons to justify your interests right! "Their not ALL like that ", "The books I read don't have it as prevalant as others". So it's not the epidemic your making it out to be really is it, because you accept it, and still get entertainment value from it.

When pro body builders, male and female, compete in tournaments, standing on a stage nearly naked, and oiled up, which sex is being exploited? If I go by the mentality demonstrated on this board the answer would be a unanimous "female", when in fact they BOTH are. When you view superhero comics and see idealistic versions of males and females, BOTH are being exploited, or is it the norm for the men in your neck of the woods to all have six pack abes, 15 inch biceps, can bench press 200 pounds, and wear skin tight body suits?

Yeah, your going to see more cheesecake than beefcake, as women simpily have more erogenous zones to exploit and as I stated many times now, comics....are...a...male....dominated.....field. DC and Marvel don't mind getting your money too, but they aren't targeting you to get it necessarily (at least in their mainstream stuff).

For the record I don't object to (male or female) exploitation. Views and attitudes have varied, but it has been, is, and always will be, apart of our culture and entertainment. Provocative parts and all.

My beef here is the fact that I see a "ban exploitation" banner being waved in the air, but on the back of that banner is a chippendale calendar, making the argument bias and one sided. If your going to damn exploitation, you better be prepared to damn ALL exploitation, not just the stuff that bothers you personally. Your not going to do that though, nor will anyone else, people want what they want.



Re: Yeah right....

(Anonymous) 2006-04-30 03:56 pm (UTC)(link)
"Yes, I feel completely enlightened by a site with misleadingly-named links to get rich quick schemes, and 150+ point screeds about Liberals.
Or the one about being an honest hypocrite. Priceless."

What does an ad on a site have to do with the actual content of the site? Again, your pointing out something irrelevant. Considering my claim against you, the subject matter of the link has merit and relevance.

The topic of the honest hypocrite (a hypocrite is a hypocrite to me really), boils down to the fact a honest hypocrite sees and understands their faults, where as a regular hypocrite tries to justify and perceive things around them in a false manner as if to encapsulate themselves with lies to create a "I can do no wrong" persona.

When you tell me "she's standing in water" is suppose to somehow justify your prints exploitive nature, your deluding yourself, and exemplifying the "I can do no wrong" persona.

The new topless doodle for your avatar is only digging you a grave, and solidfies my claim. I take it your new avatar was meant to irritate me in some way? (psst...I'm not the one complaining about T&A, remember). In fact, this character shares the same petit, child like similarities as that ADV cvr you went off on, on your LG, conflicting your view points even more, now that's *priceless*.

If you check Hard Core Truth again, you'll see that in their introductory definition of "hypocrite", they quote from WEBSTER'S NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY. You don't get much more "real dictionary" than that.

Thank you for enlightening me on the duel spelling of pedophile (or paedophile, whichever you prefer). At least I can say I got something out of this. I would have seriously prefered some enlightenment regarding the subject of the discussion, and your reasoning as to why you think you (or someone with your mentallity) should be able to sell exploitive works, but others like DC and Miller should'nt.

To be honest I don't think you could give me an answer, but it would have been interesting to see you try. Your thought process is conflicted, and from some of your responses, completely baffling and enigmatic.

All the best to you with your art. Good day.

Funny thing

(Anonymous) 2006-05-04 04:17 am (UTC)(link)
I love comics. Only in comics can someone like Frank Miller make bad art with fabulous stories and be ridiculed for a drawing that probably took him 20 minutes to finish.

On the other side of the coin comics produced Will Eisner. A briliant, brilliant man. No one is critiquing his art. No one looks at his steriotypical drawings and stories with an eye of contempt. Why?

Not to say what you did wasn't brilliant, it was, but I have to wonder what we as humans see as artistic expression. Do we only support expression when we see merit in it? Like when Eisner describes his childhood? Should we support Miller even though his drawing is bad and depicts the female form objectivly? Was that even his intention?

[identity profile] galbinus-caeli.livejournal.com 2006-05-05 07:28 pm (UTC)(link)
That skinny little girl is supposed to be WONDER WOMAN?! You have GOT to be kidding!

[identity profile] purly.livejournal.com 2006-05-05 07:29 pm (UTC)(link)
That's terrifying.

[identity profile] donnaidh-sidhe.livejournal.com 2006-05-05 08:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Here via Alas's link farm (hey, a local)!

I have to link this. I like the fact that you have no shame. It makes for interesting ideas. :D

[identity profile] dragonscholar.livejournal.com 2006-05-05 09:49 pm (UTC)(link)
You are so friended.

Re: I love that detail.

[identity profile] ataniell93.livejournal.com 2006-05-05 10:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Or, in my case, OH HELL YEAH. I am at work and I have to click outta here, because I am tempted to LICK THE SCREEN.

[identity profile] nokuren.livejournal.com 2006-05-05 10:47 pm (UTC)(link)
The most glaringly bad parts of that Miller cover are the fact that A) it's really badly drawn and B) makes absolutely no sense anatomically.

It's like her ribcage is disconnected from her spine.

But, beside that, why is it such a shock to realize that comic books are designed to be read by the 13-30 male demographic? Overly exaggerated female figures entice and draw in this demographic. Comic books are for making money and that's one easy way to do it. The male figures are stereotypes in their own right of idealistic attitudes of this demographic(Superman) or pure adolescent rage(Punisher). It's all designed to sell. Sure, there's an art behind it. Most authors and artists relish in he stories and drawing they make and they do try to elevate it to a higher level than just words and pictures. Still doesn't matter if it's not going to sell and DC or Marvel won't continue the line if it doesn't.

(Anonymous) 2006-05-06 02:02 am (UTC)(link)
I don't think covers can really get across the point that T&A women are *never* shown in *any* other way; they have no other existence.

[identity profile] parke-matru.livejournal.com 2006-05-06 02:31 am (UTC)(link)
The Action Comics is a nice example(adding a double meaning to the title, on top if it) -- and it ties in to the "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" essay.

[identity profile] skalja.livejournal.com 2006-05-06 03:28 am (UTC)(link)
Bravissima! Bravissima!

I think the Miller-esque descriptions are what makes it. Superman the cock tease ...
brownbetty: (The fuck?)

Re: Yeah right....

[personal profile] brownbetty 2006-05-07 07:07 am (UTC)(link)
Karen you have a cute little troll in your lj and you didn't tell me? That ain't buddies.

Re: Yeah right....

[identity profile] odditycollector.livejournal.com 2006-05-07 07:35 am (UTC)(link)
Aw. If I knew it would please you I would have lined them all up.

I agree.

[identity profile] morin.livejournal.com 2006-05-07 09:33 am (UTC)(link)
Way to go.

Page 6 of 40