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

Yeah, excpet...

(Anonymous) 2006-05-10 05:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Cute political message.

Except I don't know single comic book cover that features an image of JUST a female hero's tits, or her ass or... well... anything as extreme as this.

Don't get me wrong, it's hilarious. But as a "political statement" not terribly accurate.

Why do people have to hide their lust behind politics, anyway? Just come out and say you like nutsacks.

[identity profile] technopatra.livejournal.com 2006-05-10 05:59 pm (UTC)(link)
+1.

I saw this linked from Boing Boing (http://boingboing.net). I've been a comic fan for years, and was always frustrated by the cleavage=otientednes of the female character design. Other people (guys) would counter that all the guys had six-packs, but could never understand the difference in the sexualization of the female characters.

I <3 you.
brownbetty: (Wuhdd)

Re: Yeah, excpet...

[personal profile] brownbetty 2006-05-10 06:05 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, way to presume heterosexuality.

[identity profile] stevegreen.livejournal.com 2006-05-10 06:31 pm (UTC)(link)
That pic of the BatButt is still nowhere near as ludicrous as the endless shots of Robin's arse in the fourth movie.

fear the supercrotch!!

[identity profile] moonchylde.livejournal.com 2006-05-10 06:45 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

And you seem to be missing that that... is... the... whole... point.

It isn't nearly as much of a 'male dominated field' as it used to be... and many comic companies are starting to take that into account. However, there is the assumption - by you, by others - that so long as there are more men buying/writing/drawing them, women should just deal with the bad softporn.

No way. I don't buy that crap anymore. The art gets old after a couple issues. In fact, almost all female-lead comics I've picked up over the years start out with great art for the first couple issues, and by the end of the first year are reduced to TnA shots and repeat storylines.

I have NEVER seen a male-lead comic reduced to just crotchshots, flexing poses and skimpy outfits both in-and-out-of costume. I've never seen a SHOWER scene with a male character, for that matter!! (I'm sure they exist somewhere, but for myself, I've seen probably a half-a-dozen female shower scenes, and in one comic, male-hero voyeurism of the female-hero showering!)


(psst: oddity, THANK YOU SO MUCH - here via boingboing, and I hope you don't mind I made an icon and credited you.)

[identity profile] boxmint.livejournal.com 2006-05-10 06:59 pm (UTC)(link)
Wow. That's some heartwarming shiznit right there. Thanks!

Whoa

(Anonymous) 2006-05-10 07:39 pm (UTC)(link)
More!! More !!

(I would spend ALL my spare change on comix like these!)

(Anonymous) 2006-05-10 07:56 pm (UTC)(link)
I like the first image - it's sort of a two for one deal.

The gay guys made some interesting comments. But just because men can also objectify each other doesn't mean that they're not demeaning the other person. I'm not saying that they are. I'm just saying that the argument is pointless.

I'd also argue that men just get away with it more, but if a woman admits to checking out packages and stuff it's frowned on by more people. The truth is that everyone wants eye candy. But women are supposed to be the providers of it - to both sexes. Straight women can admire a sexy woman, but guys aren't supposed to check each other and lesbians are cool, but not gay guys? Come on people; The bias is clear.

[identity profile] asim.livejournal.com 2006-05-10 08:22 pm (UTC)(link)
Here from Feministing (http://feministing.com/archives/005003.html), oddly enough (long way 'round to come back to LJ!)

As a comic fan, I have to say this is Brilliant! It points out one of the things that makes me want to hide my comics in shame, in point of fact. And they wonder why American comics can't seem to get out of the ghetto...

[identity profile] maxinemogadon.livejournal.com 2006-05-10 08:23 pm (UTC)(link)
I followed a link to this and I must say, what a great post!

[identity profile] lapith.livejournal.com 2006-05-10 09:12 pm (UTC)(link)
These are great. And a great opportunity for ironic icon usage.

If you could draw, I think you might have come up with something like Glen Hanson's "Wonder Man"...

Glen Hanson at NightCharm (http://www.nightcharm.com/?p=413)

Re: Yeah, excpet...

[identity profile] lapith.livejournal.com 2006-05-10 09:19 pm (UTC)(link)
You obviously didn't follow the link to the Frank Miller drawing for Wonder Woman (http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/July06/Batman/AllStarBatman_RobinCv5.jpg), which really is that extreme. The post was not a response to covers generally, but a subset of comic book covers that actually is more extreme than what you apparently were aware of.

Not that I'm hiding behind politics here. Because who doesn't like nutsacks?

(Anonymous) 2006-05-10 10:19 pm (UTC)(link)
I also like the way the Batman ass pic still contains the iconic utility belt to make sure this is the Batman's tight ass.

Wonder Woman doesn't even get to wear her lasso on her hip.

Re: perhaps

[identity profile] mister-cope.livejournal.com 2006-05-10 11:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Not every man gives a hoot about tits and ass. Riposte!

[identity profile] church-rat.livejournal.com 2006-05-11 12:47 am (UTC)(link)
this is a perfect exzample of what it would look like if they did the same type of objectafacation(sp) of men as they do woman.

its funny, and its true.

Hey, I'm getting turned on here

[identity profile] theath.livejournal.com 2006-05-11 02:36 am (UTC)(link)
And I'm not even into comic books. Oh, wait. It's because I'm gay. ;-)

[identity profile] sunless-death.livejournal.com 2006-05-11 03:28 am (UTC)(link)
I believe that she is skinny enough to have her ribs exposed. It's the pose i find atrocious- I actually spent a few minutes in front of the mirror trying to throw my back like that, and it HURTS. Also, someone that skinny cannot have naturally bouyant boobs. I cal "boobs don't work that way!"

[identity profile] sunless-death.livejournal.com 2006-05-11 03:31 am (UTC)(link)
Seconded, saved, and sent to all my they-stopped-burning-corsets-years-ago friends. ;-P
I wouldn't mind being objectified if it were a fair representation. My bat-action-figures are anatomically (kevlarically) possible. that position is not.

[identity profile] sunless-death.livejournal.com 2006-05-11 03:49 am (UTC)(link)
An objectification of women in comics rant elsewhere led to someone posting this link, and I am totally derailed. Thank you so freaking much- ranting only gets so far, but when you directly relate Miller!whore to your 'shops (which, as a previous poster said, are possible, while Wonderwhore's position is not) that sort of stuns the argument. I thank you for my current *glee* as i send my idiot friends here.
Is that ASSBAT by any chance from that cheesy George Clooney version? O_O
To say nothing of the Superman version, which i will never, ever look at ever again.
In addition, purely for research purposes mind you, I attempted that position, with the legs and spine. I am that skinny, and the ribs are only slightly exaggerated, but:
a) leaning that way with the hips messes up your center of gravity- you would only do it if you had to support an urn on your back, and would develop scoleosis young.
b) i don't believe thin women can have big, bouyant, self-supporting breasts- if there is no fat anywhere else, how could it end up in the mammary glands?
On a more embarrassing note:
Supergirl? (small voice)is actually kind of possible(/small voice)
Again, thank you so, so very much- it really needed to be done. <3

[identity profile] edda.livejournal.com 2006-05-11 04:12 am (UTC)(link)
*DEAD OF FUNNY*

[identity profile] picara.livejournal.com 2006-05-11 04:22 am (UTC)(link)
Oh yes. This is an excellent point, excellently made. Thank you!

[identity profile] kosher-jenny.livejournal.com 2006-05-11 04:39 am (UTC)(link)
Oh, this is beyond awesome. Now I have something use when someone brings up that whole "well, men in comics are depicted as being in top physical health so it's exactly the same thing!" straw man. Bliss.
ext_236163: The Secret History of The Authority #1 alternate cover (Default)

Re: Funny thing

[identity profile] denyer.livejournal.com 2006-05-11 04:53 am (UTC)(link)
depicts the female form objectivly

"depicts the female form as an object", perhaps. 'Objectively', on the other hand, is an antonym of 'subjectively'.

Do we only support expression when we see merit in it?

Pretty much. Amateur porn > Loaded.
nenya_kanadka: thin elegant black cartoon cat (Vic Fontaine (ST:DS9))

[personal profile] nenya_kanadka 2006-05-11 07:57 am (UTC)(link)
Absolutely smashing WTF icon. I may just borrow it, if I may. Wow. :D

[identity profile] pickledginger.livejournal.com 2006-05-11 09:02 am (UTC)(link)
'tis true* ~ the exotic dancer effect!

(*not in 1G, anyway)

Page 9 of 40