![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
Re: Yeah right....
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!
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Yeah right....
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.