First act is the title characters trying to make sure a plane doesn't hit the Washington Monument. Their solution, instead of just turning the plane to have it miss the relatively thin structure, is to pull up.
Then the rest of the issue is origin story exposition being told to someone I would have expected to know the origin.
The worst book is Legion Lost. It reads like an early-2000s X-Men comic except everyone is using made up swear words from the 25th century every second panel. Also there is not an actual action that occurs on panel. So bad.
That sounds schway.
0
Options
AriviaI Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered Userregular
That's fine. But since this particular bandwagon (sexism in comics) has been rolling for years now many people won't have your patience. It isn't strawmanning, or sudden outrage, or creating something out of nothing. It's the latest example of an ongoing problem, and since the whole DC universe has been rebooted lots of people are going to be trying new comics, and lots of column space is going to be dedicated to how well these relaunches are going, it's understandable that these examples are generating more heat.
From scouring the review sites, this is what the consensus seems to be on DC's new female-driven books:
Wonder Woman - Weird, but Azzarello is kicking ass. Good art, as well. Good book.
Birds of Prey - Decent, but nothing great. No Barbara Gordon, which kinda sucks.
Supergirl - Good art, but uninteresting story. Kind of sexist.
Catwoman - Awful. Exploitative, empty, vapid. Softcore superhero porn. Undoes everything good Brubaker and Cooke did ten years ago.
Red Hood & The Outlaws - Maybe the worst book of the New 52.
You forgot the new Batgirl, which is basically a new title.
Also, it's silly to suggest that Red Hood might sell better if its version of Starfire was closer to that of the cartoon. Wolverine doesn't change much across each medium, but you don't see fans of his cartoons or films buying his comics in huge numbers.
What was sexist about Supergirl? All she does is wake up in Russia and toast a few mechs with heat vision until Superman shows up to sort out the confusion.
Most reviews get hung up on her uniform. There's an awful lot of drawing the eye to the crotch and other salaciousness (the wierd knee-high boots with garters) for a character who is supposed to be a girl of fifteen or so. Personally, I find the new costume much-improved on the horrible shit Michael Turner created just a few years ago.
The other complaint is kind the same one thrown at the Blue Beetle book right now: we just don't need a reboot of this character right now. It's only been 5 years since the last reboot.
15? I'm pretty sure she's older, especially since she refers to some forthcoming coming of age ceremony that would presumably bring her into adulthood. And the last iteration of Supergirl was getting ready for college.
And I'm not sure that boots are quite as kinky as you believe, Ross. The crotch plate is a bit weird, but on the whole it's not sexier than what a gymnast would wear, unless of course you have a thing for boots.
A costume doesn't make a book sexist. How the book treats that character, why they wear the costume, and the way they're drawn wearing it might well make it so.
I agree that the whole revamp was a very stupid thing. I dont care how good spider man has been since 'brand new day' the fan backlash for the whole reboot of the character was massive and DC figured this was a good thing so lets do it to every book?
DC doing this was 'crisis' type storyline was bad enough but this one basically does exactly what brand new day did and pick and choose what parts of the continuity it wanted to keep..So basically while SOME of the continuity of the past is intact, you wont know if its real or not until they refer to it. So basically everything you new and loved about the characters is in a state of flux.
Honestly, I'm taking this opportunity to cut out most of my DC folder. I'm dropping just about everything except several batman books. I'm kinda glad they decided to screw up this bad. it makes me spend less money on a habit that is usually difficult to break.
I read comics because I love to read and like the idea of having a character whos history is present and persistant, and reliably going to be available to read more of in a month instead of waiting for a favorite author to continue a book series years between volumes. I read lots of novels but am pretty selective about my choices which is why comics are easy to get into, find a favorite and have a constant stream of content. Thats gone now.
What was sexist about Supergirl? All she does is wake up in Russia and toast a few mechs with heat vision until Superman shows up to sort out the confusion.
Most reviews get hung up on her uniform. There's an awful lot of drawing the eye to the crotch and other salaciousness (the wierd knee-high boots with garters) for a character who is supposed to be a girl of fifteen or so. Personally, I find the new costume much-improved on the horrible shit Michael Turner created just a few years ago.
The other complaint is kind the same one thrown at the Blue Beetle book right now: we just don't need a reboot of this character right now. It's only been 5 years since the last reboot.
This complaint about her costume seems a bit reaching. That's more clothes than she worn in years. How quickly they forgot the miniskirts and t-shirts cut at the midriff. It's kind of a weird design but I think I can let it go if the writing is good.
// PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
0
Options
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
A costume doesn't make a book sexist. How the book treats that character, why they wear the costume, and the way they're drawn wearing it might well make it so.
So, it's not sexist then.
Unless people think a woman tearing giant robots in half with her bare hands, while cracking a few off color jokes about the uniform she wore prior to her home exploding is sexist, that is?
Seriously, of all the complaints you can level against the new DCU, Supergirl being sexist is not one of them. She's wearing 75 percent more clothing now then she has in almost any other medium, while keeping the overall "Super" themes. If anyone actually claims that's a bad thing, i'd be inclined to ask them just what they expect her to wear? Because at that point, it sounds like you're about to swing back around to the other side of the sexism goal-posts, by claiming that she should always cover herself up.
At worst, her costume design is dumb as hell. But not sexist. Most definitely not sexist. Unless you have a thing for what looks like armor plated stomachs and pelvises. And really, alot of the costume re-designs are dumb as all hell. Most of them just look like they wanted to re-design things for the sake of gesturing at the NDCU and saying "See! It's all new! You can buy comics now, without being confused about all that backstory stuff, potential comic book fans!".
If the 'fan backlash' isn't matched by a decrease in sales why would DC or Marvel think it was important or even particularly representative of comic readers? If DC have a massive fan backlash but a 100% increase in sales which of those things do you think is going to be more important to the company?
And you don't care how good Spider-Man has been since Brand New Day? Well, why not? If this terrible decision has resulted in a definite upturn in the quality of the book, maybe it wasn't such a terrible decision.
NOTE: I think it was a terrible story. But maybe not such a terrible decision.
A costume doesn't make a book sexist. How the book treats that character, why they wear the costume, and the way they're drawn wearing it might well make it so.
So, it's not sexist then.
I honestly haven't read the Supergirl book, so I have no opinion. I was making a general point.
AriviaI Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered Userregular
The weird thing about Supergirl's costume is that the line on her shield g-string (for lack of a better word) doesn't match the cut of the top or her hips at all.
If they carried it around or just smoothed out the line it would fit a lot better. Then again, maybe she's supposed to grow into it.
Isn't there another female-driven book from DC coming out soon? In which the lead is the first black female solo lead for a DC book? Voodoo, I think.
Guess what her job is.
And no, her job doesn't make the book necessarily sexist. But still, guess.
You are aware that was always her job when she was created by Jim Lee for WildC.A.T.S years ago right? And that she left it when she became a covert super hero.
Who's to say she won't end up leaving it again.
And is it me or does a lot of the complaining seem to be coming from people who don't you know..................................read the books at all.
Anyone else notice that?
Cade on
0
Options
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
edited September 2011
That was kind of the impression I got. Alot of the complaints are things that are old hat to me.
For example, that web-comic that was posted on the first page acts like it's some great big surprise that Starfire dresses...Well, not very much at all actually, in the new continuity. But glosses over the fact that she dressed the exact same way in the old continuity, and had alot of the same traits (Random sex not withstanding.). Teen Titans Starfire was an anomaly that was created because having a teenage girl run around in what looks like something that Leia would wear in Jabba's palace was not (And rightfully so) considered appropriate for a children's TV channel.
To be fair, to that Red Hood and the Outlaws meta-score, by the way, there's alot of people band-wagoning on hating the Outlaws book, after a few prominent bloggers in the feminism sphere blogged about it, without ever reading it. In fact, a quick perusal shows alot of bitching in comments/forums from people who have demonstrably never even touched the thing, and just picked up a screenshot of a page/the previews somewhere, said "Oh shit, she's not wearing clothing that covers her whole body!", and then proceeded to rage at it.
I'd be kidding myself if I said this wasn't going to effect development of it, though. Which is a shame. The book should succeed, or crash and burn, on it's own merits. Not outside pressure.
Look, nerds apparently don't want to recognize this but the comic book industry (and print media in general) isn't doing so well. Cattering to a small hardcore subset isn't a working business model. Adapt or die, as it were. DC is trying to bring in new readers and it's a bit earlier to tell if this experiment has worked, yet. They have a few things going for them: iconic characters, easily accessible storytelling, and some talent. I'm sure they're expecting most of these titles to fail and potentially fail hard. But the titles they're really try to save (Justice League, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, etc.) they've put their some of best talents behind. Some of the decisions they've made are questionable (not rebooting the entire continuity, Starfire, Harlequin, KING SHARK, etc.) but they have to do something or they may have to close their doors in the not too distant future.
If the 'fan backlash' isn't matched by a decrease in sales why would DC or Marvel think it was important or even particularly representative of comic readers? If DC have a massive fan backlash but a 100% increase in sales which of those things do you think is going to be more important to the company?
And you don't care how good Spider-Man has been since Brand New Day? Well, why not? If this terrible decision has resulted in a definite upturn in the quality of the book, maybe it wasn't such a terrible decision.
NOTE: I think it was a terrible story. But maybe not such a terrible decision.
because its snap decisions like the people who said 'I'll never read spiderman again' that loses customers permanently. Resetting your continuity is the quickest way to lose a customer.
That was kind of the impression I got. Alot of the complaints are things that are old hat to me. For example, that web-comic that was posted on the first page acts like it's some great big surprise that Starfire dresses...Well, not very much at all, in the new continuity. But glosses over the fact that she dressed the exact same way in the old continuity, and had alot of the same traits (Random sex not withstanding.).
To be fair, to that Red Hood and the Outlaws meta-score, by the way, there's alot of people band-wagoning on hating the Outlaws book, after a few prominent bloggers in the feminism sphere blogged about it, without ever reading it. In fact, a quick perusal shows alot of bitching in comments/forums from people who have demonstrably never even touched the thing, and just picked up a screenshot of a page/the previews somewhere.
I'd be kidding myself if I said this wasn't going to effect development of it, though. Which is a shame. The book should succeed, or crash and burn, on it's own merits. Not outside pressure.
Pretty much this.
One of the other things that people point out is how the Titan cartoon had two million viewers, that is true. And the X-Men, Batman, Thor and Superman movies all did crazy business at the movies and had their own TV shows and guess what. They didn't really translate into better sells for the comics, even when the comics did everything to make them as similar to the movies it really didn't help them. Bottom line the people watching the cartoons and movies don't usually translate to new comic book sales. It just doesn't happen. A few yes but not a great many. I remember way back in the day the people then publishing Turok said that there was something wrong when the N64 of the game could be such a huge massive hit and there was the comic selling less then good. The game didn't help the comic.
A lot of the people complaining probably never picked up a comic book in their life let alone read one. Not surprising, it's been the way of things for a long time.
DC comics has tried to put their best talent on many of these characters before and outside certain characters or story arcs for years now, even when they put their brightest on Superman it only did moderately better then normal. They needed drastic change. Part of the problem is people STILL view comic books and characters as being from the day when the cheesy live action Batman show was on TV. They still view it was Justice Friends and similar watered down material. It reminds me of the story where one of the writers of Batman went into a bar way back when, he was the writer who did the whole Death of Jason Todd thing after people called in to kill him off. He got to talking with with another guy, told him that he wrote comics and Batman specifically. Next thing you know the guy is shouting at everyone that "this is the guy that killed Robin!".
He had heard about the death of Robin, he had no idea there was a second one or that a Jason Todd existed, just a knee jerk reaction of how dare they kill Robin, even though he had no clue who it was.
Resetting continuity has apparently bought a hundred thousand new readers in to the JL book. Brand New Day bought in a lot of new readers. I don't know what the figures are like now, offhand, but arguing that resetting continuity always loses customers is demonstrably false.
Also, Archonex, either you agree that the Starfire thing is sexist or not. If not, fine, but stop trying to write off criticism as being a goddamn strawman or only from people who don't read the comics. It's plainly not. You should at least acknowledge that a lot of the criticism (most of the criticism in this thread, in fact) relates not to her costume but to the way she's being portrayed and the way she's been drawn posing for the reader combined with the costume.
Cade, I know that was her job way back when. Like I said, it doesn't make the book necessarily sexist. I thought it was amusing, though.
To be fair, to that Red Hood and the Outlaws meta-score, by the way, there's alot of people band-wagoning on hating the Outlaws book, after a few prominent bloggers in the feminism sphere blogged about it, without ever reading it.
Maybe so, but it what way does that invalidate the original criticism of the book? None whatsoever, I believe. The book was criticised on its merits, quite extensively. If you think those criticisms are invalid, say so. So far all you've done to address them is say that maybe things will turn around in a few issues.
To be fair, to that Red Hood and the Outlaws meta-score, by the way, there's alot of people band-wagoning on hating the Outlaws book, after a few prominent bloggers in the feminism sphere blogged about it, without ever reading it.
Maybe so, but it what way does that invalidate the original criticism of the book? None whatsoever, I believe. The book was criticised on its merits, quite extensively. If you think those criticisms are invalid, say so. So far all you've done to address them is say that maybe things will turn around in a few issues.
How can it be a criticism of the book as a whole when the criticism seems to be sorely based upon a panel if not page or two.
I doubt most people even know what happened in the rest of the book outside of the Starfire beach pages.
One of the things DC needs to do to make the reboot succeed is improve their model for trades. I don't buy floppies. I do buy trades, and I'm thinking there is a not-small portion of the market that does the same thing.
I haven't been a collector in years. Not worth it, but I do enjoy the stories and I find TPBs the best way to do that (storage and reading-wise). Marvel has a model that (mostly) works. Almost everything they publish now makes it into a trade within a reasonable amount of time after being published and it is (for the most part) easy to identify which pieces you need to get a complete run of a series.
The exception being when they have a mini-reboot on a title (big change in creative team) and they reset their trade numbers...
I forget where I saw the stat, but it was in relation to the Red Hood comic that has caused a lot of people to seriously give DC the stinkeye when, up to that point, people seemed generally pleased with this relaunch.
The Teen Titans cartoon was seen by 2 million viewers every week. That was just new episodes, it's not counting the perpetual re-runs and DVD sales that exposed the show to new fans over time.
The highest selling comic of the New 52 barely hit 200,000 people.
Now, while it's a great thing that comics sales hit 200,000 for the first time in a long time with DC, this is NOT a good thing. This seems like a huge missed opportunity, in fact, and for a LOT of other books as well, as Cade mentioned.. The fact that Wolverine or Superman haven't been able to increase their sales, that Batman books didn't skyrocket and stay there after The Dark Knight came out, that doesn't let the reboot off the hook. That simply damns the comics industry even more for their inability to cater to the audience they are being gifted. How and why are they dropping the ball? Direct market is screwing them. Stigma is screwing them. Continuity is screwing them. The New 52 sorta addresses all these things, but they're doing it really clumsily.
What makes this doubly cringe-worthy isn't just watching the industry struggle to explain why it still does this self-destructive shit to itself, but watching the people who still read the books try to explain why the status-quo isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Again, so what? Either the original criticisms are valid or not. If you think they aren't, say so. If you think they are, then they are, regardless of what a bunch of other people who haven't read the book think.
Also, Archonex, either you agree that the Starfire thing is sexist or not. If not, fine, but stop trying to write off criticism as being a goddamn strawman or only from people who don't read the comics. It's plainly not. You should at least acknowledge that a lot of the criticism (most of the criticism in this thread, in fact) relates not to her costume but to the way she's being portrayed and the way she's been drawn posing for the reader combined with the costume.
Parts of it are potentially sexist, parts of it are not. For the former, it depends on where they take the story after this issue.
However, if someone is getting upset at how Starfire looks, a character that has an established history of being the equivalent of a very independent, strong willed, free love "green space babe" from Star Trek, at this point, they probably are not familiar with the comics, or are just band-wagoning after the recent deluge of blogs pissed about the comic issue. I don't see how that is much of an issue.
Is the posing off and a bit blatant? Possibly. And in some cases, it shows the character in question being very blatant about her sexuality. However, this isn't, say, a random bystander in the comic with no reason to do so doing this for the benefit of the reader. It's a character who we're lead to believe that isn't ashamed of her body, and apparently is from a culture where that isn't a big deal.
Comics are very much reliant on images, just as much as words, to get the point across. It all depends on what the story is saying, and what the artist intends to convey. So I can give that a pass, until I see another issue.
All that being said. So long as they don't make her a one note sex bunny, I don't think it's sexist, no.
It's entirely possible, in this day and age, for someone to have casual sex, or be proud of their body, and not be some sort of dirty whore. There are actual feminists out there, who would tell you that the choice to be able to do things like that without negative social reprecussions is the most important thing about their movement. And there's a line in the actual comic book that people are bitching about, where she gets pissed off when someone tries to rag on her for not having "traditional" "You belong to (INSERT ROMANTIC INTEREST HERE)" values. So no, i'm not too concerned about it, yet.
If they go down the route of her just having different values, because she's not human, then no, it's not sexist. If they expand on the differences between cultures a bit, it could even be interesting. Is it a bit fan-servicey? Yes. But that doesn't bother me nearly as much as someone being a one note fan-service character, which the character in question is not, in my mind, defined as, yet, as we barely had any lines from any of them.
We don't even have enough information on this Red Hood to know what he's all about, except that he kills dudes while dual wielding pistols, and sits shirtless on beaches acting generically cool after escaping from maximum security jails, nevermind the other main character. So why aren't people assigning them and getting pissed over generic "maschismo" traits without knowing more? Starfire had just as much backstory and character development as they did.
Edit: To elaborate further. The whole thing strikes me as vaguely reactionary to larger issues regarding gender portrayals in comic books. The book barely even focussed on the characters, outside of a short blurb describing an abbreviated (And very vague.) background, and Jason Todd's incredibly biased (and jackassed, as expected for his character) statements. Bitch about the art if you have too. But to call it blatantly sexist at this point is premature, in my opinion.
How can it be a criticism of the book as a whole when the criticism seems to be sorely based upon a panel if not page or two.
I doubt most people even know what happened in the rest of the book outside of the Starfire beach pages.
Have you actually read the criticism of the book, or did you just hear about it and jump on the defensive bandwagon? Here, try this very long article.
EDIT: It's the same one linked in the post above yours.
I read comic books, I post in the comic book forum, I watched people flare up over the issues that have been stated.
That said my comments still stand.
Again, how many people have read the book and not just looked at the pictures being shown across the net?
How many of these people even read comics, some of them yeah but a lot of it is a knee jerk reaction.
Nothing new there.
Simply discarding criticism by denegrating he critic and denying this is a problem isn't helpful. The article that has been presented is obviously written by a woman who has read comics for years, so your very juvenile "they just don't understand!" counter-argument does not apply. It's actually a very insightful article. Give it a read.
I forget where I saw the stat, but it was in relation to the Red Hood comic that has caused a lot of people to seriously give DC the stinkeye when, up to that point, people seemed generally pleased with this relaunch.
The Teen Titans cartoon was seen by 2 million viewers every week. That was just new episodes, it's not counting the perpetual re-runs and DVD sales that exposed the show to new fans over time.
The highest selling comic of the New 52 barely hit 200,000 people.
Now, while it's a great thing that comics sales hit 200,000 for the first time in a long time with DC, this is NOT a good thing. This seems like a huge missed opportunity, in fact, and for a LOT of other books as well, as Cade mentioned.. The fact that Wolverine or Superman haven't been able to increase their sales, that Batman books didn't skyrocket and stay there after The Dark Knight came out, that doesn't let the reboot off the hook. That simply damns the comics industry even more for their inability to cater to the audience they are being gifted. How and why are they dropping the ball? Direct market is screwing them. Stigma is screwing them. Continuity is screwing them. The New 52 sorta addresses all these things, but they're doing it really clumsily.
What makes this doubly cringe-worthy isn't just watching the industry struggle to explain why it still does this self-destructive shit to itself, but watching the people who still read the books try to explain why the status-quo isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The two things that's mostly screwing comics as far as I can see is:
1. The Cost - They cost way too much money. What you get for what you pay simply isn't enough.
2. Where are they?! - Finding comic books these days is not always easy to do. Sure you got Archies in grocery stores but who cares about them. If you want Batman, Superman, X-Men and assorted others you really need to go to a comic book store. Depending on where you live that can be easier said then done. They need to be made more available. They need to be out in regular stores once more where anyone can grab an issue when they want it. Right now this is all but impossible.
If anything is going to save comic books and get them into a wider market then we all know it's going to be digital. It might meant he end for the paper format for them but eventually unless the comic industry can fix things is going to happen. If companies like DC and Marvel do plan to sell them via digital means they better learn that they need to drop prices, offering comics for store prices isn't going to work. Part of the problem is they don't want to piss off the comic book store owners who are their bread and butter at the moment.
Like I said, the industry has issues it needs to solve big time. One of the other major problems they have is their main shipper of comic books, namely Diamond. They've been a source of complaint for years now but they're the only real player in town.
Simply discarding criticism by denegrating he critic and denying this is a problem isn't helpful. The article that has been presented is obviously written by a woman who has read comics for years, so your very juvenile "they just don't understand!" counter-argument does not apply. It's actually a very insightful article. Give it a read.
I did. I understand where she is coming from, I can see what she is saying. That said I don't really agree with her. She has her view points, I got mine. Her issues and opinions are not mine.
And I've read better articles on the matter before. This is hardly a new issue in the comic book world, it's been one that's existed for years now.
0
Options
CorporateLogoThe toilet knowshow I feelRegistered Userregular
Diamond Distributors is another problem with the comic industry
Simply discarding criticism by denegrating he critic and denying this is a problem isn't helpful. The article that has been presented is obviously written by a woman who has read comics for years, so your very juvenile "they just don't understand!" counter-argument does not apply. It's actually a very insightful article. Give it a read.
I did. I understand where she is coming from, I can see what she is saying. That said I don't really agree with her. She has her view points, I got mine. Her issues and opinions are not mine.
And I've read better articles on the matter before. This is hardly a new issue in the comic book world, it's been one that's existed for years now.
I appreciate that you disagree but that doesn't tell us what you disagree with.
Posts
First act is the title characters trying to make sure a plane doesn't hit the Washington Monument. Their solution, instead of just turning the plane to have it miss the relatively thin structure, is to pull up.
Then the rest of the issue is origin story exposition being told to someone I would have expected to know the origin.
Best part was Liefeld actually drawing feet.
That sounds schway.
You forgot the new Batgirl, which is basically a new title.
Also how was Supergirl sexist?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Most reviews get hung up on her uniform. There's an awful lot of drawing the eye to the crotch and other salaciousness (the wierd knee-high boots with garters) for a character who is supposed to be a girl of fifteen or so. Personally, I find the new costume much-improved on the horrible shit Michael Turner created just a few years ago.
The other complaint is kind the same one thrown at the Blue Beetle book right now: we just don't need a reboot of this character right now. It's only been 5 years since the last reboot.
They also made a joke about the uniform.
Additionally, yes a reboot was needed - to fit with the rest of the line. Everyone's origin stories get retold, remember?
And I'm not sure that boots are quite as kinky as you believe, Ross. The crotch plate is a bit weird, but on the whole it's not sexier than what a gymnast would wear, unless of course you have a thing for boots.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Guess what her job is.
And no, her job doesn't make the book necessarily sexist. But still, guess.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
DC doing this was 'crisis' type storyline was bad enough but this one basically does exactly what brand new day did and pick and choose what parts of the continuity it wanted to keep..So basically while SOME of the continuity of the past is intact, you wont know if its real or not until they refer to it. So basically everything you new and loved about the characters is in a state of flux.
Honestly, I'm taking this opportunity to cut out most of my DC folder. I'm dropping just about everything except several batman books. I'm kinda glad they decided to screw up this bad. it makes me spend less money on a habit that is usually difficult to break.
I read comics because I love to read and like the idea of having a character whos history is present and persistant, and reliably going to be available to read more of in a month instead of waiting for a favorite author to continue a book series years between volumes. I read lots of novels but am pretty selective about my choices which is why comics are easy to get into, find a favorite and have a constant stream of content. Thats gone now.
This complaint about her costume seems a bit reaching. That's more clothes than she worn in years. How quickly they forgot the miniskirts and t-shirts cut at the midriff. It's kind of a weird design but I think I can let it go if the writing is good.
So, it's not sexist then.
Unless people think a woman tearing giant robots in half with her bare hands, while cracking a few off color jokes about the uniform she wore prior to her home exploding is sexist, that is?
Seriously, of all the complaints you can level against the new DCU, Supergirl being sexist is not one of them. She's wearing 75 percent more clothing now then she has in almost any other medium, while keeping the overall "Super" themes. If anyone actually claims that's a bad thing, i'd be inclined to ask them just what they expect her to wear? Because at that point, it sounds like you're about to swing back around to the other side of the sexism goal-posts, by claiming that she should always cover herself up.
At worst, her costume design is dumb as hell. But not sexist. Most definitely not sexist. Unless you have a thing for what looks like armor plated stomachs and pelvises. And really, alot of the costume re-designs are dumb as all hell. Most of them just look like they wanted to re-design things for the sake of gesturing at the NDCU and saying "See! It's all new! You can buy comics now, without being confused about all that backstory stuff, potential comic book fans!".
And you don't care how good Spider-Man has been since Brand New Day? Well, why not? If this terrible decision has resulted in a definite upturn in the quality of the book, maybe it wasn't such a terrible decision.
NOTE: I think it was a terrible story. But maybe not such a terrible decision.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I honestly haven't read the Supergirl book, so I have no opinion. I was making a general point.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
If they carried it around or just smoothed out the line it would fit a lot better. Then again, maybe she's supposed to grow into it.
You are aware that was always her job when she was created by Jim Lee for WildC.A.T.S years ago right? And that she left it when she became a covert super hero.
Who's to say she won't end up leaving it again.
And is it me or does a lot of the complaining seem to be coming from people who don't you know..................................read the books at all.
Anyone else notice that?
For example, that web-comic that was posted on the first page acts like it's some great big surprise that Starfire dresses...Well, not very much at all actually, in the new continuity. But glosses over the fact that she dressed the exact same way in the old continuity, and had alot of the same traits (Random sex not withstanding.). Teen Titans Starfire was an anomaly that was created because having a teenage girl run around in what looks like something that Leia would wear in Jabba's palace was not (And rightfully so) considered appropriate for a children's TV channel.
To be fair, to that Red Hood and the Outlaws meta-score, by the way, there's alot of people band-wagoning on hating the Outlaws book, after a few prominent bloggers in the feminism sphere blogged about it, without ever reading it. In fact, a quick perusal shows alot of bitching in comments/forums from people who have demonstrably never even touched the thing, and just picked up a screenshot of a page/the previews somewhere, said "Oh shit, she's not wearing clothing that covers her whole body!", and then proceeded to rage at it.
I'd be kidding myself if I said this wasn't going to effect development of it, though. Which is a shame. The book should succeed, or crash and burn, on it's own merits. Not outside pressure.
because its snap decisions like the people who said 'I'll never read spiderman again' that loses customers permanently. Resetting your continuity is the quickest way to lose a customer.
Pretty much this.
One of the other things that people point out is how the Titan cartoon had two million viewers, that is true. And the X-Men, Batman, Thor and Superman movies all did crazy business at the movies and had their own TV shows and guess what. They didn't really translate into better sells for the comics, even when the comics did everything to make them as similar to the movies it really didn't help them. Bottom line the people watching the cartoons and movies don't usually translate to new comic book sales. It just doesn't happen. A few yes but not a great many. I remember way back in the day the people then publishing Turok said that there was something wrong when the N64 of the game could be such a huge massive hit and there was the comic selling less then good. The game didn't help the comic.
A lot of the people complaining probably never picked up a comic book in their life let alone read one. Not surprising, it's been the way of things for a long time.
DC comics has tried to put their best talent on many of these characters before and outside certain characters or story arcs for years now, even when they put their brightest on Superman it only did moderately better then normal. They needed drastic change. Part of the problem is people STILL view comic books and characters as being from the day when the cheesy live action Batman show was on TV. They still view it was Justice Friends and similar watered down material. It reminds me of the story where one of the writers of Batman went into a bar way back when, he was the writer who did the whole Death of Jason Todd thing after people called in to kill him off. He got to talking with with another guy, told him that he wrote comics and Batman specifically. Next thing you know the guy is shouting at everyone that "this is the guy that killed Robin!".
He had heard about the death of Robin, he had no idea there was a second one or that a Jason Todd existed, just a knee jerk reaction of how dare they kill Robin, even though he had no clue who it was.
All this reminds me of the same.
Also, Archonex, either you agree that the Starfire thing is sexist or not. If not, fine, but stop trying to write off criticism as being a goddamn strawman or only from people who don't read the comics. It's plainly not. You should at least acknowledge that a lot of the criticism (most of the criticism in this thread, in fact) relates not to her costume but to the way she's being portrayed and the way she's been drawn posing for the reader combined with the costume.
Cade, I know that was her job way back when. Like I said, it doesn't make the book necessarily sexist. I thought it was amusing, though.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Maybe so, but it what way does that invalidate the original criticism of the book? None whatsoever, I believe. The book was criticised on its merits, quite extensively. If you think those criticisms are invalid, say so. So far all you've done to address them is say that maybe things will turn around in a few issues.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The Big Sexy Problem with Superheroines and Their 'Liberated Sexuality'
Find myself agreeing with a lot of this...
How can it be a criticism of the book as a whole when the criticism seems to be sorely based upon a panel if not page or two.
I doubt most people even know what happened in the rest of the book outside of the Starfire beach pages.
I haven't been a collector in years. Not worth it, but I do enjoy the stories and I find TPBs the best way to do that (storage and reading-wise). Marvel has a model that (mostly) works. Almost everything they publish now makes it into a trade within a reasonable amount of time after being published and it is (for the most part) easy to identify which pieces you need to get a complete run of a series.
The exception being when they have a mini-reboot on a title (big change in creative team) and they reset their trade numbers...
Have you actually read the criticism of the book, or did you just hear about it and jump on the defensive bandwagon? Here, try this very long article.
EDIT: It's the same one linked in the post above yours.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I forget where I saw the stat, but it was in relation to the Red Hood comic that has caused a lot of people to seriously give DC the stinkeye when, up to that point, people seemed generally pleased with this relaunch.
The Teen Titans cartoon was seen by 2 million viewers every week. That was just new episodes, it's not counting the perpetual re-runs and DVD sales that exposed the show to new fans over time.
The highest selling comic of the New 52 barely hit 200,000 people.
Now, while it's a great thing that comics sales hit 200,000 for the first time in a long time with DC, this is NOT a good thing. This seems like a huge missed opportunity, in fact, and for a LOT of other books as well, as Cade mentioned.. The fact that Wolverine or Superman haven't been able to increase their sales, that Batman books didn't skyrocket and stay there after The Dark Knight came out, that doesn't let the reboot off the hook. That simply damns the comics industry even more for their inability to cater to the audience they are being gifted. How and why are they dropping the ball? Direct market is screwing them. Stigma is screwing them. Continuity is screwing them. The New 52 sorta addresses all these things, but they're doing it really clumsily.
What makes this doubly cringe-worthy isn't just watching the industry struggle to explain why it still does this self-destructive shit to itself, but watching the people who still read the books try to explain why the status-quo isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Geek: Remixed - A Decade's worth of ruined pop culture memories
Xbox Live - Fatboy PDX
I read comic books, I post in the comic book forum, I watched people flare up over the issues that have been stated.
That said my comments still stand.
Again, how many people have read the book and not just looked at the pictures being shown across the net?
How many of these people even read comics, some of them yeah but a lot of it is a knee jerk reaction.
Nothing new there.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Parts of it are potentially sexist, parts of it are not. For the former, it depends on where they take the story after this issue.
However, if someone is getting upset at how Starfire looks, a character that has an established history of being the equivalent of a very independent, strong willed, free love "green space babe" from Star Trek, at this point, they probably are not familiar with the comics, or are just band-wagoning after the recent deluge of blogs pissed about the comic issue. I don't see how that is much of an issue.
Is the posing off and a bit blatant? Possibly. And in some cases, it shows the character in question being very blatant about her sexuality. However, this isn't, say, a random bystander in the comic with no reason to do so doing this for the benefit of the reader. It's a character who we're lead to believe that isn't ashamed of her body, and apparently is from a culture where that isn't a big deal.
Comics are very much reliant on images, just as much as words, to get the point across. It all depends on what the story is saying, and what the artist intends to convey. So I can give that a pass, until I see another issue.
All that being said. So long as they don't make her a one note sex bunny, I don't think it's sexist, no.
It's entirely possible, in this day and age, for someone to have casual sex, or be proud of their body, and not be some sort of dirty whore. There are actual feminists out there, who would tell you that the choice to be able to do things like that without negative social reprecussions is the most important thing about their movement. And there's a line in the actual comic book that people are bitching about, where she gets pissed off when someone tries to rag on her for not having "traditional" "You belong to (INSERT ROMANTIC INTEREST HERE)" values. So no, i'm not too concerned about it, yet.
If they go down the route of her just having different values, because she's not human, then no, it's not sexist. If they expand on the differences between cultures a bit, it could even be interesting. Is it a bit fan-servicey? Yes. But that doesn't bother me nearly as much as someone being a one note fan-service character, which the character in question is not, in my mind, defined as, yet, as we barely had any lines from any of them.
We don't even have enough information on this Red Hood to know what he's all about, except that he kills dudes while dual wielding pistols, and sits shirtless on beaches acting generically cool after escaping from maximum security jails, nevermind the other main character. So why aren't people assigning them and getting pissed over generic "maschismo" traits without knowing more? Starfire had just as much backstory and character development as they did.
Edit: To elaborate further. The whole thing strikes me as vaguely reactionary to larger issues regarding gender portrayals in comic books. The book barely even focussed on the characters, outside of a short blurb describing an abbreviated (And very vague.) background, and Jason Todd's incredibly biased (and jackassed, as expected for his character) statements. Bitch about the art if you have too. But to call it blatantly sexist at this point is premature, in my opinion.
Simply discarding criticism by denegrating he critic and denying this is a problem isn't helpful. The article that has been presented is obviously written by a woman who has read comics for years, so your very juvenile "they just don't understand!" counter-argument does not apply. It's actually a very insightful article. Give it a read.
The two things that's mostly screwing comics as far as I can see is:
1. The Cost - They cost way too much money. What you get for what you pay simply isn't enough.
2. Where are they?! - Finding comic books these days is not always easy to do. Sure you got Archies in grocery stores but who cares about them. If you want Batman, Superman, X-Men and assorted others you really need to go to a comic book store. Depending on where you live that can be easier said then done. They need to be made more available. They need to be out in regular stores once more where anyone can grab an issue when they want it. Right now this is all but impossible.
If anything is going to save comic books and get them into a wider market then we all know it's going to be digital. It might meant he end for the paper format for them but eventually unless the comic industry can fix things is going to happen. If companies like DC and Marvel do plan to sell them via digital means they better learn that they need to drop prices, offering comics for store prices isn't going to work. Part of the problem is they don't want to piss off the comic book store owners who are their bread and butter at the moment.
Like I said, the industry has issues it needs to solve big time. One of the other major problems they have is their main shipper of comic books, namely Diamond. They've been a source of complaint for years now but they're the only real player in town.
I did. I understand where she is coming from, I can see what she is saying. That said I don't really agree with her. She has her view points, I got mine. Her issues and opinions are not mine.
And I've read better articles on the matter before. This is hardly a new issue in the comic book world, it's been one that's existed for years now.
Yup I mentioned them.
There have been a few good articles written about them now and then.
Buy a comic and spend an extra buck on top of that to get a digital copy
Talk about missing the point
That said, digital is the way forward for the comics industry but they're getting dragged kicking and screaming into the future
I appreciate that you disagree but that doesn't tell us what you disagree with.
I was astonished it actually took this long for DC to join the party, even now they seem to be half twiddling their thumbs on the issue.
Marvel is doing better but still needs to be a lot of work done there as well.
Eventually they're going to need to upset some people to bring everything fully into the game. Right now they don't want to risk losing money.
As for Diamond, I'll be glad when the day comes that comics no longer has anything to do with them.