Options

Comics News Thread V: All The News Unfit to Print

1246

Posts

  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    It feels like the implication of saying this is a dastardly, shadowy group of anti progressives and an attack on CA, is that D'Orazio is somehow working with these people, and therefore trying to undermine/discredit her own response to this, even though she's the one who was harassed in the first place. The self-aggrandizing is just getting to be too much.

  • Options
    AtomicTofuAtomicTofu She's a straight-up supervillain, yo Registered User regular
    I don't see that vibe at all.

  • Options
    GustavGustav Friend of Goats Somewhere in the OzarksRegistered User regular
    edited March 2015
    AtomicTofu wrote: »
    Is it Team Comics or sticking up for a friend? I'm sure most of these people are personal friends of Sims and can't really leave that relationship out of the equation when writing about the whole situation.

    I'm sure it's sticking up for a friend. But you are gunna run into some problems when you position yourself as an outlet with serious convictions. You kinda have to keep a semblance of those convictions when it's one of your own with a hugely troubling past.

    Which is not to say they should all say they should have some mass public unfriending, but they should be a lot less tonedeaf in the commentary.

    Gustav on
    aGPmIBD.jpg
  • Options
    cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    The thing about the Sims situation that I find strange is that pretty much all of this went on in the open, as far as I've heard. So it's kind of weird that this hadn't come up before now.

    cckerberos.png
  • Options
    Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Registered User regular
    This ComicsBeat article has some good context, I think:

    http://www.comicsbeat.com/dorazio-v-sims-dawn-of-justice/
    • Last week it appears that some G*mergater types unearthed what was a well known at the time feud from 2007-10 between well known blogger Chris Sims and writer/editor Valerie D’Orazio as shown in the above tweet by D’Orazio’s husband, David Gallaher. The GG mischief was aimed at showing how Comics Alliance, a site very well known for its emphasis on creating more diversity and speaking out in often passionate terms against sexism, racism, transphobia and anti-gay sentiments, was in fact harboring a writer (Sims) who had harassed a woman (D’Orazio) online.

    • Gallaher wrote to Sims warning him that this was being unearthed. Apparently CA staff also received warnings.

    • Sims wrote an apology for his behavior towards D’Orazio to Gallaher in response.

    • Earlier this week, Sims was named as the writer of X-Men ’92, a digital first Secret Wars spin-off.

    • Without mentioning the GG outing, but mentioning the X-men gig, D’Orazio tweeted that Sims had harassed her online for the period above.

    Basically it came up now because some mean-spirited people wanted it to come up now, and D'Orazio was apparently happy to oblige them on account of the recent announcement of Sims' first high profile job at a major publisher. Whether she knew about the other people before she decided to call him out is unclear. She did compare ComicsAlliance to noted conspiracist Alex Jones on Twitter the other day for talking about the subject in their statement, though. I'm also a little curious why she called out Sims for emailing her husband instead of her without mentioning that he was responding directly to an email that her husband had sent him.

    This part of the article gives a bit of context about why the harassment was not seen as a big deal back in 2008:
    I have no idea exactly why Sims started his feud with Val. I can sort of guess though. I have to throw in here that I know Val very well, as opposed to having barely interacted with Sims. Val and I worked together at DC, we live in the same town, we’ve had lunch, we’ve been out drinking, and we’ve given each other support at various times…and had some major disagreements as well. We’re not best buds, but I’ve always considered her one of the smartest writers about comics, even when I don’t agree with her, and one of the most naturally talented bloggers in the whole space.

    This was not a feeling universally shared. To be fair, Val is not shy about picking her own battles. I believe she had her own blog feud with Johanna Draper Carlson, and she was especially unpopular with Ragnell and Kalinara, two writers who ran a link blog called When Fangirls Attack that is very much the Paleozoic version of today’s geek girl media web. You can read all about it here and here, with Chris Sims actually showing up in the comments to take pot shots. I was going to except these but it’s like reading a transcript of a family gathering with so much calling back and self referencing. But, all that said, I can see why people took umbrage: Val has strong opinions, which although backed up by a lengthy career in the industry, stood out like a sore thumb. She was also always talking about her own victimization, and some people disliked that. TBH, I don’t remember any of the incidents that incited the WFA dislike, but I don’t actually even remember the Sims feud either.

    Sims was not the only blogger at the time who did not like her, and it seems like the comics blogger social network was not generally inclined to see her as a victim of harassment.

  • Options
    cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    I thought this comment from the Comics Beat article was also informative about what things were like for her at the time :
    I was a regular reader of almost all the above mentioned blogs 2005-2011, and at the time it certainly didn’t seem like “classic ‘punching down’” for most of the aforementioned bloggers to write scathing criticisms of D’Orazio’s work. From the perspective of the public that followed the progressive and gender-related comics blogs, D’Orazio was an established industry veteran with a (comparatively) large audience and extensive, even if informal, network of industry connections, while Ragnell, Kalinara, SallyP, Zhinxy, Chris Sims, and other visible bloggers in the When Fangirls Attack orbit were scrappy amateurs posting and building their audiences between grad school, deployments, and non-industry jobs. I now realize D’Orazio was not necessarily enjoying any more career or financial security than the other bloggers, but she appeared to be a significantly more powerful figure in comics than others in the WFA crowd, while Johanna Draper Carlson, the senior members of Friends of Lulu, and some comics new site editors who leveled intense criticism at D’Orazio appeared to have levels of power similar to hers. (I’m speaking as a reader and occasional commenter from that era, not an insider in those circles, so I don’t know how well my perceptions match the reality of that time.)

    Several feminist comics commentators had bones to pick with D’Orazio’s often contradictory declarations and general mode of discourse, and appeared frustrated that she was seen by many as the definitive voice of women in comics while other (in our eyes much better) voices struggled to be heard. Around 2008 I sent a tweet I’m not proud of calling D’Orazio the Sarah Palin of Comics feminism, bemoaning that the de facto leading women’s comic blogger wasn’t very good. At the same time feminist bloggers were criticizing D’Orazio’s content and actions, the vilest kind of misogynist invective was aimed at her for being a woman publicly discussing gender and comics. She was trolled mercilessly by the worst sorts of bottom feeders. I had almost exactly the view of her that I did of Palin: no matter how problematic I thought her representations of feminism were and how questionable I thought her prominence was, that didn’t legitimize trolls gleefully ripping her apart for the offense of being a prominent woman existing and speaking in public. There was probably some internalized misogyny in my visceral dislike of her; I thought she was destructively performing the worst anti-female stereotype of being “emotional” at the expense of being “logical,” a stereotype I’ve spent my trying to fight.

    All this to say, I remember Chris Sims snarking at and about Val D’Orazio and giving her comics poor review, but it seemed like frustrated internal criticism from the progressive feminist camp, rather than misogynistic sniping from the proto-GG camp. But I wasn’t privy to private communications, most of the public content in question appears to have been taken down, and I think I just don’t *want* to believe there was gender-based harassment I didn’t know about or just didn’t notice.

    This sucks utterly, because I want clearly defined protagonists and antagonists.

    cckerberos.png
  • Options
    cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    I'm also a little curious why she called out Sims for emailing her husband instead of her without mentioning that he was responding directly to an email that her husband had sent him.

    That's understandable, I think. People tend to interpret actions taken by people who they intensely dislike in ways that aren't necessarily fair.

    cckerberos.png
  • Options
    Linespider5Linespider5 ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGER Registered User regular
    Oh, hey! The Comics News Thread! I can't wait to see what the new posts are, the last time I wrote something in this thread, it was about Shia Lebouf!

    ...

    ...

    ...

    I just don't understand people anymore.

  • Options
    Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Oh, hey! The Comics News Thread! I can't wait to see what the new posts are, the last time I wrote something in this thread, it was about Shia Lebouf!

    ...

    ...

    ...

    I just don't understand people anymore.

    Shia Lebouf returns to the thread!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0u4M6vppCI

  • Options
    Linespider5Linespider5 ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGER Registered User regular
    It has come at last, this day of days, when Shia Labeouf's misdirected meta-masochism is the balm of my Gilead.
    It harkens back to a simpler time, when the WTF-ness of the Internet was...not innocent, exactly, but certainly a much more amusing if still unpleasant artifact of the expanding connected consciousness will live in now. One that, I feel, may eventually turn us all into Elrond of Rivendell as our only recourse to limit the long scathing view of the Internet on the frailty of human emotions.
    And seriously. This kind of news is beginning to wear me out. In these trying times, I understand these are important conversations to have as we stumble towards a properly codified etiquette in these new hyper-contexts we find ourselves in, but more often than not it feels like we are Not Succeeding, and instead devolving into something unpleasant, and unproductive, and ruled by the people that simply want it more.
    Basically, these conversations eventually make me feel like I'm watching the end of Yojimbo again: The crazy zealot, the corrupt nobleman, the hellion dying in the street, the tied up guy, and a town smoldering with death, because the whole damn thing had to be turn down again in order to start over right. Only, I'm not certain there is a Yojimbo in these online scenarios at all-just us, mostly, tearing each other apart.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7mClBC7U7o

  • Options
    AutomaticzenAutomaticzen Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    Annnnddd.... that's largely what I expected the fallout would be from all the mess earlier this week.
    YmnvzE1.png

    Sims tried to head some of it off, but it was in vain.


    Automaticzen on
    http://www.usgamer.net/
    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
    I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
  • Options
    DJ EebsDJ Eebs Moderator, Administrator admin
    It is absolute garbage that the fallout from things like this always hits the actual victim the hardest.

  • Options
    HadjiQuestHadjiQuest Registered User regular
    It is incredibly depressing that this weird far-right push we're seeing everywhere has to also make its way into things like comics and video games that, to me, are supposed to just be fun and inclusive.

  • Options
    Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    Yeah, it's utterly garbage how we can't even have a discussion about these things without people being inexcusably shitty.

  • Options
    cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    I'm not sure that I'd describe it as "far-right". Maybe "Counter-Progressive" would be better, assuming that's an actual term?

    cckerberos.png
  • Options
    PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    cckerberos wrote: »
    I'm not sure that I'd describe it as "far-right". Maybe "Counter-Progressive" would be better, assuming that's an actual term?

    The term you are looking for is reactionary. And the drift isn't entirely accidental. Breitbart Media, the Drudge Report and a bunch of other right-wing outlets took up the Gamergate cause very early and have started focusing on comics and video game issues now that they recognize the audience exists.

  • Options
    Rorshach KringleRorshach Kringle that crustache life Registered User regular
    cckerberos wrote: »
    I'm also a little curious why she called out Sims for emailing her husband instead of her without mentioning that he was responding directly to an email that her husband had sent him.

    That's understandable, I think. People tend to interpret actions taken by people who they intensely dislike in ways that aren't necessarily fair.

    i mean, no?

    she's pissed because the only thing that even lead to chris sims ever apologizing is the idea that people were going to dreg up the past to hurt him. he was perfectly content to just assume nothing he had done had any consequences. plus it is kind of shitty for the first thing to do when you find this out is to hold the internet version of a press conference, but not before sending her husband an e-mail saying "oh and tell her i'm sorry, bro."

    decorum, people


    6vjsgrerts6r.png

  • Options
    Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Registered User regular
    Just so you know, the email he sent to her husband was a reply to an email her husband sent him. Sims didn't specifically email her husband instead of her.

  • Options
    HadjiQuestHadjiQuest Registered User regular
    cckerberos wrote: »
    I'm not sure that I'd describe it as "far-right". Maybe "Counter-Progressive" would be better, assuming that's an actual term?

    The term you are looking for is reactionary. And the drift isn't entirely accidental. Breitbart Media, the Drudge Report and a bunch of other right-wing outlets took up the Gamergate cause very early and have started focusing on comics and video game issues now that they recognize the audience exists.

    I've had the displeasure of interacting with gamergaters on other part of the web, and Breitbart especially has been doing some weird shit to try and win them over to other right-wing causes and fold them into the tea party. It is not really about videogames anymore when your movement has a very specific stance on Israel and is encouraging its members to out marxists in the game development community. I would argue that a large portion of that movement has essentially been co-opted by, yeah, reactionary forces with ties to the far right.

    But I'll drop it here, because that's not what this discussion is about.

  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    I don't agree with some of the characters he calls out (I do agree with Falcap, that's a jumbled costume, and everything about the DC reboot costumes), but he's spot on about burdening artists with expectations that simply aren't there in comics. We see freeze frames, not motion, and it's simply ok to have the books reflect that. Let the movies change what they have to for a realistic interpretation, don't have it cycle back onto the comics where that's simply not necessary.

    He's also spot on about a handful of artists designing these costumes that look good when they do it, but terrible by other artists because it's just too busy. This is actually one of Jim Lee's biggest flaws, for all his other strengths. When anyone else draws his Gambit he looks silly, his classic Cyclops was only ever really mastered by Andy Kubert, and I wonder how much of Travis Charest being so slow was due to trying to make the WildCATS work.

    His take on the artist adding the direction and decision and perspective is something that should also be noted, because it seems to be lost sometimes. WW's normal costume didn't look bad when Mahnke drew it, but in the hands of Benes could get silly. That does seem to be lost these days. Ramos drawing the old Spider-Woman outfit isn't as serialized as Manara's take on it.

    That was actually a nice interview I don't see anymore (partly because I don't check the sites much anymore). I disagree with some of Larsen's thoughts but it's simple and clean and not softballed really. He clarified things, shored up some reasonings that I might still find wrong, but in the end it was informative.

  • Options
    AutomaticzenAutomaticzen Registered User regular
    Yeah, it was a decent interview. Disagree with certain things, like anytime he insists that Spider-Woman's original costume is a good design, but it's a good interview.

    http://www.usgamer.net/
    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
    I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
  • Options
    Merlin the TunaMerlin the Tuna Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    Eh, I only made it about halfway through, but I mostly got a "guy says dumb stuff on twitter, tries to make it better by saying the same dumb stuff in longer form" vibe. It's not like he's history's greatest monster or anything, but it reads like he hasn't put in much critical thought on the matter (which is fine) but still thinks his feelings on the matter are ironclad (less fine).

    Also, -10 points to Hufflepuff for "Costumegate" in the headline. (All blogs are considered Hufflepuff until proven otherwise.)

    "They're just lines on paper" is borderline-indefensibly silly. At a cultural level, no, there's not a one-to-one line from "played Doom" to "school shooter," or "read Watchman" to "nihilist." But it's equally goofy to suggest that pop culture has absolutely no effect either on culture at large or people on an individual level, especially when you're dealing with a subculture that has traditionally been a bit of an echo chamber.

    And he applies this same logic to the idea that superhero outfits don't need to make sense or reflect any kind of actual materials, which is just lazy artistically and intellectually. Nobody's asking for every cape comic to be poncy highbrow fine art, but it'd be nice if the average level of thought going in consisted of more than "eh, nobody gives a shit anyway." But then he doubles back and muddies the water by invoking real life anyway, mentioning that real athletes don't wear protective gear because it weighs you down and restricts your movement. Which is again, obviously wrong: boxers and UFC guys fight in trunks because they participate in a regulated sport that is centrally based around the ability to endure a pummeling. Nearly every other contact sport - american football, hockey, lacrosse - people are wearing significant protection, and lighter sports like soccer and baseball use localized protection. And if you've spent time on RPG boards, you've seen plenty of arguments about the clumsiness of actual suits of armor get dismissed by videos of people running miles and working out in the things, then noting that it's not actually that bad.

    He presents himself as if he impartially evaluates good and bad design (and that everyone agrees with him), but mostly what he's doing is defending the status quo that he's used to. He seems to think that he's much more open to change than he actually is.

    This stands out quite a bit in the discussion of Batgirl. There are components of the costume I personally don't love, and I'm sure everyone else has different quibbles. But tellingly, he doesn't address any of that - he's way more focused on why a new costume was made, like it was some kind of criminal act to change the costume in a way other than the most minor tweaks. And it comes back again with Wonder Woman, whose classic costume has always been a terrible design that's sometimes elevated by quality art. The new one isn't great either, but frankly if you get rid of the goofy arm spikes I'd say it's an all-around improvement. Likewise with Danvers, whose old costume was a swimsuit and a snazzy scarf, whose new costume he decries for looking like it's a Starfleet uniform. Because surely it would be ridiculous for her to look like she works with a government-sanctioned, military, aeronautical agency.

    Even his bit on "I only care about good design versus bad design" falls apart when he gets to Ms. Marvel. (In what is almost certainly an honest brain fart, but is also kind of a hilarious callback to his discussion of complainers who are woefully out of date on modern comics.) The prior two paragraphs, he cites "visual appeal, distinctiveness and the character itself" and "a strong visual hook, a unique silhouette and a unique look which sets him apart from other characters visually" as key ingredients for a good costume. How are those not spot-on descriptors of Kamala's outfit? But all he offers is "eh it's bad, m i rite?"

    He seems to understand at an intellectual level that women in comics are not in good shape, and costume changes are a big part of that - cool. And also that complete prudishness is not the desirable goal - great. But a lot of his position seems to boil down to "But I really like giant floppy tits." And I mean, even that is fine! Comics can have some of those, too! But it's not okay to pass that off as a high-minded ideal, especially in service of impeding actual inroads being made.

    Merlin the Tuna on
  • Options
    Lindsay LohanLindsay Lohan Registered User regular
    You know what part of that interview I really agree with but I think we've become far too accepting of lately?

    In terms of content, most comic books are very insubstantial reads. If I’m plunking down $4 for a comic book it had better make sense as a standalone chapter and frequently they don’t.

    When I started buying comics again two years or so ago, it was the first thing I noticed. So many comics don't tell a story anymore. While I understand people love ongoing huge storylines, I think they forget that a standalone book really should have a beginning, middle and end and actually have value as a story by itself.

    The amount of story I get now for $4 compared to what I used to get when I bought New Universe stuff or TMNT as a kid (those where the only two things I could get locally) is really slim. Comics used to be like an episode of a TV show, now it feels like you're getting just a segment of a show between two commercial breaks.

    Despite his controversy on costuming, it makes me want to seek out his stuff to see if he really does take another approach to story telling.

  • Options
    Linespider5Linespider5 ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGER Registered User regular
    Yeah, that interview is a little challenging to read. In fact, I can't really read it at all.

    I think Larsen's got some good points, but he's really, really bad at boiling them down into concise statements.

    The Expanded Comics Conversation is one that largely puzzles the hell out of me. Every analogy I try to come up with for it doesn't work. But I feel like there are an awful lot of selective arguments going on, as well as under-informed opinions that were damn near pooled into jello molds the night before last and are immutable, wiggly points of view that are in desperate need of broader horizons.

    I kind of wish Diamond didn't exist, but that's just me.

  • Options
    cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    Well, tepid water, anyway.

    cckerberos.png
  • Options
    AutomaticzenAutomaticzen Registered User regular

    His water is so hot. People did not like him for a pot-stirring thing.

    http://www.usgamer.net/
    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
    I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
  • Options
    LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    is robbi rodriguez actually that cat posting on twitter

  • Options
    Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Langly wrote: »
    is robbi rodriguez actually that cat posting on twitter

    Yes. A third of Marvel's writers are cats.

  • Options
    GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    I kind of wish Diamond didn't exist, but that's just me.
    No, it is not just you.

  • Options
    CorporateLogoCorporateLogo The toilet knows how I feelRegistered User regular
    FYI, don't click that link as there is a NSFW pic of Gwen in that feed

    Do not have a cow, mortal.

    c9PXgFo.jpg
  • Options
    Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2015
    Allow me for a minute to direct this diatribe specifically at my comic book brethren… In recent times I haven’t joined in the fray but this time I have to stand up. I just finished reading a disturbing rant by a fellow who took, in my humble opinion, uncalled for shots at two stellar talents in my industry, in our industry, Frank Cho and J J Scott Campbell. Let’s establish here at the outset that these two are a pair of comic book wizards, visual stylists that have been at the top of the comic book mountain top, and have entertained the masses for nearly two decades. Both men are famous for their renderings of the female physique, an art form once referred to as “cheesecake” by possibly the best illustrator comic books ever saw, Dave Stevens. Campbell and Cho have entertained myself and most of you with their outstanding work on Gen 13, Avengers, Star Wars, Danger Girl and X-Men over the years. Again, both are Titans in comics and illustration, having spent entire weekends with both gentlemen on the convention circuit, I can tell you that both men are outstanding human beings. From my experiences with both they are generous, warm and have a great sense of humor. It has been publicly suggested recently that each stop drawing in their respective styles, equating them with being “dirty” and “perverted”…. Say what???? What’s going on here? Is Jessica Rabbit a shameful cartoon to today’s audience? Betty Boop? This rhetoric has been increasing of late and I find it completely distasteful that we are now calling out talents such as Frank Cho, J Scott Campbell, Milo Minara for their svelte female figures. Hey, pal, whoever you are, this is fantasy, it’s not real you know. We draw warrior men and warrior women. You know who also puts a little sway in their female figures? How about Jim Lee, Marc Silvestri, Erik Larsen, Todd McFarlane, Adam Hughes, the list could go on forever but now each of my comic book brethren are being crucified and I would suggest that the wide majority of us who support their work get really loud and stand up and say this isn’t okay. Don’t suggest your fellow artist is somehow below you because he draws a voluptuous figure. These aren’t pornographic images, it’s just healthy female heroins, sometimes illustrated in a dynamic manner or an occasionally cheeky way. So I’ll end here by asking us all to stand up for two of our own, each who deserves better than threats or suggestions that they change their trademark and very successful styles! I’ll tell you what, we could all use MORE comics from Campbell and Cho, two time tested commercial powerhouses, not less.

    Rob Liefeld everybody.

    Harry Dresden on
  • Options
    InvectivusInvectivus Registered User regular
    Technically, he's not wrong. I'll admit his line about needing MORE is wrong, but he is correct that in history of animation and cartoons, we enjoy looking at images of healthy women and men, and if his fellow artists want to put a sexy or cheesecake flair in their art, so be it. It's their art. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

  • Options
    Linespider5Linespider5 ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGER Registered User regular
    I'm glad Rob Liefeld wrote that-one, because it needed to be said, and also it's...frankly kind of a relief to see a well-measured response from a comics industry veteran on the Internet these days. Liefeld might need to clarify his point slightly, but I think his line about more artists is more with respect to their character as human beings rather than the preferences of their subject matter.

    On reflection, I also have to concede that Cho was just trolling the hell out of Manara's critics with his Spider-Gwen post for the fun of it, and they really fell for it like an anchor into a bear trap.

  • Options
    Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2015
    Invectivus wrote: »
    Technically, he's not wrong. I'll admit his line about needing MORE is wrong, but he is correct that in history of animation and cartoons, we enjoy looking at images of healthy women and men, and if his fellow artists want to put a sexy or cheesecake flair in their art, so be it. It's their art. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

    Unfortunately professional artists don't have that luxury, and it's not their art when they're getting paid by Marvel, DC, whoever. They're not amateurs putting pics on DeviantArt.

    Harry Dresden on
  • Options
    InvectivusInvectivus Registered User regular
    Invectivus wrote: »
    Technically, he's not wrong. I'll admit his line about needing MORE is wrong, but he is correct that in history of animation and cartoons, we enjoy looking at images of healthy women and men, and if his fellow artists want to put a sexy or cheesecake flair in their art, so be it. It's their art. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

    Unfortunately professional artists don't have that luxury, and it's not their art when they're getting paid by Marvel, DC, whoever. They're not amateurs putting pics on DeviantArt.

    Uh, yeah, it's still their art, even though Marvel or DC "own" it. It is up to the editor to approve or deny the art. If they don't like the art, the artist either re-draws said page or they edit it in a way to remove said image, or they get a fill in artist to draw the page as the editor sees fit if the original artist is unwilling to do said revision.

    It's easy to blame the artist for drawing something "offensive" if the writer calls for it in his script. It's easy to blame the artist if the editor calls for a cover to be drawn a certain way.

  • Options
    Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Registered User regular
    What Liefeld doesn't seem to understand is that nobody is condemning art that depicts sexy women in and of itself. He wonders why nobody has called out Adam Hughes, when anybody who has been paying attention could tell you it's because Hughes is a master at drawing sexy women without coming off as dehumanizing them. Jim Lee, Marc Silvestri, and Erik Larsen, despite having not been specifically called out for anything recently, are actually very bad artists when it comes to depicting sexy women without dehumanizing them. The whole reason people were put off by Manara's cover is because it came across as a dehumanizing depiction of the heroine. Frank Cho is being criticized not because he drew sexy women, but because he drew pictures specifically homaging Manara's cover in order to mock the people who were put off by it.

    And let's not pretend like anyone is actually being anywhere near "crucified" over this issue. Nobody is losing work. Nobody is being protested at public appearances or anything like that. They are simply being criticized on the internet, which Liefeld along with people who agree with him seem to think is some heinous assault on their individual liberty to draw T&A, which is an extremely immature response to criticism. Liefeld and Cho both need to grow up.

  • Options
    AutomaticzenAutomaticzen Registered User regular
    edited April 2015
    What Liefeld doesn't seem to understand is that nobody is condemning art that depicts sexy women in and of itself. He wonders why nobody has called out Adam Hughes, when anybody who has been paying attention could tell you it's because Hughes is a master at drawing sexy women without coming off as dehumanizing them. Jim Lee, Marc Silvestri, and Erik Larsen, despite having not been specifically called out for anything recently, are actually very bad artists when it comes to depicting sexy women without dehumanizing them. The whole reason people were put off by Manara's cover is because it came across as a dehumanizing depiction of the heroine. Frank Cho is being criticized not because he drew sexy women, but because he drew pictures specifically homaging Manara's cover in order to mock the people who were put off by it.

    And let's not pretend like anyone is actually being anywhere near "crucified" over this issue. Nobody is losing work. Nobody is being protested at public appearances or anything like that. They are simply being criticized on the internet, which Liefeld along with people who agree with him seem to think is some heinous assault on their individual liberty to draw T&A, which is an extremely immature response to criticism. Liefeld and Cho both need to grow up.

    Pretty much.

    Hughes released Red One with little issue.
    RedOne_01_1.jpg

    Manara released a number of Marvel covers, but the Spider-Woman was a case of the wrong cover on the wrong book. Why would you announce Spider-Woman #1 at the Women of Marvel panel as an indicator of reaching out to a female audience and then put Land on the interior art with a Manara variant? That's stupid. In fact, most of the pushback Marvel got from the Spider-Woman cover wasn't even outrage. Here's something I wrote elsewhere:

    "Outrage" is also interesting as most were making fun of the cover. For example, here's a CBR thread for the solicitation of Spider-Woman #1:
    • Ahahahah that Spider-Woman cover.
    • Which one? They are both horrendous!
    • To be honest i think Milano's has class... But totally agree with you on Land's.
    • Jesus those Spider-Woman covers.... In Land's Jessica randomly has an amputated right leg and Silk doesn't have a stomach, and in the Milano one, while it reminds me of a traditional Japanese painting in theory, her head is growing out of her shoulder and her ass is almost perfectly shaped like a heart.
    • Land's isn't perfect but I can't imagine where you're getting the "class" from in the Milano variant, considering how her ass is drawn.
    • Poor Jessica.
    • Does Spider-Woman even have a functioning butt? I'd like to see Hawkeye take up that pose.
    • Are they serious with the variant Spider-Woman cover?
    • That Spider Woman cover is absolutely terrible. I am embarrassed for comics because of it.
    • I can't wait to see that cover reviewed. What was editorial even thinking?
    • WTF Marvel?? i can't have buy an issue with that cover.. mom will look me like if i was a perv...
    • Yeah, its pretty bad. I want to get the Spider-Woman book but the cover is abysmal.
    • Just google image searched him. The man has a love for ass-cracks. He's drawn this exact pose, or similar ones, multiple times, it seems. Goddammit Marvel, given the dialogue about women in comics these days, in what universe was hiring Manara to draw a cover for you a good idea?
    • The artist does realize Spider-Woman is actually wearing, you know, clothing, right? Her outfit is not painted on.
    • Unfortunately I dislike both Spider-Woman covers shown here but I will still buy the title since I like the character and I certainly respect Dennis Hopeless after Cable & X-Force.
    • Seriously, Marvel, is this Spider-Woman's real special power?

    People are flipping out, "They're trying to take everything from us!" when for the most part they're vocally saying "Yeah, I don't dig that at all." That's consumer feedback. Does it occasionally go too far? Sure, but you can say that about anything on the internet.

    The problem I have with Larsen, Campbell, and Cho is they're so narrow. They only have one way to portray certain characters, regardless of how that protrayal may actually go against the stated characterization of the heroine. Power Girl is not Wonder Woman, is not Harley Quinn. Black Cat isn't Susan Storm, who is Kamala Khan or Carol Danvers. Why are you steadfastly drawing them all a certain way instead of properly servicing the character? If you watch women's MMA, you'll see they don't dress the same. The tend towards a certain look in matches, but in training? Their clothes are a function of their personality. Some wear sports bras, some wear Underarmor shirts. Some wear hip hugger shorts, others have loose shorts or culottes.

    For example, Spider-Woman has always been drawn as this sexy bombshell character, but the character herself has never been that. If anything, she's kind of awkward and down-to-earth, regardless of her complicated origins. And that's before you get to the fact that her classic design gives you no hints to her name or her powers, outside of the eyes cribbed from Spider-Man.

    1682475-spider_woman_pheromones_iii_super.jpg
    avengers_assemble_21_spider_woman_fist_bump.png

    Her current look attempts to correct that, creating an outfit that fits the character more. These are the kinds of things that are good and Larsen was railing against because he prefers to see characters one way. Which is also in no way "outrage culture".

    The point is, that old way of doing things is not all there is. "We've always done it this way" is the worst reason to keep doing anything. Sometimes you need to step back and say "Hey, we can change this and improve it."

    Automaticzen on
    http://www.usgamer.net/
    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
    I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
Sign In or Register to comment.