Wed, Apr. 19th, 2006, 08:34 pm
This would have been easier if I could draw.
I really should know better, but I clicked on a link to the DC message boards, topic of the new Frank Miller cover.
In summary... this is why I’m going to stay way the hell over here okay thanks. However, one exchange did catch my attention and would not let me shake it as it might have a sane person.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.
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.
Fri, Apr. 21st, 2006 03:08 am (UTC)
hm, and here i thought you were going to refer to the black canary cover i saw tonight, but no. wow.
and i would just like to say, HELLS YEAH! i might actually pic up an issue of action comics
if it had the promise of such action in it ; )
also, i'm surprised that no one's mentioned this
recent cover though. i mean, while not quite frank miller, my first thought when i saw it was "WHOA! ASS!" and i briefly thought about buying x-men again (partially due to a fondness for silvestri from days when he sucked less and my taste in comics sucked more).
Fri, Apr. 21st, 2006 03:19 am (UTC)
Hee! This is the first time I've seen that cover - Marvel is confusing, all that continuity. *Nothing* like DC. ;)
I hadn't seen the Black Canary cover either, at least not until after I posted this. I still think the Wonder Woman one is worse, however.
Fri, Apr. 21st, 2006 04:39 am (UTC)
And all those phallic towers in the background!
Fri, Apr. 21st, 2006 04:52 am (UTC)
ha, i didn't even think about that! though, granted, i'm not necessarily one to see phallic symbols everywhere i go... surprisingly.
Fri, Apr. 21st, 2006 06:12 am (UTC)
No kidding - it looks like a ... er ... toy convention.
Thu, May. 4th, 2006 04:17 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Funny thing
I love comics. Only in comics can someone like Frank Miller make bad art with fabulous stories and be ridiculed for a drawing that probably took him 20 minutes to finish.
On the other side of the coin comics produced Will Eisner. A briliant, brilliant man. No one is critiquing his art. No one looks at his steriotypical drawings and stories with an eye of contempt. Why?
Not to say what you did wasn't brilliant, it was, but I have to wonder what we as humans see as artistic expression. Do we only support expression when we see merit in it? Like when Eisner describes his childhood? Should we support Miller even though his drawing is bad and depicts the female form objectivly? Was that even his intention?
Thu, May. 11th, 2006 04:53 am (UTC)
denyer: Re: Funny thing
depicts the female form objectivly
"depicts the female form as an object", perhaps. 'Objectively', on the other hand, is an antonym of 'subjectively'.Do we only support expression when we see merit in it?
Pretty much. Amateur porn > Loaded.
Wed, May. 10th, 2006 03:43 am (UTC)
this whole one sided thing is odd to you because in real life females don't dress to show off those very areas? while guys just tend to wear whatever's comfortable.
the reason there is a focus on those things is because women are in general the more beautiful of the species. these are drawings. drawings tend to focus on...ummm...idunno...visual things. sure women can be smart, creative, whatever they want...but there's nothing wrong with being a sexual, sexy, being. move on.
Women don't objectify men in the same way. They want their men to be powerful, rich, charismatic, funny even. Looks are in there but not in the same order.
Wed, May. 10th, 2006 05:27 am (UTC)
blackdove24: Re: perhaps
the reason there is a focus on those things is because women are in general the more beautiful of the species.
first off, this is an opinion
, therefore diminishing the strength of your argument. i would say that the real reason lies moreso in the fact that comics, and particularly superhero comics, tend to be created by straight men, for other straight men.sure women can be smart, creative, whatever they want...but there's nothing wrong with being a sexual, sexy, being. move on.
it's not as if the frank miller drawing in question is a celebration of wonder woman's beauty, but rather her tits and ass, since the entire focus of the piece is on this sexually exaggerated female form, with the star spangled skirt that tells us this female is wonder woman almost being an afterthought.
and no, there's nothing wrong with women being "sexy, sexual beings," but this is hardly a depiction of a woman enjoying her own sexuality as her own person, but rather a fantasy of a sexuality created by and for the male gaze, of this contorted figure whose sole characteristic and purpose in this drawing is to please the onlooker. and the female as the object whose sole purpose is to please the onlooker tends to be a very frank miller thing to do, hence the outrage of the original post.
and as for how women and men dress, and what women look for in men, your thoughts on these matters seem to rely more on stereotypes. there are plenty of men who don't dress necessarily in whatever's comfortable, but also tend to dress in ways that will show off their better physical attributes. and there are some women for whom looks and sex appeal are a priority, and not every woman's out to find a man who's rich, or powerful, or charismatic, or funny.
Wed, May. 10th, 2006 11:26 pm (UTC)
mister_cope: Re: perhaps
Not every man gives a hoot about tits and ass. Riposte!
Fri, May. 12th, 2006 04:00 am (UTC)
blackdove24: Re: perhaps
true, very true. david mack provides a great example of a comic book artist (and writer) whose work demonstrates an appreciation of female beauty and human complexity.
Thu, May. 11th, 2006 12:36 pm (UTC)
If you decide to stay the hell away in your own corner, why go on about it? Just do like you said, stay the hell away. The comics are not for you, big deal.
Not that these pics aren't funny, because they are. But reacting on this subject while first thing you say is you stay the hell away from them....well, the DC comics.......takes away from your point.
Nobody's forcing you to read these comics, so shut up if you don't, for whatever reasons you have, and enjoy stuff you do like.
I could go into it way more, but let's not, it's getting old.
Fri, May. 12th, 2006 03:53 am (UTC)
it is getting old, and i don't care to get into it anymore, but i would just like to clarify that at any point i didn't say that i stay the hell away from this or these type of comics. i guess i can kinda see where you though that, but i was referring moreso to the fact that i don't particularly read action comics
, (and most DC comics, really) just because i don't care for DC comics... not because i actively avoid them or anything. i do enjoy superhero comics, i've just always stuck more to marvel, image, wildstorm (beginning back before their association with DC), ABC, etc., and the essence of this argument is something that applies to all superhero comics, and a lot of non-superhero comics.
i was also making a joke with the action comics
Fri, May. 12th, 2006 08:36 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: um?
I think he thought he was replying to the whole post, not to your comment in particular... Probably just scrolled down, saw the word "reply" and hit it. ^_^;;;
Sorry about the troll, probably one of the guys from Talk@Newsarama.
Sat, May. 20th, 2006 02:27 am (UTC)
g_pudding: Re: um?
Isn't Image kind of infamous for T&A art?
Sun, May. 14th, 2006 10:36 am (UTC)
I loved that Wolvie cover just because it was 100% no-holds-barred About Teh Fine Ass. :)
Sat, May. 20th, 2006 02:26 am (UTC)
Yeah. I think that Wolvie cover actually is
the sort of thing ("objectified male") that you were talking about. As a straight male fan I would like to say, that I am not at all offended or perturbed by this sort of thing. Girl (and gay) fans should get their fanservice too, by golly.
Sun, Apr. 8th, 2007 11:02 pm (UTC)
Somebody please tell me there is a pair of socks stuffed down those pants!