What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

The place to talk about your favorite novels, comic books and web comics.
MacynSnow
Posts: 3185
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:56 pm

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by MacynSnow » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:42 pm

In my headcannon,Kane got married to Renne Montoya(New Question) and they've been that way for as long as Superman's kid has been around(they even used a serogate to have a pair of twins named Jan&Jace)....

As for DC's stand on No Marriages,then what about Superman's you pack of Scallywags(Re:Hypocrites)!

User avatar
Ares
Site Admin
Posts: 2105
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:40 am

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by Ares » Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:38 pm

To be fair, Dan made that statement about 5 years ago, and fan outcry was so intense that it was ignored, especially during Rebirth.

User avatar
Woodclaw
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:05 pm
Location: Como, Italy

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by Woodclaw » Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:05 am

HalloweenJack wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:34 pm
Know what this reminds me of?

That Spiderwoman cover debacle a few years ago. Man was THAT insane.

I had a girl I knew and had worked with lose her shit on me for not seeing any problem with the cover. I mean just LOST her shit. I'd explain my POV and there'd be accusations that I was being condescending. I said that yeah it wasn't the best drawn cover in the world, but I've got no problem with a character who gives off pheromones as one of her powers being drawn in a 'sexy' action/wall crawl pose. It wasn't a big deal to me and I got "because you have man parts!". This coming from a lady who, no joke, a few days earlier was going on about how she was more than her genitals. But I'm not I guess.

Then came the hilarity of Twitter and the "you'll never see SPIDER-MAN in a pose like that!". Cue pictures of Spidey in a similar pose. Cue people who posted those pictures being suddenly unable to post in that again.
In my eyes that cover was just a massive showing of how little the current Marvel staff knows what they are doing. Did they really hire Milo Manara to do a cover and expected something tame? Manara is one of the greatest pencilers from my neck of the woods (although I never enjoyed his style), but everything he does is borderline porn.

I don't know how many of you remember the X-Women volume he did with Chris Claremont, but that was incredibly tame by his standards.

Image
"You're right. Sorry. Holy shit," I breathed, "heckhounds.”

WareHouse W (main build thread for M&M)

greycrusader
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:25 pm

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by greycrusader » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:28 pm

The lines are ultra-clean and the composition is beautiful, but talk about same-face syndrome-and in this case, its same 'O' face syndrome!

The Spider-Woman cover-honestly, I think it deserved a call-out; the pose which some point to as the Spider-Man equivalent really isn't in my opinion-an analogous male pose would be Spider-Man totally gratuitously thrusting his hips and groin forward while shooting his webs. That would rightly be seen as sexualized and unnecessary.

However, I understand part of the defense-Marvel hired an artist whose work basically IS this, so it was more an editorial responsibility than the faulot of the illustrator.

Just my opinion.

All my best.

BriarThrone
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:33 am

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by BriarThrone » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:30 pm

greycrusader wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:28 pm
The lines are ultra-clean and the composition is beautiful, but talk about same-face syndrome-and in this case, its same 'O' face syndrome!

The Spider-Woman cover-honestly, I think it deserved a call-out; the pose which some point to as the Spider-Man equivalent really isn't in my opinion-an analogous male pose would be Spider-Man totally gratuitously thrusting his hips and groin forward while shooting his webs. That would rightly be seen as sexualized and unnecessary.

However, I understand part of the defense-Marvel hired an artist whose work basically IS this, so it was more an editorial responsibility than the faulot of the illustrator.

Just my opinion.

All my best.
You're starting from the assumption that the Spider-Woman cover was sexualized and unnecessary and working backward. From the assumption that it is an awesome wall-crawling pose meant to emphasize the character's thematic association with Spider-Man, it's hard to see what the big deal is. Spider-Man was in the pose, and it was a cool action pose. Spider-Woman in the exact same pose is somehow sexualized? Bullshit.

Nunya B
Posts: 237
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by Nunya B » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:49 pm

BriarThrone wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:30 pm
Spider-Woman in the exact same pose is somehow sexualized? Bullshit.
It's not necessarily bullshit, just blatant hypocrisy. The pose is, admittedly, somewhat sexual. I wouldn't disagree if somebody said the pose sexualized Spider-Man and Spider-Woman. Between the up-turned head, the prominent buttocks, and the horizontal posture? Yeah, there's sex appeal there.
But making the claim that sexualizing Spider-Woman is bad while never having objected to sexualizing Spider-Man indicates a movement that's not about equality. It's about supremacy. It's about we-can-you-can't. It's about inequality.

In conclusion, we need more delicious Spider-Man butt-shots on covers.

User avatar
Ares
Site Admin
Posts: 2105
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:40 am

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by Ares » Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:01 pm

BriarThrone wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:30 pm
greycrusader wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:28 pm
The lines are ultra-clean and the composition is beautiful, but talk about same-face syndrome-and in this case, its same 'O' face syndrome!

The Spider-Woman cover-honestly, I think it deserved a call-out; the pose which some point to as the Spider-Man equivalent really isn't in my opinion-an analogous male pose would be Spider-Man totally gratuitously thrusting his hips and groin forward while shooting his webs. That would rightly be seen as sexualized and unnecessary.

However, I understand part of the defense-Marvel hired an artist whose work basically IS this, so it was more an editorial responsibility than the faulot of the illustrator.

Just my opinion.

All my best.
You're starting from the assumption that the Spider-Woman cover was sexualized and unnecessary and working backward. From the assumption that it is an awesome wall-crawling pose meant to emphasize the character's thematic association with Spider-Man, it's hard to see what the big deal is. Spider-Man was in the pose, and it was a cool action pose. Spider-Woman in the exact same pose is somehow sexualized? Bullshit.
Careful on the wording there. Disagreeing with the idea that the image was sexualized is fine. We're allowed to disagree with ideas here.

But take care to make sure if you're disagreeing with another posters beliefs that you do so with a modicum of respect. Unless someone is advocating for something completely indefensible (like sincerely advocating for Sharia Law), calling greycrusader's or any other poster's ideas bullshit is tap-dancing on the line between disagreement and insult, and I'd rather avoid that.

Not saying you did, just be aware of what you type.

User avatar
HalloweenJack
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:50 pm

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by HalloweenJack » Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:09 pm

that said....Rogue REALLY likes that vine

User avatar
Batgirl III
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:17 am
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by Batgirl III » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:59 pm

Milo Manara is basically a “cheesecake” artist. His Spider-Woman cover was “cheesecake,” putting a sexy woman in a pose that emphasized her lithe body, shapely butt, and painted in Manara’s weirdly detailed-but-abstracted watercolor style.

However, the critics of the cover all failed to note that it was a special, limited circulation, variant cover; Most critics complained about my the pose not the art style while failed to note that Spider-Man, himself, was routinely drawn in that same pose; and, of course, most critics operated on the unspoken assumption that sexualizing a woman is inherently bad.
BARON wrote:I'm talking batgirl with batgirl. I love you internet.

MacynSnow
Posts: 3185
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:56 pm

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by MacynSnow » Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:05 am

I'd love to see those idiots go off on a Savage Sword Of Conan Cover.Those Comics can technically be considered Teen Porn.....No i don't own half the books Marvel run,shut up... >_>

User avatar
Batgirl III
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:17 am
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by Batgirl III » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:22 am

MacynSnow wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:05 am
I'd love to see those idiots go off on a Savage Sword Of Conan Cover.Those Comics can technically be considered Teen Porn.....No i don't own half the books Marvel run,shut up... >_>
Anita Sarkeesian devotes one of her videos to complaining that in one of the Arkham Asylum games, Catwoman walks like a runway model. Catwoman.

Catwoman has been a hyper-sexualized pop culture character since the 1940's. Long before video games existed. Hell, she was strutting sexually around the pages of Detective Comics three full years before Alan Turing got Colossus built at Bletchley Park.

Citing Catwoman as an example of the sexualization of female video game characters is like citing Marilyn Monroe as an example of the sexualization of female film characters. Sexuality is intrinsic to why this character exists.

There’s a reason I call these people the “Perpetually Offended Crowd.”
BARON wrote:I'm talking batgirl with batgirl. I love you internet.

Jabroniville
Posts: 9644
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:05 pm

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by Jabroniville » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:06 am

Stuff like this is the issue with my Four Fatales: viewtopic.php?p=21084&sid=0d5de511aad25 ... 9b7#p21084

It's REALLY HARD to exaggerate this character type- it all comes off like the real thing.

greycrusader
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:25 pm

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by greycrusader » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:32 am

Nunya B wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:49 pm
BriarThrone wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:30 pm
Spider-Woman in the exact same pose is somehow sexualized? Bullshit.
It's not necessarily bullshit, just blatant hypocrisy. The pose is, admittedly, somewhat sexual. I wouldn't disagree if somebody said the pose sexualized Spider-Man and Spider-Woman. Between the up-turned head, the prominent buttocks, and the horizontal posture? Yeah, there's sex appeal there.
But making the claim that sexualizing Spider-Woman is bad while never having objected to sexualizing Spider-Man indicates a movement that's not about equality. It's about supremacy. It's about we-can-you-can't. It's about inequality.

In conclusion, we need more delicious Spider-Man butt-shots on covers.
I've looked at the comparable (and commonly cited) Spider-Man pose side by side with the Milo rendition of the Spider-Woman variant cover; Spider-Man's back and leg musculature is emphasized, and of course his face is completely covered. This signifies-in my view-strength and agility over sexual characteristics, unlike the illustration with Jessica Drew which emphasized a large and curvy rear end, along with her odd, almost stupefied expression. And in the context of our society, that pose is associated with a particular sexual act far more so with women than with men. Again, I'd have the same objection if Spider-Man was drawn in such a way as if it looked like he was thrusting and gyrating like a male exotic dancer while shooting his webs.

Do I object to comic book characters (of either sex) whose attractiveness and sexuality are emphasized? Not at all, if the characters are well-handled and not defined solely by their appearance-Emma Frost and Selina Kyle are both presented as slinky seductresses, and Wonder Woman is supposed to be the ideal of female beauty and athleticism. There aren't many clear-cut examples with males, for a multitude of reasons, but the comic-book musculature of Catman, Nightwing, and Thor has certainly been lampshaded by female heroes and villains. I think the Spider-Woman cover became a lightning rod because it came at a particular time in pop culture, when more were noticing a tendency of some comic book artists to draw female characters as if they were adult entertainers even when those poses made NO sense for the character or story.

Note I think the Frank Miller DK III cover where he drew Superman-SUPERMAN!!!-with a noticeable huge erection visible in his trunks as equally gratuitous, though since it is modern day Miller it was simply ugly and off-putting, rather than in any way sexual.

(And I mostly think Eric Larsen is a goofball, but he's on the money when he said Miller now seems to be drawing while wearing catcher's mitts on his hands).

That's just my take on matters, and my final comment, since I honestly don't have any vested interest in fighting some sort of culture war with others on the site.

All y best.

BriarThrone
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:33 am

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by BriarThrone » Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:35 am

The presence or absence of attractive features does not determine if a pose is "sexualized." Jessica Drew grocery shopping still has a shapely backside that is pleasing to the eye - this argument indicates that the possession of a sweet ass means that a person or character can never be not-sexualuzed. Plus, Pete is a lithe, very athletic man covered in lean muscle, and I'm told that many women appreciate a solid backside on a man. The pose offers his buttocks for appreciation, if you're so inclined. If the original pose is okay and not-sexist, then there is no form of logic other than "women are more special" that makes the Jessica Drew cover sexist.

Ken
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:40 pm
Location: DeKamore, Madiganistan

Re: What's new with the big two: Marvel and DC Comics discussion thread.

Post by Ken » Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:22 pm

BriarThrone wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:35 am
The pose offers his buttocks for appreciation, if you're so inclined. If the original pose is okay and not-sexist, then there is no form of logic other than "women are more special" that makes the Jessica Drew cover sexist.
Women are "always" victims, therefore the pose is sexist when she does it.
Men are "always" monsters, therefor the pose is sexist when he does it.
If Miles Morales uses the pose, there's a conundrum, as he's a man and therefore a monster, but black, so therefore a victim.
Does a Winnie poo in the 100-acre wood?

Post Reply