Frank Cho Walks off Wonder Woman - Claims Censorship

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Well, the only demonstrable censorship (if you can call it that) is that the third cover cropped off her butt. Again, believe half of what you see and non of what you read, but I could see Rucka fighting Cho throughout the creative process, but this may just be a kneejerk, defensive reaction on my part due to the hostility the fanbase gave Cho when he got the job in the first place.

That's thge role of editing staff, however. Thing is, when you remove editing from the process you allow what is known as 'self-indulgence' by purely creative elements. Whether we like it or not, creativity alone doesn't pay the bills. If through editing think they can draw in a better look, a more consumerable aesthetic, by making calculated change ... then it is more often than not a better means to make a piece of media more accessible and reach greater audiences.

It's the difference between turning something from mass consumption, into an exercise of patience. Compare Gaultier runway, and what actually sells. Compare the Fifth Element and giving a costume designer free reign to create a tacky, gaudy, OTT aesthetic if you will ... and that can help a movie make a statement and give it its feel. But at the same time, it's not exactly fitting for most other films to do.

As much as the Fifth Element is visually evocative and its apoplectic costume design gives it its visual appeal, the visual tone of the movie would quickly stagnate and become annoying if every movie began to look like a fashion designer's self-indulgent dreamscape of futuristic trends wholly divorced from the reality of how people will likely look (the same daggy status quo of simplicity that maximises aesthetic modesty when confronted by the chore of daily standards of body image maintenance).

 

[SirSullymore]

Never judge something from only one side of a story, it's just a shortcut to a bad decision.

But it fits his narrative!

You'd think that the very act of scraping the barrel to find something that does fit said narrative, would undermine his faith in it.

But no.

Never judge something from only one side of a story, it's just a shortcut to a bad decision.

But it fits his narrative!

Are you talking about me?

If you have to ask...

Haha, well I'll be damned, didn't realize I was pushing a narrative!

Ya know, I thought I was laying on a tad thick when I pointed out we were only hearing one side of the story in almost every post, but I guess it wasn't think enough as it still manged to make its way over your head.

It sounds to me that sarcasm aside you were perfectly aware of what you were doing, which is why you bothered with the limp disclaimer at every turn. You still made the thread.

So yeah I just gave my two cents and wanted to hear others.

Never judge something from only one side of a story, it's just a shortcut to a bad decision.

But it fits his narrative!

You'd think that the very act of scraping the barrel to find something that does fit said narrative, would undermine his faith in it.

But no.

Never judge something from only one side of a story, it's just a shortcut to a bad decision.

But it fits his narrative!

Are you talking about me?

If you have to ask...

Haha, well I'll be damned, didn't realize I was pushing a narrative!

Ya know, I thought I was laying on a tad thick when I pointed out we were only hearing one side of the story in almost every post, but I guess it wasn't think enough as it still manged to make its way over your head.

It sounds to me that sarcasm aside you were perfectly aware of what you were doing, which is why you bothered with the limp disclaimer at every turn. You still made the thread.

So yeah.

Perfectly aware of what I'm doing? Jesus, relax, are you so desperate for some sinister villain to vanquish that you will imbue my fairly innocent "here's my two cents, whats yours?" inquiry as some kind of agenda to push my opinions on the, like, 30 people who read what I posted? Get over yourself.

Also, I like this supposition that I'm only pointing out the fact that we're only hearing one side of the story to push my "agenda" of...only listening to one side of the story. Makes perfect sense.

Don't worry, I'll give you what you want:

White knighting feminazi Greg Cucka tries to get brilliant artist fired!

There ya go, have fun.

 

[SirSullymore]

Well, the only demonstrable censorship (if you can call it that) is that the third cover cropped off her butt. Again, believe half of what you see and non of what you read, but I could see Rucka fighting Cho throughout the creative process, but this may just be a kneejerk, defensive reaction on my part due to the hostility the fanbase gave Cho when he got the job in the first place.

That's thge role of editing staff, however. Thing is, when you remove editing from the process you allow what is known as 'self-indulgence' by purely creative elements. Whether we like it or not, creativity alone doesn't pay the bills. If through editing think they can draw in a better look, a more consumerable aesthetic, by making calculated change ... then it is more often than not a better means to make a piece of media more accessible and reach greater audiences.

It's the difference between turning something from mass consumption, into an exercise of patience. Compare Gaultier runway, and what actually sells. Compare the Fifth Element and giving a costume designer free reign to create a tacky, gaudy, OTT aesthetic if you will ... and that can help a movie make a statement and give it its feel. But at the same time, it's not exactly fitting for most other films to do.

As much as the Fifth Element is visually evocative and its apoplectic costume design gives it its visual appeal, the visual tone of the movie would quickly stagnate and become annoying if every movie began to look like a fashion designer's self-indulgent dreamscape of futuristic trends wholly divorced from the reality of how people will likely look (the same daggy status quo of simplicity that maximises aesthetic modesty when confronted by the chore of daily standards of body image maintenance).

I agree that self-indulgent artistry can lead to sloppy overall work, but this is A) just a variant cover and B) completely in-line with what has come before in regards to the characters visual representation. And, according to Cho, it was not the editor making the changes, but the writer.

 

[Lacedaemonius]

Never judge something from only one side of a story, it's just a shortcut to a bad decision.

But it fits his narrative!

You'd think that the very act of scraping the barrel to find something that does fit said narrative, would undermine his faith in it.

But no.

Never judge something from only one side of a story, it's just a shortcut to a bad decision.

But it fits his narrative!

Are you talking about me?

If you have to ask...

Haha, well I'll be damned, didn't realize I was pushing a narrative!

Ya know, I thought I was laying on a tad thick when I pointed out we were only hearing one side of the story in almost every post, but I guess it wasn't think enough as it still manged to make its way over your head.

It sounds to me that sarcasm aside you were perfectly aware of what you were doing, which is why you bothered with the limp disclaimer at every turn. You still made the thread.

So yeah I just gave my two cents and wanted to hear others.

Never judge something from only one side of a story, it's just a shortcut to a bad decision.

But it fits his narrative!

You'd think that the very act of scraping the barrel to find something that does fit said narrative, would undermine his faith in it.

But no.

Never judge something from only one side of a story, it's just a shortcut to a bad decision.

But it fits his narrative!

Are you talking about me?

If you have to ask...

Haha, well I'll be damned, didn't realize I was pushing a narrative!

Ya know, I thought I was laying on a tad thick when I pointed out we were only hearing one side of the story in almost every post, but I guess it wasn't think enough as it still manged to make its way over your head.

It sounds to me that sarcasm aside you were perfectly aware of what you were doing, which is why you bothered with the limp disclaimer at every turn. You still made the thread.

So yeah.

Sorry, I get that it's this forum's version of a handshake, but the 14 year old sarcasmgasm is already old for me.

 

[SirSullymore]

Yeah, fair enough. I like sarcasmagasm, might have to steal it. haha

 

[axlryder]

Editorial oversight is censorship now? huh

A snarky jab that does nothing but reiterate something that about 20 people have pointed out already constitutes a worthwhile comment now? huh

Considering people are still beating on the censorship drum after it was pointed out in the number 6 post in the thread, yup. Sometimes people need something pointed out to them a few dozen times before it sinks in. Not judging, just sayin.

I think it's apparent that if they're going to post that despite everything that's already been written on the first page, then your comment, in all its minimalist glory, will do little to sway them on the second. Then again, who knows, maybe yours was the particularly flimsy straw that broke Dreiko's back. I guess that would make it worth mucking up the forums.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

The issue is really more about internal friction at DC between the variant covers team and the writer.

Frank Cho was told he'd answer to the senior art director, who he had a good working relationship with. He's working on these covers in a completely separate environment from Rucka, who's off doing his own thing. Unbeknownest to Cho, Rucka has contractual creative control, including over variant covers.

Rucka starts sending Cho's art back with comments to revise it - which, to be honest, is totally out of Rucka's field as a writer. From Rucka's perspective, he was given creative control and if he doesn't like a pose or whatever he can have it changed; he's been told this. From Cho's perspective, he was told he'd answer only to the senior art director, who Rucka was now overriding. Keep in mind that Greg Rucka is not an artist and not an editor.

Neither party is an overreacting prima donna. Both parties have sensible reasons for behaving the way they do. What caused the problem was that Rucka didn't like Cho's art, and Cho didn't like Rucka's art criticism. The "censorship" is less of an issue than the fact that Cho doesn't like being told how to draw by people who aren't artists. I think it was a case of poor communication and simple human grumpiness being allowed to escalate to the point where the two guys can't work together.

IMO, a writer shouldn't tell an artist how to draw, but again it seems kinda silly to have the variant covers handled by a totally different department; the team on the actual comic should have some input on what goes on the cover.

The Mary Sue article has it basically straight, which is better than usual for the Mary Sue.

Edit: Looking at some of the shit on Twitter about this makes me want to slam my head into a brick wall. Do people not think at all before - no, don't answer that. I already know the answer to that.

Ugh. Internet. Eugh.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

Originally, I was of the opinion that Cho was handed the short stick.

Then, I read about it and I was of the opinion that this was DC's screw-up, a major issue with miscommunication and not sticking to their original promises to both creators and that the both of them are more-or-less in the clear-- even if I found Rucka's complaints juvenile and in poor judgement.

And then I realized Greg Rucka started using a blocklist (which of course has me blocked, because reasons) and suddenly I don't think "censorship", on principle, is something he would take major issue with. Generally speaking, at least.

So, either way, Rucka and DC are the ones I point my finger to over this and as such I'm removing Wondy from my pull-list.

 

[Fox12]

The issue is really more about internal friction at DC between the variant covers team and the writer.

Frank Cho was told he'd answer to the senior art director, who he had a good working relationship with. He's working on these covers in a completely separate environment from Rucka, who's off doing his own thing. Unbeknownest to Cho, Rucka has contractual creative control, including over variant covers.

Rucka starts sending Cho's art back with comments to revise it - which, to be honest, is totally out of Rucka's field as a writer. From Rucka's perspective, he was given creative control and if he doesn't like a pose or whatever he can have it changed; he's been told this. From Cho's perspective, he was told he'd answer only to the senior art director, who Rucka was now overriding. Keep in mind that Greg Rucka is not an artist and not an editor.

Neither party is an overreacting prima donna. Both parties have sensible reasons for behaving the way they do. What caused the problem was that Rucka didn't like Cho's art, and Cho didn't like Rucka's art criticism. The "censorship" is less of an issue than the fact that Cho doesn't like being told how to draw by people who aren't artists. I think it was a case of poor communication and simple human grumpiness being allowed to escalate to the point where the two guys can't work together.

IMO, a writer shouldn't tell an artist how to draw, but again it seems kinda silly to have the variant covers handled by a totally different department; the team on the actual comic should have some input on what goes on the cover.

The Mary Sue article has it basically straight, which is better than usual for the Mary Sue.

Edit: Looking at some of the shit on Twitter about this makes me want to slam my head into a brick wall. Do people not think at all before - no, don't answer that. I already know the answer to that.

Ugh. Internet. Eugh.

Isn't that the writers entire job? To tell the artist what to draw?

I can see why Rucka is mad. You spend all this time writing believable characters, working with your artist, trying to make something respectable, and then some random guy can come along and have the character twerking at the audience. And your name gets associated with it. Obviously, that's an extreme example, but if the cover art doesn't match the vision of the writer then he should get to change it. It affects his reputation too, after all. I'm with Rucka all the way. I would do the same thing in his situation.

 

[Dragonbums]

so that extra info sort of falls in line with my hypothesis as to why Cho could be seen in a more empathetic light here, but more because of DC's incompetence than Rucka's maliciousness. That said, we still are only hearing Cho's side of things; I'd like to get everyone's take on this. The workplace dynamic that was going on here has a pretty substantial bearing as well. If Rucka pretty much gave zero leeway or kept asking Cho to make more and more adjustments instead of just giving him a flat list of dos and don'ts then I'd be pretty annoyed too, especially because someone in his role isn't typically given such complete creative control over the entire comic. If Rucka was pretty upfront and reasonable about the whole thing then it was Cho's problem to deal with at that point. Rucka's actual justifications would also matter (such as "it doesn't fit tonally" vs "it's offensive"). Of course, it's not as though this whole thing is a huge deal in the first place. Cho doesn't look to be starving for work.

OP should probably update the opening post to the commentary Cho provided to The MarySue since it gives a lot more context and insight to the artists bail. It would be one thing if he was just hired to do art covers of WW and than cried censorship (although the claim regardless is still stupid.) Because an art director did the most basic part of his/her job in the form of editing and asking the artist to make alterations.
However upon reading that Cho accepted his contract under the direct message that he 1. Wasn't going to deal with this person he apparently really cannot stand but 2. He was to have literal 100% creative freedom with the only alterations and feedback being from himself leads me to conclude that DC once again fucked it up big time.
Generally when you have two conflicting personalities its either you keep them the hell away from each other regardless of how much you want to see both of their stuff put together or you make the hell sure you keep to your initial contract to a T.

 

[SirSullymore]

Isn't that the writers entire job? To tell the artist what to draw?

I can see why Rucka is mad. You spend all this time writing believable characters, working with your artist, trying to make something respectable, and then some random guy can come along and have the character twerking at the audience. And your name gets associated with it. Obviously, that's an extreme example, but if the cover art doesn't match the vision of the writer then he should get to change it. It affects his reputation too, after all. I'm with Rucka all the way. I would do the same thing in his situation.

Well, when it's interior art I kind of see it as more of a collaborative effort, but basically yeah the writer mostly calls the shots on what happens in the story. This, however, was not interior art but an optional alternative cover and Cho claims he was promised he would only have dealings with the editor.

As for your example, yeah it doesn't really match the case (as you point out) but I honestly still would be on Cho's side even if I thought his art sucked or was in poor taste (on his side much less so obviously haha) if we take what he said on face value.

Also, good call Dragonbums.

 

[Quellist]

Hopefully they'll replace him with Budd Root. He's very good at drawing powerful sexy women

 

[Fox12]

Isn't that the writers entire job? To tell the artist what to draw?

I can see why Rucka is mad. You spend all this time writing believable characters, working with your artist, trying to make something respectable, and then some random guy can come along and have the character twerking at the audience. And your name gets associated with it. Obviously, that's an extreme example, but if the cover art doesn't match the vision of the writer then he should get to change it. It affects his reputation too, after all. I'm with Rucka all the way. I would do the same thing in his situation.

Well, when it's interior art I kind of see it as more of a collaborative effort, but basically yeah the writer mostly calls the shots on what happens in the story. This, however, was not interior art but an optional alternative cover and Cho claims he was promised he would only have dealings with the editor.

As for your example, yeah it doesn't really match the case (as you point out) but I honestly still would be on Cho's side even if I thought his art sucked or was in poor taste (on his side much less so obviously haha) if we take what he said on face value.

Also, good call Dragonbums.

Well, it's always fun to see new perspectives. I tend to take the writers side on such things, since I want to be a writer, but I've had quite a few artists on this site disagree with me, haha. I just hate the idea of writing a full length book, and then having no control over the cover art. My fantasy novel could end up with some really beatiful, sweeping imagery, or it could end up with a half naked barbarian chick. Unfortunately, people do judge a book by its cover, so it's a toss up when it comes to marketing.

Comic books are obviously quite different. The artist should be half the team, and should collaborate with the writer. People underestimate how important Dave Gibson was in Watchmen, for instance. He came up with some of the best scenes and icons in the book, including the smiley face. But the variant covers? Yeah, I can get why the writer would want greater influence over that.

I think this comes down to simple miscommunication, and artistic disagreement. Both want control over their own artwork. That said, I'm not sure the artist handled it the best.

 

[SirSullymore]

Oh 100% agreed. You would not want a misrepresentative cover for your book, I totally get that.

But this is an alternate cover, one that the consumer will have to go out of their way to buy, and anyone that goes to a comic shop to pick up alternate covers knows the deal, they are not representative of the book and creative team.

Also, this isn't really Rucka's book in the same sense a novel would be, it's DC's. Not saying that Rucka can't have a personal stake, just that he shouldn't feel the same sense of ownership that an independent writer should. Of course he should have a say in how the book is represented in general, but alternate covers are a different kettle of fish and I get the feeling that he had a bit of a kneejerk reaction to the art based on the politics of the artist and not the images themselves.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Isn't that the writers entire job? To tell the artist what to draw?

I can see why Rucka is mad. You spend all this time writing believable characters, working with your artist, trying to make something respectable, and then some random guy can come along and have the character twerking at the audience. And your name gets associated with it. Obviously, that's an extreme example, but if the cover art doesn't match the vision of the writer then he should get to change it. It affects his reputation too, after all. I'm with Rucka all the way. I would do the same thing in his situation.

He tells them what to draw, he doesn't tell them how to draw it. It would be like a screenwriter telling the director to re-do a shot.

Even then, that's the process for internal pages, i.e. the comic proper. Cho was working on variant covers, apparently in a totally separate department. He'd only really have to worry about the art being on-model; any disputes about quality or content would be handled by his art director, who apparently didn't have a problem with the covers. Rucka was overriding the senior art director, which is entirely outside his area of expertise.

In Rucka's defence, he was contractually empowered to demand those changes, but that's DC's mistake - they were so excited to get Cho to hop over the river that they "forgot" to mention some dealbreakers they'd already negotiated with someone else. Honestly, the whole thing isn't that big a deal. It's just two co-workers who don't get along arguing with each other via memo until one of them up and quits.

 

[Proto Taco]

Having worked under terrible creative directors on unpaid projects in the past, I really can't jump to the conclusion that Cho is being an idiot like most people seem to assume. Poor creative directors/editors/etc are basically the same as poor managers; just because they get the team to complete the work doesn't mean they aren't terrible people about it. Really bad ones can definitely drive you to the brink of sanity.

I for one feel that Cho handled it extremely well, because whether the problem was him or his manager/editor clearly the event drove him to the edge and his comments were very constrained. You can tell there's a lot more he wanted to say but didn't, that alone demonstrates an effort to remain professional in the face of overwhelming emotions, whatever the cause was, and I respect that.

I wish Cho good luck moving forward.

 

[hentropy]

I for one feel that Cho handled it extremely well, because whether the problem was him or his manager/editor clearly the event drove him to the edge and his comments were very constrained. You can tell there's a lot more he wanted to say but didn't, that alone demonstrates an effort to remain professional in the face of overwhelming emotions, whatever the cause was, and I respect that.

I wish Cho good luck moving forward.

I don't really agree, there is no "handling it well" when your first instinct is to run to the media and tell everyone your boss is a jerkass, hypocrite, etc. Just because you do it in less colorful language does not make it okay in all situations.

There's a reason why businesses hate this kind of thing, and it's often for justified reasons. As a newly quit employee and free citizen of the country, you can say whatever you want about what happened, tell only your side, and generally lie/misrepresent the situation. Meanwhile, the business is bound by law not to violate privacy laws, bound by their company policies not to comment on internal matters, and even if they do comment on it it becomes a he-said-he-said situation, and the business catches shit no matter what happens.

As a result, Cho will likely have a harder time finding work in this field, no matter the validity of his claims. Because even if you have a legitimate beef with your employer that enrages you (granted that said beef is not legally actionable, like sexual harassment), you just step back, thank them for the opportunity, and look for work elsewhere.

 

[Cicada 5]

I for one feel that Cho handled it extremely well, because whether the problem was him or his manager/editor clearly the event drove him to the edge and his comments were very constrained. You can tell there's a lot more he wanted to say but didn't, that alone demonstrates an effort to remain professional in the face of overwhelming emotions, whatever the cause was, and I respect that.

I wish Cho good luck moving forward.

I don't really agree, there is no "handling it well" when your first instinct is to run to the media and tell everyone your boss is a jerkass, hypocrite, etc. Just because you do it in less colorful language does not make it okay in all situations.

There's a reason why businesses hate this kind of thing, and it's often for justified reasons. As a newly quit employee and free citizen of the country, you can say whatever you want about what happened, tell only your side, and generally lie/misrepresent the situation. Meanwhile, the business is bound by law not to violate privacy laws, bound by their company policies not to comment on internal matters, and even if they do comment on it it becomes a he-said-he-said situation, and the business catches shit no matter what happens.

As a result, Cho will likely have a harder time finding work in this field, no matter the validity of his claims. Because even if you have a legitimate beef with your employer that enrages you (granted that said beef is not legally actionable, like sexual harassment), you just step back, thank them for the opportunity, and look for work elsewhere.

Apparently, he's going to be working on that Trinity book by DC.

 

[the7k]

The artist was told he has control over the covers.
The writer was told he has control over the covers.

Put the politics completely aside and you'll see this has nothing to do with political agendas or even censorship. It's about piss-poor management and bad communication.

 

[Fappy]

I mean, this is the writer's (Greg) take of Wonder Woman right? Writers and artists are supposed to collaborate on how they want to represent the characters on the page. In this case Cho was contracted to do variant covers, so presumably his work was done outside of that collaborative process. If that's the case, then he should have enough respect for the creative team to realize that they (or at least Greg in this case) want him to portray the character a certain way. Art that reflects this interpretation of the character and is thematically consistent with the book. Yeah, the butt crop thing is ultimately pointless and nitpicky, but if I were in his position and Cho wanted to make official variant art that didn't represent the character/story I'd fight him on it too. Ultimately the editors make the call, but I imagine they'd listen to Greg's opinion over Cho's.

If they told Cho he had full creative control and they didn't step in to defend him, well that's not on Greg. He may have overstepped his bounds, but I don't see his actions being anymore creatively zealous than Cho's.