Frank Cho Walks off Wonder Woman - Claims Censorship

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Not exactly siding with Cho on this. In one of the links in the OP's article there's a Gail Simone quote pointing out just how many steps a cover will go through before its actually published, which makes me wonder if it was actually Rucka himself or if some suit-wearing official decided that a flash of whatever it is WW wears under her combat skirt scored too high a percentage on the Cheescake Scale to be sold to kids.
Plus the grand total of the 'censorship' is a tiny sliver removed from the edge of the drawing, they've not slapped big black boxes over anything that would make a puritan pilgrim blush, which makes it look like Cho is massively overreacting.
The whole things a bit of a storm in teacup being brewed by a drama queen I think

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I think these people are acting like babies and not putting their art before their egos. The censored image was the least sexy shot with underwear in it ever drawn so to cause an argument over it is ridiculous but on the same token being told your art doesn't meet the writer's vision (however stupid his objection) is not somethig to quit over.


Though I will say that cropping the image as opposed to having him draw a different one crosses unto censorship. Having the artist alter the work according to his vision is one thing and having someone else alter it but present it under the artist's name is another, I can see being angry over it. Still too immature to quit over it though.

I wouldn't say quitting is the issue here. Making a stink over it is just unnecessary. He really could have just quit if he wanted his images to be used unedited.

I come at it as an art lover and despite not reading these comics I see as the bigger tragedy an artist who has talent and passion not completing his project. Making a stink does not rob the world of art and nobody really cares about their drama, I bet a lot of people looked forward to and cared for his covers. If I were in his shoes I would do the rest for free during my free time and give them away as a gesture of unity with the fans.

 

[Avnger]

People if you are being commissioned for a piece of art such as this employee, the person paying you who has editorial control can tell you what and what not he will pay for.

I'm sorry, but these calls of "censorship" are getting fricken ridiculous. Now it is censorship if you fail to do your job up to the standards set by your manager/supervisor/employer? Give me a damn brake.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

It's a shame he's gone, if those covers are any indication he's got drawing her as powerfully built and beautiful down pat which a few artists lack.

Still, he spat the dummy pretty hard over something pretty minor since there was no changes to the first two covers at all.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

After a bit more reading, it seems he was told he would have to deal with no input from the writers but it turned out that was a lie/error and he joined up under false pretenses. If that is really true then I think his frustration is justified.

 

[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.

 

[Jux]

Editorial oversight is censorship now? huh

 

[the December King]

I used to like Cho's work back in the days of University Squared and early Liberty Meadows. But his powerful women characters like Wonder Woman and Jungle Girl, although still well illustrated, I could do without- superhero comics and muscle-bound women are not my cups of tea.

Though, I can see that if I was making a comic about Wonder Woman, Cho would be a perfect fit, art wise.

 

[JimB]

What do you guys think?

I think people who slam their coworkers are behaving unprofessionally enough to make me question their credibility on the topic at hand. I make an exception for people trying to warn others against danger, but this ain't that. It's him taking his ball home in a huff and trying to get everyone to tell him how right he is to do so.

 

[Gorrath]

Oh jeeze, censorship again? Is cropping out part of an image censorship? Yes. Is it unethical when the person doing it has the, by all accounts, legitimate editorial control over the decision? No. Just like basically every damned thing else, censorship isn't inherently unethical or immoral, so while we can call this, rightfully, censorship, what's the point? It's not unethical, it's not immoral so what's the big damned deal? If you don't like the changes, fine. If you think the censorship is needless, fine. But editorial management requires censorship to be effective.

Edit: And just for clarity's sake, I love sexy women on the covers of, well hell, anything I buy. I don't think there's anything wrong with the originals, I don't think there's anything wrong with the changes. Censorship isn't the great Satan. Context matters.

 

[Redryhno]

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 how many people seem to struggle with the notion that an editor doing their job isn't censorship, I'd say that this needs to be reiterated as many times as possible until the definition of censorship finally goes back to something reasonable instead of being used to describe any change that that you don't like.

Though I do wonder what was worthwhile about your particular comment, if you're going to bring such a thing as that up.

Here's the problem, the editor isn't doing their job, it's the writer doing the job of the editor for this project. Which is not the problem, the problem is that he wasn't told this going into it and the writer's a bit of a tool(don't believe me, go read his interpretation of Montoya in Gotham Sites?Citybound? I forget the exact name, but it's fantasy as fuck considering the setting).

snip

You've got some bits wrong.

The complaint isn't that Rucka thought they were all overly sexualised (regarding your claim that he thought 'these' were overly sexualised and included two covers), but rather specifically the #3 variant (The first of the two Cho covers). There have been no claims from Cho that he had similar complaint about the other covers, though he did ask for other general changes like arm bracers or the lasso to be added and what have you which Cho also objected to.

Secondly, Rucka never said that the cover from his previous run is fine. Rucka's Wonder Woman run is thought of as one of the best ever and he was given editorial control when he was lured back for the current run. As far as I know, there is absolutely no suggestion that he had any say in the first of the three covers you have images for which is from 2004 so the comparison about what Rucka approved of is moot.

Thirdly, even if he did have a say 12 years ago that wouldn't account for the fact that clothing isn't only an issue of being on model, but also the pose and context. To use the example I gave earlier in the thread:

"(O)n model isn't the same as appropriate context. If you drew Wonder Woman on model but directly from above so you could see her breast and nipples pressing against her breastplate, that wouldn't be okay as an appropriate comics cover. Similar if you drew her from directly below so you could look up her skirt and drew a detailed outline of her vagina pressed against her knickers. Now Cho's drawing was nowhere near as bad as either of those example, but then the reaction of slightly cropping the image to take away the bit that was objected to was hardly extreme either."

I stand corrected. But I will still argue that if the first two covers are anything like the third(which I'm having trouble finding at the moment), then I don't understand how it's too sexual(simply because Cho sorta has a style that he sticks with once he starts a series). Personally no interest in Wonder Woman as her own comic, but I like the character and enjoy it when she's given muscle and weight.

 

[Lufia Erim]

When my boss says:"do it again", i do it again. When my boss fixes something i have done, I'm just glad he didn't tell me "do it again".

 

[axlryder]

Though I do wonder what was worthwhile about your particular comment, if you're going to bring such a thing as that up.

If we're to play that game I could say the same of yours in response to me, but frankly I'm tired of the circle jerkyness/redundancy on this forum from BOTH sides of the political spectrum. No one wants to read a forum where the same people say the same tired things in every single thread, and I'm certain that if someone makes it to the second page then they've probably already seen the consesus of opinion on Cho's accusations of "censorship".

I'm not saying that people can't say the same things, but at least put some effort in if youre gonna be redundant and make a point about semantics. You are actually a fine example of a poster who tends to say similar things but definitely goes one step further in relaying that position and relating it to the topic at hand.

 

[Overhead]

I stand corrected. But I will still argue that if the first two covers are anything like the third(which I'm having trouble finding at the moment), then I don't understand how it's too sexual(simply because Cho sorta has a style that he sticks with once he starts a series). Personally no interest in Wonder Woman as her own comic, but I like the character and enjoy it when she's given muscle and weight.

The cover that was objected to is the variant for #3. It's the second cover you posted, the first of the two Cho covers. It is also linked (along with the uncropped original pencils) in the OP for this thread.

It has Wonder Woman bending and displaying her butt to the extent that you can see her knickers. It was a somewhat more sexualised pose than the first to covers in my subjective opinion. The image was cropped slightly to remove part of her butt and her knickers, which were the main things giving it sexualised undertones.

Also Cho's art has no real bearing on the book or the story. He's doing variant covers. That means he does none of the interior art in the actual story of the comic at all and for most of the comics printed he actually has nothing to do with them in any other way either. His contribution is that a fraction of the comics printed will have his alternative art on the cover (and only on the cover).

Here's the problem, the editor isn't doing their job, it's the writer doing the job of the editor for this project. Which is not the problem, the problem is that he wasn't told this going into it and the writer's a bit of a tool(don't believe me, go read his interpretation of Montoya in Gotham Sites?Citybound? I forget the exact name, but it's fantasy as fuck considering the setting).

Do you mean the critically acclaimed Gotham Central? Winner of Eisner and Harvey awards (e.g. the main comic book awards)? Where he was responsible for fleshing out Montoya and giving her a real personality?

 

[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.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Considering how many people seem to struggle with the notion that an editor doing their job isn't censorship, I'd say that this needs to be reiterated as many times as possible until the definition of censorship finally goes back to something reasonable instead of being used to describe any change that that you don't like.

We can thank the Internet for redefining censorship from "onerous pressure to restrict free speech or creativity" to "you took away my T&A!".

 

[Lacedaemonius]

Considering how many people seem to struggle with the notion that an editor doing their job isn't censorship, I'd say that this needs to be reiterated as many times as possible until the definition of censorship finally goes back to something reasonable instead of being used to describe any change that that you don't like.

We can thank the Internet for redefining censorship from "onerous pressure to restrict free speech or creativity" to "you took away my T&A!".

There have always been people eager to frame their pettiness in high-minded terms, the internet didn't create this, it just networked it.

 

[Jux]

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.