Let's Talk About Marvel Comics And Spider Woman's Ass

zinho73

New member
Feb 3, 2011
554
0
0
mistwolf said:
I'm not against sexually charged variant covers in any way, but I can't seem to find the sexy in this one. People really look at that and think 'I'd tap that'? She barely looks human, let alone sexy. And that's my biggest problem with such covers: The female form is sexy, why are you mangling it? It just looks... Broken, at worst. Uncomfortable, at best. Why?
Because Manara is a bit of a genius. His intention is to be provocative. It´s kind of sexy, but maybe not really and it is slutty but also spider like. He also ignores that she is wearing clothes (no wrinkles, no extra lines and no texture).

If a beautiful woman walked around like a spider this would probably at the same time be sexy and weird (mostly weird, though).
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
1)What is she wearing? Bodypaint? Fabric doesn't work that way (unless you glue it to your body)
2)Why would anyone crawl like that? Looks uncomfortable.
Yeah I wonder about such things :D
 

Falterfire

New member
Jul 9, 2012
810
0
0
Redd the Sock said:
The market will change when the demand shows it can sustain itself in that change, and that isn't helped by acting like cheesecake is all Marvel (or any other company) knows. This applies to DC too. All the crap about what they got wrong, yet no appreciation for that Power Girl/ Huntress book.
Maybe if they actually would market a damn thing they'd realize sell a few more copies. We're talking about a company who only managed to move a little over 34,420 copies of Captain America the same month [http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2014/2014-04.html] his movie sold millions of tickets.

Superheroes are way more popular than ever, but the number of people actually buying comics has remained pretty much steady. I'm not a marketing genius, but I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of ways Marvel or DC could massively increase their sales. Something as simple as making a deal with Wal-Mart so that comic books can be purchased somewhere that people who don't already buy comic books go would be a great start.

Pretty sure the problem isn't that women aren't buying comics even when the comics are available. The problem is that the only people who know the comics are available are people already buying other comics.
 

Riff Moonraker

New member
Mar 18, 2010
944
0
0
The Rogue Wolf said:
Wow. That doesn't look so much like "butt cleavage" as it does "had her coccyx surgically removed". I mean seriously, it's borderline uncanny valley.

A lot of these artists need some female input; it'd be nice to see some "powerful sexy" rather than "submissive sexy".
Thing is, Milo Manera has been around a LOOOOOONG time. He isnt some rookie to the medium by any means. However, Marvel had to have known the type of artist they were using for the cover. This kind of artwork is extremely tame when compared to alot of Milos other work.
 

Riff Moonraker

New member
Mar 18, 2010
944
0
0
Halyah said:
No issues with sexy covers or the likes. I only have issues if it looks like the anatomy got completely and utterly butchered(stylization will also impact what I think about it) like that catwoman cover. Can't say I much liked that spiderwoman cover however. The anatomy just seems to be a bit off to me, but I haven't seen what else the guy has made so I can't comment on the artist himself.

Though some art used for comicbooks makes me wonder why these artists haven't started making porn comics given they look like thats what they want to do sometimes.
THAT is exactly what Milo is famous for. He has a ton of adult work out there, and has been around for a very long time. So, good eye! :)
 

shirkbot

New member
Apr 15, 2013
433
0
0
Can we please, Please, find these artists someone to teach them actual anatomy/biology? I ask because Spiderwoman's posterior is impossible. Bluntly, @#$s do not look like that and if they do please seek medical attention. Second, what is going on with Spiderman's leg? It looks like it has been broken off and re-affixed. I just, I... I have nothing against sensuality in art, I just want the characters to look like they're actually sensing something other than agony...
 

Riff Moonraker

New member
Mar 18, 2010
944
0
0
Halyah said:
Riff Moonraker said:
Halyah said:
No issues with sexy covers or the likes. I only have issues if it looks like the anatomy got completely and utterly butchered(stylization will also impact what I think about it) like that catwoman cover. Can't say I much liked that spiderwoman cover however. The anatomy just seems to be a bit off to me, but I haven't seen what else the guy has made so I can't comment on the artist himself.

Though some art used for comicbooks makes me wonder why these artists haven't started making porn comics given they look like thats what they want to do sometimes.
THAT is exactly what Milo is famous for. He has a ton of adult work out there, and has been around for a very long time. So, good eye! :)
Yeah I understood that he was famous for such things. The comment was more aimed at other comic artists I've seen that seems to draw like they want to draw porn sometimes. xD
Oooooh, ok... sorry, I misunderstood you. :)
 

LazyAza

New member
May 28, 2008
716
0
0
Maybe I'm out of the comic book art loop but... isn't this like a super crazy common thing? I thought comics always sexualized their characters constantly whether it be the pages or covers and this seems pretty tame to me.

Also this particular guys work is both not really that impressive and not particularly unique in my opinion and if he's known for porny stuff then Marvel should have known what they were getting. If they didn't want him to overtly sexualize her they should have specified to not do so. That's what you do when you commission someone and you have specific requirements, you give them said requirements.
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0

teamcharlie

New member
Jan 22, 2013
215
0
0
Huh. Wonder if that comic sold especially well or especially poorly, or points to trends in relation to better or worse sales.

Because really, is there anything else the comic book company should care about in relation to this adventure? If people buying Spider Woman comics want to see more ridiculous but well-drawn butts, then they should probably draw more. If not, they should make fewer. It's not rocket science here.

And hey, if you personally don't like it and think it's too much of a boy's club? How about instead of trying to fix this particular company who basically isn't beholden to you except for perceiving you as walking wallets (the point of view of pretty much any big successful company), you patronize independent female comic artists, support those hard-working ladies' patreons, etc.? Seems like that would do a lot more work than posting about this on facebook, complaining about it for a few days and then going back to buying these comics again when the next issue comes out.
 

ASnogarD

New member
Jul 2, 2009
525
0
0
Well , considering that spider man is often drawn close to a wall and basically in a flat position which tends to show him as a gangly person splayed out on a wall... this cover didnt really evoke anything unusual in me.
It was a typical web crawler in action... now if you happen to obsess over parker butt you may notice something odd but to me it was a normal picture ( considering the situation).

I mean Spiderman is often show splayed on a wall...like a ...spider... which is to say flat on the surface and in a odd position for a human, so how is offensive when a female variety is depicted in the same form...it is no different in context than the male form.
 

mecegirl

New member
May 19, 2013
737
0
0
But really the only issue with the pose in the Spiderwoman cover is that the angle is off for what would be a normal Spider crouch. Which I dare to say that that redraw that I posed showed. You'd see her ass regardless, its just that with Manera's version it looks like she has her ass in the air for whatever reason. Maybe he's just used to drawing women in that position for his erotic comics? People have been comparing the Manera Spiderwoman cover to one of his erotic book covers. You can't see anything but its pretty close to the same pose. However the woman isn't wearing any pants so it would be considered nsfw. Basically its just of a half naked woman in a storefront window with her ass in the air while a crowd has gathered outside to look at her.

But really, most cases of sexulization in superhero comic books are the result of three things.

1. Either the clothing isn't fit for the task(or chracter) at hand, or the clothing has been drawn incorrectly. A lot of superhero comic book artists seem to have no clue how to draw clothing. Especially if its supposed to be skin tight. So it just ends up looking like body paint.

2. Wonky perspective and camera angles. And unfortunately in a lot of cases the perspective is just wrong. Like...send them to art school to learn how to draw proper perspective wrong.

3. Incorrect anatomy. Cuz we gotta get both boobs and butts into the picture as well as make the woman look as skinny as possible.

Its because of that that I have little sympathy for artists that get accused of sexulaizing female characters. I see no reason for the anti-SJW crowd to spring to those artists aid either. I admit to being an art snob, but bad art is bad art. An artists personal style can only account for so much. It isn't an excuse to ignore correct anatomy and perspective in this case. If superhero comic books were more cartoony then I'd let it go, but while stylized, the artists generally go for a more realistic style. So while we might quibble over costume choices, can they at least get the anatomy correct? Can they at least learn how to properly draw clothing? That's probably why less people complain about Adam Hughes. He is a cheesecake artist but he has skill.

The same can be said for Amanda Grey.


Both manage to draw busty, sexy, superheroines without continually resorting to fudging anatomy or perspective for the desired effect.


Another reason for me is that comic books are expensive, but the quality is just not there sometimes. It shouldn't be too much to ask for artist to put some time into their work.
 

prowll

New member
Aug 19, 2008
198
0
0
This is why I'm against a lot of art criticism. It insists on either deriding something beautiful, or raising something ugly, because you have to see it 'in context'. The art CANNOT stand on it's own merits. The article says in short, he likes the art, but can't like it because we live in a prudish society.

Fine. In context, I can't like your article, because we don't. Below this article was an add for someone's topless GQ pictorial, and 'Best Butts in hip-hop', with Rhianna bent over 'ready for doggy style' with a mic in her hand, apparently nude. If you're going to be a social warrior, you may want to clean up your own house first.

Note, to this point, I haven't said ANYTHING about the picture. Just the context. This is, sadly, most of what art criticism is, talking AROUND a subject, and not ON the subject. To my mind, it makes it pointless. Do you like the picture? That's OK. Do you not? OK, I can see that point too. But talk ABOUT it!

EDIT: And of COURSE she has her ass in the air. Look at the background. She's crawling over the edge of a building. Really no way to do that WITHOUT sticking her butt in the air.
Also, kinda want to ask 2 questions about the 'other' art used in the article. Spider-man cover; how the HELL is he bending his knee over ninety degrees? and the Teen Titan cover; Saying that nobody with a bust size that big would be wearing strapless? Someone hasn't been on a college campus lately.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
mecegirl said:
But really the only issue with the pose in the Spiderwoman cover is that the angle is off for what would be a normal Spider crouch. Which I dare to say that that redraw that I posed showed. You'd see her ass regardless, its just that with Manera's version it looks like she has her ass in the air for whatever reason. Maybe he's just used to drawing women in that position for his erotic comics? People have been comparing the Manera Spiderwoman cover to one of his erotic book covers. You can't see anything but its pretty close to the same pose. However the woman isn't wearing any pants so it would be considered nsfw. Basically its just of a half naked woman in a storefront window with her ass in the air while a crowd has gathered outside to look at her.

But really, most cases of sexulization in superhero comic books are the result of three things.

1. Either the clothing isn't fit for the task(or chracter) at hand, or the clothing has been drawn incorrectly. A lot of superhero comic book artists seem to have no clue how to draw clothing. Especially if its supposed to be skin tight. So it just ends up looking like body paint.

2. Wonky perspective and camera angles. And unfortunately in a lot of cases the perspective is just wrong. Like...send them to art school to learn how to draw proper perspective wrong.

3. Incorrect anatomy. Cuz we gotta get both boobs and butts into the picture as well as make the woman look as skinny as possible.

Its because of that that I have little sympathy for artists that get accused of sexulaizing female characters. I see no reason for the anti-SJW crowd to spring to those artists aid either. I admit to being an art snob, but bad art is bad art. An artists personal style can only account for so much. It isn't an excuse to ignore correct anatomy and perspective in this case. If superhero comic books were more cartoony then I'd let it go, but while stylized, the artists generally go for a more realistic style. So while we might quibble over costume choices, can they at least get the anatomy correct? Can they at least learn how to properly draw clothing? That's probably why less people complain about Adam Hughes. He is a cheesecake artist but he has skill.

The same can be said for Amanda Grey.


Both manage to draw busty, sexy, superheroines without continually resorting to fudging anatomy or perspective for the desired effect.


Another reason for me is that comic books are expensive, but the quality is just not there sometimes. It shouldn't be too much to ask for artist to put some time into their work.
It's Amanda Conner; Grey is the surname of one the writers, Justin. Along with Jimmy Palmotti, they wrote and illustrated 12 issues of Power Girl that I think should be required fucking reading for anyone who writes her, and about how to write a fun superhero comic in general.

I also have nothing but the utmost respect for Adam Hughes; his fingers create masterpieces.
 

mecegirl

New member
May 19, 2013
737
0
0
Gordon_4 said:
It's Amanda Conner; Grey is the surname of one the writers, Justin. Along with Jimmy Palmotti, they wrote and illustrated 12 issues of Power Girl that I think should be required fucking reading for anyone who writes her, and about how to write a fun superhero comic in general.

I also have nothing but the utmost respect for Adam Hughes; his fingers create masterpieces.
Thanks for the correction. Those three have worked on a lot of books together so I get their names mixed up. Isn't she married to Palmotti?