Marvel VP Speaks Mind on Manara Spider Woman Butt Cover
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
I think that they should have had him do an alternative cover for Red Sonja, or something similar, instead of Spider-Woman, especially if they're trying to get more female readers for it. Also, the way her neck and face is posed conjures up for me an image of an amalgamation of two early InuYasha villains...
The person who made that image is ignorant.Trishbot said:
They made a version of the Teen Titans comic that was similar to the show.
It was called "Teen Titans Go!". I read it.
It did okay while the series was on, but started to perform poorly a little while after the series ended.
I am more offended by that boring costume design.
How does yellow triangle and diamond on red communicate "spider" again?
That "web" armpithair looks completely artificial and impractical.
How do you even cosplay this? It'll just flop down if you don't keep it in place with something like sticks that will poke into your armpit.
All that hassle for something that has absolutely no function and just looks like some geometric shape slapped onto her with low opacity.
And her back is completely monocolored. Snore.
It got nothing on spidermans iconic costume.
Showing her lips and hair seemed to be higher on the priority list than making an interesting costume that immediately communicates what she is about.
How does yellow triangle and diamond on red communicate "spider" again?
That "web" armpithair looks completely artificial and impractical.
How do you even cosplay this? It'll just flop down if you don't keep it in place with something like sticks that will poke into your armpit.
All that hassle for something that has absolutely no function and just looks like some geometric shape slapped onto her with low opacity.
And her back is completely monocolored. Snore.
It got nothing on spidermans iconic costume.
Showing her lips and hair seemed to be higher on the priority list than making an interesting costume that immediately communicates what she is about.
Yes, as a kid they had "animated" comics for lots of kids shows, like Batman: The Animated Series and Superman...fithian said:
...But we "grew up", and often those comics didn't last long. Now, as an ADULT, one with disposable income and a life-long love for heroines of my youth, to open the pages of a comic and find your favorite heroine (and the ONLY place you can read about her, I should note) reduced to a vapid sex object (and this was going on BEFORE this infamous issue, I should note), barely resembling the spunky, inspiring, charming, lovely, adorable, amazing girl you looked up to in your youth... that doesn't make it any easier.
This isn't NEW, mind you... Captain Marvel may be on top of the Marvel world right now, but, wow, the 80's dragged her through the gutter (loss of powers, mind control, kidnapping, rape, incest, alcoholism, etc.) and people don't fondly look back at that period of time.
For DC, in particular, the Starfire issue was just one of MANY very, very bad choices in dealing with female characters. Catwoman's first new issue, for instance, spent over three full pages ogling her body from every single angle before we ever got to see her FACE several pages later (and ended with her having sex with Batman on a roof). Amanda "The Wall" Waller went from one of the most famous plus-sized women in comics to a skinny, gorgeous supermodel with no memorable qualities. DC told the writers of Batwoman they could not allow their lesbian main characters to marry and they quit the book in protest. Batgirl's reboot erased two fan-favorite female characters and undid one of the best handicapped heroines in the series, stripping her of being the first "online" heroine and founder of the Birds of Prey, and restoring her to a status quo from 25 years ago. Raven doesn't even have a face right now (just big boobs under a pile of feathers). They introduced fan-favorite female heroine Artemis from Young Justice... and killed her off the next issue. Wonder Woman has been "Superman's Girlfriend (tm)" for sometime now. The ONLY female heroine that I felt is better off now than before the reboots is Aquaman's wife, Mera, and that's only because the whole Aquaman series under Geoff Johns was supremely awesome and developed and evolved the characters in a way that improved them rather than reduced them.
So Starfire losing her memory and having tons of emotionless sex with a conga line of men isn't THE problem, but one of many problems that DC did rapid-fire over the span of their relaunch. Starfire was never my favorite... but even I had read enough to know when this character is significantly less interesting or likable due to bone-headed decisions to make her a "sexually liberated" woman not interested in strong emotional attachments.... the total opposite of her original personality.
It's not a bad costume. And plenty of people have rocked it in cosplay.loa said:
I've said this elsewhere and I'll say it here
"Spider-woman's crack is deeper than my voice."
I'm referring to the variant drawing in question.
"Spider-woman's crack is deeper than my voice."
I'm referring to the variant drawing in question.
If you only show that costume without providing context, it does a bad job of conveying the theme of the character.Trishbot said:
Batman has a batlike cape, a mask with ears and a bat emblem, spiderman has spiderweb and a spider logo, superman has the S.
Everyone kind of has a logo, yes?
Spiderwoman tho?
The first thing that came to mind when seeing the red gold color scheme was the flash and that web armpit hair being the only spidery thing is just weird.
Some of the comics based on the shows were good, and some of them sell okay. Most don't last after the show ends.Trishbot said:
The reality is that if a book does not sell they won't keep making it. So people have to buy it when they are making it, because if they don't then they will stop making it.
The version of Starfire the Teen Titans fans were familiar with was nothing like Starfire in the comics. That is a fact and they are probably never going to make her like the Starfire on the show.
The shit they pulled with Ms. Marvel in 80's was terrible. no one will argue against that.
Do you think Captain America because Spider-man is also red, blue, and white? Or do you think Flash because Iron Man is red and gold as well?loa said:
The pattern is very much in the design of spider-markings (like a black widow's or weaver spider's):
And the underarm webbing is something even regular Spider-man has had since his first appearance:
It also resembles certain glider suits, and she has the ability to glide through the air on the web wings, so they serve a practical purposes as well.
I see zero problem with it. It's not my favorite (that would go to the Julia Carpenter suit that inspired Spider-man's black costume), but it's colorful, well designed, the spider markings accentuate her muscles and curves, and it fits right in with what the other heroes and heroines were wearing at the time.
It depends on when you read the comics. When the show came out? Yeah, Starfire was already pretty embarrassing by that point, but she was still very, very much a happy, plucky, naive young woman that loved people and being in love.fithian said:
For those of us who are older and read those original Teen Titan comics, Starfire was very much like how we envisioned, only tweaked and modernized a bit to be a stronger role model.
ESPECIALLY in terms of the relationships:
The series was defined by moments like this, of sweetness, tenderness, learning, growing up, falling in and out of love, struggling with identity, living in others' shadows, forging friendships and dealing with loss...
Starfire was one reason Robin stopped being "Robin". He was told never to get emotionally involved with others due to his superhero identity, like Batman who kept all the women he loved at arm's length. He didn't want that. He didn't want to be like his mentor, and he followed his heart, cast aside "Robin" to grow up and become his own man, "Nightwing", and he and Starfire pursued a very happy relationship together that pretty much was a thing throughout the entire run of the comic, even towards the end of the series before the reboot.
Every iteration will always have differences, but it's usually advantageous to IMPROVE a character over time, not regress them and make them worse and less interesting, which became the case with much of the New 52.
For context, I absolutely respect erotic artists; hell, my avatar is a piece by Maeda Toshio, creator of La Blue Girl and Legend of the Overfiend. I love the grotesque pulp pieces that guys like Rick Melton and Simon Bisley thrive on. Masamune Shirow and Yu Kiutani are incredible technical artists who decided to focus on the female form because, hey, boobies are awesome. H.R. Giger literally created new genres of expressionism by using sex as a weapon against the audience, and did so with such unprecedented skill that to this day I can't think of a more influential form of 20th century surrealism. To write sexuality off by default is to deny one of the things being human is all about, and while I can (partially) understand people shrugging handheld POV porn as garbage, anything hand drawn deserves the same respect as any creation by the human hand.
I think Milo Manara's done some really fine work in his particular field. His minimalist 70s style has a certain elegance to it - reminiscent of European comic artists like Mobius and Angelo Santo and the like. He's a talented guy, and some of his work is really lovely. I just don't think this particular piece is any good. The costume looks like body paint slathered on a naked back, and her head is disproportionate to the rest of her body. It looks "off" in a number of ways, and that's a bigger problem than it simply being sexualized, which - at least in my view - isn't itself a problem (least of all because it's a variant).
A least Brevoort is being honest; they wanted a little saucy controversy, and Manara's the guy to do that. He just didn't bring his A game this time, and that's a shame. I can, and will, defend good porn. It's harder to defend bad art.
I think Milo Manara's done some really fine work in his particular field. His minimalist 70s style has a certain elegance to it - reminiscent of European comic artists like Mobius and Angelo Santo and the like. He's a talented guy, and some of his work is really lovely. I just don't think this particular piece is any good. The costume looks like body paint slathered on a naked back, and her head is disproportionate to the rest of her body. It looks "off" in a number of ways, and that's a bigger problem than it simply being sexualized, which - at least in my view - isn't itself a problem (least of all because it's a variant).
A least Brevoort is being honest; they wanted a little saucy controversy, and Manara's the guy to do that. He just didn't bring his A game this time, and that's a shame. I can, and will, defend good porn. It's harder to defend bad art.
*sigh* It wouldn't be a day in 'Murica if someone wasn't flipping their shit over something, lame or otherwise. From my perspective, I've seen some of Manara's works and 1)it has changed very little since he got into the industry many years ago, and 2) compared to the Spider-Woman cover, it is very tame, I mean, after all, Spider-Woman is wearing an outfit that is neither see through nor revealing. I'll grant, that pose does look rather uncomfortable, but if that's the extent of the problem, then sign me up for a purchase! It must be a slow news day, as so many people are talking about this. I for one, am glad to see that we've conquered the Ebola thing, that Israel and the Palestinians have managed to settle their differences permanently and singing Kumbiyah (sp), and that Russia wants nothing to do with the Ukraine. Now that we have all that settled, let's talk about what one Frenchman has done to our (relatively) obscure female comic!!!
This is perfectly true. In fact, I think that if done right, sexiness can enhance a work and maybe even be empowering to women. In order to do that though, it needs to have more depth and meaning that simply being pure titillation.rbstewart7263 said:
Feminist checking in to say, no, this isn't how it works. Not for me, certainly not for even the most extremist person I've spoken with.Lightknight said:The moment feminists begin to realize that the girl jogging down the street in short juicy boy shorts and sports bra is also a woman should be the moment they realize that some girls want to be sexy and that sexy isn't an evil attribute.rbstewart7263 said:
But no, their expression of women is the only one they're going to allow
Sexy women are awesome! Women who are in tune with their sexuality are awesome! Nudity is awesome! All of that, taken on its own, is great stuff.
Context is what makes any form of expression, sexual or non, socially charged or not, meaningful. Honestly, there's nothing intrinsically "wrong" about almost any one image. It's the image PLUS all the other images PLUS the attitude of comics writers and artists PLUS the community's reactions to them that make up a salad of suck.
To express some of the problem: an industry that consistently can't do anything with women on the covers of their own book, and frequently inside the pages, but twist them into poses to appeal to the viewer? Even if sexuality isn't a part of their character? Even if modesty and conservatism are parts of their character? Even if they're fucking underage? A consistent, overbearing sense in too many comics that the first priority of female characters is be appealing to the sexual desires of the stereotypical broman demo--even when that's totally inappropriate to the context or character?
Less awesome! Honestly kinda sucks!
Este... Milo Manara is best known as the guy that made all those "Click" porn comics. If you know anything about the guy, is that he draws porn. What would Marvel expect by hiring him to do some cover art? That's like hiring AC/DC for the soundtrack and complain they're too noisy.
First, I'm glad to see a female (that doesn't seem like they have a chip on their shoulder) weigh in on this.Trishbot said:
As a female reader, I just want equality with the men. Fine, you want to draw Spider-Woman with a suit that is so tight it MUST be sprayed on latex with her butt cheeks spread so wide you can park a jumbo jet between them, looking like she's presenting herself to the entire city of New York? Sure. But do the same for Spider-man now too.
Even if nearly 45% of comic readers are female, 95% of comic writers and artists are men, and the industry carries a rather unflattering stigma of sexism and chauvinism from decades of pandering to juvenile adolescents obsessed with T&A. Heck, that's practically what put titles like Witchblade on the map.
But times are different, and Marvel is, well, mainstream. When Avengers is the 3rd biggest movie of all time, you can't claim you pander just to a small, male, pre-teen demographic anymore. And, to be fair to Marvel, they have made great strides in improving their use and portrayal of female characters (ESPECIALLY compared to DC, who has gone in the reverse direction of progress).
As a female reader, I'm thrilled to see less cheesecake and pandering and more legitimate heroines that look and act like actual human beings.
Just a few I follow:
And probably my favorite heroine of all time:
(Shame Marvel erased her from existence with One More Day... just one of many reasons to hate One More Day)
From Black Widow to Scarlet Witch to the many great female leaders of the X-men (man, those movies did none of them justice...) to even lesser heroines like Rescue and Jessica Jones, Marvel's gotten much better, but the old stink of the past is still around in some parts, and it's still not quite as inviting to female readers as it probably should be.
Which is a shame. Growing up, I was told girls watched things like Jem, Strawberry Shortcake, Rainbow Bright, and My Little Pony, but I loved excitement, drama, and action, and instead was watching things like She-Ra, Scarlet in G.I. Joe, even April in Ninja Turtles and Cheetara in Thundercats. I was reading those wacky 80's issues of She-Hulk and Spider-Woman (the one in the cool black costume), and Batgirl was a huge role model.
I want young girls to have that same feeling, despite the last vocal gasps of male-driven comics going to the wayside. I saw this first-hand with a young female reader:
Things are improving, bit by bit by agonizing bit, but until Marvel is confident enough to put a Captain Marvel on screen in a leading role and making female-driven action vehicles "mainstream" (as if the one-two-three punch of "Catching Fire", "Frozen", and "Gravity" last year wasn't enough), it's going to remain a petulant problem where more ink is devoted to Spider-Woman's glutes than to her character, personality, heroism, or status as a role model for young girls.
So, hurry up, Marvel. I'm more than eager to pay money for a Captain Marvel film.
Next, before I make my point, I do basically agree with the underlying sentimental...more relatable characters and the way they are portrayed for female audiences. I think it's a great idea.
However, here are my two cents
This silly Spiderwoman cover doesn't set back the movement to get more relatable characters. It's a variant cover that I honestly don't think has generated outrage outside of a few hardcore feminists, white males looking to be pretentious, and geek journalism, that just loves to start flame wars among their readers for comments and views. (side note: the fact that this was on the Time and Guardian websites doesn't really mean much, as they have staff writers to just fill content spaces.... its not like it made the front page of the paper or the cover of the magazine)
More sexy/traditional stuff can exist ALONGSIDE the new/relatable material. The elimination of sex appeal would hurt the readership among both male and female lines. The stat about 46% of comic audience being women seem to like the current product enough to buy it and read it. I see cosplayers (actual ones, not sexual attention seekers)gladly dawn the Power Girl costume or Black Widow's tight uniform.
Also, I think it's disingenuous to just say "we need a female/minority lead movie", just to have a female/minority lead movie. This reminds me of when every late 70s and early 80s cartoon had the stereotypical, under thought versions of minority character and "the wheelchair kid".
To include someone just to check an item off a list does a disservice to everyone. You need to adapt or create a character that is compelling and interesting to truly make it a great movie that doesn't pander or make things worse.
The good thing about Marvel and DC is they have several good choices: The female version of Capt. Marvel (As you mentioned), Wonder Woman, She Hulk, Power Girl, Super Girl, Spider Woman, Bat Girl and Bat Woman. (Yes, I left out Black Widow... her movie needs to be a team up with Hawkeye b/c of her lack of powers and the great chemistry they have...it would make a better and enjoyable film.
Don't forget as well that Marvel pushed for the Agent Carter series on ABC next year. While it will be a short series (Atwell being a movie star and all), the fact they found a great character to make a series around.
In conclusion, I get the need for more realistic female characters, but attacking this stupid comic book cover, or the pose Black Widow had in the Avengers poster doesn't achieve that goal. In fact, I think it weakens your argument. Focus on what can be done to make things better, and allow men and women who enjoy the current characters while organically growing new, interesting, nuanced, strong, and awesome charachters people can relate too and cheer for, not just to fill a quota like Apache Chief.
I 100% agree... but I also think this article brought up the fact that this pose, with this character, isn't exactly the end-all, be-all of the argument. I actually laughed it off as "yet another Escher Girl":Brockyman said:
http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/
But the point was, in isolation, there's nothing wrong with sex or being sexy. But that's if a work doesn't exist in a vacuum. The point was that this cover exists in the context where, currently, at this very moment, there is still a LOT wrong with the industry, with even many female writers and artists openly talking about how much of a struggle it is to just stand on even footing with the boys (in the work place and heroines in the comics). It's basically, for many, a small straw that broke a camel's back, and I understand that and I see that. Me, honestly... that back broke a LONG time ago (again, Ms. Marvel's 80's era was one giant embarrassment for everyone).
The character can still be great while being a "minority" (even though women make up over half the population), and a character who is black, female, fat, gay, or disabled shouldn't be defined by a "minority quota", which is an easy label to slap them with, when they're great characters. Hell, even if they were created for a minority quota, as was the case with the original second-team of X-men (intentionally created for the sole purpose of being more diverse), great things were done with the African Storm, German Catholic Nightcrawler, Jewish Kitty Pryde, Russian Colossus, Native American Warpath, Irish Banshee, and so many others. Even Professor X is a "disabled" character not defined by his wheelchair but by his intellect, leadership, and fatherly roles in the lives of others. Barbara Gordon as Oracle was a heroine that overcame disabilities to be defined as the greatest information broker in the DC universe, the founder of the Birds of Prey, and the mentor to countless younger heroines.
What I'm getting at is that a character can be created for mundane or even bad reasons (She-Hulk and Spider-Woman solely existed to keep TV moguls from making them and claiming ownership), but can through great talent become some of the most interesting, funny, exciting, and well-crafted characters in the industry ("Single Green Female" is a great She-Hulk run everyone should read).
But the struggle has been, and will continue to be, having the impression of these women changed from hot sex objects into likable characters. Obviously, as a woman, I didn't care about She-Hulk having the biggest boobs in Marvel... I cared about her because she was a hilarious witty giant green lawyer trying to have a career, a superhero identity, a love life, a social life, and openly calling out the hypocrisy of the world around her ("Tony, why is it that when you sleep around, you're a player and a stud, but when I do it, I'm a slut?").
Jessica Drew in particular, while sexy, is a very damaged character with a very dark past with lots of drama, issues, and troubles, a fascinating character worth study and introspection... if people can see past her giant spandex-clad butt. She once had some truly stunning covers back in the day:
Heroic, artistic, engaging in life-or-death action... like you'd expect a hero to do, a snapshot of her life.
Anyway, I doubt this will "ruin" her, but it's not the best first impression for a new #1 cover, even as a variant. Now, for something different; Hulk making her a sandwich.
"It's also, for a Manara piece, one of the less sexualized ones, at least to my eye."
Then he should be drawing porn.
"And fortunately, it's a variant cover, so people will likely need to seek it out if they want it, rather than it being the display piece for the book."
So where's my variant cover of Captain America fucking Tony Stark?
Then he should be drawing porn.
"And fortunately, it's a variant cover, so people will likely need to seek it out if they want it, rather than it being the display piece for the book."
So where's my variant cover of Captain America fucking Tony Stark?
Wait, are people assuming that the article picture is the cover we're talking about? That one was drawn by Greg Land, and is less bad (but still bad because it doesn't understand how anatomy works and it's willfully doing so in order to show her ass anyway). The one being discussed is the other one, the spiderbutt where the focal point is her butt, according to my art classes about composition [http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/image/95300389080].
There's no redeeming feature to this picture besides "well, it's not the mainstream one, we're acknowledging that by putting a still sexualized but not as obviously sexualized photo for the main cover, and it's still for no apparent reason but we're trying! We think your discussion is important but not enough to actually address beyond what we can get away with to keep selling more comics without passing the threshold of realization for our readers (hint: it's pretty low)." If you go to the Escher Girls tumblr, you'll even see a NSFW picture by the same artist of the same pose for another comic, where the only difference is that the butt is skin colored to indicate that it is bare.
There's no redeeming feature to this picture besides "well, it's not the mainstream one, we're acknowledging that by putting a still sexualized but not as obviously sexualized photo for the main cover, and it's still for no apparent reason but we're trying! We think your discussion is important but not enough to actually address beyond what we can get away with to keep selling more comics without passing the threshold of realization for our readers (hint: it's pretty low)." If you go to the Escher Girls tumblr, you'll even see a NSFW picture by the same artist of the same pose for another comic, where the only difference is that the butt is skin colored to indicate that it is bare.