The Naked Catwoman Panels That Ended Up On DC's Cutting Room Floor

[Zhukov]

I'm having trouble keeping track of who is kidding who here, but I'm damn certain that some kidding is going on.

At the very least, quite a few people are kidding themselves.

Oh who am I kidding, I clicked on the link for the same reason the rest of you did.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

I never really understood the whole "Everything but" mentality when it comes to comic book nudity. In these books, I've seen women in every possible contortion to show off both their ass and their breasts, all while wearing outfits both bizarre and pretty ineffective at performing the duties of clothes. At this point, why not just go the distance? It's certainly not about being tasteful, and if our nation's youth haven't already been warped by stories like House of M or Ultimatum, then I think they'll be okay if the story calls for them seeing a nipple or even -gasp!- a penis!

The long and short of it (*rimshot*) is that the American comic book market for "superhero" comics is still pretty much linked to the same standards as broadcast television. Nudity is pretty much limited to properties that were already "mature" to begin with and even then limited to exposed breasts and flaccid penises (or in at least in all the graphic novels I've seen). I think it's largely a business decision, as large bookstore chains don't want the backlash from a parent discovering that "little Jimmy picked up a comic book and it looked like a Playboy on the inside." The artist is dominated by the publisher, the publisher is dominated by the retailer, and the retailer is dominated by it's customers.

Then there's the US's obscenity laws and policies that can make selling those books difficult.

It's still a huge improvement over the infamous Comics Code Authority, but the restrictions are largely because of the perception that comics are for kids, which ignores how undertones of sex and sexuality is almost a constant presence in the Batman comics and as well as others[footnote]Bruce has a son for god's sake! You don't get those by fully clothed hugs no matter how formfitting your supersuit is![/footnote].

But when it comes down to it, it's all about making sure that customers are able to buy the product, and full nudity in a DC or Marvel mainstream property might result in demands by social conservative groups to remove the graphic novel sections all together, which some retailers may cave on. Hell, remember what happened when they revealed one Spider-Man in an alternative universe was black and right wing media freaked the fuck out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(Miles_Morales)#Reception]?

But, yeah, it all comes down to business. No amount of artistic integrity is immune to a publisher who thinks it's in their better interest to not publish something.

 

[Aggieknight]

How dare they attempt to represent a woman as in control of her own sexuality and anything but a object!!!

(that's sarcasm for those that don't see it)

 

[Trishbot]

I'm still amazed at how... backwards?... the New 52 was in regards to most of their women. First issue of Catwoman spent THREE WHOLE PAGES showing her getting dressed in provocative poses before we even see her FACE and the issue ends with her boning Batman on a rooftop. Barbara Gordon went from a leader and hero that refused to let her paralysis keep her from becoming comic's first "online age" heroine and mentor... and regressed her to her "ideal" Batgirl persona (at the expense of TWO other heroines). Wonder Woman was rebooted as Superman's girlfriend... They decided Amanda "The Wall" Waller was too big and fat (that was the POINT) and gave her a generic super-slim/busty body. They turned Harley Quinn from adorable jester girl into a flesh-baring stripper. And the lobotomy they gave Starfire, turning her from sweet and sensitive into emotionless, cold, sex-starved idiot, is already legendary.

I just... ugh. They DO know there are women readers out there, right? Ones that would prefer having better female heroines out there representing them? I get that it's still painfully male driven, and it's not like the 90's did us proud either (those poor spines...), but DC had a lot of GOOD things going for them in regards to their women and just... dropped the ball on pretty much ALL of them.

I honestly can't think of a single female heroine at DC that I don't think is less interesting than they were prior to the New 52. Not a single solitary one. Not Mera, not Wonder Woman, not Power Girl, not Batgirl, not Starfire, not Black Canary, not Catwoman... nobody.

 

[deadish]

I'm more concern about Catwoman finding out Batman's ID and having "something to hang over his head" ... that's going to be problematic in the long run.

To my knowledge, the reveal of Bats' ID to Catwoman has always be "voluntary" or at least after their relationship has developed significantly such that she isn't a "loose cannon" - there has always been a bit of drama to it.**

Catwomen stripping naked? Doesn't bug me really. Fanservice is fanservice. Personally I wish writers will make up their mind as to which demographic they are targetting. Naked women are great if you are targeting only the 18-35 male crowd. But if you are going for both genders, well, you got to "water it down" to avoid "offending" - basically the larger your target demographic the more restrictions you will have; the worst case can be seen in "watered down" Hollywood movies.

** My knowledge of Batman is pretty much from the DCAU. It's quite surprising what they managed despite the restrictions of being a Saturday morning cartoon.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Hmm, I'm not exactly following the comics but in some of those panels her face looks more like the Joker's than any of the previous Catwoman renditions I've seen. Anyone else seeing it that way?

I don't know, what do you think Akbar?

"ITS A TRAP!"

It's probably the Joker using comic book science to disguise himself as Catwoman to troll Bruce.

 

[RossaLincoln]

While it is a bit porntastic, the pages were apparently intended to advance Catwoman's character development. As March puts it, "The action in this scene was a depiction of who Selina was: a woman taking advantage of her sexuality to get something from a man. That made sense according on how the character had been approached in the earlier New52."

That's status quo, not development.

Apologies, my sarcasm was a bit dry there. You are of course right but since I'd already made a Florida joke I decided to just be droll here. And to fail at being clear about it.

 

[Paragon Fury]

The faces.

The faces just make this.

 

[PirateRose]

I mean look if Catwoman is going to present herself naked to bruce (for what ever reason) I think she would at least sneakily bypass his security and ensconce herself in his bed or something before being found. Honestly though that is the least weird least terrible thing about these panels.

This. Exactly this. And like, cover his room with rose petals for a romantic touch. Now that she knows who he really is(at least I'm reading the panels as her discovering Bruce is Batman), why not just make a move to date him publicly like any normal couple, just with the abnormal twist that they are secretly famous anti-heroes, night vigilante and master thief, and when they feel like boning they make a game out of breaking into each others homes.

I think these days if they took a slightly more romantic approach, than just in your face sex, it would have made for a better reboot. The sexual tension they've always had was great, but old. I get why they wanted to change it up a bit, they just took the completely wrong approach. But I get the feeling the guys running/writing the comics don't know how to do a proper romance let alone the fact the guys reading the comics may very well declare it all cooties and chick stuff and still very much ruined.

I over heard a guy the other day saying how comic book men absolutely hate change with a passion. Even the slightest, smallest change can set them off. The problem is change needs to be done just right, sensibly, build on what already exists. Captain Marvel for example, has so far has been a big hit, and that was a pretty big change. When a writer makes changes idiotically, filled with random garbage they think will get attention and make a sale(herp derp sex sells and shock value), instead of thinking of a proper story, then yeah. People get upset.

 

[Nokturos]

I was expecting blood to shoot out of Alfred's nose.

 

[the December King]

... I like the panels.

It's like, Selina knows that Batman hides behind a costume/clothes, so in an attempt to provoke a reaction, she uses her nudity, showing simultaneously that she has nothing to hide. I think it's kind of empowering.

 

[loa]

I like to believe that batman wouldn't go all ":OOOO" just because he sees boobs because the concept of boobs is not something revolutionary and new to freaking batman and he's not 16 anymore.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

That sounds like an interesting story I'd have liked to see. Except that I haven't read comic books in years.

 

[Alorxico]

"The action in this scene was a depiction of who Selina was: a woman taking advantage of her sexuality to get something from a man."

So .... she's a harlot now? I mean, wasn't the whole point to Catwoman the fact that she was a beautiful, intelligent, physically strong woman who was able to get what she wanted WITHOUT using her feminine wilds? You know, the exact opposite of Poison Ivy, who did use her sexuality to get her ways? A female criminal who wasn't a villain, like Harley Quinn, but someone Batman could trust on occasion because she was as resourceful and clever as he was but still someone he felt obligated to arrest and turn into the police?

Being COMFORTABLE with your sexuality and USING your sexuality to get something are two different things. Women's Rights Groups have been fighting for YEARS to distinguish the difference between the two and I don't think I am comfortable with DC using one of their strongest female characters to re-blur that line.

And I agree with a previous poster. If Selina / Catwoman wanted to get Bruce / Batman's attention, she would NOT strip in his front yard in broad daylight. Catwoman is a woman of class. She would sneak into his bedroom while he is out on patron, light a few candles, then wait for him in his bed possibly wearing his spare Batcape, making some snide remark about his home security system or obsession with the color black when he found her later that morning.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Catwomen stripping naked? Doesn't bug me really. Fanservice is fanservice. Personally I wish writers will make up their mind as to which demographic they are targetting. Naked women are great if you are targeting only the 18-35 male crowd. But if you are going for both genders, well, you got to "water it down" to avoid "offending" - basically the larger your target demographic the more restrictions you will have; the worst case can be seen in "watered down" Hollywood movies.

I'm not exactly sure what's being suggested here, should more video games and comic books make an effort to push away their female demographics so they can have all of the nudity and titilation they desire to fill them with?

I have no problem with nudity. I have no problem with excessive titilation, WHEN it's in something only intended for the sake of titilation. If you're proposing to have an interesting story, interesting characters, fun gameplay or various other attributes that everyone can enjoy then maybe you should be trying to get your work to appeal to everyone, regardless of who they want to bone. Nudity and sex are absolutely fine, but you can easily tell when either is being used for cheap titilation. Which is pretty much what these cut panels seem to be, despite the attempted rationalization.

You know what would be just great? Compress all this titilation into spin off porn so the guys who want it can get their fill of T&A, and the actual story and character elements can be in the main books without all of the ridiculous pandering. You could do this with video-games too, sell all of the pandering in some cheap DLC. Also that way you can go as much all out with it as you desire, so you don't need to "water it down" to avoid "offending", you can just make it full out porn and stop beating around the bush.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Clever choice of censor bars at least. It's the character's male gaze preventing us from doing our own male gazing.

 

[search_rip]

This is not the Catwoman we deserved but the Catwoman we need :3

 

[Sixcess]

Oh how I hate the New DC.

At least I still have the Ed Brubaker/Darwyn Cooke run on Catwoman to look back on as the last time the character was done right. Seriously, anyone who is at all interested in Selina should pick up the collections and read that run, and leave the juvenile wank fantasies of the New 52 in well deserved obscurity.

 

[Ferisar]

Oh how I hate the New DC.

At least I still have the Ed Brubaker/Darwyn Cooke run on Catwoman to look back on as the last time the character was done right. Seriously, anyone who is at all interested in Selina should pick up the collections and read that run, and leave the juvenile wank fantasies of the New 52 in well deserved obscurity.

I'm trying to find relevance to this news story here, but I'm not seeing it. Is DC wrong for having not used this wank fantasy, or is the artist wrong to even exist within DC and creating this wank fantasy? Because if this isn't official, and wasn't used despite being a wank fantasy... wank fantasy fantasy wank fantasy? wank fantasy.

Malkovich Malkovich.

OT:
Yeah uh... This is a bit out there. I'm not even sure if I'd classify it as outright offensive or anything, but it seems more comical (haha get it) than anything else. Aaaand a tad juvenile. Just a little.

 

[Sixcess]

Because if this isn't official, and wasn't used despite being a wank fantasy...

It was drawn for the original script, which was only changed by DC's "last minute meddling", so whether or not it was used it's still official.

The fact that DC pulled it is the only part of this story that surprises me, given the ludicrous amounts of T&A that the previous issues were filled with. I don't object to sexualisation in comics in itself, only to how badly implemented it was, with DC constantly pandering to the lowest common denominator and the worst stereotypes of comic book readers, of which this is (or if you insist, would have been) another prime example.

wank fantasy fantasy wank fantasy? wank fantasy.

I'm glad you appreciate the phrase. I'd say it trips off the tongue, but that conjures up some unfortunate images.