|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Mar 17, 2015 15:01:38 GMT -5
I'm pretty neutral as far as the controversy goes. On one hand, I think it's a pretty fantastic piece. It has nothing to do with me supporting the Joker and hating Batgirl or being a misogynist or a sociopath, it has everything to do with the quality of the image. It's a very good drawing that implies a lot of nasty things without actually showing it. I also think that if you're doing linewide Joker variants and one of those variants is going to be on Batgirl referencing the Killing Joke is the most obvious choice, since it is the most important story in both characters' history. On the other hand, I can see why referencing the sexual assault of the lead character in a book thats intended to be fun and upbeat isn't the best idea. And with misogyny in comics being such a hot topic lately it didn't make much sense. Wrong cover for the wrong book at the wrong time. I don't buy variants so this was never on my radar but I wouldn't buy it as a poster and stick it on my wall because it is a disturbing image. I think a lot of the negative reaction to the change is a kneejerk reaction that doesn't consider the actual reasons for it. As far as Batman fans being sociopaths, you're looking way too far into it. The Joker is a cool villain and people like cool villains and people like it when cool villains do really bad things. Everybody cheers for Hannibal Lecter when he murders and mutilates cops and paramedics. I think a lot of these controversies come from people's inability to come to terms with the simple fact that men and women are not the same. There is a double standard and it's a perfectly valid one because like it or not a woman in skintight clothing doesn't garner the same reaction as a man in skintight clothing. And sexual assault is a much more real threat for a woman than it is a man. I'd like to see the same idea done with Joker and Jason Todd with a crowbar instead of the gun. I wonder how that would play out. And I've gotta say, I don't like your implication that right wingers are the bad guys in this. Although I do think that in the post-DKR world Batman comes off as a much more right wing character as opposed to Superman who right at the very beginning was a radical leftist. Also, the Spider-Woman issue wasn't because "outraged feminists couldn't get their bodies into the same position". It was because no one could unless they were a contortionist who was butt-naked and spray painted red (because even spandex wouldn't allow a butt to do that). It took the usual male-fantasy-fulfillment to ridiculous levels.
Spandex can't do this either:  Comic book characters have impossible costumes and have impossible bodies. This is a given and it's been well accepted for decades. Reject the cover for the idea behind it (which is clearly tittilation) but don't act like people come to superheroes for realistic anatomy and cloth dynamics. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Mar 17, 2015 15:09:14 GMT -5
I thought the cover was pulled at the request of the artist? Granted, he asked for it to be pulled in response to the backlash, but still I think it's overstating things to call this censorship. The purveyors of the product released the image, the potential responded unfavorably (to say the least), and the purveyors decided not to release it. Is that censorship? To me, censorship implies a restriction that is imposed by an outside entity. I have read The Killing Joke, but I don't think I would have necessarily gotten that reference from the cover. From what I recall from the story, Joker's assault upon Barbara Gordon was performed while she was at home in civilian garb, not in her Batgirl persona. Apart from that reference, the only way I would have parsed this cover is 1) it has Joker on it because it's his 75th anniversary, and 2) it's a Batgirl book so she should be on the cover as well. Now I suppose a rather obvious question that could be asked is, "Why not have the cover show something more in line with the spirit of the book, like Batgirl beating up the Joker in a cartoonish fashion?" I think what makes this cover disturbing is that it shows *Batgirl*, not Barbara Gordon, being terrorized by Joker. Part of the appeal of female superheroes is that they defy the stereotype of being damsels in distress who need a man to save them, and that women are strong and capable too. Showing Joker in the midst of violating Batgirl basically tears down that whole edifice and reduces the female superhero to another victim. I guess I'm saying pretty much the same as badwolf above to DE. But if there had been no backlash would the artist have asked for it to be pulled? And because there was backlash from whatever amount of people or for whatever reason, isn't that them censoring someone else by their opinion of it? I will admit that obviously DC pulled it from publication on their own, no one "forced" them to. But they were defiantly coursed into doing it by the negative backlash. And if there had been no negative backlash, had there been fan posting "F___ yeah I want that!" and distributors were place massive preorders for their customers, DC would have went through with it, cause they are in a business to make money. It was only their fear of negative publicity from the people that were vocal that stopped them. |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Mar 17, 2015 15:28:38 GMT -5
And I've gotta say, I don't like your implication that right wingers are the bad guys in this. Although I do think that in the post-DKR world Batman comes off as a much more right wing character as opposed to Superman who right at the very beginning was a radical leftist. To be clear, I brought this up specifically because of interactions I am having about this cover on a different forum. There are maybe 20 or so posters over there defending the cover, and over the course of the conversation, it has become very clear that almost all of them are right wingers. The stuff I had in quotes in my original post - blaming this controversy on the media, on the "PC Police," on "radical feminists," on what they derisively call "social justice warriors," people implying that those against the cover are hypocrites that support ISIS, calling people against the cover "whiny gestapo," claiming that DC's decision to pull the cover proves America has become "a nation of wimps," comparing DC's decision to the Charlie Hebdo attacks - these are all actual comments from people defending the cover, just in the one thread I am participating in. Yes, it's a very small sample size, but it honestly made me wonder if in this post-DKR world, those types of people are more likely to be drawn to Batman than to other characters. I think it's a valid and interesting question. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 17, 2015 15:29:12 GMT -5
I thought the cover was pulled at the request of the artist? Granted, he asked for it to be pulled in response to the backlash, but still I think it's overstating things to call this censorship. The purveyors of the product released the image, the potential responded unfavorably (to say the least), and the purveyors decided not to release it. Is that censorship? To me, censorship implies a restriction that is imposed by an outside entity. I have read The Killing Joke, but I don't think I would have necessarily gotten that reference from the cover. From what I recall from the story, Joker's assault upon Barbara Gordon was performed while she was at home in civilian garb, not in her Batgirl persona. Apart from that reference, the only way I would have parsed this cover is 1) it has Joker on it because it's his 75th anniversary, and 2) it's a Batgirl book so she should be on the cover as well. Now I suppose a rather obvious question that could be asked is, "Why not have the cover show something more in line with the spirit of the book, like Batgirl beating up the Joker in a cartoonish fashion?" I think what makes this cover disturbing is that it shows *Batgirl*, not Barbara Gordon, being terrorized by Joker. Part of the appeal of female superheroes is that they defy the stereotype of being damsels in distress who need a man to save them, and that women are strong and capable too. Showing Joker in the midst of violating Batgirl basically tears down that whole edifice and reduces the female superhero to another victim. I guess I'm saying pretty much the same as badwolf above to DE. But if there had been no backlash would the artist have asked for it to be pulled? And because there was backlash from whatever amount of people or for whatever reason, isn't that them censoring someone else by their opinion of it? I will admit that obviously DC pulled it from publication on their own, no one "forced" them to. But they were defiantly coursed into doing it by the negative backlash. And if there had been no negative backlash, had there been fan posting "F___ yeah I want that!" and distributors were place massive preorders for their customers, DC would have went through with it, cause they are in a business to make money. It was only their fear of negative publicity from the people that were vocal that stopped them. That's kind of my point too. It's not about artistry, it's not about censorship, it's about money. DC made the determination that what was supposed to be a positive to sales became a negative. If people would have reacted positively to the cover and DC would have made a boatload of money from it, they would have gone through with it. And technically I would disagree that it was fear of negative publicity, because they already had the negative publicity. It was already a reality. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 17, 2015 15:41:15 GMT -5
I'm pretty neutral as far as the controversy goes. On one hand, I think it's a pretty fantastic piece. It has nothing to do with me supporting the Joker and hating Batgirl or being a misogynist or a sociopath, it has everything to do with the quality of the image. It's a very good drawing that implies a lot of nasty things without actually showing it. I also think that if you're doing linewide Joker variants and one of those variants is going to be on Batgirl referencing the Killing Joke is the most obvious choice, since it is the most important story in both characters' history. On the other hand, I can see why referencing the sexual assault of the lead character in a book thats intended to be fun and upbeat isn't the best idea. And with misogyny in comics being such a hot topic lately it didn't make much sense. Wrong cover for the wrong book at the wrong time. I don't buy variants so this was never on my radar but I wouldn't buy it as a poster and stick it on my wall because it is a disturbing image. I think a lot of the negative reaction to the change is a kneejerk reaction that doesn't consider the actual reasons for it. As far as Batman fans being sociopaths, you're looking way too far into it. The Joker is a cool villain and people like cool villains and people like it when cool villains do really bad things. Everybody cheers for Hannibal Lecter when he murders and mutilates cops and paramedics. I think a lot of these controversies come from people's inability to come to terms with the simple fact that men and women are not the same. There is a double standard and it's a perfectly valid one because like it or not a woman in skintight clothing doesn't garner the same reaction as a man in skintight clothing. And sexual assault is a much more real threat for a woman than it is a man. I'd like to see the same idea done with Joker and Jason Todd with a crowbar instead of the gun. I wonder how that would play out. And I've gotta say, I don't like your implication that right wingers are the bad guys in this. Although I do think that in the post-DKR world Batman comes off as a much more right wing character as opposed to Superman who right at the very beginning was a radical leftist. Also, the Spider-Woman issue wasn't because "outraged feminists couldn't get their bodies into the same position". It was because no one could unless they were a contortionist who was butt-naked and spray painted red (because even spandex wouldn't allow a butt to do that). It took the usual male-fantasy-fulfillment to ridiculous levels.
Spandex can't do this either: Comic book characters have impossible costumes and have impossible bodies. This is a given and it's been well accepted for decades. Reject the cover for the idea behind it (which is clearly tittilation) but don't act like people come to superheroes for realistic anatomy and cloth dynamics. I certainly wasn't suggesting that "people come to superheroes for realistic anatomy and cloth dynamics" and I'm pretty sure that's obvious. We are in full agreement that the whole point behind the cover was titillation, as I thought would be clear from the mention of the "usual male-fantasy-fulfillment". For the record, I think the Spider-Man cover you show is also poorly done, but I'm not the right person to ask if it comes off as titillating.
In answer to your Jason Todd scenario: I would say that had the Joker stripped him naked to degrade him, sent pictures to his parents, and possibly sexually assaulted him, and the hypothetical cover used on a fun, lighthearted series starring Jason Todd, then I think there would have been some outcry against that too. At least I'd like to think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 17, 2015 15:44:12 GMT -5
In answer to your Jason Todd scenario: I would say that had the Joker stripped him naked to degrade him, sent pictures to his parents, and possibly sexually assaulted him, and the hypothetical cover used on a fun, lighthearted series starring Jason Todd, then I think there would have been some outcry against that too. At least I'd like to think so.
Ok, what if he was standing over Jim Gordon with a leash? |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 17, 2015 15:46:41 GMT -5
In answer to your Jason Todd scenario: I would say that had the Joker stripped him naked to degrade him, sent pictures to his parents, and possibly sexually assaulted him, and the hypothetical cover used on a fun, lighthearted series starring Jason Todd, then I think there would have been some outcry against that too. At least I'd like to think so.
Ok, what if he was standing over Jim Gordon with a leash? Depends, I suppose, if Jim Gordon was consenting. After all, I don't know what he's into. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 17, 2015 15:55:06 GMT -5
Ok, what if he was standing over Jim Gordon with a leash? Depends, I suppose, if Jim Gordon was consenting. After all, I don't know what he's into. Yeah, and maybe Babs loved it too.  |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 17, 2015 15:58:26 GMT -5
Depends, I suppose, if Jim Gordon was consenting. After all, I don't know what he's into. Yeah, and maybe Babs loved it too. Based on the aftermath, I'm going to go with "no". |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 17, 2015 16:00:51 GMT -5
And there we have our double standard: it's okay to make light of a man's experience, but not a woman's.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Mar 17, 2015 16:04:47 GMT -5
I guess I'm saying pretty much the same as badwolf above to DE. But if there had been no backlash would the artist have asked for it to be pulled? And because there was backlash from whatever amount of people or for whatever reason, isn't that them censoring someone else by their opinion of it? I will admit that obviously DC pulled it from publication on their own, no one "forced" them to. But they were defiantly coursed into doing it by the negative backlash. And if there had been no negative backlash, had there been fan posting "F___ yeah I want that!" and distributors were place massive preorders for their customers, DC would have went through with it, cause they are in a business to make money. It was only their fear of negative publicity from the people that were vocal that stopped them. That's kind of my point too. It's not about artistry, it's not about censorship, it's about money. DC made the determination that what was supposed to be a positive to sales became a negative. If people would have reacted positively to the cover and DC would have made a boatload of money from it, they would have gone through with it. And technically I would disagree that it was fear of negative publicity, because they already had the negative publicity. It was already a reality.Not arguing here, just wanting to understand what you mean. How was there already negative publicity before the picture was released through whatever public venue it was? |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 17, 2015 16:12:11 GMT -5
And there we have our double standard: it's okay to make light of a man's experience, but not a woman's. Not quite. As I stated, "based on the aftermath", it was shown pretty clearly she didn't "love" it. Your, I presume, joke about Jim Gordon never happened so there was no aftermath to gauge it by. So no double standard in what I said, just "was shown how she felt" and "wasn't shown how he would have felt". |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 17, 2015 16:14:55 GMT -5
That's kind of my point too. It's not about artistry, it's not about censorship, it's about money. DC made the determination that what was supposed to be a positive to sales became a negative. If people would have reacted positively to the cover and DC would have made a boatload of money from it, they would have gone through with it. And technically I would disagree that it was fear of negative publicity, because they already had the negative publicity. It was already a reality.Not arguing here, just wanting to understand what you mean. How was there already negative publicity before the picture was released through whatever public venue it was? Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant was by the time the decision was made to pull the cover they already had the negative publicity. They didn't pull it because of fear of negative publicity, they pulled it because they already had it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 17, 2015 16:15:32 GMT -5
To answer your question:
Many Batman fans who are also men's rights activists are sociopaths because they are men's rights activists.
And I've learned not to take people seriously if their knee-jerk response to controversy is to blame everything on "PC police" or "radical feminists." After all, it's not unknown for right-wing ding-dongs to get upset over something a "liberal" said, but no one calls it political correctness when they have to bend over backwards to appease right-wing ding-dongs.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 17, 2015 16:17:53 GMT -5
And there we have our double standard: it's okay to make light of a man's experience, but not a woman's. Not quite. As I stated, "based on the aftermath", it was shown pretty clearly she didn't "love" it. Your, I presume, joke about Jim Gordon never happened so there was no aftermath to gauge it by. So no double standard in what I said, just "was shown how she felt" and "wasn't shown how he would have felt". Maybe you should read the original story. |
|
Spandex can't do this either:
