|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Mar 17, 2015 21:05:28 GMT -5
To be clear, my problem with the cover is less about the image itself and more about the context. This is a variant cover. The Joker does not actually appear in Batgirl #41. As a result, the image of him threatening her - or dominating, more like, given that she is whimpering and crying and apparently entirely in his power - has no relation to the story in Batgirl #41. If this same image were on a new story, it would still bother me to a degree, but not nearly as much, because what happens in the story could explain it and give it a different context. But since this cover doesn't have anything to do with the issue it's appearing on, the only context for it is the events of The Killing Joke, which I think is obvious by the fact that The Joker is wearing his outfit from The Killing Joke. Also the artist said as much in his statement. Batgirl is basically in one scene in The Killing Joke, the one where she's shot, crippled, stripped naked and photographed. The only context for this cover is that it is explicitly referencing what Joker did to her in that story - and not just referencing, celebrating, as the whole point of Joker Month is to celebrate the character's 75th anniversary. The cover is well drawn. And perhaps in a different context, where it's attached to a new, different story, it wouldn't be a big deal. But it's a cover specifically exploiting and marketing the infamous degradation of a female character as a sales point. That I have a big problem with. That's one of those things I have a problem with regardless of what's actually on the cover. Variants for variants sake, completely disregarding the contents of the comic. With this I think you've hit on one of the big issues that people have with this cover. If this particular cover were the cover for a new printing of the Killing Joke, there probably would have been little to no uproar. But to reference the story where Batgirl was violently wounded, degraded, and maybe even raped as a cover on what is purporting to be a "lighthearted" series is seriously tone-deaf on DC's part.
Here's the cover: 
Yeah, I understand that. I am completely not surprised though. I mean, how long could DC possibly allow a lighthearted mainstream superhero story to exist in continuity with the rest of their output? To me is much like Marvel trying to market Spiderwoman to female readers who are tired of the status quo representation of females, and then immediately hiring Milo Manara to make a sexy variant cover for the series. They just don't care. They can't resist going back to old standards. And blood, guts, and women in refrigerators is definitely an old standard. This isn't DC forcing a lighthearted title to "fit" with the rest though, the actual story inside remains the same as it recently has, and indeed DC is branching out with several more titles in a similar vain to the current run of Batgirl and Gotham Acadamy. This is a variant commissioned by the merchandising division which the actual editors at DC apparently have no real contact with. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Mar 17, 2015 21:16:49 GMT -5
On a slightly seperate subject I'd like to direct EVERYONE to the rules of the road, and more specifically to article one, which states: At the moment I'm not going to go back and delete everything that was said previously because I think we are a community that can hold a level headed discussion about serious topics. So I implore you to go back and re-read what has been posted and realize that everybody's got a black eye here and move forward in a way that is in line with the level of decorum I know you're all capable of. From here on just start over, forget the grudges that may have been starting in the previous pages and endeavor to present the best version of yourself that you can. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 21:56:05 GMT -5
This is a variant commissioned by the merchandising division which the actual editors at DC apparently have no real contact with. Ah, I didn't realize the corporate aspect of Big Two comics were quite that ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Mar 17, 2015 21:57:47 GMT -5
On the topic at hand, I'm not a licensed psychologist or a psychiatrist so I'm no position to declare anyone a sociopath. However, I can say that many of the responses I have read elsewhere on why this cover should not have been removed tend to completely ignore or refuse to acknowledge how this work may impact others which can be troubling to read. On the other hand, in and of itself it's a very well composed piece(I myself love Rafael's work) so I don't think it's troubling at all to say that you like the cover and would buy it, as others have said many people enjoy movies like I spit on your grave(a film I find personally distasteful) without espousing distasteful views or committing heinous crimes.
As in many cases this seems like a case of not what is being said but rather how some are saying it. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "I love Rafael, and this is seriously one of the best pin ups I've seen him do, I really wish DC had put this out, I would have bought two!" but inappropriate to say," The liberal PC dirtbags have struck again!!!! This is a serious crime that DC is pulling this cover and anyone who says otherwise deserves to be put down like those other dirtbags who oppose freedom!"(that's sadly not hyperbole) and I think the difference between those two statements is obvious. I'd also like to say I'm proud that I've only seen responses similar to the former and not the latter here, which I think speaks to the quality of our community.
As for the subject of censorship I'm with those who have said that this was a specific commercial decision, not a fatwa against the portrayal of graphic violence. DC evidently believed that the negative backlash could harm sales rather than help them and so chose to go in a different direction for reasons of profit which as a business is perfectly understandable. This does not mean that all similar artistic expression is banned at DC as there are several other covers that have featured far more graphic violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Mar 17, 2015 22:00:57 GMT -5
This is a variant commissioned by the merchandising division which the actual editors at DC apparently have no real contact with. Ah, I didn't realize the corporate aspect of Big Two comics were quite that ridiculous. I had often speculated that it was so based on the differences in tone often seen, but it wasn't until this specific situation that I had seen it confirmed. I suppose it could just as easily be a way to distance themselves from the situation, "It wasn't us guys, we mean it! It was those skeevy corporate type guys!" but honestly it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were actually telling the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Mar 18, 2015 0:21:08 GMT -5
Fans arguing about comic book covers on the internet may often appear sociopathic. Most Batman fans are perfectly nice people. Some of my best friends are big Batfans. The internet is no measuring stick...
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 18, 2015 9:05:37 GMT -5
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. Well with so much sympathy for criminals and their criminal behaviour these days, to the point where agreeing with Darren Wilson or George Zimmerman's acquittal gets you branded with a big "R" scarlet letter, Batman is an opportunity for wish fulfillment for people who are disgusted by the climate of political correctness. This is especially true of his portrayal in The Dark Knight Returns, where he brutalizes criminals the liberal justice system is too soft on. But I don't think this has any connection to sociopathy or sadism, it's just a political viewpoint. Personally, as an aspiring comic book creator the current climate absolutely terrifies me. Just the other day Erik Larsen spoke out against what he saw as a lousy trend in character design and was lambasted and insulted for being a misogynist pornographer. Frank Miller spent years working on his response to the 9/11 attacks (a piece that is comics as art rather than commercial product) and before he even released it he was condemned. It's a very small industry and it is quite left leaning both in readership and creatives. Chuck Dixon said that other conservative creators have refrained from making their beliefs public simply because it could cost them their careers. If your opinions don't side completely with the left it can turn all of social media against you and ruin your life. Yes, there is a freedom of speech and freedom of the market but there is a witchhunt not just against conservatives but against anyone who carries a conservative viewpoint. And it's one thing to go after something said on Twitter or in an interview, it's another to target the art. DC and Marvel are corporations and I don't think the Batgirl or Manara cover is that big of a deal. The artists got paid but the companies weren't obligated to use it. Big deal. The problem is what it leads to, especially with creator owned material becoming an increasingly important component of a creator's career. If you come out with an Image series and the PC nuts and the SJWs and the feminists roll the social media tank up to your door what do you do? Social media has given people great power but unfortunately a lot of that power is being used by what I see as hysterical children whining about something as unimportant as being offended by words and images on a piece of paper. 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.
For some reason I think beating a child to death with a crowbar is worse tham crippling and sexually assaulting an adult. I find it hard to quantify which of two terrible things is worse, but I'll concede that dead is worse.
Revisiting your original scenario: if they used a similar cover with Jason Todd as a child, crying, in his Robin uniform, Joker posed over him in the same outfit he wore when he beat Jason to death, with a crowbar, and doing the exact same "drawing bloody Joker smile on his face with his finger" on a comic similarly themed to the new take on Batgirl, then I agree that there should be similar outcry.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 18, 2015 9:25:10 GMT -5
Are there legitimate areas where men have problems? Yes. Child custody is one of them. Do "men's rights movements" ever actually address those legitimate issues? Almost never. Seriously...when you hold nearly every high card and every trump card as a group, it's hard to take your "rights" concerns very seriously. The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant White Male oppression is just terrible. It saddens me that any time I hear of a group on TV or other media claiming to speak for men or for white people, they almost inevitably are hate-mongering nutjobs. I see that and I can't help but want to yell at them that they aren't speaking for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Mar 18, 2015 9:33:05 GMT -5
This is a variant commissioned by the merchandising division which the actual editors at DC apparently have no real contact with. Ah, I didn't realize the corporate aspect of Big Two comics were quite that ridiculous. It really is this bad, although it's not just the corporate aspect but also the lack of communication between the company and the artists. I had a great conversation a few years back at the Pittsburgh Comicon with Greg Horn about this very thing. Marvel put out a book a few years ago about Emma Frost (the White Queen), and they contacted Horn about doing the covers for the book. They told him what character it was about and left him to his own devices, with disastrous results at first. See, the book was about Emma as a teenager (late high school/early college) and the development of her powers, and it was ostensibly aimed at the female market. Horn, not being told the actual theme of the book, did the first seven covers as "overtly sexual adult Emma in white lingerie" mode, which was completely at odds with the interior content. As such, girls who were the target audience and might have been interested in the book had no idea it was about the younger character, and adults were disappointed that they were getting a WB/CW drama instead of cheesecake Emma kicking ass and taking no prisoners. As for this controversy, if you are marketing a book with a strong female lead character, it's probably best if you don't do a callback to her weakest and most-vulnerable moment, particularly one that degraded her and strongly suggested sexual assault. This was just stupid on DC's part, through and through, even if it's just a variant cover. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 18, 2015 13:36:01 GMT -5
Chuck Dixon said that other conservative creators have refrained from making their beliefs public simply because it could cost them their careers. Right. Of course. It is impossible that a conservative creator would have, say, a 10 year run on Batman, Nightwing and Robin. I'm not completely sure he doesn't have a point, but I can't disentangle the actual logic here from the political thing that seems especially (but not exclusively) true on the right where you pretend that you're a persecuted minority so you can whine about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 13:37:52 GMT -5
"Are Batman fans sociopaths?"
No. At least one hopes not.
Now, Punisher fans ...
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Mar 18, 2015 15:58:04 GMT -5
This whole debacle got me wondering why people weren't offended, but rather unceasingly praised, Ledger for his portrayal of Joker in Dark Knight, which Nolan seemed intent on the sadistic s__t version of Joker that's been popular since The Killing Joke. Granted, for me the movie was horrible, and I've only seen it once, so I don't remember if there was any particular violence from the Joker centered on a woman, hero or villain, but isn't sadistic violence, sadistic violence no matter the gender? Is that what is the consensus that this is different from?
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 18, 2015 16:08:00 GMT -5
This whole debacle got me wondering why people weren't offended, but rather unceasingly praised, Ledger for his portrayal of Joker in Dark Knight, which Nolan seemed intent on the sadistic s__t version of Joker that's been popular since The Killing Joke. Granted, for me the movie was horrible, and I've only seen it once, so I don't remember if there was any particular violence from the Joker centered on a woman, hero or villain, but isn't sadistic violence, sadistic violence no matter the gender? Is that what is the consensus that this is different from? The difference would seem to be that you have a comic that is read by, and presumably targeted at, teen and young women. And you have a cover that points to an incredibly violent event in the female characters history. It's the juxtaposition of the audience with the drawing that is causing a lot of the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 16:42:22 GMT -5
Chuck Dixon said that other conservative creators have refrained from making their beliefs public simply because it could cost them their careers. Right. Of course. It is impossible that a conservative creator would have, say, a 10 year run on Batman, Nightwing and Robin. I'm not completely sure he doesn't have a point, but I can't disentangle the actual logic here from the political thing that seems especially (but not exclusively) true on the right where you pretend that you're a persecuted minority so you can whine about it. If you can't make your beliefs public because it would make everybody hate you, your beliefs are wrong. This is why the Klan wears hoods. This is also why I can't stand Chuck Dixon. For making these people out to be victims, instead of the actual victims of their social and economic ideology, who he will gladly strip basic human rights from and then gloat about it online. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 18, 2015 18:00:04 GMT -5
I think WRONG beliefs (the Klan is a great example), are different from what Dixon is likely talking about. Say he's pro-life, pro-tax cuts, and pro-Iraq war. None of those are WRONG, but he's probably right that he would get hammered by a large percentage of left-leaning comic fans.
|
|
