|
BottledBodhisvata posted:Art that upsets you doesn't have to be discarded because it upsets you No, but you're perfectly free to criticize it. If the artist decides that the criticism are valid enough to discard the artwork then the criticism apparently hit home. If anyone argued that it should be censored and DC comics should be legally prevented from publishing it then I'd disagree with that poo poo 100% of the time. However that doesn't shield it from criticism. What would fans do if DC hadn't changed the book? Boycott and refused to buy it? Tell other people not to buy it? How is that not an acceptable response to a company doing something you dislike? ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Mar 17, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:There's also the cover for the third part of Death in the Family, showing Jason's corpse. That's a stand alone piece of art created in response to a controversial cover. It's not an official cover for a light hearted, teen-oriented book. Also, Doomsday didn't take naked pictures of Superman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:03
|
|
CaligulaKangaroo posted:That's a stand alone piece of art created in response to a controversial cover. It's not an official cover for a light hearted, teen-oriented book. To be fair to DT, I think he just posted it because it related to the conversation, not to make a point.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:The author of The Killing Joke doesn't even like The Killing Joke, you jackass. Alan Moore is a crusty sod who hates everything he's ever done, that doesn't make his work any less engaging or thought provoking. I and a lot of people like the Killing Joke and it is considered an unshakable volume in the mythos of Batman, so sorry if that makes me a jackass. ImpAtom posted:No, but you're perfectly free to criticize it. If the artist decides that the criticism are valid enough to discard the artwork then the criticism apparently hit home. I agree, and I have not once defended the people levying death threats at the people who criticize the work. I am only saying that those criticisms seem largely shallow and knee-jerk and stem from some weird notion that while all other kinds of violence and depravity are fine, sexual violence can only be handled with kid gloves, and is somehow worse than the aforementioned murders, tortures, imprisonments and so on. In truth, they are all awful and traumatic. Batman's entire origin story is based upon trauma, and the new Batgirl seemed to take inspiration from that. Having your parents murdered in front of your eyes is pretty hosed up too. I also think the artist and DC are backpedaling to save face and would have applauded them more for either standing by the variant or deciding to release it as a separate art piece rather than a cover. Instead, they'll just shelf it, and I see absolutely no good coming from that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
I don't think the alternate cover meshes with the lighter tone that the Batgirl comic presents, so the people who made it are in the right when they say the publisher shouldn't have offered it because it severely missed the point of the comic. Dunno why everyone is making GBS threads themselves over rape or molestation or even that stupid video game twitter war or whatever, though, it's just a dumb loving drawing.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:I am only saying that those criticisms seem largely shallow and knee-jerk and stem from some weird notion that while all other kinds of violence and depravity are fine, sexual violence can only be handled with kid gloves, and is somehow worse than the aforementioned murders, tortures, imprisonments and so on. In truth, they are all awful and traumatic. This is absolutely true. I would say that by and large however that sexual violence is a lot more likely to be personally upsetting to someone and thus a lot more likely to earn a strong response from them. That said,. I do think DC comic underplays the horror of murder, torture and so-on, which is why we have Joker having a body count of the tens of thousand and carving his own face off. I'd absolutely be in favor of treating it less like a meaningless thing to fill pages. I'd honestly be pretty uncomfortable if this was a Batgirl cover featuring Black Mask, Stephanie Brown and a power drill instead of a gun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:To be fair to DT, I think he just posted it because it related to the conversation, not to make a point. gently caress DT, he tried to once again turn it into a conversation about Jason Todd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
At least Jason Todd is a DC comics character, which DT is not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Jason Todd is also most famous for a disasterous run in with the Joker, so it's relevent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
You had 20 pages of multi-paragraph Very Serious posts in the gamergate thread, all of your opinions are bad and filtered through mental illness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:18
|
|
Rhyno posted:gently caress DT, he tried to once again turn it into a conversation about Jason Todd. I don't think DT can help how strongly he feels about Jason Todd.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
YES bread posted:filtered through mental illness. Dude, don't go there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:Art that upsets you doesn't have to be discarded because it upsets you. If DC had done this poo poo with a variant cover showing a gay couple kissing, you'd consider that absolutely unacceptable, even if people's reasoning for it was the same: it made them uncomfortable. So being gay is equatable to sexual assault?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
^^^^-- Not even dignifying this with an actual response. ImpAtom posted:This is absolutely true. I would say that by and large however that sexual violence is a lot more likely to be personally upsetting to someone and thus a lot more likely to earn a strong response from them. That said,. I do think DC comic underplays the horror of murder, torture and so-on, which is why we have Joker having a body count of the tens of thousand and carves his face off. I'd absolutely be in favor of treating it less like a meaningless thing to fill pages. I'd honestly be pretty uncomfortable if this was a Batgirl cover featuring Black Mask, Stephanie Brown and a power drill instead of a gun. It's certainly a disturbing image, which I suspect is the point. It'd be a great cover on any random Bat-story, even if not really fitting for whatever this current crop is (again, I stopped reading after Gail Simone stepped down). It is sort of insulting that some people seem to be of the opinion that women and young girls can't handle content in their comics that isn't light-hearted or whatever people apply to this current Batgirl run. Barbara has always been a more emotional Bat-Family member than Bruce was, and I think that emotion is visible in that cover, which makes it a doubly good cover for Batgirl, capturing that essence as well as the gravity of the situation. In truth, it just makes me wish this wasn't a variant cover, and instead the issue was actually dealing with Batgirl confronting Joker and the demons from that period of her life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Why would I consider gay people kissing unacceptable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:^^^^-- Not even dignifying this with an actual response. You are acting like it was some magical third party that wanted to stop the audience of this book from seeing it rather than the audience itself not wanting it. Go read the Killing Joke if you want that so much and accept that you are not the target audience for this book any more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Here DT and BB, sign this: https://www.change.org/p/dc-comics-print-joker-batgirl-variant-cover?just_created=true
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:You are acting like it was some magical third party that wanted to stop the audience of this book from seeing it rather than the audience itself not wanting it. Go read the Killing Joke if you want that so much and accept that you are not the target audience for this book any more. The writer of the comic didn't think it was appropriate, but what the gently caress does he know am I right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:You are acting like it was some magical third party that wanted to stop the audience of this book from seeing it rather than the audience itself not wanting it. Go read the Killing Joke if you want that so much and accept that you are not the target audience for this book any more. You're acting like the audience of this book is a hive mind that seems to all have the same opinion on the variant. My point is, DC showed remarkably little backbone in this regard and caved immediately to the first sniffs of controversy, and it seems a shame to waste a really good cover on such shallow criticisms. I have no dog in this race beyond caring about what DC does in general, I've been out of the comic loop for a few months now. I stopped reading Batgirl not long before Gail Simone left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:It is sort of insulting that some people seem to be of the opinion that women and young girls can't handle content in their comics that isn't light-hearted or whatever people apply to this current Batgirl run. I don't think anyone is saying that. However if someone is picking up a light-hearted book I don't think it's unfair to say they're probably not looking for something like that. The fact that Batgirl has a larger-than-average female audience doesn't mean that women aren't looking for darker stories or extreme content but that the audience of that book isn't and for whatever reason the demographic ends up with more ladies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:You're acting like the audience of this book is a hive mind that seems to all have the same opinion on the variant. My point is, DC showed remarkably little backbone in this regard and caved immediately to the first sniffs of controversy, and it seems a shame to waste a really good cover on such shallow criticisms. I have no dog in this race beyond caring about what DC does in general, I've been out of the comic loop for a few months now. I stopped reading Batgirl not long before Gail Simone left. It's a real shame lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:^^^^-- This is hardly the first case of sexual assault in comics, and that fact alone doesn't make this cover any more or less disturbing than any cover featuring Doomsday and Superman, Batman and Bane, or any number of villains beating heroes images that perpetuate comics. Sexual assault is awful, but so is murder, battery, torture, all of which have been depicted happening to male heroes and sparked no controversy. Oh look, another thread where BottledBodhisvata is so terribly terribly wrong about everything. You are bad and you should feel bad. You are 100% missing the point, and it seems clear that no amount of explaining will clarify it for you. Go rot with your GG friends over on the wrong side of history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Neo_Reloaded posted:Oh look, another thread where BottledBodhisvata is so terribly terribly wrong about everything. Well if you say so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Maybe I'm missing something since I avoid GG threads but I don't think BottledBodhisvata has said anything particularly wrong. At worst it just sounds like they're saying "I think this is a good cover and the fact that DC didn't stop this before it became clear and didn't stand their ground makes them look ineffectual and wishy-washy" which... isn't really inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Way better to free the character from the stigma of being an eternal victim. DC has done way too many stories exploiting psychological trauma, abuse, body mutilation, sexual assault - to the point that it became one of the prime subjects of mockery, especially when Geoff Johns tried to criticize the tendencies by revelling in them. In my opinion, DC writers are better off exercising their freedom of expression in more dignified and safe ways
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Why are people who like the cover acting like the art suddenly disappears? You can download it all over the place with all the press it's getting. It doesn't even have trade dress getting in the way of things if you love it so much!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Yeah DC is going to double dip and put out a poster to try and grab some of that sweet angry nerd money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:Why are people who like the cover acting like the art suddenly disappears? You can download it all over the place with all the press it's getting. It doesn't even have trade dress getting in the way of things if you love it so much! You can even have it as wallpaper! No seriously, someone actually made one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
SirDan3k posted:Yeah DC is going to double dip and put out a poster to try and grab some of that sweet angry nerd money. I would be shocked if they didn't, frankly. There's no way they're going to just waste the money they spent commissioning the drat thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
gently caress all of you
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:You're acting like the audience of this book is a hive mind that seems to all have the same opinion on the variant. My point is, DC showed remarkably little backbone in this regard and caved immediately to the first sniffs of controversy, and it seems a shame to waste a really good cover on such shallow criticisms. I have no dog in this race beyond caring about what DC does in general, I've been out of the comic loop for a few months now. I stopped reading Batgirl not long before Gail Simone left. This is what you just posted. "I think that DC should have ignored the audience and creators of the book and instead printed this cover to appease me."
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Jason Todd is also most famous for a disasterous run in with the Joker, so it's relevent. One was killed off by a fan vote. The other was an editorial choice. It's not relevant beyond DT wanting to twist the conversation to what he wants to talk about which is how loving awesome Red Hood & The Outlaws is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:One was killed off by a fan vote. The other was an editorial choice. It's not relevant beyond DT wanting to twist the conversation to what he wants to talk about which is how loving awesome Red Hood & The Outlaws is. I think you're exaggerating a bit. It's a loose connection but it wouldn't be out of place if anyone else said it. He likes Red Hood a lot, so he was the one that thought of that connection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:This is what you just posted. I actually said that DC should have listened to the criticism, but also not completely caved under the pressure. Appeasing me is laughable, as I don't intend to purchase the issue regardless of its cover. They went ahead and made something, and then pulled it back almost instantly at the first sight of umbrage, which struck me as a weak move, and not the first of its sort. You're putting a lot of stock in the creators' intentions, given that they made their statements following the controversy and, again, nobody at DC seemed to see any problem with the cover until it was unveiled. This reminds me of that Spidergirl cove fiasco, actually, pretty much wholesale. DC is well in their rights to pull the cover, and overall it seems everyone agrees it is too dark to fit the tone of the current story, but the reasoning behind it is weak and ultimately I think the move reflects poorly on DC overall, as they are unwilling to risk upsetting some of their audience in order to put forward a provocative cover. If popular opinion was the only deciding factor in publishing comics, I suspect that a lot of the greatest comics ever published would never have seen the light of day. Taking risks is a huge part of art, and DC has a history of taking risks and seeing them pay off well. If you didn't like the cover, that's perfectly fine, and you have voiced your criticisms, and I have similarly voiced mine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:I would be shocked if they didn't, frankly. There's no way they're going to just waste the money they spent commissioning the drat thing. Yeah, that one piece of art they commissioned and then didn't use is really going to hurt the bottom line, ouch. They totally don't have any other work they've commissioned and not used, this is the first time, for any reason, they haven't ended up using a piece of art they've paid for. It is certainly not a thing that happens from time to time for a wide variety of reasons and is an accounted for aspect of their business model. Also, they have respected the author's wishes, the artist's wishes, and, at the very least, a large component of the book's actual fanbase's wishes and cancelled the variant cover. In consistency with this action, they will now instead release a poster of it. Yes, these are real things that a logical person without any trace of disingenuity or ignorance or both would actually say aloud.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
AlmightyBob posted:Not surprisingly a lot of the people I saw on Twitter complaining about the cover being cancelled were GGers The hysterical thing is that GG is doing exactly what they claim tumblr folk do and are trying to co-opt a hobby they don't partake in, in order to warp it to their standard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:I think you're exaggerating a bit. It's a loose connection but it wouldn't be out of place if anyone else said it. He likes Red Hood a lot, so he was the one that thought of that connection. He also posted his idea three times trying to get people to discuss it. gently caress him and his stupid fixation on a poo poo character.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:You're putting a lot of stock in the creators' intentions, given that they made their statements following the controversy and, again, nobody at DC seemed to see any problem with the cover until it was unveiled. You mean the same creators who said they didn't know about the cover until it was released to the public didn't start commenting on how inappropriate they found it for their book until after they saw it? Huh. Funny how that works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:He also posted his idea three times trying to get people to discuss it. gently caress him and his stupid fixation on a poo poo character. Well, the argument was about having a male character on a situation of vulnerability comparable to that of Barbara on the Killing Joke and far as I know, Jason is the only character on DC's roster that could fit that profile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
first of all 'first sight'? Yeah I guess four or five days worth of people protesting it, multiple comic news outlets calling it out as tasteless and creepy, big time comic bloggers and youtubers pointing out how hosed up it is is 'first sight'. They reacted to a huge response that happened in less than a week, that made criticisms of stupid buttcrack spider woman look tame and small. Second of all, yes, batman has been hurt, broken, people have been tortured, murdered - none of these are portrayed in the same way that sexual assault and paralyzation was in the Killing Joke, besides like, two instances. There were never moments when batman saw a drill after dealing with torture and started flipping out and having PTSD flashbacks to being tortured. There were never moments where Bruce needed Alfred to help him sleep at night because he couldn't get it out of his head and couldn't trust himself. There's a difference between the Killing Joke for Batgirl and the many times Batman has been hurt because with Batgirl, that became her defining trait for a long time, and one she still wrestled with her fear of 20 years later. Not to mention Killing Joke came after many other times when Batgirl got made useless for Bruce to save, because it was in the era of 'women are useless'. Harkening back to 'defining moments' of editors going 'haha gently caress this bitch, women suck' on one of the few books that women enjoy sucks. And harkening back to a moment that made her vulnerable and traumatized her for years and years, with her sobbing? Yes, it's creepy. And yeah, I find the doomsday/superman cover posted earlier really loving creepy and rapey too, and that's even without the background of 'molested him' being a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:57
|
|
