|
Rhyno posted:Well it appears that she doesn't even have the real Joker face sewn into her own Where's that? Joker has the the thing in Endgame, but that's post-Eternal. Granted, I haven't had the pleasure of reading every Joker's Daughter featured comic.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
Skwirl posted:You shut your god damned mouth. Oh I know let's make the most useless loving character ever into a god damned VAMPIRE, the fans will surely love her now!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
I'd love Jubes if it weren't for her racist powers. She's better without them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Those work great sequentially, but the whole point of superhero comics is that they triumph over fears and low points. The original depicted that low point, just like Knightfall did with the iconic back-breaker. It makes their triumph mean something in the end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Except the part where in the original she's in her current threads and clearly helpless, so it does not depict a low point which is subsequently triumphed over - it references a famous low point that was triumphed over but does so in a way that inadvertently suggests that actually nothing has changed for her and she's still the victim not the victor of it. Yeah, it would be a terrible main cover but I really don't see the issue with is being a variant, they rarely have anything to do with the story line and are often wacky or dark or generally off-tone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I really don't see the issue with is being a variant The authors don't want it on their book, for one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Except the part where in the original she's in her current threads and clearly helpless, so it does not depict a low point which is subsequently triumphed over - it references a famous low point that was triumphed over but does so in a way that inadvertently suggests that actually nothing has changed for her and she's still the victim not the victor of it. This is it in a nutshell. A year ago this cover wouldn't have been a big deal because Gail Simone's Batgirl was a worthless, whiny wast of a character. VVV CharlestheHammer posted:Plus variants are usually like right next to the regular covers so it there isn't an practical difference between in being a variant or not. This is also correct. drat near every shop I know of shelves the 50/50's either beside the standard or alternating with them on a stack. Rhyno fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Plus variants are usually like right next to the regular covers so it there isn't an practical difference between in being a variant or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Yeah, it would be a terrible main cover but I really don't see the issue with is being a variant, they rarely have anything to do with the story line and are often wacky or dark or generally off-tone. The issue with the variant, is that some people expressed displeasure with it, and those critics received death threats, so the artist asked for it to be pulled. Also this: Teenage Fansub posted:The authors don't want it on their book, for one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
I guess I just really take issue with changing/censoring/removing art because some people find it offensive. That's just a core issue I can never agree with, regardless of the dumb drama on both sides of this issue. I'm more mad that the artist didn't stand by his work than anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
This isn't censorship, its the free market at work bitch. Also I don't understand why you got to stand by your work no matter what, that is just dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I guess I just really take issue with changing/censoring/removing art because some people find it offensive. If you're so wound up over artistic integrity, consider that the author had it forced on the book without their knowlege and against their will, the artist who actually did the cover was told to change it to make it more rapey while it was being made, and the artist wanted it canceled primarily because of the behavior of the people who were defending it rather then the people calling for it to be changed. CharlestheHammer posted:Also I don't understand why you got to stand by your work no matter what, that is just dumb. People can never change their mind or be brought around to another point of view, they must always die with the ship. Obviously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I guess I just really take issue with changing/censoring/removing art because some people find it offensive. That's just a core issue I can never agree with, regardless of the dumb drama on both sides of this issue. I'm more mad that the artist didn't stand by his work than anything. It's not a form a censorship to threaten art critics with death? I seriously don't think you know what censorship actually means.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Remember when they canceled Nextwave because it didn't make any financial sense to publish further issues of the series? CENSORSHIP PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Giving Spider-Gwen an ongoing series was a rare example of reverse censorship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
I think protesting a company to change a piece of art is a form of censorship, yes. I don't give a drat about the outlandish threats and attacks Tumblr and Twitter users make on both sides, if you click the various hashtags you'll see threats coming from all sides towards DC, artists, critics, and defenders. It's a total shitstorm and no side is righteous do-gooders through and through. All I care about at the end of the day is that a lot of protesting led to a company and artist deciding to not release a piece of art they had up to that point been ready to publish. I don't like that trend, and as another artist said on Twitter, "The Killing Joke couldn't be published today. If this is progress, why does it feel like we're going backwards?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Pretty sure Rafael still got paid for his work so at the end of the day he's the victor in all this. It's not like he didn't get to draw the art he wanted or that he's forever banned from making art in the future. Nothing was lost here. Batgirl will continue, people will still be making variant covers, and maybe editor's will do their job before soliciting material (lol!). Bottom Liner posted:I think protesting a company to change a piece of art is a form of censorship, yes. I don't give a drat about the outlandish threats and attacks Tumblr and Twitter users make on both sides, if you click the various hashtags you'll see threats coming from all sides towards DC, artists, critics, and defenders. It's a total shitstorm and no side is righteous do-gooders through and through. I guess it's a good thing they haven't stopped publishing it in 27 years. They'll probably release a super mega deluxo release for its 30th. al-azad fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
If there's one thing DC and Marvel has learned to weather by now, it's fan outrage. As long as Dan Slott keeps writing Spider-Man, I won't understand how someone could believe that the evil Twitter mobs forced poor, helpless DC to pull the cover.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
The biggest irony of all is that a lot more people were exposed to such a "triggering" image than would have been if the drat thing had just been released normally anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I think protesting a company to change a piece of art is a form of censorship, yes. Bottom Liner posted:I don't give a drat about the outlandish threats and attacks Tumblr and Twitter users make on both sides, if you click the various hashtags you'll see threats coming from all sides towards DC, artists, critics, and defenders. It's a total shitstorm and no side is righteous do-gooders through and through. Bottom Liner posted:All I care about at the end of the day is that a lot of protesting led to a company and artist deciding to not release a piece of art they had up to that point been ready to publish. I don't like that trend, and as another artist said on Twitter, "The Killing Joke couldn't be published today. If this is progress, why does it feel like we're going backwards?" CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I think protesting a company to change a piece of art is a form of censorship, yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
I think you will find its only free speech when it supports my side sir.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:"The Killing Joke couldn't be published today. If this is progress, why does it feel like we're going backwards?" There are definitely no comics with rape published today. Yup. That sure is a true statement. Bottom Liner posted:The biggest irony of all is that a lot more people were exposed to such a "triggering" image than would have been if the drat thing had just been released normally anyways. You might be the worst goon ever, and that's including the murderers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:The biggest irony of all is that a lot more people were exposed to such a "triggering" image than would have been if the drat thing had just been released normally anyways. "Both sides of this argument are wrong but I'm going to rather unsubtly imply that one side is demonstrably at fault contra the actual, stated rationale for this decision."
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
SomeMathGuy posted:"Both sides of this argument are wrong but I'm going to subtly imply that one side is demonstrably at fault contra the actual, stated rationale for this decision." It was pulled because people were threatening the protesters, but it's still the protester's fault!...Somehow. Censorship! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:The biggest irony of all is that a lot more people were exposed to such a "triggering" image than would have been if the drat thing had just been released normally anyways. It was never about the image being "triggering." It was entirely about it being tonally terrible. Hell, even CNN covered it and every tweet against it amounts to "this is not appropriate for the story." That's not to say there aren't arguments about the cover's sexual nature but from the start people were calling it out for being a bad decision. It' even stands out against the other 14 super playful Joker covers. It would've been a better idea if it was Joker splayed out on the floor reminiscent of The Killing Joke but Barbara is taking a selfie. Someone give me $500 for that idea I'll even draw it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Really? I think it's the public exercising free speech. CharlestheHammer posted:And I believe the sky is orange, doesn't make it true censor noun 1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. So yeah, protesting for censorship is a form of censorship, what else would you call it? And I didn't say both sides are wrong, I said both sides have people acting like poo poo heads, which is obvious if you scroll through any of those feeds. I can see why the cover is a bad fit for the book, but I also don't think it should have been dropped. I'm neutral on the actual cover, but the principal of how and why it was dropped is what bothers me. If you don't like something, don't buy it. Boycott it, don't call for censoring and suppressing art. Leave that to the loving terrorists who can't handle offensive images without murdering people. Also, the whole "the artist decided to not release it because he didn't like the way the fans of it acted" is a bad move on his part too. It's the same as the Fez dev saying "gently caress you" to his fans and cancelling the game, all because he didn't like the vocal ones on the internet. Taking your ball and going home is weak.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:You might be the worst goon ever, and that's including the murderers. Wait, we have those?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Wait, we have those? At least one or two, I'm pretty sure. I know one was banned afterwards with just like, "Murderer" for the reason and it was completely serious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:censor Bottom Liner posted:And I didn't say both sides are wrong, I said both sides have people acting like poo poo heads, which is obvious if you scroll through any of those feeds. I can see why the cover is a bad fit for the book, but I also don't think it should have been dropped. I'm neutral on the actual cover, but the principal of how and why it was dropped is what bothers me. If you don't like something, don't buy it. Boycott it, don't call for censoring and suppressing art. Leave that to the loving terrorists who can't handle offensive images without murdering people. Bottom Liner posted:Also, the whole "the artist decided to not release it because he didn't like the way the fans of it acted" is a bad move on his part too. It's the same as the Fez dev saying "gently caress you" to his fans and cancelling the game, all because he didn't like the vocal ones on the internet. Taking your ball and going home is weak.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:lol you why post the definition if you are just going to ignore half of it? Look at that first half carefully. DC is the official in control, with the protesters demanding it be suppressed for objectionable material. Big leap, I know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:The biggest irony of all is that a lot more people were exposed to such a "triggering" image than would have been if the drat thing had just been released normally anyways. Bottom Liner posted:Boycott it, don't call for censoring and suppressing art. boycott /ˈbɔɪkɒt/ verb 1. (transitive) to refuse to have dealings with (a person, organization, etc) or refuse to buy (a product) as a protest or means of coercion: to boycott foreign produce
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:censor quote:the principal of how and why it was dropped is what bothers me. If you don't like something, don't buy it. Boycott it, don't call for censoring and suppressing art. If you talked about it you'd be suppressing free speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:DC is the official in control, with the protesters demanding it be suppressed for objectionable material. Big leap, I know. That is a huge leap and basically makes any disagreement where one side concedes censorship. Rendering the term meaningless. Though at this point it basically is meaningless, especially in the US. This is some French Revolution committee of public safety thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
They can talk about why they don't like it all day, of course. The problem I have is when they make it so that no one can consume the media they find offensive. That's a bad path that will lead to nothing good being produced because all of the companies will be too scared of publishing anything offensive to any group. I clearly meant boycott as in don't purchase, as I said. Vote with your wallet. Chill with the mental gymnastics. That's why I said changed/censored/removed in my initial post, because whatever you call it, it's a slippery slope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
I have to wonder how a government would be run if Dan DiDio was in charge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
It's certainly a slippery sloper fallacy, if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Like take this panel And have Joker on the Floor and Batgirl taking the picture. Boom, you have cover that pays homage to your fans' nostalgia that also fits the tone of the book GIVE ME MONEY DC MY IDEAS ARE BETTER THAN YOURS Bottom Liner posted:And I didn't say both sides are wrong, I said both sides have people acting like poo poo heads, which is obvious if you scroll through any of those feeds. I can see why the cover is a bad fit for the book, but I also don't think it should have been dropped. I'm neutral on the actual cover, but the principal of how and why it was dropped is what bothers me. If you don't like something, don't buy it. Boycott it, don't call for censoring and suppressing art. Leave that to the loving terrorists who can't handle offensive images without murdering people. Ah oh god I just drew this tentacle porn variant for Adventure Time but I can't erase it or I'll be censoring myself! Also "voting with your wallet" is the most flawed argument ever. If no one bought the variant cover then Rafael would suffer. DC would perceive the lack of interest is the result of the artist, not their marketing. Being vocal is how you tell companies you don't like something. Like imagine if there was no uproar over the Xbox One's announcement and nobody bought the thing, how many thousands of people would lose their job as a result if Microsoft didn't have a chance to fix the perceived problems? "This meal is lovely. Better not tell the chef, he'll get it when I stop eating here."
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
goldenoreos posted:I have to wonder how a government would be run if Dan DiDio was in charge. Restaurants wouldn't be allowed to sell chicken wings after 6 pm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
Will somebody think of the poor multinational corporation's right to artistic expression! Just think of the important message communicated by the banned cover of Batgirl, such as women are inferior to men and deserve to be crushed and brutalized with sexual violence. We need more multinational companies expressing these important and necessary sociopolitical messages because and etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
I feel like not enough attention is brought to the fact you not only don't know what censorship is, but boycott either. because lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:18
|
|