|
Codependent Poster posted:Conner drew the cover. It's a visual gag. Getting upset by it is just looking to be mad. Conner isn't perfect. She was involved with that absolutely gross Before Watchman thing. That said, I don't think that's a preteen.
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:I thought people liked her's and Cooke's. I was looking forward to whenever that volume had a Comixology sale. Hers and Cookes has some really really weird gross things with the gay characters being pretty lovely stereotypes and the Silk Spectre is the one where they decided to reuse a rape scene as a 'cool' combat scene. It was overall genuinely really weird.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:There was a time when literally anybody could join the Justice League. I'd say at one point there were more incredibly lame people in the JL than cool ones. I remember when Morrison's JLA came out (1996 or something?) and it was a big deal that the actual most famous superheroes in the world were in it again. The JLI owned though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:I'm just saying that making snap judgments about someone based on their appearance is lovely. If a black guy comes in do you immediately point to Storm or something? Like oh, you look like this person so you must be looking for this book. I'm not saying recommending Batgirl makes you lovely, as it is an enjoyable book, but assuming that someone wants it just because they are a girl does. A retailer making assumptions that a new customer may want a specific book based off the demographics they experience at their store, offered in a polite and friendly manner? That monster.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
"Robin is crowd sourced" sounds kind of unnerving considering the mortality rate of Robins
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Remember when they literally called a character Ken Masters internally?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:What're the ones with Power Girl and Batman Beyond? Power Girl is the death of Superman of Earth-2/Golden Age Superman.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:You are clearly forgetting the epic story where Pa Kent has a heart attack, and in the afterlife meets his son being eaten by a demon. However Pa' hits the demon with a shovel, releasing it's hold on Clark for long enough for him to fight back. Clark later mentions to Lois that he remembers that exact thing happening so regardleess of how stupid or non-stupid it is it, it happened. (Pa Kent doesn't hit a demon with a shovel, he finds demons trying to drag Clark's soul to hell under the guise of Kryptonians and convinces Clark they're fakes.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:Googling Pa Kent Shovel and Demon turns up like two different pictures of him swinging a shovel. In one it's full on glowy cosmic weapon. So have you actually read the issue or are you just using google? The Shovel scene you're thinking of :  isn't from the Death and Return of Superman. It's from Man of Steel #6. The other one you're thinking of is:  but it isn't him 'killing a demon who was eating Superman' You even see him yelling about how it's a phony there. Scene B is a reference to Scene A. It isn't a 'glowing cosmic weapon' it is it being created out of thin air because Pa Kent is calling back to the time he did the same thing before in real life. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
ArmyOfMidgets posted:So his love for his son and past experiences allowed him to forge a pure creation shovel into purgatory to slay demons? No, he just hits the guy and the Superman does all the work. It isn't like Pa Kent went into hell armed with his magic shovel to slay demons.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:OK, someone email Gene Yang, I think we have the plot for his first arc. Sorry, Shovel Knight is already a game. I would accept a Pa Kent mod for it though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
redbackground posted:Man, that Gym/Jim joke absolutely does not work on the printed page, as written there. It's also kind of absurdly forced. "See, I named his buttcheeks, but in such a way that it can be mistaken for the class we're in!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Did anything remotely good come out of Identity Crisis? A single thing? Even the potentially good things like Ralph & Sue: Deadman Detectives didn't last.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Oh good. We're retreading the Killing Joke storyline. Again. Unless that's just a varient cover which has literally no connection to the plot in which case WTF DC.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
redbackground posted:It's just a variant cover--means nothing. That makes it significantly worse. "Hm, yes, I think what people want is a contextless cover of Batgirl sobbing and defeated by the Joker, intentionally mimicing the infamous story where she was abused and crippled. This is exactly what will appeal to the demographic who like this book."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
I think at the end of the day it's just another example of how absurdly tone-deaf DC is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Yeah, that's about the classiest way to handle that. Good on the artist and DC.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
I really doubt there were any serious threats. It's only mentioned in DC's blurb, not the author's, and is probably just a face-saving measuring. Edit: Also "threats of violence and harassment are wrong and have no place in comics or society." could be referring to the book itself, not threats they got. It's kind of weirdly worded and doesn't seem to be actually implying threats. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:It's really cool that GamerGate is full of death threat harassers, but that progressives on twitter are now too. If you show too much tits or too little you will be sent deaths the internet will explode at you. https://twitter.com/cameronMstewart/status/577656291839119362 It was the people complaining who were harassed, not the ones doing the harassment.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:Yeah someone pulled up tweets and that was a lie.  No. It was pulled at the artist's request. The artist says they were never threatened. The writer says that DC was referring to the threats against people complaining. You can probably find a tweet somewhere that says something stupid but that doesn't mean jack poo poo. You're in fact 100% full of poo poo on this subject. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:"The cover was not seen or approved by anyone on Team Batgirl and was completely at odds with what we are doing with the comic." What does that have to do with anything you said? I never said the author wanted it. That doesn't mean what they said isn't true. The artist says they were never threatened. The writer said that DC's comment was in response to threats made against people complaining about the cover. The actual written statement makes a lot more sense that way as well. NutritiousSnack posted:Artist who did the alternate cover.
ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:And none of what you wrote changes it either. He was extremely offended by the cover when it was brought up on twitter before DC or the artist made their decision. It's quite clear what loving happened. A hasthag war erupted and DC wanted none of it. What are you even talking about.  You are straight-up trying to claim that the author is lying about the statement made by DC comics about his book, despite the fact that the artist said they never were threatened so the claim that they were threatened could not, in fact, be true. NutritiousSnack posted:I'll link you a basic timeline of tweets before and during that. Are these actual meaningful tweets or "I found a bad thing somewhere!" Again, there is an official straight-up statement from the artist, the writer and the company involved. You are about as objectively wrong as it is possible to be. Literally the only way you're not wrong is a conspiracy theory that the author of the book is lying about a statement made by the company they are writing for. You are seriously sounding like a Gamergater right now. Edit: Also mysteriously your first and only posts in this thread are to whine about progressives with regards to this comic. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:The artist in his twitter feed is fending off idiots on twitter and is being told to die and various other things. NutritiousSnack posted:People where offended and those people got sent THREATS. NutritiousSnack posted:Saying it's because the artist was uncomfortable now because of being put in the middle of this is bad, because that opens the door for clowns to send more death threats and harass employees. So what you're saying is there is a giant conspiracy by everyone involved. Only you know the truth. That is why you rushed into this thread, which you never posted in before, in order to talk about progressives. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:but i'm an mra pua manchild and gamergator and I hate women, and I'm not laughing at this subforum and everyone in this for acting like children when exposed to something they didn't like. I can tell, what with you rushing into a subforum you don't even post in in order to discuss a comic book cover you clearly read about somewhere else, repeating arguments that someone else made. Truly it is us who are burned by your masterful genius.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
The Goon posted:Wait, what's going on? What is this cover gate stuff? Can someone tell me why the cover was pulled? The long and short of it is this: There was a Batgirl cover being made for Joker month which homaged The Killing Joke. If you're not aware, the Killing Joke is the story where Barbara Gordon was shot and crippled and then sexually assaulted (although probably not raped) by The Joker. The cover shows a crying Batgirl painted with a Joker smile being threatened by the Joker. The current Batgirl is effectively a soft reboot and is aimed at being a lighthearted book aimed towards a female audience. People took offense to the juxtaposition of the cover (which is a legitimately unnerving cover) with the current lighthearted feel of Batgirl and asked for the cover to be pulled with a twitter campaign. DC pulled the cover at the artist's request.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:I'm curious because the impression I'm getting is all about Barbara importance as character but the covers are meant to give the spotlight to the Joker. So, if people cares about Barbara, they would've buy a cover where she's playing second fiddle to the Joker? Do you genuinely not get why, even if they only see it sitting on the shelf next to the real copy, someone might not enjoy the sight of a terrified weeping helpless superheroine being tormented by the character who molested her?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:I can understand that. But the way I see it, that just means the person who feels uncomfortable isn't the target audience for the cover. What does it matter if they're not the target audience for the cover? "You're not the audience so you're not allowed to be offended" doesn't work even in the best of time, let alone for a comic book where the person could not be the target audience for the cover but could be for the book And the Joker literally onscreen strips Barbara Gordon and takes photos of her. Molestation is not only rape. This is not something that the author has to confirm because it happens in the book.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
My least favorite thing in the world is people who think freedom of speech means you're not allowed to criticize anything and have a magic barrier which means you never have to face any form of response to something you say or do.
ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Batman is shown vulnerable in that he is injured, hurt or gives in to a tremendous rage. Batman is very very rarely shown sobbing, horrified and in fear with a villain who molested him casually slinging an arm over his shoulder and threatening him. The closest I can think of is something like this:  and even that doesn't have the heavily sexualized undertones, because the honest truth is (except for maybe Talia and that's a huge maybe) Batman is never really sexually threatened. The closest to this is the Gay Panic stuff they like to do with The Joker and that isn't really in the same realm. Even if you drew Batman is exactly the same position it wouldn't have the same connotation. As for why the variant cover is dumb: It is perfectly viable to do stories about dark subjects like abuse and rape but it's in poor taste, even as a variant cover, to connect those things to material which is otherwise avoiding it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Hey, Gavok, do you like Toejam and Earl? It seems like a series that's kind of your jam, if you'll forgive the assumption. I'm assuming you've heard about the recent kickstarter? All right thinking people like Toejam and Earl.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:Here's a preview with all the cities featured on Convergence Ahaha. I like how you get to G and then it's GOTHAM GOTHAM GOTHAM GOTHAM.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:Wow I'm sorry but that looks dumb as poo poo. Why is Superman running around dressed like a ninja fighting people hand to hand? WHY DOES HE HAVE HIS FULL CAPE AND COSTUME UNDER A NINJA SUIT? Did I miss something where he changed places with the guy or something? It will presumably be explained in the book? Also "Superman disguises himself as someone else" is a pretty age-old concept.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:True, it does say in the beginning that he hasn't been invulnerable in like a year? I still want to know why he is wearing his full costumer + cape under that other uniform Superman wears his full costume under clothing regularly. Even while depowered (which happens a lot!)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:That's a really on-point Kyle Rayner design. Yeah, how the hell is that Hal Jordan and not Kyle?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Semper Fudge posted:I'm not exaggerating in the slightest when I say that the new Red Hood/Arsenal costumes are the absolute worst of the New 52. Do I have to post Raven?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
Convergence: Shazam owns and it should be a series right now instead of trapped in a megacrossover.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 04:48
|
|