Yesterday’s Week 3 New 52 books brought the usual array of reactions, and in particular two pages from Red Hood and the Outlaws and Catwoman caused much consternation and tweetering. The usual suspects — ComicsAlliance , Blog@ and DC Women Kicking Ass were all up in arms over two admittedly icky characterizations — Starfire as a cosmic bimbo and Catwoman as Batman’s arch-enemy with benefits. Andrew Wheeler has the most astute write up:
The third page also gives us the title of the issue, ‘And Most of the Costumes Stay On’. This is your final clue that you are not imagining things; this is consciously and conspicuously an exploitation comic. This is a comic that emphatically sensationalises sex to stir up its audience.
I joined in the fun because, well, these are easy targets. But then I got to thinking.
This is also the same day that WONDER WOMAN #1 by Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang came out, and this is definitely one of the best reviewed New 52 books yet, and from where I sit, it’s a home run. Azzarello–who was not the first person you’d think of to write Wonder Woman–has nevertheless come up with a fresh, thoughtful approach. In interviews, he keeps comparing it to a horror book, but it is only if you think AMERICAN GODS is a horror book. I’m wary of making the Gaiman comparison because it sets off all kinds of warning bells, but by whatever means, this is an updated version of the classic book about a vulnerable young human caught in the machinations of powerful supernatural forces — think THE DARK IS RISING for grown-ups…with Wonder Woman as Merriman.
DC keeps making crude overtures to the teen girl reader demographic with references to Hunger Games and Twilight (the latter for Superman!) — but this is the book they should be pushing for that demographic. Or, to be really really obvious about it…this is a Vertigo book.
And the critics have noticed, like Kelly Thompson at CBR:
Azzarello doesn’t spend a lot of time in Diana’s head, or learning about her origin, or fussing with what may (or may not) have come before, and it’s a great decision. We are plunged into the action: gods being manipulative gods, magical protectors, prophesized rivalries, mythological pregnancies, mortals in dire straights, and Diana kicking ass and taking names. The story stands on its own powerfully without a mess of back-story or history lessons and is confident in both its plotting and character work. You can feel absolutely that Azzarello has a vision for Diana and her world, and so far it’s a vision that I’m delighted to watch unfold..
Taken by themselves, a book about a stripper superhero, or Catwoman having her way with Batman in ultimate fan service, or Starfire the playa are not so bad. It’s just when seen as part of the overall mood of the relaunch. Wheeler explains things very clearly:
On the face of it, when each case is looked at on its own merits, there is nothing wrong with any of the decisions DC has made. Apart from the no-pants thing. There is room in comics for sexually aggressive female heroes. There is room for under-dressed bad girls, and heaven knows there always will be. There is even room in comics’ diverse landscape for bisexual strippers, alongside flamboyant gay characters, teams with just one black guy, and that one-armed junkie who beats people up with a dead cat. (They rebooted him? Aw, man!)
But first you need to build a diverse landscape. Even with good books like Wonder Woman and Batwoman, DC isn’t doing that. It only has seven female-led titles among its new 52. That’s a step up from how things used to be (and no doubt a damn sight better than Marvel has ever done), but this was meant to be for new readers. This was DC’s best effort to attract a female audience. When you look at it like that, ‘they’re doing better than Marvel’ doesn’t seem like much of a boast.
To be absolutely fair, the DC reboot was thrown together in such a hurry that they can’t possibly have had time to pull together a misogynistic conspiracy to alienate and exclude female readers. It all just happened by accident! Imagine what they could have achieved if they had been trying!
YOU tell me if this is diversity: several of the New DC artists are also known for their girlie art, several of them on the books with female protagonists — Guillem March, Sami Basri, Ed Benes. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Except that not one artist like Becky Cloonan or Mike Maihack was hired. It’s all so limited.
Cliff Chiang’s work on Wonder Woman is definitely some of the most distinctive of the whole relaunch; it’s moody, nuanced. It has texture and creates a world.
And here’s my whole point: to everyone who wants things to change, we have to start getting behind the GOOD STUFF, not just putting down the bad stuff. Until a book of the quality of the Azzarello-Chiang Wonder Woman sells as well as (or, dare we dream…better) than the cheesecake fan service, there’s not going to be more of it. It’s easy and fun to give ridiculous poorly executed stories like CATWOMAN #1 a lot of attention…but isn’t it really helping sell the book?
Speak with your dollar. Go back and buy an extra copy of WONDER WOMAN and give it to a friend. Promote the good.
Yikes! Some of us check this blog in college computer labs – a little heads-up before the screen-filling Batman/Catwoman sexytime shenanigans would be appreciated!
That is a brilliant idea at the bottom, though. I have a lengthy break between some of my classes – perhaps I should put one of my recent paychecks towards stocking up on copies of good #1s and handing them out to freebie-lovers. (After making sure I don’t bump up against any campus rules, of course.)
Here’s hoping that idea catches on!
I also thought Supergirl was decent as well (if a bit slight).
Agreed, it’s all about the dollar.
The Batman-Catwoman thing was terrible. I read a couple folks on another message board talking about “adult storytelling” and “why can’t grownups have sex lives” but this is kind of like seeing Bugs Bunny and Witch Hazel having sex (which there’s probably an audience for).
Adolescent fan service is what it felt like. I read “The Zebra Batman!” right afterwards to get the bad taste out of my mouth.
Well, I guess Catwoman will join Barbara Gordon as a character whose book I’ll abandon due to the relaunch. At least DC is putting out thick trades of the Brubaker run.
Why is the fact that Wonder Woman provided no origin, history, dialogue, or look inside Diana’s head considered a good thing by everyone who seems to be reviewing it? This was the first WW book I ever read, and all I got for my curiosity was a bunch of people I’ve never met doing random things for no reason I have been asked to care about. As someone who wanted to come aboard, even all the praise seems to be saying “Wow, this was not a #1 issue at all.”
@Jim
Because you don’t need to do that to provide a compelling story. It’s certainly dragged down a lot of the relaunch books.
From all the outrage, I thought the issue featured Catwoman pegging Batman or something like that rather than just some tame kissing scenes.
Great post! I agree with you 100 percent. Not just about buying the good stuff, but about focusing the online discourse on the good stuff. People are getting up in arms about Amanda Waller and this (admittedly icky) Catwoman stuff. But DC is doing a lot of good work with this relaunch. It is providing a shot in the arm to a troubled industry. And I think DC’s hearts are in the right place here.
That description of WW #1 sounds like a very good story. It just doesn’t sound like a Wonder Woman story.
I haven’t read Wonder Woman yet this week, so honest question: does the girl in her underwear get to put on pants elsewhere in WW #1? It just seemed weird to me, visually, that in an attempt to argue for a book you’re saying isn’t about fan service, you posted an image of a woman in her underwear, since that’s the traditional connotation.
Congratulations, you have succeeded in getting me genuinely interested in reading a reboot title. I’ve been wanting to check out Wonder Woman comics for a while, and I’ve heard good things about her pre-reboot representations in “League of One”, “Hiketeia”, Rucka’s run, and “The Circle” by Gail Simone. But my skepticism of the reboot as a whole made me very hesitant to approach anything without a good, analytical review. Thank you.
There is a bit of a problem with WW being a plaything of the gods, because she will always be their plaything as long as they choose to make her one. She’s not capable of opposing them. A writer can get into politics on Mount Olympus, and make Diana a precious object to some gods, but that doesn’t make her their equal. The resulting stories could still be good, but Diana won’t be a heroine in the normal sense. That could be a good thing, though, depending on reader response.
SRS
“That description of WW #1 sounds like a very good story. It just doesn’t sound like a Wonder Woman story.”
Pretty much. In order to make WW ‘relevant’ to today’s audience, the creators basically made another book entirely, and threw an Amazon cipher into the mix. But at least it’s a slightly more original take than pretending that some depictions are not blatant fan service (Red Hood, Catwoman), or the usual decompression pretending to be a story (Supergirl).
Not to turn this into a “I hate Judd Winick” rant, but once I saw that he was writing Catwoman, I knew that he’d have her hook up with someone before the first issue was over. That’s his stock “go to” tactic he uses as a stand in for adequate charaterization. He does it all the time. Having Batman be Tab A was a bit of a surprise, but not enough of one to make the hackneyed plot device fresh and new.
Starfire has been heading down this path for a while. Someone, somewhere (maybe 52 or Countdown) confused her “Alien from a place with different mores” characterization from the Wolfman Perez era with “Sleep with anything with a pulse.” So the portrayal in the Red Hood book isn’t that surprising either.
Kinda makes me not want to raise my daughter to be a comic book fan.
The negative reviews far outweighing the positive ones because it’s always hip and cool to be snarky. It sells better on a site. As you state – finally – support what you like (doesn’t mean it’s good or not) and tell others about it. Let them make their own decisions if they’ll like it or not. Because guess what? Girls are reading – and loving – Catwoman and Red Hoot/Outlaws.
I see the problem with Starfire being one mainly of context. If she’s drawn as a humanoid bimbo, talks like a bimbo, and acts like a bimbo — Writing a pseudoalien is much easier than writing actual aliens. If she were a shape-changer and was in human form temporarily, then she wouldn’t be having sex for human reasons. The different reasons could be interesting. A reader would need to know quite a bit about her in that situation, though.
SRS
Well, now I’m kind of mad I bought Catwoman. (Haven’t read it yet). Loved Wonder Woman. And frankly, I’ve never read a Wonder Woman comic before and I thought it was something pretty amazing.
I’m not sure how WONDER WOMAN wasn’t a Wonder Woman comic.
The premise of the story seems to be: The gods of Greco-Roman myth are still around and messing with humanity today. When a mortal woman is endangered because Zeus is up to his usual tricks, Wonder Woman needs to protect her.
That seems like a pretty good premise for a Wonder Woman story to me. It takes traditional WW characters and traditional myth and builds an action-oriented urban-fantasy story out of them, which seems like a pretty good idea.
It doesn’t recapitulate WW’s origin, and it shows WW through the eyes of the mortal woman she’s here to protect, but neither of those things are not-a-Wonder-Woman-story territory.
Big mythological doings are in the offing, and WW enters into them by protecting a victim of the gods from their callousness and power games. Sounds good to me.
And it looks great.
I can’t speak for women nor am I in any remote way interested in the politic correctness of the DCnU. But for what it’s worth:
My wife and I both really liked Supergirl and Catwoman. I liked Wonder Woman, my wife didn’t really go for it.
Oh, and my wife is writing an article in defense of Catwoman. So yeah, she liked it that much.
And her knowledge of comics is basically Mouse Guard.
Good for her! Unfortunately, Comics Alliance will probably read the article by your wife and write it off as just “one voice” or “missing their point” or just white-wash it with a “part of the problem” comment. When ultimately, CA should realize: they don’t speak for everyone and generalizations are dumb.
I’ve liked five of the books DC has released so far. Other than “Action Comics,” my favorite books from the DC relaunch have been “Wonder Woman,” “Batwoman,” “Supergirl,” and “Batwing” (which I did not expect to like at all).
Three books with female lead characters (one of them gay), and one book with a black lead. Quality over quantity. There may fewer books with female or minority leads in the relaunch, but the ones that are there are my favorites and the ones I’ll be buying more of.
Just my two cents.
I love the creative team on Wonder Woman. But It wasn’t a good Wonder Woman story to me. Overly gory with no focus on the lead character. Action and Demon Knights have been great but all in all the bad habits of the past (writing for the trade, Saw level violence and teen titty comedy maturity about sex) have all been ramped up. That’s not going to get a mainstream audience to comics again.
When you’re in your local comics shop buying WW #1, pick up a copy of the Supergirl: Cosmic Adventures in the Eighth Grade trade paperback. Find a nice sunny place where no one can find you, and read it straight through. Read it again to figure out the plot twists, then loan it (you’ll want to keep it) to a girl.
The creators have the character outlined through Grade Twelve, but DC says the series didn’t make enough money for future volumes. There’s a Facebook page to convince DC.
(And there is a ZOMG moment in the middle of the book. And a sad ending for one of the characters.)
Of the “old” DC titles with female stars from the past year, I don’t think any were questionable (but then, I’m a guy).
Buy and read what you like. Evangelize the stuff that you love. Ignore the rest.
Just a follow-up to Johanna’s question about Zola’s underwear . . .
No, Johanna, Zola doesn’t get to put any pants on in issue #1 because I’d say her narrative sequence (and Diana’s) might take about an hour of story time at most–and all of that time is crisis. The only safe place for Zola to get pants would be Diana’s apartment, and unfortunately a little women is not going to be able to wear a pair of 6′+ Diana’s pants. (Neither, based on the various cover shenanigans, is Diana, though.)
I’d also say that there’s very little fan-service with Zola’s depiction. Cliff goes a bit further in his depiction of Diana’s apparent penchant for sleeping in the nude, but in neither case is the female character without many clothes depicted in the sort of “f*ck-me” poses that we see in the above images of Selina and Kory (refuse to spell her name with an “i”). Posture and pose are so much more a part of sexualization than the mere lack of sufficient clothing.
Well, it looks like we can finally put that “I’m the god damn Batman” joke to rest.
Now, it’s “I’m the fucking batman.”
“Because guess what? Girls are reading – and loving – Catwoman and Red Hoot/Outlaws.”
“When ultimately, CA should realize: they don’t speak for everyone and generalizations are dumb.”
I guess generalizations are okay when they are made by random internet guy, as opposed to journalists who sign their stories and actually do some research?
Wheeler comments:
“[DC} only has seven female-led titles among its new 52.”
I like female-led titles. I devoted a blog to the subject, more or less.
Nevertheless, even when making an appeal to a new market there’s no way a business like DC can ignore the history of the current DM. And if that market hasn’t supported more than a handful of female-led titles, then there’s no way “the new 52″ can take the chance that *maybe* a higher number of titles can win a new readership just by sheer preponderance.
And what representation is going to satisfy every fan out there, BTW? Should 30% of all titles be female-led? 51%?
I’m not saying to fans, “DC always makes great decisions” or “the market for female books can’t change over time.” But it does take *time.*
There are tons of female-centric “paranormal romances” out there now, with lady vampire hunters and zombie raisers and the like. But when that movement got started, there were the Blood Books in the early 90s, Anita Blake a little later.
I’d like to see DC get a piece of that action, especially since those titles often employ the same “adult pulp” approach that DC’s doing right now.
A good interview of Azzarello had this:
I went to the LCS this afternoon to try to get a copy so I could see how much (needed) background there was in the story, but the owner had none. He’s been ordering only to fill requests, although more copies will be coming in.
SRS
Sadly, everyone has overlooked Birds of Prey, which is a pretty solid book both in writing and art, features female leads, and manages to be an action story sans cheesecake. I also think it’s a better book to compare to Catwoman and RHatO than WW because it’s a book of B-list characters that doesn’t need fan service to sell the story.
Oh, and iZombie is still being printed. Roberson/Allred! Paranormal romance!
Boy it’s the SAME OLD DOUBLE STANDARD!! If a male is sexually aggressive and promiscuous then he’s a stud and it’s ok… but BOY LET A WOMAN be that way and then sh…
…what? The WOMEN ARE THE AGGRESSIVE ONES? And promiscuous? WHY AREN’T WE CELEBRATING THIS???? Everyone would be complaining their bootays off if the women were meek and mild and submissive (like they should be, right… oh, no names here.) Here we have strong aggressive women in control of their sexuality, AND PEOPLE COMPLAIN!!
It’s a NO WIN COUNTRY folks. It must ALWAYS be sexism and victim mentality.
>>>It only has seven female-led titles among its new 52.
Those crazy crazy folks at DC! How STUPID to make the majority of your titles based on your characters that are well-known and been selling for decades!! Why put out Lantern titles and Batman titles and Superman titles and Flash and Aquaman as the majority when you can launch MORE LOW SELLING BOOKS like Catwoman and BoP? I mean, DIVERSITY is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT to DC than SELLING BOOKS AND MAKING MONEY!!!
For someone who didn’t read Greg Rucka’s run, Brian Azzarello’s WONDER WOMAN seems heavily influenced by Rucka. From the reinterpretation of the Olympian gods to the protection of Zola, this story seemed to me to have a distinct HIKETEIA vibe.
This was a thoroughly engaging read. What a menacing story! I’m not certain that it’s my own vision of Wonder Woman (though, I can’t say that I saw enough of Wonder Woman in this book to be conclusive about that), but I still thought it was a well-written, well-drawn comic book. Think Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but with Greek myths instead of vampires. So Wondy the Mythological Monster Slayer.
Also, the book is sold out practically everywhere in NYC. So I think DC got precisely what it wanted (and needed).
Why would Batman, of all people, succumb to sexual aggression? Real people have moments of weakness that they regret later, but if Batman were to be written as “real,” his drive to fight crime would be affected, his priorities would shift — he’d be a law enforcement agent, not a hero.
SRS
I have to ask Heidi, who is not getting behind the good stuff? I know I’ve promoted the hell out of Batwoman and Wonder Woman (and I’ll have more to say on that one – I love it). And I was practically the official fan site for Bryan Q. Miller’s Batgirl. I’d say there’s plenty of support for good comics starring women. It’s just that there is so much you can do when there is a torrent of disheartening stuff like Amanda Waller being turned into “generic hottie #2″ and the way Catwoman, Starfire and the former Power Girl have been treated.
Wonder Woman was solid. Moved at a brisk pace akin to Action Comics. Like Action, its’ pace didn’t mean sacrificing a full story.
The thinking that “it was a good comic but not a Wonder Woman comic” highlights something that I’ve felt is a big hindrance for the character.
She’s not allowed to venture out from her comfort zone.
Batman can be in the center of noir, sci-fi, widescreen, etc type storylines.
Supes can fight corrupt businessmen or women, mad scientists, weapons of mass destruction, 4th dimesional makers of mischief, etc.
But whether Wonder Woman has pants or no pants becomes a big deal. People get “taking out of the story” when they see that WW doesn’t have her secret id of Diana Prince.
It feels as if a vocal group coddles the character a bit too much.
WW doesn’t show up in the book til page 11. It’s ok. People know who she is. No need for an origin.
It is a fine comic ( in week of fine comics – Daredevil is currently THAT BOOK.)
Enjoy it. Put other people on to it. They might enjoy it.
If not, let them try Catwoman or Red Hood.
The problem is Wonder Woman hasn’t really had a comfort zone. She started off as a fetish character, then turned into a sexless icon for a long while and aside from some brief bursts of character development from Perez, Rucka and Simone she really hasn’t had a personality.
It’s really not great when your main character doesn’t show up until more than half the story is over if you’re looking for that new reader. She’s on the cover of Justice League but not in it. She’s on the cover of her own book but in less than half of it. You say people know who she is, but they don’t really. They’ve heard of the character, maybe remember her from a TV show but they have no idea what her personality is like. Most DC writers don’t seem to know.
And so when an issue like this happens with a bland Wonder Woman chopping off arms in a hyper violent world it’s a bit of a drag. And to make your main female character the lead in a comic that’s not really acceptable for girls (and boys) under 16 to read because of the level of violence? Seems like a big mistake in marketing.
I’m going to buy and read the WW comic tonight because of this post.
>>>Why would Batman, of all people, succumb to sexual aggression?
I agree… but that particular side of the point is not the issue. I’m just talking about women being sexual beings and the constant bemoaning of the fact that when they’re portrayed as such, they’re “sluts” and “whores” etc etc. Now we see them portrayed as aggressive sexual beings and people are still not happy.
As I say, it’s a no-win victim-mentality society.
“I guess generalizations are okay when they are made by random internet guy, as opposed to journalists who sign their stories and actually do some research?”
Says ‘Beard of Zeus’. Hypocrite, much? And what generalizations did I make? I’ve read several girls reviews/commentary on both books and they are looking forward to more.
Do your own research, Zeus Beard.
Forgot to add: You actually wrote ‘journalists’ with a straight face? Because I’m sure she interviewes 10,000 women before she wrote that article speaking for them.
@OtisTFirefly:
How many male DC superheroes in New 52 do you see being sexually aggressive?
@Ian Boothby:
Exactly, the reason writers so often have trouble figuring out how to reboot Wonder Woman is that, unlike Superman and Batman, it’s not as easy as just taking her back to her roots with a modern twist…because in WW’s case, taking her back to her roots would mean BDSM.
There have been plenty of depictions in comics of women that are aggressively sexual that aren’t gross or smack of fan service or titillation for titillation’s sake. Catwoman’s even been portrayed that way. Few people complain about those. Folks tend to complain about icky subversions of that idea to present yet another male fantasy, this time in liberated lady form with boots on and smoking a cigar, and I think that’s what’s happening here.
I imagine this kind of material sells pretty well, a lot better than would make a lot of folks I know comfortable sleeping at night. I’m far enough away from any investment in this material that it just looks hilarious. I hope all the Teen Titans act out in various outlandish ways and every member for no reason brags openly about having sex with Starfire to random people every issue. I hope Catwoman gives a blowjob to Aquaman in issue #3 — and then maybe she could receive oral sex so that there could be a line about him not needing to come up for air. Bring it on!
One thing that stands out for me is that these scenes don’t seem to be about anything other than simply showing super-people talking dirty and doing nasty things with their sweaty parts. At best it could be a kind of set-up for some obvious second-class soap opera type stuff. When you contrast that “the costumes stay mostly on” or whatever it says scene with the bleak and unsettling way the sex between Catwoman and Slam Bradley was portrayed in that one brutal, Ed Brubaker-written issue several years back, or the kind of savage satirical point being made in Kurtzman and Elder’s “Woman Wonder,” or even the hints at certain sexual activities talked about in Brian Bendis’ Daredevil and Alias runs and how that gets at trust issues, this stuff mostly just seems like weak sauce.
“The negative reviews far outweighing the positive ones because it’s always hip and cool to be snarky”
Hold on to your hat, because it may blow off the top of your head and embed itself in your ceiling when you read the following line;
They may have gotten negative reviews because they weren’t good. And you thinking they were good may indicate that you have bad taste in comics.
I know my mind was blown the first time I had this pointed out to me…
Not that I think you should be ashamed if your bad taste, Mikael. But most reviewers aren’t looking for high-fives when pan your favorite comic.
Oh, and the sooner DC and Marvel go out of business, the sooner women, kids, and minorities can get comics that suit them.
(Plus maybe the artists they’ve cheated over the decades can get some of their ideas back. Such silly dreams, I have.)
Tom (or whoever knows),
Is Kurtzman and Elder’s “Woman Wonder” a Mad magazine spoof? Or was it something else?
it was their mad magazine spoof of Wonder Woman, and has a super-brutal, nasty, satirical subtext.
http://lambiek.net/artists/e/elder/elder_mad_5_woman_wonder.jpg
“Not that I think you should be ashamed if your bad taste, Mikael. But most reviewers aren’t looking for high-fives when pan your favorite comic.”
That’s funny. Nowhere did I make a comment about any comic I read or didn’t read. But thanks for playing!
And as a minority, I have plenty of comics I can read with DC and Marvel. You know why? I don’t need my comics to reflect my life. I just want them to be fun. And when they aren’t? I stop buying them. Plain and simple. But thanks once again for trying to speak for everyone.
I would love to buy a copy of Wonder Woman, but of 3 comic stores I went to yesterday (here in Singapore), copies were either sold out or reserved for members. I guess they didn’t really set aside any copies for new or returning readers who might walk into the store. Still – good news that lots of reviewers and readers think WW#1 rocked!
@William George
“They may have gotten negative reviews because they weren’t good. And you thinking they were good may indicate that you have bad taste in comics.
I know my mind was blown the first time I had this pointed out to me…”
I know, right? But be prepared to be blown away again because all of this is subjective and has nothing to do with good taste or bad taste. Making you and your subjective judgment calls look pretty ridiculous. I bet you are totally tripping out now right bro?
@nawid
“Because you don’t need to do that to provide a compelling story. It’s certainly dragged down a lot of the relaunch books.”
I agree, but there is where the hypocrisy begins. Resurrection Man has almost the exact same narrative structure and is every bit as good and was belittled by the same people who are fawning over WW, saying RM was too ambiguous and not “first time reader” friendly. The problem with comic blog reviewers is that their opinions don’t carry any more or less weight as anyone elses because they’re just as big a fan, just as agenda driven as everyone else who reads comics and picks sides. They don’t even have the same standards as legitimate but barely objective movie critics. Which is why the opinions of dcwomenkickingass, TheBeat, comics alliance, robot 6 and cbr mean just as little or just as much as anyone else’s. These people are not journalists. They’re fans with slightly better connections and more time to blog than the average comic reader and who regularly go out of their way to promote something, rationalizing all the flaws in something they like that they criticize in something they denounce.
@Johanna
“It just seemed weird to me, visually, that in an attempt to argue for a book you’re saying isn’t about fan service, you posted an image of a woman in her underwear, since that’s the traditional connotation.”
You’re exactly right. And there were also the three drunk party bimbos in short skirts being “used” by one of the gods as well as a naked Diana. I’m sure that “girl in her underwear” mysteriously appearing next to a “naked Diana” is all coincidence and not remotely fan service if enough people like it. But it’s” all in how it’s drawn”, right? (insert eye roll here). I won’t even go into the pillow fight they had while making jello.
@Beard of Zeus
“I guess generalizations are okay when they are made by random internet guy, as opposed to journalists who sign their stories and actually do some research?”
Yeah, because half a dozen nobodies writing on the same blog giving their subjective opinions about comics are way more reputable than 6 other people giving their equally subjective opinions about comics on their own twitter or tumblr accounts, right? Try again sport.
I enjoyed WW and Catwoman. I also enjoy the irony that, as pointed out in the article above, those that hate Catwoman the most are doing the best job of selling it. No doubt resulting in 3rd and 4th printings that the haters will no doubt write off to “speculators” because, obviously, no one in their right mind could possibly like something they don’t.
Nah, these are bad fanfic comics and you have poor taste for not thinking so.
Or… you are overly defensive superhero comic fanboys. It’s hard to tell sometimes, both groups overlap so often.
My current tinfoil hat theory is that certain types of fan and certain types of fan creator are pulling the Republican party trick of making the medium (government and tv news in their case) so awful that no one but them will want it after a while.
But, alas, I have no smoking gun. Just the big orange guns up above.
Sue: Your comment was in spam but I retrieved it. I would say you do a great job of balancing good stuff and art with well deserved fusilades. I didn’t single anyone out for scolding, but I do think the industry and punditocracy in general need to wage even more of a secret promotional war for Stuff That Isn’t Icky.
Tom: “I hope all the Teen Titans act out in various outlandish ways and every member for no reason brags openly about having sex with Starfire to random people every issue.”
That book exists and it is called Super F*ckers. Maybe they could redraw it with realistic art and run it in the New 52.
Oh yeah, and several people here and in person told me there wasn’t enough Wonder Woman in issue #1. I personally have no problem with a remote, powerful Wonder Woman. It seems that whenever she gets humanized with tickle fights that the problems begin.
Heidi,
re: “I would say you do a great job of balancing good stuff and art with well deserved fusilades. I didn’t single anyone out for scolding”
Wow. Waffle much?
Are you really going to try to say with a straight face that dcwomenkickingass isn’t 90% negative, full of articles that do nothing but complain about how horrible DC is? You’ve made several comments about how “tumblr” is angry about this thing or that thing, basically and subtly labeling “tumblr” as the go to place for reading nothing but comments that are angry about this thing or that thing. And yes, we all know “tumblr” is code for dcwomenkickingass. I mean, do I really have to count the number of negative articles compared to positive? You claim to be a journalist. So at the very least own up to the facts and knock off this “wink and a nod” stuff. No one is buying it.
Haven’t read “Catwoman” but obviously the Batman line is pretty grown up these days, full of murders so why not sex too? It’s not like I haven’t suspected that Selina slept with Bruce pre-New 52. In a lot of books, Selina’s love for Bruce/Batman is what’s keeping her on the right side of the law. I would also point out that the book ends with the words, “Next: The Morning After,” so there should be some fallout from the act.
Teen Titans: the new Jersey Shore?
Oh, wait… this was sort of already done in “Kingdom Come”… kids behaving badly.
“The Boys” commented on this with Herogasm, but I don’t think they’ve featured a dysfunctional teen team (although Wee Hughie did babysit a bunch of halfwits).
Right now, the only criteria I’m using on the New 52 is: “Do I want to read the next issue?” Most have hooked me. As for the content and storytelling, since these are all being written for the trade, I’ll wait until March to judge the series.
Oh, and since were complaining… has anyone (besides Bleeding Cool) reacted to the Joker’s surgery in Detective #1? (Rated: Teen) The last time I saw something like that was in Sandman, a Mature Readers title.
I don’t read many superhero comics unless they really stand out with good reviews. So the last DCU comic I got was All-Star Superman. However, I’m going to pick up Wonder Woman #1 based on the good buzz. Of course, I’m a big Vertigo fan so selling it as almost a Vertigo comic with Wonder Woman is definitely a way to hook someone like me in.
@Ulysses Holmes I welcome you to count the negative vs. positive. You’ll find as many who have tried to make the same accusation that between the moments when I criticize there is a lot more positive stuff. And the idea that it’s 90 % negative is bull.
I get that these are some rather sleazy comics. And yeah, its nothing but sexy teen comedy fanservice. But what gets my goat is that everyone is complaining about sex. Where are the complaints about the gore in the Batman titles? Is gratuitous murder and death more acceptable than gratuitous sex? Why can we see a violent non-consensual stabbing, but not rigorous consensual sex? People complain that people complain about sex, but here people are doing just that. If you dont like it, dont buy it, and talk about something you do.
“Why would Batman, of all people, succumb to sexual aggression? Real people have moments of weakness that they regret later, but if Batman were to be written as “real,” his drive to fight crime would be affected, his priorities would shift — he’d be a law enforcement agent, not a hero.”
Not commenting on the Rucka story as I’ve not read it, but I’ve always thought both Bats and the Kitty had a “danger junkie” thing going on. Which is why I can buy their making sweet rooftop love together.
Mr. Pants asks:
“Where are the complaints about the gore in the Batman titles?”
I see a lot of them on the CBR boards, as well as complaints about extreme violence in the DCU as a whole.
Spurgeon said:
“When you contrast that “the costumes stay mostly on” or whatever it says scene with the bleak and unsettling way the sex between Catwoman and Slam Bradley was portrayed in that one brutal, Ed Brubaker-written issue several years back, or the kind of savage satirical point being made in Kurtzman and Elder’s “Woman Wonder,” or even the hints at certain sexual activities talked about in Brian Bendis’ Daredevil and Alias runs and how that gets at trust issues, this stuff mostly just seems like weak sauce.”
Are any of these contrasting examples designed to titillate the reader, or are they being used to different ends?
To a reader actually seeking out non-satiric superhero horndogginess, I suspect that all of the above would be something less than stimulating. For such readers the question of “investment” revolves around matters more fundamental than either Batman’s history with Catwoman or Harvey Kurtzman’s schtick satire.
I guess I should have clarified. What I was mostly complaining about is why do websites only do concerned write-ups about the ax, but not the violence? That’s what I have a problem with. I see post after post, and praise after praise about the creepy, violent horror of some titles, but Catwoman getting porked bu Batman out of her own initiative is wrong? Why is only sex stuff covered?
“Porked,” okay, that’s pretty crass, brohem.
Anyways, if you want to know why people are upset, take a look at Laura Hudson’s article at ComicsAlliance, it’ll change your point of view.
“Nah, these are bad fanfic comics and you have poor taste for not thinking so.”
Regardless of your tone or your persistence that you are right, this is an opinion, your opinion, and a subjective one at that. Just like anyone disagreeing with you has an opinion that’s nothing more than that.
Just because you’re righteous does not make you any more right or wrong. IT be a lot easier to listen to you if you weren’t trying to bully.
As someone who is barely aware of what’s going on (and as I like to remind everyone don’t get why 30+ is bothering with this crap as it is clear the majors could give a shit about what I think, much less my now irrelevant back collection (except that crap that is randomly relevent) is fan-service suddenly a problem? Isn’t that what we were all sort of hoping for? Or is it that some of us like the coplay and gadget fetishes but don’t like that our imaginary friends are now getting more than we are, along with being impossibly strong/handsome? Because with the boring turn of a sex life, they are less concerned with the downtrodden & will waste more time getting down. They are now the jocks. The complete package. Worshipped by society, rich and getting it on. For the most part. Boring.
Isn’t Judd Winnick writing Catwoman?
I cannot tell you how delighted I am that Brian and Cliff are bringing the fire to Wonder Woman. After so many false and interrupted starts, including my own perhaps, it is lovely to see two master artists ply their trade so beautifully on Diana.
I hope this becomes an all-time classic.
@Kate Willaert
>>>@OtisTFirefly:
How many male DC superheroes in New 52 do you see being sexually aggressive?>>>
I haven’t read that many of the New 52 yet. Action, JL, JLI, GA… can’t say *I’ve* seen any to speak of. Not saying there not there, of course…
Madmonq said:
“As someone who is barely aware of what’s going on (and as I like to remind everyone don’t get why 30+ is bothering with this crap as it is clear the majors could give a shit about what I think, much less my now irrelevant back collection (except that crap that is randomly relevent) is fan-service suddenly a problem? Isn’t that what we were all sort of hoping for? Or is it that some of us like the coplay and gadget fetishes but don’t like that our imaginary friends are now getting more than we are, along with being impossibly strong/handsome? Because with the boring turn of a sex life, they are less concerned with the downtrodden & will waste more time getting down. They are now the jocks. The complete package. Worshipped by society, rich and getting it on. For the most part. Boring.”
IMO the reaction seems more motivated by prudery than ressentiment. This development strikes me as odd because the subtext of having heroes/heroines who are incredibly attractive is that nearly everyone wants to do them.
To expand on my post above, sensationalism in art isn’t just a necessary evil that one uses for purposes of making satirical points or giving heavy dramatic insight. It’s a fundamental aspect of art that has to be taken on its own terms.
The outrage is so funny. Hypocritical too. The things aimed at women these days and it’s pretty difficult to pigeon hole them since we know they all love different things…but it does have lots of sex. Sex shown in many different ways and all of it not classy or fluffy or even healthy. Sex is on tv books movies is rife. Teens watch them and stuff with violence. Hell the kids would laugh at us fuddy duddies over this storm in a tea cup. For the fist time Catwoman is not being ignored, preached at, warned,and generally treated as if she is some botheration to Batman. Isn’t it sexist when He gets to be the one in control? And she is just the one that gets the wagging finger like she is some child? Winnick turned the tables and hell we don’t like it one bit. The imagery as well who cares. They had sex in costumes ( it was a matter of time) with lots of cheesecake. Then pull down all your billboards for adverts and protest your commercials. As for Wonder Woman. It was good and I bet if she had sex in bed with decorum you’d have someone screaming from a soap box. So I’m just waiting for that. Seems it’s the way to get attention these days. Shout at creators and call them hacks and moralize over comics. Oh and as for the younger folks picking these books up?Yeah, they don’t give a crap. It seems it’s mainly older folks who probably need to get out more and see that the world in 2011 is not so precious anymore. People sound very disconnected to the real world if they can get hot and heated up over stuff like this.
When I read Red Hood and the Outlaws, my first instinct was “wow, they made Starfire really loose. That doesn’t sit well with me.” But then I started to think about how I interpreted Red Hood and Speedy (whatever his name is now). And I came to that moral dilemma or maybe its a culture dilemma, where if we see a guy who has wanton sex with women and doesn’t care, hes a hero. If a woman does it, she’s amoral and should be shunned. Looking back on it now, Starfire has pretty much the same characterization as the other stars of this comic: Messed up past, living life freely for the first time in a long time, and having no intention of being tied down again. So in this case I think that the whole Starfire thing seems apt. I don’t care for it, but it at least seems plausible given what info is relayed in issue one. I’m not terribly familiar with what title this was before it became Red Hood and the Outlaws, but while I don’t think Starfire should be a role model for young women (certainly not based on how she dresses :P) I don’t think every woman in comics has to be a super-empowered-do-it-all-mega-woman. For the record though,I am still disappointed with this comic with that route of characterization, but I’m willing to keep reading in the hopes that these broken people can at least fix themselves and perhaps spend less time in bikinis at the beach.
Well There is the down side to supporting things and empowering things you want others to support. It when its let to fall. For instance Stephine Brown Batgirl has mixed reviews but there was solid support there.
It was dropped for the memory of the original which I can agree on but worst then that is that Catwoman seems to being the same. Gotham City Sirens really tried to focus on the better qualities that Catwoman Vol 3 really pushed. Like her being an anti hero because gotham is so bad. Or even though she is a villain she stands by the sides she joins. You can see these traits pushed hard in the cross over with Batman/Red Robin/Gotham City Sirens Azeral story.
But if you were going to push things back a bit, make Gotham a little darker but less down the road to its own destruction Catwoman would be the more compulsive sex icon she was back when. I like many of you do not like that but there is a bright light if the series has that turn I am expecting. That is that she makes the transition faster then it was in Vol 1 and 2 (Supported mostly due to the film as well) where they hit her with something that you can’t shake off. Then she falls in the spiral of gotham which changes here into the strong character she can be and the powerful female character that both female and male fans can enjoy.
Here is to hope…
Cheers
I’m all for promoting the Good Stuff – it’s something I know I need to do more of – but I think there is absolutely room for trotting out the Bad Comics for public shaming.
Obviously, with everyone reviewing the New 52, there are a lot more people letting the world know how much certain comics suck: http://wp.me/p1Hi9G-7U
I’ve never understood why comics pros are so afraid of pointing out Bad Comics. If their peers who worked on those comics get less work, GOOD. Maybe they’ll learn to get better.
But you’re right: everyone who points out the Bad Comics also needs to spend time talking about the Good Comics people should be buying instead!
This, times 100. I hate how all the focus is on those two books instead of Wonder Woman (and Batwoman and Birds of Prey and Supergirl and Batgirl).
I hate how the meme has become “DC is awful” and “DC is sexist” and “if you’re a feminist you won’t read DC Comics” based on just those two books.
We need to put our money where our mouth is and support GOOD books instead of just complaining about the bad stuff. Because that’s how DC is going to decide what’s successful and what’s not — the money. And if sales are higher on Catwoman and Red Hood and the Outlaws than on books with strong female characters, what does that tell them?
I loved, loved, loved Wonder Woman. I’m a longtime Wonder Woman fan, but I haven’t liked her book in years until now.
As an aside on the whole Catwoman/Batman thing.
I actually think it’s entirely out of character for batman. This i a man who is incredibly controlled and discplined. I can;t see him bumping uglies on a rooftop.
I’m not going to declare that i’m not going to read a DC comic ever again or anything, I’m jsut saying …