Aware that Catwoman will be the focus of mainsteam attention this year in the wake of Christopher Nolan’s superhero mumblecore joint ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ (and also that Laura Hudson just stepped down from Comics Alliance); DC have decided to capitalise on the moment and release this cover for Catwoman #0, coming in September.
The spherical nature of Catwoman’s pose on this cover has intrigued and delighted the internet, who have spent the past twenty-four hours trying to work out what’s happened to the once human-shaped antihero. While many will wonder what has happened to her spine, shoulder and arms, I can’t help but wonder how she’s managed to apply her lipstick to haphazardly. Presumably it’s because her back is crippled and she has no upper-arm strength anymore. Couldn’t Batman have applied it for her, or something?
The issue sees Catwoman’s origin explained, making it perfect for new readers who want to pick up the issue after seeing Ann Hathaway’s turn as the character in the movie. And what a treat, when they walk into their local comic store, look nervously at the rows and rows of comics they don’t understand, and finally get walked across by a helpful store assistant to where this book is sat on the shelf. After five seconds of looking in bewilderment at what appears to be a blow-up beachball wearing a wrinkled condom, they then walk out and go spend their money on legitimate entertainment instead – like a crisp DVD copy of Love and Other Drugs, perhaps.
The internet have been gathered to gawp at Guillem March’s cover, leading several of the leading experts in lady spinal torture stepping up to offer their analysis. Kate Beaton was first, followed by Meredith Gran and John Troutman – among several others. The general consensus is that she has had her spine broken, throat ripped out and possibly a leg taken off, in order to achieve the pose seen in the cover. And she’s not wearing high heels, which is disappointing.
In an extra nod to the currently-showing Prometheus, this weirdly unsexual ‘sexy Catwoman’ appears to be bursting out of the stomach of her own unsexual ‘sexy body’ from the cover of Catwoman #1. So don’t say DC don’t know how to capitalise on the popularity of the movies, you guys.
And of course, this isn’t the first time a female character has broken her back in the name of… whatever is going on here. Who can forget that time the notoriously prude Mockingbird did the same thing in order to hide her bits from the reader?
Maybe it’s because I’m typing this at 1AM, but that Mockingbird frame is the most puzzling thing I’ve seen all day. She’s stabbing that dude with a fork, while staring at ME! How did she know I was a capitalist saboteur? And why must that poor, buffed, blonde guy suffer for my crimes? Or is that a Cirque du Soleil rehearsal and nobody told me?
SO. MANY. QUESTIONS.
NOT. ENOUGH. SLEEP.
What Jules said…
*soft weeping*
Wow, that is actually the worst boobs-and-butt pose I’ve ever seen, which is really saying something!
That is an extraordinarily terrible cover, even by the T&A standards to which it plainly aspires.
I tend to agree that it’s also singularly ill-placed to benefit from any interest generated by the movie, but then again, it’s not like anything EVER seems to get a sales boost from movies beyond the first month.
Oh look. More fake outrage just to get hits. Have you actually seen the way real cats move? What they can do? Why is it such a stretch (heh) to have someone named CATWoman drawn to represent such an animal. All you need to do is watch the Olympics or go see a Cirque show and you’ll see tons of girls who can do such moves. Plus some.
PS/ I’m sure DC is making decisions off of one pseudo-journalist’s decision to leave a bloated hit-baiting site like CA. Way to ramp up the snark factor, oh Eisner-nominated “news” blog.
You’re pretty defensive about your masturbating, Mikael.
“Have you actually seen the way real cats move? What they can do? ”
My God, it made me laugh so loud… The day my cats will behave like this, I will throw them out!
I’m still waiting for Wolverine to behave like a real one and to suck his a… Plus, when is he gonna move his ass, touch his nipples and dance like those strippers I can see in clubs? :)
Don’t worry about the Dark Knight Rises/Anne Hathaway walk-in customer. Surely any good retailer will make sure those people only get to see the Ed Brubaker run?
“Oh look. More fake outrage just to get hits.”
Sorry, but the only fake is that pose on the cover, and seeing yet more butt hurt from a clueless fanboy who thinks it’s all about himself instead.
OMG, they’ve presented an oversexualized version of Catwoman! Good thing they’ve never done that before in the 60’s tv show, an awful Catwoman movie, and in dozens of other Catwoman comics over the years. I mean, yeah, the pose is ridiculous, but come on, its Catwoman…lets not act like this is going to destroy the image of a characters thats always been potrayed in a wholesome light or something.
My issue with this drawing isn’t it being “oversexualized” – the problem is that as a T&A cover, it’s a bad drawing. The pose is awful, confusing, inrealistic. A pin-up pose would have been better. An editor should have caught it at the sketch stage.
Aaron’s right. My first thought was wondering how this made it to final cover stage.
There’s nothing sexual about it at all. It’s just flat-out atrocious. The anatomy reminds me of that Rob Liefeld Captain America image that gets mocked so often.
I ask myself would Neal Adams, Jim Aparo, Carmine Infantino, John Byrne, or any other great artist that has drawn Catwoman have her in a pose like that. That’s one of the problems with today’s comic book artists, they do covers like that.
It’s Anne. Anne Hathaway. Not Ann.
I don’t fault you for going after the low-hanging fruit, but if you’re going to deliver the snark, make sure your don’t screw up an easily check fact like Anne Hathaway’s name.
Ann is the British spelling.
@Mike “The anatomy reminds me of that Rob Liefeld Captain America image that gets mocked so often.”
How old is March? I wouldn’t be surprised if he spent his formative years at the height of Liefeld’s popularity, figuring, hey if this guy can earn a living scratching out stuff like that, why can’t I.
It’s not as if either DC or Marvel actually hire editors who actually, you know, edit.
I love it when comments about typos contain typos.
About whether this is outrageous or not:
First, so glad we’re all discussing this with rational arguments and not calling anyone with a different viewpoint “clueless fanboys” or something.
Secondly, this is an oversexualized image with an exaggerated posture. It doesn’t strike me as very good. And it is also *exactly* in line with what this book has been from the start.
I’m not reading Catwoman–and no, covers like this don’t exactly make me want to–but from everything I’ve heard it’s an oversexualized, exaggerated book and doesn’t pretend to be otherwise. It may not appeal to you, but why is it so terrible that it exists? And why is a book doing what is has been doing for a year shocking news?
The rating dropped the “A”…
In the next few seconds, she’s going to be tripped up by her whip.
—
Guillem March (and DC editorial) made a mistake. His work on Gotham City Sirens seems to have been okay (I don’t recall any hubbub.) His covers for that series portrayed three sexual characters in modest poses.
His current work on Catwoman has been efficient, aside from the to-do over the first issue.
As for book marketing, which DC is quite good at…
There’s:
Gotham City Sirens: Strange Fruit set for July (TP, #14-19)
GOTHAM CITY SIRENS: DIVISION (TP, #20-26) came out in March, probably to avoid losing sales to the New 52 volume 1 (“The Game”) which pubbed in May.
As for Batman, DC is in the middle of reprinting No Man’s Land and Knightfall.
THIS IS INTERESTING…
Batman Classic: Batman versus Man-Bat
An “I Can Read!” book from HarperCollins. Might he be making a cameo in the movie?
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/batman-classic-j-e-bright/1110856876?ean=9780061885235&itm=1&usri=9780061885235
An Englishman writes: there are as many Annes as Anns here, or as in the US I imagine. It’s not as if the Beat never contained a typo before.
The moral disapproval over this cover is pretty synthetic. Its real offence is to try and cover all the bases in fetish interest, so to speak (with the odd omission of high heels). The whip looks as if Catwoman’s lashing herself on the buttocks.
The Mockingbird cover looks as if she fell off a ladder, having climbed up to get a knife and fork for Hawkeye’s breakfast.
If her name is Anne, what does it matter if the same name is spelled differently somewhere else? Her name is still Anne.
If DC wants to do T&A material, cool, knock yourselves out. But that cover is bad T&A; it doesn’t titillate, it confuses.
I tried to fix the cover, by moving the cleavage back under her chin and filling the gradient.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/heygregory/catwoman20coverfix.jpg[/IMG]
“It’s not as if either DC or Marvel actually hire editors who actually, you know, edit.”
…which at this stage shouldn’t really be seen as outrageous anymore either. Fake outrage over what’s been SOP in recent years must be in the air this morning.
“Have you actually seen the way real cats move? What they can do?”
I have. I have owned cats. But none of them had T&A like that.
The description of “beach ball wearing a wrinkled condom” seems apt. It’s not even attractive.
I’d have to say my general thoughts on this cover were….”huh”?
Not because of promoting Nolan’s flick, not because of the forced sexual pose…
My “huh’ came from how bad the overall piece is…other than being professionally colored this is one of the single worst drawings of a super hero I have ever seen on the cover of a DC or Marvel comic….just terrible.
It looks a lot like the kind of the amatuer whacky poses we tried drawing in the early 90’s after McFarlane had done new things with Spiderman or what a lot of early Image characters looked like. Essentially its got a lot of appeal to the late teens, early twenties geek set from 1993.
Way to go DC, another fabulous creative decision.
@KET “…which at this stage shouldn’t really be seen as outrageous anymore either
Well, yes it should be.
If I’m to infer from your statement that just because poor (or no) editing has been the norm at DC & Marvel that readers should just accept it is ridiculous.
If this horrible illustration graced the desk of an editor or art director of a professional publication, it would be rejected in a second.
From this and recent output from Marvel and DC it looks as if artwork decisions are being made by fanzine creators rather than major company professional editors.
i cant believe todd mcfarlane would do that to poor old Spidey
at best its lazy and derivative art direction and character design. Playing to the lowest common denominator with sex appeal is a conceptual white flag. I get why the bottom feeder publishers do it, but the big 2 have the talent on board to actually come up with great new ideas, instead of playing to the “fat loser in the basement” stereotype.
Why does every female character in comics have to be dressed like a fetish model? Its boring and derivative more than its offensive at this point.
Wow, Catwoman sure has gone to shit since the Brubaker / Cooke / Allred days.
The most disturbing thing about this image is that somebody apparently thought it was sexy (either that, or it’s announcing a new story arc where she gets crushed by a falling safe).
>Why does every female character in [superhero] comics
>have to be dressed like a fetish model?
And how are you enjoying your visit to our planet?
Seriously, though, it’s lazy and tiresome and derivative and offensive, but that boat has sailed a long time ago and shows no sign of altering course. Images like this make me wonder if there’s anyone involved in the entire chain of production for most mainstream superhero comics who cares about producing something other than garbage. The only exceptions seem to be a very small percentage of writers and artists currently getting regular work from Marvel and DC, and even when they’re actually producing something good, the editorial[sic] process still fucks it up at least half the time.
After breaking her spine in that pose, maybe Selina can become the new oracle. ;)
I love how fanboys get so defensive over the crap they read. “Hey, if I want my comics to be so inbred and ghetto-ized that no one but me and a few thousand other boys read them, that’s none of your business!”
Oh, okay, since they’re yours and all…
“The issue sees Catwoman’s origin explained, making it perfect for new readers who want to pick up the issue after seeing Ann Hathaway’s turn as the character in the movie.”
A) Everyone knows that comic book movies never even come close to bringing in new readers. Not because comics are confusing, but simply because people don’t want to read them and/or have no interest in finding them (online or in physical stores). So you’re being awfully optimistic with your hypothetical scenario. How many non-comics readers will want to read a new Catwoman comic book due to The Dark Knight Rises? My guess is less than a dozen.
B) As others have said, it’s Anne with an e. This is almost as bad as Marjorie Liu (and all her editors getting) Northstar’s name wrong two issues before their bit “We LOVE gays and care SO much ABOUT them!” extravaganza.
C) Just because Laura Hudson (whom I liked!) isn’t as Comics Alliance anymore doesn’t mean we need a lot of articles like this here. We get it: everyone is sexist and we are all so offended.
>Not because comics are confusing, but simply
>because people don’t want to read them and/or
>have no interest in finding them (online or
>in physical stores).
What is your basis for this claim? It seems to me like confusing storylines and difficulty (not lack of interest) in finding comics are primary barriers to bringing in new readers.
>We get it: everyone is sexist and we are
>all so offended.
Translation: Please stop pointing out that the sexist entertainment I enjoy is sexist.
*checked
There all better.
Grrr.
*There. All Better.
That was the Lithuanian grammatical interpretation.
Why do articles and blog posts on this topic always only shake a finger at the company and never name and shame the artist that did the offensive drawing?
It’s a fact:
Batman books sell (and sell through the Holiday shopping season) whenever a Nolan Bat-Pic screens.
It happened spectacularly after the second movie, when the original graphic novel of the Joker became a bestseller.
In addition to the Bat-Canon of self-contained titles which are perennial sellers (Dark Knight Returns, Arkham Asylum, Long Halloween), this year we will see No Man’s Land and Knightfall sales increase due to the movie.
Currently at BN.com, the top selling Batman GN is:
The Batman Files (a licensed tie-in, at #815)
Batman: The Killing Joke (#32 among all GNs)
I feel that moviegoers know superhero movies are not adaptations, and merely seek to read good stories based on the characters they’ve just seen. Or they might be curious about a supporting character, like the customer who came in looking for Aquaman GNs after the Smallville episode (thank god I had the DC Showcase volume!)
Catwoman Vol. 1: Trail of the Catwoman by Darwyn Cooke was released in January, and I suspect that DC is including this in whatever Batman consignment deal they offer to comics shops. (Batman vs. Bane shipped in February.) The Brubaker volumes appear to be in print. It looks like the 1993 “Purple Pussycat” Catwoman series has never been collected.
I also suspect that newsstand sales (and those at comics shops) receive little boost from the movies. The fans already are reading the series, the man-on-the-street wants a complete story at a decent price.
(I wonder what type of publishing strategy DC did for the first Superman film. I remember a few licensed trade books, as well as a few special issues (Bottle City of Kandor, Superman Pavilion)).
It’s not an unattainable pose. Just because the women complaining about it can’t do it doesn’t make it impossible.
Mikael said…
“All you need to do is watch the Olympics or go see a Cirque show and you’ll see tons of girls who can do such moves. Plus some.”
I spent part of the weekend watching the Visa Gymnastics Championships (basically the auditions for the US Olympic Team).
Not one of the gymnasts did THAT!
Turkish said:
“It’s not an unattainable pose. Just because the women complaining about it can’t do it doesn’t make it impossible.”
Send us a pic of YOU “attaining” it!
it’s crap. nuff sed. nothing is really happening at the big two right now except gimics and stunts.
Were I the head writer on Catwoman, this would be the first thing I would say after seeing that cover, a la Jay Sherman in that episode of The Critic “All the Duke’s Men”:
“Get that man OFF my book!!!”
>It’s not an unattainable pose. Just because
>the women complaining about it can’t do it
>doesn’t make it impossible.
Geez, who says comic fanboys are immature sexist pigs?
It’s just one cover. Guillem March pencilled and inked 7 of the 9 released issues of Catwoman and provided covers for all. He’s listed as doing interiors for Talon #0, plus that cover and this one, for Sept. Before that he’d done pencils and interiors for various Bat-books for a couple years. His rendering is especially kinetic, with a fair amount of detail and a nice bouncy line. It’s also fairly stylized and he’s been known to take some liberty with human anatomy. And he’s European. Also, I’d say that Catwoman is currently written, probably concieved, as intentionally sexy.
Just some perspective. Now someone call be a basement-dwelling masturbator.
No-Prize answer: This is a Catwoman balloon from Gotham’s Thanksgiving Day parade. That should be clear from the helium-swelled chest and butt, right?
David, you missed the point. It’s NOT sexy. No one here is griping because they are prudish. People are talking about this image because it’s a gross distortion of the human anatomy.
I’m personally making fun of it and the artist that drew it because I think it exemplifies how many comics, but Marvel and DC most especially, are created to sell to an ever-shrinking fan-base of now mostly city boys. If comics really were available to the public at large, they wouldn’t look like this, because they wouldn’t sell.
Catwoman not only has bowling ball breasts, now she has a bowling ball butt.
Atomic Kommie Comics
06/12/2012 at 2:30 pm
Turkish said:
“It’s not an unattainable pose. Just because the women complaining about it can’t do it doesn’t make it impossible.”
Send us a pic of YOU “attaining” it!
–That makes no sense as a rebuttal. 1. I’m not complaining about it, so I have nothing to prove. 2. I’m not a woman. 3. I do believe a man could successfully replicate that pose, but the percentage of men that could so such a feat is likely lower than the percentage of women that could do so and that’s already a small percentage. 4. I said it’s not unattainable. I did NOT say that anyone could do it. 5. I never said I could.
6. Grow up.
Tron, I don’t think I’ve missed the point. My counter is that we shouldn’t crucify the artist over just one anatomically dubious cover.
I also don’t think its fair to extrapolate some grand treatise on how poor anatomy or overt sexualization is ghettoizing comics from a single cover.
David, I don’t know who Tron is, but I think it’s real clever how you can’t spell.
And who’s extrapolating from one cover?
Listen, if you have trouble with reading comprehension or are dyslexic, I apologize. I wouldn’t want to just make up assumptions about things out of thin air.
Scratchie
06/12/2012 at 3:19 pm
>It’s not an unattainable pose. Just because
>the women complaining about it can’t do it
>doesn’t make it impossible.
Geez, who says comic fanboys are immature sexist pigs?
–People like you, but only in passive-aggressive ways so it looks like you didn’t do exactly what you just did.
What’s immature and sexist about disagreeing with a woman? OH! Right.
And by the way, I think it’s a stupid cover like all of the zero issues. I don’t read Marvel or DC comics so I am not a “fanboy.” All I did was contradict the assertion that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to attain this pose, and I get passive-aggressive misandry in response. When you point a finger, there’s 3 pointing back at you.
I don’t have to prove it’s attainable by doing it myself or having someone else do it and take a picture and show all of you. And even then I’d probably be accused of photoshopping it or some other ridiculous accusation so that the naysayers don’t have to doubt their closely held opinions. If you want to prove that it is unattainable by having all women attempt it and fail, go for it…because you’re the ones making the lofty claims. All I’m saying is I think you’re wrong.
The other one with the fork stabbing looks physically impossible. The Hack/Slash one from a while back looks like the figure was drawn one way then changed in a very haphazard way making it look ridiculous. This catwoman one IS possible. Maybe only by a very small percentage of people, but it’s not impossible…and aren’t all superheroes representative of a small percentage of their comic book population anyway.
At this point, the whole “brokeback pose” obsession has turned into one of those games where you punch someone when you spot something. It gets old and you’re the only one still playing and everybody thinks you’re annoying about it.
What bugs me about the catwoman cover is why shy is only using 3 fingers in her clawing motion. Seems counter-intuitive to me. But what do I know, I’m probably just an immature sexist fanboy pig, right?
Geez.
I’m getting tired of the general defeatist thread of comments along the lines of “well it’s not new that it’s a sexualized pose, there have been tons of sexualized poses before, so why are you complaining?” I’m complaining because this is a sexualized pose and things should change, and the more people talk about things like this as being wrong and not what they want in comics, the more things are likely to change.
I’m not against sexy. I’m against destroying anatomy for the sake of MOAR BUTTS AND BOOBIES. I’m against posing like a pornographic pinup when it should be an action pose or an emotional moment. If the story’s about the character seducing someone, then by all means bring out the sexy. If it’s about the character comforting someone, make them act comforting, not hip-thrusting and boob-jutting while offering a kleenex.
Anyways… might as well plug since I’m here: I did a redraw of the Catwoman #0 cover. While it’s not perfect, I think it’s better than what’s on offer now. http://lesstitsnass.tumblr.com/post/24958927646/catwoman-why-does-your-butt-stick-out-like
>And who’s extrapolating from one cover?
Here’s an example:
>I think it exemplifies how many comics, but Marvel and DC most especially, are created to sell to an ever-shrinking fan-base of now mostly city boys. If comics really were available to the public at large, they wouldn’t look like this, because they wouldn’t sell.
But I was mostly referring to the OP itself, and a majority of the more critical comments.
I have a buddy named Carlton and we call him Tron. Sorry for being overly familiar.
>When you point a finger, there’s 3 pointing
>back at you.
Game, set and match. You didn’t even have to pull out “I’m rubber, you’re glue.”
Scratchie
06/12/2012 at 5:03 pm
>When you point a finger, there’s 3 pointing
>back at you.
Game, set and match. You didn’t even have to pull out “I’m rubber, you’re glue.”
-or about your house being made of glass and how you should think twice about that stone in your hand.
@Karine
Your drawing is very, very good. Catwoman looks sexy and like she’s ready to kick ass.
It’s a rather hideous looking cover. It would never entice me to pick up the book if I saw it on the rack.
“Outrage” over anatomical exaggeration baffles me. Isn’t that one of the artistic strengths of the medium we love?
The Tiki
Actual human beings are capable of even more outrageous poses.
http://community.simplycircus.com/tutorials/acrobatics/contortionistshandbook/about_backs_and_back_bending.htm
Comic books, people. It’s funny what unreality we let walk, and what gets our panties in a bunch.
Also, the great Michael Kupperman did his own take:
http://twitpic.com/9vo8t2
Dat ass.
And WHERE is the outrage when the Beat and other Geek Girls slobber and drool over the latest pics posted of the overmuscled-hottie d’jour pretty boy?? WHERE I ask??
Oh, wait. That’s ok!! WHY can’t I remember it’s ok for women to objectify men all the while complaining and spewing outrage about every cover that comes along of a drawing of a busty woman achieving a pose that IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE BY HUMANS?
It’s the same place the outrage is over the “sausage fest” comment thrown around so often. “Sausage fest” = ok. “Tuna Fest” = offensive and sexist and outrageous!!
OtisTFirefly, Women view themselves as weak and vulnerable and men are the ones always preying on them so of course they’re going to have double standards when it comes to men.
@Otis and Saber
Should you be up this late on the computer? Your moms will be quite upset with you looking at porn and trolling again. You’ll be late for school too, if you don’t get your rest.
What the Hell is with the misogynistic hate fest? I mean, you want to argue the pose is humanly possible, I think you’re missing the point, but that opinion has merit, so cool. You want to argue the book is sexy to you, that’s personal opinion, so cool. But to argue that it’s a double standard to like a picture of an attractive man but get mad at this drawing or that getting mad is due to being a weaker gender…the Hell is this place? The Ayn Rand support group?
This is why women don’t read comics. It’s not bad enough they’re subjected to confusing, poor T&A, no, it’s that when they’re like, “wha…huh?” they get called “weak and vulnerable.”
This is also why people associate comic readers with masturbating in their parents’ basements to Superman comics, because that opinion is so insular and removed from reality. You guys make the rest of us look bad.
I have a wife. I have a daughter (she 1 so she’s not a factor yet).I occasionally ask her to check a comic out. They both go to the LCS with me once in a while, she sees a cover like this or one of the Zenescope titles and it becomes very hard to convince her that every terrible stereotype about comics isn’t true. Luckily, I have an LCS that has a large variety of comics and has them displayed smartly but crap like this catches your eye faster than a good drawing of Catwoman. I guess that’s what DC is going for.
My 15 year old brother-in-law would dig it. He wouldn’t read the comic though.
What would be the point of catwoman if she’s not sexualized
I just read the latest “Night of Owls” issue with Catwoman and Penguin.
While reading, there was nothing which smacked of “fan service”. (Even Penguin’s “working girls” are fairly conservative.) The cover is an action shot (as have been most of the covers since #1), the action inside like most other martial arts superhero stories.
I’m a man, but I feel that the series would actually appeal to many women. The first story arc was quite good, adding to her origin and character. (The current storyline is interesting, where she teams up with a hunky Asian thief.)
Don’t judge a book by a cover. (But feel free to judge the publisher, especially one who places this sort of cover on an issue which is designed to attract new readers.)
Heh… they should have gotten Moritat from All-Star Western to design the cover! He’s quite talented when it comes to drawing sexy animal women! Mmmm…
>she sees a cover like this or one of the
>Zenescope titles and it becomes very hard to
>convince her that every terrible stereotype
>about comics isn’t true.
Well if she’s still not sure, you can just direct her to this comment thread, or the comment thread on any similar blog article.
It looks like it was designed for a button. Maybe they are re-using some un-used promotional art?
But art aside, Catwoman – the character – has not fared well in the clammy hands of WB Marketing’s Nu52.
I just saw the May sales at Comichron and Catwoman outsold Wonder Woman and Batwoman for the month of May. I think that’s pretty darn good.
Just think how awesome this cover would’ve been if Jim Balent drew it!
Chris Hero
06/13/2012 at 2:29 am
What the Hell is with the misogynistic hate fest? I mean, you want to argue the pose is humanly possible, I think you’re missing the point[…]
–I’d like to direct you to this passage from The Beat’s article:
“The general consensus is that she has had her spine broken, throat ripped out and possibly a leg taken off, in order to achieve the pose seen in the cover.”
So, it’s not missing the point at all. Seems like it’s entirely the point. It’s the only reason I commented, and neither my comment nor my outlook are misogynistic. Passive-aggressive misandry, however, IS evident in comments made by Scratchie.
I agree with don that it looks like reused promo art to avoid paying an artist to draw a new cover.
Also, it’s nowhere near the level of sexploitation (not misogyny) evident in Zenescope stuff.
To sum up, the pose is attainable, and stop using misogyny/misogynist inappropriately (this is for everyone, not just Chris Hero).
Thanks.
@Rich caldwell
I’m not “trolling”… I’m making a comment here just like you. Sorry if pointing out the raging hypocrisy of sites like this bothers your holier-than-thou sensibilities.
@Chris
>>>But to argue that it’s a double standard to like a picture of an attractive man but get mad at this drawing or that getting mad is due to being a weaker gender…”
To like a picture of an attractive man – there’s not a damn thing wrong with that. To post them and the drooling commentary about their beefcakey hunky bods and THEN take offense at any sort of suggestive poses of female characters… how is that not hypocrisy? That’s all I’m saying.
And who the hell is “hating” dude? You perceive women as SO WEAK that to point out hypocrisy is hatred?
>>>You guys make the rest of us look bad.
Yes absolutely. DARING to treat women as equals and suggest they are as morally ambiguous as MEN… I’m sure in your world that makes men look bad. Better to stick with your philosophy and treat them as fragile dolls.
This is why women don’t read comics. It’s not bad enough they’re subjected to confusing, poor T&A, no, it’s that when they’re like, “wha…huh?” they get called “weak and vulnerable.” Let me clarify m point. My point is that there is a world of difference between sexual objectifcation of women and sexual objectification of men. To some women, overly sexualized imagery of women seems to encourage violence and disrespect towards women and that is the context which they veiw such imagery. I’m going to stand by my claim that when these women are presented with overly sexualized imagery of women, not a badly drawn cover that this blog is highlighting, they are going to feel weak and vulnerable; threatend.
.
Actually I’m getting pretty sick of the false outrage too.
1) The pose on that cover is very feasible with he right camera angle, to the point where it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the artist wasn’t working from a gymnast fetish photo.
2) Maybe it would break YOUR spine to arc slightly backwards and turn 8 degrees to the left, but seriously, *I* could do that pose(assuming there’s a camera webbed to the ceiling), and I’m middle aged and over weight.
3) They’re superheroes, not average, aging normal folks. If a pose is doable by an entry level gymnast in a leotard, it doesn’t need to be picked apart when you see a superhero doing it.
Folks, there are real battles that need fighting, can we stop putting energy into weather or not CATWOMAN’S pose is objectifying and focus on something real, or is that too hard?
@Jydradi
Careful…hell hath no fury like those filled with false outrage called out. Trust me on this one.
Comments are closed.