Support NeoGAF

[Chococat]

Eh, it is kinda creep putting boobs on 5-8 year olds. The target audience is kids- not grow men.

 

[border]

Are "kids" really reading this comic book that costs probably $4/issue, and is aimed pretty clearly at manchildren who grew up in the late 90's and early 2000's? Unless I am mistaken, Powerpuff Girls ceased production like a decade ago.

 

[EliteArtist]

Yeah, not too concerned with the controversy. More concerned with the fact that someone in all likely hood got paid to make this cover. It's kind of terrible. I think the artist also recently did an Adventure Time variant cover and it was equally as bad for all the characters who were human-esque.

At least my man Mojo is lookin good.

 

[Kinvara]

The avatars you guys are using don't exactly mask your obvious bias for sexualised female cartoon characters.

Regarding the picture in the OP, not only have the girls been sexualised physically (long slender legs, shapely and largish breasts) they've had any real expression stripped from them and replaced with dead features including lustful eyes. They even all share the same expression/features apart from their clothes/hair/accessories. Powerpuff Girls was all about showing how girls could be tough, full of character, unique, varied and bad-ass in equal measures to boys and most importantly so without being objectified - that image doesn't exactly support it and I'm glad it's not being run on an official publication. I do however think this image is fine as a fan-art piece that won't be put in front of already established younger fans.

I'm a little disappointed and surprised to see nobody else in the thread feels this image leaves a bad taste in the context it was chosen for. It's incredibly off brand in a way that could effect young girls negatively.

Yeah, this sums it up a lot better than what I could have said.

 

[ReiGun]

It's probably important to consider context. In most comic stores, this book is going to be shelved with the all-ages kid-friendly books.

But it's a variant cover, which normally have to be requested in advance.

Here is the actual cover to the book:

Are "kids" really reading this comic book that costs probably $4/issue, and is aimed pretty clearly at manchildren who grew up in the late 90's and early 2000's? Unless I am mistaken, Powerpuff Girls ceased production like a decade ago.

Most of IDW's books are aimed squarely at children and families and tend to perform well with that demo.

 

[Alx]

Reminds me of this, which is much better anyway:

I like that. Who's the artist ?

 

[Tenumi]

The avatars you guys are using don't exactly mask your obvious bias for sexualised female cartoon characters.

Regarding the picture in the OP, not only have the girls been sexualised physically (long slender legs, shapely and largish breasts) they've had any real expression stripped from them and replaced with dead features including lustful eyes. They even all share the same expression/features apart from their clothes/hair/accessories. Powerpuff Girls was all about showing how girls could be tough, full of character, unique, varied and bad-ass in equal measures to boys and most importantly so without being objectified - that image doesn't exactly support it and I'm glad it's not being run on an official publication. I do however think this image is fine as a fan-art piece that won't be put in front of already established younger fans.

I'm a little disappointed and surprised to see nobody else in the thread feels this image leaves a bad taste in the context it was chosen for. It's incredibly off brand in a way that could effect young girls negatively.

Minus the avatar stereotyping, I agree with you 100%.

Unless the comic has changed the series completely, that cover completely misses what Powerpuff Girls has been built on.

 

[sibarraz]

The problem with the artwork is that doesn't fit with the actual comic, hell mojo jojo looks so weird there because his artstyle is too diferent

 

[notworksafe]

The problem with the artwork is that doesn't fit with the actual comic, hell mojo jojo looks so weird there because his artstyle is too diferent

Yeah that's how variant covers usually work, they are usually done by a different artist than the ones that do the normal cover/interior. Sometimes they have characters who aren't in the book on the cover.

 

[border]

The problem with the artwork is that doesn't fit with the actual comic, hell mojo jojo looks so weird there because his artstyle is too diferent

The point of all of IDW's alternate covers is that they have a wildly different art style.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

you guys are crazy if you don't think this is over sexualized. not appropiate at all for the age group it's aiming at. glad they took it down.

 

[bengraven]

I like that. Who's the artist ?

Artgerm

He is incredibly dope.

 

[notworksafe]

you guys are crazy if you don't think this is over sexualized. not appropiate at all for the age group it's aiming at. glad they took it down.

I think it looks fine content-wise. It's just bad art, so that alone makes it inappropriate.

 

[akira28]

you guys are crazy if you don't think this is over sexualized. not appropiate at all for the age group it's aiming at. glad they took it down.

It's not "over-sexualized". It's an alt-cover of the girls being older. Like old school Legion Saturn Girl.

One of these is definitely sexualized, the other is not.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Ewwww.

But it's a variant cover, which normally have to be requested in advance.

Here is the actual cover to the book:

Most of IDW's books are aimed squarely at children and families and tend to perform well with that demo.

Now, that's the Powerpuff Girls that I know!

 

[MHWilliams]

Are "kids" really reading this comic book that costs probably $4/issue, and is aimed pretty clearly at manchildren who grew up in the late 90's and early 2000's? Unless I am mistaken, Powerpuff Girls ceased production like a decade ago.

Yes. Kids are. My niece reads the series.

 

[Gherid__lacksGPS]

Doesn't look perverted to me, but my standards are very high. I demand at least grape jelly and a ball gag for my perv-o-meter to even register a tick.

So nice to not be alone in this world.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Christ... those things look weird as fuck.

 

[dripdripsplash]

The avatars you guys are using don't exactly mask your obvious bias for sexualised female cartoon characters.

Regarding the picture in the OP, not only have the girls been sexualised physically (long slender legs, shapely and largish breasts) they've had any real expression stripped from them and replaced with dead features including lustful eyes. They even all share the same expression/features apart from their clothes/hair/accessories. Powerpuff Girls was all about showing how girls could be tough, full of character, unique, varied and bad-ass in equal measures to boys and most importantly so without being objectified - that image doesn't exactly support it and I'm glad it's not being run on an official publication. I do however think this image is fine as a fan-art piece that won't be put in front of already established younger fans.

I'm a little disappointed and surprised to see nobody else in the thread feels this image leaves a bad taste in the context it was chosen for. It's incredibly off brand in a way that could effect young girls negatively.

Well said.

 

[Unspeakable Evil]

Not sure why the artist drew them like this. They're suppose to be in kindergarten.

 

[Shouta]

Wow good thing they have never seen any art from Japan.

There is amazing manga art from Japan. Bad dan2026, bad!

I don't see too much of an issue with the cover, especially as it's a variant rather the standard. The art being ugly is more of a problem than anything. The faces don't really match the older frames the artist was using for the girls so it looks really janky would be where I'd say the art fucked up.

Not sure why the artist drew them like this. They're suppose to be in kindergarten.

It's an alternate cover using other artists' own representation of the characters. The super hero one posted in the thread is one of them. They're meant to be somewhat divorced from the actual characters and situations in universe.

 

[InfiniteNine]

Their faces scare me especially Bubbles. >:

 

[Black Door]

On the real, this comes off as someone who's never had something they grew up re-interpreted by alternate artists; the outrage being so hot but misplaced. It brings me back to the reboot redesigns when that show had rumblings of being restarted a few years ago and how vocal and vitrolic the feedback was.

I don't know how anyone could have a problem with these designs (outside of maybe the fact they're a bit Mass Effect-y), because the originals are dated as fuck

 

[BocoDragon]

Mature women with grown up bodies. Breasts and everything. Looking sultry. SEXUALIZATION ALERT.

Should have made them more frumpy. I'm thinking messy hair, hoodies and bodies that resemble a prepubescent boy. No skin at all. Give them awkward looks on their faces. That's the progressive ticket!

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

The avatars you guys are using don't exactly mask your obvious bias for sexualised female cartoon characters.

So they should've drawn ugly girls instead? I read your full post, but you and others thinking that way are just taking this way out of line. There's nothing sexually stimulating about the cover, nothing. Unless a guy's just never seen a pair of slender legs in their life or gets off to the mere showing of any bit of skin, but that's their problem.

What's even more funny is that I never see this argument come up when it's a male character who's showing off their bare muscular chest in glistening heat, quite common in plenty of comic books. Yet no outrage there. So what happened to equal rights regardless of gender? Guys can show some skin but girls can't? You don't think out-of-shape men get their feelings hurt when they see a drawn beefcake on the cover? Ever heard of muscle-shaming?

Like I said before, there's nothing sexualized here. The girls aren't grabbing their breast, doing panty-shots or making extremely suggestive orgy faces. I just see three teenage looking girls around a green monkey and one of them has her legs crossed showing just a bit of thigh, but that's expected. So we can stop calling foul where none's been done, 'kay?

 

[Pop-O-Matic]

I don't know how anyone could have a problem with these designs (outside of maybe the fact they're a bit Mass Effect-y), because the originals are dated as fuck

Change is bad.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

I don't know how anyone could have a problem with these designs (outside of maybe the fact they're a bit Mass Effect-y), because the originals are dated as fuck

They're simple, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're dated. The fact they're simple and have very defining proportions that work well in silhouette, and color schemes that pop and give each one uniformity, actually makes the designs quite timeless. The most timeless designs tend to be the most simple on average, but it doesn't mean the designs have to be boring.

Personally I don't think the PPG designs are boring, and given the sort of 50s pop-art/60s technicolor inspirations the show has they work very well in that context. They maybe could do with some sprucing up, but it has to be done with extreme caution and keeping the original inspiration intact.

 

[The Technomancer]

The avatars you guys are using don't exactly mask your obvious bias for sexualised female cartoon characters.

Regarding the picture in the OP, not only have the girls been sexualised physically (long slender legs, shapely and largish breasts) they've had any real expression stripped from them and replaced with dead features including lustful eyes. They even all share the same expression/features apart from their clothes/hair/accessories. Powerpuff Girls was all about showing how girls could be tough, full of character, unique, varied and bad-ass in equal measures to boys and most importantly so without being objectified - that image doesn't exactly support it and I'm glad it's not being run on an official publication. I do however think this image is fine as a fan-art piece that won't be put in front of already established younger fans.

I'm a little disappointed and surprised to see nobody else in the thread feels this image leaves a bad taste in the context it was chosen for. It's incredibly off brand in a way that could effect young girls negatively.

Nah, it does. Not a fan of that cover at all.

 

[jaypah]

It has a bit of that face sitting fetish vibe. Her ass is directly on his head.

Didn't even notice Mojo until you said this so, yeah. Might be a tad pervy lol

 

[Father_Brain]

I'm not against the idea of a variant cover depicting the PPG as adults, but the sultry poses and lustful come-hither expressions are just gross in this context. IDW was right to pull it.

 

[Wazzy]

Mature women with grown up bodies. Breasts and everything. Looking sultry. SEXUALIZATION ALERT.

Should have made them more frumpy. I'm thinking messy hair, hoodies and bodies that resemble a prepubescent boy. No skin at all. Give them awkward looks on their faces. That's the progressive ticket!

I don't understand the point of this post.

What does that have to do with this cover?

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm not against the idea of a variant cover depicting the PPG as adults, but the sultry poses and lustful come-hither expressions are just gross in this context. IDW was right to pull it.

Didn't you hear man, apparently there's no way anyone could find any part of that drawing "sexy"

 

[Dead Man]

Mature women with grown up bodies. Breasts and everything. Looking sultry. SEXUALIZATION ALERT.

Should have made them more frumpy. I'm thinking messy hair, hoodies and bodies that resemble a prepubescent boy. No skin at all. Give them awkward looks on their faces. That's the progressive ticket!

So the characters were supposed to look 18 on the cover rather than their actual age of 8 or whatever? Or are those supposed to be the same age. That's the problem mate.

 

[The Technomancer]

Someone named Dennis Barger, Jr. doesn't seem like the kind of person that is harmed by the sexualization of preteen fictional girls. Perhaps if there is an actual victim in this situation, that person could speak up and let us know the problem.

The whole "there's no victims to sexualized depictions of female characters" argument loses a bit of weight when we're talking about media that is aimed at young girls. Lord knows they're still have enough fucking body-image issues to work through with all the rest of media.

 

[border]

The whole "there's no victims to sexualized depictions of female characters" argument loses a bit of weight when we're talking about media that is aimed at young girls. Lord knows they're still have enough fucking body-image issues to work through with all the rest of media.

As with My Little Pony, there's at the least a dual audience for this that includes older men and women (particularly given the show's place in lots of young adults' childhoods). This cover is likely aimed at them, as it's meant only for comic shops.

 

[Dead Man]

Someone named Dennis Barger, Jr. doesn't seem like the kind of person that is harmed by the sexualization of preteen fictional girls. Perhaps if there is an actual victim in this situation, that person could speak up and let us know the problem.

An actual victim? So, pre teen girls worldwide are supposed to pipe up to your neogaf account just so you can have an actual victim? Why does there need to be a specific victim to find something in poor taste? This is not a criminal case.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Yes. The interior art uses the same style as the TV show.

Gonna have to call overreaction on this one. Nothing really sexual about outside of maybe Blossom showing a little too much thigh. It's more creepy than anything.

5 year olds with B-cups... yeah, i can see why some would be offended.

 

[LouisaFerre]

I don't think I'd react that intensely but the art does look weird as hell in a way that I don't really find fitting for the show.

 

[Carnby]

Why do most women in modern illustrations resemble stoned aliens?

 

[Zoe]

So the characters were supposed to look 18 on the cover rather than their actual age of 8 or whatever? Or are those supposed to be the same age. That's the problem mate.

How could you possibly think that's not an aged-up picture?

 

[ReiGun]

5 year olds with B-cups... yeah, i can see why some would be offended.

Are they really supposed to be five in the variant though? They looked aged up.

I guess the internet's just desensitized me, because as far as "sexy little girl art" goes, this seems relatively tame. Like I said, more than anything, I just find the art creepy and offputting.

 

[Shouta]

Are they really supposed to be five in the variant though? They looked aged up.

I guess the internet's just desensitized me, because as far as "sexy little girl art" goes, this seems relatively tame. Like I said, more than anything, I just find the art creepy and offputting.

Anyone in their right mind would see that they're supposed to be aged up.

 

[The Technomancer]

They're definitely aged up. Its just that they're both dressed and posed "seductively".

I'm not particularly "outraged" or anything, I just sympathize with those who dislike it for reasons of it being "problematic"

 

[Shouta]

They're clothing isn't anymore provocative than the other alternate cover though. It's actually probably less provocative in comparison.

The poses aren't very "seductive" either. Buttercup is standing strong in a heroic, strong-style pose. and Bubbles is raising her fist up in a little gesture.. Blossom has her hands on her hip looking a bit sassy but that's about it really. Only thing that might be questionable is author's choice to have Blossom sitting with her legs pointing toward the viewer but really, someone sitting there and crossing their legs? That's just pushing it.

The problem is, as I mentioned in my other post, the art being fugly and the faces not matching the body types displayed in the cover.

So I don't really see the actual problem.

 

[akira28]

The problem is we all have dirty birdy minds. I blame the internet.

 

[The Technomancer]

They're clothing isn't anymore provocative than the other alternate cover though. It's actually probably less provocative in comparison.

The poses aren't very "seductive" either. Buttercup is standing strong in a heroic, strong-style pose. and Bubbles is raising her fist up in a little gesture.. Blossom has her hands on her hip looking a bit sassy but that's about it really. Only thing that might be questionable is author's choice to have Blossom sitting with her legs pointing toward the viewer but really, someone sitting there and crossing their legs? That's just pushing it.

The problem is, as I mentioned in my other post, the art being fugly and the faces not matching the body types displayed in the cover.

So I don't really see the actual problem.

Eh, Buttercup's pose is whatever, but the other two instantly put me in mind of pin up girls posing on a car

 

[Village]

The problem is, as I mentioned in my other post, the art being fugly and the faces not matching the body types displayed in the cover.

So I don't really see the actual problem.

Yes.

Take this imaginative for example, faces match bodies have somewhat reasonable proportions .

The issue with that cover is not the the girls being sexualized , its the quality of art. A lot of the issue with that picture is that the art is kinda bad.

 

[border]

Take this imaginative for example, faces match bodies have somewhat reasonable proportions .

I see ten year olds in thigh high stockings and skirts that barely cover anything. How is this better? I feel like 10 times creepier looking at drawing you posted.

 

[Zoe]

I see ten year olds in thigh high stockings and skirts that barely cover anything. How is this better? I feel like 10 times creepier looking at drawing you posted.

You've seen 10 year olds with breasts like that?

 

[Village]

I see ten year olds in thigh high stockings and skirts that barely cover anything. How is this better? I feel like 10 times creepier looking at drawing you posted.

Seems to be pretty inline with their regular clothing. ( i dunno stocking works, I never looked to much into Ppg stocking tech, )

But to answer your question, the art is generally better. I don't feel creeped out by looking at it. " oh its the powerpuff girls, thats cool". That OP cover though, besides it being creepy for entire aesthetic reasons, it has the added bonus of the bad art making things look a bit more sexual than they should