Shouta
Member
I can't think of many pin-up models that use the fist up pose myself. Blossom's is probably the most like a pin-up model but that's incredibly mild.
I'm amused that you liken Mojo Jojo to a car though, ha.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
IDW cancels "controversial" subscriber variant cover for upcoming Powerpuff Girls #6.
- Thread starter Spike Spiegel
- Start date
- Status
I can't think of many pin-up models that use the fist up pose myself. Blossom's is probably the most like a pin-up model but that's incredibly mild.
I'm amused that you liken Mojo Jojo to a car though, ha.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Honestly just change the poses and facial expressions. The facial expressions especially have that "narrowed eyes, slight head turn" "hey big boy" look to them
I'm not really sure if it needs "fixing", its not like its in major circulation, I just empathize with the people who find it problematic
Agreed
Do you think this will affect re-imaginings of characters in the future?
I didn't add any of that context to that picture.. but ok...
Shouta
Member
They actually have stalkings and the skirts are just an extension of the one-piece from the original design. Heh. Gonna have to take issue with girl's fashion in general, lol.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I feel this is the equivalent of those "serious Mario" designs you see occasionally. A stylized, closer to reality than a cartoon, but still surreal artpiece.
But because it depicts females, we have to have a big careful debate over appropriateness. Conservative or liberal, male or female... Everyone has an opinion about how females ought to look.
But because it depicts females, we have to have a big careful debate over appropriateness. Conservative or liberal, male or female... Everyone has an opinion about how females ought to look.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
When the sexualization (or objectification, etc) of female figures (especially in "geek" culture) stops being the default state of design then maybe people will stop being annoyed with it.
De-age them- make them shorter and remove the boobs. (Funny how they aged the girl and changed the style, but Mojo remains the same age and close to model).
Remove the cheesecake poses.
The style is not what is wrong, it for the actual product they should young girls- not fan art aimed at men.
The artist wanted to do a alt-cover directed at older readers. I say fine, whatever. It's supposed to be edgy, not directly sexually suggestive. It's not intended to be little girls in thigh boots making bedroom eyes. But that's what some people see. And I'm not entirely sure that view is valid.
Go back to the fact that they are girls ? =P
But c'mon, we ALL KNOW that the outrage is because they have FINGERS on this cover and the implications of this in the girl's growth
How many girl's fashion sites or magazines encourage pre-teens to dress like that? It's as creepy as Toddlers in Tiaras.
Also, give them different faces and expressions that are appropriate to their character.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
As if that's the only view out there of how women ought to look.
Or maybe it's the fact that this is a childrens' series about kindergarten-age superheroes and the art makes them look like plastic sex dolls.
The woman who made the covers voiced her annoyance with the characterization that this was overtly sexual.
I'm the teen fashon guy, i am sure there is a teen fashion gaf in this place. There is an everything gaf, but I will reiterate i just saw cute kids.
I don't think you have to do anything you said to do that though... at all. They just kind of need to be drawn better.
Thats what I am saying. I didn't get any sexual context from that picture, just .. cute children.
Fusion had good re imagining in general, but the i feel like the female characters were great. Ladies of different ages, so i just kinda cute kids. But i geuss interesting to see different perspectives on things i suppouse.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Its not even that its "overtly" sexual to me, its, hm, how can I put this: that kind of design doesn't feel novel or interesting at all to me. Not because I don't like it but just because that school of character design feels so pervasive
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
These are good examples of how you "age up" (in the case of the top two) and render characters in different styles
In what would do you live in that 8 year olds have boobs?
Zoe
Member
I like this Adventure Time cover she did.
Seems like she can draw one face.
They are slightly aged up and rendered in a different style.
Yeah they are really good at it.
( best version of dexter and mandark )
Really? I didn't notice..../sarcasm
That is my personal beef with the drawing- their not the correct age. I personally don't like the style, but stylistically there is nothing wrong with it. If it were a fan piece- I wouldn't care- but it on the cover for children to buy. I like the Power Puff Girl as they are- role modes for little girls that are cute and innocent. Aging them up would change the world premise- it would and, dating and shipping and everything oh so iky teen.
When hearing about this "controversy" it reminded me of this article. 95% of comic are geared towards adults with unrealistic hyper sexuality male and female bodies . Let the 5% that are kid comic actual be for for kids. There are plenty of places on the internet is see other interpretations of characters.
Which one, I can understand your beef with the OP image, I was talking about the one I posted.
And about premises changing, I suppouse thems the sands of time. But its not changing anything, the OP image is an alt cover re imagining. thats it.
While I DESPISE what happened to star fire, and I DESPISE a large portion of the new 52, star fire and and crew , night wing OG TT ect, were pretty sexual in the first place. I assume that girls vision of the TT was the cartoon, but the cartoon wasn't even anything close to the TT, so its still DC"s fault. Its not the problem you are thinking.
Because comics. And because people. I don't assume common sense, especially when it is not explicitly stated anywhere. Young fan picks up comic, sees that, are they going to to assume they have been drawn age appropriately?
Shit, it isn't the end of the world, but it is a stupid cover concept for the comic. If it was stand alone art, sure. But given it is a cover for the comic featuring them at their normal age, I think it is a fucking stupid concept.
And which problem is that?
The problem I assume ( sorry if i am wrong ) is that they sexualized her, no star fire has been sexualized for a very very long as time. ( just not in the cartoon ) The problem is that they made that her entire personality. Star fire was never "pure" but she wasn't this singled minded nymphomaniac they turned her into in the new comics. That was the problem, Star fire and night wing to fool around all the time in the comics, but star fire had a bit more than fooling around going on. Now all she kinda is , is fooling around. There are still large laps in her new 52 character ( there are large laps in a lot of shit in the new 52) .
No, the problem I am referring to toward PPG and Teen Titans Go Starfire is that both have dedicated audiences- young girls and boys. Comic producers should carter toward that age range with age appropriate material. There is no need what so ever for an aged up PPG cover except to cater to adult collectors. In the case of TTG- DC has a cash cow in their hands with that alternate universe of the Titans. They should TTG on the shelves all the time for younger adults, and they can do what every the want with the Original Titans in their universe. The girl in the article could only get the sexed up version cause that was the only version available at the time. Thankfull, they made TTG show to fill the gap.
I think the cover is weird, simply because it obviously ages the girls up. There's something mildly disturbing about taking characters specifically meant to be small children and to appeal to small children, and commandeering them for adults. I can't see the point of making them older, unless its to make them more sexually attractive? Otherwise, why not just leave them as children?
Actually, it's not that it depicts females, but that it is the cover of a comic that has young girls as the target audience. A "realistic" sexed up Mario would be pretty creepy on a children's Mario comic too. Who is this cover made to appeal to?
Cool what if story, different take, pitch for a thing ect.
Also about the age appropriate metarial line, different strokes for different folks. While I cannot vouch for the OP image to say an aged version of those characters should never be there let alone ever be a thing because it isn't appropriate is a bit bonkers. As a kid I would have enjoyed a weird what if they were older story line, I also enjoyed comics where heroes strait up killed dudes. So.. I dunno
I think they had a cash cow with YJ but the fucked it up...
Eh I dunno about a cash cow, though I don't honstly know how dc is doing right now on each front. But i keep hearing its not that good, but I'm sure someone has like revenue reviews for DC comics related stuff.
You realize that young girls play with Barbie dolls right? I suppose because the dolls are grown-up women, no child would ever be interested in playing with it?
Thigh highs are slutty. So are fishnets. Nothing wrong with that, until you put them on a kid.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
I don't see anything to get upset about.
You don't put them on kids. Kids put them on themselves because they see adults wear them and they think it looks cute.
They don't wear clothes for you, they wear clothes for themselves. Girls of all ages should be allowed to want to look cute without being labelled a slut.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
But this wasn't made by young girls. This was made by adults.
Eh ... Ok this is where it gets fuzzy.
Didn't the woman who drew the picture in the OP get upset because she thought it was ok. Maybe she didn't think it was sexual at all.
And in regards to picture I posted, I think that they were supposed to be cute kids, regardless of who drew it.
I don't think drawing something automatically means that the creator had secret sexual intent behind it. Maybe the OP artist thought her thing was cute ( i think its pretty bad ).
If they had that I can see the point, otherwise it strikes me as stupid. It looks like a normal issue so it it is stupid.
And where in this picture do you see kids wearing high socks? I see three teenage/young adult girls wearing high boots.
I just see it as a what if cover. It just happens to be bad. Its quite common, like hero's being basically murdered on alt covers things of that nature. It doesn't reflect whats inside the issue , but its a cool cover.
however this cover is bretty bad.
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
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 like how Matrix has parts from all the different games. He's like a knight-cowboy-biker.
http://i.imgur.com/n0olfyLh.jpg
I originally used the phrase "slutty stockings" in reference to this drawing, which has preteen characters wearing thigh-highs. Though it'd be fairer to call them "sexy" rather than slutty. It's clothing that's meant to be intentionally sexually provacative.
I'm not seeing this sexy hing, it just looks like the adapted their old outfits to a new art style, just cute kids dude.
You know, not everything ever done by anyone is necessarily intended to arouse men. You guys realize this right?
Shock and awe, girls who wear short skirts and high socks largely don't mean to be sexually provocative. I'd like to see some of your faces if you opened up a trendy fashion mag for young girls.
Their original outfits had them in traditional stockings, didn't they? Those are generally acceptable for kids -- microskirts and thigh-highs not so much.
WrenchNinja
Member
Aren't they supposed to be kindergarteners
- Status