To be honest, when I said I liked the Stargirl image, it had nothing to do with "oh thats Stargirl". It had everything to do with the pose, the costume, the colors, etc. It wasn't "Oh that is one SEXY 16 year old girl" or "well that's wrong". It was just about the art.
You all don't need to apologize for liking any of the images. The "Bombshell" motif is taking the characters from one context and placing them in a very different context. They don't have ages, back stories, continuity, etc. In the Bombshell context, these characters are purely decorative. They are very simply, cheesecake.
If other forum members want to apply history or continuity to the Bombshell characters, that totally up to them. It should not effect your appreciation of any of the images.
You all don't need to apologize for liking any of the images. The "Bombshell" motif is taking the characters from one context and placing them in a very different context. They don't have ages, back stories, continuity, etc. In the Bombshell context, these characters are purely decorative. They are very simply, cheesecake.
If other forum members want to apply history or continuity to the Bombshell characters, that totally up to them. It should not effect your appreciation of any of the images.
Bingo.
Honestly, in this era in which actual porn can be found anywhere, there's something sweet and wholesome about good cheesecake.
It's not like they're showing Stargirl and Supergirl licking a giant inflatable penis. (Yes, unfortunately, I saw the pictures from this weekend's Miley Cyrus concert.)
There's a profound difference between naughty and skanky.
Wow, forumites. Let's all put on our petticoats and I'll meet thee at the barn-raising later! :)
We're really going to wring our hands over an artistic rendering of women/girls that are about as sexually explicit as a Pat Boone album? Honestly? Will I see you people at protests of The Hunger Games movies, where young women and girls are killed and mutilated for our viewing pleasure?
I've got the Stargirl print and will be ordering Supergirl and Black Canary's quite soon. The missus is kinda partial to the Mera one. They're a great callback to the pinups and propaganda of the 30s and 40s. If you're seeing over-sexualization in them, I'm assuming you were writing DC in anger over Supergirl's costume through most of the 00s, correct? Because I saw more upskirt and panty shots of that outfit than I've seen in most of the manga I read.
As mentioned - you want to see *actual* Stargirl and Supergirl porn? It's a Google Image Search away, I'm pretty sure...
I must admit, personally I didn't look at these covers as necessarily sexualising these characters. I was looking at them more as an homage to the 'bombshell' art of the 40's, but with a DC twist.
I'm hoping Marvel line him up for done similar variants in the future being a massive fan of the art style.
I dint know if anyone's seen it, Ant Lucia has done something similar for a Wondercon (I think) print of Spidey and MJ. That too is stunning.
Wow, forumites. Let's all put on our petticoats and I'll meet thee at the barn-raising later! :)
Now you've done it.
I'm picturing various forumites in petticoats.
X_X
Now they're having a pillow fight.
In slow motion.
Stop spying on my Saturday nights! ;)
But to clarify what I said earlier, I wasn't saying I had a problem or not with how Stargirl is shown in the cover but just a bit surprised that John's would ok it since he did base it on his sister. For all I know, it was something she was into and that's why he ok'd it. Just an idle thought really.
Well, it looks like DC is fully embracing it's target audience... teenage boys who haven't discovered online porn.
True, I guess. When my grandfather and his fellow enlisted admired the original WW2 "bombshells" (which these are modeled after) they hadn't discovered online porn yet.
We all know the modern DC comics is NOT paying tribute to a simpler time, and honoring the memory of our boys who fought "over there". They are betting on the easy sale, and putting "acceptable" half naked chicks on EVERY cover, even the ones that don't prominently feature women. Think they will do a "guy" version a few months down the road? Hell, No.
They are pandering, playing to the least common denominator. I am sad to see there are so many on this forum.
Really digging the Stargirl one for some reason...
I really hate the Stargirl one for two reasons: 1-Stargirl is around 16 and I think it's a bit more acceptable when you use adult women 2-Stargirl was created by Geoff Johns as a tribute to his sister Courtney who died in a plane crash and one thing he has spoken about is the fact that he choose her costume (shorts/leggings) because of that.
Well, it looks like DC is fully embracing it's target audience... teenage boys who haven't discovered online porn.
True, I guess. When my grandfather and his fellow enlisted admired the original WW2 "bombshells" (which these are modeled after) they hadn't discovered online porn yet.
We all know the modern DC comics is NOT paying tribute to a simpler time, and honoring the memory of our boys who fought "over there". They are betting on the easy sale, and putting "acceptable" half naked chicks on EVERY cover, even the ones that don't prominently feature women. Think they will do a "guy" version a few months down the road? Hell, No.
They are pandering, playing to the least common denominator. I am sad to see there are so many on this forum.
I find these images far less "panderous" than the regular versions of these characters.
Ok, here we go. You want to know why this bothers me so much?
This is just a symptom of a larger problem. DC comics, today, does not give a flying F about it's characters, their legacy, their integrity. This kind of "harmless cheesecake" does NOTHING to promote the characters as characters, just hot bodies. It is completely inconsistent with some of the characters they are portraying. My daughter was asking me just the other day about Stargirl, and I was telling her about how cool the character was, and how Johns had created her as a tribute to his sister. She remarked how she loved her costume, and how she wore bike shorts instead of the usual bikini bottom/ hot pants type thing. Oh, here's a picture of her that serves ONE PURPOSE... to sex her up and objectify her. That's what these pinups were, in the 40's... "innocent" as they seem, now.
DC is not thinking about developing her into a fleshed-out 3 dimensional character, grooming her for animation, movies, novels, etc. They are grabbing a few thousand more sales on one issue, for one month, of one book, and pimping out whatever uterus-husk, at whatever age, they have lying around. I think the Romney "binders full of women" joke is wholly appropriate here.
Starfire, Harley, Catwoman, and so many more were strong characters before the New 52, and now are just fodder for the flesh machine. Do you realize about 4 million fans of the Teen Titans cartoon series know Starfire as a naive, wholesome, sweet, gentle character? So Didio sexes her up so they can reach the magic 20,000 copies sold mark on her series. No one is stewarding and protecting the characters that have built DC, they are USING them, sometimes in the most lurid way "acceptable" by society. They are figuratively chained up in a basement in a house in Cleveland, until such time they are of use to them.
And yes, get off my lawn, if you're reading soft core porn with teens.
Well, it looks like DC is fully embracing it's target audience... teenage boys who haven't discovered online porn.
True, I guess. When my grandfather and his fellow enlisted admired the original WW2 "bombshells" (which these are modeled after) they hadn't discovered online porn yet.
We all know the modern DC comics is NOT paying tribute to a simpler time, and honoring the memory of our boys who fought "over there". They are betting on the easy sale, and putting "acceptable" half naked chicks on EVERY cover, even the ones that don't prominently feature women. Think they will do a "guy" version a few months down the road? Hell, No.
They are pandering, playing to the least common denominator. I am sad to see there are so many on this forum.
Well, thank goodness for you enlightened few to show those of us weak of mind and morals, the error of our ways.
My daughter was asking me just the other day about Stargirl, and I was telling her about how cool the character was, and how Johns had created her as a tribute to his sister. She remarked how she loved her costume, and how she wore bike shorts instead of the usual bikini bottom/ hot pants type thing...
Starfire, Harley, Catwoman, and so many more were strong characters before the New 52, and now are just fodder for the flesh machine.
I wouldn't exactly call this soft-core porn, but I agree with much of what you say. Also, being a father of a 14 year old daughter who is sexually harassed at school and prefers strong role models in her fiction, this subject also hits a sore spot for me.
I'm as guilty as anyone for supporting the rampant objectification of women in comics, but I have to draw the line on teen girls. Probably why I never developed any real fascination with the Kitty Pryde character. She was too young for me when I was introduced to her.
Kitty Pryde and Piotr Rasputin are about to get busy...
However, men and women are both idealized in comics in various fashions. That's why the argument on how women are objectified in comics is flawed, because it's not objective. Men and women in comics are usually rendered in nearly unattainable idealized bodies, but that is where any kind of equitable similarities end. An athletic male body type suggests strength, power, agility – traits that apply naturally to "superheroes". But for female superheroes, the publishers fashioning them with porn star and model body types suggest beauty, sex, and submissiveness. None of those qualities tie directly to superheroes.
While we see this at the Big 2 and a lot of the independent press, Marvel is making some strides by creating characters like Kamala Khan, and with fun blogs poking fun at this trope like ‘The Hawkeye Initiative’ perhaps the trend will slow down a bit, but in the end this appeals to the bulk of the readers.
via The Hawkeye Initiative
We've all heard the argument that superhero comics are primarily male power fantasy driven. Male readers want to be the powerful hero and have gorgeous, sexy, submissive women on their arm. There’s some truth to that, I'm sure. But we can all agree that this appeals to the lowest common denominator. Superhero comics can be (and frequently are) so much more than that, and they can (and should) appeal to a much wider audience, for everyone’s benefit including their own. One way to do that is to actually make the representation of men and women in superhero comics a bit more equal.
We'll see if DC puts out a similar line of 'beefcake' variant covers in the coming months. I'm NOT holding my breath. They'd probably argue that many of their covers are already 'beefcake'...
Whether we like it or not, DC / WB is not in the business of integrity, legacy, or developing anything. They are in the business of making money and making that money as fast and easy as they can. Of course they are using the characters - they own the characters! This is no a mom & pop store trying to uphold the family name. This is massive corporation trying to make its investors more money than they made last quarter. If they can make a few extra bucks on pin up art based off fictional characters (even those based off real people) they are going to do it.
The pin up art is great and it is a product that will sale. No one is being harmed or exploited by this. Compared to the regular art, most of this is tame. This is a good (very) short term business decison. If you do not like how the business works, time to walk away and see if anyone publishes a more suitable Amish pin ups collection
DC is not thinking about developing her into a fleshed-out 3 dimensional character, grooming her for animation, movies, novels, etc.
She showed up in Smallville. I wouldn't write her off showing up in Arrow at some point, or maybe the new Flash series. If you're waiting for the Stargirl movie, though, I'll admit you might be in for a bit of a wait. :)
Starfire, Harley, Catwoman, and so many more were strong characters before the New 52, and now are just fodder for the flesh machine.
You know how I know you didn't read Red Hood & The Outlaws beyond the first issue? They did a HELL of a job breaking her out of the "space bimbo" mold established by Wolfie/Perez back in the day. She became a welcome throwback to all the great sci-fi aliens of yesteryear in my old copies of Analog and Asimov.
Do you realize about 4 million fans of the Teen Titans cartoon series know Starfire as a naive, wholesome, sweet, gentle character?
And do you realize that at the same time the cartoon was being aired she was baring her tits to Lobo to get him to help the team in 52? And before that she was *gasp* banging Dick Grayson? Out of wedlock! Why must it be a "one OR the other" proposition?
So Didio sexes her up so they can reach the magic 20,000 copies sold mark on her series. No one is stewarding and protecting the characters that have built DC, they are USING them, sometimes in the most lurid way "acceptable" by society.
Starfire never needed "sexing up". Again - RH&TO did a great job of developing her into something beyond what everyone who stopped at issue #1 because OMG titsandsheliketofuck! presumed she was going to be all about. For the first time in her entire existence, she really was acting like an alien. And it's been a good read.
Thanks for raising the bar @rebis. At first I thought that was the Flash as rendered by JRjr, but then I saw the vag and assumed it was something from the smut manga collection.
Don't like comic book art pics? Then you can skip most of my posts...
Comments
If other forum members want to apply history or continuity to the Bombshell characters, that totally up to them. It should not effect your appreciation of any of the images.
Honestly, in this era in which actual porn can be found anywhere, there's something sweet and wholesome about good cheesecake.
It's not like they're showing Stargirl and Supergirl licking a giant inflatable penis. (Yes, unfortunately, I saw the pictures from this weekend's Miley Cyrus concert.)
There's a profound difference between naughty and skanky.
We're really going to wring our hands over an artistic rendering of women/girls that are about as sexually explicit as a Pat Boone album? Honestly? Will I see you people at protests of The Hunger Games movies, where young women and girls are killed and mutilated for our viewing pleasure?
I've got the Stargirl print and will be ordering Supergirl and Black Canary's quite soon. The missus is kinda partial to the Mera one. They're a great callback to the pinups and propaganda of the 30s and 40s. If you're seeing over-sexualization in them, I'm assuming you were writing DC in anger over Supergirl's costume through most of the 00s, correct? Because I saw more upskirt and panty shots of that outfit than I've seen in most of the manga I read.
As mentioned - you want to see *actual* Stargirl and Supergirl porn? It's a Google Image Search away, I'm pretty sure...
I'm picturing various forumites in petticoats.
X_X
In slow motion.
Er... "naughty bits", that is... :\">
I'm hoping Marvel line him up for done similar variants in the future being a massive fan of the art style.
I dint know if anyone's seen it, Ant Lucia has done something similar for a Wondercon (I think) print of Spidey and MJ. That too is stunning.
But to clarify what I said earlier, I wasn't saying I had a problem or not with how Stargirl is shown in the cover but just a bit surprised that John's would ok it since he did base it on his sister. For all I know, it was something she was into and that's why he ok'd it. Just an idle thought really.
All credit to Craig Ferguson for that joke.
They are pandering, playing to the least common denominator. I am sad to see there are so many on this forum.
This is just a symptom of a larger problem. DC comics, today, does not give a flying F about it's characters, their legacy, their integrity. This kind of "harmless cheesecake" does NOTHING to promote the characters as characters, just hot bodies. It is completely inconsistent with some of the characters they are portraying. My daughter was asking me just the other day about Stargirl, and I was telling her about how cool the character was, and how Johns had created her as a tribute to his sister. She remarked how she loved her costume, and how she wore bike shorts instead of the usual bikini bottom/ hot pants type thing. Oh, here's a picture of her that serves ONE PURPOSE... to sex her up and objectify her. That's what these pinups were, in the 40's... "innocent" as they seem, now.
DC is not thinking about developing her into a fleshed-out 3 dimensional character, grooming her for animation, movies, novels, etc. They are grabbing a few thousand more sales on one issue, for one month, of one book, and pimping out whatever uterus-husk, at whatever age, they have lying around. I think the Romney "binders full of women" joke is wholly appropriate here.
Starfire, Harley, Catwoman, and so many more were strong characters before the New 52, and now are just fodder for the flesh machine. Do you realize about 4 million fans of the Teen Titans cartoon series know Starfire as a naive, wholesome, sweet, gentle character? So Didio sexes her up so they can reach the magic 20,000 copies sold mark on her series. No one is stewarding and protecting the characters that have built DC, they are USING them, sometimes in the most lurid way "acceptable" by society. They are figuratively chained up in a basement in a house in Cleveland, until such time they are of use to them.
And yes, get off my lawn, if you're reading soft core porn with teens.
No disagreement about DC's disregard for its characters.
But I am flummoxed as to how you can see these images as "soft core porn".
As I said above, they are nowhere near as sexualized as the regular portrayal of the characters.
The Ami-Comi stuff, sure, but this stuff? Pshaw.
mea culpa. mea culpa. mea culpa. bite me.
I'm as guilty as anyone for supporting the rampant objectification of women in comics, but I have to draw the line on teen girls. Probably why I never developed any real fascination with the Kitty Pryde character. She was too young for me when I was introduced to her.
Kitty Pryde and Piotr Rasputin are about to get busy...
However, men and women are both idealized in comics in various fashions. That's why the argument on how women are objectified in comics is flawed, because it's not objective. Men and women in comics are usually rendered in nearly unattainable idealized bodies, but that is where any kind of equitable similarities end. An athletic male body type suggests strength, power, agility – traits that apply naturally to "superheroes". But for female superheroes, the publishers fashioning them with porn star and model body types suggest beauty, sex, and submissiveness. None of those qualities tie directly to superheroes.
While we see this at the Big 2 and a lot of the independent press, Marvel is making some strides by creating characters like Kamala Khan, and with fun blogs poking fun at this trope like ‘The Hawkeye Initiative’ perhaps the trend will slow down a bit, but in the end this appeals to the bulk of the readers.
via The Hawkeye Initiative
We've all heard the argument that superhero comics are primarily male power fantasy driven. Male readers want to be the powerful hero and have gorgeous, sexy, submissive women on their arm. There’s some truth to that, I'm sure. But we can all agree that this appeals to the lowest common denominator. Superhero comics can be (and frequently are) so much more than that, and they can (and should) appeal to a much wider audience, for everyone’s benefit including their own. One way to do that is to actually make the representation of men and women in superhero comics a bit more equal.
We'll see if DC puts out a similar line of 'beefcake' variant covers in the coming months. I'm NOT holding my breath. They'd probably argue that many of their covers are already 'beefcake'...
The pin up art is great and it is a product that will sale. No one is being harmed or exploited by this. Compared to the regular art, most of this is tame. This is a good (very) short term business decison. If you do not like how the business works, time to walk away and see if anyone publishes a more suitable Amish pin ups collection
Don't like comic book art pics? Then you can skip most of my posts...