Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

DC Bombshells

13

Comments

  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794
    Never thought of this...but Stargirl's navel is clearly visible in her midriff-baring costume.

    Slut. :)

    (Note: Thank the maker she covered it up for her Bombshell outfit.) :)
  • rebisrebis Posts: 1,820

    rebis said:

    @bralinator, you forgot an image.
    image

    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.

    image

    Don't like comic book art pics? Then you can skip most of my posts...
    That does look like the Flash. Cool.
    I have no problems with the comic art pics. Keep them coming.

    The purpose of the inclusion of the Woman of Willendorf was to give some historical context to the notion of the objectification of women. I would submit that the images we're considering have less to do with the objectification and more with the iconification of women.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    Torchsong said:

    Never thought of this...but Stargirl's navel is clearly visible in her midriff-baring costume.

    Slut. :)

    (Note: Thank the maker she covered it up for her Bombshell outfit.) :)

    That reminds me. Something tells me we won't be seeing Kamala Khan's navel anytime soon, unless it's a fan-pic.
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314
    rebis said:

    I would submit that the images we're considering have less to do with the objectification and more with the iconification of women.

    Nice.

    That and creative thematic variations on classic costume designs and interesting graphic presentations thereof.
  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794

    Torchsong said:

    Never thought of this...but Stargirl's navel is clearly visible in her midriff-baring costume.

    Slut. :)

    (Note: Thank the maker she covered it up for her Bombshell outfit.) :)

    That reminds me. Something tells me we won't be seeing Kamala Khan's navel anytime soon, unless it's a fan-pic.
    True, but it's still a cool outfit.

  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    While it's disappointing that some of these pin ups show more modest respect for their characters than the actual comics do at times. Visible underwear? Cleavage? Those kind of look like the Frederick's of Hollywood idea of what a vintage outfit is. Nevermind how these costumes all look painted on, albeit much like all superhero costumes.

    While I admit some of these are nice, they probably are only being put out because the statues are popular right now. Most of these look like cheap, trashy rockabilly than pin-up. The poses, too also look like they're inspired by stock photography versions of pin-up than by Elvgren or Vargas or even old pulp novels. No variations on body type or faces, much.

    image


    I think @Tonebone's problem is with the adult sexed-up Stargirl. Is she an adult post New 52? I thought she was a kid. If she isn't, that's a shame, because a nice teenage Stargirl comic could be a good sell to a young teen audience right now. I've come to expect default tone-deafness from DC. So no surprise here.
  • WetRats said:

    @Tonebone,

    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.

    Sure, they're not as sexualized as usual... I'll agree... but to feature them, across the whole line, says "Put on your heels, girls, we need you to get some sales for us! And don't come back without my money."
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314
    Tonebone said:

    WetRats said:

    @Tonebone,

    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.

    Sure, they're not as sexualized as usual... I'll agree... but to feature them, across the whole line, says "Put on your heels, girls, we need you to get some sales for us! And don't come back without my money."
    I think you're reading wayyyyyyy to much into this.

    If it makes me an exploiter of (fictional) women that I'd rather see nice pictures of (fictional) women than crap like Alfred E. Sinestro mick-pissing in the snow, then fine.

    image
  • rebis said:

    Tonebone said:

    Mr_Cosmic said:

    Tonebone said:

    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.

    mea culpa. mea culpa. mea culpa. bite me.
    I meant no disrespect to you, personally, even though you seem to have taken it that way. I don't remember calling you out by name, but whatever... Never before on this forum has anyone ever, until you, told me to "Bite me"... nice.

    What I am saying, is that DC's grab for the "least common denominator", if successful, will only spawn more of the same. Remember the Marvel "swimsuit" stuff back in the 90's? Buy what you want. If people support this in droves, expect more "events" in the future, with girlie art on the covers and "who gives a shit" inside.
  • Torchsong said:



    Doesn't look like I'm the one seeing porn around every corner. Or referring to women as "uterus-husks".

    I don't refer to them as that... I am saying DC is thinking of them as objects, to be used for whatever purpose the see fit, with disregard for their legacy or any desire to develop them as "people".
  • Torchsong said:



    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.

    Why in the hell would anyone have read that series past the first issue? They had a chance and blew it, as far as I was concerned. I borrowed it from a friend, and decided it was crap. $3.99 is too high a price to pay for a second chance.

  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794
    Tonebone said:

    Torchsong said:



    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.

    Why in the hell would anyone have read that series past the first issue? They had a chance and blew it, as far as I was concerned. I borrowed it from a friend, and decided it was crap. $3.99 is too high a price to pay for a second chance.

    Which is why you're not fit to comment on Starfire and what's going on with her currently.

    You. Don't. Know.

    And not wanting to know doesn't excuse you if you're going to comment about a topic.

    (Red Hood's a $2.99'er btw.)
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314
    Tonebone said:

    rebis said:

    mea culpa. mea culpa. mea culpa. bite me.

    I meant no disrespect to you, personally, even though you seem to have taken it that way. I don't remember calling you out by name, but whatever... Never before on this forum has anyone ever, until you, told me to "Bite me"... nice.
    You called those who liked the art the "lowest common denominator".

    Meaning disrespect generally is still personal to those who are clearly in the disrespected group.




    And considering how long we've all been debating about this and that on these forums, I'm amazed this is the first time you've been told "Bite me."

    Gods know I've been told to plenty.
  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794
    edited May 2014
    Tonebone said:

    Torchsong said:



    Doesn't look like I'm the one seeing porn around every corner. Or referring to women as "uterus-husks".

    I don't refer to them as that... I am saying DC is thinking of them as objects, to be used for whatever purpose the see fit, with disregard for their legacy or any desire to develop them as "people".
    Well, of course they are. DC Comics isn't DC Charity. :)

    However, it's ludicrous to say they're not developing them. I've given ample evidence of Starfire's progression and development in RH&TO. Batgirl and Batwoman have both been excellent reads (and I was one of the people griping because we lost Steph so Babs could come back...I was happy to eat some crow there). I wasn't initially a fan, but World's Finest has really shown some growth over the last few issues (pardon the obvious Power Girl joke you can make there...I'm talking serious here! :) ). The short-lived Amethyst series (Sword of Sorcery) was a really good read, and to keep everyone happy - she was clothed top to bottom.

    Sure, there's going to be some bad examples. There were bad examples BEFORE the New 52 ever got going. There will be bad examples afterward. Fans of the original Amethyst series will remember numerous upskirt shots, including her appearances in Crisis and beyond. And that's a title from back in the 80s about a young girl. But please, regale me with how the New52 has invented the objectification of women and young girls.

    That they're not developing the way *you* would have them develop is an argument for another day, maybe.
  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794
    WetRats said:


    And considering how long we've all been debating about this and that on these forums, I'm amazed this is the first time you've been told "Bite me."

    Gods know I've been told to plenty.

    Hey...bite me! :)
  • playdohsrepublicplaydohsrepublic Posts: 1,377
    Tonebone said:

    Torchsong said:



    Doesn't look like I'm the one seeing porn around every corner. Or referring to women as "uterus-husks".

    I don't refer to them as that... I am saying DC is thinking of them as objects, to be used for whatever purpose the see fit, with disregard for their legacy or any desire to develop them as "people".
    1- A variant cover is hardly used to develop characters. That's like complaining about Marvel exploiting the cuteness of animals

    image

    2- They ARE objects to be used as they see fit. All comic characters are products not people. They don't have a history, they have a fiction. This is a different discussion if we are talking about real people being exploited, but these characters were created for the expressed purpose of exploitation.
  • luke52luke52 Posts: 1,392
    I've been meaning to complain about Skottie Young and his incredibly distasteful variant covers of late.

    I mean these characters have had years of development and growth. To then be shown as just babies! It's terrible! :)

    These are characters, none of these variants are meant to add to continuity at all.

    In the most part aren't all comic exploiting us?? Our love of the characters, stories, art, creators etc... At the end of the these companies need to make money. These variants are going to do that. It just so happens they're doing it this time in an art style I love.
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314
    Torchsong said:

    WetRats said:


    And considering how long we've all been debating about this and that on these forums, I'm amazed this is the first time you've been told "Bite me."

    Gods know I've been told to plenty.

    Hey...bite me! :)
    See?
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314

    And you can call me all the names you want and think I'm being A, B, C and D, but I'm not going to budge. These are fantastic ART. PERIOD.

    Bravo.
  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794
    @Cosmic,

    They're saving that last one for the Power Girl Bombshell when they make it.

    A hurr hurr hurr... :)
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    Mr_Cosmic said:

    Good thing they're not too authentic:
    image

    Torchsong said:

    @Cosmic,

    They're saving that last one for the Power Girl Bombshell when they make it.

    A hurr hurr hurr... :)

    Now that was funny.
  • Torchsong said:

    Tonebone said:

    Torchsong said:



    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.

    Why in the hell would anyone have read that series past the first issue? They had a chance and blew it, as far as I was concerned. I borrowed it from a friend, and decided it was crap. $3.99 is too high a price to pay for a second chance.

    Which is why you're not fit to comment on Starfire and what's going on with her currently.

    You. Don't. Know.

    And not wanting to know doesn't excuse you if you're going to comment about a topic.

    (Red Hood's a $2.99'er btw.)
    You're right. I am not fit to comment on Starfire's current state. I bought New Teen Titans #1 off the shelf in 1980. Read every issue, subsequently. Loved her on the Teen Titans cartoon. But I have no stake in the "new" version. None. I'm sorry I dared to comment.

  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794
    Good. Now go to your room. :)
  • rebisrebis Posts: 1,820
    Tonebone said:

    rebis said:

    Tonebone said:

    Mr_Cosmic said:

    Tonebone said:

    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.

    mea culpa. mea culpa. mea culpa. bite me.
    I meant no disrespect to you, personally, even though you seem to have taken it that way. I don't remember calling you out by name, but whatever... Never before on this forum has anyone ever, until you, told me to "Bite me"... nice.

    What I am saying, is that DC's grab for the "least common denominator", if successful, will only spawn more of the same. Remember the Marvel "swimsuit" stuff back in the 90's? Buy what you want. If people support this in droves, expect more "events" in the future, with girlie art on the covers and "who gives a shit" inside.
    "They are pandering, playing to the least common denominator. I am sad to see there are so many on this forum."

    While you didn't personally name anyone, you did load up a very broad brush and went all Franz Kline on a lot of forumites.
  • little_witchlittle_witch Posts: 185
    edited May 2014
    I'm Out!
    My comments were purely over the feeling about teenage girls being used as sex objects.
    I've been following this thread since I made my original comments trying to think of a way to express my opinions but to be honest I feel like they will be disregarded no matter what, not by the big companies but by people who I respect and are using the old "well that's the way it is" line.
    So this is me, stating I am out of this discussion, I'm Out!
  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,794
    edited May 2014

    I'm Out!
    My comments were purely over the feeling about teenage girls being used as sex objects.
    I've been following this thread since I made my original comments trying to think of a way to express my opinions but to be honest I feel like they will be disregarded no matter what, not by the big companies but by people who I respect and are using the old "well that's the way it is" line.
    So this is me, stating I am out of this discussion, I'm Out!

    Well, that's a shame, because you didn't use a sweeping generalization to demean others in presenting your opinion. You didn't refer to anyone who liked the bombshell series as a "lowest common denominator" or anything along those lines. And to my knowledge I haven't seen anyone one here attack you for what you stated.

    Bear in mind that while you're allowed to put your opinions on here, it doesn't mean others won't have their own. Nobody seems to be attacking you, or disregarding what you said. They simply do not agree with it. That's allowed.

    Ample evidence has been presented that while these bombshell posters may be seen as something sexual if you look hard enough (and I mean you need to look pretty darn hard)...DC (and Marvel and Image) has certainly done worse throughout the years. To teenage girls. I'm not saying that's right...or wrong...but to focus on the Bombshell series in light of the bigger picture - as if this were the first time this ever happened - doesn't make much sense. That is my opinion.

    Hopefully you're not so far "Out" that you'll see this and come back "In".

  • playdohsrepublicplaydohsrepublic Posts: 1,377
    edited May 2014

    I'm Out!
    My comments were purely over the feeling about teenage girls being used as sex objects.
    I've been following this thread since I made my original comments trying to think of a way to express my opinions but to be honest I feel like they will be disregarded no matter what, not by the big companies but by people who I respect and are using the old "well that's the way it is" line.
    So this is me, stating I am out of this discussion, I'm Out!

    Hey, you are welcome to feel uncomfortable about how something you care about is depicted, without judgment. But I think this discussion has gone on as long as it has because people are coming at it from 2 different perspectives.

    On the one hand some think the Stargirl image is inappropriate because it sexualizes a teenager in an image that serve no story purpose and was only created to show off a character's perceived physical attractiveness. (I would argue that, as I don't think the image is particularly sexualized or that her bathing suit costume is somehow more objectionable than the 2-piece she wears fighting crime. But to each their own, and if this is what bothers you I can see where you are coming from).

    On the other hand, there are those who see this only as a piece of artwork involving a fictional character. From this perspective the idea that she is a teenage girl at all is kinda silly. As I've stated before, she's not a person, she isn't being portrayed by a person. Conceivably you could imagine this isn't even the character, but an alternate interpretation of a character's likeness. If there was a real human teenage girl, or even an adult woman being portrayed as a teenage girl then I would be more likely to agree with you (on principle. I'd still think the image was tamer and more tasteful than anything I see on Instagram on any given day). The problem is that she doesn't even represent a realistic teenage girl. She's represented as being independent, in the legal sense, with enormous power and agency to make her own decisions, an adult in every way except they say she's 16 so she can be on teams like Young Justice and Teen Titans. Her teen-ness is otherwise meaningless to the narrative.

    I guess I personally wouldn't disagree with you so strongly if you had a problem with all the Bombshell pictures, in that they were created as a titillating incentive to buy books and prints and do nothing to promote the qualities that really make any of these character engaging.
Sign In or Register to comment.