Where was the outrage over his recent X-men cover that showed a buttcrack? An actual buttcrack!
They're still hiring him? That's insane!
And now I am gonna discuss artistic merit, because that is some hacky-ass work. It's like a Manara parody. And speaking of presenting, how about every one of those identical faces with "insert penis here" mouths? This reminds me of the creepy guy I saw at a con once who was selling prints in which he had photoshopped costumes onto scanned pictures out of nudie mags.
Where was the outrage over his recent X-men cover that showed a buttcrack? An actual buttcrack!
They're still hiring him? That's insane!
And now I am gonna discuss artistic merit, because that is some hacky-ass work. It's like a Manara parody. And speaking of presenting, how about every one of those identical faces with "insert penis here" mouths? This reminds me of the creepy guy I saw at a con once who was selling prints in which he had photoshopped costumes onto scanned pictures out of nudie mags.
That’s not a new cover. It’s the cover from X-Women #1 from 2010.
[Edit: And there was plenty of outrage over that series at the time.]
That’s not a new cover. It’s the cover from X-Women #1 from 2010.
[Edit: And there was plenty of outrage over that series at the time.]
Hey, if we can hold politicians accountable for stuff they did six years ago, I think we can expect the same to hold true of our comic book cover artists. :)
Plenty of outrage, but it still got printed and distributed. Nobody as far as I can recall called for Marvel to outright ban Manara from any future work. And yes, Rogue looks like she's waiting for Cyclops to show up and cheat on Jean Grey once again.
Plenty of outrage, but it still got printed and distributed. Nobody as far as I can recall called for Marvel to outright ban Manara from any future work.
Those of us who want comics to grow beyond the "by boys, for boys" mentality have gotten more vocal in the last few years.
As far as I know, nobody is calling for Manara's work to be banned, but it seems ridiculous for Disney/Marvel to be hiring him to promote their characters, when all he does anymore is paint the same hyper-sexualized erotic fantasy "dreamgirl" in different outfits and a dozen-or-so different poses. It's bad branding.
As an aside, I find it sad to see Cho taking Manara as a role model, because I think he's immensely talented and can draw so much more that just that one woman over and over. Yes, he draws that one woman really well, but I miss his more diverse work. (Manara used to do a lot more than just draw *his* one woman, too.)
That’s not a new cover. It’s the cover from X-Women #1 from 2010.
[Edit: And there was plenty of outrage over that series at the time.]
Hey, if we can hold politicians accountable for stuff they did six years ago, I think we can expect the same to hold true of our comic book cover artists. :)
Plenty of outrage, but it still got printed and distributed. Nobody as far as I can recall called for Marvel to outright ban Manara from any future work. And yes, Rogue looks like she's waiting for Cyclops to show up and cheat on Jean Grey once again.
There were several articles asking why Marvel would hire Manara in the first place, and what kind of image that reflected on the company—much of which was reiterated after the Spider-Woman cover. Heidi wrote something about that for Comic Beat as I recall.
But on top of what Stewart said, Marvel wasn’t in the same position in 2010 as they are now. Their publishing schedule looked quite different, and their audience was a bit different as well. Disney had just bought them out. Iron Man 2 was just coming out, and the movie universe was just starting to really take off. In other words, a lot has changed for Marvel in those six years in how they want/need to be perceived.
As an aside, I find it sad to see Cho taking Manara as a role model, because I think he's immensely talented and can draw so much more that just that one woman over and over. Yes, he draws that one woman really well, but I miss his more diverse work. (Manara used to do a lot more than just draw *his* one woman, too.)
As far as I know, nobody is calling for Manara's work to be banned, but it seems ridiculous for Disney/Marvel to be hiring him to promote their characters, when all he does anymore is paint the same hyper-sexualized erotic fantasy "dreamgirl" in different outfits and a dozen-or-so different poses. It's bad branding.
As far as I know, nobody is calling for Manara's work to be banned, but it seems ridiculous for Disney/Marvel to be hiring him to promote their characters, when all he does anymore is paint the same hyper-sexualized erotic fantasy "dreamgirl" in different outfits and a dozen-or-so different poses. It's bad branding.
Some pretty solid examples of why Marvel wanted Manara to do their covers in that link above.
Mestillthinks people doth protest too much. :)
It’s not about Manara’s talent at this point, and not even so much about the work he did for Marvel as a whole, it’s about the perceptions that he brings to the Marvel brand.
And that being the case, I think there's a lot of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There's some amazing artwork we won't be getting because of the outrage over one cover.
He brought some absolute brilliance to the Marvel brand before we lost our mind over a butt. :)
The perceptions were there before the Spider-Woman cover, and they’d be there if the Spider-Woman cover was never published. When you’re trying to reach a broader audience by bringing in more female readers, do you want to employ an artist known primarily for his porn comics? That’s simply not a good optic, and one that runs contrary to your overall publishing goals.
Why should any of us complain about how Marvel or DC wants to handle their brand? It's almost a joke to do so. On the one hand there are people who think it's perfectly acceptable for Frank Cho to get tossed from a book for drawing a single panty line on Wonder Woman because it was "off-model" while others disagree. Then there those who think it's perfectly fine to make Wonder Woman canonically queer, while others feel it is inconsistent with her 75-year comic book run's romantic history.
I'm sure that there are people on both sides that are well-informed and intelligent, but that doesn't mean everyone will agree, or that either side has a firmer grasp on which is the "correct" response. None of it has any bearing on how DC or Marvel decide to promote their brand, unless they shout about it often enough and then you might get them to rethink things after the outrage dies down. Or at least throw you a virtue-signaling bone now and again.
There are far more funny book publishers sexualizing their characters more than either of these two examples. Just spend a few minutes in the back half of Previews.
I just find it interesting to see how they try to walk that line between the various interests of their fans and potential fans, and how they often send out contradictory messages.
And Frank didn’t get kicked off of Wonder Woman for drawing a panty line. He got kicked off for being unprofessional and raising a stink about it in a public forum. Frank’s a friend of mine, but he screwed up, and he knows it.
As for the back half of Previews, that’s kind of the point. Those companies don’t have 75 years of history and multimedia visibility. They haven’t overwhelmingly dominated the industry since the ’60s—basically the entirety of most readers’ lives. They simply don’t carry as much weight in the grand scheme of things. It all comes down to symbolism and perceptions.
I just find it interesting to see how they try to walk that line between the various interests of their fans and potential fans, and how they often send out contradictory messages.
And Frank didn’t get kicked off of Wonder Woman for drawing a panty line. He got kicked off for being unprofessional and raising a stink about it in a public forum. Frank’s a friend of mine, but he screwed up, and he knows it.
Not to beat a dead horse, but most of those who took issue with the panty line were saying it was rather significant and tried to shame Frank for thinking otherwise. Which is probably why he sided with the anti-SJW crowd because he was being attacked by self-professed SJW's. Whether Frank got kicked off the book for being unprofessional or whether he simply quit (which is what I've read) is beside the point, because his variant covers are still being used elsewhere by DC. And given that this one was a variant cover, not out on most comic shelves, one might be inclined to think this should have made it a bit more permissible. This isn't the first drama where another creator wound up unemployed working with Rucka. But the fact that anyone even thought the panty line crossed some sort of line is what I found interesting.
By not showing the panty line, it suggests that Wonder Woman may even be nude under the armor. Which way was better? Either Cho was on spec. and therefore not at fault and DC should have stood up for their spec. to the other team members. Or Cho was off spec., and so he should have expected editing to remove the offending as it would have been a technical offense. I don’t know if Rucka was right and Wonder Woman goes commando or exhibitionist with panties showing. Or if Cho was right and there’s nothing wrong with her unitard / external wear bottoms. But DC must have been due another editor moment of snatching drama from the jaws of triviality.
In the end, none of our complaints or praises will likely alter how DC or Marvel handle their brands.
Whether Frank got kicked off the book for being unprofessional or whether he simply quit (which is what I've read) is beside the point, because his variant covers are still being used elsewhere by DC.
I talked about this with Frank at San Diego, and I’m not going to go into details which he told me in confidence. Suffice it to say that in the end Frank made amends, and that is why he is still doing work for DC.
As I said in an earlier post, this really has nothing to do with who’s right and who’s wrong. Maybe that’s the way a lot of people are looking at it, but I see a deeper problem, and that’s the poor communication within the DC offices. If things had been handled properly by all parties involved (Frank included), either a slightly different or entirely different variant cover would have come out, no one would have been talking about panty lines at all, and Frank would still be drawing beautiful Wonder Woman covers.
My only point about the brands is that DC and Marvel aren’t being consistent in how they are handling their respective brands, and it seems to me that the reason for the inconsistency is that for whatever reasons they don’t have everyone reading from the same playbook.
As far as I know, nobody is calling for Manara's work to be banned, but it seems ridiculous for Disney/Marvel to be hiring him to promote their characters, when all he does anymore is paint the same hyper-sexualized erotic fantasy "dreamgirl" in different outfits and a dozen-or-so different poses. It's bad branding.
There are far more funny book publishers sexualizing their characters more than either of these two examples. Just spend a few minutes in the back half of Previews.
You forget, there was no World Series in 1994 due to the players' strike....Obviously, that altered the timeline. You can thank Tony Reali from Around the Horn for positing this theory.
There are far more funny book publishers sexualizing their characters more than either of these two examples. Just spend a few minutes in the back half of Previews.
No thanks. I'm no longer thirteen.
Thanks WetRats. I'm reading the back and forth with both sides making great points. One thing that keeps coming to mind. Where is editorial in all of this? Isn't it part of editorials job to protect the brand? Are Cho and Manara to "big" for someone to say, "We need you to tone it down"?
I'm reading the back and forth with both sides making great points. One thing that keeps coming to mind. Where is editorial in all of this? Isn't it part of editorials job to protect the brand? Are Cho and Manara to "big" for someone to say, "We need you to tone it down"?
I think it's more a matter of that's what they do. If you commission a Manara cover, you're gonna get that woman (girl) he always draws wearing the costume of your character and with her color hair. If you commission Cho, you're gonna get that woman he always draws wearing the costume of your character and with her color hair*. If that's not what you want, why hire them?
*With Cho, the character will probably be at least doing something in character, while Manara's cover will just be striking a sexually alluring pose--look at @Torchsong's link a few posts up.
I'm reading the back and forth with both sides making great points. One thing that keeps coming to mind. Where is editorial in all of this? Isn't it part of editorials job to protect the brand? Are Cho and Manara to "big" for someone to say, "We need you to tone it down"?
I think it's more a matter of that's what they do. If you commission a Manara cover, you're gonna get that woman (girl) he always draws wearing the costume of your character and with her color hair. If you commission Cho, you're gonna get that woman he always draws wearing the costume of your character and with her color hair*. If that's not what you want, why hire them?
*With Cho, the character will probably be at least doing something in character, while Manara's cover will just be striking a sexually alluring pose--look at @Torchsong's link a few posts up.
Which goes back to, I believe it was, Torchsong's point. You know who these guys are. Why hire them? Especially Manara. If you're going to pay Manara to draw your characters, then why not bring in Serpieri?
Which goes back to, I believe it was, Torchsong's point. You know who these guys are. Why hire them? Especially Manara.
I concur.
Why hire Manara? Because you love his work, and are completely blind to the fact that associating his offensive-to-many work with the IP that has been entrusted to you will generate more bad publicity than good revenue, I suppose.
Comments
And now I am gonna discuss artistic merit, because that is some hacky-ass work. It's like a Manara parody. And speaking of presenting, how about every one of those identical faces with "insert penis here" mouths? This reminds me of the creepy guy I saw at a con once who was selling prints in which he had photoshopped costumes onto scanned pictures out of nudie mags.
[Edit: And there was plenty of outrage over that series at the time.]
Plenty of outrage, but it still got printed and distributed. Nobody as far as I can recall called for Marvel to outright ban Manara from any future work. And yes, Rogue looks like she's waiting for Cyclops to show up and cheat on Jean Grey once again.
As far as I know, nobody is calling for Manara's work to be banned, but it seems ridiculous for Disney/Marvel to be hiring him to promote their characters, when all he does anymore is paint the same hyper-sexualized erotic fantasy "dreamgirl" in different outfits and a dozen-or-so different poses. It's bad branding.
As an aside, I find it sad to see Cho taking Manara as a role model, because I think he's immensely talented and can draw so much more that just that one woman over and over. Yes, he draws that one woman really well, but I miss his more diverse work. (Manara used to do a lot more than just draw *his* one woman, too.)
But on top of what Stewart said, Marvel wasn’t in the same position in 2010 as they are now. Their publishing schedule looked quite different, and their audience was a bit different as well. Disney had just bought them out. Iron Man 2 was just coming out, and the movie universe was just starting to really take off. In other words, a lot has changed for Marvel in those six years in how they want/need to be perceived.
Some pretty solid examples of why Marvel wanted Manara to do their covers in that link above.
Mestillthinks people doth protest too much. :)
He brought some absolute brilliance to the Marvel brand before we lost our mind over a butt. :)
I'm sure that there are people on both sides that are well-informed and intelligent, but that doesn't mean everyone will agree, or that either side has a firmer grasp on which is the "correct" response. None of it has any bearing on how DC or Marvel decide to promote their brand, unless they shout about it often enough and then you might get them to rethink things after the outrage dies down. Or at least throw you a virtue-signaling bone now and again.
There are far more funny book publishers sexualizing their characters more than either of these two examples. Just spend a few minutes in the back half of Previews.
And Frank didn’t get kicked off of Wonder Woman for drawing a panty line. He got kicked off for being unprofessional and raising a stink about it in a public forum. Frank’s a friend of mine, but he screwed up, and he knows it.
As for the back half of Previews, that’s kind of the point. Those companies don’t have 75 years of history and multimedia visibility. They haven’t overwhelmingly dominated the industry since the ’60s—basically the entirety of most readers’ lives. They simply don’t carry as much weight in the grand scheme of things. It all comes down to symbolism and perceptions.
By not showing the panty line, it suggests that Wonder Woman may even be nude under the armor. Which way was better? Either Cho was on spec. and therefore not at fault and DC should have stood up for their spec. to the other team members. Or Cho was off spec., and so he should have expected editing to remove the offending as it would have been a technical offense. I don’t know if Rucka was right and Wonder Woman goes commando or exhibitionist with panties showing. Or if Cho was right and there’s nothing wrong with her unitard / external wear bottoms. But DC must have been due another editor moment of snatching drama from the jaws of triviality.
In the end, none of our complaints or praises will likely alter how DC or Marvel handle their brands.
As I said in an earlier post, this really has nothing to do with who’s right and who’s wrong. Maybe that’s the way a lot of people are looking at it, but I see a deeper problem, and that’s the poor communication within the DC offices. If things had been handled properly by all parties involved (Frank included), either a slightly different or entirely different variant cover would have come out, no one would have been talking about panty lines at all, and Frank would still be drawing beautiful Wonder Woman covers.
My only point about the brands is that DC and Marvel aren’t being consistent in how they are handling their respective brands, and it seems to me that the reason for the inconsistency is that for whatever reasons they don’t have everyone reading from the same playbook.
I will!
You forget, there was no World Series in 1994 due to the players' strike....Obviously, that altered the timeline. You can thank Tony Reali from Around the Horn for positing this theory.
I'm reading the back and forth with both sides making great points. One thing that keeps coming to mind. Where is editorial in all of this? Isn't it part of editorials job to protect the brand? Are Cho and Manara to "big" for someone to say, "We need you to tone it down"?
The Falcons dropped the hammer on the Bucs last night. This is a really good offensive team.
*With Cho, the character will probably be at least doing something in character, while Manara's cover will just be striking a sexually alluring pose--look at @Torchsong's link a few posts up.
Why hire Manara? Because you love his work, and are completely blind to the fact that associating his offensive-to-many work with the IP that has been entrusted to you will generate more bad publicity than good revenue, I suppose.