|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Sept 27, 2011 16:51:51 GMT -5
A lot of people in the comic-reading community have recently been discussing the controversy around DC's "New 52" launch, most specifically the depictions of Catwoman and Starfire in recent issues. I've personally always been a DC fan, but after this...not so much. Anyway, a few people I've heard have responded "So what's the big deal? Starfire's always been a minimal dresser." I've tried to express that that's not really the point...but hey, maybe asking for consistent characterization isn't my place. Anyway, here's an article where someone asked a 7-year old girl what she thinks and I think she says it better (and more honestly) than I could. (Incidentally, the comic near the bottom is Dave Willis' Shortpacked!, a comic that I think fans of comics, movies, toys and the like would enjoy.)
|
|
|
Post by angilasman on Sept 27, 2011 17:34:52 GMT -5
That 7-year old girl is awesome.
I was thinking of picking up some of the DCnU books (like Animal Man) but this really gets in my craw...
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Sept 29, 2011 6:37:12 GMT -5
New 52 Starfire Controversy: 50 Year Old's Opinion... "No more questions. More boobies" - 50 year old goes back to reading comic book.
|
|
|
Post by angilasman on Sept 29, 2011 17:24:42 GMT -5
^That's completely missing the point. Starfire's always had a sexy, gravity defying costume - but she was a well-rounded (yes, I know) character who was heroic, kind, dedicated, ect. ect. ect. The same basic character (downplaying the sexiness a bit) become an icon to a few million young girls with the Teen Titans cartoon.
Now, post re-boot, Starfire is an emotionless alien with no ties to humanity other than a desire for frequent, no strings attached casual sex. Oh, and she no longer remember the friends and lovers she once cared about so deeply over several decades of comics... not that they've been wiped clean post-reboot, they're still canon: it's just she's an alien and she can't be bothered to remember all those puny human's she's encountered. Oh, and despite having an incredibly skimpy costume they've given her and even more skimpy costume.
...and the two men in the book are (perhaps) even worse! Jason Todd and that red-haired kid come off as the insufferable frat boys of the superhero world. I guess this book is an equal opportunity offender: everyone looks bad!
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Sept 29, 2011 17:29:12 GMT -5
Ahem. He was joking.
Who was missing what point now?
|
|
|
Post by angilasman on Sept 29, 2011 18:02:36 GMT -5
I'm far too angry to understand sarcasm!
|
|
|
Post by angilasman on Sept 29, 2011 18:06:09 GMT -5
... also: Usagi Yojimbo, lots of great female characters, incredible adventure, Stan Sakai is a brilliant cartoonist, best comic being published, and so on and so forth.
(thought I'd get that out there) ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Sept 29, 2011 23:37:32 GMT -5
Yeah I was just being a smart ass (I'd hoped quoting MST's Bloodbeast would be the indicator). But it's cool. I haven't read that issue truth be told, but I have not been impressed with the new 52 in general. Some of the heroes are tied to their past (Batgirl being paralyzed is still part of cannon) while others are stripped back to square one (Supergirl landing on earth and not knowing what is what) and some look like they are just reheating old stories with a slightly different twist (Blue Beetle)
Plus a lot of the costumes really stink (Superman)
I actually didn't mind the Supergirl story, and I'll check out another issue of Birds of Prey. But aside from that I'm dumping my DCs and am going to wait and read reviews on collected editions - I might sample a few that way. Edit: Having read more, better issues, I've actually changed my mind. I'm enjoying the new DC U
Overall though, I can't get too beat up about it and have already moved on to other issues of the day.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Sept 29, 2011 23:48:26 GMT -5
Damnit MJ, the internet is a very serious tool! Don't misuse it again!
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Sept 30, 2011 0:06:15 GMT -5
I'm sorry. Boobs have a crazy influence on my behavior.
|
|
|
Post by angilasman on Sept 30, 2011 12:05:41 GMT -5
I guess we all should live and learn.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Sept 30, 2011 12:07:38 GMT -5
About boobs?
Boobs were put on this Earth for MY pleasure and MY pleasure alone. I already know all I need to know about them.
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Sept 30, 2011 14:58:08 GMT -5
Actually, their primary purpose is to allow mammalian mothers to feed their young.
(Another thing that bugs me: why do evolved or mutated reptillian/amphibian female characters in comics even have breasts?! That shouldn't happen unless there's already an assumed mammalian root in their genetic history! RAAAARGH!!!)
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Sept 30, 2011 15:03:55 GMT -5
That's their secondary purpose. Learn your facts!
|
|
|
Post by angilasman on Sept 30, 2011 15:11:16 GMT -5
Actually, their primary purpose is to allow mammalian mothers to feed their young. (Another thing that bugs me: why do evolved or mutated reptillian/amphibian female characters in comics even have breasts?! That shouldn't happen unless there's already an assumed mammalian root in their genetic history! RAAAARGH!!!) In sci-fi television I suppose it's to accommodate the actual breasts of the female actors inside the lizard suits. Also, some scientists think that the evolution of human female boobies has something to do with the fact that, far in our evolutionary history, we were apes doing it from the back and not the front - therefore in our DNA we males have a propensity for shiny female monkey butts - therefore human female breasts serve the purpose of a "frontal ass display." This is science.
|
|