Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mirka Andolfo art is awful in #2

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    ChastMastr, it's like if someone said beefcake is wrong so make the heroes fat, chubby, and no muscles. Even if the stories were good, it wouldn't be the same. Changing the costumes and physiques on Vampirella and Red Sonja is the equivalent of making them fat.

    2D line art needs more of a curve for the minds eye to read it as a woman. Cheesecake (and beefcake) are ideals that are a big part of a characters appeal.
    Comic2read

    Comment


    • #17
      I really don't think it's like this at all, I'm sorry. I think it's like--no, that it's identical to--putting Conan in armor or other clothing besides a loincloth from time to time. As for physiques, the more wiry Conan we saw during the Brian Wood Belit stories a while back was not to my taste, but that didn't mean he was ugly, or betraying the nature of the character, or anything like that--and he's being drawn by different people now, and currently more with the style I personally prefer.

      Comment


      • #18
        But they are not putting armor on Vampy. They are giving her a new less sexy costume. She looks more like Lara Croft. Vampires are all about sex and death, the original art expressed that. Now she just an action girl. If they had gone back to the original Trina Robbins one piece swimsuit design I wouldn't be so pissed off . That still pretty sexy.

        The cynic in me says one of the main reasons for doing so is because overweight cosplay girls didn't like the origial costume.

        Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
        I really don't think it's like this at all, I'm sorry. I think it's like--no, that it's identical to--putting Conan in armor or other clothing besides a loincloth from time to time. As for physiques, the more wiry Conan we saw during the Brian Wood Belit stories a while back was not to my taste, but that didn't mean he was ugly, or betraying the nature of the character, or anything like that--and he's being drawn by different people now, and currently more with the style I personally prefer.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
          No, I just don't understand what "have everything" means in this context.
          In the genetic lottery. Face, boobs, butt, legs. That would be in the traditional context of comics mainly aimed at a demographic of male heterosexual readers... good 'girl art', etc.

          Maybe your confusion is this... what makes anyone want to pick the comic up and read it in the first place? HINT: The cover art is telling you something here.
          Yeah, afterwards we can discuss whether the writing and characterization was up to snuff. But that would only be IF something made you pick the comic up and read it in the first place... i.e., the artwork, because... it's comics, not prose.
          If you like the way the character looks, that makes you interested in, and want to read about, that character to discover more. Characters that have bad artwork and look unattractive or have stupid-looking outfits (purely a matter of individual taste, but nonetheless) rarely draw your interest enough to make you want to discover that the comic just happened to be brilliantly scripted. And even should you hear that from a reviewer, it still may not really matter if you have to suffer through bad art to read the story.
          Last edited by pulphero; 10-10-2015, 05:16 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            They're still pretty sexy as far as I can tell.

            Good Lord, people, they're supposed to be characters, not just wank material.

            Comment


            • #21
              Lara Croft version Vamprillia sexy?Or the new Red Sonja? Or even Dejay? They have been desexyized by an order of magnitude.

              Look, the art is an expression of the character. This is a comic book so it exaggerated and sensationalized. What you need is Vamprillia= Sex and Death. Red Sonja= Violence, , unattainable massive sexual power. Dejay Thoris, +breath taking feminine beauty, strength, royalty.

              They look ordinary. The original extruded sexual energy from every pore.



              Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
              They're still pretty sexy as far as I can tell.

              Good Lord, people, they're supposed to be characters, not just wank material.
              Last edited by ralphuniverse; 10-10-2015, 04:45 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ralphuniverse View Post
                Lara Croft version Vamprillia sexy?Or the new Red Sonja? Or even Dejay?
                Well, yes.

                They look ordinary.
                As Jareth says in Labyrinth, "I wonder what your basis for comparison is."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Seriously, looking at this triptych of pictures:

                  http://th.comicsblog.it/DYN-h3_HnGRv...cott-small.jpg

                  Vampirella and Dejah Thoris are definitely sexy there. Red Sonja is covered up more, but then, she's wearing a cloak, which I'm quite sure she will not be wearing 24/7. Apart from that (which looks more like something to shelter from the elements with--sandstorm, maybe?), she's still got bare legs, and whatever her top armor is, it seems to hang down (possibly could be part of the old chainmail bikini).

                  Remember, part of Vampi's upcoming story arc involves doing stuff in the middle of Hollywood, and while her outfit is something she could get away with in public, it's still pretty sexy, or even a touch risque (and would not look out of place in many fetish clubs, in fact). (For that matter, Dejah Thoris is on some sort of self-imposed exile, the details of which we don't know all of yet.)

                  And, again, we've been specifically told that we'll still see Vampi in her old outfit from time to time. I'm sure we'll see the others' classic outfits again, as well.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Ohh, fiddlesticks... their sexiness is that of any other action/warrior woman. Big deal.

                    This is Red Sonja

                    This is Dejah Thoris

                    This is Vampirella

                    Several order of magnitude more powerful the Gail's action girls.


                    Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
                    Seriously, looking at this triptych of pictures:

                    http://th.comicsblog.it/DYN-h3_HnGRv...cott-small.jpg

                    Vampirella and Dejah Thoris are definitely sexy there. Red Sonja is covered up more, but then, she's wearing a cloak, which I'm quite sure she will not be wearing 24/7. Apart from that (which looks more like something to shelter from the elements with--sandstorm, maybe?), she's still got bare legs, and whatever her top armor is, it seems to hang down (possibly could be part of the old chainmail bikini).

                    Remember, part of Vampi's upcoming story arc involves doing stuff in the middle of Hollywood, and while her outfit is something she could get away with in public, it's still pretty sexy, or even a touch risque (and would not look out of place in many fetish clubs, in fact). (For that matter, Dejah Thoris is on some sort of self-imposed exile, the details of which we don't know all of yet.)

                    And, again, we've been specifically told that we'll still see Vampi in her old outfit from time to time. I'm sure we'll see the others' classic outfits again, as well.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Sorry, I guess we'll just have to disagree here. Without any disrespect to the models for the art in question, of course. Obviously there are going to be different tastes for sexiness, of course, so if Rubens ever comes back into vogue, there will be even more complicated conversations about such things.
                      Last edited by ChastMastr; 10-10-2015, 08:24 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
                        Vampirella and Dejah Thoris are definitely sexy there.
                        No they're not. This is completely subjective, and you're handicapped in this argument. You can't win. Just as I'm not going to win an argument with you over which artist's interpretation of Conan or John Carter is sexy or isn't.

                        Which probably goes to the heart of this argument, because if you're leaving the determination of what's a sexy costume design to a heterosexual female artist, then your target demographic better not be primarily male heterosexual readers, because you don't really know (or care) about what that reader likes. There's obviously a range of taste/opinion, but we're talking a consensus viewpoint, and the male heterosexual consensus is against you on this one.

                        Beauty is in the eye of the consumer. Attractiveness is what attracts you to something, especially given the fact that you have many choices, but limited money and time. If you don't see what you like, you shop somewhere else, just as if you were clothes shopping or whatever. These are luxury items, not necessities. You can live with an ugly car because you need transportation, so if it's mechanically sound and reliable, maybe that's all that's needed. There are thousands of comics to pick from, so why do you want to put up with something you don't enjoy looking at? In the real world, people don't buy a comic book that they don't like the way the art or character looks, and think to themselves "Well, maybe the characterization and writing is of sufficiently high quality that it outweighs the deficiencies in the way it looks". That's just not realistic. You can have a comic with good art or an attractive character that essentially won't hold your interest in the long run because the writing and characterization is bad, but you decide that after you try it. With the artwork, you don't have to buy it first before deciding whether you like it or not. That's usually apparent from a cursory scan.

                        Why even have "costumes" to begin with? It's unrealistic and impractical. Real people don't dress like that. Come to think of it, most women don't have large breasts and well-rounded derrieres, so let's do away with that. Just to be fair, most men don't have weightlifter physiques either, so let's eliminate that as well. Let's just make all of our heroes and heroines modestly and realistically dressed, and no more or less averagely attractive than people you might see any day on a crowded city street. Then we can all focus on quality writing and characterization without any distractions, and feel better about ourselves in the process, secure in the knowledge that we're avoiding offending the largest number of people possible, and not being shallow and superficial about what really matters. The heroes can still be heroic, regardless of what they look like, and that's the only thing that's really important, right? [CAUTION: This paragraph may contain sarcasm.]
                        Last edited by pulphero; 10-11-2015, 02:09 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pulphero View Post
                          No they're not. This is completely subjective, and you're handicapped in this argument. You can't win. Just as I'm not going to win an argument with you over which artist's interpretation of Conan or John Carter is sexy or isn't.
                          Well, no. That's simply not true. It's not like being gay (or straight) makes you blind to whether or not someone is attractive, even sexually attractive. And if it's "completely subjective," then "they're not sexy" is equally invalid.

                          Which probably goes to the heart of this argument, because if you're leaving the determination of what's a sexy costume design to a heterosexual female artist, then your target demographic better not be primarily male heterosexual readers, because you don't really know (or care) about what that reader likes. There's obviously a range of taste/opinion, but we're talking a consensus viewpoint, and the male heterosexual consensus is against you on this one.
                          No, it's really not--it is from a tiny number of internet posters on this discussion board. Do you really think the people who run Dynamite and have approved these costume choices are all straight females or gay men, and/or that they have no interest in these characters being attractive?

                          Why even have "costumes" to begin with? It's unrealistic and impractical. Real people don't dress like that. Come to think of it, most women don't have large breasts and well-rounded derrieres, so let's do away with that.
                          Except they're still being drawn as attractive women. If you saw someone walking down the street looking like that, you're surely not saying that you'd think, "How ordinary"?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            We're obviously not going to agree on this, so I will simply say... well, that we're obviously not going to agree on this. I'm not sure I have anything else to add.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
                              We're obviously not going to agree on this, so I will simply say... well, that we're obviously not going to agree on this. I'm not sure I have anything else to add.
                              You don't want to have sex with women, but you're going to tell me what's sexy about them and what isn't. What's your claim to authority? It is to laugh. Well, maybe I should tell you what makes for good Japanese gay hentai manga, then... ooops, wait, I forgot it's about the characters, even if you can't read the language. You might listen to what your brain tells you about what looks good or stylish or appears to be in vogue according to your observations of the rest of the world, but that's not the same. What's sexy is what appeals to your sexual nature -- it's personal, according to what attracts the individual not on an aesthetic level, but on a visceral level -- so while I can say I like or don't like this or that male character's costume (or I think it looks stupid or whatever) for me to presume to tell you what male characters' costumes are sexy or not, is ridonkulous. How can I put this any plainer? "Sexy" is shorthand for "I want to have sex with that" (yeah, that's where you have to use your imagination to pretend we're not talking about drawings, but "IF that were a real person"). Apparently you have some... less literal definition of "sexy", that amounts to "I can imagine that would be attractive to someone", but if you're not attracted to the gender in question, then you're not speaking from personal experience. Even if you're attracted to both sexes, I still have to trust the majority opinion of those that are only aligned one way, and if you're part of the one-way group, you usually have a sense of where you are or aren't in sync with the mainstream of opinion on the various highly specific aspects of what's sexy or what isn't. Every individual internalizes his or her own personal sliding scale of what's sexy, sexier, sexiest, but just like target shooting, you can find general groupings of hits. Naturally it's more specific to a particular time period and culture, but again there are some universal commonalities. It's just common sense that someone who either isn't attracted to, or isn't exclusively attracted to, whatever gender is in question is going to be at greater variance to the mainstream of opinion.

                              The successful female artists who depict women in comics that are mainly being sold to hetero men simply look at what the hetero male artists have done, and copy that. If the attitude they're going to take is that the audience are just all pigs who objectify and degrade women, and they would rather seek the audience that finds those types of images to be embarrassing or off-putting, well then good luck to them. Nobody's forcing anyone to buy anything they don't want to buy. There's the catch though, they have to make you want to buy it. MAYBE they could do it purely through the power of good writing and nothing but... better hope word of mouth carries fast before the book's sales drop too low, though. Here's the thing though, I get to be as picky about what I spend my money on as I want to be. It could be I don't like the writing, or a specific aspect of the writing (like the characterization), and it could be that I don't like the artwork, or a specific aspect of the artwork, whether it's how the artist draws women, or the main character's costume.

                              I don't say all the people at DE are gay or straight women. They might be just giving up on the idea that the audience demographic is (or should be) mainly composed of hetero men, or they simply think somehow that they can find some kind of middle ground that they can defend as inoffensive to women. Gee, maybe they should think about that before they decide to publish female characters whose stock in trade is blatantly sexualized imagery... Red Sonja, Vampirella, the Chaos girls... (not that there's anything wrong with that, but now it seems we all have to apologize for it). Outrage!! The politically-correct message being sent here primarily seems to be "Heterosexual men, you should be ashamed of yourselves for the shallowness of your honest sexual desires". That's why I laugh when someone says 'Oh, let's not bring it down to the level of wank material", because what it really comes down to is "Be ashamed and be dishonest with yourself, because your duty lies in denying your true wishes to compromise to the wishes of some other group of consumers -- but if you don't still give us your money, then you're selfish and disloyal." OK. that's a nice rationale, but you're still not getting my money unless you earn it by giving me what I want. Is this the ONLY thing that's important in prying the money from my wallet? No, but don't kid yourself that is ISN'T important, or try to trick me into being ashamed about it, because "The customer is always right." Not every comic featuring a female character has to be sexy to be appealing to me, but if that was part of the character's built-in appeal from its inception, and you decide to subtract that from the equation, don't kid yourself that it isn't going to matter to consumers. Why can't you just bring in better writing and characterization without subtracting the sexyness? Don't try to BS me that just because you made it less sexy, it must be somehow more intelligent, or better written. Geez, people love to get all judgmental about whether someone likes a character because the character is sexy, and treat it as if it's an either/or thing -- either it's wank material, or it's not. I've seen people take a less judgmental attitude towards REAL people -- just because I'm sexually attracted to a person doesn't mean that's the ONLY thing I care about that person, so why should it be true of a comic book or comic book character? People who read comic books are visually oriented -- even more so on average than people who don't read comics, so why should it be shocking that the appearances of things have importance? Gee, it's just so unfair that Betty & Veronica get a comic book, but Big Ethel doesn't...

                              And you know what, pandering isn't a crime, either. It can be well-done or poorly-done, according to a certain set of expectations that you define yourself. I'm not going to be judging the content of an IDW Cartoon Network or DC Kids or KaBOOM! or Archie comic by the same standards I'm applying to a Drawn & Quarterly, Fantagraphics, or Vertigo comic (not that I'm even necessarily applying the same standards to all the things in both of those groups, either). Soda pop can be soda pop and doesn't have to be judged by the same standards as I apply to wine. A sexy comic can be sexy and be judged within its own spectrum by my expectations of standards for that type of comic. There isn't one universal standard, but there ARE preexisting expectations (based on what has come before) that I'll be looking for relating to certain genres or certain characters. I'd rather see someone create a new (if similar in some ways) character than radically alter a previously-existing character.

                              I guess you could debate how much of the argument is "you've made the character less sexy" (it is a definite general trend, though) versus "the old costume was a good design, the new costume is a bad design that looks stupid" -- because the latter, while purely an aesthetic (as opposed to visceral) judgment, doesn't motivate you to buy the character's book either, especially if the new design is accompanied by a "new direction", new artist, new writer, or all of those -- regardless of whether or not the character is (or was) sexually attractive to you or not. HULK ARMOR??? ELECTRIC BLUE SUPERMAN??? Were they more or less sexy than before? Don't know, don't care. Just stopped buying. A single issue or a single story arc is a novelty... some characters seem to run in cycles, where it eventually has to return to something close to the original costume. There's always going to be some wise guy who tries to guilt me as being shallow, superficial, or disloyal with "Well, if a costume change can affect whether you buy the character's book that much, then I guess you never really cared about the character that much to begin with." You know, like the implication being that it's some character flaw of mine that I don't care enough about the fictional character to weather some change made by the creators... when to my mind, the fault is entirely the creators', if they fail to compel my loyalty in purchasing. They have to continually deliver, because the fact that they got my money in the past is no guarantee that they're going to continue to get it in the future. There are just too many other options available regarding exactly where to dispose of one's disposable income.

                              IF THE COSTUMES DIDN'T MATTER, THEN NO COMIC CHARACTERS WOULD WEAR COSTUMES (or have some distinctive mode of dress that they habitually wear, that amounts to the same as a costume... Constantine has a costume, because he basically always dresses the same, white shirt and trenchcoat). That much should be self-evident to anyone with eyes and a brain, but somehow, people always seem to want to argue against that basic fact. Are there characters who have their own series that don't? Of course there are... but why aren't those the rule, instead of the exception? THE COSTUMES MATTER, because comics is a visual medium. If you don't have costumes, your writer-artist team better be rock solid, and working at the absolute top of their genre, or have cornered the genre (THE WALKING DEAD). If you want to add up the sales numbers of characters who wear costumes, versus those who don't, it becomes even more overwhelmingly apparent than if you're just counting the number of titles, because most of the biggest sellers all have characters who wear costumes. Unpopular costumes just make sales go down. Sometimes a costume change can get people's attention and actually get new readers to try a book, but it's always risky gamble of alienating the old readers in the process -- but if sales are slumping, that's the most likely time to have a costume change. DE's sales are borderline to begin with, maybe they feel there'e nothing to lose by "Batgirling".

                              It's funny to me that Alan Moore was commenting on the costumes back in 1986 in WATCHMEN, and it was decades before the whole cosplay phenomenon exploded the way it has.
                              Last edited by pulphero; 10-12-2015, 05:45 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
                                We're obviously not going to agree on this, so I will simply say... well, that we're obviously not going to agree on this. I'm not sure I have anything else to add.
                                Ibid. Or ditto, if you prefer.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X