Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The new politically correct Vamprilla and Dejah Thoris

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by pulphero View Post
    If they were really paying attention to the way Burroughs described Barsoomians in the novels, we'd be seeing nothing but a few bangles, ornaments, armbands or bracelets, and a few practical straps and buckles for swords and whatnot. Nudity is the norm in Barsoom culture.
    This is true--and also not what we've seen in the comics. I'm quite sure we'll still see scantily-clad characters there, too, just not as their only form of attire.

    Comment


    • #17
      http://www.theouthousers.com/index.p...ampaign=buffer

      Although this is obviously satirical, it sums up nicely the argument of those who complain against changing Vampirella's look.

      Comment


      • #18
        So you don't address any of the criticisms I and others have made but instead attack us as sexually depraved. Right.

        Originally posted by ddamaged View Post
        http://www.theouthousers.com/index.p...ampaign=buffer

        Although this is obviously satirical, it sums up nicely the argument of those who complain against changing Vampirella's look.

        Comment


        • #19
          Quote Originally Posted by ddamaged View Post
          http://www.theouthousers.com/index.p...ampaign=buffer

          Although this is obviously satirical, it sums up nicely the argument of those who complain against changing Vampirella's look.
          Originally posted by ralphuniverse View Post
          So you don't address any of the criticisms I and others have made but instead attack us as sexually depraved. Right.
          Idiots just don't get it. So, according to this theory, if I hate what they're doing to Vampirella's costume, then I should LOVE what Archie Comics is doing with Betty & Veronica -- hiring Adam Hughes to reboot the book. And why do you hire Adam Hughes? Because he's the most bankable/wankable artist in town. Everybody wins except the little girl readers, right? WRONG. I like Adam Hughes, but I like Betty & Veronica just fine exactly the way it is -- in the classic Dan DeCarlo-influenced style as drawn by the current Archie artists like Dan Parent and Jeff Shultz. Hiring Adam Hughes runs counter to the expectations I have and the reasons I'd want to buy a B&V comic in the first place -- that "house style" IS Archie Comics, as much as they're now trying to break that mold. Adam Hughes is fine for Vampirella, but not Betty & Veronica. Probably great for the readers who like Adam Hughes a lot, but never gave a flying frig one way or another about B&V -- which I assume is exactly the thinking being employed here.

          But everything boils down so simply for the apologists. Like, putting more clothes on Vampirella automatically gives her credibility as being better-written and worthy of being taken seriously. Nope. Still just a simple adventure comic book, just less appealing now. Everything new is not automatically improved like they'd love to sell consumers on the idea of, whether it's costume changes or rebooted universes. You want to impress me, then try creating something that's actually new that's worthy of becoming tomorrow's "classic", instead of thinking you can gussie-up an old standard that isn't selling as well by adding some paint and spackle. Never mind the passive-aggressive approach of trying to buy good will with "classic brands" while trampling all over them at the same time.
          Last edited by pulphero; 10-12-2015, 08:22 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by pulphero View Post
            Idiots just don't get it. So, according to this theory, if I hate what they're doing to Vampirella's costume, then I should LOVE what Archie Comics is doing with Betty & Veronica -- hiring Adam Hughes to reboot the book. And why do you hire Adam Hughes? Because he's the most bankable/wankable artist in town. Everybody wins except the little girl readers, right? WRONG. I like Adam Hughes, but I like Betty & Veronica just fine exactly the way it is -- in the classic Dan DeCarlo-influenced style as drawn by the current Archie artists like Dan Parent and Jeff Shultz. Hiring Adam Hughes runs counter to the expectations I have and the reasons I'd want to buy a B&V comic in the first place -- that "house style" IS Archie Comics, as much as they're now trying to break that mold. Adam Hughes is fine for Vampirella, but not Betty & Veronica. Probably great for the readers who like Adam Hughes a lot, but never gave a flying frig one way or another about B&V -- which I assume is exactly the thinking being employed here.

            But everything boils down so simply for the apologists. Like, putting more clothes on Vampirella automatically gives her credibility as being better-written and worthy of being taken seriously. Nope. Still just a simple adventure comic book, just less appealing now. Everything new is not automatically improved like they'd love to sell consumers on the idea of, whether it's costume changes or rebooted universes. You want to impress me, then try creating something that's actually new that's worthy of becoming tomorrow's "classic", instead of thinking you can gussie-up an old standard that isn't selling as well by adding some paint and spackle. Never mind the passive-aggressive approach of trying to buy good will with "classic brands" while trampling all over them at the same time.
            Good writing is good writing. The problem is that potentially new readers are put off by sexist, NOT sexy, exploitative depiction of women. Especially, when one considers that more comic readers and buyer are women and girls. Now, I understand the concern behind Deja Thoris, in Edgar Rice Burroughs work all of the Barsoomians were mostly naked, so there was nothing unusual about Deja Thoris's attire within the context of the narrative. But Vampirella? The 60's Sexploitative, Go-Go Era is over. It ended in well, THE 1960s! The calendar on my laptop reads 2015 and treating women like objects merely for my titillation and gratification is passe. I'm afraid this comic fandom's Gamergate, where male readers fail to see how exploitative and harmful are these depictions of women.

            It's akin to the way earlier generations enjoyed Minstrel Shows or Amos and Andy but didn't see either as racist.

            Comment


            • #21
              Personally I like the way everyone is going on as if this redesign is something new, having read comics for a long time I'm quite used to costume changes (I follow the X-Men line of books, each character is onto about their 20th costume now), the problem I have is how lazy these costumes are. Ok Dejah's is fine, doesn't scream Princess, but I understand she's in exile, so yeah, ok, will give that one a pass. Vampirella's outfit is a copy and paste of Claire Redfield from Resident Evil 2, even down to the crossbow, very lazy.

              As for Sonja, we have had redesigns in the past, but she always ends up back in the bikini.

              https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-h...BPage%2B48.jpg Marvel 1985

              http://img14.deviantart.net/2c91/i/2...il-d3j07jt.jpg Dynamite 2011

              http://images.tfaw.com/tfaw2007/blog...sonja58p_1.jpg Dynamite 2011

              Comment


              • #22
                I would be interested in any verification of that statement please.

                Originally posted by ddamaged View Post
                . Especially, when one considers that more comic readers and buyer are women and girls

                Comment


                • #23
                  its what you can expect from SJW types. Just a bunch pf prudes. Political correctness becomes more important them artistic merit.


                  Originally posted by themightyflip View Post
                  Personally I like the way everyone is going on as if this redesign is something new, having read comics for a long time I'm quite used to costume changes (I follow the X-Men line of books, each character is onto about their 20th costume now), the problem I have is how lazy these costumes are. Ok Dejah's is fine, doesn't scream Princess, but I understand she's in exile, so yeah, ok, will give that one a pass. Vampirella's outfit is a copy and paste of Claire Redfield from Resident Evil 2, even down to the crossbow, very lazy.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ralphuniverse View Post
                    its what you can expect from SJW types. Just a bunch pf prudes. Political correctness becomes more important them artistic merit.
                    Actually, social justice is an intrinsically good thing, and need not be prudish at all.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Need to Take This Seriously

                      Originally posted by ralphuniverse View Post
                      I would be interested in any verification of that statement please.
                      http://comicsalliance.com/female-rea...rowing-market/

                      As a long-time male reader who enjoys staying in continuity, has a predisposition to tradition, and finds the female form beautiful, I have to admit that I understand this need to change. It used to be tradition, if not a (perceived) sign of respect, to call women colleagues "honey" and "sweetie", but over time we now understand that to be a sign of condescension and we don't do it any more. It used to be tradition to draw and portray African Americans in a certain way (like "Ebony White" in the old Spirit comics), just as doing Blackface used to be an accepted form of entertainment, but we now understand that to be insulting and we don't do it anymore. And I think the comic industry is changing, not because of "political correctness" to appease people, but because there is a growing understanding that portraying female superheroes in thongs and bikinis is not a form of respect or tradition, it *is* insulting.

                      Imagine Sub-Mariner in a thong that barely covers his groin and with a string in his buttcrack. Imagine Spider-Man, Batman, and several other characters who have costumes with a different colored "banana" on their groin that accentuates their you-know-what. I think the Hawkeye Initiative, that shows a male character in poses that females are put into, demonstrates the different perception female superheroes get. I know some women like to cosplay Vampirella, Red Sonja, and other female characters who don't wear much clothing, but I think we need to take seriously the view that gratuitious (if not illogical) thongs and bikinis diminish the character's seriousness and tradition is not enough of a reason to continue into the twenty-first century.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        That article shows shows that more females are reading comics , which is something I agree and welcome, it does not show girls and women are the majority. In fact it shows males are the major readers. Now I have no problem with comic book publishers going after more readers of either gender , my concern is they are changing characters into boring mediocrities. Gone from the art is their former glorious sexual exuberance now its desexed feminist prudishness.

                        Regarding the rest of your post. The Hawkeye Initiative was ridicules. Apparently its a surprise to some but men are not women. You don't sexualise men the same way as a woman. You stress male power and strength . With women , feminine form and beauty. To see how to sexualise men have a look romance novel covers.

                        Ralph


                        Originally posted by bobrobertson View Post
                        http://comicsalliance.com/female-rea...rowing-market/

                        As a long-time male reader who enjoys staying in continuity, has a predisposition to tradition, and finds the female form beautiful, I have to admit that I understand this need to change. It used to be tradition, if not a (perceived) sign of respect, to call women colleagues "honey" and "sweetie", but over time we now understand that to be a sign of condescension and we don't do it any more. It used to be tradition to draw and portray African Americans in a certain way (like "Ebony White" in the old Spirit comics), just as doing Blackface used to be an accepted form of entertainment, but we now understand that to be insulting and we don't do it anymore. And I think the comic industry is changing, not because of "political correctness" to appease people, but because there is a growing understanding that portraying female superheroes in thongs and bikinis is not a form of respect or tradition, it *is* insulting.

                        Imagine Sub-Mariner in a thong that barely covers his groin and with a string in his buttcrack. Imagine Spider-Man, Batman, and several other characters who have costumes with a different colored "banana" on their groin that accentuates their you-know-what. I think the Hawkeye Initiative, that shows a male character in poses that females are put into, demonstrates the different perception female superheroes get. I know some women like to cosplay Vampirella, Red Sonja, and other female characters who don't wear much clothing, but I think we need to take seriously the view that gratuitious (if not illogical) thongs and bikinis diminish the character's seriousness and tradition is not enough of a reason to continue into the twenty-first century.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ralphuniverse View Post
                          That article shows shows that more females are reading comics , which is something I agree and welcome, it does not show girls and women are the majority. In fact it shows males are the major readers. Now I have no problem with comic book publishers going after more readers of either gender , my concern is they are changing characters into boring mediocrities. Gone from the art is their former glorious sexual exuberance now its desexed feminist prudishness.

                          Regarding the rest of your post. The Hawkeye Initiative was ridicules. Apparently its a surprise to some but men are not women. You don't sexualise men the same way as a woman. You stress male power and strength . With women , feminine form and beauty. To see how to sexualise men have a look romance novel covers.

                          Ralph
                          It seems as though some readers have difficulty distinguishing between sexY and sexIST, between images that celebrate the female form and those that exploit it for the Male Gaze. And sadly most of these readers are males. The male readers claim it's about preserving comic history, but their objections really are about titillation and objectifying women. Because on an unconscious level they believe women's purpose is to please and satisfy men.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I agree with most of bobrobertson's post--I do think that bikinis (and speedos) and thongs (and, well, thongs) for female (and male) characters can work, but the different perception that female characters get is definitely a real problem.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ralphuniverse View Post
                              You don't sexualise men the same way as a woman. You stress male power and strength . With women , feminine form and beauty.
                              *headdesk*

                              I think those are both valid ways to sexualize both men and women--but so are the reverse, and even others not listed. Not all people (of whatever gender or sexuality) want the same things from those they consider sexy. The assumption here that the only way to sexualize both men and women are "power and strength" for one and "feminine form" (which, by definition, women already have) "and beauty" is precisely the issue.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I am sure that there are people (male or female) who really do just, for no reasons that have to do with sexism at all, not even unconsciously, want the characters to stay the same. It doesn't all have to be about titillation. Heck, I even fret occasionally about the changes to Sonja's backstory and personality because I want to keep all of the Dynamite non-Queen-Sonja stuff together, along with the 2004 Spider-Man team-up, as all stories about the same character. (I'm perfectly happy to treat the Red Sonja of the 1970s as a different universe's Sonja.) And all of that's because I'm a big ol' comics geek, not because I want Sonja to stay in a chainmail bikini. (Indeed, I unashamedly and overtly want more sexy Conan in a loincloth, woof!) But I am sure we will see more of Sonja, Vampi and Dejah in their classic, scantily-clad styles as well as the new ones. I think the problem is the idea that they can only ever be mostly unclad that starts (to me) to sound creepy, and then the justifications for that that start (again, to me) to sound creepier--when it starts to get into the idea that it's somehow women's place to be in a bikini, because women should look pretty while men have the strength and power... yikes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X