Moderns that are heating up on ebay! 71 71

[IntoAnother]

I completely whiffed on space riders, is it worth the prices that it's fetching on ebay? The covers look interesting, but my LCS told me today they didn't even order any originally and did not have the second print either

 

I thought it was okay. Picked it up from their booth at at a con for cheaper. I personally don't think it's worth the eBay prices. Maybe you'll see them at a con and get lucky.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

The art was self censored so it was censored....

Censorship implies a legal restriction on what a company is allowed to print. That never happened. In the end, a company does what it thinks is best for business. It just so happens that what's best for business may not be what the average fanboy stomps his feet and demands.

[the authority]

You think throwing out the words racist or misogynist doesn't cause the weak to sit down and shut up ? You and I have a difference of opinion on what constitutes censorship. Its months later and we both feel the same way. The name calling ? You are trying to make it sound like " If you say ______ then you are a_______ ." But its really not that black and white is it ? People are considerably more complex than the options you've given. Disagreeing with you doesn't make people anything other than someone who happens to see things differently.

[darkstar]

The art was self censored so it was censored....

Censorship implies a legal restriction on what a company is allowed to print

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

 

 

 

[Prince Namor]

Just because the original material is still available for consumption elsewhere doesn't mean it wasn't censored in that instance.

 

And when a potential,not even necessarily the intended, audience can effectively demonstrate that their approval is necessary in order for an artist to publish a piece of art, its hard to argue that we are not living in some degree of a censored society.

 

Good god, are you seriously implying that?

 

Just because some artist decided, because people were threatening to rape and kill other people, to NOT use a piece of art for a comic book cover of all things, and you want to compare that to artists in other countries who've been attacked, had to go into hiding, leave their country, been imprisoned...

 

Get out and see the world. There's no real art censorship in America.

 

 

Implying what? That public backlash has caused the removal of TWO covers being edited or pulled entirely recently? Backlash that may not have even been from actual comic readers? Do you want to just pretend that didn't happen?

 

There's plenty of times people have complained and made a stink about some cover or sexual circumstance in a comic and Marvel and DC have done nothing. Batman/Catwoman half undressed before sex, Thor naked, Starfire being overly slutty, heck, you can find Harley Quinn talking sex in DC's animated adventures on youtube, that reach a hell of a lot more people than comic books, including children - people complain and moan and blog about it all the time - DC's done nothing about it. In fact they've slutted her up even more for the regular comics.

 

What about those times?

 

Why'd they not censor themselves then?

 

The outrage was just as loud. The blogs are still out there to go read.

 

They did nothing.

 

Is censorship inconsistent? Does it ignore the Teen Titans Go porn all over the internet?

 

Nobody is comparing this to censorship in other countries; I certainly didn't. The only person making that comparison is YOU.

 

Natevegas said:

 

The days of freedom to think, feel, and say what you want are numbered.

 

Which makes me think he thinks it's pretty serious.

 

There are different degrees of censorship. Having joe public step in and decide that the on Manara's Spider-Woman is too pronounced and therefore offensive is not a good road to be going down.

 

Anyone who knows Manara's work knows exactly what that pose is all about. He's used it a million times. Marvel's not unaccustomed to using sexuality in their covers. They just decided in that instance, that showing Spider Woman in a pose that Manara has used as a sexual position numerous times in 100's of other European comics, may not be the way they want to present her or how they want to see their company represented. Smart business decision.

 

There'll be plenty more 'excitement' material out there for the covers of comic books for all of the guys that enjoy that. No need to worry.

 

And please try and talk down to others just a little bit less.

 

Ok.

 

[Prince Namor]

The art was self censored so it was censored....

Censorship implies a legal restriction on what a company is allowed to print. That never happened. In the end, a company does what it thinks is best for business. It just so happens that what's best for business may not be what the average fanboy stomps his feet and demands.

 

Exactly.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

And then closet racists/mysogynists, as well as socially awkward nerds could claim politics and pc police were ruing their sandwich hobby.

 

Ruin no. But negatively affect, most definitely yes. See the recent censorship of cover art for evidence of this.

 

Censored art is art you're not allowed to see.

 

That art wasn't censored. You can see that art anytime you want.

 

Anyone who thinks we live in some kind of censored society is showing just how culturally out touch with the real world they truly are.

 

Just because the original material is still available for consumption elsewhere doesn't mean it wasn't censored in that instance.

 

And when a potential,not even necessarily the intended, audience can effectively demonstrate that their approval is necessary in order for an artist to publish a piece of art, its hard to argue that we are not living in some degree of a censored society.

Artists are free to publish any work that they have the IP rights to publish. That right doesn't protect them from criticism.

[Prince Namor]

The art was self censored so it was censored....

Censorship implies a legal restriction on what a company is allowed to print

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

Yes, when someone claims they've been censored, it's generally understood that they're saying they've been blocked in some way from expressing themselves.

[Prince Namor]

And then closet racists/mysogynists, as well as socially awkward nerds could claim politics and pc police were ruing their sandwich hobby.

 

Ruin no. But negatively affect, most definitely yes. See the recent censorship of cover art for evidence of this.

 

Censored art is art you're not allowed to see.

 

That art wasn't censored. You can see that art anytime you want.

 

Anyone who thinks we live in some kind of censored society is showing just how culturally out touch with the real world they truly are.

 

Just because the original material is still available for consumption elsewhere doesn't mean it wasn't censored in that instance.

 

And when a potential,not even necessarily the intended, audience can effectively demonstrate that their approval is necessary in order for an artist to publish a piece of art, its hard to argue that we are not living in some degree of a censored society.

Artists are free to publish any work that they have the IP rights to publish. That right doesn't protect them from criticism.

 

Young people today, who are 'superstars' the minute they download 'snapchat' and 'Facebook' all think criticism is censorship.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

The art was self censored so it was censored....

Censorship implies a legal restriction on what a company is allowed to print

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

 

 

Um, yeah, it pretty much does. Or, if you want to be a pedant about it, a restriction by higher powers. You're not seriously going to argue that Disney or Time Warner are the underdogs in the recent controversies regarding cover art, are you?

[Prince Namor]

The art was self censored so it was censored....

Censorship implies a legal restriction on what a company is allowed to print

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

 

 

Um, yeah, it pretty much does. Or, if you want to be a pedant about it, a restriction by higher powers. You're not seriously going to argue that Disney or Time Warner are the underdogs in the recent controversies regarding cover art, are you?

 

Some amazing propaganda... teaching the common man to see the corporation as the victim...

[Cyclops]

Woo hoo, my "reader" copy from the stands!

So pumped. I have wanted this in 9.8 forever and took a chance.

 

 

Flash 197

6/03 D.C. Comics

Modern 9.8 WHITE

Geoff Johns story

Scott Kolins cover & art

Origin & 1st appearance of Zoom.

 

 

Great ish.

[natevegas]

"To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire

[Prince Namor]

"To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire

 

In this country you're free to criticize whoever you want. No one is stopping you.

 

Just because someone might not agree with you doesn't mean it's censorship.

[darkstar]

 

There's plenty of times people have complained and made a stink about some cover or sexual circumstance in a comic and Marvel and DC have done nothing. Batman/Catwoman half undressed before sex, Thor naked, Starfire being overly slutty, heck, you can find Harley Quinn talking sex in DC's animated adventures on youtube, that reach a hell of a lot more people than comic books, including children - people complain and moan and blog about it all the time - DC's done nothing about it. In fact they've slutted her up even more for the regular comics.

 

What about those times?

 

Why'd they not censor themselves then?

 

The outrage was just as loud. The blogs are still out there to go read.

 

They did nothing.

 

Is censorship inconsistent? Does it ignore the Teen Titans Go porn all over the internet?

 

Selective censorship is still censorship. Citing all the times they've refrained from doing it doesn't take away the instances where they did. And since there is more than one instance of them doing it recently, that is important, because it could become a trend.

 

Nobody is comparing this to censorship in other countries; I certainly didn't. The only person making that comparison is YOU.

 

Natevegas said:

 

The days of freedom to think, feel, and say what you want are numbered.

 

Which makes me think he thinks it's pretty serious.

 

But still no comparison to other countries there, so again, its just you making that comparison.

 

There are different degrees of censorship. Having joe public step in and decide that the on Manara's Spider-Woman is too pronounced and therefore offensive is not a good road to be going down.

 

Anyone who knows Manara's work knows exactly what that pose is all about. He's used it a million times. Marvel's not unaccustomed to using sexuality in their covers. They just decided in that instance, that showing Spider Woman in a pose that Manara has used as a sexual position numerous times in 100's of other European comics, may not be the way they want to present her or how they want to see their company represented. Smart business decision.

 

A "smart business decision" that was made after a manufactured public outcry. As you yourself admit anyone who knows Manara's work knows exactly what that pose is all about, so then why did Marvel go to him for the cover artwork in the first place? Or wait for its public release before axing it?

 

There'll be plenty more 'excitement' material out there for the covers of comic books for all of the guys that enjoy that. No need to worry.

 

Ah yes another veiled insult from you.

 

And please try and talk down to others just a little bit less.

 

Ok.

 

See above.

[darkstar]

And then closet racists/mysogynists, as well as socially awkward nerds could claim politics and pc police were ruing their sandwich hobby.

 

Ruin no. But negatively affect, most definitely yes. See the recent censorship of cover art for evidence of this.

 

Censored art is art you're not allowed to see.

 

That art wasn't censored. You can see that art anytime you want.

 

Anyone who thinks we live in some kind of censored society is showing just how culturally out touch with the real world they truly are.

 

Just because the original material is still available for consumption elsewhere doesn't mean it wasn't censored in that instance.

 

And when a potential,not even necessarily the intended, audience can effectively demonstrate that their approval is necessary in order for an artist to publish a piece of art, its hard to argue that we are not living in some degree of a censored society.

Artists are free to publish any work that they have the IP rights to publish. That right doesn't protect them from criticism.

 

An artist being silenced because a potential audience finds his work to be distasteful isn't criticism, its censorship.

[darkstar]

The art was self censored so it was censored....

Censorship implies a legal restriction on what a company is allowed to print

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

Yes, when someone claims they've been censored, it's generally understood that they're saying they've been blocked in some way from expressing themselves.

 

Again, what you are writing here doesn't address the point that is in contention. Being blocked in some way from expressing oneself is not always the result of a legal restriction/authority.

[darkstar]

The art was self censored so it was censored....

Censorship implies a legal restriction on what a company is allowed to print

 

No it doesn't.

Um, yeah, it pretty much does.

 

I wasn't aware libraries were imposing legal restrictions when they banned certain books. Or that the Rolling Stones were faced with a legal restriction when Ed Sullivan told them to change their lyrics before performing on his show. Again there is more than one kind of censorship, including, as krighton already mentioned, self-censorship.

 

Or, if you want to be a pedant about it, a restriction by higher powers. You're not seriously going to argue that Disney or Time Warner are the underdogs in the recent controversies regarding cover art, are you?

 

You're not seriously changing the argument and putting words in my mouth again, are you?

 

 

[darkstar]

Just because someone might not agree with you doesn't mean it's censorship.

 

Simply not agreeing with someone would be if Manara was allowed to release his cover artwork as originally intended via the medium he originally intended and then having him and his art be addressed, commented on, and criticized by the masses.

 

Disagreeing with said artwork and then posturing oneself in a way to deprive other people of the ability to consume said artwork IS censorship.

 

You don't speak for me and you don't speak for the artist, your thoughts should have no bearing on his creating.

 

 

[Prince Namor]

 

There's plenty of times people have complained and made a stink about some cover or sexual circumstance in a comic and Marvel and DC have done nothing. Batman/Catwoman half undressed before sex, Thor naked, Starfire being overly slutty, heck, you can find Harley Quinn talking sex in DC's animated adventures on youtube, that reach a hell of a lot more people than comic books, including children - people complain and moan and blog about it all the time - DC's done nothing about it. In fact they've slutted her up even more for the regular comics.

 

What about those times?

 

Why'd they not censor themselves then?

 

The outrage was just as loud. The blogs are still out there to go read.

 

They did nothing.

 

Is censorship inconsistent? Does it ignore the Teen Titans Go porn all over the internet?

 

Selective censorship is still censorship. Citing all the times they've refrained from doing it doesn't take away the instances where they did. And since there is more than one instance of them doing it recently, that is important, because it could become a trend.

 

It's censorship and then self-censorship and now it's selective censorship...oh brother.

 

So censorship is inconsistent. It just censors....sometimes?

 

Why? If something is bad, shouldn't it censor it all the time?

 

Explain to me how that works.

 

Nobody is comparing this to censorship in other countries; I certainly didn't. The only person making that comparison is YOU.

 

Natevegas said:

 

The days of freedom to think, feel, and say what you want are numbered.

 

Which makes me think he thinks it's pretty serious.

 

But still no comparison to other countries there, so again, its just you making that comparison.

 

In some countries the days of freedom to think, feel, and say what you want actually are gone.

 

There are different degrees of censorship. Having joe public step in and decide that the on Manara's Spider-Woman is too pronounced and therefore offensive is not a good road to be going down.

 

Anyone who knows Manara's work knows exactly what that pose is all about. He's used it a million times. Marvel's not unaccustomed to using sexuality in their covers. They just decided in that instance, that showing Spider Woman in a pose that Manara has used as a sexual position numerous times in 100's of other European comics, may not be the way they want to present her or how they want to see their company represented. Smart business decision.

 

A "smart business decision" that was made after a manufactured public outcry. As you yourself admit anyone who knows Manara's work knows exactly what that pose is all about, so then why did Marvel go to him for the cover artwork in the first place? Or wait for its public release before axing it?

 

You assume it was changed because of public outcry. But Marvel makes stylistic changes to their covers all the time. Sometimes because the editorial process feels it works best for what they want to promote. Which right now is comics more suitable for some. Here's an example of a change they made, not because of public outcry, but because it's what they, as a company have decided they want to do.

 

Inferno #1 cover change

 

They've used Manara in the past, because he's a famous artist, and his past covers were much less sexualized than that one.

 

There'll be plenty more 'excitement' material out there for the covers of comic books for all of the guys that enjoy that. No need to worry.

 

Ah yes another veiled insult from you.

 

I didn't think I veiled it at all.

 

So why is it so important for these highly sexualized covers of... comic book women... be made available for you people... at all cost?

 

CAN YOU ANSWER THAT?

 

Is this the battle you choose to fight in our world today? The protection of the Manara Spider Woman spread booty pose cover?

 

That's worth the fight, the debate, the gnashing of teeth... so you can look back and say... "I stood up for the Manara Spider Woman spread booty pose cover", because it's art!" Or what?

 

I mean seriously... what is it? Why is it so important?

 

I defend anybody's right to draw whatever they want... I could care less... but to demand it should made available for anyone that wants to buy it? What kind of weird protest is that?

 

And please try and talk down to others just a little bit less.

 

Ok.

 

See above.

 

Ok.