Controversial Power Puff Girls Variant Cover

[USArmyParatrooper]

Does anyone know if any of these made to the shelves?

 

[LarrysComics]

They did not.

[USArmyParatrooper]

That sucks.

[krighton]

Looking at that, what's the problem.

[Vikingreed]

People freaking way overreacted...

I saw it after I read about all the hubbub, and had no idea why it was pulled.

[Tuff Ghost]

I don't believe there is anything wrong with the particular image on it's own. I believe the controversy was people saying these characters are supposed to be young girls (5-6yrs old) and this is an all-ages book.

 

in this cover they've been made into these adult woman and been made to look slightly sexy. Again, nothing wrong with that, it's actually tastefully done in my opinion. It's more the subject matter than the actual drawing that people are up in arms about.

 

More here: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/01/24/cartoon-network-pulls-controversial-powerpuff-girls-cover/

 

And here: http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2014/01/empowering-vs-protecting-the-children/

[Vikingreed]

Yeah, that makes sense. I don't know any of the back story.

[Dano]

Looking up the skirt of a child is a disgusting way to sell a comic book.

 

Dan

[bababooey]

2, 1, 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[USArmyParatrooper]

Looking up the skirt of a child is a disgusting way to sell a comic book.

 

Dan

 

The women on the cover aren't children. It's an alternate reality cover depicting them as adults. It's been done many times the other direction.

 

 

This is a variant cover meant for collectors, not as children's reading material.

[Dano]

Okay. I find it personally offensive. Different strokes for different folks.

 

Dan

[Dano]

Maybe they should have called it the Powerpuff Women then.

 

Dan

[ThoseBackPages]

No such thing as bad publicity

[Dano]

No such thing as bad publicity

 

Good point.

 

Dan

[USArmyParatrooper]

Okay. I find it personally offensive. Different strokes for different folks.

 

Dan

 

I understand and I respect your views on it.

 

Personally I put a lot of weight behind intent, and I don't believe the artist intended it to be suggestive toward children.

[Dano]

Okay. I find it personally offensive. Different strokes for different folks.

 

Dan

 

I understand and I respect your views on it.

 

Personally I put a lot of weight behind intent, and I don't believe the artist intended it to be suggestive toward children.

 

I agree that intent is everything and that it is in the eye of the beholder. I see too much J. Scott Campbell in these young girls - who I identify as an artist that works in a sexual vein.

 

Dan

[Ryan.]

Fun fact: This cover was drawn by a woman.

[Dano]

Fun fact: This cover was drawn by a woman.

 

 

Dan

[krighton]

I'm a bit of a prude and it's one of the tamest covers with women on it I've seen. not like they're being seductive.

[slym2none]

I think the "uproar" is that the PPG aren't women - they are 6-7 year old girls. And now, you are looking up the skirt of a 6-7 year old girl on the cover of this comic. I am pretty sure one of the articles posted about this says that the writer & artist both have said this isn't a "future depiction" of the PPG, this is them at 6-7 years old as depicted by the artist.

 

That is going to throw sparks...

 

 

 

-slym