• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

OK-- who hit the notify (Marvel) Mods button on Spider-Woman?

Started by bronze_rules,

106 posts in this topic

dupont2005

dupont2005

Posted
Posted
One would have to be "selective" about what one criticizes because there aren't enough hours in the day to do otherwise. This particular incident is important because Marvel pointed to this specific series as an example of what they are doing that's positive for women.

All I'm saying is something like Spider-Woman may do what? Fifty to 75 thousand a month? Or say a hundred thousand. And the Manara would be an 'only-by-request' variant, a very small percentage of a first issue. Drawn art of a superhero character.

 

Then by comparison the Nicki Minaj Anaconda music video shows over 200 million views for a month. And the Jennifer Lopez, Iggy Azalea Booty shows close to 3 million in the week it's been out.

 

So outraged bloggers and tabloids genuinely concerned for women and looking for actual pop influences could interview actual female artists, creators and performers. Or their gazillion female consumers. Bring up all the harm, the degradation, the objectification, the offensiveness, and explain it to them. Why waste time on an Italian cartoonist and his weird depiction of a fictional superhero?

 

Hey, some people are outraged at titty comics.

 

Some people are outraged when not every single comic on the planet is a titty comic.

 

Some people have to compare their titty comics to twerk videos to attempt to make them look like something other than titty comics.

 

But one thing's certain, Nicki Minaj doesn't have Disney marketing her to children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted

9-12 year olds listen to and watch Nikki Minaj-she's being marketed to kids what matters who does the marketing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dupont2005

dupont2005

Posted
Posted

If you don't want to see the difference between a grown woman making her own choices and a team of male executives hiring a male to depict a female in an unflattering way, then you'll never see the difference. It's there though. As is the difference with a real life person and a fictional character owned by a children's entertainment company actively and aggressively marketed toward children. You can't compare actual choices SOME women make with the male executive decision to depict ALL women in a major children's entertainment company a certain way. Nicki Minaj doesn't have coloring books and halloween costumes for kindergartners. She has albums with parental advisories and not a single retailer would allow a nine year old to purchase said album.

http://www.thecostumeland.com/images/zoom/dg51804-marvel-spider-girl-kutie-deluxe-toddler-halloween-costumes.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steveinthecity

steveinthecity

Posted
Posted
(Do they still make albums?)
One example, it's become an Urban Outfitters thing. It's not the music "purists" buying these in volume. Maybe this will encourage artists to make "album" content that is good from beginning to end rather than just a single and a bunch of junk filler tracks. The cool kids buy vinyl and there's a resurgence of sorts of indie bands releasing stuff on cassette.

 

:preach:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davenport

Davenport

Posted
Posted
If you don't want to see the difference between a grown woman making her own choices and a team of male executives hiring a male to depict a female in an unflattering way, then you'll never see the difference. It's there though. As is the difference with a real life person and a fictional character owned by a children's entertainment company actively and aggressively marketed toward children. You can't compare actual choices SOME women make with the male executive decision to depict ALL women in a major children's entertainment company a certain way. Nicki Minaj doesn't have coloring books and halloween costumes for kindergartners. She has albums with parental advisories and not a single retailer would allow a nine year old to purchase said album.

http://www.thecostumeland.com/images/zoom/dg51804-marvel-spider-girl-kutie-deluxe-toddler-halloween-costumes.jpg

Thank you. (thumbs u You make the only point I was trying to get across beautifully.

 

That the Manara hysterics wasn't about women. It was about men. About men being bad. About men who run something being bad towards women.

 

It's an important distinction to make when reading through the steady drumbeat of faux-outrage PC articles. At their core they're simple class-warfare hit pieces.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeeksAreMyPeeps

GeeksAreMyPeeps

Posted
Posted
One would have to be "selective" about what one criticizes because there aren't enough hours in the day to do otherwise. This particular incident is important because Marvel pointed to this specific series as an example of what they are doing that's positive for women.

All I'm saying is something like Spider-Woman may do what? Fifty to 75 thousand a month? Or say a hundred thousand. And the Manara would be an 'only-by-request' variant, a very small percentage of a first issue. Drawn art of a superhero character.

 

Then by comparison the Nicki Minaj Anaconda music video shows over 200 million views for a month. And the Jennifer Lopez, Iggy Azalea Booty shows close to 3 million in the week it's been out.

 

So outraged bloggers and tabloids genuinely concerned for women and looking for actual pop influences could interview actual female artists, creators and performers. Or their gazillion female consumers. Bring up all the harm, the degradation, the objectification, the offensiveness, and explain it to them. Why waste time on an Italian cartoonist and his weird depiction of a fictional superhero?

 

I don't see why a smaller audience should make something immune from being criticized. Most of the commentary I've read about the cover is coming from people that cover geeky pop culture, not pop music. This board is about comics, not pop music. So the Spider-Woman cover is a relevant topic here. And again, it's particularly relevant because Marvel pointed to this series specifically as an example of being a plus in their depiction of women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Garf

Garf

Posted
Posted
If you don't want to see the difference between a grown woman making her own choices and a team of male executives hiring a male to depict a female in an unflattering way, then you'll never see the difference. It's there though. As is the difference with a real life person and a fictional character owned by a children's entertainment company actively and aggressively marketed toward children. You can't compare actual choices SOME women make with the male executive decision to depict ALL women in a major children's entertainment company a certain way. Nicki Minaj doesn't have coloring books and halloween costumes for kindergartners. She has albums with parental advisories and not a single retailer would allow a nine year old to purchase said album.

http://www.thecostumeland.com/images/zoom/dg51804-marvel-spider-girl-kutie-deluxe-toddler-halloween-costumes.jpg

Thank you. (thumbs u You make the only point I was trying to get across beautifully.

 

That the Manara hysterics wasn't about women. It was about men. About men being bad. About men who run something being bad towards women.

 

It's an important distinction to make when reading through the steady drumbeat of faux-outrage PC articles. At their core they're simple class-warfare hit pieces.

 

 

I seem to recall that themarysue themselves said their criticism was squarely levelled not at the artist but at Marvel's decision to hire him and actually accept the submitted cover.

 

I find it all to be a strange argument. Yes a lot of comics generally cater towards a predominantly male audience, yes the company publishing them wants to make money, yes sex sells but not all comics are the same. Some have no real sexual undertones, some cater for a female audience, some are aimed at children and there are genres galore. There is a choice. I think it's fair enough if individuals have an opinion or groups want to influence the main stream... but at the end of the day Marvel will always always side with what sells.

 

I'm not going to feel bad about that or responsible for it even if I choose to be a customer, and I certainly wouldn't be outraged if Marvel decided to flip reverse everything that is being discussed.

 

The one question I would ask though is if people outraged by this cover or sympathetic towards those sentiments could ban it, would they? (... And no that isn't asking if people want to ban it because it is artistically unappealing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
[font:Book Antiqua]

Well...

 

The book is finally on the shelf today

and Marvel found a way to solve the problem...

[/font]

 

That's ridiculous. Just start over from scratch. Don't put a band-aid over it.

 

It could have been planned that way all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
It's hiding the really bad art. Does that make it a plus?

 

The logo couldn't be big enough

 

My anaconda don't want none unless you got buns hun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing