Outrage!!! Cho leaves Wonder Woman

[SquareChaos]

 

I don't like it either. I'm still on the fence right now as to whether this is censorship or creative differences. I lean towards creative differences honestly - the recent Manara / Spider Woman cover was definitely censorship, this... I don't think so based on the information I currently have.

 

As I've said before, I'd really like to hear Rucka's side, but I don't think we will.

[techtre2003]

This kind of thinking is so odd to me. How can this need to be censored:

 

 

But something like this is totally acceptable:

 

[Darjis_]

This kind of thinking is so odd to me. How can this need to be censored:

 

 

But something like this is totally acceptable:

 

 

EXACTLY.

 

Violence = "naw, we're good mate"

 

Strong female character showing an undergarment = "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

[sd2416]

Isnt that just her star spangled briefs that she's worn forever under her armor?

[drotto]

This kind of thinking is so odd to me. How can this need to be censored:

 

 

But something like this is totally acceptable:

 

 

For whatever reason depicting violence in American culture is perfectly acceptable, but showing a naked body, or even a breast is considered awful. It is very easy to see this on TV daily. Look at the Walking Dead (a show I like, and I realize it is on AMC) can't show a naked body, but has decapitations, heads being smashed in, and blood splatter every episode and nobody cares. You can even go to more traditional network shows. Again, Gotham has many graphic scenes and the TV censors are OK with it, but they never show any nudity, even in the very briefest instance.

 

I have no idea why there is a different standard other than the puritanicle and religious history of the USA. But TV has been allowed to really push the envelope with violence in recent years, but showing sexuality still seems to push stronger reactions.

[Darjis_]

 

For whatever reason depicting violence in American culture is perfectly acceptable, but showing a naked body, or even a breast is considered awful. It is very easy to see this on TV daily. Look at the Walking Dead (a show I like, and I realize it is on AMC) can't show a naked body, but has decapitations, heads being smashed in, and blood splatter every episode and nobody cares. You can even go to more traditional network shows. Again, Gotham has many graphic scenes and the TV censors are OK with it, but they never show any nudity, even in the very briefest instance.

 

I have no idea why there is a different standard other than the puritanicle and religious history of the USA. But TV has been allowed to really push the envelope with violence in recent years, but showing sexuality still seems to push stronger reactions.

 

Where's the SJW's on that one? Go all crazy because of undergarments but don't bat an eye to brutality. I mean, it's not like there is an insane amount of violence btween religious groups, races, sexual genders and identities on a DAILY basis all over the world. But you know, panties....

 

 

[SquareChaos]

 

For whatever reason depicting violence in American culture is perfectly acceptable, but showing a naked body, or even a breast is considered awful. It is very easy to see this on TV daily. Look at the Walking Dead (a show I like, and I realize it is on AMC) can't show a naked body, but has decapitations, heads being smashed in, and blood splatter every episode and nobody cares. You can even go to more traditional network shows. Again, Gotham has many graphic scenes and the TV censors are OK with it, but they never show any nudity, even in the very briefest instance.

 

I have no idea why there is a different standard other than the puritanicle and religious history of the USA. But TV has been allowed to really push the envelope with violence in recent years, but showing sexuality still seems to push stronger reactions.

 

Where's the SJW's on that one? Go all crazy because of undergarments but don't bat an eye to brutality. I mean, it's not like there is an insane amount of violence btween religious groups, races, sexual genders and identities on a DAILY basis all over the world. But you know, panties....

 

 

There are a lot of people that complain about the violence in shows like Walking Dead.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=complaints+about+walking+dead+violence&oq=complaints+about+walking+dead+violence&aqs=chrome..69i57.3399j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[SquareChaos]

Tons of stuff have been written about this phenomenon though, violence is just about as American as apple pie. So is being prudish with regards to sex and sexuality - it's our puritan roots showing apparently.

 

[drotto]

I watch and like many shows and movies that are considered violent, and may be stereotypical because I tend to shelter my children more from sex then violence, but there is always the voice at the back of my head that says this may be backwards. Sex and sexuality are normal and healthy parts of the human condition, so maybe we should be more open about them. Slamming a persons head with a bat, is not healthy by any means.

[Darjis_]

I watch and like many shows and movies that are considered violent, and may be stereotypical because I tend to shelter my children more from sex then violence, but there is always the voice at the back of my head that says this may be backwards. Sex and sexuality are normal and healthy parts of the human condition, so maybe we should be more open about them. Slamming a persons head with a bat, is not healthy by any means.

Personally, I think they should be protected from both to be honest. At least until they are of the age to understand the real life consequences of either.

[zhamlau]

This kind of thinking is so odd to me. How can this need to be censored:

 

 

But something like this is totally acceptable:

 

 

For whatever reason depicting violence in American culture is perfectly acceptable, but showing a naked body, or even a breast is considered awful. It is very easy to see this on TV daily. Look at the Walking Dead (a show I like, and I realize it is on AMC) can't show a naked body, but has decapitations, heads being smashed in, and blood splatter every episode and nobody cares. You can even go to more traditional network shows. Again, Gotham has many graphic scenes and the TV censors are OK with it, but they never show any nudity, even in the very briefest instance.

 

I have no idea why there is a different standard other than the puritanicle and religious history of the USA. But TV has been allowed to really push the envelope with violence in recent years, but showing sexuality still seems to push stronger reactions.

 

 

The issue with Cho isn't some quasi religious puritanical religious bend by all accounts, but more of a goofy social justice warrior sense of rage. Your keep thinking about the old fascism, this is the new era of thought police and has little to nothing to do with last century's model of wrong think punishers.

[Darjis_]

 

 

The issue with Cho isn't some quasi religious puritanical religious bend by all accounts, but more of a goofy social justice warrior sense of rage. Your keep thinking about the old fascism, this is the new era of thought police and has little to nothing to do with last century's model of wrong think punishers.

 

 

THIS +1

[comix4fun]

So this is the Rucka approved art? Really? But Cho's 'doesn't fit'. Why? Because it's more realistic?

 

Rucka is an absolute hypocrite.

 

 

 

When was that run? Early 2000s? Not in an attempt to give a free pass, but in an attempt to perhaps add a little context... a lot has changed over the last decade concerning the topic of sex and gender in comics. And who knows, maybe he didn't like it then, but had no power to change it.

 

I think you're throwing around 'hypocrite' pretty lightly. We'll never know the real story I imagine, not unless Rucka writes a tell-all about it, and I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

 

 

Doesn't the entire existence and complete catalog of Zenescope belie this statement?

[drotto]

 

 

The issue with Cho isn't some quasi religious puritanical religious bend by all accounts, but more of a goofy social justice warrior sense of rage. Your keep thinking about the old fascism, this is the new era of thought police and has little to nothing to do with last century's model of wrong think punishers.

 

 

THIS +1

 

No issue +++++ this also. Fully aware that the thought police are attempting to take over.

[Prince Namor]

Really there's not much of a controversy to it, other than Cho being butthurt for not getting to do it as he wanted. He's free to draw whatever he wants to anyone who'll pay him and DC is free to publish their character as they choose.

Cho can even make a request to DC to publish that piece as a print to sell - we'll see how 'great' they really are...

 

As far as variants depicting what's inside the book, I think this is more about asthetics than story content. It's an overall image they DON'T want to project.

 

Again, there is no 'they' - it was Rucka - ALSO A HIRED GOON for a book that is NOT his property. This is why I'm on the dislike for him and not necessarily for Cho. Variants are supposed to be a 'different interpretation' of said character, so to nit-pick all the way down the line because it doesn't fit some small version you have in your head of a story you are writing is petty and small.

 

All you've heard is Cho's side.

 

And the credit or blame as to the success of the book, right or wrong is going to be on who is writing it.

[Prince Namor]

So this is the Rucka approved art? Really? But Cho's 'doesn't fit'. Why? Because it's more realistic?

 

Rucka is an absolute hypocrite.

 

 

 

When was that run? Early 2000s? Not in an attempt to give a free pass, but in an attempt to perhaps add a little context... a lot has changed over the last decade concerning the topic of sex and gender in comics. And who knows, maybe he didn't like it then, but had no power to change it.

 

I think you're throwing around 'hypocrite' pretty lightly. We'll never know the real story I imagine, not unless Rucka writes a tell-all about it, and I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

Yeah I suppose that's a good point. Regardless, censorship gets my blood boiling.

 

It's not censorship. Cho is free to draw whatever he likes. He just can't draw whatever he likes and get paid money for it at a publisher who determines content. And in this instance, Rucka, as hired by DC, determines the content of that book apparently. Cho doesn't get to come in and choose what he wants to draw. Editorial will determine what they want, no differently than Stan Lee telling legends like Jack Kirby or John Romita or Steve Ditko to make changes on the covers they did.

That's how it's ALWAYS worked.

[drotto]

But, DC approved and apparently has published the first 6 covers. So what changed? If they were that bothered by them, none of the covers should have gone to press.

[Prince Namor]

 

For whatever reason depicting violence in American culture is perfectly acceptable, but showing a naked body, or even a breast is considered awful. It is very easy to see this on TV daily. Look at the Walking Dead (a show I like, and I realize it is on AMC) can't show a naked body, but has decapitations, heads being smashed in, and blood splatter every episode and nobody cares. You can even go to more traditional network shows. Again, Gotham has many graphic scenes and the TV censors are OK with it, but they never show any nudity, even in the very briefest instance.

 

I have no idea why there is a different standard other than the puritanicle and religious history of the USA. But TV has been allowed to really push the envelope with violence in recent years, but showing sexuality still seems to push stronger reactions.

 

Where's the SJW's on that one? Go all crazy because of undergarments but don't bat an eye to brutality. I mean, it's not like there is an insane amount of violence btween religious groups, races, sexual genders and identities on a DAILY basis all over the world. But you know, panties....

 

 

If you need to see panties on a comic book character, there are plenty of examples of it out there. There is no shortage of GGA and Bad Girl Art on Comics these days or really at most of anytime over the last 80 years.

 

Rucka made his decision on THIS book. 'SJW' or whatever silly term has nothing to do with it. There's plenty of sex AND violence all over the comic book hobby. Rucka made a decision for what he wanted for THIS book.

 

Jimmy freakin' christmas on a popsicle stick, talk about feeling entitled.

 

An artist can't draw whatever he wants in anyway he wants for a major publisher on one of the oldest monthly published characters and still get paid for it.. Boo Hoo.

 

Go draw a Hellina cover.

[Prince Namor]

I watch and like many shows and movies that are considered violent, and may be stereotypical because I tend to shelter my children more from sex then violence, but there is always the voice at the back of my head that says this may be backwards. Sex and sexuality are normal and healthy parts of the human condition, so maybe we should be more open about them. Slamming a persons head with a bat, is not healthy by any means.

 

It IS backwards.

 

But Rucka isn't letting anyone put Wonder Woman bashing in people's heads with bats on these covers either.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Yeah I suppose that's a good point. Regardless, censorship gets my blood boiling.

 

 

Censorship is the active prevention of expression with the weight of force behind. In other words, it's "the law" stopping people from expressing themselves the way they'd like in ANY context, in ANY venue, in ANY outlet.

 

It's not only irresponsible to claim that a company (WB) which owns the intellectual property doesn't have the right to do what it wishes with its own property, it's the reason we have the level of interference in our daily lives that we have today...because people who don't understand what they're saying give unwitting support to the very thing they claim to be against.

 

Cho has not been censored. Cho is free to draw whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants, within the bounds of law. He's just not allowed to do it with property that does not belong to him in the first place.

 

Whether you agree with the merit of the decision or not, it's not censorship.

 

Let's not give support, even unintentionally, to the forces of doublespeak.