• 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.

Most Desirable Marvel Female!!

Started by 12c_Comic,

54 posts in this topic

Joanna

Joanna

Posted
Posted

Some women are actually proportioned like that!!

 

Not exactly. Her legs are about two or three torsos long, and her arms just stubs compared to the legs. She not only wouldn't be able to touch her toes, it would be tough for her to touch her knees. And if we assumed her torso was 'normal' (i.e. sitting next to her she would appear to be a normal adult) then those disproportionate legs would make her about 9' tall.

 

Not exactly uncommon in comics, but always annoying to my eye. I find those books as difficult to read as the ones where guys have chests and arms that cover 4 city blocks and a teeny tiny pinhead. oh how attractive. shiver.

 

It's fine to make them shapely or muscular, or whatever. But keep the freaking proportions in the range of HUMAN!

 

Okay, just had to vent. Grosses me out.

 

-- Joanna

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlyingDonut

FlyingDonut

Posted
Posted

grin.gif

 

Joanna - (and don't take this the wrong way) - you sound like my mother.

 

My mom is a physical therapist, and depictions of women in comics drive her UP THE WALL. She doesn't have a problem with the grossly oversized breasts, but the length of women's femurs just makes her nutty. The classic is Spider-Man 49 or 50 (the recent issue with Mary Jane on the cover) where MJ's femurs alone are the length of her entire torso from waist to head.

 

This by the way, is one of the reasons why Love and Rockets did well - real female proportions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted

Leave it to Darth to start this thread down the road to softcore porn. grin.gif

 

Personally, I never understood this comic book stuff. I'm not a porn man either, but if I ever felt the need, I'd just reach up to the top row at the 7-Eleven....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joanna

Joanna

Posted
Posted

Yes, Donut -- she's got it exactly right! And most female comic fans that I know (if not all, come to think of it) hate that! It's far more bothersome than the other stuff. With plastic surgery you can buy ridiculous breasts (I'd love to see those women after 30 years of gravity has done its trick. Bet they'll curse those implants like crazy), etc. but no woman on earth has femurs equal to the length from her waist to the top of her head. It's deformed on a massive scale! And because of that, most women I know don't understand the appeal (I sure don't -- why would you want some freakishly deformed woman?).

 

I understand men liking women with long legs -- they're attractive, no argument. But keep them within the bounds of human beings, not stilt-walkers.

 

You know what it really says to me? That the artist either has little to no skill or that he has never once seen an actual female. One reason I love George Perez's work is because all of his characters look like people. Some are perfect people, but people nonetheless.

 

I like perfect people as much as the next person. I guess I'm just not into bizarre freaks.

 

-- Joanna

Link to comment
Share on other sites
COI

COI

Posted
Posted

Joanna, while I understand what you're saying, realism is hardley a part of comics to begin with. And it's the same thing with the way Superheroes are drawn(especially in the modern era). The physiques, particularly the striation(sp?) of the muscles on even the most human based characters like Captain America, are an impossible achievement. But drawing an average musculature on most superheroes just wouldn't look heroic or strong enough. It's just about eye appeal, and I don't think you should let it bother you too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joanna

Joanna

Posted
Posted

Who's talking about realism? Idealized humans are fine. Drawings can exaggerate characteristics so that it comes across on the page (as you pointed out with musculature). That's fine with me until that exaggeration goes so far that the drawing is no longer of a human, but rather of a bizarre freakish 'it' that is so far beyond the bounds that it can only be a fault in the artist's skill and perception.

 

Suspension of disbelief is absolutely necessary in comics. But there are 'rules' that must be followed. You establish what belief needs to be suspended, i.e. Superman has x number of powers. What you don't see is Superman suddenly being able to shoot webbing out of his wrists. And if you did show that, you'd better have a darn good explanation. You can't just say "Oh, yeah, he could always do that."

 

So if the character "Fangirl" is established to be a beautiful, 5'11", human-looking woman, then don't make her a 12' freak with femurs taking up 8' of that and not explain how she suddenly got so darn ugly! We all give artists leeway on "interpretation" but that only goes so far. At some point it crosses over into the arena of "really sucky art". To me, ridiculous proportions do that. Not idealized -- ridiculous.

 

On the other hand, if you create a character, Stilt Woman, who's 12' with 8' femurs and that's part of the suspension of disbelief, fine. Make sure you have people running and screaming in horror every once in awhile, and I'll believe it.

 

-- Joanna

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted

>>Give me Greg Horn Electra covers or give me death...!!!

 

Has anyone else noticed that Horn draws Elektra's skull all extended, as in imagining that her little cap wasn't on, and then visualizing her actual skull structure.

 

Talk about a conehead:

 

28622886163.6.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing