Well Gang, it's time for this week's installment of "Is This Gratuitous". Right out of the gate there is a great deal of divisiveness over the nature of the cover. Why, you may ask?
Number one, the girls all have varied sizes of breasts, so they aren't all extremely busty. Number two, they actually look bad-ass, not just sexy. Number three, superstar artist Joe Linsner draws well proportioned women with more realistic bodies.
What makes this gratuitious then? The thongs showing and the boobies hanging out under the costume. Is it meant to be gratuitous or just ironic?
We were split down the middle here at Camp Comics Fairplay, so I am humbly awaiting your most honored opinions on this cover.
Is this gratuitous?
Friday, March 09, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I've seen worse. Linsner surprises me at every turn, it seems!
Wonder Woman's butt sticking out in Justice League 6 which otherwise has lovely art, is gratuitous. This? I dunno. I've seen women dress like that. With the thong showing, though maybe not that much. I've seen women with skirts so short that when I sit opposite me on the subway, I can see their panties, provided they are actually wearing panties. Given the other qualities you mentioned, I'd say no.
I would say yes, simply because this is Bomb Queen. Gratuitousness (not sure if that's a word) seems to be the entire point of the book.
Between that, and Bomb Queen's nipples, which seem to be pointing straght up, I don't see any doubt.
Gratuitous. Whenever it's "body first, personal qualities second", it's gratuitous. It's cheap and lowest common denominator. In other words, a big seller at most comic shops.
I was going to agree with Shelly, in that it's not hard to imagine actual women dressing this way (although without the thong showing), but I think I'm going to wind up agreeing with Mark. It's done for the male gaze, not the female one.
Gratuitous. Because as has already been said, thats pretty much all Bomb Queen is about...
For some reason I want to say not gratuitious. I think I'm reading the identical leg positions as ironic, a send-up of stereotyped cheesecake poses.
Gratuitous, because the whole universe revolves around those fake boobs in the middle...
Found this from "When Fangirls Attack"...
Jason said it's gratuitous because it's Bomb Queen, which may be true! However, all through out the comic, her thong shows up sticking out of her pants. So, if it's gratuitous, so be it, but at least it's not false advertising. ;)
I'm going to say no. I'd say they're standing like real women do, and dressed like some real (slutty) women do. But they're wearing real clothing and a lot tamer than many fashion magazines get.
I'd say it looks realistic, not contrived and posed, and that makes the difference.
Gratuitous means "unwarranted" and "uncalled for" -- it's something that has no reason to be there, but is tacked on anyway.
When a comic purports to be a serious and thoughtful story but suddenly cuts to a shot of Black Canary's ass for no other reason than the artist felt like drawing a big ass, or shows Wonder Woman in the middle of a fight sticking out her boobs in a way that would crack her spine in real life, that's gratuitous. When Marvel did an Emma Frost comic a while back and the covers made her look like a Frederick's of Hollywood model and had no relation to the story inside, that was gratutious; same for She-Hulk.
But this reflects what's inside the comic, therefore it's not gratuitous.
I am so awed by all your insights on this subject. It shows me that this is one of those covers whose subject matter is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I am really torn, as the subject matter does fit the inside, but deep down in my heart I can't decide.
Your input on this is greatly appreciated. At this point, I am putting this cover in the "Possibly" category and still pondering it.
no one is green so it's just gross
Post a Comment