Artist Daniel Acuna has done gorgeous work on Uncle Sam and the Freedom Fighters for DC Comics. His women are a bit chesty, but stylized, so I haven't been overwhelmed by the overtness of their portrayal there.
Here in Green Lantern #18, it looks like Acuna may be fighting a losing battle. The costume that has been designed for the new Star Sapphire is indeed gratuitous. Her boobs are barely clamped in and she is definitely showing more skin then she is covering.
I am really torn on this page of art. Part of me is mesmerized by Acuna's unique work. The other part of me wants to throw a sweater on the character.
What do you think? Is this gratuitous?
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
ok, i'll be the first to bite on this. No, I don't think that it is gratuitous. while the new star saphire costume is barely there, this image, which has just about every chance to do so, doesn't seem to be wallowing in it. Considering how her tits are basically on display just when she's standing upright, the fact that acuna has taken to time to get the sense that the breasts are actually being pushed up against the chest by the (non-existant) bustier shows a real commitment to playing with real anatomy. good for him
I think i have to disagree with you here, Charles.
While the boobs might be getting fair treatment, other places on her are not. And jusging from the looks of things... well... lets just say that Lindsay Lohan isn't the only "fire crotch" in the world now. ;)
This was definately gratuitous!
I have to agree with Meeley here. I can't look at that panel without thinking her pubic hair is glowing.
And it really stands out when you compare it to the cover, where the big light source is her tiara. Here the tiara's hardly glowing at all but, boy, that thing sure is.
This one's a bit harder to call, since the character herself is fairly drenched in sexuality....at least this incarnation of the Star Sapphire entity (or entities, as it may turn out).
At the same time, I think they could have turned down the volume (literally) on the chest size in this particular panel...though, like you, I absolutely loved Arcuna's radiant artwork. He's got a really specialized style that I'd like to see more of.
I vote "gratuitous". The coloring mitigates the effect but once I got a good look at the *ahem* lower regions of the costume my gratuitous sensors went off.
It's a well-done piece but the costume looks draftier than Starfire's.
After reading your comments, I am still a bit torn. I have to admit I didn't notice the "firecrotch" aspect of the whole thing until it was pointed out but now that I see it, WOW, is it obvious.
I guess it boils down to this: Love the artist, hate the costume and the "star sapphire gem". Heh!
The fire crotch is a bit questionable. However, I don't think that it's overly gratuitous - the cover of the issue WAS, but this panel, once you accept her skimpy new outfit, isn't too bad. I don't think the skimpy outfit is necessary though. Have there been worse? Definately! But while I wasn't outright offended by this cover, I did find it a bit suspect.
boobs and big explosion hmmmm
I didn't get the fire crotch thing either to be honest, so my eye wasn't directed to that.
Yes, this is a tits and ass kinda character and costume, but the definition of gratuitous, in my mind, is just how much the image wallows in the characters lack of costume, in the pose, in the overwhelming inappropriateness of flaunting their sexuality in the face of Darkseid and the omega force.
So considering some of the comics out there, and yes, we have lots of boobs in this page, it just doesn't fall over the edge like the witchblade covers to me.
everybody can pile on now. i'm clearly in the minority. ;-)
Hmmmmmm, wish my rogues gallery looked like that. Mine (minor annoyances that they are) are the guy that used to be at the comic shop (he defected to another and broke the hearts of his 'true blue' friends) and my a'hole biker next door. I'm getting to the point where not much bothers me anymore. I mean, yep, if this comic was directed at kids, but with the internet/gaming generation, I rarely see kids buying comics these days and it's mostly Spiderman or the current DC or Marvel comic movie out. Not Green Lantern, Witchblade or Red Sonja...
I think if it weren't for the "glowing crotch" thing, this image wouldn't be that bad.
Sure, it's a skimpy outfit, but there've been skimpier, and as Ink said, it's not wallowing in the fact that it's an image of a scantily clad, busty woman.
I think glowy crotch kind of undermines that, though. It's pretty much saying, "HEY, LOOK AT MEEE!" and there's really no point to it whatsoever.
Move the glowy-ness somewhere else - I don't know, her belly, her chest, or get rid of it entirely - and I think this image comes off as a lot more tame, if you ask me.
-M
I'm trying to imagine a situation where a glowing crotch would not be gratuitous.
to me seems that the artist did what he could to save a costume that is just unsavable. It doesn't look as straight awful as in the cover but still, a bad decision.
Thank you for all the comments! I really love to hear your opinions on this. I am pretty well concluding that the gem on the crotch is overkill, but that the rest of the page had the artist trying to make the best of a horrendous costume.
Yikes!
Post a Comment