Friday, June 22, 2007

Is This Gratuitous? - Legion Of Monsters: Satana #1

This week's candidate for gratuitous glory is the cover to Legion of Monsters: Satana #1. My first thought upon seeing this cover from Marvel is that Satana has obviously made a deal with dear old Dad and had several of her ribs removed, because I seldom see women with waists that small.

Since artist Greg Land is notorious for lightboxing, I am also wondering if this pose has been taken from a men's magazine, ala Maxim or Stuff. The pose looks vaguely familiar, but I can't quite place it.

Satana is sporting a come hither facial expression reminiscent of said magazines, but with a porn face edge. Most notably, her old school wickedly long eyebrows appear to be long gone. As a character trademark, it throws me off to not see her with them.

I will grant that Satana is a sexy character; after all she is the Devil's daughter. I am just a bit curious what you all think of this "updated" look.

It's your call, my friends. Is this gratuitous?


skullduggery said...

1. given, done, bestowed, or obtained without charge or payment; free; voluntary.
2. being without apparent reason, cause, or justification: a gratuitous insult.
3. Law. given without receiving any return value.

I'm assuming you're working off definition 2.

I'm going to have to say no.
Could Greg Land have illustrated Satana following breast-reduction surgery? Certainly.
Would there appear to be an element of sultriness to her facial features? Yeah, I would have to say as much.
Is Marvel featuring what would be considered an appealing female image on the cover to pick up a few extra sales here and there? No doubt (and I'm sure it will work in their favor).
But I wouldn't go so far as to call it gratuitous. I don't think they've gone overboard with this one. We've all seen overboard (take the recent Danger Girl image with the mostly naked young lady on the 'bed' of bullets).
What I do find interesting about the cover is the fact that they didn't go with a reversed pentagram in the background image and instead kept it upright.

Romanticide said...

For strange reason I cannot see the images on your blog by I think I know which is the cover you are talking about. Somebody in a mexican forum posted a comparison side to side of the Satana cover and the traced picture. Is this

I must say... even I can trace better... look at the poor girl she lost so much meat in the process, makes you want to give her a sandwich. She doesn't even have a butt anymore.

And another thing... at first sight I thought she was Madeline Pryor. XD

So... is gratitous? ... definately yes.

Anonymous said...

Well, considering she's the daughter of Satan, that's a remarkably restrained image. Sexy? Sure...but gratuitous? Not really.

Lisa said...

I don't know about gratuitous, but dang, what kind of work has she had done, because I've never seen breasts that large not sag at least a little. Especially when they're that thin. I'd say she's in a place without gravity, but her hair hangs down, so that's not it. Maybe Satan's kids have special genetics to support certain parts of their anatomy.

Not very good anatomically - almost kind of ugly actually. But maybe not gratuitous.

Jeff Rients said...

I don't find this cover particularly gratuitous, except for the fact that not going with the original eyebrows and bank eyes turns a visually interesting character into just another cover babe.

Marionette said...

No, it's not gratuitous.

Satana should be evil and manipulative, and she probably has the power to Look Good (an ability Satan manifests in many interpretations.

Is it a good cover? No. It's another evil cover bunny by the numbers that bears little resemblance to a specific character.

Spiky said...

That midsection is really weird. Aside from the thinness, what's going on with the the inside of the cutout? Like, on the long edges of the oval, you know? I can't decide whether that's supposed to be more of her body somehow, or the inside of the suit.

It's kind of a bummer, cause I do like her fuzzy li'l boots.

Anonymous said...

I think her boobs are out to fall out of the whole in her top. Not in an attractive way either. Kinda sick actually. So, I'll vote yes.

Heidi Meeley said...

At this point, based on opinions, this cover has been found to be mostly not gratuitous. I guess the whole "daughter of Satan" pushes it that way!!! :-)

Interestingly, over at Occasional Superheroine, a person posted the original that this cover was based on, which is a Pamela Anderson spread. I knew it looked crazily familiar, and that is exactly why!

It is unfortunate that the cover isn't nearly as original as it could have been. I would have loved to see Bill Seinkiewicz do this, as I believe his interpretation would have been much truer to the character, and his style would have really made the cover work.

I don't like this cover, and some find it gratuitous, but it isn't the worst ever. I bow to your opinions!

Lea said...

On a day in which Pamela Anderson's anatomy needs to be exaggerated in order to be "better" by the standards of beauty the artist uses (thinner, bigger-breasted)... Yes. It's gratuitous. Her pose is not so awful, although I don't know why "evil" and "hyper-sexy" are always automatically linked, but her anatomy is quite bad. Yes, there are worse things out there, but that's hardly an argument.

Michael said...

Heidi - I got the link to the original Pam Anderson photo from Romanticide, in the second comment above (though it was just shown as a URL, not a hyperlink). Just want to give credit to where it's due.

Heidi Meeley said...

Lea, you make a good point. Why are evil and sexy always linked? Is it something to do with the vanity of evil? Hmmm.. something to ponder in a future post?

Heidi Meeley said...

Romanticide: I owe you an apology! Michael: thank you for pointing that out! My link didn't work right, so I was a total airhead.

Credit is due to romanticide for catching that!

Rob S. said...

Evil is also linked with Extremely Ugly. If you're a baddie, you're either a vampire or the Phantom of the Opera.

Lea said...

"Why are evil and sexy always linked? Is it something to do with the vanity of evil?"

I'd be more inclined to ascribe it to the puritanical notion that sex is evil. I think people started embracing evil because they empathized with villains in a way that neutered, virginal heroes could not afford them. From there the association sprang, and it just continues to grow.

Heidi Meeley said...

Lea, I think you nailed it. The more evil a character is, the larger the perception of loss of morality, therefore the character has got to be the antithesis of all that is good.


david said...

for those wondering where the trace-meister got this latest cover from...

(copy and pasteit into thyour browser- sorry, i don't know how to create links. yea i'm think)

women with waists that small and boobs that big and pert do exist, but only thanks to the miracles of modern cosmetic surgery.

And generally they are extremely well paid for looking that freakish :)

Anonymous said...

talking about Satana, I love the actress that producers choose to act like this pretty women in the TV series "Supernatural" I can't remember her name, because that night I was with my wife after a Generic Viagra doses, my attention was in other things jajajaja.