TF Views

I think the bigger picture isn't simply that we're seeing more sex and skin, it's that DC's female characters have become more objects and less characters since the reboot. DC is moving backwards rather than forwards with regards to writing the female characters. We're not getting women who have any sort of realistic relationships, both sexual and otherwise, we're getting scantily clad babes in provocative poses, written by middle-aged men acting like 14 year olds in an attempt to use sex to sell more books. It's pretty sad, actually.

Want further evidence that the writers and editors take a shallow view of relationships? Every married character is now single again, with the exception of Aquaman. Because we don't want married characters, we want single characters who can sleep around with hot babes whose back would be hurting pretty bad if someone in real life tried that pose.

Heyyyyy, Anderson is on to something with the "acting like 14 year olds" bit.

I have long said that Johns wrote "The Flash" and "Green Lantern" the way he wanted them written when he was 14 or so. (I maintain that both "Rebirth" series come across like shabby fanfic.)

And, yeah, for the record, I know some teenagers who are not bad kids. But, I would not praise an adult for acting like one.

And, yeah, as a fan, I ain't proud of how DC is managing to deliver on stereotypes about us (as fans) and how we see women. As a rule, I do not have shame about my comics hobby. But, when the industry itself makes me feel ashamed of the hobby, well, that changes things considerably.

I understand attraction to a familiar fictional character more than to a glossy-eyed silicon-breasted perfunctory contextless "babe" put there solely for my arousal. It's boring.

I can see finding certain personality traits or temperments appealling. And, yeah, there may be a female character who empitomizes those ideal traits. (Hey, who would not want woman like Padme' from "Star Wars"? She was kind, compassionate and completely willing to kick ass when the situation called for it.)

But, that kind of abstract thinking is exactly the opposite of the kind of reptile brain appeal that DC is apparently going for. And, if somebody does find the space-slut angle to be appealling, they can get that along with photographs that will appeal more to their reptile brain from actual purpose made porn. If nothing else, the reptile brain would likely be more reactive to a more "real" object of lust. In that case, context and character (real or fictional) is not so important. Most people do not look at the bikini clad model in a beer ad and ponder the hows and whys of her being where-ever she is photographed or the sensibility of her clothes and pose, let alone how she can be so steady looking if she is (presumably) drunk and (thus) easy. The reward center of the brain is triggered by a mass of female flesh, and (the markets hope) that an association is made between beer and the reward. At that point, who cares about personality?

DC might be pushing some kind of meta-commentary with Starfire or Catwoman. But, if that is the case, (and it is a very generous reading indeed), the point is being lost in Starfire's cleavage. And, if they are trying to muscle in on the skin rag market, their attempt is remarkably clumsy.


Dom
-thinking this counts as Rule 34 happening in the comics thread.

Dominic wrote:DC might be pushing some kind of meta-commentary with Starfire or Catwoman. But, if that is the case, (and it is a very generous reading indeed), the point is being lost in Starfire's cleavage. And, if they are trying to muscle in on the skin rag market, their attempt is remarkably clumsy.

No, no meta-commentary. You're being way to generous allowing for even a possibility of that. It's just good old basic sex and violence, though hopefully not both at the same time. :/

Cyclops chicks are hot.

I LOVE the Big Bang Theory! I mean seriously, it's a show about nerds, by nerds, with nerds, for nerds. What's not to love? I really don't get all the hate.

Sometimes porn isn't needed, sometimes ya look at the right image and the mood just strikes.

But I think we're all agreed that DC is over the line on this one.

Dominic wrote:I have long said that Johns wrote "The Flash" and "Green Lantern" the way he wanted them written when he was 14 or so. (I maintain that both "Rebirth" series come across like shabby fanfic.)

That's something I totally disagree with. Johns doesn't write those characters like they were years ago. Rather, he incorporated the development they had leading up to/in death with his stories. Such as Hal still having to deal with the animosity and distrust from the time he spent possessed by Parallax. He's been redeemed to a degree with some characters, but it's clear that he isn't trusted like he once was. Not to mention making Parallax an entity of Fear led to a totally new concept for the Green Lantern storyline. And Barry, well Flashpoint has really changed the dynamic for him, but prior to that, he was the fastest man alive trying to catch up to the rest of the world having been dea-er... in the speed force for so many years.

DC might be pushing some kind of meta-commentary with Starfire or Catwoman. But, if that is the case, (and it is a very generous reading indeed), the point is being lost in Starfire's cleavage. And, if they are trying to muscle in on the skin rag market, their attempt is remarkably clumsy.

I doubt that's what DC is trying to do here. If it was, I'd think they would and could have been more explicit with it. Like andershonh1 said, I think they were just going for good old basic sex and violence. Possibly trying to make the comic seem a bit more modern and edgy, but instead it comes off as being inappropriate and totally misportrays Starfire.

Shockwave wrote:I LOVE the Big Bang Theory! I mean seriously, it's a show about nerds, by nerds, with nerds, for nerds. What's not to love? I really don't get all the hate.

It's not "by nerds," though, and from what I've seen it certainly is not "for" nerds either, because it patronizes the fuck out of us. It talks down to us like we're still in high school, wrapped up in stereotypes of what a "nerd" actually is. I see that show and I see nobody I relate to, at all. Not even the mighty Johnny Galecki can save this turd. (And I've followed him since he was in Roseanne. Totally related to his character there.)

andersonh1 wrote:Want further evidence that the writers and editors take a shallow view of relationships? Every married character is now single again, with the exception of Aquaman. Because we don't want married characters, we want single characters who can sleep around with hot babes whose back would be hurting pretty bad if someone in real life tried that pose.

Animal Man is still married too.

Does Morrison's previous run with the character count? Because if it does, Ms. Animal Man is a slut.

It's not "by nerds," though, and from what I've seen it certainly is not "for" nerds either, because it patronizes the fuck out of us. It talks down to us like we're still in high school, wrapped up in stereotypes of what a "nerd" actually is. I see that show and I see nobody I relate to, at all. Not even the mighty Johnny Galecki can save this turd. (And I've followed him since he was in Roseanne. Totally related to his character there.)

Actually, it might be "for nerds". The show features nerds who are, in context, not much worse than anyone else. Nerds and borderline retards are the main characters, rather than comedic or sympathetic foils for the main characters to react to. Does it really talk down to/about nerds any more than any other show talks down to/about its target audience or subject population?


Dom
-does not watch or identify with the show, but ain't going to call it out for committing the same sins as everyone else.

Well I guess I relate to it more then because I have actually known people who are like the characters in the show. So for me, it's more of an homage to geek/nerd culture rather than a talking down/insulting of it.

Dominic wrote:Does Morrison's previous run with the character count? Because if it does, Ms. Animal Man is a slut.

Having never read it? I have no idea. But she seems like she's a reasonable enough person. I've only read the first issue but she's conflicted over Animal Man doing a bunch of non-superhero things like being a PETA spokesman and shit, which is a little more lucrative but seems to be putting Animal Man in an unhappy funk. Plus they have two kids.

Actually, it might be "for nerds". The show features nerds who are, in context, not much worse than anyone else. Nerds and borderline retards are the main characters, rather than comedic or sympathetic foils for the main characters to react to. Does it really talk down to/about nerds any more than any other show talks down to/about its target audience or subject population?

The sheer fact that it's "par for the course" rather than exceptionally bad in talking down to its audience doesn't make it any better. I will also concede that, like anything else, I have seen the occasional clip that had one or two funny jokes. But I have seen just as many that insulted my intelligence.

I don't find the Big Bang show particularly funny. And at least two of the guys on that show are so damn irritating I just wanna throw 'em off a bridge. One of 'em has his big stupid face in the foreground on these ads, so they're particularly irritating.

Though, part of why I hate it so much is because my girlfriend had a season dowloaded and wanted to check 'em all out at once. First I'd heard of the thing, and...you know how if you hear a song that you don't care for once, you might think "Well, that's not for me, but whatevs"? But you hear it over and over again and you just develop blind unreasoning rabid hatred? Yeah, that's why I hate Big Bang so much. Would've just not cared for or about it if I'd just seen the one, but seeing, like...three or four made me identify with the jocks in "Revenge of the Nerds".

Onslaught Six wrote: Not even the mighty Johnny Galecki can save this turd. (And I've followed him since he was in Roseanne. Totally related to his character there.)

Yeah, me too. Except for the part where he had the really cool girlfriend that was into comics and the like. I'm kind of happy for the dude that he's likely stupid-faced rich off of this show now, but man, I just hate the damn show so much.

As for the whole thing with the sex in comics, that's not something I've got any problem with at all. The stuff with Starfire is just so goddamn dumb, though. It's like the difference between a book like From Hell, wherein violent and horrible things happen but it's done well, and that bit where that Wonder Dog thing ate friggin' Marvin from the Superfriends. Graphic sex and violence masquerading as "Adult Content" in a superhero book is just something that I'll never be a fan of. Now, something like "Secret Six", they had all sorts of violent things happening, and just a damn ton of sexual innuendo, but it was done in a funny and clever way.

andersonh1 wrote:
Want further evidence that the writers and editors take a shallow view of relationships? Every married character is now single again, with the exception of Aquaman. Because we don't want married characters, we want single characters who can sleep around with hot babes whose back would be hurting pretty bad if someone in real life tried that pose.

So maybe now DC guys can lay off of Spider-Man? Nah, probably not, even I'm willing to admit that "Universe got reset" is less dumb than "Sold marriage to the devil".