Home
That Slow Redheaded Kid
or a Guy who's just one dry Sharpie from Unemployment
Follow up to the previous Blog Post 
17th-May-2007 08:44 pm
Ewok Weed
Ok, I really didn't think that what i posted earlier would have the reaction it did, but I'm glad it did.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone should be heard. But I HAD to disable my comments, it was just getting out of control.

Everyone had valid points to the argument about the statue. I think I was wrong to say in my previous blog that anyone who is offended is wrong. You're not. But you also have to see the other side of it that not everyone is. From what I could tell, it went all over the place. Some were offended, some weren't, others could give a rats ass either way.

My main objective in the previous post was to defend the artwork. Adam is a good man. He is a gracious man and is someone who respects women a great deal. I realize I said this in my previous post, but I'm making this point again.

The industry we're in is full of all kinds of people and you'll never find a more genuine, kinder person then he. Someone pointed out that no one was knocking Adam, but he designed it. For those wanting to see the piece in question:



There is a playfulness to the art that doesn't come across IMHO on the statue.

I can see through the previous comments why folks were offended and I hope that people can also understand why people weren't offended. If you're a comic fan and you're tired of this stuff, you don't have to buy it. If you like this kind of stuff, you shouldn't be ashamed to enjoy it.

Art is objective. People see what they want to see. For good or for bad. I personally think this piece of art is wonderful. I like the statue and I HOPE I manage to get one being I'm on the wait list.

After I closed the comments on my personal blog, I also had it posted in the Comic Creators LJ group. I received a message from [info]devildoll, I would like to share it with you and I am directly quoting her:

Someone pointed out to me that you posted this same exact rant in your own journal, stating that "I do this because everyone who HAS posted something about how offended they are by it...blocks people who have an opposite view."

What I find funny about that statement is that you've turned the comments off on your post.

I've been over here for a week now, being subjected to increasingly hostile insults, taunts, name-calling, death threats...you name it, someone's done it. And yet the comments remain open on *this* post, for anyone who cares to have their say. Hell, even the trolls get at least one comment in before I ban them.

You, who apparently feel so strongly about giving the other side a chance to speak, have disallowed comments on *your* post.

So, if you're wondering where your balls have gone, sir, the most obvious answer is that I have them.

THIS is exactly why I closed the comments. There is absolutely NO reason for this. No excuse. I am apparently a troll with no balls because while I enjoy a healthy discussion and a heated one is fine until it resorts to name calling and insults. There is no reason for name calling. It doesn't do anything for you or your cause. And the fact is, I know exactly where my balls are, they're in my wife's purse next to the MAC compact.

While I may have overreacted a bit and seemed forceful in laying my beliefs down to everyone. At no point did I say "YOU MUST AGREE WITH ME!"  I may not like what you have to say, but I'll listen to it.

Someone also pointed out that my anger should be more directed at the media and not the bloggers. But the fact is, if it wasn't for these news outlets having 18 year old interns search the net all day for a blogger complaining about something like this, this would never have hit the news. It also likely has a lot to do with an intern being told to find anything being said about "Spider-Man" because of the box office and this popped up.

I think the news should be more concerned with a President that wipes his ass with the Constitution on a daily basis then with a piece of artwork that is clearly meant to be a funny take on MJ finding Peter's costume in the basket. We have some much other shit going on in the world and THIS is news?

I would also like to point out that some folks have posted that I do not know what supermodels look like. Well, I actually do. I've seen a few up close and I can also say that there is a big difference between say a model for Ralph Lauren or Vera Wang and a model for Victoria's Secret. MJ would be the VS model.

I also want to point out had she been portrayed as waive thin, someone would be complaining about how she's too skinny and she's promoting unhealthy stereotypes in women. At least the MJ in the statue/art is healthy. She looks like the dozens of women you see in a gym. And she's not wearing anything out of the ordinary... especially for NYC. She's wearing a Babydoll Tee and Jeans. My wife walks around the house in the same thing 80% of the time. The fact that she is Barefoot was brought up also... My wife also walks around barefoot. As for the laundry issue... this one KILLS me...

I do my wife's laundry as much as she does mine. I'm sure those of you who have a signifigant other do the same. I do 95% of the cooking in the house and a good 60% of the house cleaning. Maybe it's me but does that sound like I'm a sexist pig?

I draw comics and comic related materials, but does that mean I don't love and respect my wife? Does it mean I don't love and respect my Mom? My Sister? All of my Aunts, Cousins and my niece?  Just because I draw women the way I do, just because Adam Hughes and Jim Lee (not that I'm even in their league) draw women the way they do, does this mean they don't respect women?

Why isn't anyone upset with Olivia? She's the QUEEN of Cheesecake. Because she's a women? Kind of a double standard don't you think? It's ok cause she has the girl parts but when a man does it it's vulgar? It's not the way it is folks.

As a follow-up, [info]devildoll has responded to me. I won't quote her, but I will say she was much nicer the second time around. I'm still upset about how my friends artwork has been interpreted in the media, but what can I do... I'm just an artist defending another artist and would do the same thing for any artist.

I think it's ok to be not ok with this art, but you don't have to look at it or buy it. But be grateful we live someplace that it's ok for those of us who do like it can buy it.


I WILL allow comments on this blog post so long as they stay civil and healthy... the second someone starts flaming I will disable them.
Comments 
18th-May-2007 03:25 am (UTC)
You rock in my book. This is the first I've heard of all this. I've been out most of the day with my sons playing "stay at home Daddy" while my wife works out of the house. When she's home, she's barefoot (by her choice). We take turns cooking and laundry. And we both like the statue and Adams art.
18th-May-2007 03:31 am (UTC)
the second someone starts flaming I will disable them.
Would you consider freezing the threads rather than disabling comments altogether?

Also, if you don't want any further comments in the previous thread, you could still make them visible without allowing people to continue the discussion.

It's just that there were some good links and comments worth reading (mine as well as others). And, I've got an archivist/librarian mindset -- I don't like seeing history erased.
18th-May-2007 04:05 am (UTC)
and i also think that more people visiting your blog would like to see what the smart people said instead of the knee-jerk jerks.
18th-May-2007 01:32 pm (UTC)
The thread is unlocked and comments are open.
18th-May-2007 04:00 am (UTC) - I've Ordered My Copy
Well, I've ordered mine, and can't wait to get it....because, I not only love his artwork, but I love the Comiquette.... So, to quote "That's all I gotta say about that..."
18th-May-2007 04:02 am (UTC)
I sent that link to boingboing because I thought you wanted to get the word out about how Adam was totally unjustly crucified over the art that he created. So I'm not sure why you closed the comments section on the blog. There's a lot of people on boing boing who I think got your POV.

Was someone harassing you off that link or something?
Sorry if I made it worse...
18th-May-2007 04:04 am (UTC)
of course there's always gonna be a few vocal assholes that make you feel like crap for stating your opinion, so I hope you won't let people like that sway you from not keeping up an open dialog....
18th-May-2007 12:52 pm (UTC)
I unlocked the previous threads comments, but I do not have a paid account, can I still freeze the comments?
18th-May-2007 01:33 pm (UTC)
Nah, you didn't make it worse. I just don't think this type of discussion needs to resort to name calling and the throwing of rotten fruit!
18th-May-2007 04:03 am (UTC)
Listen. I understand that it's an stupid statute. It's not the fact that it's MJ putting clothes in a hamper, it's just sort of something to highlight to people so they can understand that there's an overwhelmingly discrepancy between the way that female characters are presented in mainstream comics and how males are presented, which to is in a small extent how society views women as oppose to men.I mean, I like Adam Hughes art. I like Jim Lee's work. I like cheesecake, but it seems to me that cheesecake is the standard of how a great number( I would dare say the " majority " ) of females are presented in mainstream superhero comics, which have the largest market share in the industry and are arguably the most recognizable. It's a turn off, definitely, and I have spoken with numerous women who tell me that feel uncomfortable reading comics because stuff like this. It's not hard to see why people would be agitated.

As far as devildoll....she called you on it. What can I say? She called you on it.
18th-May-2007 06:10 am (UTC)
Dude, I do NOT know where you're going with stating that women are depicted differently than men. I would say that the "Cheesecake" look is generally an exaggerated version of the "perfect girl"...and if that's the case then what would you call the most prominent superhero of all time, the one who started it all, Superman. He's the epitomy of male physique...it's right in the gosh-darn name, SUPERman. My personal feeling is that fantasy is just that, FANTASY. So if I'M not offended by Kal El shootin' around Metropolis in skin-tights, then why should any female be offended by Mary Jane(a strong, independant, kick-in-the-pants kinda gal), Wonder Woman(OMG, SHE'S AN AMAZON WARRIOR PRINCESS!), Buffy(Um, vampire slayer much?) or any other of the myriad of amazing comic heroines? So they get depicted as beautiful, sexy BABES! My girlfriend drools over Tom Welling all the time...do I get offended? Nope...it's just fantasy...so seriously, what's the big deal.

As for the art itself, Adam Hughes constantly outdoes himself. This piece is a great example. His women always look amazing, but they also always give off this heir of cheekiness...I think that THEREIN lies the power of his sexual imagery...cuz we all kinda like the girl that's freakier than we are, am I right guys? Adam's stuff always has that subtle touch. It's my favorite part of his work, and I'll say that I think it's lost in translation to the statue(as great a sculpt as it is, it has it's own sensibilities, seperate of AH's work). Just on a personal note, I'd rather just have the print...but maybe that's cuz shelf space is a premium around my place, while my walls could use some spicing up :P

And lastly, I just wanna say to Tom, dude, you rock. You are hands down one of the most generous artists out there. Your sketch-a-day(when your site isn't being a pain) is one of my favorite parts of my day. And I just finished listening to your interview on the Forcecast, and your insights into what makes Star Wars so resonant were great. I won't be able to make it out to C:IV, but if I could have, you'd have been at the top of my list. And I haven't even gotten into you defending your fellow artists. As an artist myself I appreciate your stance in defending your friend's art. As much as people may not like it, art is art, and if it doesn't hurt anyone then "no harm, no foul" I always say.
18th-May-2007 01:02 pm (UTC)
She called me on what? Not wanting it to turn into a flame war and for people to start throwing around a bunch of hateful comments?

The fact is, this has been the norm in comics for as long as I can remember and unless you're next in line for the job of Editor at Marvel, DC or Image there's little you can do to change it. If you don't like what's happening, you don't have to buy it. It's really the only way to make a stand in this case.

I usually sit by Adam at SDCC and he has as many female fans as male fans. Adam has been drawing how he does as long as he's been in the industry.

Does a woman who shows up at a Con whose built like one of these drawings, dressed in a costume like Power Girl, Wonder Woman or Catwoman, make her a traitor to gender? Because she's feeding into the stereotype shown in comics? Are you mad because they can get away with dressing like that or because they ARE dressing like that?

If you continue to buy the comics that make you uncomfortable then how uncomfortable are you really?
18th-May-2007 04:51 am (UTC)
I'm still upset about how my friends artwork has been interpreted in the media, but what can I do... I'm just an artist defending another artist and would do the same thing for any artist.

If it makes any difference (and who knows, maybe it doesn't, BUT) a good majority of the people I've seen commenting on this depiction of MJ, who were aware of both the Slideshow statue and the Hughes work on which it was based, genuinely seemed to enjoy the Hughes artwork, citing its playfulness and quality, and the fitting canon personality he'd given MJ that made sense of the whole image.

Said same people... despised the statue, finding the aforementioned elements completely lacking which, combined with a number of cultural symbols and cues, was what they found made the statue offensive--not the Hughes art.

Again, don't know if that made a difference to you, but so far as I could make out, that was one of your primary annoyances to all the hubbub, so.. just tossing that in there.
18th-May-2007 05:01 am (UTC)
I love the art, but yeah, something got WAY lost in translation in the sculpt.

I'm glad I'm seeing more people see this, too.. Yay!

Much love for adam's art.
18th-May-2007 05:35 am (UTC)
I can't say I'm wild about the control art, but it certainly doesn't bug me the same way the statuette does. To me, the statuette has the same problem as mainstream porn: everything about the stance and expression is artifice, there to get a rise out of the audience. It's about as strong and independent as a blowup doll with a painted smile. The control art is still a bit cheesecake-y, but somehow it suggests a bit more of a personality. (I think part of it is that the proportions are a bit more realistic, and don't put quite so much emphasis on T&A.)

Just look at the comments on Sideshow's forum, the early ones before people started showing up from other sites: "I love you Mary Jane. Here’s one fine lovely lady that won’t reject me." "Adam, you’ve done a great job with your drawings and it great to see them brought to life by SS. I can’t wait to get this on order and get Emma in hand this month. Adam Hughes and Sideshow, a horny teenagers dream come true." "Oh…. I have to clean up now thanks alot". This is how a large chunk of the fans reacted to the piece; it's not just the critics who see it as wank material.

That said, I think this has a lot to do past history. Last year, Frank Miller's ASB&R paraded Vicki Vale around in lingerie for the fanboys while she bleated about how she had a DATE!!! with BRUCE WAYNE!!! - and DC weren't ashamed to release the script that confirmed Miller's attitude to the character: "Detail her BRA. It'll drive them crazy, Jim." He quickly followed that up with a truly awful cover that reduced Wonder Woman to T&A. It's common knowledge that another well-known comic 'artist' traces many of his female characters from porn. Is it any wonder people don't welcome this sort of thing?
18th-May-2007 05:36 am (UTC)
You've made all good points! Especially the one about the news. These trolls and 18-year olds create the demand, so they supply with the shit-news. ugh...
Well, peace be with you.
18th-May-2007 08:09 am (UTC)
I like comics. I like Spiderman, and I like MJ. I really don't like the way women are often drawn in comics, with balloon breasts and wasp waists. But, you know, I'm used to it. The women's silly arched-back poses are something I have fun mocking, it's part of the comic book experience.

The control art is normal for a comic book woman. But there's a big difference between the control art and the statuette. The control art show a real woman, a woman with both personality and room in her abdomen for her intestines. The statuette does not.

The control art still shows her posed in a terribly uncomfortable stance, knees locked and back arched. (You try holding that pose for a couple of minutes, and see if you can keep that come-hither smile!) The control art still shows her underpants riding way out of her jeans (what a wedgie -- ouch), and her boobs are falling out of her top in an uncomfortable way. But she's real.

That statuette is not real, not even in comic-book-reality.

Worse, much, much worse, than the statuette is the response to the outpouring of fangirl hate for the statuette. At all the official sites, unfavorable comments are screened out. It's as if women's opinions are not important. Women's voices are muffled. And that is just wrong.
18th-May-2007 01:20 pm (UTC)
I agree with you that it is wrong for the unfavorable comments are screened. Everyone has a voice (which is one of the main reasons I turned off the emails and unlocked the last post a few minutes ago). I just think this kind of debate is best served if the flaming and anger is not included.

18th-May-2007 08:42 am (UTC) - One of those angry feminists.
I felt the urge to contact you and talk to you about this because I really respect how you defend Adam Hughes' artwork. I think Adam Hughes is remarkably talented and I often really admire his beautiful line and fluidity, as well as a very good handle on anatomy (which is sadly lacking in the comic world).

I see the care and affection you have for your friend in your anger. I think that's why I sat back and had a good think about what to say to you rather than firing off an angry comment to you.

I urge to have a look at *why* these women are angry. I couldn't sum it up all in one post. But know it's not Adam Hughes that we're mad about, not just this statue. It was the last straw, so to speak. It's not just one statue to us. As someone said, art does not exist in a vaccuum. This image will end up being a loaded one, despite AH's better intentions. One has to be mindful of what they produce, especially when it will be viewed in the mainstream. Not only for the sensibilities of those that might be offended, but for the good of the company itself. Marvel, though it probably doesn't know it, has had a major knock to its public image through this campaign. I don't know if you realise this, but people largely ignored us women comic enthusiasts until MJ came along. It was the perfect image to rally behind for them - it represents everything we're pissed off about.

Believe it or not, we don't wish ill to Marvel or DC. We want them to do well. We want them to be successful. We enjoy their products, despite the inherent sexism in them (which you don't seem to notice). If you want to understand what we want, try reading some of the content at girl-wonder.org. People of *both* sexes hang out there, comic creators, artists, and appreciators alike. I know just as many men that are affronted by the MJ Maquette as I am. Are they being snitty feminists too?

I don't doubt you love the women in your life. I'm sure Adam Hughes does as well. But what you don't seem to realise is that Marvel and DC help perpetuate harmful stereotypes and standards that are NOT in line with your real life values. How would you feel if you saw your neice done up like some of these pictures? Emma Frost in particular? Or your sister? I'm sure you wouldn't like it.

The reason we're mad is because that MJ statue? It's ALL WE GET. And we're *tired* of it. We want to be strong too. We want to be able to buy comics without being embarrassed by the porny cover. We want comics to strive and be a lauded, respectable artform. With the current carrying on of male fans and creators, I don't think it possible.

And finally, you've made my fine artist and anatomy nerdiness come out. You say that the MJ Maquette is 'healthy'. She can hardly be described as that. Her middle is entirely too thin. Her legs are too long. Her breasts do not sit at the right angle at all. If she were standing like that it'd be painful (I've tried to emulate the pose and my leg muscles did not thank me). I've been studying the human form for many many years and I can honestly say that I've *never* seen a real woman like that. The fact that the statue distorts the female figure to the preference of men and then pretty much lauds it as the ideal form is insulting. And as a bisexual woman I can honestly say that I don't find it hot at all.

The Adam Hughes picture, however, is pretty good anatomy wise. The hips could have been closer to the ribcage and a little more of an arse would have been nice (but I like girls with some back, that might be personal taste coming into play). But it's a feasable and anatomically sound picture. So no slight is intended to your friend. It never was.

None of us were saying that YOU guys that made this stuff were sexist. You've got a job to do and bills to pay. It's Marvel, DC, the dudes in charge and those that support these awful stereotypes that we're mad at.
18th-May-2007 01:53 pm (UTC) - Re: One of those angry feminists.
I appreciate the fact you understand why I am defending Adam and his work. I also appreciate that you took a deep breath before posting.

Now, with that said, I would like to pose the question to you:

Do you think I'm upset that a guy like me, a 35 year old, overweight, married with a 13 year old son who works all day drawing is NOT depicted in comics as I am?

No. I'm not. Why? Because it is pure fantasy. I mean, you'd be hard pressed to see me in ANY comic in the background. Although, I have been on the cover of a comic... but as an overweight Russian general (Punisher #39) was I angry? No. I loved it!

Another question:

Am I upset I am NOT represented in comics?

Not even a little bit. It's an escape for 24 pages. It's not the real world.

Now does this mean I'm stronger mentally then you. No. Does it mean that I think you need to relax and just deal with it? No, it doesn't.

It's just that while I understand why you're frustrated with how women are depicted in comics, 90% of the time, while they are shown as beautiful and scantily clad, they're also heroes. Isn't that the bottom line? The fact they stand up for themselves. They fight for those who cannot. They're stronger then most men... Hell, WW is the only true match for Superman... doesn't that account for anything?

Sure, it's be great if the Heroines in comics wore something more like Batgirl or Knightingale (yes, I plugged my OWN female hero from my MidKnight comic coming this Fall from Red5 Comics) but the bottom line is they may dress in skimpy outfits, they're still reflecting a positive message by doing right.

18th-May-2007 12:16 pm (UTC)
WTF? Glad I missed the first go 'round, I guess. I completely understand your take on this statue 'cause (and artwork) I took it the exact same way. I love Adam's work and will continue to support him.
18th-May-2007 12:40 pm (UTC)
Honestly, after all these years reading comics, I'm still shocked anyone gets pissy over something like this. IT'S A FUCKING COMIC BOOK STATUE, FOLKS!!! That's all it is. Honestly, I'm more offended by the costumes super-heroes themselves wear than what MJ has on. Mary Jane has always been a sex kitten. I don't wanna hear any of this "It's wrong she looks like she's gonna break her back yadda yadda yadda." It's a comic book character. If you're gonna go on about anatomy, attack Jack Kirby and start from there, up. 'Cause Jack exaggerated the human body, as do many comic book artists. Why doesn't anyone complain over McFarlane Toys and the Clive Barker stuff? Gruesome things, Red Riding Hood looking like a dominatrix from hell, but that's all cool and whatever...but MJ? Good Lord look out....

I respect the opinions of those who didn't like the MJ thing...but seriously....going on this much about it...isn't there something more productive to do? If you don't like it, then just say "I don't like it." and move on. It's fairly simple.
19th-May-2007 02:25 am (UTC) - Move on
"If you don't like it, then just say "I don't like it." and move on. It's fairly simple."

From what I can tell, that's pretty much what most of them did to start out with. They said, "I don't like it", be it on their own blogs, the company website, or wherever. And instead of that being the end of it, they got a giant, "FUCK YOU!" in return, figuratively (with the company deleting their posts) and sometimes literally, by 'males' who should make the rest of us feel guilty by association. So there rage is compounded not only by the initial slight, but by the fact that -forget apathy- their objections are met with active hostility.
18th-May-2007 01:25 pm (UTC) - It's Not Either/Or
"There is a playfulness to the art that doesn't come across IMHO on the statue." That's what a lot of people have pointed out. Not just that the comiquette overly objectifies a character who has become more interesting and complex in recent years by completely erasing her humanity in favor of an eff-me pose, but that it's BADLY DONE and, in many of our opinions, doesn't capture Adam's art in the least.

"I think the news should be more concerned with a President that wipes his ass with the Constitution on a daily basis then with a piece of artwork that is clearly meant to be a funny take on MJ finding Peter's costume in the basket. We have some much other shit going on in the world and THIS is news?"

The artwork isn't the problem. The comiquette is the problem.

And yes, we have much shit going on in the world. AND this is news. As blogger after blogger has pointed out, this is not and either/or situation. You can (and many do) fight against the continued marginalization and ridiculing and slapping down of fictional females in pop culture AND against the atrocities committed against real women in this world courtesy of some of Bush's best buddies.

"At least the MJ in the statue/art is healthy." In the art, yes. Adam's women have always been logically proportioned. In the statue, not so much.

I'm disheartened that you still don't seem to understand these distinctions.
18th-May-2007 01:56 pm (UTC) - Re: It's Not Either/Or
No. I know the difference between the two. But keep in mind even though there is a loss in translation between the Artwork and the Statue... the statue was still sculpted by hand before it went to mass production. An artist still had to create the sculpture. I'm defending the artwork above all else. The statue is still art.
18th-May-2007 01:36 pm (UTC)
I've worked in comics some 20+ years--pretty much always had to sigh and roll my eyes a bit at the depiction of women. Comics is popular entertainment, and reflects our society's viewpoint. Big deal. This is not news. (I sure like Adam's drawing better than the statue, by the way. His art is always so full of life.) The statue, as has been well and ably said, is just a fucking comics statue! If you want to find truly offensive depictions of women in the comics field, there are plenty, and far more egregious and mean spirited than this! (not that this is in any way mean spirited, IMHO.) TV "news" wanted to stir up controversy (we must protect our children from seeing things like this!), and we're all buying into it. For the record, my husband, also a grizzled comics veteran, does most of the house stuff, too. I think men working in comics, because they're home all the time, just do what needs to be done.
18th-May-2007 05:00 pm (UTC)
This picture was the last straw rather than the main reason we're mad. I don't know why things took off as they did but women like me are making sure our piece is said while people are still paying attention, because they've been ignoring us for a *very* long time.

This thing was all across the internet before the news got to it. It spread through blogs like wildfire. People were mad. It had nothing to do with the news and everything to do with fangirls like me bursting their last blood vessel and talking on their blogs about it and making fun of the attrocious bloody piece of plastic.

I have no problem with my nieces seeing this thing. It's a perfect example of how NOT to dress and be seen.
18th-May-2007 01:41 pm (UTC)
Speaking as a woman AND a Spidey fan (not just the movies, m'kay?), I think it's a cute statue. In fact, I saw it recently on a preview site and thought it was striking. The design is lovely and the pose is pin-up cute. Heck, I even thought about buying it because I think it's a great sculpt.

I can't believe there is such an uproar over this. Comic book artists have drawn men and women with stunning proportions for years. Some artists portray women as buxom and round, some with more modest proportions. But MJ is a knockout and is supposed to look like a pin-up fantasy. The statue reflects the humor of that aspect of her character. That's also part of the charm in her relationship with Peter Parker, the dorky guy who isn't even in her league.

And lest it be forgotten, MJ is a drawing, not a real person. No one should base their self-esteem on cartoon-style drawings. However 'realistic' the drawing, it is still a comic book; comics by nature exaggerate and highlight physical features. Thus, Spidey is super-bendy and MJ is super-busty. Wolverine is super-hairy and Superman's chest is way too wide to be realistic.

There are much bigger fish to fry in the media. Picking on a drawing or a statue in a small niche market seems like a waste of energy.
18th-May-2007 04:19 pm (UTC)
THANK YOU! :)
18th-May-2007 03:06 pm (UTC)
I'm frequently startled by what people choose to go on hate benders about. It's an awful lot of hoop-a-la over a statuette that's no where near outside the norm in the industry. I think you're absolutely right, the only reason this is on anyone's radar is because Spiderman 3 is in theaters. I mean, how long have Vampirella statues been on the market?
18th-May-2007 03:34 pm (UTC)
EXACTLY!
18th-May-2007 04:23 pm (UTC) - Kinda off topic, Tom....
But do you know if they'll ever offer Adam's MJ print just by itself for purchase, or do you have to buy the statue to get it? I have so many statues already, I can't afford space for another! :)
18th-May-2007 04:37 pm (UTC) - Re: Kinda off topic, Tom....
Not sure. One can only hope!
19th-May-2007 03:18 am (UTC)
What I find so disgusting is the objectifying of women as just sex objects. Do we get something that portrays and celebrates women's strength, courage and the ability to contribute something wonderful to society?

No.

We get a sexy bend-over image of MJ cleaning Spidey's suit. Ever think that MJ is worth something more than just Spidey's "squeeze"?? Dammit ... if that's all the comic industry thinks women are good for ... as sex objects, no wonder countless adolescent boys see their girlfriends as worth nothing more than good lay.

Enough said.
This page was loaded Jul 5th 2009, 5:23 pm GMT.