InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "HELLA!"

seawolf10 (seawolf10) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-05-28 23:32:00

Entry tags:

char: fatality/yrra cynril, char: green lantern/john stewart, char: green lantern/kyle rayner, creator: geoff johns, publisher: dc comics, title: green lantern

*bangs head against wall*
Saw the recent Green Lantern post here. Was not impressed with the depiction of Fatality in it. Thought I'd post a comparison with the first issue of Green Lantern she showed up in.

*sarcasm* I can't imagine why any comic fangirl wouldn't fantasize about being one. */sarcasm*

The new version, courtesy of the GL post a few entries down:

The original (GL v3, #87):

That's way too much difference to just be the scene lighting (especially since she's backlit), but I suppose it's possible the colorist just made an error for that page.

I'm not going to be able to get to the comic shop until Friday afternoon, so tell me...

...does her skin tone get back to normal after that, or does it stay the same as it is in that first pic?

I'm also going to complain about her new costume. It makes even less sense for Fatality than the rest of the Star Sapphires. She's a trained, experienced warrior whose original outfit had complete coverage of all vital organs, and her species apparently isn't much tougher than humans. I can see her wearing the new costume when she's not in combat (given that it's designed a LOT like what she was wearing when she initially tracked down Kyle -- can't go running around New York in extra-terrestrial body armor after all, but a low-cut leather-and-fishnet top and some plain ol' jeans fit in reasonably well), but it's a bad choice on the artist's part to put her in this for a fight scene.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	bluefall 2009-05-28 11:58 pm UTC (link)
	Wow, it really is endemic. Also, I want to say I can't believe people actually defend the Star Sapphire floss, but it would be a lie. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	seawolf10 2009-05-29 12:03 am UTC (link)
	"Wow, it really is endemic. It's passing "endemic" and heading for "epidemic." Also, I want to say I can't believe people actually defend the Star Sapphire floss, but it would be a lie. I was figuring someone would defend it eventually, I just wasn't expecting that to be the very first comment. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

thokstar
2009-05-29 12:38 am UTC (link)

To be fair, I probably should have put a [/sarcasm] at the end of my first post.

That said, in universe, the Zamarons have generally not cared a bit for practicality. It's for all intents and purposes a love cult; why would they want practical uniforms for their Corps?

There's a reasonable criticism that this portrayal of the Zamarons line of thinking is sexist/derivative, and that comic book writers/artist should be better than that. I'm not going to argue with that, since I think it's a fairly valid point. But given the Zamarons fairly consistent motives and portrayals, this is a reasonable costume for Fatality. (Arguably, from that point of view Fatality should be showing more skin.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	arilou_skiff 2009-05-29 01:49 am UTC (link)
	While epidemic might be the right word to use, it is worth noting that epidemic is actually LESS common than something that is endemic... An epidemic is something temporary, something that is endemic is constantly present. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	seawolf10 2009-05-29 01:33 pm UTC (link)
	You're right. I've got to stop trying to be witty when I'm dead tired. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	tavella 2009-05-29 08:11 am UTC (link)
	"But it's meant to be all skanky! You're just REPRESSED and don't understand the ARTISTIC INTEGRITY OF IT ALL!" Comics fans are nothing if not predictable. Actually, what I find particularly shitty is it's a badly drawn tits&crotch outfit. Exactly how are those perfect straight lines over the curve of the breast working? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bluefall 2009-05-29 09:12 am UTC (link)
	We even got a boy costumes are just as bad. We could play bingo! (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kitty_tc_69
2009-05-29 01:51 pm UTC (link)

And I stand by it. I'm more than a little sick of the prudish, puritanical "sex baahd!" attitude floating around, especially when coming from so-called feminists. Who never quite seem to grasp that women are sexual beings just like every other human, who enjoy looking good, enjoy getting positive attention, enjoy being admired and fantasized about. Some of them even like men! Goddess only knows why, but they do. Something about being born straight. I don't get it either. But I digress.

I remember when the buzzword for sexual repression was "exploitation", until it came out that women in the "exploitative" porn and modeling industries make vastly more than the men they work with, usually by a factor of at least ten or more, and have all the power. When that word lost it's power, the anti-sex brigade coined the term "objectification", which none can credibly explain what it even means. It especially loses all meaning when thrown about in reference to things like animated images and sex dolls --how the hell do you objectify an object? Isn't what's happening actually personification of the inanimate? But no matter, it sounds bad and it's a charge that can be levied that lends a sense of moral authority to what truly amounts to mere prudish anti-sex repression.

It's sadly telling when the most extreme elements of the left and right agree on one thing --women's bodies and sexuality must be kept under wraps, hidden in shame and vilified and shouted down whenever it appears. One side calls it morality, the other empowerment, but the chains look the same when you're wearing them.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-05-29 01:56 pm UTC (link)

The problem with any kind of argument that a female character is just "expressing her sexuality" and good for her, is that the female character does not actually exist or have any kind of sexuality of her own. Fatality did not choose to dress that way. She was dressed that way by a creative team. A creative team that has been noticeably reluctant to dress any male character the same way.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kitty_tc_69
2009-05-29 02:46 pm UTC (link)

So who exactly is being harmed here? Who are you defending, and against what?

We're getting closer to the crux of the argument, here, which is a good thing. The "crime" in things like this, every time, is the display of a female fantasy figure for the purposes of appealing to (presumably male) sexual desire. This typically ignores is the lesbian and bisexual females who enjoy "eye candy" just as much, but that's a side issue. The fact is, men are being criminalized for enjoying and desiring the female form. And it's wrong.

That becomes especially clear when arguments get made like "this is just fodder for teen boys to masturbate to!". As if that alone makes it wrong. When called on this, typically the old slippery slope argument of "porn leads to sexual abuse!" gets trotted out, despite having been thoroughly debunked. This is especially glaring when the same people ignore violence in the same entertainment media they criticiase for sexual imagery.

The whole arc of the argument reminds me of the gay marriage battle, with psuedo-arguments that really don't hold up to examination covering the fact that people simply disapprove. They think it's immoral, but they try to paper over that with something more substantial and it fails. What it really comes down to is good old fashioned prudery.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

seawolf10
2009-05-29 04:04 pm UTC (link)

Dude. I'm a guy. I'm not arguing from prudery here. I enjoy and desire the female form (in all its variations) a WHOLE lot more than the male one. (Mind you, guys get some attention too, but not nearly as much.)

But when appreciation of the female form is the first priority for the design team, beyond prior characterization (in this case, a sensible, tough warrior woman) and even common sense (a V-neck down to the pubic bone in a combat outfit just SCREAMS "please target my vital organs"), that's a serious problem.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kitty_tc_69
2009-05-29 04:44 pm UTC (link)

That argument has been debunked here. She's a ringbearer, protected by a forcefield. No one of her character type wears armor, it's redundant. As I said, she could be completely naked save for her ring and still be every bit as protected. There is no argument for practicality here, and to continue to make one is disingenuous.

That's one of the things that bothers me most about this type of argument, it's a black and white, all or nothing thing. It doesn't matter if the character needs protection or not, they must be covered head to toe. It doesn't matter if the character is established as being sexy in her style or not, she has to dress "practically". The same arguments are made for She-Hulk as for Huntress, and it just doesn't ring true. It's hard to believe there isn't another agenda at play.

In this case, she's a Star Sapphire, dressing for allure and emphasizing their sexuality is what they do. They don't wear armor and don't need it. There's no grounds for objection here except for taste and morality. Your argument is flawed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

interrobamf
2009-05-30 01:56 am UTC (link)

a V-neck down to the pubic bone in a combat outfit just SCREAMS "please target my vital organs"

As opposed to the numerous examples of symbols on the chest? Or colors on the torso being different than other parts of the costume? Do Captain America's stripes magically make him a better target?

Be gung-ho about the changes in characterization, sexism, or whatever, but please stop bringing up the protection argument. It does not work in this case.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

bluefall
2009-05-29 04:09 pm UTC (link)

The fact is, men are being criminalized for enjoying and desiring the female form.

No.

Porn is fine. If I want to read porn, and I can find it, that's awesome.

But if I'm planning on reading a story about superheroes, I should get a story about superheroes. Not a porn. It's really that simple.

(Also, speaking as a lesbian, I find the standard Big Two comic artist's idea of "sexy" about as sexually appealing as dead crawfish, but that's clouding the issue.)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kitty_tc_69
2009-05-29 04:54 pm UTC (link)

Fanservice is a part of any visual medium, and even literature often has "steam" scenes to keep reader interest. Because humans like sex. It enters into all our entertainment, in a number of forms. Sometimes it's mere visual appeal, sometimes it's "romance" subplots (or full-on plots!), sometimes it's straight-up explicit nudity and sex. Trying to pretend sexuality in media is an all or nothing thing is yet another disingenuous argument.

That said, I agree with you that often what passes for sexy in comics fails to be, well, sexy. Sometimes it's bad art, sometimes it's bad design decisions, sometimes it's a hamhanded blatantness that destroys suspension of disbelief and kills the fantasy. Again, these arguments would be more persuasive if not applied in such a blanket fashion.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

oddpuppets
2009-05-30 11:57 pm UTC (link)

I have no objection to sexy. I like sexy women, and I like illustrated sexy women. Frank Cho is quite possibly a minor god in my totemic pole of lady sexy.

What I object to is sexiness without taste or thought. I speak of sexy before cool.

A superhero's costume is, at it's essence, 'cool'. Even if it is hideous by our standards today, the whole aesthetic value of the costume is in its coolness. Yea, they have various levels of cool, all dependent on the character and universe and timeline, but they have to reach coolness at some level. Superman's costume, however adorably dorky, is old school cool. Batman's costume is old-school + dark/grim cool. Spider-man's is just cool.

For female characters however, sexiness tends to trump cool. Think of iconic female costumes, and you see what I mean - Wonder Woman? Basically a bathing suit. Emma Frost? A white dominatrix outfit. Black Canary? Fishnets. They all play to sex before they try to be cool. They are all about accentuating the sex appeal before the aesthetic awesomeness. This happens less with the male characters.

Not that the comics industry has totally failed. Black Cat stands out as a costume that is awesome AND sexy. I mean, it's totally in character, it's bad-ass, it has cat-burglar written all over it. And christ, it's sexy. Especially with the cleavage. It tells you that this is a woman who is slinky and lean and ready to pounce. Tim Sale's version of Catwoman is also beyond sexy/awesome. She looks like a fucking panther, a sexy death machine. Her muscles look taut and imposing, she radiates primal power and passion, and it fits her like a glove. Can we say "Meow"?
Hell, they got it right with Natu. It takes the elements of the GL uniform and makes it very slick - black with the right amount of green, contrasting against her skin. And then there's the cleavage. You want to drown right in there.
This doesn't mean I don't like Emma's costume. I do. But it is a guilty enjoyment. I have no problem with her being sexy - it's part of her character. But it is such a blatant approach to my sexual desires without offering the badassness that would make me feel less guilty of carrying around an issue with her on the cover.

Essentially, I think that the trend of sexualizing superheroine's costume is problematic because SEX becomes the defining feature of the costume/superheroine, and not the awesome. There is a double standard - the male superhero costume is slick/awesome/badass, the women superhero costume is sexy. They (artists/editorial/writers/industry) are defining power as sexuality for women, which is I think quite deplorable. Sexuality shouldn't be covered up and hindered, but nor should it stand as the only way women can express their power.

Sorry if this all seems somewhat confused - it sounded much better in my now-Tynenol affected brain.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kitty_tc_69
2009-05-31 12:31 am UTC (link)

I think what you've described is the "hamhanded blatantness that destroys suspension of disbelief and kills the fantasy" that I mentioned. And I couldn't agree more.

Fact is, a well drawn woman is almost guaranteed to be sexy no matter what, even if the artist tries to de-emphasize it. It's just not necessary to hit us over the head with it, unless it's in a character's nature to flaunt their sexuality. The fetish gear outfits of the Hellfire Club women are an example of this, and Catwoman and Black Cat should be as well. Star Sapphires also fit this profile. Everyone else? Not so much. But artists keep on laying it on thick and heavy, and it often blasts right past sexy and ends up somewhere in the territory of "fucking ridiculous". If they'd instead just concentrate on making the female characters awesome, as you say, the sexy would take care of itself.

So don't worry. Not only did you make perfect sense to me, I agree with you. Well said. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	seawolf10 2009-05-29 12:05 am UTC (link)
	And while I'm thinking about it, did you ever read that issue of Green Lantern featuring Wonder Woman and Jade? (Or the one with Wondy and Kyle, for that matter, but I figure you'd prefer the former.) (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bluefall 2009-05-29 12:09 am UTC (link)
	I've read the her-and-Kyle one. I like Kyle quite a bit, plus Donna was part of his supporting cast for a while, so I've read a very patchy, scattered collection of LANTERN issues from throughout the Kyle era. Not the one with Diana and Jade, though. What issue? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	sailorlibra 2009-05-29 12:56 am UTC (link)
	Issue 108 of the GL series that began in 1990. (Second volume?) (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlbarnett 2009-05-29 06:40 am UTC (link)
	I posted a couple of scans from that issue. Miss Overpretective Mother, Queen Hippolyta recieves a call for help from Diana. She gives her the info and rolls over and goes back to sleep. Someone actually wrote a fic response to it makeing her drunk (Reply to this) (Parent)

	bluefall 2009-05-29 09:17 am UTC (link)
	Gosh, that's... not very good. Very Luke, though. I'd have known it was him without the credits just from the storyline. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	seawolf10 2009-05-29 01:25 pm UTC (link)
	Gosh, that's... not very good. I never said it was. ;-) I was just curious as to whether you'd read it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -