InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "You Winchester boys are famous"

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)

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)

(Read comments) -