HOME | DD
shamserg — SMILE!
#joker #batgirl #dccomics #killingjoke #new52 #changethecover
Published: 2015-03-18 09:45:32 +0000 UTC; Views: 15986; Favourites: 496; Downloads: 172
Redirect to original
Description
Just drew more friendly version of Batgirl cover by since DC comics decided to #changethecover lolRelated content
Comments: 83
Feminism is not just restricted to women you know. I was not blaming all feminists just the radicals. I should have said radical feminists or social justice warriors, since they seem to complain about every little thing these days. The joker is a villain he is not going to go easy on a woman because of political correctness and most feminists or SJW's I have spoken with don't seem to understand that or they simply don't care and whine about it anyway.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
True. I kind of see where they're coming from though... why do a super-heroine have to be re-victimized on the cover of a pg-rated comic book directed at young female readers? Batgirl of burnside run is made in mind for young readers who want to get into the stories and enjoy it.... before they move on to the more gritty stuff. And the truth is, not many female readers want to see a super-heroine violated and battered over and over again... because that does not fit in with the wish-fulfillment that comic books are meant to provide.
Young boys want to be powerful macho heroes. And young girls want to be superheroines who can conquer any hardship that life throws their way. Wish fulfillment.
And the thing is, Young girls are raised from a certain age to be hyper-aware of the fact that they're the most vulnerable group out there when it comes to real-life kidnappings, child molestation, and so on forth. In fact most girls actuallly know at least one person or family who suffered from that, if the girls didn't go though that themselves. It happens too much in real life, so naturally they don't want that shit in their comic books too. They read comic books to get away from that shit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
As others have pointed out, this comic from a less gritty era shows Batman being vulnerable (and it's not a variant): images.wwcomics.com/images/lar…
I'm sure if you dig deeper you can find other covers like it. The problem is, the people (largely feminists) who complained about the cover aren't looking for similar examples, where men have been abused or made to look vulnerable. Like Jason Todd being brutalized: www.toplessrobot.com/RobinDeat…
What's the point in having villains if they aren't ever going to intimidate? Back in less PC times (think 80s or 90s) there were occasions where media aimed at children brought about nightmares. This educated children in ways that simple wish fulfillment fantasies could not, and made them realize the harsh reality that life is full of the unknown.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
True. To be fair batgirl (Barbara Gordon) was and still is one of my fave super heroines. So I would be lying if I said the cover didn't bother me, but if I'm not mistaken it was a variant so it's not like we were forced to buy it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't even see how it is a feminist issue. What is wrong with that cover? He did much worse to her in The Killing Joke and what he did to her in Death of The Family was also pretty gruesome. What part of this is offensive against women?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I guess because in the killing joke the scenes could very easily suggest that the Joker raped her? even though all he actually did was just tear her clothes off so that her injuries would be more visible for the pictures he was taking. which is actually a lesser form of sexual assult. Although for the Joker it was not sexual on his end... because he's basically a psychotic asexual person. (he won't even have sex with Harley quinn in some continuities). so it was just plain assault, even though the removal of clothes made it a very uncomfortable thin line between plain assault and sexual assault. if that makes sense?
So I think to many readers the cover, which was a nod to the killing joke, was like an rapist coming back to re-victimize the rape survivor. Which I guess could be in very bad taste, had the Joker actually raped Barbara in the first place.
However I believe that Barbara was never raped by the Joker... and she might not even see it as any degree of sexual assault, especially when she knows how the Joker's mind works. She may know that the only reason why the joker took her clothes off was so that her wounds would be visible for everyone to see, and not because he wanted some sexual gratification.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I completely agree. There is nothing actually sexual about that cover if you just look at the history of those characters. That is what those "feminist" that are complaining, overlooked.
Just like with the famous controversial Spider-Woman cover in which she was in a very suggestive position that the feminist claimed her male counterpart would never be in... except what they overlooked was the fact that she was in one of Spider-Man's signature poses.
Every time something controversial happens in comics it gets completely taken out of context by some people, usually by people that have not even read the comics at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
1) I'm a feminist, and don't see anything wrong with the homage to killing joke. and I read comics all the time! so what the hell is it with guys like you who thinks that feminists are "ruining everything"? As a matter of fact, the artist specifically said he pulled the picture is because assholes out there was harassing people who did not like the cover, and thus did not want to pander to assholes who would harass others over a difference in opinion.
2) spiderman and spider woman's poses is very similar, I agree on that front. But I don't think that was the problem. Milo did trace one of his old porn artwork for spiderwoman, which he admitted to doing because he ran out of time for the deadline. here's a picture for proof: newnownext.mtvnimages.com/2014…
You can see he changed the head position but the rest of the pose is the exact same. Spiderwoman deserved more dignity than that you know? it was just too obvious that it was a porn-traced picture. Espeically when spiderwoman looked like she was wearing nothing but body paint, due to how thin and see though the "spandex" was.
The sad thing is, Milo did superheroine pictures before, and they were all WAY BETTER than the spiderwoman picture... so you know that Milo could had put into the effort to make it look like she was wearing something, just not body paint. Whereas spiderman always looks like he has a nice thick layer of spandex-like farbic on for protection even though his suit is equally as skintight. plus, in the spiderman picture your eye is promptly drawn to the giant ball of villians he trapped. the spiderwoman one is more like "Hey, I'll shove my HUGE ASS right into your face whenever you like it or not!"
Milo did redraw the cover picture from another angle later on, which he posted on the Internet. I actually liked his other one better than the first picture despite the fact that she was still in the same position. Because it was her being sexy without the over-the-top "here, have my ass right in your face!!" angle. picture can be found here: www.bleedingcool.com/2014/08/2…
but it's ridiculous that Milo traced from one of his comic porn pictures and how it was highly obvious as hell that he did that. We all thought that Greg Land was a total hack when he kept on coping poses from pornos, so why should we treat Milo any differently for reusing his porn stuff for what was supposed to be a PG-rated comic?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
WOH, WOH, WOH!!! I never said I was against feminists. I am a feminist myself. That is why I put the word feminist in quotation marks to make it clear that I was not talking about those that actually fight for equal rights but rather those that just attack everything in the name of feminism. Right now you are the one jumping to conclusions about me.
Spider-Man always wears just as skin tight clothes that also look sprayed on. You can see every outline of every muscle on his body but no one ever complains about that. Same with almost all other male heroes. Almost all superheroes that wear skin tight suits look like they have just been sprayed on so don't start mentioning bullshit like ,,Whereas spiderman always looks like he has a nice thick layer of spandex-like farbic" because that is simply not true in the slightest.
But you also bring up good points. The fact that he traced comic porn is pretty ridiculous but that is not what most people were complaining about. Barely anyone mentioned that fact. All people were talking about was her pose and skin-tight suit and how male superheroes wouldn't be treated that way... except they totally are. Most superhero costumes look like just like bodypaint regardless of gender and if people are going to complain about that then it wouldn't be fair to just mention the women and try to make this into a feminist issue because it isn't.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB6TiR…
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
To be fair I also meant the radical feminists when I wrote the comment. It was poor writing on my part.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
elmsi- The thing is, male costumes have those lines and stuff on them to indicate the wrinkling of fabric, etc. Even in that spiderman picture where he was climbing on the ball of villains there was some wrinkling on his outfit. and they always do this shiny or dark shading to ensure that it doesn't feel or look like they're completely naked and were just painted on with body-paint. Even though they technically are. Had the spiderwoman's clothing had slightly darker and had some shiny shading on, then it wouldn't feel like she was a naked girl who had obviously been traced from a porn picture. Probably? In most normal pictures of Spiderwoman, she always looks like she has this matte latex look going on... and as a matter of fact many good cosplays of her I see a lot of women wearing skintight latex, which seems to capture that look perfectly.
But yeah, there's some double standards going on here and I think we can agree on that. I mean, there are going to be poses that the men can pull off without anybody commenting on it, but women can't do the same poses without looking like they're over-sexualized due to the nature of their costumes and how they're already hot women to start with. Likewise, men can't do some of the standard poses that women do without looking completely silly.... so already the men HAVE to be sexualized differently than the women are.
I will say one good thing about the spiderwoman picture though. It's a overly sexy pose, but at least it's a unique pose unlike the cliche butts and boobs pose that artists are always putting women in. So that sexiness would had belonged exclusively to Spiderwoman and made her stand out. of course, the fact that it was a traced porn picture takes away a lot of the "originality" unfortunately.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I must say I agree with you on this comment
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
First of all, superheroes wear spandex and not latex. Those are two completely different materials. Spandex hugs the body while spandex just stretches over the lines of the body and doesn't leave any wrinkles. Those lines on the bodies of male superheroes are not wrinkles, they are the contours of their bodies.
And sexualisation happens in the mind so if you think that something is over-sexualized then that is because you have made it so. To an asexual person, nothing can be sexualized. Boobs, butts, legs, arms, ears, feet. None of it is more sexual than the other because it is too dependant on each individuals feelings and taste.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you're right, it can be only in the mind. But, you know a majority of people are naturally sexual beings to start with. Even our parents are sexual beings too, despite us pretending otherwise. So naturally they're going to notice when a certain pose highlights certain parts of the bodies. Like Spiderwoman's butt. In fact, my own mother even commented on the cover when she caught me looking at it on the Internet. She thought I was looking at Superhero Erotica, not offical artwork. It was even more awkward by the fact that she knows that I am bisexual, and that I probably spent a lot of time staring at spiderwoman's ass than I was willing to admit. I mean, I can't help it... it just jumps out right at you!
So to me this brings about the question, should an PG-rated comic book have an cover that gives one the mistaken impression that people are buying superhero erotica instead of a PG-rated comic book? I want people to know that I'm a proud fan of both Marvel and DC characters, and that I really love the stories of those superheros. I want them to know how great those characters are. But, if the cover gives the wrong impression before you can get around to explaining the story.... it sometimes ruins things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But you also have to consider that it was a variant cover, basically only for the hard-core collectors and not for the casual readers or even the hardcore readers. No one was forcing you to go get the variant issue. Variant issues have always been different and just for fun.
And I do completely agree that that cover was very gratuitous and that it may have been over the top but that is the reason it was just a variant. But the reason I brought it up in the first place was the fact that people weren't bringing up the actually good points that you are bringing up. Everyone was just comparing it to male superheroes and trying to make it into a feminist issue when all it was was a variant cover that was only created to make a little bit more money from the comic book collectors.
You brought up the fact about your sexuality and it may have thrown me of a bit. I myself am only bi-curious. I am mainly attracted to women but some guys do turn me on. On the Kinsey scale of sexual behaviour I am most likely a 1 but it wouldn't take much for me to be a 2.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I collect comics though... so I'm a total sucker for variant covers myself. It's true that they're just for fun. In fact I actually collected the other variant covers done by Milo before... and they were usually very tame covers. So when I found out what the next cover was going to be like, it threw me off because Milo didn't usually draw anything porny when working for Marvel, despite the fact that he was famous for his porn. usually it's just side views of women in dramatic poses or having them stand there looking willowy and pretty. So in a way it was shocking a little bit to see this obviously traced porn picture on an marvel cover... when it was usually so tame before. I mean, it's still tame for Milo himself considering his usual work outside of marvel... but it wasn't tame for marvel itself, if you get what I'm saying.
People in my town already judge me hardcore for being openly bisexual AND being a huge comics nerd. I can only imagine the gossip about me If I actually brought the spiderwoman variant cover. I know I shouldn't care about what other people think about me... but sometimes all the negative stereotyping really gets to me. and I kind of want to show them that bisexual people aren't always overly sexual, and no, comics aren't just for lonely and horny people. I guess that's really the real reason why I kind of object to the cover, even if Spiderwoman's rump is very nice....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's hard to be a comic book collector if you live on a tiny island in the middle of the Atlantic. Even if you can find someone or some place that sells comics then it is definitely not going to be a variant comic. I read almost all my comics in digital form, not because I think it is better (Which I don't) but because it is the only way.
When it comes to equality between the sexes, acceptance of people of other sexualities, religions and races there are few countries that can compete with Iceland. I can barely imagine being looked down on for what you were born as since everyone in Iceland is thought at a very early age about equality and how important it is that everyone gets treated equally.
I have been looked down on for my love of comic books in the past but since comic books are a lot more popular and almost all of them are being turned into movies or TV shows, suddenly my vast knowledge which used to be considered pretty useless is now a hot commodity. Some of my friends are interested in comics but aren't hardcore readers like me. I went from being bullied in "elementary/ high school" to being crowned the king of the nerds when I came to collage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I personally like your version more than the original. It fits the tone of the comic a lot better and your interpretation makes me genuinely happy!
I kind of wonder if they're actually going to get the cover changed or cancel the Batgirl variant as a whole.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice! Cute!
But I think it's so stupid that they changed the original cover. Art is supposed to be able to be controversial. It's about freedom of expression and it was only a variant anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Just redraw the cover with her looking angry and it''s fixed, cause god forbid if someone looks terrified if the Joker attacks her.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Exactly. And the Joker has done much more gruesome things to her in both Killing Joke and Death of the Family.
And somehow this has turned into a feminist issue as well. How? What was offensive against women in the original cover?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it was her crying that did it. The people I've talked to who didn't like it said they hated seeing her weak and vulnerable. Feminists absolutely hate when a female is shown as weak and helpless in any way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Realistically, almost anyone would react that way to seeing the Joker, no matter the sex, age or race.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
especially when it's implied that the Joker brutally raped her before and is now coming back for more. one rape is already horrible to start with, but twice is too much. (for the record, I believe that the Joker did not rape her, but he did assault her.... a big difference between the two.)
I think the "re-victimization" aspect is what some people object to. We already had Batgirl be a triumphant survivor who conquered all of her past trauma and became strong from it. BUT now she has to go though it all over again?? WTF!
Most people want the abused heroine to have a happy ending, even if she continues to be a heroine facing hardships in other stories. So you have one story where she was brutally assaulted in many ways, and became crippled from it. So then we start to root for her when she conquers that hardship, and became strong from it. So she finds her happy ending, and therefore that chapter of her life is now "closed", far as the reader is concerned. Nobody wants to see that trauma repeated otherwise it would mean that Barbra's struggle was for nothing.
At least, I think that is the main objection to the cover.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never believed the joker raped her because for a insane character that he is thats way too above the kind of horrific mental pain he wants to dish out; he crippled her in pain with a gun shot to the stomach and took pictures of her nude at her lowest all to break her fathers spirit. Rape is a crime of anger/hate and for the joker it's not his style, I can understand that many people may assume that at first look but I believe Alan Moore was being pretty blunt that putting someone low in their flesh was more of a dark humiliation and not being in control.
*edit* i just read your comments below and you hit it right on the dot and sorry for not seeing it sooner. I think this is all DC fault for catering to this happier/sunny hipster world that they created to buy in more readers.
The worst part for me is that it sounds like it was the newer batgirl fans who don't know the lore that much that were quick to judge the picture, if they had read Gail Simone's run (which is a million times better then the current version) they would be reminded of a stronger batgirl. She confronted the joker during the death of the family arc and while she still has the fear of what he did to her she confronted him like a champion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Andy-- Yeah, I really loved the scene where the joker was gloating about having taken things away from Barbara. Only for Barbara to take up her weapons, in her wheelchair, and say "You took nothing from me." and how she beat the crap of Joker and her goons...while still in her wheelchair. Showed that she was still a bad ass no matter what.
And I can see how the new readers might had simply gotten the cliff-notes version of the story, and might not realize the real emotion/logic behind the story itself. Younger female readers want the fantasy of a powerful heroine conquering all of her trauma and becoming powerful.... but they don't want to see her re-traumatized.
But I wouldn't blame new readers.... I noticed that there was a lot of older readers who were objecting to this too. mainly because they didn't want to see a rehash of the killing joke happen again as seeing that would be lacking originality. It's like, you can only re-read different versions of Batman's traumatic origins before you grow bored of it. Likewise, how many times do we have to read different versions of the killing joke before we become sick of it? No, Killing Joke should be a contained, stand-alone story that fits well into canon.
Of course, I don't believe that the next issue would had been a rehash of the killing joke at all and that the cover itself was no indication of what would happen inside the story. To me, the cover was merely a homage to the killing joke, that's all. But I can understand how the thought of Barbara getting re-victimized AGAIN would make people uncomfortable. I mean, she went though it once and that should be enough.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All very true words, the critical thing I believe these people missed was they were showing the highlights of jokers run with each character. I would not expect any less if he had jason slumped over in bloody mess with a crowbar in his hand as he infamously beat him to death with it.
It just seems a lot of people are jumping the gun too soon, would they have known the joker was not in the issue nor part of the current arc without looking at the cover? Also people focus on the immediate and not the aftermath, what she came out of it: oracle, a sponsor to two batgirls, a great relationship with dick, and the new 52 she walked and took the reigns of her title again so beautifully that it put the other bat books to shame.
I think you can't have it both ways, you can't have these rare traumatic story moments only mentioned once and try and pretend it didn't happen again; especially when Babs didn't stay a victim.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Highlights"? Since when did Joker dress up like Margot Kidder and hitch a ride with Superman? No, this was pure cynical marketing to fanboys and NOT to Batgirl's audience, in fact telling them to go screw themselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Curious why they didn't just have her do that on the cover though? I don't think the cover was suggestive at all, but I think even the older fans realize that The Killing Joke was not even a Batgirl story and while it marked a change for her character (a big one at that,) she should be quite capable of taking down the Joker at this point, and probably standing over him in triumph would have been a better look.
Not for nothing, it doesn't do much for a hero to make them look weak on their own cover. At least, that's how I always looked at it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0