Gulacy did draw this cover for the fourth issue of the series, however, in which poor Huntress is posed in a full-brokeback position:
Tuesday, March 08, 2016
Sure, that outfit looks like a perfectly practical one to fight crime in.
Gulacy did draw this cover for the fourth issue of the series, however, in which poor Huntress is posed in a full-brokeback position:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Putting aside how ridiculous that costume looks (and I'm not even sure it's the least offensive one she's worn), something about Gulacy's faces always freaks me out a little. I think it might be the lips and the eyelashes.
Judging by the images, it's practical enough. She seems to be doing just fine.
(BTW, how can a costume be more or less offensive? Practica, I can get, but offensive, really?)
My take on the practicality issue:
http://capesandbustiers.blogspot.pt/2010/07/how-does-she-fight-in-that-thing.html
and
http://crackpowwham.blogspot.pt/2015/09/my-no-theory-of-comics-comic-book-logic.html
Cheers,
Sherman
I meant "most offensive" obviously, and I meant it both in terms of objectification in what is ostensibly supposed to be an adventure comic, not a pulp wank mag (there is a whole internet for that, folks, or at least comics that explicitly set out to be sexy/erotic), ludicrousness, and just sheer aesthetic ugliness - even if maximizing T&A is your goal, at least design something that looks good and makes sense for the character (see: the difference between cut-outs on the White Queen and Sue Storm). Still think Kyle Baker got in the best and last word in his funeral for Billy Batson:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2013/08/24/meta-messages-kyle-baker-buries-the-dc-universe/
And on the Wonder Woman thing, appreciating the classic costume is one thing, but let's be real, there is a world of difference in the way that costume was portrayed in the Golden Age (bike shorts) and what it became in the 90s/00s (thong).
Post a Comment