John D.
Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Posts: 81
|
Post by John D. on Aug 21, 2014 21:23:50 GMT -5
By now I'm sure most of you have seen the controversy surrounding the upcoming Spider-Woman #1 cover and I thought I'd create this thread to see what everyone thinks. Before sharing my own thoughts, I do need to state that this is a VARIANT COVER. I think most of the news articles I've read have looked over this fact when posting about it, so it's important to note that this isn't the regular cover for the issue. That being said, my thoughts are pretty simple and to the point: It's ridiculous and I won't be getting it. The artist of the variant cover is Milo Manara, who I understand is an erotic artist, so it's fitting that his cover turned out the way that it did. My biggest problem with the art is not the back-end but the fact that her head looks like it's a few inches too far to the right, funny enough. Unfortunately I think the bad press over this variant cover will tarnish the book initially. Those of us in the know will realize this is just a variant cover, but those with just a passing interest will think this cover represents the series as a whole. It's a bad stigma for a book that I was somewhat looking forward to. If you haven't seen the cover in question, here it is:
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Aug 22, 2014 6:01:38 GMT -5
By now I'm sure most of you have seen the controversy surrounding the upcoming Spider-Woman #1 cover and I thought I'd create this thread to see what everyone thinks. Before sharing my own thoughts, I do need to state that this is a VARIANT COVER. I think most of the news articles I've read have looked over this fact when posting about it, so it's important to note that this isn't the regular cover for the issue. That being said, my thoughts are pretty simple and to the point: It's ridiculous and I won't be getting it. The artist of the variant cover is Milo Manara, who I understand is an erotic artist, so it's fitting that his cover turned out the way that it did. My biggest problem with the art is not the back-end but the fact that her head looks like it's a few inches too far to the right. Unfortunately I think the bad press over this variant cover will tarnish the book initially. Those of us in the know will realize this is just a variant cover, but those with just a passing interest will think this cover represents the series as a whole. It's a bad stigma for a book that I was somewhat looking forward to. If you haven't seen the cover in question, here it is: John, As you would imagine, I'm not thrilled with this cover (variant or otherwise) on a book that is supposed to be helping to attract female readers. I think it a huge mis-step on Marvel's part using an artist such as Milo Manara on this sort of title, considering that much of his past work is in the soft-core "adult" realms. With Marvel having done so much right in the area of their female-led books of late, this choice is, to me at least, very wrong-headed and ill-thought out. You can bet that this one will turn up in my "NOT The Cover of the Week" segment!
|
|
John D.
Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Posts: 81
|
Post by John D. on Aug 22, 2014 8:25:51 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to discuss, Bob!
I think this cover is even more inappropriate when you compare it to a cover that Manara did for a European comic called "El Clic" (Click), which I won't post a link to here but can easily be Googled. Side-by-side comparisons of the two covers show them to be pretty identical.
And if Tom Brevoort's comments on the situation are any indication ("It’s also, for a Manara piece, one of the less sexualized ones, at least to my eye."), this is sadly not something that Marvel sees as a problem. Once again, it's a variant cover so most people will have to seek this out to get it, but it's creating quite a negative stigma for a new female-led book from Marvel, and that's unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by CaptainSuperior on Aug 22, 2014 9:12:58 GMT -5
What was Milo Manara thinking? This is one of those moments where everyone just had a collective "brain fart" in the common sense department.
Brevoort seems to always try to minimalize everything.
|
|
|
Post by icecreamgenius on Aug 22, 2014 9:26:04 GMT -5
While I agree that it's an awful cover, I'm still trying to weigh out if it's a bad business decision for Marvel. I'm not sure it is. My thoughts are:
1) Its only potential to HARM sales is if pro-realistic depiction folks conscientiously object by not getting the book. Chances are they're also the crowd (myself included) hungry for more female-led titles, so they may turn a blind eye to this cover to pick up the book anyway.
2) Because it's a variant, I'm pretty sure the only people who will catch wind of this will be people who follow comics online - and only a portion of those people are offended by it. I don't know how big a fraction of total buyership that amounts to, but if my niece went up to the rack, she probably wouldn't see the offending cover and might randomly buy this comic for the female lead.
3) It would be a great gesture if they yanked it, a la Powerpuff Girls #6, but I honestly don't think that would impact sales in a meaningful way. Any info from that controversy?
4) That being said, you can't ignore the halo effect on the Marvel brand as a whole to a portion of their most hardcore fans. I'm especially sad about how Slott and Brevoort are acting about it, but perhaps they have to toe the company line.
I'm not at all defending that...thing... but trying to look at it as a bottom line discussion. There certainly is a part of the fanbase that WILL shell out for that variant.
|
|
|
Post by courtneyk on Aug 22, 2014 10:19:09 GMT -5
While I agree that it's an awful cover, I'm still trying to weigh out if it's a bad business decision for Marvel. I'm not sure it is. My thoughts are: 1) Its only potential to HARM sales is if pro-realistic depiction folks conscientiously object by not getting the book. Chances are they're also the crowd (myself included) hungry for more female-led titles, so they may turn a blind eye to this cover to pick up the book anyway. 2) Because it's a variant, I'm pretty sure the only people who will catch wind of this will be people who follow comics online - and only a portion of those people are offended by it. I don't know how big a fraction of total buyership that amounts to, but if my niece went up to the rack, she probably wouldn't see the offending cover and might randomly buy this comic for the female lead. 3) It would be a great gesture if they yanked it, a la Powerpuff Girls #6, but I honestly don't think that would impact sales in a meaningful way. Any info from that controversy? 4) That being said, you can't ignore the halo effect on the Marvel brand as a whole to a portion of their most hardcore fans. I'm especially sad about how Slott and Brevoort are acting about it, but perhaps they have to toe the company line. I'm not at all defending that...thing... but trying to look at it as a bottom line discussion. There certainly is a part of the fanbase that WILL shell out for that variant. It's already made Jezebel and Entertainment Weekly's Popwatch column - heck, it's on Nicki Minaj's Instagram with her head and butt photoshopped on it. This has hit the mainstream. Maybe Marvel didn't think it would, but it has now, and I'm sure at least a few of those new women readers they hoped to capture with their announcement about Thor on The View have seen it and reconsidered picking up a comic. This is the sort of cover that just confirms all the preconceptions about how comics view women that kept me away from superhero comics for years. I'd actually planned on grabbing Spider-Woman because I've enjoyed Dennis Hopeless's work. Now I'm not so sure. I know this is just a variant, and may not reflect anything about the tone of the book, but it's just left a bad taste in my mouth about the title.
|
|
|
Post by icecreamgenius on Aug 22, 2014 10:30:58 GMT -5
haha of course it made Jezebel. But I hadn't realized it had gotten so much traction (relatively speaking) elsewhere. It'd be a shame for Hopeless if his book suffered because of the cover, but I think the impact will be more tarnishing Marvel's progressive rep than hurting the book.
Any expectations as to what it should taper out at, sale-wise? 35-40k? It also doesn't help that Spider-fans have a LOT to buy right around then.
|
|
skylynx
Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Posts: 94
|
Post by skylynx on Aug 22, 2014 15:13:52 GMT -5
Yuk! I do not like this.
But here's a positive - I quite like the skyscrapers in the background.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Aug 22, 2014 17:46:24 GMT -5
It's atrocious, especially considering what book it's on. When you're trying to launch a new book starring a female hero (and who doesn't love Jessica Drew, especially after how hugely-endearing she's been in various Avengers and Avengers-related books over the last couple of years, thank you Ms DeConnick), this sort of image and the ensuing controversy has to be considered a serious misstep. Will there be people out there buying this #1 who wouldn't have otherwise? Yes, of course. But as far as I can tell, those aren't the sort of people that Marvel ought to be courting with this particular book, and -although it's hard to say for certain- I can't imagine those are the sort of people who will continue to support the book down the road. And you're definitely also going to be losing prospective sales as well; honestly, how the math of it washes is somewhat unimportant to me in this case. After Ms Marvel, Captain Marvel, Elektra, Black Widow, She Hulk, and the like, one would've thought that Marvel was starting to move in a refreshingly-forward direction, but it's stuff like this (and Brevoort's wholly-inadequate and somewhat infuriating response) that casts some doubt on what's really going on at Marvel HQ.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Aug 23, 2014 6:34:36 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to discuss, Bob! I think this cover is even more inappropriate when you compare it to a cover that Manara did for a European comic called "El Clic" (Click), which I won't post a link to here but can easily be Googled. Side-by-side comparisons of the two covers show them to be pretty identical. And if Tom Brevoort's comments on the situation are any indication ("It’s also, for a Manara piece, one of the less sexualized ones, at least to my eye."), this is sadly not something that Marvel sees as a problem. Once again, it's a variant cover so most people will have to seek this out to get it, but it's creating quite a negative stigma for a new female-led book from Marvel, and that's unfortunate. John (and Courtney, Cap'n Nick, Joe, Tony, "icecream"...) It's never a problem, particularly on this subject, which everyone knows is one of my pet peeves! We nearly discussed this on-air last episode, but all the chips hadn't fallen yet; I'm sure we'll get to it this week! Back in the Nineties, Marvel was as guilty as anyone regarding objectification, as they chased the "Image audience" with broke-back artwork and "Marvel Swimsuit Editions". They've made much progress of late, so the choice of Mr. Manara seems a back-slide, and Mr. Breevort's comments aren't helping; perhaps a simple "Sorry, we made a mistake" type of statement would have been better? As has been pointed out here (and by me to the Zenescope guest we had on years ago!), what audience are you cultivating with a cover such as this, and isn't that approach antithetical to the one created by the character and story within the book? I'm sure they will sell a few more copies, but I'll bet they have already made some potential buyers leery, despite the statements from writer Dennis Hopeless about his intentions on the series. ("I can promise you we have no intention of blatantly sexualizing any of the characters in our story...you have my word that our story treats Jess with the utmost respect.") Mr. Manara has a long history of successful work in his chosen field, but a Spider-Woman cover is not the place for it...in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by CaptainSuperior on Aug 23, 2014 7:37:57 GMT -5
I won't condemn the entire book, due to the bone headed actions of one variant cover artist. Had the primary interiors artist made this cover it would be a bigger disappointment for me personally and I wouldn't even consider giving the book a shot. However, I'm willing to give Dennis Hopeless the benefit of a doubt because of his work from Avengers Arena and Avengers Undercover, and I know that these actions by Manara are not indicative of Hopeless's work at Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by Czor on Aug 23, 2014 8:41:33 GMT -5
While I won't also condemn the entire book based on a variant cover (for all that I know the creative team maybe saw the cover at the time it was ready to go on solicitations), Marvel really dropped the ball with this one. Especially in this age in which if is in the Internet and is something along these lines it will ALWAYS find a way out into the eyes of the fans.
I bet if this was the 90's no one would noticed this since is a variant and so many few of us actually care about variants (and some don't see them until they get to the store). But yeah, I hope in the end this doesn't harm the book, which I bet could have a strong following considering how many people like Jessica due to her appearances in Avengers Assemble, Captain Marvel, Secret Avengers, New Avengers, etc...
Is a shame really....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2014 18:11:12 GMT -5
Wow. I saw the headline about this and thought "Oh HERE we go again." But seriously.... This is the worse than THAT Catwoman cover.
It is important to remember that this argument is about Marvel's decision to use this artist and cover, and not a critisism about the artist himself. This is what he does, he is talented. But this has no place in Marvel comics, unless its part of a Marvel Knights series or something like that.
There is a two-edged sword to this. Because as they say, any publicity is good publicity. But good publicity is not always good. One of the first things I thought after reading about this was "I wonder how much this cover will end up being worth?" and like everybody here, I'm not one of those "comic investors". So if my mind eventually goes to a collectors value train thought, how many people out there who do only buy comics to sell at a ridiculous price will be buying this, in turn helping sales and encouraging this kind of "art".
That being said, and it sounds horrible to say this, but I really feel like Marvel needed this. They've been the centre of attention for so long now, they needed at least one mistake to show they aren't the Messiah of comics. And with the negative reaction this is getting combined with the positive reaction Batgirl's costume change has gotten, I think this could mark a very clear line-in-the-sand moment as to how women should and shouldn't be represented in comics. Because look at Ms Marvel. I don't buy that book, but I saw that issue 1 or 2 is in it's 6th printing!? That is crazy. But good crazy. And I don't read Batgirl, but the second I saw that artwork and costume it went straight onto my pull list.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2014 18:19:10 GMT -5
While I won't also condemn the entire book based on a variant cover (for all that I know the creative team maybe saw the cover at the time it was ready to go on solicitations), Marvel really dropped the ball with this one. Especially in this age in which if is in the Internet and is something along these lines it will ALWAYS find a way out into the eyes of the fans. I bet if this was the 90's no one would noticed this since is a variant and so many few of us actually care about variants (and some don't see them until they get to the store). But yeah, I hope in the end this doesn't harm the book, which I bet could have a strong following considering how many people like Jessica due to her appearances in Avengers Assemble, Captain Marvel, Secret Avengers, New Avengers, etc... Is a shame really.... It would be interesting to know how much of variant sales profits actually reach the artist. I always look at the variants for the books I am buying because unlike regular books, comics are as much about the cover as the interior. Its a visual medium. I will always prefer a cover I like over a cover I like less eg; Marcos Martin variant for Amazing Spider-Man #1 is incredible. Then you look at Sensation Comics/Wonder Woman #1 last week, that variant was far better than the standard cover. I would encourage buying variants if it means supporting an artist that you love, but with how comics treat their artists I don't know if that really makes a difference.
|
|
|
Post by tomoe on Aug 27, 2014 0:19:55 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to discuss, Bob! I think this cover is even more inappropriate when you compare it to a cover that Manara did for a European comic called "El Clic" (Click), which I won't post a link to here but can easily be Googled. Side-by-side comparisons of the two covers show them to be pretty identical. And if Tom Brevoort's comments on the situation are any indication ("It’s also, for a Manara piece, one of the less sexualized ones, at least to my eye."), this is sadly not something that Marvel sees as a problem. Once again, it's a variant cover so most people will have to seek this out to get it, but it's creating quite a negative stigma for a new female-led book from Marvel, and that's unfortunate. John (and Courtney, Cap'n Nick, Joe, Tony, "icecream"...) It's never a problem, particularly on this subject, which everyone knows is one of my pet peeves! We nearly discussed this on-air last episode, but all the chips hadn't fallen yet; I'm sure we'll get to it this week! Back in the Nineties, Marvel was as guilty as anyone regarding objectification, as they chased the "Image audience" with broke-back artwork and "Marvel Swimsuit Editions". They've made much progress of late, so the choice of Mr. Manara seems a back-slide, and Mr. Breevort's comments aren't helping; perhaps a simple "Sorry, we made a mistake" type of statement would have been better? As has been pointed out here (and by me to the Zenescope guest we had on years ago!), what audience are you cultivating with a cover such as this, and isn't that approach antithetical to the one created by the character and story within the book? I'm sure they will sell a few more copies, but I'll bet they have already made some potential buyers leery, despite the statements from writer Dennis Hopeless about his intentions on the series. ("I can promise you we have no intention of blatantly sexualizing any of the characters in our story...you have my word that our story treats Jess with the utmost respect.") Mr. Manara has a long history of successful work in his chosen field, but a Spider-Woman cover is not the place for it...in my opinion. Variants seem to be targeted towards collectors or people who are long-standing readers and keep an eye on what is going to be published. The exposure of a more casual reader to a variant all depends on how the LCS displays the book. So they hire an artist known for his erotica approach to art to draw the variant for the inaugural issue of a female superhero. What does this say about Marvel's view of their more invested readers? "The only way we think you guys will pick up a book about a female superhero is if you confuse it with a soft porn comic."? That's ... mildly insulting, if that is truly the thinking that went on (assuming there was any thought behind the decision to commission a cover from Mr. Manara).
If the interior art and story are indeed going to be quite different in their depiction of Spider-Woman, then unless they intend to use the Zenescope cover strategy for every issue, it's also a fairly poor long-term marketing plan. Of course, Marvel could be thinking that once they've tricked people into reading the book because of the cover, they'll keep buying it because it's a good enough story. Surely here are other ways to create a buzz around a new comic.
|
|