|
Post by xtjmac510x on Jan 17, 2014 4:53:10 GMT -5
We all knew this post was going to come sooner or later.
What are your thoughts on Zenescope Entertainment? Do you read any of their books? If so, what? What do you think about the company as a whole? Looking forward to hearing from everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 17, 2014 10:06:39 GMT -5
Travis, Travis, Travis... I'll try not to rant here, as I'm sure everyone probably knows how I feel about this! (This is my fourth attempt at writing this post, by the way, each longer than the one before! I'll try to self-edit!) Anyway, on an early episode of Talking Comics (perhaps even my first!), we had as a guest an editor/PR guy from Zenescope. At the time, they were publishing a gender-swapped version of Kipling's Jungle Book, whose interior art was rather respectful to the now-female lead. The covers however, depicted her in such a way that they made Sheena, Queen of the Jungle look like a teenage boy in terms of her...well, pulchritude. I asked the gentleman why there was such a dichotomy between the cover and interior art, and he replied "Well, we have to get folks to buy them somehow!"; I responded (if memory serves) something on the order of "Is that the audience that you really want, people who buy the books for the covers instead of the content?" The conversation lost me at that point. (The Rocketeer's girlfriend Betty, by Dave Stevens)
Everyone can like what they want to like (my opinion here, folks), but speaking as a fan of craftsmen such as Matt Baker, Wally Wood, and Dave Stevens, the art on those Zenescope covers has sailed past "Petty Girl" and pin-up into something quite licentious. Those masters of "Good Girl Art" held an admiration for their female subjects, who despite their sometimes-imperiled circumstances were almost always depicted respectfully, if occasionally under-attired. At a later recording, I showed Steve a nude by Mr. Stevens that had more dignity, class and charm due to the subject's playful attitude than the mostly-clothed, pouty-mouthed, weapon-toting, Penthouse-posed, dressed-as-children's-fantasy-character broke-back trollops that patrol the covers of those "Z" books. (*WHEW!*) Sadly, from what I read in Previews and around the net, some of the stories seem intriguiging, but for me personally, considering those covers, I can't respect an enterprise with so little apparent respect for half of the world's population. Sorry, Travis ps) The rest of you can carry on now! rrr
|
|
|
Post by wjohnson22 on Jan 17, 2014 13:59:03 GMT -5
Travis, Travis, Travis... I'll try not to rant here, as I'm sure everyone probably knows how I feel about this! (This is my fourth attempt at writing this post, by the way, each longer than the one before! I'll try to self-edit!) Anyway, on an early episode of Talking Comics (perhaps even my first!), we had as a guest an editor/PR guy from Zenescope. At the time, they were publishing a gender-swapped version of Kipling's Jungle Book, whose interior art was rather respectful to the now-female lead. The covers however, depicted her in such a way that they made Sheena, Queen of the Jungle look like a teenage boy in terms of her...well, pulchritude. I asked the gentleman why there was such a dichotomy between the cover and interior art, and he replied "Well, we have to get folks to buy them somehow!"; I responded (if memory serves) something on the order of "Is that the audience that you really want, people who buy the books for the covers instead of the content?" The conversation lost me at that point. (The Rocketeer's girlfriend Betty, by Dave Stevens)
Everyone can like what they want to like (my opinion here, folks), but speaking as a fan of craftsmen such as Matt Baker, Wally Wood, and Dave Stevens, the art on those Zenescope covers has sailed past "Petty Girl" and pin-up into something quite licentious. Those masters of "Good Girl Art" held an admiration for their female subjects, who despite their sometimes-imperiled circumstances were almost always depicted respectfully, if occasionally under-attired. At a later recording, I showed Steve a nude by Mr. Stevens that had more dignity, class and charm due to the subject's playful attitude than the mostly-clothed, pouty-mouthed, weapon-toting, Penthouse-posed, dressed-as-children's-fantasy-character broke-back trollops that patrol the covers of those "Z" books. (*WHEW!*) Sadly, from what I read in Previews and around the net, some of the stories seem intriguiging, but for me personally, considering those covers, I can't respect an enterprise with so little apparent respect for half of the world's population. Sorry, Travis ps) The rest of you can carry on now! rrr I am going to go back and listen to that episode because I'd love to hear what the guy from Zenescope has to say. Admittedly, I have not read any Zenescope titles beyond skimming through a few books in a store, and feeling a little dirty for doing so. The company's website says that its "edgy and non-traditional brand of story-telling sets [it] apart from the pack." This seems true in terms of unapologetically going for fanboy service. Having said that, obviously Zenescope is not unique or alone in using extreme fan service to help sell books. Off the top of my head I can think of Aphrodite IX at Image, various depictions of Power Girl at DC, among many others. I guess what makes Zenescope unique is that the entire line seems devoted/reliant on such extreme fan service. Beyond issues of respect for women, some of what Bob is saying seems to focus on the difference between images and stories that contain titillating suggestion, and outright lack of subtlety where the images serve no purpose to the story other than base objectification. Again, I don’t want to get too negative as Zenescope isn’t alone in this, and I don’t want to seem like the final arbiter of taste, but as a guy I know that if I’m still tempted to skim through a Zenescope title for cheap thrills, I still have a lot of work to do.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 17, 2014 15:14:51 GMT -5
"W",
To speak to your point about "suggestion" and "objectification", at the most basic it is the difference between implied sensuality and overt sexuality, where one can be thoughtful and respectful and the other a pandering to baser instincts. Things are much better in comics now than they were during the Image/"Bad Girl" Nineties, but we do have a way to go, even at the Big Two, where there are still lapses in taste and decorum, as my dropping of the wonderfully-written Worlds' Finest due to horrendous depictions of Power Girl will attest.
That Zenescope's entire line can survive on seemingly such slim threads (which is all some of the "Z" girls seem to be wearing!) might speak more about the segment of the audience the books are aimed at than to the company itself. I find it fascinating that an "adults only" book like Sex Criminals is less problematic than a re-telling of Alice in Wonderland, as the former is told with a light heart, as opposed to the leering "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" attitude of the latter. As always, I'm not advocating censorship, as I want books of all types, for all audiences, on the stands, but we as readers need to make better choices, particularly when degrading images of women make their way into more mainstream fare, a factor which certainly helps retard the diversity of the audience.
|
|
|
Post by wjohnson22 on Jan 17, 2014 15:26:49 GMT -5
"W", To speak to your point about "suggestion" and "objectification", at the most basic it is the difference between implied sensuality and overt sexuality, where one can be thoughtful and respectful and the other a pandering to baser instincts. Things are much better in comics now than they were during the Image/"Bad Girl" Nineties, but we do have a way to go, even at the Big Two, where there are still lapses in taste and decorum, as my dropping of the wonderfully-written Worlds' Finest due to horrendous depictions of Power Girl will attest. That Zenescope's entire line can survive on seemingly such slim threads (which is all some of the "Z" girls seem to be wearing!) might speak more about the segment of the audience the books are aimed at than to the company itself. I find it fascinating that an "adults only" book like Sex Criminals is less problematic than a re-telling of Alice in Wonderland, as the former is told with a light heart, as opposed to the leering "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" attitude of the latter. As always, I'm not advocating censorship, as I want books of all types, for all audiences, on the stands, but we as readers need to make better choices, particularly when degrading images of women make their way into more mainstream fare, a factor which certainly helps retard the diversity of the audience. Bob, your comments are, as always, well thought out and well put. I agree that it's important to acknowledge both progress and how much work there is left to do. Also, I think you're right on about focusing more on what choices we make as readers and fans of the medium, as opposed to casting judgments on others, be they people or companies (although I think there are times where it's appropriate/important to not just let someone off the hook, including ourselves!). Thanks again for helping to promote and inspire a thoughtful, engaged readership of comics.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 17, 2014 17:24:15 GMT -5
"W",
Friend of Talking Comics Professor Carolyn Cocca is in the midst of researching an academic paper on some of these topics, and without spoiling her work, I will say that her statistics do show that there has been progress since the nadir of the Nineties, but that there is still plenty of work to be done, an effort which needs to come from editorial, creative and readers. From our end, if hyper-sexualized and objectified images of women appear in the books you are reading and they are offensive to you, make a choice and vote with your wallet--drop it from your pull list. Add a "letter to the editor", and your voice will be heard doubly, and perhaps begin to effect change at the company levels.
By the way, thanks for the kind words, Bob
|
|
|
Post by xtjmac510x on Jan 17, 2014 19:16:36 GMT -5
"W",
Friend of Talking Comics Professor Carolyn Cocca is in the midst of researching an academic paper on some of these topics, and without spoiling her work, I will say that her statistics do show that there has been progress since the nadir of the Nineties, but that there is still plenty of work to be done, an effort which needs to come from editorial, creative and readers. From our end, if hyper-sexualized and objectified images of women appear in the books you are reading and they are offensive to you, make a choice and vote with your wallet--drop it from your pull list. Add a "letter to the editor", and your voice will be heard doubly, and perhaps begin to effect change at the company levels.
By the way, thanks for the kind words, Bob
Bob, I completely agree with everything you've said so far regarding the topic of Zenescope as well as the depiction of women in comics in general. That's a major reason why I'm so proud we do the Women in Comics Week over at TC, as well as spotlight great creators (both men and women) who have and know how to write and draw women properly. With Zenescope there IS potential. They have talented writers on staff and more than competent artists at the helm. Heck, even their Robyn Hood stories so far have all been really good. But a well done, non-objectifying 4 issue miniseries once a year does not make up for all the cheese we see from them on a regular basis. If anything, what they need to do is go to Adam Warren and have him tell them how to do TNA/cheese in a tasteful, humorous or entertaining way a la his Empowered series. But there are fans out there. It's a popular topic of discussion at my local store. So while I may align with what you've said so far, it's something that's still worth talking about, hence my starting of this thread in the first place. Travis
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 17, 2014 20:14:14 GMT -5
Travis,
I'm happy that you started the discussion, although I have had to up the dosage on my heart meds today!
Zenescope is a popular company, but as with so many things in comics, what is needed among readers is a sense of history and perspective, and in the case of their covers and what they represent, a sense of broader social responsibility.
There might be solid stories within the Zenescope line, and perhaps even remarkable female characters, but it is hard for a reader of my vintage to get past a cover such as this one:
("Arrows? I don't need no stinkin' arrows!")
It's interesting that you bring up Empowered; it's a fascinating paradox that Adam Warren's Dark Horse title, which began life as a series of "Damsel in Distress" pin-up commissions, is not only less egregiously prurient in the treatment of its female leads than Zenescope's fantasy characters, but despite Emp's "Parental Advisory!" status, Mr. Warren in his words and pictures has consistently delivered fully-developed characters with as much depth and human emotion as any super-heroines in comics today, whether indie or Big Two.
Thanks Travis, for starting such an engaging discussion! Bob
|
|
|
Post by xtjmac510x on Jan 17, 2014 20:40:43 GMT -5
Travis,
I'm happy that you started the discussion, although I have had to up the dosage on my heart meds today!
Zenescope is a popular company, but as with so many things in comics, what is needed among readers is a sense of history and perspective, and in the case of their covers and what they represent, a sense of broader social responsibility.
There might be solid stories within the Zenescope line, and perhaps even remarkable female characters, but it is hard for a reader of my vintage to get past a cover such as this one:
("Arrows? I don't need no stinkin' arrows!")
It's interesting that you bring up Empowered; it's a fascinating paradox that Adam Warren's Dark Horse title, which began life as a series of "Damsel in Distress" pin-up commissions, is not only less egregiously prurient in the treatment of its female leads than Zenescope's fantasy characters, but despite Emp's "Parental Advisory!" status, Mr. Warren in his words and pictures has consistently delivered fully-developed characters with as much depth and human emotion as any super-heroines in comics today, whether indie or Big Two.
Thanks Travis, for starting such an engaging discussion! Bob Bob, I agree. One of Zenescope's models that they seem to live by is releasing as many cheesecake covers as possible in the hopes that the fans will spend $3.99 on the same comic 3-6 times. For every half decent cover of Robyn Hood there is (either a classic action shot with her jumping across the roof or a dark silhouette with a glowing gold eye) there are 3-4 other covers that are keen on just going "Look at this women whose breasts could make Power Girl seem like an A-cup." Anatomically it makes no sense and it really sticks out like a sore thumb among the other comics you see on the shelves. That's not to say other comics aren't keen on cheesecake covers (Dynamite has done a fair number of them) but when it's a main selling point of your company, it starts to border on the side of tasteless. If nothing else, it prevents people like you (and besides the aforementioned Robyn) and me from picking up what could possibly be a good book. They do need to take responsibility for what their doing, but when people at my shop are buying 6 copies of Zenescope's Alice in Wonderland #15 (or whatever number) and their sales keep meeting whatever quota they've set out to achieve, I don't see that happening any time soon. Empowered really is a strange beast sometimes, but I guess that's part of why I love it. It's something that shouldn't work on paper, but through wonderful characterization and dialogue, as well as a thought provoking look at the superhero(ine) genre itself...it does. I'm going to have the opportunity to talk to Mr. Warren at Emerald City Comic Con in March (with the interview coming to TC) and I'm really interested to hear his opinion on this whole thing. There's a lot that can be learned from him and it should make for a very informative discussion. -Travis
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 18, 2014 0:14:43 GMT -5
Travis, As you rightly state, Zenescope and all the rest (don't get me going about Dynamite and the debacle that is Miss Fury!) will continue to use those objectifying images as long as they sell! That would be fine at some level, but when you factor in the possible coarsening impact it could have on customers, the colossal effect they must have on attracting female readers, and what those images say to "civilians" looking at the racks in a comics store for the first time after being lured in by a film or a magazine article about how comics are "now for everyone", what is the actual cost to the industry for the continued usage of this imagery, and how are those costs passed on to the rest of us in terms of the types of books we get to purchase. What seems a harmless excess might be something else all together in terms of both the broadening of the marketplace and the on-going health of the comics industry. Things are getting better, but they will only continue to improve by keeping alert to our own mistakes! Bob ps) It took me a while to "get" Empowered, but now it's a series I very much enjoy, although there are moments when I still doubt that I've actually "got it"! (For proof of my conflict, you can read my piece about it here: talkingcomicbooks.com/2013/06/06/empowered-special-4-2/ ) rrr
|
|
|
Post by Raider30 on Jan 26, 2014 0:14:13 GMT -5
Travis,
I'm happy that you started the discussion, although I have had to up the dosage on my heart meds today!
Zenescope is a popular company, but as with so many things in comics, what is needed among readers is a sense of history and perspective, and in the case of their covers and what they represent, a sense of broader social responsibility.
There might be solid stories within the Zenescope line, and perhaps even remarkable female characters, but it is hard for a reader of my vintage to get past a cover such as this one:
("Arrows? I don't need no stinkin' arrows!")
It's interesting that you bring up Empowered; it's a fascinating paradox that Adam Warren's Dark Horse title, which began life as a series of "Damsel in Distress" pin-up commissions, is not only less egregiously prurient in the treatment of its female leads than Zenescope's fantasy characters, but despite Emp's "Parental Advisory!" status, Mr. Warren in his words and pictures has consistently delivered fully-developed characters with as much depth and human emotion as any super-heroines in comics today, whether indie or Big Two.
Thanks Travis, for starting such an engaging discussion! Bob Heyo, I found this topic pretty interesting, especially since I have just recently picked up and read the Robyn Hood trade(50% off). What initially caught my eye was the cover(hard not too see the cover as most books aren't lying around open to the interior art). But specifically about the cover was a female character with a golden eye preparing to shoot a flaming arrow. Then I saw it was a re-imagining of Robin Hood and I was sold. Got it home and read it that night. Found the story to be decent, though clearly meant for a mature audience considering the topics it dealt with (drugs, rape, physical abuse, murder, etc.), though I didn't really feel any of the topics were gratuitous as they all seemed to serve a function to the story. I found Robyn's choice of dress during her stint in the alter-world to be a bit odd, it was pretty revealing, at least from the top up. Then again, Xena: Warrior Princess was on the air for 6 seasons and I never gave a second thought to her very similar style of dress.::shrug:: During the course of the main part of the comic I never really noticed Robyn to be placed in any salacious positioning. Didn't notice for instance her bending over for no apparent reason, or what have you. Overall it wasn't, IMO, a bad book. However, the back of the tpb contained the variant covers for the series and um...whoa. Even if the rest of the book were candy and roses I wouldn't let my kids read it just because of the variant covers. So up on a high shelf buried under some other comics it went. Before I even saw this topic I was mulling it over in my head how I ultimately felt about the book. What I landed on was very similar to what you described during your conversation with the Zenescope representative, which was this: The story held my interest to a point where I wasn't even looking at the art from a 'yowsa!' point of view which tells me it was good enough to stand on it's own(and as I mentioned above, a lot of the interior art really wasn't any worse than Xena), and if that's the case then why not let the story stand on it's own? Considering the story is about a woman who takes control of her situation and ultimately takes revenge on those who had attempted to take advantage or had wronged her it seems a ludicrous 180 degree spin to take that woman and turn her into a sex object! Why all the sleezy(and really that's what they were) variant covers? I don't know Zenescope's numbers, maybe they are just trying to struggle through and get the money they can. Maybe in the future they'll relax a bit on that sort of thing, maybe not. Ultimately the consumer will dictate what approach they continue with. I *might* buy another trade of the next Robyn Hood, because I am interested in seeing what happens with the character, but I can definitely say I won't be buying any other Zenescope books. - Beau
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 26, 2014 14:01:10 GMT -5
Beau,
To my mind, that dichotomy between the the "adult" material on the interior, and the over-the-top (off-with-the-top?) covers is the most damning bit of evidence as to the audience they're cultivating. The story-line you outlined doesn't thrill me at all, as why did they have to rampage past drugs, murder, and physical abuse to rush head-long into rape? (I've ranted about that before, so I'll stop.) Whatever power that story might have is completely dismissed when you pair that plot with a series of "sexy" covers; I think it fair to suggest that there is a mixed message being sent.
|
|
|
Post by Raider30 on Jan 26, 2014 19:05:04 GMT -5
Beau, To my mind, that dichotomy between the the "adult" material on the interior, and the over-the-top (off-with-the-top?) covers is the most damning bit of evidence as to the audience they're cultivating. The story-line you outlined doesn't thrill me at all, as why did they have to rampage past drugs, murder, and physical abuse to rush head-long into rape? (I've ranted about that before, so I'll stop.) Whatever power that story might have is completely dismissed when you pair that plot with a series of "sexy" covers; I think it fair to suggest that there is a mixed message being sent. Heyo, I hope my message got across because I was trying to say exactly what you just said, though you were much more succinct about it. Normally I don't go for the 'too close to real life' type of stuff in comics, nor in movies or video games for that matter either. Anything that reminds me of how crappy the real world can be I tend to try to stay away from. As I mentioned though the adult themes served a purpose in book. I never got the feeling they were there for a cheap reason.(and they never showed a rape, there was just an implication it might happen, but then it didn't). If some adult stuff is in a book and it serves a purpose within the story I don't mind quite as much as something that comes across as gratuitous if that makes sense. I don't seek out that material but sometimes it's in a story anyway. - Beau
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 27, 2014 2:06:12 GMT -5
Beau,
Adult themes in comics are great, and I applaud that the industry is moving into new territories. From both your's and Travis' description of the Robyn Hood story-line, there might be something interesting going on. Not having read it, I can't comment on that book specifically, but for me personally though, on the whole it's troublesome that the inclusion of rape or its threat has become such a trope, and worse, when welded to such sexually-charged cover images as the ones we're discussing, it throws things into a bad light as to why those particular story elements are being included, as it it just for titilation's sake? Granted, the usage of this fundamental assault on women has been a staple of fiction for many decades, but it's a subject that needs to be handled VERY delicately, and not thrown into the mix as if it's some background "color", or as a shorthand way of showing how damaged a character is, considering the heinous and degrading nature of the crime.
Sorry to have gone off topic, as I promised not to rant, Bob
|
|
|
Post by armlessphelan on Jul 21, 2014 20:33:18 GMT -5
At the risk of being the guy who resurrects a long dead thread, I thought I'd share a few things about how Zenescope might be changing. patrickshand.tumblr.com/post/91857764228/first-off-id-like-to-thank-you-for-writing-robyn patrickshand.tumblr.com/post/92276143038/yes-yes-so-then-why-still-do-it-at-great-excessPat Shand, the writer of Robyn Hood, is very active on tumblr and Twitter. He's expressed his dissatisfaction with the assault scene in the first issue of Robyn Hood, how he wishes he hadn't done it. In fact, he's taking a Kelly Sue DeConnick-type position and ignoring the assault when the ongoing launches in August. And as for the covers, CBR did an interview with the guys behind Zenescope recently and when they do the non-salacious covers sales go down. It's sad but not unbelievable. Still, I've read the first two trades of Robyn Hood and beyond the assault (not sure I wanna call it rape) scene in the first issue, it's been a fairly empowering story with great interior art. In fact, she spends the entire second trade wearing jeans and a hoodie. It's only when you get to the cover gallery in the back that there's an issue at all. I think Zenescope might end up going the Top Cow and Aspen route of using TnA for sales until they get the critical acclaim needed to back off and they can use what's inside to sell instead of a super objectifying cover. But Robyn Hood is the only Zenescope book I've read fully. (I somehow got the first trade of the Grimm Fairy Tales on Comixology and it's slow going because it's bad.) But yeah, a lot of the really bad covers are apparently con-exclusives so there's little risk of finding them on a comic shop shelf. I just think it's interesting that the creators are aware it's a problem, but that they have to keep the covers in order to have enough sales to be profitable. And, oddly, it seems that a large part (probably not a majority) of Zenescope's audience is female. www.bleedingcool.com/2014/03/16/are-you-a-female-zenescope-reader/Again, not defending Zenescope's covers because they're generally horrible and I'm glad I read digitally so nobody else can see them, but I thought it was an interesting discussion. This is what happens when I research a new publisher. Let me stop droning on and on now.
|
|