• Suicide Squad's Cara Delevingne: 'Superhero Movies Are Totally Sexist'
    289 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;48074669]When people gave you similar situations you said they didn't fucking count. You ONLY capitulated when given a specific example that was exactly the same as the Batgirl cover. You literally were asking for something that fucking specific.[/QUOTE] Upon further reading, the "Emperor Joker" storyline also counts. I'm done arguing about this. There was nothing overly specific about what I was asking, it's just something that rarely happens to superheroes. The "similar situations" I said "didn't count" were ones that clearly and obviously didn't fit the criteria that I laid out in the first place.
[QUOTE=massaki;48074637]she needs to trim her eyebrows holy shit[/QUOTE] That is what makes Cara hot as fuck, don't throw shade at the brows young man
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48073943]You're missing the entire point. I'm not against the alt cover, I'm just saying that particular argument of "Batman / [other tough superhero] has been in that situation too" is wrong.[/QUOTE] No, you're missing the point. Your personal interpretation of context doesn't override the author's intent.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48074413]His original point was that Batgirl was weaker than Batman because Batgirl cried over her own safety and Batman didn't (followed by a list of arbitrary conditions that made counter-arguments invalid).[/QUOTE] Well he isn't wrong. Batgirl IS weaker than Batman.
I get the feeling that Helix hasn't read a single comic book, not that he'd have to know he's totally wrong. Is research really that hard for some people?
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;48075028]I get the feeling that Helix hasn't read a single comic book, not that he'd have to know he's totally wrong. Is research really that hard for some people?[/QUOTE] Sometimes people want to do good even if they don't realize they're doing the opposite.
"I'm going to argue for pages about shit I know fuck all about instead of doing my due diligence and reading up on the fucking thing I'm arguing about."
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48074687]Upon further reading, the "Emperor Joker" storyline also counts. I'm done arguing about this. There was nothing overly specific about what I was asking, it's just something that rarely happens to superheroes. The "similar situations" I said "didn't count" were ones that clearly and obviously didn't fit the criteria that I laid out in the first place.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Helix Snake;48073538]neither he nor Dick Grayson nor pretty much any male superhero that isn't a child has been driven to tears from their own helplessness that didn't involve someone else's plight or suffering.[/QUOTE] "Not specific"
[QUOTE=demoguy08;48071656]And if your point was to say, "but men are sexualized [I]too![/I]", yeah so what? "Men are sexualized so women should be able to handle it" isn't a valid argument.[/QUOTE] And bam, that's when anyone in the world stops taking you seriously because you just revealed being sexist.
[QUOTE=Primigenes;48073622]This is literally awful and just copying Batgirl's new 52 design The only difference is one is actually pretty good [IMG]http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2014/07/BATGIRLMODEL2-720x1018.jpg[/IMG] Spider-Woman's design at best needed just a few retouches otherwise it was a classic design and pretty much fine[/QUOTE] More importantly new Batgirl still looks exactly like Batgirl, given the once-over to be more practical and realistic. At this point I like a mix of the two or leaning towards the practical side more than painted-on stuff. Spider-Woman has a great costume anyway, that doesn't need touching. Alternate Spider-Woman doesn't look anything like her and her new costume is average at best.
That's rich coming from someone starring in which all the promotional materials and character designs so far have painted as Tumblr: The Movie.
[QUOTE=massaki;48074686][img]https://thebetsypowell.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/cara-delevingne-eyebrows.jpg[/img] look at the size of those fuckers hahahaha[/QUOTE] this image is giving me FLCL flashbacks
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48072688]The one on the left is really bad on a structural level. I don't know what marvel was expecting when they hired a literal porn artist though.[/quote] [B]Yo.[/B] Hold the fuck up. The artist who did the cover doesn't do 'porn'. The fucker is a classically trained artist whose done just as racey images as the shit on the Sistine Chapel. Get the fuck out.
[QUOTE=Primigenes;48078103] Like you're calling Manara a porn artist? Please, he's just an Italian comic book artist and writer. Keyword is Italian [b] Greg Land [/b]is a hack who will trace actual scenes from porn[/QUOTE] [img]http://media.insidepulse.com/old/columnImages2007/image36860.jpg[/img] [img]http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt767qJ91k1r34y4ho1_500.png[/img] [img]http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/4/45604/848995-pornface_4.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Swilly;48077619][B]Yo.[/B] Hold the fuck up. The artist who did the cover doesn't do 'porn'. The fucker is a classically trained artist whose done just as racey images as the shit on the Sistine Chapel. Get the fuck out.[/QUOTE] Hahaha no. Dude. Have you seen Manara's comics in Heavy Metal magazine? Just do a "milo manara comics" google image search. Not from work though. Edit: That is not to say that Manara isn't an amazing artist. He really is. But he has produced quite a lot of art that goes beyond what most people would consider just erotic.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;48078150][img]http://media.insidepulse.com/old/columnImages2007/image36860.jpg[/img] [img]http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt767qJ91k1r34y4ho1_500.png[/img] [img]http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/4/45604/848995-pornface_4.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] holy fucking shit really
[QUOTE=massaki;48074686][img]https://thebetsypowell.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/cara-delevingne-eyebrows.jpg[/img] look at the size of those fuckers hahahaha[/QUOTE] Oh cool, I didn't know they were making a Dungeons of Dredmor movie.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;48078277]Oh cool, I didn't know they were making a Dungeons of Dredmor movie.[/QUOTE] How can someone with over 10pounds of makeup claim something is sexist?
We doing worst comic book artists now? [img]http://i.cubeupload.com/u7BC4c.png[/img] [img]http://33.media.tumblr.com/62a7ece57b1a49345fa55d08b04f3299/tumblr_inline_n9i4ckxFfx1qzhf5k.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.cubeupload.com/K5irEk.png[/img] [img]https://twhpoole.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/18188-106609-1-bloodstrike_4001.jpg[/img] goes to show you can sexualize men to a ridiculous extent and that biceps and thigh muscles are like breasts, they can always get bigger.
[QUOTE=01271;48079699]We doing worst comic book artists now? goes to show you can sexualize men to a ridiculous extent and that biceps and thigh muscles are like breasts, they can always get bigger.[/QUOTE] I think this whole debacle comes from her distorted vision that just because someone is sexualized, it's sexist.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48080004]I think this whole debacle comes from her distorted vision that just because someone is sexualized, it's sexist.[/QUOTE] "who gives a fuck about whether or not the character's well written and respectable? I can slightly see her [I]tits![/I]"
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48080004]I think this whole debacle comes from her distorted vision that just because someone is sexualized, it's sexist.[/QUOTE] i think it depends heavily on context and intent agency is a big decider: if a character knows that they're dressing in a certain provocative way and the type of dress makes sense from a writing standpoint, then it's at the very least excusable. disparity is also an important factor: if all the dudes in a series look fairly regular while all the women look like supermodels with cantaloupes glued to their chests, then it's not only dumb writing but alienating to potential female audiences. it's alienating to look at a series that deliberately uses its female characters as soulless eye candy for male viewership without proper context or purpose in the story. and it's more alienating for women than it is for men because of the broader historical context. for the major part of the history of human civilization, women have been valued for their appearance first and for other things second. for the past century-and-a-half, liberals have been fighting to give women the chance to be valued for more than their mere aesthetic, since they are in fact human beings and are in fact worth more than their looks. when female characters are used for that exact purpose, eye-catching window-dressing, devoid of character, designed for titillation, it's almost a devolution back to that antique social order, along with being just shitty writing. (before i get yelled at: i'm not talking about any one form of media. i don't consume comic books enough to know whether or not this sort of thing is a problem in the medium. but i know that it's a problem elsewhere, and that it deserves being addressed) [B]is rolling back gender progress the goal of writers and artists? no, of course not. do male readers look at these things and say "y'know women sure don't deserve rights"? again, no, of course not.[/b] but it calls back to the attitudes that have held women back for quite a long time. to a female viewer, it can be exhausting if not frustrating to be reminded of those attitudes which are still persistent today, while to the uneducated or uninformed viewer, it might reinforce the perceived legitimacy of those attitudes in their minds. [B]that is precisely why i think we need to teach people to be responsible consumers of media, rather than changing the media themselves.[/B] even stupid and cliched titillation has a right to exist; instead of using censorship, policymakers should implement a system of education that teaches future viewers to realize that "hey, it's just an x-form-of-media, this isn't real life, this isn't necessarily what real people are like, and i shouldn't generalize y group based on what i see in x". that is ultimately the best way, in my opinion, to reconcile freedom of expression with a desire to promote an equitable society. part of that process, however, is [B]discussion[/B], including criticism. people and institutions have and should have the right to criticize a form of media for the use, real or perceived, of cliche and stereotype, or otherwise of vapid inoffensiveness. we have this idiotic outrage-culture, where members of x group freak out about y thing and then members of z group freak out about how members of x group are freaking out. this whole self-feeding cycle of anger provides nothing productive to the discussion. even worse, it stonewalls progress by forcing any attempt at either inclusivity or offensiveness, mild or otherwise, to participate in the two-sided circus ring of madness. it turns works of art into political pawns, no longer valued for their content and instead used as talking points for arguments that never lead anywhere productive. if we want to maintain truly free expression while still being considerate to others, then we need to be willing to responsibly view [I]and[/I] discuss those modes of expression. compromising on either condition only invites a decay of our culture.
The solution is equal opportunity fanservice. Make everyone sexy. Kill la Kill knew this, and we got this guy: [IMG]http://blog.draggle.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kill_la_kill_20_5.jpg[/IMG]
Then that's body shaming.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48082399]Then that's body shaming.[/QUOTE] again, context is important. kill la kill was in many ways intended to be an over-the-top parody of other anime; of course everyone was going to have an idealized figure. same goes for characters like superheroes, because they're [I]supposed[/I] to be above the normal human standard. but when you have stories about relatively ordinary people, even when they're doing fairly extraordinary things, it usually wouldn't hurt to give some other actors, ones that aren't absurdly attractive, some extra time in the spotlight. and again, the viewer's interpretation of a piece of art is just as important as the piece's content. if people know to think to themselves "normal people don't look like this and don't [I]need[/I] to look like this", then the harms of media with super-human depictions of the human form are reduced.
[QUOTE=RejectedPost;48076697]More importantly new Batgirl still looks exactly like Batgirl, given the once-over to be more practical and realistic. [/QUOTE] I fail to see how a leather jacket and clip on cape is more realistic than just spandex.
[QUOTE=goldenbuttocks;48083742]I fail to see how a leather jacket and clip on cape is more realistic than just spandex.[/QUOTE] Spandex isn't very practical, where as a leather jacket is i'm guessing. I mean, neither is a cape, but its kind of part of the character as far as I can tell (I'm not a huge comic book reader but I've watched a few cartoons as a kid and batman, batgirl, and Robin all have capes)
[QUOTE=Durandal;48083935]Spandex isn't very practical, where as a leather jacket is i'm guessing. I mean, neither is a cape, but its kind of part of the character as far as I can tell (I'm not a huge comic book reader but I've watched a few cartoons as a kid and batman, batgirl, and Robin all have capes)[/QUOTE] As of now, they all function as gliders too. I havent read New 52 but i think i remember that being one thing they integrated into the comics from Nolan/Arkham.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;48083943]As of now, they all function as gliders too. I havent read New 52 but i think i remember that being one thing they integrated into the comics from Nolan/Arkham.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah that's right. I forgot.
[QUOTE=Durandal;48083935]Spandex isn't very practical, where as a leather jacket is i'm guessing. I mean, neither is a cape, but its kind of part of the character as far as I can tell (I'm not a huge comic book reader but I've watched a few cartoons as a kid and batman, batgirl, and Robin all have capes)[/QUOTE] i'd imagine a leather jacket would get really hot and not very aerodynamic, which is a problem for batgirl since she's a martial artist and stuff.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.