[QUOTE=andersonh1;3913345]No, I don't want to see anyone's genitals in my super hero comics. What is the point?[/QUOTE]
But how can superhero comics be more mature without genitals? :p
Printable View
[QUOTE=andersonh1;3913345]No, I don't want to see anyone's genitals in my super hero comics. What is the point?[/QUOTE]
But how can superhero comics be more mature without genitals? :p
Once you mark a superhero comic "Mature", I have absolutely no problem with swearing, nudity and sex. I would say violence too but, lets be fair, you can get away with ludicrous amounts of violence in even T+ or even T-rated superhero comics. The fact that we're even having a discussion about whether comics aimed at adults shouldn't be able to show what an R-rated film does, says a lot about just how much comic book fans need to let the medium grow the hell up.
And, no, I don't need to see "Batpole" anymore than I need to read Mr Miracle swear but if the book in question is aimed at adults and the artist wishes to include it in their story then I have no issue whatsoever with it whatsoever.
But the real question, does [URL="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/54762282e4b01797a6ced033/1417028228179/?format=2500w"]Lois Lane want to see the Superpole[/URL]? (Safe for work.)
I do not specifically want or need to see the Batpole (or Superpole). But I would not be bothered by it either. Unless the comic/graphic novel start to turn into a sausage fest.
[QUOTE=Lee Stone;3912142]
.
.
There would be an over-abundance of appearances of Power Girl, Harley Quinn, Zatanna, Starfire and Wonder Woman in comics just so artists could draw them topless.
.
.
[/QUOTE]
Oh.. yes... bad. I try to envision that now. That would be... uhm... bad. Totally. *cough*
[QUOTE=kjn;3913983]But the real question, does [URL="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/54762282e4b01797a6ced033/1417028228179/?format=2500w"]Lois Lane want to see the Superpole[/URL]? (Safe for work.)[/QUOTE]
:D :D
*YAWN*
Another stupid gimmick to gin up sales and interest like variant covers or a lead character checking into the Dirt Nap Motel. I'll pass.
Different artist can't even draw the same room the same way twice. How many looks does the X-Mansion or Wayne Manor or even the Batcave have now? I really doubt they would keep anatomical parts consistent (large nips/small nips/color?/cut/not cut/shower/grower). Because of that I voted no.
I voted “Yes” but I really don’t care. The human body doesn’t offend me. If anything, I’m more puzzled by how people care more about nudity than extreme violence.
[QUOTE=Ropeburn;3914121]Different artist can't even draw the same room the same way twice. How many looks does the X-Mansion or Wayne Manor or even the Batcave have now? I really doubt they would keep anatomical parts consistent (large nips/small nips/color?/cut/not cut/shower/grower). Because of that I voted no.[/QUOTE]
That sounds like the next big multiversal crisis to me
I have high hopes about this black label. I hope this Bat dick is just tip of iceberg. :)
[QUOTE=Gurz;3914429]I have high hopes about this black label. I hope this Bat dick is just tip of iceberg. :)[/QUOTE]
Just the tip? I see what you did there. ;)
My copy of[I] Anatomy of a Metahuman[/I] is still in the mail, but I expect to see some continuity between that book and [I]Damned[/I]. :p
A part of me is completely fine with the concept of nudity being present in DC titles. It makes perfect sense for a escapist genre such as Super Heroes featuring graphic sexuality, after years of prominently featuring acts of graphic violence. Also from a publicity standpoint Batman showing his dick for the first time is genius as way of gaining traction and speculation for a book. Just look at how many Bleeding Cool articles there are now about this topic.
However, on the other hand, a part of me finds it extremely childish in regards to sex and nudity being present in a Batman comic. For the longest time, the character was meant for children, and it shows. In my opinion, the character of Batman is inherently childish, even more than Superman or frankly the entire Justice League for that matter. Any story that portrays as otherwise is even more silly to me than the Adam West Batman TV show. Batman is a person who dresses up as a bat, endangers the lives of teenagers and children by making them fight against extremely dangerous criminals, who for some reason never get the death sentence. In order for Batman to work, to truly be believable, you do not make him dark and gritty, you make him bright and colorful. It feels wrong to me that a concept as juvinile as Batman is far too often drenched in perversion and seriousness. Having a comic showing Batman's penis is sort of like having a movie where Santa Clause has sex with Mrs. Clause or Smokey the Bear being busted for child pornography. Unless in parody form, these ideas are insanely moronic.
If you read that comic and decided to focus on that panel, you might be a part of the problem.
[QUOTE=Ropeburn;3914121]Different artist can't even draw the same room the same way twice. How many looks does the X-Mansion or Wayne Manor or even the Batcave have now? I really doubt they would keep anatomical parts consistent (large nips/small nips/color?/cut/not cut/shower/grower). Because of that I voted no.[/QUOTE]
Why am I so small? Hypertime. I was a full ten inches when I filled out the Tinder ad.
Looks like Batman: The Damned is currently the #1 seller on Comixology.
Must be a lot more adults buying digital comics than previously thought.
;)
Too bad, though.
I hear it's edited to be less X.