Marvel Cancels Upcoming Milo Manara Variants

[Mikekerr3]

Welp, the PC police got their way. Horray for censorship!

Hoorray for people that don't know what censorship means .

[yet another]

Funny how many people seem to think that the Manara Spider-Woman variant was "censored", the article does not state anything of the sort.

[borntohula]

Funny how many people seem to think that the Manara Spider-Woman variant was "censored", the article does not state anything of the sort.

Also that Manara was "fired", when the article clearly states the opposite: that he'll do more covers for Marvel in the future.

Again. This is nothing stranger than 2000AD (again, read it ya'll. You're all in need for DREDD) pulled a cover drawn by Frank Miller.

[Dr. Jan Itor]

Marvel is free to make business decisions as they see fit just as you're able to disagree with them. In this instance, some fans disagreed with Marvel's choice to commission a Manara cover for Spider-Woman's book. As a result, they seem to have pulled two future Manara covers. However, no one is outlawing Manara variants or sexy covers in future books, so I don't see where the censorship is taking place.

Here's the thing, I don't think it was really fans that were offended. The issue blew up on imgur and was regurgitated by Bricken at io9. The objections seemed to be 99% people who had no clue what was really going on. Almost no one knew that this was a variant and not the main cover. Then came the purposely misleading CG rendering of the cover, once again passed on by Bricken. That flamed the outrage for another week at least. It was really a debacle fanned by uninformed rage. #becausetheinternet

[Confuzzled]

Here's the thing, I don't think it was really fans that were offended. The issue blew up on imgur and was regurgitated by Bricken at io9. The objections seemed to be 99% people who had no clue what was really going on. Almost no one knew that this was a variant and not the main cover. Then came the purposely misleading CG rendering of the cover, once again passed on by Bricken. That flamed the outrage for another week at least. It was really a debacle fanned by uninformed rage. #becausetheinternet

That's not true. They were many comic sites that criticized the cover as well.

[JohnLynch]

Well, Wolverine is a male charácter; so i dont that anyone would care about that.

So it's okay to show off the male body? Only the female body needs to be covered up and hidden?

The guy made a classic mistake. If you're going to present women in comics in an erotic manner, you're better off just tracing a porno. That seems to get a free pass and continued work despite the fact that the women portrayed by it are much more sexualised then the Spider-Woman cover.

Say what you will of the artist, at least he draws his pornographic images rather than simply trace them.

Finally, can anyone tell me how the Manara cover for Spider-Woman #1 is worse then the actual cover:


That doesn't compute.

Do you think it would be fair to say that what you find attractive isn't the same as what women find attractive or even other gay men?

My partner claims she doesn't find muscly men attractive, yet she always seems to pay a bit more attention to them in movies (she can't tell me a thing about the plot of Man of Steel and yet raves on about Henry Calvill).

[daniel]

The reactions here just show how deep this problem has become ingrained in this industry. So people who dare to not like the ridiculously oversexualized (and not particularly well-drawn) cover are "fascists" and "terrorists?" WOW, just wow. That shows just how the defenders of the cover have no actual legitimate argument. We cannot logically defend this, so lets just resort to insult/demeaning the people who disagree with us and insinuating that there's something wrong with them for NOT liking this cover.

Let me put it this way... I'm sure you enjoy a lot of things that offend my sensibilities, be it comicbooks or otherwise. How fair would it be for me to have the power not to simply ignore those comics, movies, music, whatever that you enjoy and offends me, but to keep you or anyone else from enjoying it? Wouldn't that be just a completely ridiculous, useless and harmful thing? What would anyone benefit from it?

That's what people are objecting to. And FYI, that was a particularly AWESOMELY-drawn cover you were referring to. Art appreciation sure can be subjective sometimes, huh?

[daniel]

Censorship is the act of a government to suppress free speech. All Marvel is doing is showing good judgement and taste.

I'm afraid that's a very outdated definition of the word... and even then, it would be a narrow and incomplete definition even by last century standards...

[BamaRainbow]

Censorship is the act of a government to suppress free speech. All Marvel is doing is showing good judgement and taste.

Perhaps someone else has already mentioned it, but wrong. Censorship is defined SIMPLY as "the system or practice of censoring books, movies, letters, etc." And a censor is defined simply as "a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc." While a government CAN be involved in censorship, ordinary people can do it just as well. Parents routinely "censor" things to which their children may be exposed. No government agency need be involved.

And comic book companies (just like ANY OTHER BUSINESS) can censor. Perhaps you've heard of the infamous "Swamp Thing" story that DC refused to publish (for fear of offending conservative Christians)? Certain TV and radio personalities are known to "cut the mike" of people who disagree with the hosts' perspectives--that's effectively censorship. Again, no government agency involved (even though someone who feels he/she was mistreated can write a complaint to the FCC).

[Zero Hunter]

The way things are these days all it takes is just a few people to make a deal of something and it turns into a public relations nightmare. A company like Marvel would rather not have to deal with that and pulled it. I mean just look what a shitstorm DC had with one stupid Teen Titans cover that I am sure they didn't think twice about when it was put out. Some people are just waiting for something to rally around to push their own agendas, and Marvel probably saw the potential for that with those covers and decided not to deal with the headaches.

It really is that simple.

[Anjohl]

The artist should release this art as a limited edition signed print. He would make a KILLING. I would buy one, just to protest the increasing prevalence of vicarious offense, and overactive political correctness. Imagine if these rabble rousers had seen the 90's comics!

[daniel]

Do you think it would be fair to say that what you find attractive isn't the same as what women find attractive or even other gay men?

The same could be said about what men and gay women find attractive in the female poses. But then all this conversation would be moot, right?

[Anjohl]

The reactions here just show how deep this problem has become ingrained in this industry. So people who dare to not like the ridiculously oversexualized (and not particularly well-drawn) cover are "fascists" and "terrorists?" WOW, just wow. That shows just how the defenders of the cover have no actual legitimate argument. We cannot logically defend this, so lets just resort to insult/demeaning the people who disagree with us and insinuating that there's something wrong with them for NOT liking this cover.

The difference is that when the people who do not like the piece of art get to stop the people who do from enjoying it, they make a decision for the entire group. It SHOULD be everyones duty to only be offended for themselves, not to be vicariously offended for someone else, and noone, not interest groups, not bad publicity, should be able to deny the other camps access to art. If you don't like something, don't consume it, but don't stop others from. That is not your right in any proper ethics/morality system.

[daniel]

I'm not sure why people are calling this censorship. The government didn't make anyone do anything.

Again, this idea that censorship can only be exacted by "the government" is not only outdated, it's downright inaccurate.

[Baron Samedi]

Also that Manara was "fired", when the article clearly states the opposite: that he'll do more covers for Marvel in the future

Honestly, that's just communication. But i would be surprised if he works again for the big mouse considering how poor looking his covers are.

I mean, let's forget for a second here all this little controversy and just look at his work for Marvel. That's freaking ugly and the anatomy is completely off.