PREVIEW: Guardians of the Galaxy Annual, #1

[evangelionofasgard]

I showed the picture to my wife, who is 46 years old. She saw no problem with Gamora's butt. She thinks some of you are a bit out there with the butt complaint.

your wife is logical and awesome, both of you have a great rest of 2014 & Christmas

[Rogue Star]

with all dew respect... so?
its one panel, why can we not enjoy her physically beauty for these 2 panels?, for all you know in a few pages she will give a badass speech, then we can appreciate her for her characterization, willpower & personality, and after that might be several pages of her kicking serious butt, then we will appreciate her for her badassery, we can't appreciate or acknowledge a entire characters being every single panel. we appreciate whats happening or focused on in said panel, so here we will appreciate her beauty and also her resentful facial expression being sent towards carol.
like if a see a particularly well rendered version of superman's outfit, im going to be thinking about how awesome the outfit looks not about the character as a whole.
or if a see a panel of a character punching another character, im probably going to be thinking about the punch and not the characters as fully rounded beings. its the nature of panel by panel storytelling, its not wrong or objectifying, its simply us focusing on specific aspects of a character at certain times instead of the whole.

(1) We're talking about something that happened in a total of two panels. We're judging that and that alone. We're not blowing it off because the next few pages may not showcase her butt. What sense does it make to even talk about what might happen in other pages?

(2) Her butt was emphasized. It was the intent of the artist to focus our attention on her butt - no, her booty - and nothing but her booty. We're not talking about a critical punch or dramatic moment, or a special fabric as a part of a costume, we're talking about someone's ASS. That's not even bordering on objectifying to you? How would you define objectifying then? I wonder if you'd feel the same if Superman entered the panel with it aimed directly at a heavy lined bulge in his crotch area. I sense a double standard here.

Edit:

I don't have a problem with her butt being visible at all. Like you said, people have butts and we see them everyday. I could tell this booty was emphasized though which made it just sorta feel a little comedic yet a little disappointing because Gamora essentially got reduced to a butt with a green woman attached to it. That bordered on bad taste to me because Gamora is more than that. It didn't bother me as much as the "shocker" panel which made me wish these particular characters weren't so appealing to kids. It was funny, especially given Carol's expression, but still kinda bothered the parent in me.

By adding my original post here I hope to keep my opinion on this whole matter from being misunderstood by anyone who reads this post.

[evangelionofasgard]

That bordered on bad taste to me because Gamora is more than that.

just focusing on this One aspect of her temporarily, does not make her less than she is, its just giving us time to enjoy that one aspect more than we normally get to do so.
like say i went to the beach with my girlfriend or wife, she is in a bikini the whole day so im getting a chance to enjoy the full visual beauty of her more than i am on a normal day to day basis, that does not mean i no longer care about her beyond her body, does not mean i no longer appreciate her humor, her intelligence, and every other aspect of what makes her great and makes me care about her. its just for that one day im thinking about that physical aspect of her more than i usually do.

1.) and nothing but her booty.
2.) That's not even bordering on objectifying to you? How would you define objectifying then?
3.) I wonder if you'd feel the same if Superman entered the panel with it aimed directly at a heavy lined bulge in his crotch area. I sense a double standard here.

1.) also, her facial expression which says alot about her personality, was in the panel.
2.) i would not define it as anything, the concept as a whole is just alien to the civilized world. to take it seriously, would demand we completely devalue are ability of sight, and demand we completely ignore are natural sexuality. we KNOW real women and characters are more than there bodies, no one is saying they are less than what they are, but there is nothing wrong with caring about them on a physical or visual level when we see them being visually attractive, and momentarily JUST caring about that aspect of them.
like say i see a magazine cover with a sexually posed woman on it, im never going to meet her, im never going to talk to or communicate with her, so why does it matter if i only enjoy her briefly for her body and beauty? if by some absurd chance i do in fact meet her, that does not mean i will treat her any differently than i do any other person, it does not mean i won't grow to appreciate her on more than that one level.

only time i think the concept of objectification is valid or has valid use, is in regards to like... forced prostitution or slavery.

sorry to turn this thread into a deconstruction on the myth of objectification but come on!!!

3.) i would say, ah thats for female or gay readers good for them, and turn the page to see if there is anything else of interest to me and if there is not, then i will find another book.
female readers have around 15ish recent female lead ongoings with no cheesecake or sex appeal, (while male readers that do like such have around only 4, 3 of which have bad art) so do not cry to me that you don't have other books than this 1 annual to see female characters in a less sexual light.

[Rogue Star]

just focusing on this One aspect of her temporarily, does not make her less than she is, its just giving us time to enjoy that one aspect more than we normally get to do so.
like say i went to the beach with my girlfriend or wife, she is in a bikini the whole day so im getting a chance to enjoy the full visual beauty of her more than i am on a normal day to day basis, that does not mean i no longer care about her beyond her body, does not mean i no longer appreciate her humor, her intelligence, and every other aspect of what makes her great and makes me care about her. its just for that one day im thinking about that physical aspect of her more than i usually do.


1.) also, her facial expression which says alot about her personality, was in the panel.
2.) i would not define it as anything, the concept as a whole is just alien to the civilized world. to take it seriously, would demand we completely devalue are ability of sight, and demand we completely ignore are natural sexuality. we KNOW real women and characters are more than there bodies, no one is saying they are less than what they are, but there is nothing wrong with caring about them on a physical or visual level when we see them being visually attractive, and momentarily JUST caring about that aspect of them.
like say i see a magazine cover with a sexually posed woman on it, im never going to meet her, im never going to talk to or communicate with her, so why does it matter if i only enjoy her briefly for her body and beauty? if by some absurd chance i do in fact meet her, that does not mean i will treat her any differently than i do any other person, it does not mean i won't grow to appreciate her on more than that one level.

only time i think the concept of objectification is valid or has valid use, is in regards to like... forced prostitution or slavery.

sorry to turn this thread into a deconstruction on the myth of objectification but come on!!!

3.) i would say, ah thats for female or gay readers good for them, and turn the page to see if there is anything else of interest to me and if there is not, then i will find another book.
female readers have around 15ish recent female lead ongoings with no cheesecake or sex appeal, (while male readers that do like such have around only 4, 3 of which have bad art) so do not cry to me that you don't have other books than this 1 annual to see female characters in a less sexual light.

What you CHOOSE to focus on is your business and that is subjective. What is not subjective is what the artist emphasizes. Your focus is not left up to you since it is directed or guided toward something; in this case it's a big curvy booty that adds nothing to the character. This booty became its own entity. See how these illustrations below show the difference between a character that is put on display and when some thing is put on display.

Gamora 02.jpg

The left side shows a back view of Gamora while leaving what is focused on up to the viewer. The panels on the right side leave no room for doubt that the intended focal point of the character is her BADONKADONK. It's emphasized by the placement and heavy lines, and has impossible curvature for a woman that's supposed to be standing straight up. Is Gamora even known for being bootilicious? If not, why was the junk in her trunk so abundant? The question that needs to be asked is: what is our big take away about her from looking at those panels? Like I said before, what happens in other pages not provided to us is not the issue so let's not get lost by discussing irrelevant things. We're discussing these particular panels and whether it is perfectly normal to portray a character that way or if it's objectifying her. It's not about right or wrong.

You say that seeing a girl in a sexy pose won't affect the way you see her when you meet her in person? Okay, but the issue is not whether the way you see her in one instance changes the way you see her in a different set of circumstances. The issue is, how are you intended to see her when you look at her in that sexy pose? Is the intent of the magazine to get you to see her as a pair of breasts, a pair of thighs, or a plump rump? Because that's what happened to Gamora in the particular panels that we are discussing. There's a difference between the way you choose to look at a person and the way they want to be seen. Yes, we're all free to enjoy a character's body and beauty, but the topic - not the "problem" - is the artist's intent. Acknowledging what some might deem to be a gratuitous depiction or bad characterization does not equal taking a stance against sexuality period.

Concerning your response to my comment about an emphasized Superman crotch bulge, I'd say you missed my point. Maybe that's my fault. As I tried to hint at, I believe you would see such a thing as gratuitous in nature without realizing that it's because you're not attracted to man lumps. You might be more concerned with enjoying what you see than you are with whether something benefits the character or not; I'm not criticizing you for it, I'm just telling you what I'm understanding. By brushing the Superman bulge off as something for some other demographic, you look the other way (because it's not for you) instead of discerning good and poor characterization. Wouldn't you say that these panels featuring Gamora are for people who like female butts? Yeah, it's pretty obvious they are, but are they examples of good characterization? That's what this is about to me - gratuitous and/or objectifying depictions of a character in specific comic book panels. It's not about sexuality, gender equality, a lack of non-sexualized characters, or any other such broad topics.

[evangelionofasgard]

1.) Your focus is not left up to you since it is directed or guided toward something; in this case it's a big curvy booty that adds nothing to the character.

2.)
Gamora 02.jpg

3.) Is Gamora even known for being bootilicious? If not, why was the junk in her trunk so abundant?

4.) The issue is, how are you intended to see her when you look at her in that sexy pose?
Is the intent of the magazine to get you to see her as a pair of breasts, a pair of thighs, or a plump rump?

5.) There's a difference between the way you choose to look at a person and the way they want to be seen.

6.) Acknowledging what some might deem to be a gratuitous depiction or bad characterization does not equal taking a stance against sexuality period.

7.) As I tried to hint at, I believe you would see such a thing as gratuitous in nature.

8.) You might be more concerned with enjoying what you see than you are with whether something benefits the character or not

1.) it adds desirability. gamora is a killing machine, its detestable, we like her only cus we sympathize with her dew to and are interested in her thanos related past, her interactions with some of the other characters, and how cool or sexy she looks when she is killing people.
2.) appreciate and respect you taking the time to make the image for comparison.
but it does not work for 2 reasons. mcniven is a more realism based artist, while cho will sexy or curvy up some of his women, its a difference in styles.
the mcniven page was made singularly to show off the outfit design its concept art. the cho page is among some various pages focusing on another character, with her among others being put in the back ground for humor and other purposes.
3.) she is know for being mysteriously sexy, hence her older outfit - http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...igh_Res%29.jpg
bootyliscious, probably not, but i give it pass as its cho's style.
like 80% or artist would give spider man here a more realistic uppermass to thickness of legs ratio, but we give it a pass cus its ramos's style
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...o_Ramos_-3.jpg
4.) the intent is to make the viewer/reader appreciate this woman's beauty by focusing on what we naturally find sexually attractive about the female form.
5.) sure. but if the woman chooses to pose sexy for a magazine, most likely she wants to be seen as sexy. exceptions of course, and im sorry women who don't want that are put in that position but besides the point. we can only see a person and reach a conclusion about them and how we feel about them by what is presented to us.
6.) fair enough
7.) oh i will agree it would be gratuitous, i just have no problem with the concept.
8.) you would be right to a point. there are extremes that i will of course call out, like any given female character other than mabye harley quinn, poison ivy or zarda walking thru a new york street full naked, yeah i will agree is bad characterization.
but beyond extremes, i feel like visuals can and should be malleable from the characterizations.,
i would say if you want the book to be 100% absolutely based around characterization then it should be a novel as a comic is a visual format also, and character's pure characterizations are not aways visually appealing to look at.

[50yearoldNovafan]

your wife is logical and awesome, both of you have a great rest of 2014 & Christmas

Thank you,sir. You do the same.

[50yearoldNovafan]

(1)
(2) Her butt was emphasized. It was the intent of the artist to focus our attention on her butt - no, her booty - and nothing but her booty. ASS. That's not even bordering on objectifying to you?

I hate to keep going on about this, but I did not notice her butt until others pointed it out. I had looked at the panels and thought nothing of it. Initially, all I saw was Gamora walking by smirking. It took me three viewings to find what some of you were talking about. It is all about what we, as individuals, focus on. You and others believe the artist was trying to draw you in to the butt. I see the primary focus as Carol, and Gamora is secondary. I saw Gamora's WHOLE BODY walking by when I looked at that picture. I did not notice her butt. Some of you folks put MY focus on her butt, not the artist.

I think our world is so politically correct, now, that we cannot enjoy a good looking piece of art (no pun intended).

EDIT:

I just looked at the page again. I just noticed the backside of Gamora on panel number three. I had not seen this until my umpteenth viewing. I was focused on Carol. That is funny. Some people see the vehicles in the shot and some people see the buildings. When I look at comics, I focus on what is in the center of the panel, which in both cases is Carol. Carol seems to be the FOCUS of each panel, to me. Now, we all know the artist loves to draw sexy women. That is a fact. But I actually like the fact that he draws women with womenly shapes. He does not draw women as just slightly robust men. When he draws men, he draws them with butts, too. You guys just focus too hard on the dirt and grime of the world.

[50yearoldNovafan]

Lastly, Rogue Star, you asked if it was not the least bit objectifying. Have you seen Olympic female long jumper outfits. All of their history hangs out of the back of their underwear uniforms. How about female figure skaters, female parallel bars, balance beam, and floor exercise outfits. These women are seen by far more people world wide. These are living and breathing women wearing outfits which would put this cartoon drawing to shame, with what is being shown. I think the Olympic athlete outfits are far more objectifying than this piece of comic art. Just watch the Olympics sometimes. Or google the images nowl

[evangelionofasgard]

Lastly, Rogue Star, you asked if it was not the least bit objectifying. Have you seen Olympic female long jumper outfits. All of their history hangs out of the back of their underwear uniforms. How about female figure skaters, female parallel bars, balance beam, and floor exercise outfits. These women are seen by far more people world wide. These are living and breathing women wearing outfits which would put this cartoon drawing to shame, with what is being shown. I think the Olympic athlete outfits are far more objectifying than this piece of comic art. Just watch the Olympics sometimes. Or google the images nowl

[Blacksun]

Lastly, Rogue Star, you asked if it was not the least bit objectifying. Have you seen Olympic female long jumper outfits. All of their history hangs out of the back of their underwear uniforms. How about female figure skaters, female parallel bars, balance beam, and floor exercise outfits. These women are seen by far more people world wide. These are living and breathing women wearing outfits which would put this cartoon drawing to shame, with what is being shown. I think the Olympic athlete outfits are far more objectifying than this piece of comic art. Just watch the Olympics sometimes. Or google the images nowl

one thing is one thing, another things is another thing. It's not hard find examples of women in "sexy" outfits, that is not the point.

1.) I Don't Imagine it would sell, they can't get what they don't ask for. i have never heard any female readers asking for beefcake other than when its what your doing asking for it just cus male readers already have there version of it. so im not sure how many female readers actually care.
2.) that said I would be absolutely 100% fine with female readers getting such and im glad they are getting female titles for themselves, im just saying leave us a few for ourselves also. fairness and balance.
3.) critics would say its not genuine for female beefcake and just write it off as male power fantasy crap instead.
4.)





this... so much this

well there is artist that do a living just by drawing beefcake, so might be people looking forward to that.

I think critics are good on knowing the difference between beefcake and power male fantasy, comics alliance even made a article about it.

yes, beef cake exists on comics =]. Both artists took the chance on the script cap was doing exercises and Loki on the shower to show the good bodies.

[Nick Miller]

one thing is one thing, another things is another thing. It's not hard find examples of women in "sexy" outfits, that is not the point

the point is its ok to admire, any feature of any man or woman, esp in entertainment such as film, tv, and comics for heaven's sake.

Thank you Mr. Cho.

[Rogue Star]

one thing is one thing, another things is another thing. It's not hard find examples of women in "sexy" outfits, that is not the point.

Thank you. At least one person here has a clue.

the point is its ok to admire, any feature of any man or woman, esp in entertainment such as film, tv, and comics for heaven's sake.

Thank you Mr. Cho.

Yes, it is okay to admire sexy people and their sexy parts but that's not quite the point either. People have successfully turned this into a debate over whether it's moral to enjoy looking at sexualized characters/people and derailed the whole conversation. It's gotten so convoluted though that it's pointless to keep going over what people actually have an issue with. I understand why though; people feel like their source of gratuitous body shots is being threatened.

[jackolover]

Man, aren't Annuals usually written by people who are not writing the main series. At least, that's how it seems to be recently. I don't have an urge to go out and read more mediocre Bendis Guardians.

I like Cho. People who have a problem with Gamora's ass will probably not enjoy the rest of it. Cho unashamedly loves his curvy woman. I think his Rocket is really bad though, looks like a dog.a

I second the poor Rocket art. Way too cartoony, and toothy like a fox.

I'm not seeing any discussion on who is in the Helicarrier, (just Chos shapely women. I'm not a fan, but his face expressions were great). Is this Maria Hill in the Space Carrier, or Some of the Fury LMDS, or The Winter Soldier? I don't think its the original Nick Fury, who is stuck on the Moon. Would love to find out.

[ed2962]

Thank you. At least one person here has a clue.




Yes, it is okay to admire sexy people and their sexy parts but that's not quite the point either. People have successfully turned this into a debate over whether it's moral to enjoy looking at sexualized characters/people and derailed the whole conversation. It's gotten so convoluted though that it's pointless to keep going over what people actually have an issue with. I understand why though; people feel like their source of gratuitous body shots is being threatened.

Exactly. I have no problem with sex or sexuality being expressed in the medium of comics, but it seems that if someone suggests that some mainstream superhero look a little less porny, some fans act as if somehow you're taking away their right to view all things of beauty.

[50yearoldNovafan]

Exactly. I have no problem with sex or sexuality being expressed in the medium of comics, but it seems that if someone suggests that some mainstream superhero look a little less porny, some fans act as if somehow you're taking away their right to view all things of beauty.

I guess my point is it just does not look "porny" to me. I guess Marvel is the judge on whether this is over the top or not. And it seems as if editorial does not think it is.

I'm done with talking booty now. We have beat that horse with two sticks.