Finches Introduce Pre-New 52 Character in "Wonder Woman" #37

[brettc1]

I didn't said that. Deodato jr making WW wear thongs made WW triple her sales. But clearly cheesecake make harder WW sell to what should be her target public: women

Um, no. Everybody.

[Blacksun]

Um, no. Everybody.

well, I just said target public. It doesn't mean it isn't for everybody

[wagthedog]

well, I just said target public. It doesn't mean it isn't for everybody

So......Wonder Woman only sells for woman? How many woman are spending money of the roughly 35000 issues that were sold towards the end of the Azz era. Pretty weak argument.

[Blacksun]

So......Wonder Woman only sells for woman? How many woman are spending money of the roughly 35000 issues that were sold towards the end of the Azz era. Pretty weak argument.

Never said it. I just think WW should inspire women like was the case of legend of korra, ww is for everyone but woman should be priority

[blaster86]

Never said it. I just think WW should inspire women like was the case of legend of korra, ww is for everyone but woman should be priority

God no I hope she become nothing like Korea that girl was dumb like hell and arrogant

[OBrianTallent]

well, I just said target public. It doesn't mean it isn't for everybody

I dont think you quite grasp the meaning of the phrase "target ________." To say something is done for a "target audience" as you did say Wonder Woman was a harder sell to her target public is to say that the book/character of Wonder Woman is written for the intended audience of Wonder Woman. That doesn't exclude others, it's just to say the book is aimed at and for females/women/girls. That clearly is not the case for any era of Wonder Woman nor is it the intention of DC Comics, Wonder Woman is not written or drawn for the primary intention of selling primarily to female clients of any age. They are in actuality the side audience.

[ed2962]

I think she was just saying that while WW was created for everyone, she was obviously meant to be a symbol for female empowerment. Such a symbol shouldn't actively alienate real women.

I still think we're pretty early in the run to judge one way of another the "significance" of this take on WW

[Lax]

Also, and I dont know much about hentai, but isnt that stuff a little over the top? Tentacles in certain...places....and monsters doing certain....things....to people and stuff? Seems like a pretty far divide between that sort of kink and Finch just drawing big boobs.

Hentai is the definition of "over the top" porn.

People like to exaggerate.

So, real question here for everyone.

Myself, I think Finch draws Diana's face far too young, and he certainly adds an amount of sex "appeal" which, depending on your personal viewpoints, crosses a line.

But why are people here acting like he's any different from 99% of the other artists in the industry? Seriously, to see some people post here you'd think no one had ever drawn Diana with an exceptionally curved spine, or atypically large breasts. Yes, there's a certain amount of sexuality and arguably objectification in the way Finch draws people (not just women either, all his guys look like 'roided up Ken dolls with butts I'll never have) but really, how does that make him any different from the rest of the comic artist crowd?

They may feel that the other artists "cross the line" as well, but the issue never came up with Chiang.

Aside from the fact that, perhaps, Finch does it better than most, why is it not okay for him to draw any T&A but everyone else (except Manara's Spider-Woman cover) gets a free pass? What's the difference between Finch and, say, just for example, Joe Benitez, who also draws some **** women?

Free pass? Lol. None of them get a free pass. Complaints about cheesecake are across the board. The poses, the proportions, the clothing, everything.

The problem with cheesecake is that it primarily serves the interests of heterosexual males and the sexuality of that demographic is seen as predatory. Guess which demographic is seen as the prey? This is why endorsement of cheesecake automatically translates into objectification of women.

This is why outrage at a fictional woman dressed provocatively is viewed as righteous, yet outrage at a real woman dress provocatively is viewed as "slut shaming".

This is why the strict realism of a woman's posture is encouraged despite the fantasy setting, yet the strict realism of a woman's strength disadvantage is ignored because of the fantasy setting.

[numberthirty]

So, real question here for everyone.

Myself, I think Finch draws Diana's face far too young, and he certainly adds an amount of sex "appeal" which, depending on your personal viewpoints, crosses a line.

But why are people here acting like he's any different from 99% of the other artists in the industry? Seriously, to see some people post here you'd think no one had ever drawn Diana with an exceptionally curved spine, or atypically large breasts. Yes, there's a certain amount of sexuality and arguably objectification in the way Finch draws people (not just women either, all his guys look like 'roided up Ken dolls with butts I'll never have) but really, how does that make him any different from the rest of the comic artist crowd?

Aside from the fact that, perhaps, Finch does it better than most, why is it not okay for him to draw any T&A but everyone else (except Manara's Spider-Woman cover) gets a free pass? What's the difference between Finch and, say, just for example, Joe Benitez, who also draws some **** women?

The other 99% are not drawing Wonder Woman.

If you can find a nice way to say "This guy drawing the same junk as almost everyone else in comics is not helping the character Wonder Woman to look like a woman who should be taken seriously." in a fashion that seem like I'm not picking on him, let me know.

Otherwise, I don't really see a "nice" way to put it.

[borntohula]

The other 99% are not drawing Wonder Woman.

If you can find a nice way to say "This guy drawing the same junk as almost everyone else in comics is not helping the character Wonder Woman to look like a woman who should be taken seriously." in a fashion that seem like I'm not picking on him, let me know.

Otherwise, I don't really see a "nice" way to put it.

Doesn't help that Finch's WW has two faces either. One closed mouth, and one open.

[Ascended]

so because there is much more artists that draw like Finch his art is okay? we have to be okay with that?

I don't get this logic and what is the objective of it.

on the big two, that what counts for superhero I can only name Land, benes, jack hebert, Frank Cho did a annual. They are clearly on minority these days. They are losing the space.

I really don't see anyone getting free pass: benes, land and manara all receive criticism.
Remembering none of them are drawing WW.

I saw a capullo old art from angela series on Image, he sexualized her (nothing new on 90s). Right now he is one of the best artists on comics, and I never saw he sexualize a female character on his batman. He drew WW very well

You miss the point.

I never said anyone should be okay with sexualized portrayals of people, nor did I say people here were saying Finch was literally the first to do so.

What I said was that some posters here were acting as if they had never seen Diana drawn that way. And while its a lamentable staple of comic book art, its also nothing new. But some of the posts here had such a....fervent.....response to his work, you'd think they'd never seen anyone draw Diana like a pin-up before. I was just wondering if there was any particular reason for it, or if it was just the typical complaining.

[Ascended]

The other 99% are not drawing Wonder Woman.

If you can find a nice way to say "This guy drawing the same junk as almost everyone else in comics is not helping the character Wonder Woman to look like a woman who should be taken seriously." in a fashion that seem like I'm not picking on him, let me know.

Otherwise, I don't really see a "nice" way to put it.

Not sure if there is a nice way to put it. And honestly, Im not sure if there should be. Im all for polite discourse, but when you're part of the problem, you're part of the problem.

Again, not really taking the complaints themselves to task, as I agree with them, just curious as to why some posts here were so....zealous.

Doesn't help that Finch's WW has two faces either. One closed mouth, and one open.

Not just Diana either, but everyone. I like Finch well enough as an artist for a lot of things, but natural body language and facial expressions have never been his strong suit. In that, he's very much in the same school as the original Image artists.

Hentai is the definition of "over the top" porn.

People like to exaggerate.

They may feel that the other artists "cross the line" as well, but the issue never came up with Chiang.

Free pass? Lol. None of them get a free pass. Complaints about cheesecake are across the board. The poses, the proportions, the clothing, everything.

The problem with cheesecake is that it primarily serves the interests of heterosexual males and the sexuality of that demographic is seen as predatory. Guess which demographic is seen as the prey? This is why endorsement of cheesecake automatically translates into objectification of women.

This is why outrage at a fictional woman dressed provocatively is viewed as righteous, yet outrage at a real woman dress provocatively is viewed as "slut shaming".

This is why the strict realism of a woman's posture is encouraged despite the fantasy setting, yet the strict realism of a woman's strength disadvantage is ignored because of the fantasy setting.

People like to exaggerate is likely the answer to my question actually.

I miss Chiang. He had better layout sensibilities, and he could actually draw emotion. And his characters were much better fleshed out and varied.

[Blacksun]

You miss the point.

I never said anyone should be okay with sexualized portrayals of people, nor did I say people here were saying Finch was literally the first to do so.

What I said was that some posters here were acting as if they had never seen Diana drawn that way. And while its a lamentable staple of comic book art, its also nothing new. But some of the posts here had such a....fervent.....response to his work, you'd think they'd never seen anyone draw Diana like a pin-up before. I was just wondering if there was any particular reason for it, or if it was just the typical complaining.

I think is just that people have low tolerance for it, specially after 3 years of Chiang and Azz "no cheesecake" rule;
Readers are having different standarts referent to art, and yet more special when it concerns one big feminist icon like WW.

[MTroy]

First let me say sorry if someone asked these questions already but after reading 37 and rereading issue 36 I have some questions. I was wondering if someone could clarify.

In issue 36 there is a panel that shows Diana holding a baby and her mother Hippolyta is in the background, is this the same child that is given to the witch in issue 37? Is this Donna as a baby? And if so, was the baby aged to be the woman rising from the pot at the end of issue 37.

In issue 37 at the end it shows a being sitting talking to some strange creature. Is this person the same woman with the spikes coming out of her head who is given the baby?

My final question is I thought in issue 34 or 35 it showed that Hippolyta, although still made of stone, was alive and moving. So why did she dissolve into mud?

[Jokerz]

They're bringing back Donna Troy? Great, as if her backstory wasn't complicated enough already. One thing I thought New 52 did right was getting rid of characters that are basically screwed up beyond repair. Donna Troy was definitely one of them. It'll take a writing miracle for me to accept this, and I'm not very confident the Finches will be able to pull this off.