None. How many people actually requested DC pull it, though? Or was it more just a widespread reaction of, "Hey, this cover is in bad taste. I'd really respect DC more if they chose not to run things like this."
And, I mean, I would. It doesn't mean I need one image banned, but it'd certainly be cool if DC were aware enough to stop sending those kinds of messages before they got to solicits or print.
I think people are (probably) reading into a rhetoric of "WE MUST BAN TOGETHER TO BAN COMICS COVERS," whereas the reality is more along the lines of, "Hey, DC, this is kind of icky; I wish you would think about not doing these kinds of things again."
And if the artist and/or publisher see value in those complaints, what's the problem?
Last edited by Cipher; 03-16-2015 at 08:17 PM.
That was the one posted, but I've seen MANY of them. You have Google, go nuts. And I like how you think that ignoring the point that murder is worse than creepiness makes your argument valid, when you've put forth no evidence for your view at any point. Arguments without evidence are meaningless.
There are still a lot of people who hate the constant imagery and jokes about Jason Todd's death in both the exterior and interior DC book. The same thing with Damian's death scene. The whole trying show people who are outraged out Batgirl are hypocrites by insinuating they didn't care about Jason and/or Damian is a faulty argument because a lot of people DO care about Damian and Jason and do not like when their death scenes are glorified or otherwise taken lightly. It's a shame that Kubert variant flew so far under radar because I know a good chunk of the batman/Jason todd fandom (both men & women) would be pissed that it made it through the cracks.
I think some of the reasons why so many people noticed the Batgirl variant is because
a) She has just been through a major overall and has a bunch of new fans and critical acclaim for her book
b) Women have been some of main the victims of brutality, fridging, and other nastiness in comics over the past few decades (or since forever), so people are quicker to see mistreatment of female characters than male.
c) Her fanbase is mainly made up of women, so of course it won't go unnoticed especially when you take into account point b)
Attempting to make others feel bad or show them lacking character because there was a vocal outrage to the Batgirl variant from a few days ago and not the Jason Todd one from December is a BS move, imo. People can be upset with the Batgirl variant even if they didn't know about the Jason Todd Variant. They can be upset that both crimes against the characters are still being used as publicity stunts.
The shaming is a straw man argument at best.
Shhh, don't get another cover pulled.
I never based any of my comments on the presumption that DC pulled the cover due to threats that came from those who were against the cover, and people who did so are having that used against them, so, why so quick to start acting like all of the threats were one sided?
You really don't understand why people were upset about the Batgirl cover, do you? No one is upset about women being terrorized by the Joker. The Batgirl cover directly references a story in which Barbara Gordon was shot, paralyzed and sexually assaulted by the Joker (he's wearing the same outfit from the Killing Joke). The issue isn't women being attacked or anything, it's that this is still how DC is trying to define Batgirl. At the end of the day, all anyone at DC can do when Batgirl and Joker are in the same sentence is say "hey, remember that story where Joker paralyzed her, stripped her naked and took pictures? ...and by the way, we want girls reading this book!"
You are kidding, right ?.
Or he was just sick of listening to the people who didnt like it................................................ ............
Well, said person would still have the knowledge of the existance of that cover............................................. .......
Being naked isn't sexual, IMHO. He just wanted her injuries to be obvious to Gordon. It was about him, which IS problematic, but the story has since been redefined from Barbara's perspective and that's the canon this refers to. Note that she's in costume, as opposed to the yellow dress. When the Killing Joke happened she wasn't a superhero anymore. It's obviously meant to be symbolic of her trauma and fear, but that's part of who she is. To disrespect that seems like victim-shaming.
And anyway, nobody is either reading or not reading a comic because of a themed variant month. They're just buying or not buying the variants. It's not relevant to the general public, because they simply don't care and won't be exposed to it. On top of that, unless they know the context of the image it doesn't have any connotations besides "creepy looking."
The last word we've had from anyone involved in the decision specifies they were.
But in that case I wasn't using the threats to argue against you or anyone else; just noting that they may have been a wrinkle in a decision Albequerque was already leaning toward here. That was the thrust of that post. I wasn't singling anyone out or even really trying to argue there.
Last edited by Cipher; 03-16-2015 at 08:23 PM.
Reminder #2 from me:
Keep your discussions civil and devoid of insults towards persons or groups of people, otherwise you will be removed from the discussion on a more permanent basis.
Discuss the topic, not those involved in the conversation. There is a world of difference between the two.
"Let me guess. My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie!"@Matt_of_Geek
Now writing at The Atomic Junk Shop
CBR Community Standards and Rules
Which is a bit bullshit because editorial tells Albuquerque or whoever exactly what they want on their covers. Albuquerque was just doing his job.
At any rate, i'm still outraged that they used a transgendered character with a beautifully unique aesthetic as little more than a one-note joke to be efficiently "handled" by their one-size-fits all cipher headliner.