DC Comics Cancels "Batgirl" Joker Variant at Artist's Request

[dragonmp93]

Well, they look like they dancing tango, and you know.............................................. .................................

[hunter_peterson]

So I guess Jason Todd's mother was in the story so Batman could react to her?

She was just in the story as bait for Jason to be killed, so basically, yes. She didn't even care about her son.

[AnakinFlair]

You know, I could understand if they decided not to run with this cover because it doesn't fit the tone of the book. I know they are going for a lighter, more upbeat tone with the current Batgirl run, and i can see why this would fit more with the previous run (before Burnside). But that really isn't the case. This is a bunch of PC people over-analyzing a piece of art to death (the gun is TOUCHING HER BREAST and is pointed AT HER CROTCH! Wow, over-reaching much?), and an artist who got freaking DEATH THREATS from people who are upset at the threatening nature of the portrait.

You know, I TRULY wish I was a kid now and grew up in this environment. Because if I did, and I still went though all of the shit that I went through as a child, I would be filthy rich between suing my grade school, the parents of the kids who bullied me and the teachers who didn't do their jobs 'correctly', and I'd probably have some kind of story on the internet about how awful I've been treated and how it isn't right.

**WHEW** sorry, rant over.

[Teek]

If it is what it looks like, it is the artist's call.

I have no problem with that.

That's a cop-out answer. It clearly wasn't just the artist's call. It's not like he just out of the blue decided he didn't want his work out there. He was responding to the reaction from... let's be generous and call them "potential readers."

The people who created this controversy in the first place. What problem did this variant create that couldn't be solved by purchasing the regular cover instead?

[thecrimson]

I think this is an excellent post about the matter, written by a woman if that even matters.

[teddyeatsyourface]

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.

From what I understand, when variants are made little contact is made between the editors and/or creators of the book and the artist making the cover. So Stewart may be telling the truth with that one.

[Tyrell Archer]

I don't know how good it was considering people apparently sent the dude death threats over his cover.

I never condone death threats or threats of violence of any kind. It is hypocrisy to take a stand against violence by threatening violence.

I do what I can to stand up to violence against women. To threaten someone with violence to that end, however, is unacceptable.

[hunter_peterson]

Not surprising at all. How much do you want to bet most of those receiving the threats were women?

There's a vocal minority of male genre fans who are terribly frightened by the influx of women and minorities who also enjoy their chosen hobbies and they have been reacting with threat of rape and violence. Gamergate is the major example.

Considering that DC is making a huge push at welcoming this new audience by publicizing the diversity of their new post-Convergence series, its only smart business for them to listen to their audience and not publish this retrograde vision of a victimized Batgirl, especially as it would only serve to drive away the audience that they are hoping to attract to the book.

They're currently using the Killing Joke as canon in the Batgirl book, so that logic doesn't fly. And again, a threatening minority doesn't reflect on the comics community as a whole. That's just prejudiced and unfounded. If anything the success of the female-led-book boom counteracts that argument, because the existing audience has accepted it fairly whole-heartedly.

Anyone terrified of women is just stupid, anyway. They're not special, they're just people like the other half of the world.

[Cipher]

That's a cop-out answer. It clearly wasn't just the artist's call. It's not like he just out of the blue decided he didn't want his work out there. He was responding to the reaction from... let's be generous and call them "potential readers."

The people who created this controversy in the first place. What problem did this variant create that couldn't be solved by purchasing the regular cover instead?

Artist creates something.

People point out, "Hey, did you realize this is going on with it?"

Artist agrees and no longer stands by the piece.

Is that really so foreign a concept?

[themasething]

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).

Actually, I do understand why people are upset about the cover. However I just don't put it out there as this "all encompassing evil" narrative that defines the book, the characters or the reference.

The issue isn't women being attacked or anything, it's that this is still how DC is trying to define Batgirl.

How is a reference to a moment in the character's history a "definition of Batgirl"? How about what happened AFTER these events? Yes, her shooting was tragic, but Batgirl was able to redefine herself, not letting that moment become a defining characteristic, and became Oracle and stayed as a very valued memeber of the "Bat Family".

If the character and all writers involved in the character's design can take one moment and use it to redefine the character in a progressive and positive manner, why do people like yourself seem intent on regressing the character into something in the negative and into a victim?

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!"

Why do you believe that girls only want to read things that are NOT in this space? Why should comics "tone down" events for female readers? I'm pretty positive that female comic book readers would prefer to be treated as adult comic book readers first and foremost, not as some guarded gender that cannot handle storylines including sexual content of any nature. It's the attitude of "We have to remove these things to attract female readers" that is more offensive than anything contained in the pages of The Killing Joker.

[darthjoker]

Seriously. Open question. Anybody with the answer, please answer.

What problem could any singular individual have with this cover that could not be resolved by not buying it? I'm legitimately asking because while there are certain things that shouldn't be left open to the free market in the interest of public safety, I cannot for the life of me see how this is one of them.

Please. Somebody tell me why "just don't buy it" was not a good enough option.

I guess for the same reason Square Enix had to cancel the Zombie bait edition of Dead Island Riptide.


or the same reason Santa Monica studios had to change the name of one trophy in god of war Ascension. from "Bros before Hos" to "bros before Foes".

[Username taken]

I can't say I had any problem with that cover when I first saw it. I'm not sure most people did either.

I don't think I like the precedent that stuff like this is setting. It's as if the artist was bullied into pulling the cover.

Yes, art can be in "bad taste" but this isn't really one of those to be honest considering it's based off a popular storyline. Not to mention the fact that there's nothing overtly shocking about the cover.

I think it's unfortunate that artists will have to "over sanitize" their work because of fear of outrage and threats.

[teddyeatsyourface]

I think this is an excellent post about the matter, written by a woman if that even matters.

That was all personal opinion. It might as well have been another forum post in this thread.

[Kurisu]

You know, I could understand if they decided not to run with this cover because it doesn't fit the tone of the book. I know they are going for a lighter, more upbeat tone with the current Batgirl run, and i can see why this would fit more with the previous run (before Burnside). But that really isn't the case. This is a bunch of PC people over-analyzing a piece of art to death (the gun is TOUCHING HER BREAST and is pointed AT HER CROTCH! Wow, over-reaching much?), and an artist who got freaking DEATH THREATS from people who are upset at the threatening nature of the portrait.

You know, I TRULY wish I was a kid now and grew up in this environment. Because if I did, and I still went though all of the shit that I went through as a child, I would be filthy rich between suing my grade school, the parents of the kids who bullied me and the teachers who didn't do their jobs 'correctly', and I'd probably have some kind of story on the internet about how awful I've been treated and how it isn't right.

**WHEW** sorry, rant over.

Sorry, but no. Y'all lost this one boys, get over it.

[sneakyflute]

Artist creates something.

People point out, "Hey, did you realize this is going on with it?"

Artist agrees and no longer stands by the piece.

Is that really so foreign a concept?

Or he was browbeaten by unreasonable people and pulled the cover to save face.