"Batgirl" Variant Cover Cancellation Sparks Further Debate Among Comic Pros and Fans

[oasis1313]

I want to see the same cover--but with BATMAN weeping while the Joker is getting all touchy-feely. Would such a variant cover be done with a male hero instead of a female? No way!

[nepenthes]

Very good point. However, let's be honest, this was never about the cover not matching the tone of the story. If it were, there would be equal outrage any time a variant doesn't match the tone.

It's not simply that the cover and contents don't match; that's no problem in itself.

It's that the cover is massively undermining what the creative team are doing (with what is an exceptionally sensitive character no less); and is rebutting what the audience by and large are enjoying and expecting from the new direction. Misalignment becomes a problem if it's working at cross purposes.

I didn't have a second thought when I first saw the image, thought it was pretty cool actually; that said I can see why it was pulled and don't think it's that big a deal they did it, at all. As before I suspect the driving force was of creative respect between artists, which is actually very simple to understand...but you know, hey, the internet

[Immortal Weapon]

I want to see the same cover--but with BATMAN weeping while the Joker is getting all touchy-feely.

If it was Flashpoint Joker maybe.

[The Gorn Identity]

Notice that Dillon's cover with Superman, used to demonstrate how wrong the cover is, uses Superman and Doomsday and not Batman and Joker. Batman and Joker would have been a better comparison and most people would not have thought it out of the ordinary. Because that's the world of the Joker. The superman on is misleading. It's like It's like taking Pulp Fiction but replacing the characters with Muppets and saying "Look how disturbing this movie is, definitely not for children"!

Agreed. Why involve Superman in all this nonsense? DC can't make their precious Batman look like a chump, I guess.

[Star_Jammer]

I might be more sympathetic to any individual situation of fans not liking a cover (variant covers, mind you)...if it didn't seem like they weren happening more frequently.

[rhymeswithparc]

It's not simply that the cover and contents don't match; that's no problem in itself.

It's that the cover is massively undermining what the creative team are doing (with what is an exceptionally sensitive character no less); and is rebutting what the audience by and large are enjoying and expecting from the new direction. Misalignment becomes a problem if it's working at cross purposes.

I didn't have a second thought when I first saw the image, thought it was pretty cool actually; that said I can see why it was pulled and don't think it's that big a deal they did it, at all. As before I suspect the driving force was of creative respect between artists, which is actually very simple to understand...but you know, hey, the internet.

How does the cover undermine what the creative team are doing? It is a promotional cover that is attached to books and is sold to people who specifically want it. What is the problem it causes if a cover (that is not the regular cover of the book) appeals to one audience while the book (regular cover included) appeals to another?

[trooper_thorn]

I might be more sympathetic to any individual situation of fans not liking a cover (variant covers, mind you)...if it didn't seem like they weren happening more frequently.

That's the problem with setting precedents.

Once you've established that outrageous outrage will cause the removal of a cover you just incentivized the behavior, which guarantees more of the same.

[totalsellout]

but dc didnt cave to pressure from a vocal minority and pull it. the artist pulled it, and he makes it pretty clear that it was the fact that people defending his cover started threatening the people who didnt like it that made him pull it. as long as the people arguing with sjw continuously resort to rape and death threats, they are going to lose. no one wants to be associated with it.

i dont mind the cover. its a creepy homage to a great joker story. it doesnt portray batgirl well, or heroic. no way should it have been the main cover, but just like the milo cover, i dont think it hurts anything for these to be available to collectors who want them. it was a poor choice for the current batgirl run, but i dont think it would have been pulled without it's defenders going over the line.

[Grayson]

Albuquerque would make good money selling it as a print.

Absolutely! He should also add to the print somewhere "Why So Serious?" followed by a few Ha's. To me that'll perfectly capture this Joker themed month.

[cranger]

It's that the cover is massively undermining what the creative team are doing (with what is an exceptionally sensitive character no less); and is rebutting what the audience by and large are enjoying and expecting from the new direction. Misalignment becomes a problem if it's working at cross purposes.

I think there is something there but I am not sure that what exactly it is is clear. The creative team has been referring to The Killing Joke through the run, it is almost essential to the run in a way, and even showed depictions of the scene in question. There seems to be inconsistencies that leave some doubt as to what the creative team really objects to.

[Agent Scarlet]

It's not simply that the cover and contents don't match; that's no problem in itself.

It's that the cover is massively undermining what the creative team are doing (with what is an exceptionally sensitive character no less); and is rebutting what the audience by and large are enjoying and expecting from the new direction. Misalignment becomes a problem if it's working at cross purposes.

I didn't have a second thought when I first saw the image, thought it was pretty cool actually; that said I can see why it was pulled and don't think it's that big a deal they did it, at all. As before I suspect the driving force was of creative respect between artists, which is actually very simple to understand...but you know, hey, the internet.

At the same time, this was a variant. Very rarely do you walk into your lcs and see books on the shelves along with all their variants. The audience, by and large, would likely never see this cover printed unless they went out of there way to specifically order it.

And I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I thought we were to avoid snark.

[trooper_thorn]

but dc didnt cave to pressure from a vocal minority and pull it. the artist pulled it, and he makes it pretty clear that it was the fact that people defending his cover started threatening the people who didnt like it that made him pull it. as long as the people arguing with sjw continuously resort to rape and death threats, they are going to lose. no one wants to be associated with it.

I am curious about that. Has anyone actually produced the offending threats? I keep hearing people say that threats were made but nobody has actually shown them as far as I know, and this being the internet I don't trust anything that doesn't provide a citation. Could somebody provide a link to them?

[BertoFlyingFox]

New direction this, doesn't fit the comic's theme that. It's part of the characters past, even if this were a variant to friggin' Batman '66 it'd still be a good cover. I don't care if it's printed or not because it exists already and I kept a nice jpg, so the debating could really just simmer down and die off.

What I will say though, is that I don't have faith in PC-DC with any of their characters or covers going forward. New52 is pretty much a full reboot catering to the social justice warriors. Bland and forgettable.

[Stormcrow]

How does the cover undermine what the creative team are doing? It is a promotional cover that is attached to books and is sold to people who specifically want it. What is the problem it causes if a cover (that is not the regular cover of the book) appeals to one audience while the book (regular cover included) appeals to another?

Themed variant covers such as June's Joker ones can be ordered just like any other comic. Retailers can get as much of them as they want. It is just as likely that someone stopping by a comic book store would see this cover as they would the regular cover. So even though it's "just a variant", given that it's themed and highly promoted to potentially increase sales and visibility, it represents the product just as much as the regular cover.

Now, the editors and creative team behind Batgirl have been hard at work creating a relaunched brand as a fun book and dare I say more attractive towards a young adult and female audience. The writers are actively seeking to pull away form the darkness of the previous run and The Killing Joke imagery. That is what the actual storyline is about, because it still had to be consistent with what came before. They're trying to represent women positively and not the oversexualized or victimized outlook comic books can depict.

So this variant was sort of a slap in the face to that. The writers did not want it to be linked to their book, the editors and the cover artist agreed.

[totalsellout]

I am curious about that. Has anyone actually produced the offending threats? I keep hearing people say that threats were made but nobody has actually shown them as far as I know, and this being the internet I don't trust anything that doesn't provide a citation. Could somebody provide a link to them?

i have not seen them, but i assume the artist isnt lying.