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

[The_Greatest_Username]

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.

Are you sure? New 52 DC was pretty much full-on grimdark for a good few years straight. It looks like post-Convergence we're going to see something different.

[rhymeswithparc]

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.

I'd like a link (but don't need or expect one) if you have one to support the claim that these variants can be ordered with the same volume as the regular cover, only because it directly contradicts what I know about variants and what I imagine is the point of variants. But even still, if both covers are on the shelf aren't they essentially different products? Should all of Gail Simone's Batgirl be pulled while this run is on the shelf for having similar content to the variant cover? I agree that the writer and the editor didn't want the cover on their book and I understand they got it pulled with the consent of the artist, but I have trouble understanding why. Since many people agree, I'm asking why.

[nepenthes]

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?

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.

Addressing these together as they're very much the same issue;

Sure, it's a variant...but I think it's also reductive to view it as only a variant. Comics marketing and fandom is so much more than just what happens in the store or on the racks; DC know very well that there's a huge living and breathing and very rabid online component that they need to be mindful of and shape their messaging to, and even more so with Batgirl who's success has been very much lifted by Tumblr etc. So the way a comic book is perceived by its intended audience is hugely important, in any channel. It's actually far more important that the un-interrupted execution of a planned one-off variant promotion. So in short, the fact it's only a variant is irrelevant to the people getting upset about this, and to the creative team who found it at odds with the intention of their book.

[cranger]

I'd like a link (but don't need or expect one) if you have one to support the claim that these variants can be ordered with the same volume as the regular cover, only because it directly contradicts what I know about variants and what I imagine is the point of variants.

To this point, many of DCs recent variants have had no ratio required to order. You can tell this in the solicits whether they just say VARIANT or include 1:25 or 1:100 or something http://www.comicbookresources.com/ar...nd-status-quos

[Doctor Know]

Found this on tumblr. Had to share

[Stormcrow]

I'd like a link (but don't need or expect one) if you have one to support the claim that these variants can be ordered with the same volume as the regular cover, only because it directly contradicts what I know about variants and what I imagine is the point of variants. But even still, if both covers are on the shelf aren't they essentially different products? Should all of Gail Simone's Batgirl be pulled while this run is on the shelf for having similar content to the variant cover? I agree that the writer and the editor didn't want the cover on their book and I understand they got it pulled with the consent of the artist, but I have trouble understanding why. Since many people agree, I'm asking why.

I wouldn't have a link and I'm not going searching for one, but it's common knowledge that DC's themed variant covers are not chase or incentive covers that might be scarce. They are printed in an equal ratio to the regular cover and I believe are available as separately order-able codes in Diamond’s Previews catalog (though not sure about that - if you want specifics you'd need to clarify with a LCS). But at least at the LCS I frequent, it's clear that they can order whatever cover strikes their fancy and normally cost regular cover price for the comic.

And we're talking about how the issue in question is represented, not the volume as a whole.

[nepenthes]

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?

Validating the nature of the threats is not a conversation we will be having here. Need to be very clear on that - please don't raise again.

[rhymeswithparc]

Addressing these together as they're very much the same issue;

Sure, it's a variant...but I think it's also reductive to view it as only a variant. Comics marketing and fandom is so much more than just what happens in the store on or the racks; DC know very well that there's a huge living and breathing and very rabid online component that they need to be mindful of, and even more so with Batgirl who's success has been very much lifted by Tumblr etc. So the way a comic book is perceived by its intended audience is hugely important; actually far more important that the interrupted execution of a monthly variant promotion. In short, fact it's only a variant is irrelevant.

I never said that this was "only a variant". I said it 'was a variant'. The difference comes from what I view to be the purpose of a variant cover. I see it as something that is meant to be different and it's purpose is to sell more physical copies to retailers that are then bought by collectors who want it. I agree that DC made and understandable business decision by pulling the cover, but I don't understand the creative integrity argument that you (and others) have made. How does this compromise that creative integrity if it literally becomes a different product that appeals to a different audience.

To this point, many of DCs recent variants have had no ratio required to order. You can tell this in the solicits whether they just say VARIANT or include 1:25 or 1:100 or something http://www.comicbookresources.com/ar...nd-status-quos

Fair enough. In the rest of my post, I took the statement to be true anyway. I find it kinda cool that DC would commission themed variants like these for fans at no extra cost but I guess that's a separate discussion.

[nepenthes]

I never said that this was "only a variant". I said it 'was a variant'. The difference comes from what I view to be the purpose of a variant cover. I see it as something that is meant to be different and it's purpose is to sell more physical copies to retailers that are then bought by collectors who want it. I agree that DC made and understandable business decision by pulling the cover, but I don't understand the creative integrity argument that you (and others) have made. How does this compromise that creative integrity if it literally becomes a different product that appeals to a different audience.

Got you, however what I'm saying is that a variant cannot be viewed in isolation from a books general readership, marketing, creative intent etc. I'm disagreeing that it becomes a separate product, because the online ecosystem around comic books is all encompassing and is key to how books are marketed and enjoyed. So it's a variant, sure...but it's also so much more than that.

[Doctor Know]

I said this in the old thread and I'll say it again here.
*After having read through all the posts I missed and reading more posts on tumblr and tweets about the Batgirl variant*


There seems to be something phony about this on the creative side IMO. As I posted before this was the variant for Batgirl #39



and this is an actual panel from Batgirl #37



Both are OVERT homages and references to TKJ.

I call it phony because it seems the (current) author, artist and creative team had no problem using/exploiting what happened to Babs before Batgirl #41 variant was released. Now though, TKJ essentially is being cast down from Olympus for not fitting the tone of the book and being "inappropriate". With the way people (pro-changethecover) have characterized and mischaracterized what happened in TKJ, it just screams false to me. The picture of Batgirl in a wheel chair with the title "vulnerable" is just as if not darker than the variant with the Joker. I say because I know Oracle Babs was never vulnerable and fought multiple enemies from random punks, Prometheus in JLA, thugs in No Man's Land, Black Lantern zombies and even the Joker himself.



I really think Stewart missed out on an opportunity to have a conversation with his audience and followers about the character's canon, continuity and context of everything she's been through.

[Stormcrow]

I said this in the old thread and I'll say it again here.
*After having read through all the posts I missed and reading more posts on tumblr and tweets about the Batgirl variant*


There seems to be something phony about this on the creative side IMO. As I posted before this was the variant for Batgirl #39

That is how you reference The Killing Joke while keeping it in line with the current creative direction as well as being fun and in good taste.

and this is an actual panel from Batgirl #37



Both are OVERT homages and references to TKJ.

I call it phony because it seems the (current) author, artist and creative team had no problem using/exploiting what happened to Babs before Batgirl #41 variant was released. Now though, TKJ essentially is being cast down from Olympus for not fitting the tone of the book and being "inappropriate". With the way people (pro-changethecover) have characterized and mischaracterized what happened in TKJ, it just screams false to me. The picture of Batgirl in a wheel chair with the title "vulnerable" is just as if not darker than the variant with the Joker. I say because I know Oracle Babs was never vulnerable and fought multiple enemies from random punks, Prometheus in JLA, thugs in No Man's Land, Black Lantern zombies and even the Joker himself.


I really think Stewart missed out on an opportunity to have a conversation with his audience and followers about the character's canon, continuity and context of everything she's been through.

1. It's not the Killing Joke that's being labeled as inappropriate, it's the way Batgirl was presented in the cover. Enough about that has been said.

2. The picture of Batgirl in the wheelchair is meant to be dark. This is something that the creative team is fully aware of and has control over it. The whole point of the current arc is reconciling the darkness from her past and moving on into a different direction. The antagonist is literally using dark images of her past against her, that's the main plot point.

3. Barabara was never Oracle in this continuity. We never got to see this version of Barbara overcome that vulnerability.

[Godlike13]

I call it phony because it seems the (current) author, artist and creative team had no problem using/exploiting what happened to Babs before Batgirl #41 variant was released. Now though, TKJ essentially is being cast down from Olympus for not fitting the tone of the book and being "inappropriate". With the way people (pro-changethecover) have characterized and mischaracterized what happened in TKJ, it just screams false to me. The picture of Batgirl in a wheel chair with the title "vulnerable" is just as if not darker than the variant with the Joker. I say because I know Oracle Babs was never vulnerable and fought multiple enemies from random punks, Prometheus in JLA, thugs in No Man's Land, Black Lantern zombies and even the Joker himself.



I really think Stewart missed out on an opportunity to have a conversation with his audience and followers about the character's canon, continuity and context of everything she's been through.

Awful example. Not sure u could have picked a worse one. Look up what happens after that page.

[numberthirty]

While I may be mistaken, I believe that the current creative team has all but disavowed that part of issue #37.

[numberthirty]

So you're basically saying that superhero comics must now no longer explore certain imagery? Should Punisher MAX no longer be printed, then?

You're advocating a seriously slippery slope here.

Punisher MAX was a very specific title for a very specific audience.

Almost the exact opposite of what is happening here.

[Stormcrow]

While I may be mistaken, I believe that the current creative team has all but disavowed that part of issue #37.

You are mistaken, that part of issue #37 was never the problem. Back then it was the portrayal of Dagger Type during the climax that caused another controversy, for which the creative team apologized but never actually disavowed their work.