She Has No Head: The Trouble with DC's Bombshell Variants

[CBR News]

In her latest column, Kelly Thompson explains why she's displeased with DC Comics' "Bombshell" variant covers and the crime of omission.


Full article here.

[My Two Cents]

I am buying all the bombshell variants
Mostly because I already read those books (yes, there are people who actually like and appreciate what D C Comics has been doing these past three years)
and second because I love the covers.

Pretty much agree with the comment about Amanda Waller being dumbed down
Not that she is playing the court jester in the new 52. In fact she is pretty much as bad ass as they come there.
But there will never be another Amanda Waller like the original.

[kevinjwoods]

My problem is that a lot of them just aren't very good covers, and somehow manage to make the characters look well unsexy, especially compared to what they normally wear.
And it is interesting that the characters like Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and the Black Canary look absolutely nothing like the costumes that they were wearing at the time these covers were designed to evoke, indeed they are more designed with the 21st century aesthetic idea of what a 40s/50s aesthetic was. Does DC imagine that in the real world some of those poses wouldn't be restricted to the sort of backroom of a newsagents and a paper bag type of magazine, sure nowadays that sort of costume is normal and in many disturbing ways mainstream but back then walking down the street in your underwear would cause heart attacks and spending a month in jail.
They seem to have researched modern burlesque ideas of the time. and went 'yeah that'll work'.
A quick google search shows that mainstream magazine covers of the time were relatively prim and proper with the style these new covers are portraying restricted to the more obviously sexual end of the spectrum and aimed at men who would spent most of their time away from woman.
So what I am probably failing to say clearly is that someone has seen images of modern photoshoots and artwork designed to be suited to modern tastes and then decided to adapt them to characters where for the most part they don't work or are unsuitable just for the publicity and all they got is the wrong sort of publicity

[Neil Kapit]

The whole thing is pretty damn hinky, but what especially bothered me was the Carol Ferris cover with her in "sexy stewardess" get-up. Because even though she's an ace pilot, CEO, and superheroine herself, that's what they went with.

[Jadis]

I like many if not most of the Bombshell covers. They are not something I would want to see all the time. But as a nice change of pace with a era touched feel, they work fine generally. I'm hardly consistently enamored with the Marvel covers shown either. Some are quite cool and energetic and others do nothing for me.

So I guess I'd say I largely disagree.

[CliffHanger2]

Yeah I really don't see the problem with these covers. She admits they are done well but her main gripe is that there are no men that are being shown as "sexy bombshells". I think everyone knows that men and women are sexy in different ways and are portrayed as such. I'll never get the argument that men should be shown as "sexy" the same way women are.

[KeenerED]

I've read several articles about this, and I know I'm behind the times on this one. But I had a thought.

We all should know that the anniversary of D-Day happened around the time these covers came out. We know that the bombshell pin-up was popular during that time period. Now I haven't seen anythin mentioning this or read it in any of the articles that I've read on it. But is it possible that DC was trying to commemorate the D-Day anniversary?

Not trying to start a fight, just curious if anyone had any info one way or the other about this, and thought this would be a good place to ask.

[wild_child2]

Why would they have a man in a sexy pose for sex appeal for fan service? Most of their readers are males. A few amount of their readers are probably gay and females.