Frank Cho drawing variant covers

[Gaelforce]

Also, sorry to Gaelforce, as I was misspelling your name in earlier posts, and I meant no disrespect. I honestly thought it was Gale and not Gael.

No worries

[dragonmp93]

And

Are the men wearing skirts? Because that is the #1 reason women learn to cross their legs while sitting.

And your first image may have a similar pose, but it still is not the same extreme of a bend in his back. Differences matter. How much is "too" much is debatable, and, as you said, we bring different views to the table and draw lines differently.

Yes, Cho's image is of a powerful WW and that is a good thing. It's that action and power that would make cover #3 my favorite so far, if Cho didn't have a tendency to take things too far (see above for debating "too"). One good aspect does not excuse another questionable aspect.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong for being ok with the cover, I'm saying that isn't the only point of view with merit. Those that aren't a fan have a point, too.



That really isn't a good excuse though. If I tell racist jokes because I think they are funny, that doesn't mean those jokes aren't offensive and hurtful to others, right? More and more women are speasking out because they are tired of how women are too often depicted in media. Sure, this is just one comic cover and Cho has done (and will do) worse, but it's part of a larger picture of problems in our culture.

Well, Speedy Gonzales is offensive to white americans instead of mexicans and latinos in general.

[dragonmp93]

Fail. Similar? Yes. But both Nightwing and Spider-Man would need a much more noticeable bend in their back for the images to really be the same as those for WW and Spider-Woman. Sorta close doesn't count for much, because it's the noticeable extreme bend for WW and Spider-Woman (and too many other images to count) that puts more emphasize their ###. There's no emphasis on Spider-Man's backside in that image.

Whether or not you can't see the difference, or whether or not said difference bothers you, does not mean there isn't a difference. And we all KNOW that for every image you can find of a super man's bottom, we can post countless more of WW and her female friends in more extreme poses (even though male characters far outnumber the women).

Im just saying that "you wouldnt pose a male character in *certain pose*" is a terrible standard and measurement.

[DisneyWWfan]

And

Are the men wearing skirts? Because that is the #1 reason women learn to cross their legs while sitting.

And your first image may have a similar pose, but it still is not the same extreme of a bend in his back. Differences matter. How much is "too" much is debatable, and, as you said, we bring different views to the table and draw lines differently.

Yes, Cho's image is of a powerful WW and that is a good thing. It's that action and power that would make cover #3 my favorite so far, if Cho didn't have a tendency to take things too far (see above for debating "too"). One good aspect does not excuse another questionable aspect.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong for being ok with the cover, I'm saying that isn't the only point of view with merit. Those that aren't a fan have a point, too.



That really isn't a good excuse though. If I tell racist jokes because I think they are funny, that doesn't mean those jokes aren't offensive and hurtful to others, right? More and more women are speasking out because they are tired of how women are too often depicted in media. Sure, this is just one comic cover and Cho has done (and will do) worse, but it's part of a larger picture of problems in our culture.

Okay, I thought I was done with this, but I feel I should respond to this....

Frank Cho did not in any way decide Diana was going to be in a skirt. As far as I know Rucka didn't either and it was mandated by DC to coincide with her movie costume. I was saying women cross their legs when they wear skirts, and was trying to display that men don't, so having women copy men's poses in skirts may be a bit unflattering for the women. As such, they cross their legs.

As for the pose, the pose is not what is in question in this thread. Wonder Woman's back and chest has been in no way shape or form edited from the original to the finished copy. Clearly the powers that be, whomever they were, did not take issue with what is happening with her upper torso. That being said I see the pose no more contorted then the Nicola Scott Wonder Woman 77 picture, though that may be a matter of opinion. What is in question is the appearance of her shorts under the skirt, and the hint of her posterior. I felt it was similar to the Nicola Scott 77 image, except there is no skirt in that image. In the Superman image I posted of a cover of Action Comics in which people are trying to pull at him, 75% of his posterior is shown, whereas maybe 15% is in the Cho image, and all I keep hearing ios that the Superman one doesn't count or that there's some other excuse for it. If the argument is to be made into the idea that this sort of thing happens to heroines and Wonder Woman in particular a lot (a lot more then Superman, Batman, etc.) I wholeheartedly agree. I do. It does, as seen by TaySwift's (I believe Ed Benes) image above. I'd say it also happens a lot more inside the comic book then on the covers, though the covers it is prevalent as well. I personally do not see this in any way a egregious example. As for those that feel under the New52 Chiang did not ever sexuallize Diana on the cover of a comic, having an issue where Poseidon's tentacle goes in between Diana's spread legs is probably every bit as egregious as what Cho did, if not markedly worse.

http://static5.comicvine.com/uploads...549625-05a.jpg

That being said, it happened in the past and we are moving forward.

As for your example, I couldn't disagree more. Someone telling a racist joke should simply not make the comment unless they are a stand up comic, and even then he has to think really long and hard about it. It'd be best he just come up with a different joke. An artist though is going to do the best they are capable of. Cho, or whomever is the artist, is being actively paid to make a product. They can make it, and if editors choose they can fire him on the spot, or they can try to make changes, or publish it as is. Ultimately he/she can only do the best job he/she can do. If they hate it, they won't publish it. Led Zepplin is a great band, it doesn't mean their rendition of Happy Birthday to You or It's a Small World would be all that appealing. My point in describing artists limitations was to say that it wasn't a mental thing with Jim Lee and drawing Krypto, it was he physically had troubles drawing a dog to his standards. Many an artist may feel they can't do Diana justice and fall back on what they are familiar and comfortable with, and ultimately the work that inspired their employers to hire them in the first place. Ultimately, I don't know why, but DC hired him to do this job with the others, knowing full well his history. I thought many of his backgrounds, with the details shown looked similar to engravings or the types of designs you see on money. I had no idea Frank Cho could draw like that. It's quite possible for all of those artists that can't do Diana justice shouldn't be drawing her in the first place. There probably are a very small select few that would meet that requirement though. It might even be possible that some of the best at the ability may not be comic artists at all. That being said, DC chooses who draws Wonder Woman, and they chose Frank Cho for variant covers. Rucka (or whomever who did have the legal clout to do so) edited one of the pictures enough Cho became uninterested and left. Being most critical, I would say to most artists drawing Diana to try to have her in flattering poses, in terms of respect, as that can start the ball rolling in a good direction. This pose I did not find to be a problem. I do not see the correlation between someone randomly making a racist or offcolor joke on the fly, to an artist who has been professionally contracted by the company that owns the character to make a drawing of Wonder Woman, and he does.

[Lex Luthor]

While I still agree Rucka has every right to do what he sees fit, I don't really see the problem with Diana being drawn the way Cho drew her.

[super_posable_joe]

I, for one, would buy more Wonder Woman if Frank Cho were the one drawing it.

[Awonder]

Okay, I thought I was done with this, but I feel I should respond to this....

Frank Cho did not in any way decide Diana was going to be in a skirt. As far as I know Rucka didn't either and it was mandated by DC to coincide with her movie costume. I was saying women cross their legs when they wear skirts, and was trying to display that men don't, so having women copy men's poses in skirts may be a bit unflattering for the women. As such, they cross their legs.

As for the pose, the pose is not what is in question in this thread. Wonder Woman's back and chest has been in no way shape or form edited from the original to the finished copy. Clearly the powers that be, whomever they were, did not take issue with what is happening with her upper torso. That being said I see the pose no more contorted then the Nicola Scott Wonder Woman 77 picture, though that may be a matter of opinion. What is in question is the appearance of her shorts under the skirt, and the hint of her posterior. I felt it was similar to the Nicola Scott 77 image, except there is no skirt in that image. In the Superman image I posted of a cover of Action Comics in which people are trying to pull at him, 75% of his posterior is shown, whereas maybe 15% is in the Cho image, and all I keep hearing ios that the Superman one doesn't count or that there's some other excuse for it. If the argument is to be made into the idea that this sort of thing happens to heroines and Wonder Woman in particular a lot (a lot more then Superman, Batman, etc.) I wholeheartedly agree. I do. It does, as seen by TaySwift's (I believe Ed Benes) image above. I'd say it also happens a lot more inside the comic book then on the covers, though the covers it is prevalent as well. I personally do not see this in any way a egregious example. As for those that feel under the New52 Chiang did not ever sexuallize Diana on the cover of a comic, having an issue where Poseidon's tentacle goes in between Diana's spread legs is probably every bit as egregious as what Cho did, if not markedly worse.

http://static5.comicvine.com/uploads...549625-05a.jpg

That being said, it happened in the past and we are moving forward.

As for your example, I couldn't disagree more. Someone telling a racist joke should simply not make the comment unless they are a stand up comic, and even then he has to think really long and hard about it. It'd be best he just come up with a different joke. An artist though is going to do the best they are capable of. Cho, or whomever is the artist, is being actively paid to make a product. They can make it, and if editors choose they can fire him on the spot, or they can try to make changes, or publish it as is. Ultimately he/she can only do the best job he/she can do. If they hate it, they won't publish it. Led Zepplin is a great band, it doesn't mean their rendition of Happy Birthday to You or It's a Small World would be all that appealing. My point in describing artists limitations was to say that it wasn't a mental thing with Jim Lee and drawing Krypto, it was he physically had troubles drawing a dog to his standards. Many an artist may feel they can't do Diana justice and fall back on what they are familiar and comfortable with, and ultimately the work that inspired their employers to hire them in the first place. Ultimately, I don't know why, but DC hired him to do this job with the others, knowing full well his history. I thought many of his backgrounds, with the details shown looked similar to engravings or the types of designs you see on money. I had no idea Frank Cho could draw like that. It's quite possible for all of those artists that can't do Diana justice shouldn't be drawing her in the first place. There probably are a very small select few that would meet that requirement though. It might even be possible that some of the best at the ability may not be comic artists at all. That being said, DC chooses who draws Wonder Woman, and they chose Frank Cho for variant covers. Rucka (or whomever who did have the legal clout to do so) edited one of the pictures enough Cho became uninterested and left. Being most critical, I would say to most artists drawing Diana to try to have her in flattering poses, in terms of respect, as that can start the ball rolling in a good direction. This pose I did not find to be a problem. I do not see the correlation between someone randomly making a racist or offcolor joke on the fly, to an artist who has been professionally contracted by the company that owns the character to make a drawing of Wonder Woman, and he does.

First, I did not mean to drag you back in. If you wish to be done with this debate, I understand and respect that.

Second, I know that Cho did not create the "skirt" for WW, and I don't blame him for using it in his covers.

Third, the pose. Just because it is not the issue for you, does not mean it is not part of the issue for others discussing it. And, no, the Nicola Scott cover you posted does not have as much bend in her back. It is the exaggerated bend in Cho's cover that is used to put more emphasis her backside. It is the pose that creates how much of her bottom we see (and Superman's cheeks are completely covered) - that is why it is part of the discussion.

It's not even a pose that makes a lot of sense. The tennis player, to borrow that example, is lunging to reach the ball. Cho's Diana is lunging into bullets that otherwise wouldn't hit her if she just stands up, because? To protect the wall behind her? She's not even doing a good job of that as it has been hit several times.

You do not see that as an egregious example, and that's fine. I'm not saying you should. I am saying your view is your view, but it is not the only view. If I were Cho's editor, I'd probably have let this one go to print - but, with the caveat of "Hey, Frank, you're getting back into your tendencies and getting close to too much."

Cho is a fantasticly skilled artist. The problem, imo, is not his talent but his taste. So, no, I don't buy into your "artists just can't draw her" theory. I think you're making excuses and cutting them too much slack. Comic artists for DECADES now have been over-sexualizing female characters. On purpose. Cho knows how to draw very well, and has chosen to make a name for himself with sexualizing females. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because he hasn't earned it.

I had hope for him when I saw the first two covers; best work of his career (that I've seen). The third is even better in that it is more dynamic (and I love the bit we've seen with Athena and Aphrodite); but Cho just can't seem to go three covers without going "too" far (again, "too" is very subjective, as you seem to agree).

[Awonder]

Im just saying that "you wouldnt pose a male character in *certain pose*" is a terrible standard and measurement.

And why is it such a "terrible" measure?

Note: I am NOT saying female characters should also look like men. I am not saying there can't be differences. Females butts tend to be different from males butts. Biology. But there is nothing biological that says when a female rushes into action, she must bend her back and stick out her bottom much more noticeably than the men do. Give WW a straighter back, and it's a wonderful cover.

[Carabas]

And Spider-woman wasnt ?.

She was on a flat surface, not crawling up or down a wall. You can tell from the skyscrapers in the background.

[Carabas]

When Adam Hughes Walked Off Wonder Woman As Cover Artist?

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/07/...-cover-artist/

And did Hughes ever air any of this in the press? No.

That's how a real pro deals with this kind of stuff that is an everyday occurence in work-for-hire comics.

[Pamp_Lusa]

And why is it such a "terrible" measure?

Note: I am NOT saying female characters should also look like men. I am not saying there can't be differences. Females butts tend to be different from males butts. Biology. But there is nothing biological that says when a female rushes into action, she must bend her back and stick out her bottom much more noticeably than the men do. Give WW a straighter back, and it's a wonderful cover.

To me it doesn't look like she's bending her back so much as like Cho narrowed her waistline because she's a woman. I think you can probably draw a man in this pose, he just wouldn't have a tiny waist, men have a different silhouette

[Carabas]

To me it doesn't look like she's bending her back so much as like Cho narrowed her waistline because she's a woman. I think you can probably draw a man in this pose, he just wouldn't have a tiny waist, men have a different silhouette

Men and women do not have anatomically signifcantly different waists that they would look radically different in art. Plus you can actually see the curve of her back. She's bending her back.

[Pamp_Lusa]

Men and women do not have anatomically signifcantly different waists that they would look radically different in art. Plus you can actually see the curve of her back. She's bending her back.

It's common practice for artists to accentuate women's hourglass shape and frankly I think that's all he did here. And if she's bending her back she's not doing so in a way that feels awkward or inappropriate, to me it just looks like she's rotating her torso

[ouroboros]

I just read the thread, and have a question.

Since Rucka has declined to comment on this conflict--

Has he ever summarized his beliefs about feminism in a public interview?

I ask as someone who just read a couple of his early WWs, didn't feel inspired to read further, and haven't read any of his current work with the character.

[Carabas]

I just read the thread, and have a question.

Since Rucka has declined to comment on this conflict--

Has he ever summarized his beliefs about feminism in a public interview?

I'm sure he has indeed done so quite often.