Frank Cho Leaves "Wonder Woman"; Blames Greg Rucka's 'Political Agenda'

[TOTALITY]

OMG. Peak Frank Cho. That he was hired to do variant covers for THIS Wonder Woman series in the first place was a baffling case of mixed messaging. Is she a powerful feminine icon, or an object of sexual desire? (I know the two aren't mutually exclusive, but Cho's art certainly tends to skew towards the latter to a degree that goes way beyond anything you'd expect the likes of Greg Rucka and Nicola Scott to be going for.)

He could have taken the feedback like "you're right, maybe this isn't a book where I need to look up Wonder Woman's skirt -- let's crop the first cover and there are plenty of other ways I can draw Wonder Woman moving forward." But OF COURSE Frank Cho would immediately cry "censorship!"... there's no way any of this feedback could be rational, with an eye towards a more cohesive presentation of the character -- it must be those crazy "SJW's" wagging their fingers at everything fun and cool again! ***shrug***


***I should clarify that I don't think Frank Cho should have felt obligated to draw 18 more covers of Wonder Woman if he wasn't going to feel artistically, personally fulfilled within the parameters that were available to him. If he only wants to draw Wonder Woman certain ways, well, more power to him to recognize that, and it's probably best that he stepped away rather than continue something that wasn't going to be fulfilling to any party involved. What annoys me though is how he feels the need to pitch a fit about the "politics," as if he can't fathom how any consideration of how characters are sexualized could have anything to do with a comic book cover, let alone covers for a series about an iconic, populist character that he doesn't own. If he was commissioned to do art and those who commissioned it *aren't* looking for a panty shot, it's not like some god-given right is being infringed on, it's just a totally valid creative disagreement that unfortunately wasted some of his time/effort.

[KryptoTheSuperdog]

Agreed... Wonder Woman is what she is...

[borntohula]

Just out of curiosity, if the variant covers are used to boost order numbers then why does the series writer have influence in the marketing of the book?

Then I saw the cover. That's it? A tiny bit of Wonder Woman's leotard is exposed. So, yeah, the decision to remove Cho strikes me as irrational which is usually a sign of something personal -- beliefs or beef, who knows.

Frank Cho's Wonder Woman fits him perfectly. She's powerful and eloquent. Cho can do "fine rendering" or strong and simple line work. I love that his Wonder Woman looks physically powerful like Darwyn Cooke's version and could squat a bus.

Chonsays he left the book, and you say he was dropped. --Why?

[John Aston]

Correction: he left over a dispute regarding the cover. I guess my brain interpreted that "as being subtly squeezed out." Original post edited.

[Namor'sWrath]

She was doing the classic "break my back so I can stick my ass out pose." I don't blame Rucka for not liking it.

[Nick Miller]

It's one thing to say....we don't like this can you adjust this part


And another thing to change his art without asking.

[mathew101281]

OMG. Peak Frank Cho. That he was hired to do variant covers for THIS Wonder Woman series in the first place was a baffling case of mixed messaging. Is she a powerful feminine icon, or an object of sexual desire? (I know the two aren't mutually exclusive, but Cho's art certainly tends to skew towards the latter to a degree that goes way beyond anything you'd expect the likes of Greg Rucka and Nicola Scott to be going for.)

He could have taken the feedback like "you're right, maybe this isn't a book where I need to look up Wonder Woman's skirt -- let's crop the first cover and there are plenty of other ways I can draw Wonder Woman moving forward." But OF COURSE Frank Cho would immediately cry "censorship!"... there's no way any of this feedback could be rational, with an eye towards a more cohesive presentation of the character -- it must be those crazy "SJW's" wagging their fingers at everything fun and cool again! ***shrug***

That's the thing, these covers are not that sexually explicit. Especially by Wonder Woman standards. I'm trying to see what about the covers set Rucka off.

[solletaire]

From Gail Simone's facebook:

"Watching a bunch of geniuses with zero experience working in comics and even less insider knowledge offer their astounding insights into what they are CERTAIN happened between a writer and and artist regarding a cover dispute.

Embarrassing. It’d take an hour to explain how that process goes and it wouldn’t change their brilliant insights anyway. Watching them completely mangle even the scant facts presented so far is both funny and sad.

Here, let me help. I’ve written 400 comics for DC. I know most of the people involved, I have written for that character extensively, and I had many, many disagreements with the direction of covers over the years (very little of it with the artists, I was usually arguing FOR cover concepts editorial didn’t like).

So, I actually DO know this process. And what do I know, what have I gleaned about this story, with that knowledge?
Jack squat.

The story so far is one understandably upset artist who feels censored. While the writer is a good friend of mine, and I don’t know the artist personally, this is an unfortunate situation. I’m a fan of this artist (I’m not using names because this is not a singular event). I don’t like to see talented artists put in this position.

But beyond that, it all goes into a black well of details we don’t know. What these self-appointed experts are unaware of is, this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. Covers go past a LOT of eyes before approval. A-list writers are ROUTINELY asked for input on the covers. And a misstep between how a book is meant to be portrayed and the artist’s freedom is common. Beyond that, the writer has not spoken up, and DC WILL NOT speak up. They don’t talk about behind the scenes stuff and that’s good, in my opinion.

I get it, it’s fun to be outraged, and it’s fun to believe whatever narrative fits your belief system.

But if all you know is that one story, you don’t know much of anything. Neither do I.

Let’s all go ahead and make up weird theories, anyway, shall we?"



Personaly, im quiet fed up with everything becoming a clickbait fest infested with the opinions of morons. Drokk me if Frank Miller didnt forsee things to come with his dark knight strikes again...

Could not agree more with your comment and Ms. Simone's post. It's Bleeding Cool, what can we expect? I stopped reading the site a year ago for a reason: It thrives on gossip and creating controversies much like any tabloid magazine

[Atlanta96]

I mentioned this on the Womder Woman boards, but it's worth repeating. In a statement posted on The Mary Sue, Frank explained that he was promised his covers would only be regulated by DC editorial. Things were fine until Rucka started criticizing the covers for being "too vulgar". It turned out that Rucka had more control over the series than Frank was initially told, but it was a matter of miscommunication and not outright lying.

So Frank isn't necessarily mad that Rucka was regulating his covers, he's mad because he was told Rucka would not be regulating the covers. And most people seem to agree that his covers were no more vulgar than the interior art. Make of that what you will.

[AlexanderLuthor]

From Gail Simone's facebook:

"Watching a bunch of geniuses with zero experience working in comics and even less insider knowledge offer their astounding insights into what they are CERTAIN happened between a writer and and artist regarding a cover dispute.

Embarrassing. It’d take an hour to explain how that process goes and it wouldn’t change their brilliant insights anyway. Watching them completely mangle even the scant facts presented so far is both funny and sad.

Here, let me help. I’ve written 400 comics for DC. I know most of the people involved, I have written for that character extensively, and I had many, many disagreements with the direction of covers over the years (very little of it with the artists, I was usually arguing FOR cover concepts editorial didn’t like).

So, I actually DO know this process. And what do I know, what have I gleaned about this story, with that knowledge?
Jack squat.

The story so far is one understandably upset artist who feels censored. While the writer is a good friend of mine, and I don’t know the artist personally, this is an unfortunate situation. I’m a fan of this artist (I’m not using names because this is not a singular event). I don’t like to see talented artists put in this position.

But beyond that, it all goes into a black well of details we don’t know. What these self-appointed experts are unaware of is, this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. Covers go past a LOT of eyes before approval. A-list writers are ROUTINELY asked for input on the covers. And a misstep between how a book is meant to be portrayed and the artist’s freedom is common. Beyond that, the writer has not spoken up, and DC WILL NOT speak up. They don’t talk about behind the scenes stuff and that’s good, in my opinion.

I get it, it’s fun to be outraged, and it’s fun to believe whatever narrative fits your belief system.

But if all you know is that one story, you don’t know much of anything. Neither do I.

Let’s all go ahead and make up weird theories, anyway, shall we?"



Personaly, im quiet fed up with everything becoming a clickbait fest infested with the opinions of morons. Drokk me if Frank Miller didnt forsee things to come with his dark knight strikes again...

Always interesting to me when someone denigrates the fans of their product. In essence, Gail is saying shut up, morons, I'm a professional. Writing comic books isn't exactly building nuclear reactors so I'm sure most people smart enough to read can make up their own minds here. Given that Gail only has about 15,000 people that buy her books she should be careful to not piss off too many of them by calling them imbeciles

[borntohula]

I'm a too tempted to rewrite this into:

"Hey lets just pretend bad things that we can't change don't happen."

Well, its not how Funky Flashman treathed The King is it?

Things didnt work out. Thats that. Its not drama or worthy a dark knight strikes again-esque narrative of drivel.

That said. I can relate to both Rucka and Cho. And I even like Cho's Diana more than how Rucka writes her.

Always interesting to me when someone denigrates the fans of their product. In essence, Gail is saying shut up, morons, I'm a professional. Writing comic books isn't exactly building nuclear reactors so I'm sure most people smart enough to read can make up their own minds here. Given that Gail only has about 15,000 people that buy her books she should be careful to not piss off too many of them by calling them imbeciles

Are you having a laugh?

More or less everyone is saying Cho got fired. Hows that for starters...

And simone wrote none of those things --you did...

And regarding Simones WW. I wasnt a fan of her run, and regardless how many are or not. How is that relevant? Are those issues sold some sort of important stat in this "issue". Wouldnt then Simone be more right than most? Or are you a better selling ww writer than her?

[Supermutant2099]

This cover is so less offensive then they say a lot of dc covers. My only thinking is just little bit of underwear? Come on rucka. Don't got to be so sensitive about it. Come on Cho. That gets you to quit? I get its your artwork and the way went about. This is your dream job at dc and let this be thing get you off book?

[Thrashalla]

I'm a big fan of both of them but both have personality traits that would make putting them together a nightmare scenario.

Rucka is a social justice warrior (I'm not using that term as a pejorative) with a borderline misandrist devotion to feminism - read his interviews and his social media posts and this is blatantly clear. Most disturbing is that he refuses to even have a conversation about the opposite views unless he's sniping from Twitter. Again, I'm a huge fan of his work and I even agree with his basic principles - it's the extremism that makes me look at him slightly askew.

Then Frank is a (overly )sensitive artist type who definitely sees the female form from an artistic point of view. As an artist myself it does get difficult to politicize the human body after studying it for so long - it's just lines and curves and, as an artist, drawing exaggerated curves feels better than chiseled straight lines - it's in the way our arms and joints move - curves are a natural pattern for the arm to move in. It actually takes practice and restraint not to make every hip a big swooping curve. However, he does have a tinge of the unsavory as he does lean toward cheesecakey pinups and he likes to 'poke the bear' with his variant covers and his 'Drawing Sexy Women' series of books doesn't give him any equality street cred. He's also a volatile contrarian who digs his heels in at the slightest criticism.

"Yeah, but really - come on..." Is my reaction to both of them.

I really don't think either is at fault - the fault lies with whoever put these two on the same project and expected it to go smoother.

I will say this - with how much word service that writers get, if I were Cho, I'd be raising a fuss as much as I could as it seems like one of the only ways that artists get press these days. (And he's absolutely right about the interior art showing just as much skin.)

[John Aston]

OMG. Peak Frank Cho. That he was hired to do variant covers for THIS Wonder Woman series in the first place was a baffling case of mixed messaging. Is she a powerful feminine icon, or an object of sexual desire? (I know the two aren't mutually exclusive, but Cho's art certainly tends to skew towards the latter to a degree that goes way beyond anything you'd expect the likes of Greg Rucka and Nicola Scott to be going for.)

He could have taken the feedback like "you're right, maybe this isn't a book where I need to look up Wonder Woman's skirt -- let's crop the first cover and there are plenty of other ways I can draw Wonder Woman moving forward." But OF COURSE Frank Cho would immediately cry "censorship!"... there's no way any of this feedback could be rational, with an eye towards a more cohesive presentation of the character -- it must be those crazy "SJW's" wagging their fingers at everything fun and cool again! ***shrug***

In fairness, DC hired Frank Cho to draw Wonder Woman covers because he's Frank Cho. His resume does include drawing idealized women but he is capable of fine ink rendering and is insanely talented with perspective, anatomy and attention to detail. DC landed a solid comic artist for their project who had previously been closely tied to Marvel for years.

This swirl reminds me when Marvel hired European erotica artist Manara and complaining you get a lush and sexy cover. Or, if we crack open our history books and recall when DC touched up Jack Kirby's Superman faces. They hired Jack Kirby to do Jack Kirby what was the point in meddling with that?

From what I read of Cho's reasoning to back off WW, it seems like there was some interference from outside his DC handlers/editorial/chain of command.

Did anybody take issue about the Adam Hughes Wonder Woman covers like this?

[KOSLOX]

So he had a meltdown because they cropped out her underwear?