J. Scott Campbell Rethinks Riri Williams

[WestPhillyPunisher]

His re-think proves that's not the case.

Oh, really?



Now, Betty and Veronica are sixteen, maybe seventeen, not much older than Riri, so, why was there no outrage about this sexy interpretation of teenage girls? Am I wrong? What am I missing?

[jeanvaljean]

You said it's the only thing he does.
He already did something else with his "re-think", hence no amount of cheesecakes can prove you right. Your claim is already falsified.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

You said it's the only thing he does.
He already did something else with his "re-think", hence no amount of cheesecakes can prove you right. Your claim is already falsified.

Point taken. To be honest, I don't even know why I'm arguing this, I dropped Iron Man months ago before Civil War 2.0 and have no intention on reading this new incarnation.

[ed2962]

Like he's tried with his last two threads and his posting history on this forum?

I was joking

[ed2962]

Oh, really?



Now, Betty and Veronica are sixteen, maybe seventeen, not much older than Riri, so, why was there no outrage about this sexy interpretation of teenage girls? Am I wrong? What am I missing?

If I were to hazard to guess, I say part of it might be that Riri is a Marvel superhero comic and is getting a lot of press in the larger media. Also, subjectively I think this cover is less "tacky" if that makes any sense? Plus, and it's hard for me to put into words this early, but people kinda know 17yrs are kinda discovering their sexuality around that age ( although many try to discourage it). Most folks in our society don't think that 15 yr olds should having sex.

[yet another]

If I were to hazard to guess, I say part of it might be that Riri is a Marvel superhero comic and is getting a lot of press in the larger media. Also, subjectively I think this cover is less "tacky" if that makes any sense? Plus, and it's hard for me to put into words this early, but people kinda know 17yrs are kinda discovering their sexuality around that age ( although many try to discourage it). Most folks in our society don't think that 15 yr olds should having sex.

Also, didn't the Riri issues originally come from black women being concerned about the sexualization of black girls? Not really relevant for Betty and Veronica.

[ed2962]

Also, didn't the Riri issues originally come from black women being concerned about the sexualization of black girls? Not really relevant for Betty and Veronica.

I think I'd word it differently, after all there was plenty of criticism of Ken Rocafort's image of Wonder Girl on that cover of Teen Titans. But yeah, the larger implications are that we do live in a society where some people stereotype black and brown people as being more sexual by nature than others. Some folks might see Sassy Sexy Riri as a symptom of that.

[bloodofthegods]

Enhanced for emphasis, but this is kind of at the heart of part of this issue, I think. It's rated "Teen" (like everything, virtually, at Marvel, because Teen just means "please don't sue"), and it features a teen, it may even be read by some teens. But, J Scott Campbell isn't a teen, is he?

Comics has a sad, weird history of normalizing oversexualized teenage girls. Micronauts/X-Men, which is a toy tie-in comic, has teen girls walking around in their high-cut underwear while Prof X, evil, makes them orgasm until they serve him. We couldn't even, back in the day, have 16 yr old Kitty Pryde vs Mojo without getting nonstop panty shots (seriously, go look at that oneshot again). And, when the audience is teens, or younger, we just normalized this in. But that doesn't mean it was a good thing then, or now. It just means we thought it was normal and didn't think about the forty year olds drawing the stuff or writing it.

I like Ultimate Spidey fine, though I like the later artists on MJ more, and I didn't really think about why until a recent reread when I noticed Bagley's confession, in the backmatter of an issue of "I'm a pervert" "She's fifteen!" is his whole take on the character. She's just kewpie fantasy girl. Barely a step up from Knockout, who he co-created, the girl with giant hair, massive jugs, and no waist to speak of who had no personality beyond finding Doc Ock hot.

I still like Bagley and his work. I'm not saying he's a bad guy. But, he's internalized some stuff, I'm sure, and he's actively normalized some things that result in us, on occasion, wondering if sexing up teenage girls is okeh if the book is aimed at/approved for teens but is in no way a book about sex or sexuality. An argument I never hear about teen male superheroes at Marvel. "Well, yeah, his pants are riding up into his crotch tightly enough to make folds, and he's exposing his stomach for us and stretched out to model proportions, but... it's a Rated T book."

We don't do that, and it's not because there are essential differences between boys and girls and one just has more skin or tighter pants by nature.

While I won't disagree with comics history concerning women and sexuality, this cover just isn't the same thing. We (those participating in this thread) are bunch of grown men and women that know the history of comics, been reading them most our lives, and not the target audience for this book. If Marvel does indeed want to get more girls/women reading comics, this is probably for them. And if a teen gal does pick up this comic, is she going to find it offensive? Are other parents going to find it offensive? Or are we just offended for all the people that might possibly pick up this book and not know they should be offended? Also, if this is a solicit, we then don't know the contents of the issue, which is more telling of what Marvel is doing with this character than the cover that has a teen gal in a halter top. (Which to say having a son heading to high school next year is not unusual garb outside of school for gals that age.) I don't think this is one of those instances of protecting a teens from anything that might offend their sensibilities. I think it's more "won't someone think of the children" so we have something to feel good about. And while I don't think it's a bad thing to be aware of what children consume, or might consume; I do think it's bad when we start preemptively deciding what they should be offended by.

And this cover, not even the "rethink" cover, is a huge censorship on Campbell's part of his usual drawing instincts. Take the time to just image google search his name, like I did last night, and this cover is mild in comparison. Both covers are fine and very censored for Campbell.

I was joking

I wish I could say I was.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

His re-think proves that's not the case.

Honestly , the rethink image ....its better for sure. As art piece. The 1st cover was lazy and really just one without armor. But to say Campbell didn't make a sexy image as usual is kinda a stretch. Given the position of the character and her legs around the Iron Man helmet.

Course he likely is laughing and thinking , ok ...this is considered tame. But a cover with a crop top ...is considered ...TOO FAR.

[Mecegirl]

While I won't disagree with comics history concerning women and sexuality, this cover just isn't the same thing. We (those participating in this thread) are bunch of grown men and women that know the history of comics, been reading them most our lives, and not the target audience for this book. If Marvel does indeed want to get more girls/women reading comics, this is probably for them. And if a teen gal does pick up this comic, is she going to find it offensive? Are other parents going to find it offensive? Or are we just offended for all the people that might possibly pick up this book and not know they should be offended? Also, if this is a solicit, we then don't know the contents of the issue, which is more telling of what Marvel is doing with this character than the cover that has a teen gal in a halter top. (Which to say having a son heading to high school next year is not unusual garb outside of school for gals that age.) I don't think this is one of those instances of protecting a teens from anything that might offend their sensibilities. I think it's more "won't someone think of the children" so we have something to feel good about. And while I don't think it's a bad thing to be aware of what children consume, or might consume; I do think it's bad when we start preemptively deciding what they should be offended by.

Its not just that they might find it offensive. Its that they probably wouldn't buy it because it isn't done in a style that would appeal to them. The second cover seems a lot more cute and spunky which would actually be more likely to bring 15 year old girls in rather than generic comic book girl on a cover number 5,463. It didn't work that well when I was 15 (and younger) I don't think that it would work now. Ask women who read comics since kiddom. There are a lot of things about 90's art styles that put us off. But with everything else competing with girls attention now why bother reading some comic book with a boring ass cover that looks like it was made to appeal to middle aged male tastes when there are scores of Young Adult novels with female leads to choose from? Or even all the webcomics that are out now?

[numberthirty]

But to say Campbell didn't make a sexy image as usual is kinda a stretch. Given the position of the character and her legs around the Iron Man helmet.

Definitely agreed. It's not like the new image is a front view of a young woman in a flannel shirt working at a soldering station with no view of her legs.

It's just reserved cheesecake.

[ed2962]

i disagree. While the 2nd image still cute, I don't think it plays up her sexuality. It's not like she's got her legs around the helmet in a sensual manner.

[numberthirty]

i disagree. While the 2nd image still cute, I don't think it plays up her sexuality. It's not like she's got her legs around the helmet in a sensual manner.

It's a teen who is under the age of consent in most states facing you with her legs spread. It's about the same degree of cheesecake as the Betty/Veronica image above.

It's not like it's actually a night and day difference from the bulk of his work. Just a more reserved version.

[bloodofthegods]

Its not just that they might find it offensive. Its that they probably wouldn't buy it because it isn't done in a style that would appeal to them. The second cover seems a lot more cute and spunky which would actually be more likely to bring 15 year old girls in rather than generic comic book girl on a cover number 5,463. It didn't work that well when I was 15 (and younger) I don't think that it would work now. Ask women who read comics since kiddom. There are a lot of things about 90's art styles that put us off. But with everything else competing with girls attention now why bother reading some comic book with a boring ass cover that looks like it was made to appeal to middle aged male tastes when there are scores of Young Adult novels with female leads to choose from? Or even all the webcomics that are out now?

Obviously we would need some teen insight as to what to make of this cover, to know if it is offensive or just boring. But I don't think people give credit enough to what kids/teens can absorb and handle. (I know I sure always haven't in the 13 years I've been a parent.) And I mean, if it weren't for the sake of discussion, since this is a message board, I wouldn't care either way to buy it myself, or for my children to buy it no matter what cover is on the book. I have probably 3 comic stories off the top of my head out of thousands of comics, I wouldn't/won't (my boys don't show much interest in comics anyway) let them read at their age now. But the things in those comics are far more extreme than a gal in a halter top, with her hips out. That's just my two cents. But I appreciate the nice and sensible response.

[ed2962]

It's a teen who is under the age of consent in most states facing you with her legs spread. It's about the same degree of cheesecake as the Betty/Veronica image above.

It's not like it's actually a night and day difference from the bulk of his work. Just a more reserved version.

Her leg are not spread in any sort of seductive or "hot" manner. I can see making an argument that the Betty and Veronica cover might be reserved cheesecake, but not the 2nd Riri cover.