DC Comics Cancels "Batgirl" Joker Variant at Artist's Request

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Good on Albuquerque, not so much on DC for making the announcement like a frustrated schoolteacher. If people here seriously cannot see on any level why this cover was entirely wrong-headed from jump street on pretty much every level, and honest to god believe this and any other cries of "hey, this is actually insanely messed up and pretty offensive, probably this should be reconsidered" are some kind of blow against artistic expression on par with the advent of the comics code (as opposed to switching a character's costume or taking a book in a different direction like, hey, Batgirl a few months ago, so obviously none of these same people complained about that), maybe it really is time to leave the forum like I've considered more than once.

What were these threats? No doubt people said some out of line things on forums, but somehow I don't see this raising letter campaigns like really serious indiscretions like replacing Peter Parker for a year/forever in an out-of-continuity book or putting pants on a superheroine. Just to clarify, if this has actually been a widespread thing I'm willing and eager to eat my words here, and even the lowest level things of that nature are indeed reprehensible, regardless of cause.

[cranger]

It's not censorship to understand that if you're going to write an all-ages book that you need to make sure the "all ages" includes some very young readers.

It is not an all-ages book, as someone else also pointed out.

[ImprobableQuestion]

Even better than awesome, dark is "mature" and "realistic"

Because that's what superhero comics should be if we want to be taken seriously.

Which is of course what all of us need in our escapist fiction.

[Coal Tiger]

Actually, that's one of the problems. People just forget about that.

Maybe because DC doesn't decide to remind everyone every chance they get.

[ABH]

So I just heard about this:

Cameron Stewart said that the threats the DC statement was referring to were the ones made against people objecting to the cover.


Imagine that.

All of a sudden, this story becomes very familiar in a very dirty way.

Yeah, it makes a lot more sense, now.

[Luke Cage]

People who complained about the cover got Death Threats?

Obviously, that cannot be allowed to stand. I imagine that everyone who's posted in this thread worried about censorship and intimidation will now be 100% behind the decision not to use the cover, because We Can't Let People Get Their Own Way With Violence!

Right?

Not at all. Use the cover. There is nothing wrong with it.

[AcesX1X]

"Something to clarify, because DCs statement was a little unclear. @rafaalbuquerque did not get threats. People OBJECTING to the cover did."

thank you for posting this. how shameful.

[thecrimson]

Honestly I don't care if it was cover supporters threatening non-supporters or vice versa. My position remains the same. Keep the cover.

Threats are wrong in all circumstances.

Yeah, I'm in agreement.

[Claude]

Probably Albuquerque did want it published, but pulled it because people complained. If he would've pulled it without the complaints, then he could be said not to have been censored. But it's specifically been pulled because "dozens" of comments about it were negative. That's an utterly insignificant number of people.

Some of those "insignificant number of people" were the people who make the book. Do they not get a say?

[themasething]

I'd love to see how calm and collected all of the anti-cover crusaders would be in the same situation. How many of you would stand there stone faced, fighting back at anything an aggressor even moves in your general direction to do while holding you at gunpoint? Babs was reacting like any normal human being would do in such a situation. But because it references a scene where people are confusing a gun shot wound as a rape scene, they get outraged.

[Cipher]

Probably Albuquerque did want it published, but pulled it because people complained. If he would've pulled it without the complaints, then he could be said not to have been censored. But it's specifically been pulled because "dozens" of comments about it were negative. That's an utterly insignificant number of people.

So ... he probably agreed with them, then? Is it unthinkable that an artist may have realized some of the negative implications of his work after completing it?

This isn't censorship. Anyone is free to put out the art they desire. It's just going to get certain reactions, which, if they intend to sell it as a commercial product, they might be likely to listen to. Or perhaps, in this case, just because they feel a certain responsibility as creators, either to the tone of their series or the impact these decisions have on perceptions of the medium.

No more censorship than feeling like (or being told editorially) a cover had to have more muscles in the '90s or it may sell fewer copies -- though this, I hope most people can agree -- is a form of consumer awareness with a healthier end.

So I just heard about this:

Cameron Stewart said that the threats the DC statement was referring to were the ones made against people objecting to the cover.


Imagine that.

There ought to be just a liiiiiiittle bit of crow-eating after that. Also, god damn is that an old, depressing song and dance.

[Kid A]

And whoever was talking about the CCA should be more specific, since I'm not sure you can find a person who's been reading comics since the 70's who would say that comics are better now than they were in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. What was the most "classic" Spider-Man story? Probably "the night Gwen Stacy died" or "If this by my destiny/the final chapter" and guess what was on the cover of those books? Year One had the code on it, as did The Laughing Fish. And before you think I'm arguing in favor of "censorship" what I'm saying is that the comics code was irrelevant. It didn't hurt anyone.

Censorship helped Marvel and DC, but screwed over non-superhero companies like EC Comics. In some ways it's the root to how comics became the ghetto it is now.

[numberthirty]

"Something to clarify, because DCs statement was a little unclear. @rafaalbuquerque did not get threats. People OBJECTING to the cover did."

Jeez...

While this may very well be the case, I hope that it's not.

[Rakzo]

God, I hate how this harrassment continues no matter who the victim is.

Maybe because DC doesn't decide to remind everyone every chance they get.

Speaking of another topic, it happens with Jason and his murder.

[Panfoot]

Wait, so they cancelled the cover...because people were threatening the people complaining about the cover? I...don't get it