The 3 costumes in the top panel:FAIL
My involuntary vocal responses to the three images, in order:"...The FUCK?""Oh my GOD.""WHAT?!!?!"
You blame Balent and Demulder (which is acceptable -- they did supply the art after all).But shouldn't the writer also be 'implicated'? S/he (I don't know who the writer was --- if it was Jim Balent, then I guess no further implication is necessary) wrote the characters as begin female versions and I would have to imagine supplied the descriptions that resulted in the final illustrated versions.
Skullduuggery:Off hand I can't remember who did the story, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't Jim Balent.I don't know about the details of the creative process - to be honest it didn't occur to me that the writer might have supplied a description. If they did, then they are of course also to be held responsible.I figure each creative team works differently so I don't want to assume how it works.
Yes well this is why I have long refused to buy anything with art by Jim "Basketball Boobs" Balent. I prefer my super hero comics and my soft core porn kept seperate.
Ouch.I think this defines EPIC Fail.
You don't appear to have a clue how comics are actually created.DC comics are generally done with the artist working from a full script. Balent might have embellished the costume desigs, but it's unlikely he's responsible for how the male analogues have been sexed up.More likely he got the gig because his style suited the script.Which is by Doug Moench, BTW. Took me less than 5 minutes to track down who you should actually be blaming for all this silliness.
Marionette:Touche(*). You obviously didn't read my reply to Skullduggery.It's by Doug Moench eh? Thanks for imparting that bit of wisdom, I shall be sure to blame the correct person in future.*Just imagine an accent over that e. My computer literacy knows no beginning...
Yes, in fact I did read your reply to Skullduggery. That was why I was slightly aghast at your lack of understanding of the basic processes of writing for comics. Or any other collaborative format.I've now read the story in question and yes, the sexy french maid Alfred and the semi-bondage Two-Face are stupid, but the costume rack is a throwaway gag and made me smile in context, being a tiny parody of those racks of weird and wonderful variant Bat-costumes from the '50's that turn up from time to time.More annoying for me was the fact that Catwoman wears 6 inch stilettos to fight crime, and fails to notice that the guy she is kissing has any damage from where she kicked him in the face hard enough to make him gush blood only a couple of hours earlier.
@Marionette:You read my reply to Skullduggery eh? Oops, well that's me over reacting somewhat in't it?!I don't think it's neccessary to know how something is produced in order to criticise the output, if it is the final product that you are criticising.My thoughts when creating this post were more centred around the fact that these depictions were ever done, in the bullshit manner that they were, rather than specifically saying it's always the artists fault. Although, point taken, the blame should be laid at the feet of the correct person/people. Perhaps I should the next post 'DC fail'.Incidentally, I'm also positive that I've read accounts in trades where the artist was given pretty free rein to create character design, clothes, posture etc and the writer was not involved at all. And no I cannot prove this, I neither own nor have the inclination to search through every trade I've read.I haven't seen the 50s Batman costume racks that you refer to, so I didn't get the gag. That's makes it *slightly* better. But doesn't get away from the sexualisation of the costumes or the fact that in context with the rest of his art, it's relaly quite offensive and insulting.Re 6 inch stilettos: Yeah that's stupid. BUT, a) That doesn't make this issue any less problematice. B) I ain't gonna use my time to catalogue every crap thing I see in comics.Lastly, if you're going to come on here and post something please don't be so damn rude about it. A little courtesy didn't hurt anyone.
I prefer my super hero comics and my soft core porn kept seperate.I'm sorry, but I just can't let this comment pass.If you equate anything Jim Balent did on his Catwoman run (including this alternate reality mini-series) to porn (soft or hardcore) Then THAT is a true "fail." An "epic fail," as I believe the lingo of that goes.I've read Jim Balent's Catwoman stuff and I've seen porn (soft and hardcore). Anyone who can't see a difference between the two either isn't trying, doesn't know what real porn is, or is simply a smarmy and snarky jerk (which, in MY book, is the worst of the three possibilities).If someone doesn't like Jim Balent's art, that's fine. You want to say it is overly exaggerated or totally unrealistic, I can dig that. If you say it personally offends you, well, I'm cool with that, too. But to compare it to porn, even if only to be a snarky jerk, is a fundamental lack of understanding what porn is and how this is very different from it: in short, epic fail!
Good Lord. That's just . . . special. You know, if we apply the double standard of this issue to current continuity, we're left with the rather terrifying image of Alfred in a Chippendale's Dancer outfit, swooning over how he'd use Batman's skills to seduce lady acrobats or something. Yeesh.
K D Bryan: yeah, thanks for that mental image!!!
you are an epic fail for writing a shitty blog and not knowing how comics are made or written.Your promotion by "When Fangirls Attack" casts a poor light on them as wellEpic FailToodles
Well if you'd like to let me know what you find so disagreeable about my writings and say what you would prefer me to do, I'd be all ears.Just leave out the rudeness ok?
I will like Balent's drawing of Catty almost regardless of the story. And I liked this annual for what it's worth. :)
Post a Comment