Who?

Woah, haven't seen you in ages, wasn't expecting to see you turn up in this of all threads.

Relevant picture.

Not that I know much about comics or anything. I sometimes dive into wikis about certain characters to try and figure out what's going on, but they read like a soap opera on a bad acid trip. "So and so died but was resurrected by someone else and their lover moved on with their mechanical evil twin from another dimension who was really the original one all along! Dun dun dun!"

But still, the uproar over a pose identical to one spiderman did on a cover without any outcry is a wonderful example of double standards and people looking to be offended over nothing. I guess the perpetually outraged are everywhere these days.

Regarding comics, the 'codes of content' you are probably thinking of is the Comics Code Authority that was formed in 1954. It was a 'voluntary' system that books had to meet in order for publishers to greenlight them. It was a right shambles of a system with requirements that had precisely nothing to do with forcing diversity, and more with making sure that any kind of authority figure could never be shown in a negative light, forbidding the depiction of zombies and other horror monsters, and forbidding the portrayal of alternative lifestyles, including but not limited to homosexuality. Make no mistake, it was a fucking disgusting invention that *did* ruin comics... until we got rid of it. The CCA was abandoned a while ago as a requirement to getting published, and advertisers aren't making decisions on ad placement in issues based on CCA compliance. Some books can and do still advertise that they adhere to the CCA's guidelines, but failure to do so no longer puts a book in danger of being not being published the way it did back when the country was concerned that any questioning of authority helped breed Communism or whatever. Otherwise, the CCA is deader than Elvis, and comics are better for it.

Regarding devs, I don't doubt they have interests in DRM being a thing. My point is that so-called "SJWs" include consumers, and not all of them are happy about DRM for the same reasons most of the people who shop at GOG hate DRM, and that lumping the two together makes no sense. Take Mass Effect, to go off of something an earlier poster said; that was a game that was released with some of the shittiest DRM I can recall. That DRM earned the game a critical pounding from PC gamers, gamers who liked the game in some cases because of how it addressed social justice. If social justice involved supporting DRM, then I don't think those people got the memo.

Regarding Thor: so what? They didn't hit Thor's original alter ego with some kind of bullshit Silver Age gender ray; they changed the alter ego. It happens all the time.

Regarding feminism getting some attention in comics: again, I don't see the problem. If it's that some characters might actually start wearing costumes that actually look like they were intended for battling something other than a pole, than I really don't see the problem.

Regarding the comic cover: I might have been willing to concede that the corporate publisher caving in and forcing someone to change something was scummy... except that's not what happened. The artist got feedback from the customer base, and made the decision to request the alternate cover be pulled of their own free will. If there was any conspiracy from up the corporate ladder to have them act like they were acting of their own volitional, I haven't been able to find it.

Oh, hi. Been some time. I do occasionally post in threads on this site, but sparsely. This thread was mostly because it was near the top page and I had a brief eyerolling moment at some of the comments.

OK, I'm not an expert and if you don't find anything personally wrong with those, no problem.

In regards to realism, artists should be free to design something as they see fit and if it pisses of the conservative ''too much skin!'' creeps, they're free to not buy it. How about making the life of a normal person since its more realistic as well? I understand you said ''I have no problem with it'' and not ''I wanted it to change'' but its dumb to defend your opinion by saying superheroes need to look realistic.

Again, if you believe it was the artist taking advice and changing it instead of caving to bigots, then you have every right to believe it. Personally I'm not very versed in comics and I don't know to how much of a degree the artists take feedback on menial things like whether the audience approves of the cover art or not but that is just my opinion, and given your more experience I may be wrong.

This right here is why SJWs are just fucking assholes...
This claim that its okay to harass bully and complain and "everything is fine" because the artist changed the cover "of their own free will".

I'm sorry, but the original cover was their own free will. The new cover was the result of public pressure from these fanatics. Yet the SJW crazies make it sound like they did nothing wrong at all.

https://twitter.com/eagseagle/status/630732928599916544

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/Online%20Harassment%20in%20Context.pdf

Seems we aren't harassing anyone; because #GG is a boysclub right?

Also, the expert censors tried but failed : http://spjairplay.com/update12/
There are little things more vile a human can do than trying to not only lie about others while profiteering off them, but also trying to make sure the other side is never heard. I'm truly disgusted by these narcissistic fascist wannabe kingmakers.
5 days till AirPlay and even just getting the case heard by the world in the presence of a media arbiter will be a victory.

Another relevant picture.

Understanding comics culture is a bit like understanding games culture. If you look at it as a block mushed together, you see a lot of superheroes and it's easy to think that this is what comics are all about. On the contrary, understanding the art means looking at the indies. The aforementioned Saga is one of the best serialized comics ventures today; think Spaceballs on speed. The most important graphic novel of the last 10 years, I think, is Shaun Tan's The Arrival. And if you're into the social justice stuff, ain't we all, try Craig Thompson's Habibi or Blankets (warning, both explicit at times). That would give you a more well rounded view of the medium.

We had already agreed on the problems of universal outrage culture. And particularly as the outcry here centered not on a franchise, but on one individual creator, and comprised far too many articles, it wasn't a cause I could get behind in any way. Of course, the death threats the protesters received, I couldn't get behind those as well. The artist ignored the target group by copying a pose from one of his earlier nude erotica comics, and that only promts a reaction like a raised eyebrow and the perpetually raised question: Could we go without, please? :(

Indeed. In the originals, both man and woman had about as much butt emphasis

Source for that statement: "The artist ignored the target group by copying a pose from one of his earlier nude erotica comics"?

E. g. Penthouse Comix, November 1996, Milo Manara cover.
This is a simple case of self plagiarism. He's been doing that for 20+ years.

http://www.comicvine.com/penthouse-comix-17/4000-133092/

But as I said, I have no stake in this controversy and found it overblown. Manara's art is boring anyway.

Good luck finding an earlier, non sexualized Manara pose prototype though.