Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Female Thor

Female Thor (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2014, 07:25 PM
 
Whoops! Wrong thread!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2014, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
That means stacked. Stacked just means a big chest.

Athletes don't tend to have big chests, after all it's mostly fat and water. So a true feminine action hero would not be stacked to the extreme. Well cut muscles without being Steroid Sally as well.

And perhaps a uniform that does something to protect, not just enhance T&A.
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Like a Wonder Woman type costume !!!!!

I'm soooooooo funny!
Speaking of Wonder Woman, here's the promo shot released for the upcoming Batman v Superman movie.


Nobody ever mentions my legendary sexual prowess.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2014, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stogieman View Post
Speaking of Wonder Woman, here's the promo shot released for the upcoming Batman v Superman movie.



Same old boring tropes: sexy, not wearing much, long and beautiful hair, thin. I'm not surprised for this particular movie though, I'm not expecting much from it.

Here's a female character that was more along the lines of what I'm interested in seeing more of:



Tough, complicated, attractive but not necessarily some walking sexpot, normal boob size, smart, appropriately dressed, and some depth and mystique about the character's past and present motivations.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2014, 05:10 PM
 
It could be worse, she could be a guy. Or a scandinavian blonde.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2014, 05:25 PM
 
Well, a comic character created generations ago is going to be composed of worn-out tropes. If you get rid of those, it's not the same character any more.

To put it another way, wanting different tropes is fine, but don't expect to find them in Wonder Woman.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2014, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, a comic character created generations ago is going to be composed of worn-out tropes. If you get rid of those, it's not the same character any more.

To put it another way, wanting different tropes is fine, but don't expect to find them in Wonder Woman.

It doesn't matter if it is the same character or not.

Superheros explore what it means to be human. A character like Batman, for instance, conveys the idea that anybody can be a superhero with the will and determination. Spiderman explores the idea of responsibility if given a powerful gift.

Whether Batman, Spiderman, or most other superheros are male, female, have facial hair, don't, etc. doesn't really matter as far as being able to tell this story and explore these issues. Granted, the comic book creators might not grant an image makeover to their characters, but I think you can sell them on a number of changes with great story ideas.

Besides, right now it looks like the comic book creators are thinking more progressively than Hollywood, female Thor case in point.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2014, 07:43 PM
 
I don't see it as progressive. I see it as a crass marketing ploy.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2014, 07:47 PM
 
It might be that, I'm not a comic book guy. If it's an artistic risk, kudos to them.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 01:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Stogieman View Post
Thor: God of Thunder (thighs)
I audibly chuckled. Should I have? I don't know. The truth remains.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 01:57 AM
 
On topic: I'm cool with it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 02:18 AM
 
If Wonder Woman weren't "Wonder Woman-ish" the film would probably fail. A comic failing is one thing, the publisher is out a couple hundred grand, and hardcore comics fans are accustomed to them doing off-the-wall shit. A $200M blockbuster failing, however, would cause all the investors in the franchise to pull out and the studio would probably tank. Sure, film companies take out insurance against things like that happening, but one major screw up and they'd be listed as uninsurable, meaning the producers and director may never get another large project.

Since WW has never been in such a film before, what makes you think DC would take any kind of risk? They're attempting to establish the Justice League as a player, so they're going to try to include as many familiar aspects of these characters as they possibly can. Unlike Marvel Studios, they haven't exactly been batting 1.000 over the last decade (you guys forget Green Lantern?) and only have two bankable characters to prop up the whole franchise.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 04:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
If Wonder Woman weren't "Wonder Woman-ish" the film would probably fail. A comic failing is one thing, the publisher is out a couple hundred grand, and hardcore comics fans are accustomed to them doing off-the-wall shit. A $200M blockbuster failing, however, would cause all the investors in the franchise to pull out and the studio would probably tank. Sure, film companies take out insurance against things like that happening, but one major screw up and they'd be listed as uninsurable, meaning the producers and director may never get another large project.

Since WW has never been in such a film before, what makes you think DC would take any kind of risk? They're attempting to establish the Justice League as a player, so they're going to try to include as many familiar aspects of these characters as they possibly can. Unlike Marvel Studios, they haven't exactly been batting 1.000 over the last decade (you guys forget Green Lantern?) and only have two bankable characters to prop up the whole franchise.


You're right. I hope people tired of all Hollywood movies that don't take artistic risks and just rehash the same old stupid stories. Stephen Spielberg was quoted as saying that there were some studios that were thinking of balking (or bailing, I don't remember which) at shooting Lincoln. I think Spielberg and the studio were rewarded for this risk, Lincoln did pretty well, but certainly not Transformers well.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 06:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Since WW has never been in such a film before, what makes you think DC would take any kind of risk? They're attempting to establish the Justice League as a player, so they're going to try to include as many familiar aspects of these characters as they possibly can. Unlike Marvel Studios, they haven't exactly been batting 1.000 over the last decade (you guys forget Green Lantern?) and only have two bankable characters to prop up the whole franchise.
I was just going to write basically this. Marvel can afford to take chances right now, push the boundaries a little. DC/WB can't. They have exactly one character who has been truly successful in movies recently, and that series is ended with both lead actor and director/script writer wanting to do something else. Thing is, they're trying their best to use creators with geek cred - Joss Whedon was responsible for the WW script that was never made, Bryan Singer was fresh from the good Xmen movies with he made Superman Returns - they're trying to update the looks to be modern and not cartoony like the nineties movies, and it is just not clicking for them. You could almost taste how desperate they were to keep Nolan happy enough to make a third movie, taking a chance on an Inception script that nobody wanted (that it turned out great is just another sign that Hollywood can't recognize a good script), and even that wasn't enough to let them extend the series further.

So they're doing the only thing they know how - copy from those who succeed. Justice League movie looks a lot at Avengers, with Batman as Iron Man and Superman as Cap, trying to create the same dynamic. I guess WW is Thor in this analogy.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
The Mighty
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Well the sports issue was within arm's reach but they closed up shop and kicked me out. And I'm out of toilet paper.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 08:54 AM
 
Maybe she'll cheat on Thor and go after Loki... freakin guy needs an original role this time!
This one time, at Boot Camp, I stuck a flute up my PC.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 11:11 AM
 
Shaddim has good points about maintaining a more classic WW costume to not rock the boat. I like the xena-esque skirt, minimal tiara, and the sword, but those high heel boots look hell to run in. Unless she can fly in this version?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 12:44 PM
 
Yeah, they're one bad film from everything being flushed down the pooper, and they've put most of their trust in Ben Affleck, whose claim to fame in the genre is... Daredevil.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You're right. I hope people tired of all Hollywood movies that don't take artistic risks and just rehash the same old stupid stories. Stephen Spielberg was quoted as saying that there were some studios that were thinking of balking (or bailing, I don't remember which) at shooting Lincoln. I think Spielberg and the studio were rewarded for this risk, Lincoln did pretty well, but certainly not Transformers well.
If you could have spent what was spent on Lincoln on a "transformers lite", and it would have made more, then shooting Lincoln was a loss.

It's charity work.

Spielberg was given this charity because he helped build the system where "transformers lite" is a license to print money.


It's going to get worse too. A lot worse. The Internet is going to make it impossible for Hollywood to do anything which isn't squarely aimed at the lowest common denominator.

Think what the Internet did to cable news. That's what's going to happen, except Hollywood doesn't have an FCC riding herd.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Same old boring tropes: sexy, not wearing much, long and beautiful hair, thin. I'm not surprised for this particular movie though, I'm not expecting much from it.
Soooo, you want WW to look like someone other than WW?

Myself, I'm pretty happy with the WW costume design for BvS. I'm not happy that WW now always carries a sword (here and in the new 52), and I'm not jazzed about the knee-guards, but overall it's pretty nice. The people moaning about the short battle-skirt can go piss up a tree, and the other people moaning about ripping off Xena should remember who began as a rip off of who.

Originally Posted by besson3c
Besides, right now it looks like the comic book creators are thinking more progressively than Hollywood, female Thor case in point.
The new Thor is not about "thinking progressively." It's merely a fun story idea and a marketing stunt.

Originally Posted by subego
I don't see it as progressive. I see it as a crass marketing ploy.
Soooo, exactly like every comic ever published? This is how the sausage has always been made.

Originally Posted by Shaddim
Unlike Marvel Studios, they haven't exactly been batting 1.000 over the last decade (you guys forget Green Lantern?) and only have two bankable characters to prop up the whole franchise.
I'd be wary about suggesting who is bankable and who isn't.

No one would have guessed that C-level hero Iron-Man would be as strong a franchise as Batman, and frankly it only happened because they allowed RDJ to overshadow the original character in the comics.

And Marvel hasn't been batting 1.000. The Incredible Hulk lost money. Thor was only moderately successful. And Man of Steel sold more tickets than several of the Marvel films.

You can say DC/Warner only has two bankable characters, but the same is true of Marvel. Only Iron-Man gets Batman-level ticket sales. When RDJ leaves, it's possible the soul of the franchise will leave with him.

Originally Posted by P
Marvel can afford to take chances right now, push the boundaries a little. DC/WB can't. They have exactly one character who has been truly successful in movies recently, and that series is ended with both lead actor and director/script writer wanting to do something else.
Both recent Superman films (and Smallville) made money, so they actually have two successful characters. I would actually say that Batman and Superman are strong enough to succeed regardless of who's wearing those capes, but I'm not sure about the Marvel leads. And neither is Marvel. When The Incredible Hulk tanked, they cancelled a potential sequel. Mark Ruffalo still has no idea if Marvel is gonna give him his own film, despite the fact that the Hulk was the stand-out star of The Avengers. Far from taking chances, Marvel appears to be afraid to take chances when they've been stung.

And frankly, Marvel has already avoided taking chances narratively. They are now talking about Dr Strange (which would be AWESOME), but they shied away from the magical element of Thor with the "super-advanced aliens" logic, just as they shied away from the quasi-magical Mandarin (which was a really good call, all things considered). Are they ready to back-track with Strange and the Scarlett Witch? (Yeah, she's a mutant, but they can't use that angle at the moment.)

As for WB/DC, they are mimicking the reasonable success of Smallville with Arrow, Flash, and Gotham. Marvel is struggling with Agents of Shield.

I'm not trying to say DC is doing better than Marvel. I'm saying the evidence isn't there to suggest DC will always be tugging on Marvel's cape.

And there's another thing: Marvel is getting a bad rep because of the way they treat their talent. I'm not sure how long they can sustain their success if key people start walking. Losing the original directors of The Dark World and Ant-Man while keeping Mark Ruffalo hanging does not bode well.

Originally Posted by P
So they're doing the only thing they know how - copy from those who succeed. Justice League movie looks a lot at Avengers, with Batman as Iron Man and Superman as Cap, trying to create the same dynamic. I guess WW is Thor in this analogy.
I don't think the Justice League films will be an Avenger copy. More likely, it will work more like the X-Men films: a couple of main characters supported by C-level heroes in the background. Aquaman, Cyborg, and Martian Manhunter are never getting their own films. The only DC heroes with any possibly of getting films at this point are Supes, Batman, WW, Shazam, maybe Green Lantern, and Supergirl. If they aren't cowards, Dick Grayson, Barbara Gordon, and Damien Wayne will fill the necessary Bat-roles after Batfleck is killed off (and eventually resurrected and recast).

(If you missed it in Man of Steel, the open hibernation chamber in the Kyptonian scout ship was once occupied by Kara Zor-El. She's been living on Earth for 18,000 years, probably worshipped as a goddess in the past, and is in hiding somewhere at the moment. I hope they don't stick her in that god-awful New 52 costume.)

It was the X-Men films that proved team films can work. If we're gonna call the yet-unseen Justice League films a copy-cat of The Avengers, remember that The Avengers needed the X-Men films to exist in the first place.

And let's all try to remember: the Avengers were originally CREATED to be a Justice League copy.

And while I agree Iron Man = Batman, I think Thor = Superman, while Captain America = WW, as both are World War II era patriot symbols closely allied with the military.

Yeah, they're one bad film from everything being flushed down the pooper, and they've put most of their trust in Ben Affleck, whose claim to fame in the genre is... Daredevil.
Batfleck will rock. You'll see. You'll all see. Muahahahahah!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 11:20 PM
 
Yeah, Iron Man on the big screen was never about the popularity of the character, it's about the charisma (and acting chops) of RDJ. No one except Reeves has owned and embodied a superhero character so completely. But Hulk did make money, it finished at $263M worldwide on a 132M budget, not counting licensing. Also, I'm aware that Man of Steel made money, that's why I said there are two characters to prop up a JLA franchise. However, you're dealing with such an iconic character that the amount is a little underwhelming, especially for a complete reboot.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 11:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yeah, Iron Man on the big screen was never about the popularity of the character, it's about the charisma (and acting chops) of RDJ. No one except Reeves has owned and embodied a superhero character so completely.
Hmmm. Reeve was playing Superman. RDJ was playing RDJ with some elements of Tony Stark and Elon Musk. (When did Tony Stark abandon weapons for green energy in the comics? Never.) I'm not saying that's bad; the Tony Stark of Marvel Comics is the hero we love to hate, which probably wouldn't translate well to the screen and definitely couldn't be the foundation of a franchise.

I'm not saying it's wrong to reinvent characters for the screen. But RDJ and Jon Favreau were given a significant degree of latitude with Tony Stark that no one else at Marvel Studios is permitted. Even Whedon's Avengers hews closer to the Marvel template than the Iron Man films.

But Hulk did make money, it finished at $263M worldwide on a 132M budget, not counting licensing.
You're right. I somehow confused USA gross with worldwide gross.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2014, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Soooo, exactly like every comic ever published? This is how the sausage has always been made.
Methinks you overlooked the qualifier "crass".

I respectfully disagree every comic ever published markets itself in a crass manner.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2014, 11:41 AM
 
Yes, I know that the Avengers were originally a response to Justice League, but that was 50 years ago. DC/WB are trying to ape the recent movie, in particular the discussions between the idealistic Cap and the more pragmatic Iron Man. I think that the casting of Affleck was specifically to play up that angle.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2014, 01:16 PM
 
GotG estimated to open at $94M domestic. Damn, that's impressive for August.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2014, 04:37 PM
 
Who cares!?! The real neglect are the super hero bowlers and shovelers. Why was there never a "Mystery Men" series?

To wit: what a crazy dumb movie. Cracks me up every time. Hahaha.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2014, 05:26 PM
 
Agreed, the Shoveler = Awesome.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2014, 11:13 AM
 
That was a good one. Even Ben Stiller, who's kind of annoying.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2014, 12:44 PM
 
That movie may have been ahead of its time. I think it would have done a lot better say five years later.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2014, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Methinks you overlooked the qualifier "crass".
I did, because I think any suggestion that this is crass is ridiculous.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2014, 07:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
DC/WB are trying to ape the recent movie, in particular the discussions between the idealistic Cap and the more pragmatic Iron Man. I think that the casting of Affleck was specifically to play up that angle.
Um, if anything they are just following the template from Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. Any similarity to tensions between CA and IM are largely coincidental. The fact is, fans of DC comics have been salivating at the notion of watching Superman and Batman duke it out on the big screen since Miller's book.

Also, unlike fights between Marvel superheroes that pretty much always end in a stalemate - a deliberate style choice at Marvel - there will be a definite winner between Superman and Batman.

Having recently read The Dark Knight Returns, I'm curious to see how closely the film mirrors it. For one thing, Batman is a complete pr!ck in that story. Also, Superman now works directly for the US gov't, and is following orders to take down an out of control Batman. I also can't imagine the fight will conclude in the same way, with Batman faking his own death; you can't lead into a Justice League film with that conclusion.

I'm also pretty curious about how Lex Luthor will tie into the story. I'm pretty sure Wonder Woman will fill the role that Green Arrow played in Miller's book. Perhaps Wayne and Luthor are working together to solve this "alien" problem, until either Bruce or Superman figure out that Luthor is a complete sociopath. I also wonder if we will see both Batman and Lex Luthor in kryptonite-powered armour. And in Miller's book, Superman goes after Batman on the orders of the President; I don't think it will happen that way, which makes me wonder what exactly sets these two characters against each other. I'm pretty the the satellite that Superman destroyed at the end of Man of Steel was from Wayne Enterprises. Is Wayne in his sights because he's working for the US gov't to try and control Superman (the opposite of Miller's book)?

I wonder how they will address the New York/Metropolis/Gotham City problem. I know in the comics, they are three different cities, but I think it would be simpler if they just decided that Gotham City = New York City, and Metropolis = Manhattan.

I'm also curious if they will follow up on the Codex stuff, the Supergirl hint, whether Superman built his arctic Fortress with all the Kryptonian wreckage and how much Kryptonian tech Superman now has access to, including access to the Phantom Zone. And how has the Clark-Lois relationship moved? Are they openly dating? Are they sleeping together? Are they living together? I know it's not a romantic comedy, but we saw Superman and Lois sleep together in Superman II. Will they (eventually) explore a Lois-Clark-Diana love triangle?

BTW, I think Miller's book is incredibly over-rated. Perhaps it was shocking at the time or something, but it just doesn't hold up. The artwork is sh!tty, the page layout is cramped and text-heavy, the panel to panel transitions often don't make sense, and I just don't buy the kind of person Bruce Wayne has become.

I saw Guardians of the Galaxy over the weekend. It was really fun. I don't think it was better than The Avengers, like some people are saying, but it was really well done.

I think the character backstories were a bit thin, and it kinda hand-waves away a lot of the world-building. Why were the Kree and Xandarians at war? What has Thanos done in the past that everyone seems to have heard of him? Why are there so many Terrans in space? Are the Nova Corps an intergalactic space force, or just Xandarian? I'm also pretty unsure what the Infinity Stone in this movie was supposed to be capable of, and I definitely don't recall if they named it or not.

I'm also getting the feeling that Marvel is struggling with their villains. Except for Loki and The Mandarin, pretty much all the bad guys have been forgettable, perhaps because the actors are being smothered under so much makeup. This makes me worry that Thanos will be thinly-characterized and underdeveloped as well. But Josh Brolin does look awesome as Thanos.

Also, I would love a Howard the Duck film. Seriously.
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; Aug 7, 2014 at 08:33 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2014, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I did, because I think any suggestion that this is crass is ridiculous.
I see. The "conversation killer" gambit.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2014, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I see. The "conversation killer" gambit.
It's not. Really, your "crass" comment makes absolutely no sense, and you never bothered to tell anyone why it is "crass" in the first place, or explain the difference between an ordinary marketing stunt and a crass marketing stunt.

Can you give me an example of a comic book marketing stunt that wasn't "crass", just for comparison sake?

Is it crass because they replaced Thor with a woman? Why is that crass?

And I was largely agreeing with you, that this is a marketing ploy - the bedrock of the comic book industry.

crass |kras| adjective
lacking sensitivity, refinement, or intelligence: the crass assumptions that men make about women.
Which does it lack: sensitivity, refinement, or intelligence? (Setting aside the obvious fact that mainstream comic books are not particularly refined in the first place. We are talking about a medium where people in animal costumes fight Nazis and a Sumo wrestler runs the mob.)

Tell me: what exactly is crass about a Thor story where he is found unworthy (a central concept in Thor comics, especially since it's written on the side of his friggin' hammer) and replaced by someone else? And how is that different than when Thor was replaced by a frog, or a horse-headed alien, or killed off and replaced by a clone? Or were those crass marketing stunts too, or just ordinary marketing stunts?

Is it more or less crass than when Marvel killed off Spider-Man and temporarily replaced him with Doctor Octopus? Is it more or less crass than when Marvel killed off Ultimate Spider-Man and permanently replaced him with a black Hispanic kid? Or when they killed Batman / Superman / Supergirl / Captain America / Wolverine (soon). (I've lost count how many times Guardian has been killed).

Was it more crass than when Spider-Man made a deal with the devil, or was replaced by a clone, or was given 4 additional arms, or Aunt May married Doc Ock, or when Gwen Stacy had Green Goblin's babies, or when Spider-Man is revealed to be the avatar of a cosmic spider god, etc?

(Seriously, killing Spider-Man is the only good thing to happen to the character in 30 years. He should have stayed dead.)

I respectfully disagree every comic ever published markets itself in a crass manner.
Going back to this previous comment, I didn't say this. Your re-phrasing of my comment altered my meaning. In fact, you removed the essential part I agreed with (marketing ploy) and emphasized the comment I thought was ridiculous.

Which was: comics have always employed marketing ploys to grab readers.

The New 52 (and Crisis before that) is one big marketing ploy designed to re-sell old origin stories. The Marvel Civil was one big marketing ploy built around heroes fighting each other.

If it all wasn't just a marketing ploy, they wouldn't put the crucial moment on the front cover:



What other medium puts the crucial plot twist on the front cover? Can you imagine the poster for The Usual Suspects saying "which of these characters is pretending to be Keyser Söze?"

Oddly, that second cover isn't even the most shocking moment, as the Joker meets the Ayatollah and becomes the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations. That's something meriting the word "crass."

Crass:



Not crass:

( Last edited by lpkmckenna; Aug 9, 2014 at 03:20 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2014, 10:31 PM
 
Actually it is. If you feel there is an incomplete argument, the "conversation enabler" gambit is to ask a question.

We seem to be working with different definitions of "marketing ploy". Anyone who advertises is using a "marketing ploy".

A clue to why I feel it's crass can be found in me making a challenge to the claim the female Thor is "progressive". Superhero comics are disgustingly sexist much of the time. What's crass about this particular ploy is Marvel is intentionally taking advantage (IMO) of the "progressive" impression this gives without any intent of being more progressive about its sexism, or likely even keeping this character as is for any length of time.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2014, 11:09 PM
 
And to reiterate... boob shaped armor is dunb.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2014, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Actually it is. If you feel there is an incomplete argument, the "conversation enabler" gambit is to ask a question.

We seem to be working with different definitions of "marketing ploy". Anyone who advertises is using a "marketing ploy".

A clue to why I feel it's crass can be found in me making a challenge to the claim the female Thor is "progressive". Superhero comics are disgustingly sexist much of the time. What's crass about this particular ploy is Marvel is intentionally taking advantage (IMO) of the "progressive" impression this gives without any intent of being more progressive about its sexism, or likely even keeping this character as is for any length of time.
All of this, yes.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
And to reiterate... boob shaped armor is dunb.
Yup, it's completely impractical.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2014, 02:17 PM
 
And the thing is, armor does need to have a different shape to accommodate women, otherwise all the weight ends up on their hips. Likewise, you can have space to put the boobs, just don't give them cleavage.

However, as far as the amount of boob space provided goes, women who know what they're doing strap the boobs down before armoring up, if only because having them bounce around is kinda painful.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:28 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2