I ogled women in comics as a kid. For me, there is no dispute over the sexualization and objectification of women in comics. Or I was especially preverse somehow. But compared to Batman the animated series or the X-Men cartoon, you get an idea what an un-sexualized heroine looks like. They were characters who happened to be women. Not much to ogle.

I don't have much to add here other than I largely agree with Dorkman's points about the systemic problems in comics, the west, and most of the world in general.

Don't forget - African-American men were able to vote before woman of any race were in the US. And just as racism still exists institutionally, sexism is equally as prevalent throughout society. The major problem is how almost invisible it can be because of social norms.

Last edited by oTom (2012-11-25 06:38:46)

I'd like to watch the whole lot, back to back one of these days, just to see how it all ties together.

I always feel like an asshole mod when I break out the color formatting, but everyone has access to it.

Revolution! Revolt! Red letters!

Teague! Quit trolling threads and derailing them with your questions 

I enjoyed the Avengers a lot (saw it twice in a week-that was weird) and felt it was close to being a perfect movie in the general sense that there are characters who have arcs, and change (whether or nor you agree with the changes is purely subjective).
One thing that made Avengers great is the family atmosphere of bring this group of characters together, with all their differences, manage to come together, united for a common purpose. I think the fact that they do so, with the one moment of Captain calling out orders and seeing them work together really brought in the team and family atmosphere in a organic way. Kind of like boot camp-nothing unites better than a common enemy.

I think it could have been better if it were a little tighter in the beginning, but that is a minor nitpick. I like Agent Hill, and getting to know Colson better because it makes his death more pointed. But, it does drag in the beginning but makes up for at the end.

And I never understood the gripe regarding Loki as the villain. I mean, it makes sense that people would be annoyed at having to see Thor to get it but I thought his motivation was well done and kept driving the movie.

My only disappointments were the Thor-Loki story and the precise way the heroes came together as a team.

The Thor-Loki story didn't actually follow on from Thor. I mean, they worked Coulson into the previous movies like there was this grand plan, and then they fucked up the villain for the climactic film, leaving both him and Thor in Asgard.

The team dynamic between the Avengers wasn't quite Whedonesque ENOUGH for me. Their whole storyline is about coming together as a team, but we didn't see that play out as clearly as I'd like. I would have liked 1) Stark coming to realize that Cap is a leader while he is a loner; 2) Thor realizing that Cap is his equal in heart if not brawn; 3) Banner realizing that Hulk just plain LIKES Cap; and 4) even Black Widow and Hawkeye getting some compassionate advice from Cap (re: getting the red out of their ledger) that they never got from Fury. That stuff fits with Cap finding his purpose in this strange new world of Jersey Shore and the designated hitter rule.

To make all that work, you'd need a somewhat clearer line from Loki to the final battle. Loki needs to be stopped by the helicarrier initially. Then he tricks Fury into bringing Banner on board to figure out some science, and he uses the scepter to get Banner to Hulk out and ruin the ship. The heroes all try to fight Hulk and Loki and his minions their own way and fail, and Loki escapes. Gradually, based on the stuff I mentioned above, the heroes decide that Cap is in charge. Then they go after Loki and the Chitauri as a team.

So, when do I get to hear more about the adventures of the super twins, Vinyl Backflip and Leather Somersault, and their mission to thwart the plans of their nefarious archnemisis, Red-faced Motherfucker and National Association for Being Upset About Shit.

Not only is that a pretty big typo, but it's bad math, too. The word (or number) you're looking for was not "first", but "third".

On topic and regarding Teague's question, I loved the movie. Coincidentally, The Avengers and Cabin in the Woods are currently battling it out for my top favorite film of 2012. My response to Trey and others (most people on the internet, it would seem) who complain about this "bad, 20-minute cold open" would be, "Oh, stop it! It's not 20 minutes, it's 12, which includes the opening logos and the narration by The Other. It starts things off with Nick Fury and SHIELD (the human, mortal characters. You know, "us"?) to bring us in, because we'll have PLENTY of time for the superheroes we paid to see. At least 2 hours worth, so to quote Mal Reynolds, "Let's not have any undue fussin'."

Having said that, I will admit, I was also not a fan of the choreography, framing and editing of the action that took place in that scene, initially. I was a little worried. However, in my second viewing of the film, I was able to follow things better and it wasn't so much an issue anymore from that point onward. I think it's being blown way out of proportion and after the movie's all said and done, I'm fine with the "cold open".

I view the alien swarm in the third act as well, a swarm. If a hail of killer bees descends upon you and threatens your life and the lives of everyone around you, do you really care about their backstory, individual identities and characterizations or are you just all, "Holy fuckin' shit! BEEES!!! Someone help us!"? Shouldn't that be enough?

My big problem with Avengers is the attack on the Helicarrier which grounds the plot to a stand still. It just keeps going.

Oh and Angelus was obviously the best Buffy villain. By miles.

I want to be clear, I am not denying an absence of sexism in the comic medium, specifically the Super Hero Genre, which is the genre that more often than not gets turned into big blockbuster movies.  This usually comes from the artist side of things, specifically COVER artists, whose job it is to catch a buyers eye on the spinner rack, and the sole example you use.  The poses and framing of those images are designed to be provocative and lure people in.  Do Super Hero comics rely more on sexualized imagery to attract customers?  Undoubtedly.  But even to the adolescent me who gobbled up issues of Punisher War Journal and X-Men like they were crack covered crack what kept me coming back month after month was the story, and for most comic readers, its the same.  Think of a comic cover like an ad campaign.  It's a specific craft unto itself, (usually done NOT by the person who pencils, inks, or colors the 22 pages in between the covers) and I don't think it can be used as a way to judge the content. 

Certainly some comics are going to be written by people with a sexist bent.  But I would argue that even comics that are easily defined as feminist in nature, written and/or drawn by women do not stay away from iconography that is sexist or even sexualized on the cover.  Here is a cover by a book written by beloved feminist writer Gail Simone, and an interior page.  Note the disconnect.

Most of the story is like that.  There's like 1 action beat to speak of.   Again, I've never denied an element of sexism exists in the MARKETING of comics, as well as some comics themselves.  But even the whole sup hero genre isn't a slave to it.  Then there are comics outside the realm of superhero, and they tend to look more like this.

Every image above is from a comic that either has been, or is being turned into either a television series or feature film.

One Black Widow butt shot does not poison the well.

Last edited by Eddie (2012-11-27 00:25:45)

I've never heard of that Fatale comic. I'm dying to read it, mostly because it reminds me of a graphic novel I've had banging around in my head for years. For YEARS! It's called Seraphim. The story is equal parts Hellboy, Dogma and Angel, with a dash of Miller's Crossing.