| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133774
|
| Posted: 29 May 2009 at 8:25am | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
While I'm not a big fan of the exaggerated style, I think the Little Annie Fannie comparison is a good one in terms of the overall feel of the piece. But Sue doesn't have giant boobs or a g-string or navel ring or doing anything suggestive or illicit in this pose so I don't agree with the disgust.•• "Disgust" is far too strong a word -- but the fact remains that this portrayal is way, way out of character. There are plenty of sexy and coquettish females in the Marvel Universe. Is it really necessary to cast all of them in the same role? What does this say about the artists who do it, and the viewers who like it? That maybe Bill Jemas was right, and these are "date books"?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andy Mokler
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2799
|
| Posted: 29 May 2009 at 8:26am | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
If you're (Joe Zhang) referencing the above photo, what's perverted about it? Sexy maybe but I don't even think it makes it to suggestive, much less perverted.
Edited by Andy Mokler on 29 May 2009 at 8:27am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Andy Mokler
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2799
|
| Posted: 29 May 2009 at 8:33am | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
"Disgust" is far too strong a word -- but the fact
remains that this portrayal is way, way out of character. There are
plenty of sexy and coquettish females in the Marvel Universe. Is it
really necessary to cast all of them in the same role? What
does this say about the artists who do it, and the viewers who like it?
That maybe Bill Jemas was right, and these are "date books"?
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
I have no idea about the current comic book but I don't understand what's so out of character about Sue standing there going "shhh..."? Actually, my first thought was that she looked like she was thinking whether she should cook something for dinner for her and Franklin or just order out since Ben, Johnny and Reed were all out for the night.
But there's only so faithful one can get if you take a Kirby drawing and make it Manga. If anything, this is very toned down for a Manga female.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133774
|
| Posted: 29 May 2009 at 8:39am | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
I have no idea about the current comic book but I don't understand what's so out of character about Sue standing there going "shhh..."? Actually, my first thought was that she looked like she was thinking whether she should cook something for dinner for her and Franklin or just order out since Ben, Johnny and Reed were all out for the night.•• I'd respond to this, but I have decided you are being deliberately disingenuous, so I'll save my typing fingers.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andy Mokler
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2799
|
| Posted: 29 May 2009 at 8:54am | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
I'd respond to this, but I have decided you are being deliberately disingenuous, so I'll save my typing fingers.
------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said, costume's faithful, pose isn't slutty, boobs aren't enormous, no implied g-string line's, no innuendo, just her jutting her hip out a little bit.
It's drawn in a whacky, cartoony style but that has nothing to do with character. I can see her in this statue as being playful, maybe even flirty which are both acceptable attitudes that Sue might have at some point as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not sure why you think I'd gain anything from deliberately being disingenuous but I think I've clearly stated why I disagree with the various negative assessments of this statue and in particular why I didn't understand why you think it's out of character.
I certainly don't understand your rationale in Sue never being portrayed as sexy since there are plenty of other characters that would better fit the role.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Al Burr
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 February 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 649
|
| Posted: 29 May 2009 at 9:09am | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
So, uh, yeah...more perverted statues. Anyway, what do you guys think of the new Guardians of the Galaxy mini-busts?
:)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Wayde Murray
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 October 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 3115
|
| Posted: 29 May 2009 at 9:47am | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
Andy wrote (in part):
I didn't understand why you think it's out of character
Answering only for myself here, but if I may;
Imagine an artist painting a portrait of your mother and giving her a sexually suggestive pose and expression.
The Fantastic Four, since issue #1, has been a story about family. Reed as father figure, Sue as mother figure. Very early on in the run (well over 40 years ago) Sue Storm became Sue Richards, wife and mother. That is her character. This figurine/statue isn't a representation of someone who fits that role, and is not a representation of the Invisible Woman as historically interpreted by the likes of Jack Kirby, or Johns Romita, Buscema or Byrne. While Sue can be (and has been) portrayed as sexy, she has never properly been portrayed as sexually flamboyant. This is out of character for her.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Ducos
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 September 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: 29 May 2009 at 9:55am | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
I like 'em Al.
I'm all for Randy doing some of the more obscure characters. I'll be getting all the Guardians and I it would be cool to see him get to some of the current Guardians: Gamora, Pip the Troll, Rocket Racoon, Starlord, Bug, Moondragon, Drax, etc.
I also wouldn't mind him taking another pass at Adam Warlock, with arms, soul gem & cape ala Jim Starlin.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andy Mokler
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2799
|
| Posted: 29 May 2009 at 10:17am | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
The Fantastic Four, since issue #1, has been a story about family. Reed
as father figure, Sue as mother figure. Very early on in the run (well
over 40 years ago) Sue Storm became Sue Richards, wife and mother. That
is her character. This figurine/statue isn't a representation of
someone who fits that role, and is not a representation of the
Invisible Woman as historically interpreted by the likes of Jack Kirby,
or Johns Romita, Buscema or Byrne. While Sue can be (and has been)
portrayed as sexy, she has never properly been portrayed as sexually
flamboyant. This is out of character for her.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
I think your interpretation of Sue falls short though. She isn't only a wife and mother. Like it or not, she is also an adventurer who wears a form-fitting outfit. If they could show Doris Day as a spy(adventurer) in 1966 like this:
Then I don't see a real problem with the statue. I'm not arguing that it's the perfect example of Sue but it's hardly a problem. I've always imagined that Sue was based on Doris Day and I don't see the statue's pose as something DD would NOT do.
The pose itself is tame so as long as your June Cleaver persona of Sue allows for the skin tight costume that Sue Richards wears, this statue shouldn't offend.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Wayde Murray
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 October 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 3115
|
| Posted: 29 May 2009 at 10:39am | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
Obviously, Andy, you and I are going to disagree on this one (For example, your posted image of Day's pose is similar, but the facial expression is miles away from the image of Sue, especially the nervousness apparent in her eyes. Also, Day's situation (and costume) is from a comedy, something Sue doesn't appear in monthly. Sue's uniform is a conceit of the genre, and doesn't imply or excuse sexually suggestive behavior). To avoid further thread drift, however, let's just go with a simple "different strokes". : )
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Mark Hickok
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 08 February 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 10472
|
| Posted: 29 May 2009 at 10:43am | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
Al- I like those Guardians minis. The Guardians have always been a favorite of mine. Good to see them getting some mini-bust love!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Andy Mokler
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2799
|
| Posted: 29 May 2009 at 11:08am | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
We'll certainly have to disagree if you think the compared expressions are miles away from one another or if the Doris Day painting is any less suggestive than the Sue Storm statue.
If the painted on costume is a conceit of the comic book genre and should be excused, what is so suggestive about the statue?
The advertisers could certainly be blamed for taking macro-lens shots of her butt but the statue itself isn't way, way out of character or miles away from a '60's vintage, presumably "acceptable" painting of a real life version of what Sue might be.
I admit I'm no expert on women but I really don't see how that statue's character is sexually suggesting anything. It's a cheescake shot but everyone from Marilyn Monroe to Mary Tyler Moore to Doris Day has done that type of thing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
