Trade Cover. "Subtlety"? What Dat?

>Ask me about my feminist agenda.
>Feminist agenda?

Bendis in charge of designing covers.

>>91697057
Still waiting on "Ask me about my Islamist agenda" to show up on an X-Men cover.

>>91697057
>Murder is morally right if tou are doing it to cover up marital infidelity and lie to your husband, claiming you were raped

It's not a very good feminist agenda, IMO

We went through this with how many threads at the actual time?

>>91697057
There is none. That's the point of the cover, dingus.

>>91697112
Some /pol/tards have been fishing with threads lately.

>>91697057
>issue sells well due to cover
>use cover for trade

Wow. I can't possibly imagine the thought behind this decision.

>>91697100
And she somehow was in the right doing so.

Is that an example of the mythical "Marvel characters have human flaws"?

Why would you ever make that the cover. Interested in seeing this things sale number.

fuck off /pol/

bad enough you're slowpoking about the cover

>>91697166
It'll do well, the cover alone is going to attract a lot of non comic readers just s they can post images of themselves with it.

>>91697126
>lately

>>91697057

I was kinda surprised there wasn't more backlash from its supporters that the book's social justice message was being presented by a busty blonde caucasian cis hetero supermodel of a character.

Bobbi ain't fat, she ain't gay or trans, she ain't brown, she ain't differently-abled, and she is painfully (by their standards) first-world. I would think this "privilege" is "problematic", that using Bobbi as the standard-bearer is "tone deaf".

The answer, of course, is that the book's supporters didn't actually buy the book.

>>91697154
I think the whole series undercurrent of "unreliable narrator who's probably drunk the entire time" is the flaws part.

>>91697291
>The answer, of course, is that the book's supporters didn't actually buy the book.
And this is why you never appeal to SJWs, ever.
They are both a financial and evolutionary dead end.

>>91697291
I mean they did. After the controversy surrounding the author being attacked the first trade shot up in sales to #1, which incidentally killed all discussion along the lines of >>91697100 because there were then only two sides.

Most of the book's supporters probably also fit that exact description.

>>91697300
See the book promised a lot with its #1 and I was willing to go with it, but the promised puzzle box never really materialised. You just got more, and sometimes really obnoxiously and hipstery and tone-deaf retconning.

>>91697326
http://uproxx.com/hitfix/harassment-of-marvels-mockingbird-author-gives-feminist-comic-sales-boost/

First google result on 'Mockingbird trade sales' for me. There's a reason they chose that image for the other, and you're an idiot if you think otherwise.

>>91697326
if it weren't for sj-gerorge dubyas's your president never would have been elected. show a little gratitude.

>>91697100
Murder=power+privilege. Woman can't murder men.

>>91697359
Marvel's new strategy will be "outrageous covers that triggers alt-righters and doing so gains the support of tumblr despite its morally condemnable content".

>>91697405
I'd be interested in having a discussion about the content, sure, but it's not happening now. It being condemnable doesn't instantly make it a bad comic for me but it's you know, what was intended vs. how does it read and where does it go from there. Personally I was into Mockingbird for a couple of issues but it quickly got boring for me.

This was all quite a while ago though senpai. The alt-right wasn't anything like the talking point it is now, for example. And outrage has been a marketing tool in Marvel's wheelhouse for a good few years now.

>>91697112
I'm actually referring to the fact that they called the trade "My Feminist Agenda". It's like they couldn't write enough times on the cover.

Why not add a speech bubble with Mockingbird also saying what her shirt, and the title say?

>>91697057
Here's a thought: maybe they made a narrative choice to make her an obnoxious unsubtle character

Or is that outside the world of your triggered sensibilities

>>91697359

That gets into a complicated discussion. Sales of the trade shot up because of the twitter controversy but how much of that is actual "support" versus "any press is good press"? Similar to the feminists stating they would go see the new Ghostbusters movie twice to make up for the youtube haters, that only works to some degree.

Like how they say in presidential elections, you don't win by voting against someone you oppose, you win by voting for someone you support. Some people will do anti-votes but for the most part you simply don't get the same turnout as you do for support-votes. Nobody was supporting the Mockingbird book, but they saw a sales spike for some oppositional purchases. These people went right back to not buying comicbooks (see the sales of similar social justice books that didn't get the benefit of a twitter controversy).

The overall sales figures are clear and Marvel itself saw the writing on the wall, they pushed "diversity" a bit too hard only to find no new buyers while running off old buyers.

>Trade is called Mockingbird Vol 2: My Feminist Agenda
>Cover with phrase on it is used

Really makes you think

>>91697489
If you've read the book, do you think it reads like that in the execution?

I would kill for the female equivalent of the current Deathstroke book, for example. But I think where Mockingbird dipped it wasn't really intended to take on the tone the actions were presenting.

>>91697541
>If you've read the book, do you think it reads like that in the execution?

Yes.

She wasn't unlikable, but she was clearly unreliable, and telling a story that was glossed over to make her look good.

(The last panel of the infamous feminist issue proves that.)

And the series had 6 good issues and 2 lousy ones, not a bad ratio.

>>91697085
Dust isn't relevant anymore and fuck Monet