Comics.

>>92937407
She went from "Hello ma'am. Nice to meet you" to "Your son calls me Mommy too"

File: Invisible Woman.jpg (23KB, 185x482px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 185x482px

Is this what unstable molecules does to a woman?

>the drapery pulling tight from her heaving bosom

>>92937681

Truly Sue was always a slut just waiting for an excuse to take her clothes off.

In what period or issues does she enjoys some namor fish stick?

>>92937407
>>Tumblr

Why/when did Sue become a slut?

>>92938336
Answer to both questions: The EXTREME 90s

>>92938441

No, she, Wasp and Jean were all sluts because that was the one character trait Stan could think of for a hot chick

File: Fantastic Four (1961) 371-4.jpg (1MB, 988x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 988x1500px

>>92938336
>When
Infinity War.
>Why
Malice shit.
It was actually treated surprisingly well. No elephant in the room; everyone tells her she's acting weird (which she is, see Malice shit). I read the issues themselves just before this became a weekly shitpost.

It was this whole character arc about her evolving her public persona from the demure 5th wheel to the brash & brutal battleaxe in her own right. Girl pulls some mad crazy feats.

File: susan after the after.jpg (60KB, 194x247px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 194x247px

>>92937407
>>92939231

reminder that every female in the 90s were sluts and we are still suffering from it
it has gotten better tho

>>92939581
why is her ass white?

>>92939659
It actually causes a lot of current issues, people who don't like that type of a costume are paranoid now so they push hard not to allow anything even remotely similar, when when it's actually perfectly fine, and people who do like it act like characters getting redesigns is a personal attack on them and their "values". Unprofessional horny artists ruined it for both groups.

File: bb01a1fa7ea91015e37e2d1a9795af81.jpg (215KB, 1280x822px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1280x822px

>>92939659
If by suffering from this, you mean we got too far on the opposite side, I agree.

Look at Taliban redesigned Star Sapphire.

>>92939745
I fail to see anything wrong with it. It's somewhat generic but that's a lantern costume thing.

>>92939581
That white colored version looks pretty good actually.

>>92939745
Eat shit m8
Johns' sluttified 60s Star Sapphires were hot garbage.

>>92939745
I like it. That actually looks much nicer than her old outfit.
It always bothered me how all the other Lanterns got full body suits but the Sapphires were stuck with stripper armor because they were the girl squad.

File: 1iwypn4u.jpg (53KB, 194x247px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 194x247px

>>92939767
The panties are stupid.

>>92939817
The sapphires are supposed to represent the power of love and desire. The provocative costumes reflected that.

>>92939826
Well played.

>>92939745
Didn't know the elongated man made it to the Sapphires.

File: 784257-starsapphire_eb.jpg (132KB, 502x479px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 502x479px

>>92939765
She looked like that before.
Guess witch version I would be an figurine from.
>>92939788
Johns know what sell. When he was overruled form the New 52 sales dropped.

I can hope than now he has more editorial power, he bring back the better costume.

>>92939963
The one you wouldn't be able to display publicly?

I prefer left honestly.

>>92940013
Hurrr

>>92939963
I love that costume too.

But SJWs and feminists will cry to the MSM about DC hating women and being like male Al Qaida if they reintroduced the costume. :(

>>92940268
Just because you like it doesn't mean it's a good costume though.

>>92940268
the costume is not the problem there her objectifying of every female character is
see this https://twitter.com/RenaeDeLiz/status/755605004296200192
seriously just with the first tweet you will get a really good idea, but reading the thread is even better

>>92940449
I don't like that people who do comparisons like that always avoid making the "after" too attractive. You will never convince people to treat your opinion as valid if you show them an ugly character and tell them that it's better than the one that makes them hard. You can fix dumb poses without going all tumblr on it.

File: y7aypw2h.jpg (167KB, 535x579px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 535x579px

>>92940449
There, a quick crappy edit to prove my point about making characters ugly for no reason. It's not perfect but you get the idea I hope.

File: C62ED3DB-55EB-427E-85C0-6F0F52E02CBA-4026-000002D74C26CE21.jpg (51KB, 520x729px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 520x729px

>>92937407
The right is definitely sexier. But when it comes to Super heroines, designs like the left are superior. I need to take my heroes seriously. If their outfit is well-designed AND sexy, even better.

Bikini armor should be reserved for villainesses and sidekicks. Comics like Bomb Queen and Witchblade are an exception, of course.

>>92940987
There you go, I personally don';t find skimpy costumes appealing but they have their place. And if you can't make a character attractive in any way other than dressing them in something absurd and obnoxious then it's your failure as an artist.

>>92940495
>>92940820
>You will never convince people to treat your opinion as valid if you show them an ugly character and tell them that it's better than the one that makes them hard
ONLY searching for female characters that give you a hard on is the problem
even, i can see what you mean, you can like them beign pretty, i like that to. but have n mind that its not the same them beign pretty than them always having a cute face. they can express a lot more things. an example from the same author https://twitter.com/Lady_PowerPunch/status/858810960773042176 i dont find that character ugly
also we have a lot of ugly male characters, logan for example, or ghost rider, he is a fucking skull in flames; and i think we can agree they are rad af

tl;dr they dont need to but given the case they can be ugly

>>92941357
That's now what I was saying. Ugly characters can be cool, but a character like Power Girl is not ugly, and I wasn't talking about ugly designs to begin with. I was talking about people making comparisons, either design or pose ones. And instead of fixing the costume or pose just enough to be reasonable and still keep it appealing they go way overboard. It accomplishes nothing, it gives fuel to idiots who sperg at any minor change claiming that "feminists" are ruining things, it doesn't matter if it's bullshit. If you want people to support you make something they will look at and won't be able to complain about, excluding the worst cases of course because they will cry and bitch no matter what. Majority of people reading comics won't care if a character is dressed appropriately or if it makes sense, but if you show them a design they still like and happens to be somewhat reasonable there will be far less people who oppose your ideas.

File: Namor_McKenzie_(Earth-616)_from_Fantastic_Four_Vol_2_2_0001.jpg (53KB, 300x462px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 300x462px

>>92940449
Who fucking gives a shit you trigger happy faggot? Everyone sexualized in comics, even the guys. Just because you're not attractive doesn't mean you should spoil everyone's fun.

>>92941763
Plenty of people give a shit, and so far the only "trigger happy faggot" here is you. Guys aren't really sexualized most of the time. Showing off muscles is far from being sexualized and you're using a character that isn't the norm as an example, and not a very good one either. If the mere concept of a reasonably drawn character triggers you so bad that you immediately go into a sperg mode then maybe you should go to tumblr because you'd fit right in.

>>92939713
bad coloring that the editor missed

I do not understand the physics or logistics of her boob window.

How does it stay 4 shaped?!

>>92941907
Same way somehow almost all skin tight suits show bellybutton, boner magic.

>>92940820
>Left has more expression, emotion and a simple yet solid characterized pose
>Right is stiff, boring and with a lifeless face

>>92941957
Left has the expression of being bored while having sex and the pose is twisted and far from simple. Right is more realistic, but also stiff because I'm not a professional artist so I can't draw poses well and the original wasn't perfect to begin with, and has a neutral face. It's quick edit of a crappy doodle just to show a basic difference not a finished artwork you dumbass.

>>92942033
I'm a dude who's 14 pounds overweight and even I can do the pose on the left.

>>92940449
Except I would buy the sexualized version because I like it like that.
Who is she to tell me, the consumer, to change ?

Her DC book got canceled because she is too preachy.

File: tumblr_maqpo7aXrO1rcv8ewo1_500.jpg (158KB, 496x750px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 496x750px

>>92941880
Maybe people who don't actually read comics, sure. And no, it's not something that isn't the norm. Guys will strip naked in cape books all the time. The only way I can possibly perceive that you think this is an issue is if you've never read a comic in your life and are just parroting off what you saw off some shitty blog.

I like how every thread this is brought up some anon actually explains the Sue story arc and yet every anon is still going "HURRRR DURRR THE 90S MADE SUE A SLUUUUT". As if the costume wasn't 100% intentionally a parody of other superheroine costumes of that time and the whole arc wasn't lampshading it. DeFalco and Ryan knew exactly what they were doing and never intended this to be a real change for Sue.

But nobody reads comics or even the explanations of people who have read them. Everyone just goes with their meme version like "the 90s suck!" or "the 90s were just EXTREME"

File: 4674784-dark-phoenix.jpg (124KB, 349x640px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 349x640px

>>92941521
i was talking about hte face.
logan is an ugly guy, and ghost rider cant be handsome because he literally has no face
see how in this image the face is not a cute face, its not a face made to please you but you wouldnt say that because of that she is ugly

other than that of the face (im assuming your edit is the lips, and maybe thats where im wrong) i dont really see what you are defending here because i dont see how what you are saying is any different than the example i showed you. she is still drawn like a pretty girl, the costume is exactly the sam. the only thing that is changed is the pose

File: 672f.jpg (129KB, 425x775px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 425x775px

A lot of female heroes look better with bare legs. Just not Invisible Girl.

>>92942076
I never said it's not possible. But the pose is very clearly drawn purely to be sexy, while the right one could be both sexy and suble about it with minor changes by a capable artist.
>>92942170
You're not the only consumer. Why not have two versions, one slightly toned down for more common use and one as sexy as you want for "collectors" and special issues? That way they still get the consumers who want absurdly sexy characters without turning away people who don't. There's a middle ground you know, and accepting it won't cause your world to collapse. If anything there would be less garbage "feminist" comics being pushed because the novelty and "progressiveness" would no longer be used as a marketing tool.
>>92942202
And yet it's not done in a nearly as obnoxious way as a lot of female characters. You can cite examples all you want because there are examples of both male characters being sexualized and female characters not, but the fact is on average there's far more female characters being drawn id excessively exaggerated poses. It's not an issue in comics that are from the start written with the though of appealing exclusively to certain demographic, but putting that in a comic that is perfectly enjoyable for everyone otherwise just means people who would otherwise like it might be put off or read it online and not be interested enough to spread the word about it.

File: sexualised.jpg (79KB, 465x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 465x720px

>>92941763
i was going to bother to give you an answer to your shitty post but pretty much this >>92941880
get your head out of your own ass
now compare this image to any of your comics

>>92942170
you can have your sexualised comics as much as other people can have their non sexualised
retard

>>92942433
I changed the body to be more shapely actually, open both images in different tabs and switch between them and you will see. The lips were just because the face seemed off, I haven't put much thought into it beyond that.
>>92942440
I disagree, but that's mostly a matter of preference. It looks good on some but in most cases they could really use some shorts, skirt or even pants because without they often look like they're ready to party on a beach not do whatever they do.

File: tumblr_inline_mfvhztzNxg1qf8qbb.png (381KB, 490x603px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 490x603px

>>92942450
>And yet it's not done in a nearly as obnoxious way as a lot of female characters.

But neither are obnoxious. You're just looking for an excuse to get upset.

> You can cite examples all you want because there are examples of both male characters being sexualized and female characters not, but the fact is on average there's far more female characters being drawn id excessively exaggerated poses.

Citation needed.

>It's not an issue in comics that are from the start written with the though of appealing exclusively to certain demographic, but putting that in a comic that is perfectly enjoyable for everyone otherwise just means people who would otherwise like it might be put off or read it online and not be interested enough to spread the word about it.

Firstly
>only the big two exist.

And secondly, most girls who are into comics don't read capeshit.

File: grayson-imgs.jpg (173KB, 561x726px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 561x726px

>>92942518
You mean like pic related?

>>92942518
It looks just as stupid as it would on a female character. And how about you get your inner autist out and make a comparison chart about the percentage of female vs male characters like this? I highly doubt it will be even close to half.

>>92942450
I totally agree with the separated demographic.
That is why she got the horrible Batgirl of Burnside book. I am not the audience so I don't care much.
But if I was a fan of Barbara with her previous costume I would be pissed.

Here, it was something that was taken from me (not mean to be dramatic here). I liked that Hal got a sexy Girlfriend.

An other problem is that when a sexy costume is remove, we never get it back. Your "progressiveness" goes in only one direction and I don't like it.

File: 68dd462ac5ad301e3cbeabe52694a8a0.jpg (74KB, 396x599px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 396x599px

>>92942518
The image you posted is less revealing then the one I used.

>>92942450
>but the fact is on average there's far more female characters being drawn id excessively exaggerated poses
Got a source for that?

File: Namor_zpsmir3ml97.png (716KB, 800x552px) Image search: [Google]

716KB, 800x552px

>>92942632
I don't know, it looked pretty badass in AvX.

God, I can't believe I just complimented that shit book.

File: 1469992093982.png (4MB, 5300x3046px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5300x3046px

>>92942711
>God, I can't believe I just complimented that shit book.
Don't sweat it. The Phoenix designs were the only good part.

>>92942587
>And secondly, most girls who are into comics don't read capeshit.
I wonder why is that. It's like putting a sign saying "men only" on a bar and then saying that women don;t go there. Of course they won't, the only ones that will will be obnoxious SJWs who show up to complain about the sign. The difference is that most comics aren't supposed to be for men only, but they are that because of how they're made.
>>92942648
>Your "progressiveness" goes in only one direction and I don't like it.
It's not my progressiveness if I disagree with most of the things they do. And you are right, they should find a way to include both, possibly in separate comics or universes, it's not like cape comics don't reset or reinterpret or whatever you want to call it their worlds all the time anyway, so how hard it is to make a mini series that is 100% cheesecake? I bet it would boost the sales of the main comic too if it wasn't done often enough to compete. But that's "bad press" of course and the SJWs would make sure that something like that doesn't go unnoticed.

>>92942575
>I disagree,

I disagree with your disagreement.

File: MOTUCFGHCCVR4x6SOL.111537.jpg (116KB, 575x356px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 575x356px

>>92942518
What's the problem?

>>92942450
>but putting that in a comic that is perfectly enjoyable for everyone otherwise just means people who would otherwise like it might be put off or read it online and not be interested enough to spread the word about it.
So? Are you trying to argue that it would be beneficial to the creator of a work to water down their art and play it safe just so they can cast the widest net possible? It also sounds like you're saying that you just want sexualization gone just because you don't like it.

>Why not have two versions, one slightly toned down for more common use and one as sexy as you want for "collectors" and special issues?
You serious? This is a horrible business idea.

>>92942788
>but that's mostly a matter of preference
And I accept your disagreement but still think it looks bad.
>>92942792
But that's not sexualization. As a rule of thumb, if you're willing to show it to a 5 year old it probably isn't sexualization.

>>92942625
>>92942675
>You mean like pic related?
no
showing muscle is not sexualization.
sexualization is when the first thing you notice is the crotch otr the butt or the tits if it is a female.

the first image that was posted was little bit sexualised. th one i posted is higly sexualised

and again there are examples of sexualization and power fantasy (thats what your newer images are)
and there is no problem with sexualization per se

File: cos2.jpg (18KB, 182x277px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 182x277px

>>92942783
>I wonder why is that. It's like putting a sign saying "men only" on a bar and then saying that women don;t go there.

Because they don't like the genre. Most comics that interest girls are shit like Serenity and Smile.

>Of course they won't, the only ones that will will be obnoxious SJWs who show up to complain about the sign.

Wait....You don't /actually/ think comic shops put up men only signs, do you?

> The difference is that most comics aren't supposed to be for men only, but they are that because of how they're made.

If that was the case books like Mockingbird and Unbeatable Wasp would sell like hotpockets.

>>92942860
Nigger, he's wearing nothing but a speedo.

File: 0aa12e36ba22432c88761eaeb95ba262.jpg (167KB, 736x981px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 736x981px

>>92941880
>Showing off muscles is far from being sexualized
Literally, the only reason men try to get muscles is to look good. Having a chiseled physique is a sexualized goal.
Not a power fantasy. Being rich and able to do anything you want is a power fantasy.
Looking hot is for sexual reasons only and dudes in comics, even characters that have zero reasons to be built hard are shown to have perfectly tones bodies.

>>92942783
SJW stop when you don't answer to them.
Company just need to purge the people in their rank who listen to them.
A lot of japanese game dev stopped to listen to them, so they finally realized it is useless.

>>92942860
>changing the definition of sexualization to suit your argument
Really? Sexualization is making something sexually attractive and appealing. If you don't think Grayson fits that to a goddamn T you can get out of here with your bullshit.

>>92942450
You're wrong. Every superhero pose is excessively exaggerated. No one perches and poses like a superhero does. Looking out over a city Batman is flexing as hard as humanly possible just to accentuate his inner monolog.
Superman flies around in the most angelic contortion the artist can invoke.

You're wrong on all fronts

>>92942892
and still your eyes wont go towards his crotch

>>92942953
Speak for yourself.

>>92942844
I've been reading cape comics since I was five...
So what's your point?
Half naked is half naked. In fact, the only case for sexism you could have is that it's LESS ok to show as much skin on a female as a male.

File: lowMarvel_swimsuit_34.jpg (1MB, 860x1131px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 860x1131px

>>92942953
It does actually, yes.

>>92942838
But selling as much as they can is the point of almost every comic. What I want is for things that make my enjoyment of comics that are perfectly good for me otherwise to be toned down a little. They aren't doing it just because of the target audience, very often it's because an artist is unprofessional and can't stop waifufagging even when doing paid work, and I find that obnoxious.
>>92942872
>Because they don't like the genre
Because the genre tries very hard not to be enjoyable to people who don't like to constantly stare at womans ass. Art is a big part of a comic and a good or bad artist can decide of a success.
>Wait....You don't /actually/ think comic shops put up men only signs, do you?
It was a hyperbole, reread what I wrote carefully. If you keep showing someone that something isn't for them then don't be surprised when they aren't interested in it. But of course there will always be people who complain even when something really is made for a specific group that isn't them, but most comics are not.

>>92942894
let me ask you
would you congratulate your friends on their mad gainz?

would you congratulate on having the biggest dick you seen?
if you did you would probably say no homo after

>>92942894
Have you seen art drawn by actual women? Most men don't have nearly as much muscles. Women who like typical cape hero body are outliers while the majority prefers something closer to >>92942202

>>92943009
>friends
>with gainz
You think too highly of the average /co/mrade

>>92942951
But those are exagerrated to look cool or threatening or powerful while female heroes get a choice of sexy, very sexy or cute sexy.

>>92943005
It's like complaining that BET doesn't rerun Beverly Hillbillies or Andy Griffith. Superhero comics come from a certain lineage of mainly male oriented stories. That's perfectly fine.

Women have those cheesy romance novels but no guy complains about how men are presented as meat on the covers of those things.
Learn to pick your battles and get angry over something that actually warrants it.

>>92943009


>He has never had a drunken literal dick measuring contest with his friends.
Missing out of the joys in life anon.

File: 1621685-punisher_swimsuit_edition_large.jpg (60KB, 300x398px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 300x398px

>>92943005
>Because the genre tries very hard not to be enjoyable to people who don't like to constantly stare at womans ass. Art is a big part of a comic and a good or bad artist can decide of a success.

No, because most girls aren't interested in capeshit. Just go to any of the numerous threads we've had asking femanons what was on their pull list. The only real capebook that comes to mind that grills /really/ like is Runaways.

>If you keep showing someone that something isn't for them then don't be surprised when they aren't interested in it.

No, because the genre in general doesn't interest them. Like I said, Mockingbird and Unbeatable Wasp.

>>92943009
Usually me and my friends talk about /co/mics and /v/ideogames.

File: 1490632073944.jpg (1MB, 5628x3348px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5628x3348px

>>92942783
>I wonder why is that.
Probably because men just tend to like comics more. There are comics out there being written by women, for women. There are also comics out there that are by and large devoid of sexualization and can be enjoyed by either gender no problem. They aren't rare, and there are even a solid number of superhero comics published by the Big Two that aren't sexualized, and you seem to think that those are the only kinds of comics that exist.

You are whining about something that isn't even a big deal, and I suspect it's because you don't actually read comics. What comics have you read? What comics are you reading? Share.

>>92942992
Most male heroes wear a full body suit while their female equivalents have naked legs or more.
>>92943078
>Women have those cheesy romance novels but no guy complains about how men are presented as meat on the covers of those things.
Because no man and most women don't give a shit about those. Plus it's not a visual media.

>>92943005
>But selling as much as they can is the point of almost every comic.
But not the goal of every creator or artist.
>whiny bullshit about comics should be made according to MY standards so i can get MAXIMUM ENJOYMENT
Fuck off and pull your head out of your ass while you're at it, you entitled whiner.

>>92943142

Skin-tight bodysuits anon.

>>92943116
>What comics have you read? What comics are you reading? Share.

This. I'm very interested in what triggered anon likes.

>>92943142

>most women don't give a shit about those.

Sales say otherwise

Also.

>sexualuzing is ok if its written instead guys!

>>92939963
>>92940268
>>92939745
Star Sapphire's old costume was shit. And it was shit because of horny fanboys who jerked off to it, and refused to let it show less skin and match the scheme of other Lantern uniforms, while also refusing to allow male members of the Star Sapphires to show anywhere near as much skin, lest it ruin their wank fantasies, so they denied the bikini the internal logic that would've made it work, just so they can jerk off to Hal, their bland self-insert.

>>92943116
>There are comics out there being written by women, for women
And most of those is liquid shit because they only get created as a gimmick without any thought put into it. I know there are comics that can be enjoyed by both, I read them, so my question is, if those comics can achieve that why can't cape comics do a little bit more of those without falling into either extreme? In most cases it would only require very minor changes.

>>92943077
Because face it, a jacked female will never look as threatening as a jacked up male. Sexual dimorphism is REAL. It's not a social construct and it's not sexist to acknowledge it.
But having an ideal body is part of any superhero. Unless specifically part of their character, all of them have torsos like Greek statues. A physically perfect and aesthetically pleasing body for male and females alike.
Perfect lay line, perfect hair even in the thick of a fight. The amount of characters with blue or green eyes far outnumbers ones with a more mundane eye color.

Ideal physical image. A body that is visually pleasing to look at is the goal. Perfect anatomy. Not about looking threatening or powerful. You associate those with the poses because, hello, that' animalistic aspect of the male figure IS sexy. Unless you're someone who has convinced themselves that a guy with a weak grip with a thick hipster beard is sexy.
That's fine but know that you've chosen to prefer a niche and not the norm.

>>92943142
>their female equivalents have naked legs or more.
Most female superheroes these days are covered up. Get with the times.

>>92943218
For the same reason you don't see many girls at monster truck shows.

>>92939737
>when when it's actually perfectly fine
It really isn't.

>>92943218
I'm sure the authors would argue they DID put thought into it.
Get mad at them, not the market.

>>92943195
>sexualuzing is ok if its written instead guys!
Try "it's written for a very limited demographic and nobody outside of it won't touch it which means that very few people will complain". It's like porn, porn is done mostly for men so they aren't even trying to make it female friendly, and there's little complaining about that.

>>92943274
>porn is done mostly for men so they aren't even trying to make it female friendly

You must be fucking with us.

>>92943201
There is NO male Star Sapphire until 2014.
And it was for like 1 issues retconned since then.

And it seem you have a problem over people masturbating.

I was enjoying the product as it was until the PC police showed up.

>>92943201
Aren't the sapphire rings the emotion of love? I'd argue that they weren't sexualized enough.

>>92943218
>I read them
Which ones?

>my question is, if those comics can achieve that why can't cape comics do a little bit more of those without falling into either extreme?
They do. It's not nearly as widespread as you seem to believe.

> In most cases it would only require very minor changes
Are you advocating some form of censorship? For artists to be forced to change their styles just to make all general products less sexy and with the uncensored products being treated as special releases, just so that readers like you don't have to see things you don't like? That sounds extremely regressive.

>>92943325
To be fair, even with a solidified light uniform, you can barely remove more of it before it fall appear.

The idea is to be subgestive, not fully naked.

Anyone else notice how OP still hasn't said which books they follow?

>>92943260
I would totally go to a monster truck show though.
>>92943269
It was supposed to be even when, as in it's perfectly fine on some characters but not necessarily on all of them. But people complain about all of them.
>>92943272
And I did, and I dropped some things when they pulled that shit.
>>92943304
http://brobible.com/life/article/average-age-adult-film-viewers/
Quick google search, majority of people watching porn are men, so the majority of porn produced is made with that in mind.

>>92943365
That is the regressive LEFT for you.
> Add bullshit
> First try to have a special censored edition
> Make the censored edition the regular one
> Remove the original edition
> Add even more bullshit
> Profit
> ???
> Destruction of freedom of speech
> Attack people who have the original edition and the artist to even them punished retroactively.
> Communism ?

>>92943441
>>>/pol/

>>92943394
>I would totally go to a monster truck show though.

I'm calling horseshit.

>>92943142
>Plus it's not a visual media
What about women's magazines? They often feature gratuitously sexualized /real/ men and women on their covers, and their contents would be decried as extremely sexist if there were men who got even a fraction as offended as some women get with comics. Seriously, my grandma keeps issues of Cosmo and other women's magazines in her bathroom. I picked up an issue out of curiosity during a Thanksgiving shit and the first article I landed on was about how to gauge the sexiness and gropability of a man's ass while he's walking away.

>>92943394
What comics are you currently reading?

>>92943325
>Love = Sex
??????

>>92943516
>gropability of a man's ass
I don't get the appeal, they're blocky and bulky as shit, it'll be no different than grabbing a brick.

>>92943393
>Anyone else notice how OP still hasn't said which books they follow?
Yes.

>>92943556
I didn't write the article.

>>92937407
It should read "before" and "90's"

>>92943508
Why? It sounds interesting, far more than a lot of other things. That said we don't have those where I live so I've never seen one.
>>92943516
Again, men simply don't read those. Mentally stable normal women don't either. There are porn magazines and women don't complain about those. Comics are a middle ground so they cause people from both groups to fight over them.
>>92943532
Currently none, too busy and all that. I've had a list of ones I wanted to read but I won;t look for it now. If you have any recommendations I might check them later though.

>>92943556
Not gay, butt I can see the appeal
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/54/55/d7/5455d70b407c5f80991635bf41523351.jpg

>>92943644
Okay, so you don't read comics. Case closed, we all can go home now.

>>92943644
>Again, men simply don't read those
Maybe they would if they weren't so sexist and sexualized.

>Currently none, too busy and all that.
Okay. So which ones have you read recently? Let's say in the past few years.

>>92943644
You probably wouldn't enjoy a monster truck show. Lots of sexy girls in skimpy outfits.

File: he-man & teela.jpg-large.jpg (72KB, 750x498px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 750x498px

>>92942792
Sword & Sorcery doesn't count. They are Fantasy settings with males and females following the same loincloth rules.

>>92943589
What's her current costume? I have no clue what's going on with her after Future Foundation.

>>92943810
>Future Foundations.

Future Foundations was /years/ after that outfit.

>>92943825
I know, it's just the OP got me wondering what her current costume actually is.

>>92943847
Same as Future Foundations.

>>92943365
>censorship femanon isn't replying
How transparent.

>>92943689
Right, because I'm not a loser with no job or any other responsibilities who can spend all the time on hobbies? I like binge reading, which means that depending on a comic length I need anywhere from few hours to a few days.
>>92943690
They're full of old lady miracle advice and teenage bullshit, normal people have no interest in those and man equivalent of women reading them is a primitive sports fan. Past few years isn't that recently and I'd have to actually try to remember more than a few to go that far. On the top of my head, Moon Knight is the most recent one, Fables, some indie comics titles of which I can't remember, Transformers until I dropped that, and a lot of storytimed ones though I can't remember which ones were those. I spend more time on games than comics, though there's far more to discuss when it comes to comics so the list of things I want to read is much longer than the things I did read.
>>92943739
Okay that doesn't seem like a my thing but still, it would be interesting to see at least once for the experience.

File: 1491444973181 (1).jpg (2MB, 2828x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2828x4000px

I personally think cape comics are too limiting in their character design. Yes, I understand that practical application of spandex, but it's fiction. It doesn't have to be 1:1 applicable to the real world.

In a world of mostly skin tight suits, your options for women (and generally men, though they get a tiny bit more freedom with costume design) are how much skin you show.

It's possible to make very attractive characters without bugling crotches, muscles, breasts and asses that also look powerful in their own right, but it seems like a risk the big 2 don't want to take.

>>92943983
And what would you have me reply? That a lot of current artists suck in a lot more ways that being unable to draw a good design? Just replace them with ones that know what they're doing, not the same people who never improve and not forced diversity hires. I like how you're claiming I'm pro censorship despite me never saying anything close to it, very mature, and feeling the need to say femanon instead of anon sure is helping to establish your maturity.

File: 1425437316186.jpg (786KB, 900x1366px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 900x1366px

Personally, I believe that they need to focus more on asses.

>>92944076
It boils down to two things, a good design requires a good artist, and it's simply easier for them to advertise a character if they can split the demographic in half especially since they get either politically correct or stood up to those evil SJWs points for those. And the quality suffers. There's a reason the big two are the ones who do it the most, because they have the most media presence so it has a greater effect on their sales than for others.

>>92944201
>Cap just destroying priceless pieces of history
Guess he always was a Nazi, huh?

>>92944248
That was just a piece of journal anon.

>>92940987
If I was a super-powered woman, I'd want to show off my super-powered, hot lady body by embracing my femininity.

>>92944298
Then why was Peter trying to get them signed?

>>92944328
And that's why some characters do just that. It's boring for everyone to be the same though.

>>92944378
Because he can't get the actual pages since those cost lots of money he doesn't have?
And if Cap signed the journal with the pictures of his ancient drawings, would be pretty cool and have the same purpose?

>>92944201
Boy booty is underrated, even amongst straight women.

>>92944145
>I like how you're claiming I'm pro censorship despite me never saying anything close to it
Then what would you call the removal of sexualization and how do you expect it to be enforced? You have literally said, multiple times, that you want sexualization to be segregated from general comics because some readers don't enjoy it. Is that not what you're advocating here? Why don't you lay it out for me so that we can avoid these misunderstandings.

>feeling the need to say femanon instead of anon sure is helping to establish your maturity.
It was actually just for clarification to avoid being misconstrued. Happens a lot here, due to the majority of posters being anonymous. Don't be so defensive.

And also what comics have you read in the past couple of years?

>>92944378
He just wanted Cap to sign the newspaper.

File: 2288214-incredible_hulks_622_vomit.jpg (63KB, 336x436px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 336x436px

>>92937407
>a boring 1950s-60s housewife
Jesus Christmas what the duck do you, Reed, Namor, and Doom see in her

>>92944982
You forgot Black Panther. Every character who is a political leader or ruler of a state in the Marvel Universe wants Sue.

>>92945031

And Dracula. Don't forget Dracula

>>92944841
Also to clarify, your specific suggestion was for a dual system, where there are non-sexualized issues for general release so as to avoid offending more sensitive readers such as yourself, and the unedited sexualized versions held back for special release. That definitely strikes me as a form of censorship, which were my exact words. A form of censorship, censorship being defined as the suppression of content declared to be objectionable.

File: superman-batman_#23-1.jpg (41KB, 420x648px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 420x648px

>>92940449
t n' a pose can be good gestural composition, sometimes.

>>92945060
Indeed. Same with Storm. With the difference that while Sue only tease Marvel's world most powerful leaders, Ororo actually fucks them.

>>92944841
>removal
I see you haven't actually read anything I wrote. Certain characters work when sexualized, some don't. The ones that don't could be made into something more fitting and still kept in their original form in separate stories, since someone complained that they never get to show their old costumes after a change. Those won't have to pretend to be modest so they can go all out. It's a win win. And the actual solution to everything? Stop hiring shit people because of legacy, for diversity or other reasons unrelated to quality of their work, people who can draw well can pull off sexy costumes without making them obnoxious and everyone prefers good art. But since that won't happen altering the designs slightly would achieve similar result.
Clarification of what? It doesn't matter for the purpose of the discussion especially since I could be lying and you wouldn't be able to tell anyway. As you said, we're all anons so why not refer to everyone as such? And I already answered the question, though not fully here
>>92944036

>>92945064
Then you misunderstood what I meant. I meant for toning down of some of the characters, namely the ones whos personality clashes with their design or ones that are bland and have nothing going for them besides showing skin. I'm not saying all characters should be safe for a 3 year old to view I'm saying that designing a serious character purely as a sexy eye candy harms the character and story by making it hard to take either seriously. That doesn't apply to characters who aren't meant to be taken seriously to begin with, or the ones where it plays a part in their story or personality.

>>92945236
>I'm saying that designing a serious character purely as a sexy eye candy harms the character and story by making it hard to take either seriously.

t. american

>>92945263
There's a reason any professional job will have a dress code. If you show up in court topless in shorts you will get kicked out. Nobody can kick out most of the comic characters but that wouldn't stop them from viewing them as unprofessional.

>>92945263
>t. american
Does this actually work anymore?

>>92945263
Anyone can design a softcore pinup. If you want to make a character, you should actually make a character.

The apathy on the part of the average comics consumer is the reason we get shit art and shit writing.

>>92945236
It's hard to understand you when you don't greentext properly. Most of your post is meaningless as well, because from what I see I'm not wrong. You want to suppress sexualization because you find it to be harmful in areas. The logic behind it matters little when the end result is the same. A form of censorship to remove and suppress something you don't like. I'm still waiting on the comics you've read in the past few years. Stop dancing around it and give me a straight answer please.

>objecting to being called a femanon
How new are you? It's a commonly applied term to female posters used when the poster is known to be female or when discussing female posters in general.

>>92945408
>Anyone can design a softcore pinup. If you want to make a character, you should actually make a character.
One doesn't preclude the other.

>The apathy on the part of the average comics consumer is the reason we get shit art and shit writing.
Do you have any specific examples or sources for this?

>>92945428
we do not pretend to remove anything we want non-sexualization of females to happen more

>>92945494
It does if the only reason for the character to exist is to be a magazine centerfold.

Sure, you can make your character have a very revealing get up, but that can't (or shouldn't) be their only asset.

File: 1462508398716.jpg (40KB, 600x445px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x445px

>>92945325
athletes, gymnast and ballerinas wear something appropriate for what they're doing, are they not taken seriously? that's where superheros get their inspiration.
>>92945408
of course 'anyone can design a softcore pinup', that doesn't mean it will be good. you're devaluing pinups when as much thought can go into both designing character and pinups. they aren't mutually exclusive.

>>92945571
>Sure, you can make your character have a very revealing get up, but that can't (or shouldn't) be their only asset.

I agree

>>92945428
>How new are you?
Less new than you. I don't greentext everything because my posts already take too much space and since I'm treating this as a casual discussion I see no need to make it overly ordered. When you put it that way you can call everything censorship so the word loses most of it's meaning. The point isn't to force something to stop, it's to improve it and encourage alternatives that are just as good for you and better for people like me. Why do you keep asking about the comics? I listed a few of which I read more than a couple of issues and I remembered without thinking too hard, I'm not going through my files to find every comic I've read in the last couple of years especially since I don't have all of them so it wouldn't be a complete list anyway.

>>92945571
>It does if the only reason for the character to exist is to be a magazine centerfold.
Then what's the problem? If their only reason to exist is to be a centerfold, then what's the big deal?

>Sure, you can make your character have a very revealing get up, but that can't (or shouldn't) be their only asset.
True, but the lack of other assets is what would make them a poor character, not the presence of sexualization.

>>92945724
The presence of sexualization doesn't cause the character to be poor, but it seems to generally be a symptom of it. If you are too shit to actually make a character interesting or worthwhile on their own, then putting them in a revealing costume will hopefully distract your readers.

>If their only reason to exist is to be a centerfold, then what's the big deal?
It's a waste of ink, time and money, all of which could have been put towards actually creating a meaningful character. Comics aren't porn or jerk off material, especially now that we have the internet (unless of course they are literally porn, in which case none of this applies).

I want competent writers and artists, and I want varied character designs, not just the same skin tight spandex every time. And I know I won't be getting either of those, as there's no impetus for the first and the artists/consumers don't care enough for the second, so instead I'm going to bitch on this Taiwanese etch-a-sketch forum.

>>92945626
>athletes, gymnast and ballerinas wear something appropriate for what they're doing, are they not taken seriously? that's where superheros get their inspiration.

Comic characters are also fictional. The artists have a near limitless design space to work with and instead have all of their characters shop at the same spandex emporium.
They try to say the reason is that it "makes logical sense" but that shouldn't matter. The real reason is that it is easier to simply draw a naked human body without genitals, then add a few lines and some color and call it a costume.

>>92946096
>The real reason is that it is easier to simply draw a naked human body without genitals,
What always amuses me is that the artists who do that, as opposed to actually making the suit look like a realistic spandex, usually have very mediocre understanding of anatomy.

>>92945679
>Less new than you.
Yeah ok, femanon. It's not a serious question, but I'm not surprised that you don't know that.

>When you put it that way you can call everything censorship so the word loses most of it's meaning.
How? First off, how is what you proposed not a form of censorship? You literally suggested for artists to make "minor changes" to tone down sexualization in general issues to make them more palatable to "people like [you]", and for sexualized (read: normal) issues to be treated as special releases. That is literally the suppression of something you find objectionable, which is the definition of censorship. Saying that sexualization is fine in stories where you think it fits doesn't change the fact that you're advocating the removal of it from stories where you think it doesn't, because you don't like it.

>Why do you keep asking about the comics?
Because I don't believe for a hot second that you're actually a fan of comics. I don't buy that you can't recall comics you've read, because it's not that hard to remember. What's your favorite book? That should be easy.

I would also like for you to back up your claims with specific examples. What stories have you read that have been negatively affected by sexualization? How did it detract from the experience for you? Do you think that you can just make a bunch of generalized claims and be taken seriously?

File: 30-superhero-bulk-up.w750.h560.2x.jpg (68KB, 546x408px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 546x408px

>>92943752
Fuck you, you don't get to decide "what counts"
Men are just as often half naked, even more so in fact in genre fiction. It's not a sexist conspiracy. Sexy men and women are fun to look at and in a VISUAL medium that's what matters.

File: Manhunter_paulkirk.jpg (89KB, 300x457px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 300x457px

>>92944076
The cape vs no cape thing is directly observed in the bloopers of cape movies.
Capes serve little to no real purpose to a person who is flying and jumping around. They are unruly, heavy and just a general encumbrance. Their existence alone negates any argument of realism in a costume design.
Look at this shit. LOOK AT IT!
This is an acrobatic character!
Dude shouldn't even be able to walk much less ninja flip all over the place. But it doesn't matter because it's not real therefore it only fails if the writer needs it to.

>>92944076
Even in your pic sjw bitches would complain about how much her back is arched. There is no winning

>>92946347
I don't disagree with you anon. Just pointing out that barbarian looking characters like Conan, He-Man, Red Sonja, Teela, Dejah Thoris etc are by definition half naked.

>>92946028
>I want varied character designs, not just the same skin tight spandex every time
You wanna know how I know you don't read comics?

>Iron Man
>Robot
>Supergirl
>Brit
>Wolf-Man
>Rex-Splode
>Tech Jacket
>Wonder Woman
>Superman
>Spider-Man
>Other Spider heroes
>Blue Beetle
>Jim Gordan as Batman
>Hal Jordan
>Thing
>Swamp Thing
>The Question
>Black Canary
>Vampirella
>Scarlet Witch
>Doctor Strange
>Squirrel Girl
>Vision
>Nova
>Ms. Marvel
>Captain Marvel
>War Machine
>Black Knight
>Huntress
>Midnighter
>Angel
>Beta Ray Bill
>Thor
>Sif
>Jane Foster as Thor
>Cyclone
>Faith
>Ghost Rider
>Robbie Reyes as Ghost Rider
>Hawkeye
>Kid Thor
>Knockout
>Harley Quinn
>Rogue
>Captain America
>Moon Knight
>Daredevil
>Shark Girl
>Blob
>Storm
>Kitty Pride
>Hulk

~50 examples of characters in superhero comics who have or have had designs that go beyond simple spandex, just off the top of my head. I also limited it to protagonists, either of their own book or of a group book. I can do that, because I read comics and can look beyond the stupid and inaccurate generalizations that morons like you like to put on the industry. I also have a good memory.

>>92946171
And which part of what I said implied that I don't know? Calling women femanons started dying out among oldfags so now I see mostly newcomers from other sites use it.
>and for sexualized (read: normal) issues to be treated as special releases
Actually, I said that the special releases should go all out and drop any pretence of being SFW basically making them canon or semi canon depending on circumstances fap comics. Isn't that something you want?
>Because I don't believe for a hot second that you're actually a fan of comics. I don't buy that you can't recall comics you've read, because it's not that hard to remember.
>you're on /co/ talking about comics and now you made up that you like comics for absolutely no reason at all even though it didn't help your point in any way and was just a remark
Right. And I did list a couple of comics. I can't list more because if I don't binge read them I rarely remember to read them all, so I just mostly forget about them until something reminds me. Memory issues are a thing you know, especially when people are busy.
>What stories have you read that have been negatively affected by sexualization?
But that's the thing, if it's obnoxious enough to bother me I won't read it. If it's not I will read it, but then I won't remember it specifically for that.
>What's your favorite book? That should be easy.
It really isn't. Were you ever asked about your hobby? I don't have a favorite, sometimes I might have for a while after reading something new but as I said I've been too busy to read anything for a while now. If you really want an answer let's go with Moon Knight since I really enjoy it and it's the only proper comic I've read in months.

File: 1485024209921.jpg (107KB, 803x996px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 803x996px

>>92946461
They would that's true, but there is a gulf between being creative with character designs and having the freedom to do traditionally, unorthodox stuff and catering to SJWs. I would say the first is very worthwhile, while the latter is pointless.

Not every person who complains about current cape comic character design is an SJW. Some of us just want new ideas in an old medium.

File: 1481611570178.png (645KB, 800x1250px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 800x1250px

>>92946582
At least half of those do not support your point. Superman, really? Supergirl? Scarlet Witch, Huntress, Hawkeye?

>>92946944
The spandex thing is also out of ease and speed.
Just draw a basic human form and color it blue BAM its a costume. That thing you posted there is cluttered and ugly and would look shitty in a crowded panel/page.

File: rebirth-designs-4_1.jpg (265KB, 950x1229px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 950x1229px

It doesn't matter if costumes are revealing or not. They need to be appropriate to the theme and look good.

For example, pic related Wondy is by far 1000x better than her usual leotard. She's wearing more clothing and even has her butt covered by a cape. She looks more like a spartan warrior then she ever has with the gold trimmings, skirt and cape.

Sacrificing a good design to focus on revealing or covering up a character is fucking retarded.

>>92946944
While what you posted is nice as an art piece it's not a very good comic character design.

>>92946944
>New ideas. Posting a full medieval armor.

Ideas from 600 years ago more likely. If this thread was about Pathfinder, D&D or Lord of the Rings, i could see it. But cape comics??? Nah.

>>92946998
Posting a Castlevania character doesn't help YOUR point since they all wear the same damn thing. Maria is the only one who wears anything unique

>>92946700
>Calling women femanons started dying out among oldfags so now I see mostly newcomers from other sites use it.
This isn't true at all, but nice try. Confidently asserting something can indeed lead to it being taken as true.

>Actually, I said that the special releases should go all out and drop any pretence of being SFW basically making them canon or semi canon depending on circumstances fap comics. Isn't that something you want?
No. For starters, it's unnecessary. The only comic I can think of that would actually benefit from this is Coraline. So far that's one more example than you, so I suppose I'm doing a better job at supporting your argument than you are. Sexualization in comics just isn't that rampant, especially not these days. The majority of female superheroes have more mild designs now. Captain Marvel, Vampirella, Scarlet Witch, Power Girl, etc, they've all been toned down, and new female superheroes like Kamala just aren't sexualized. Get with the times.

>no examples of comics that have been negatively affected by straddling the line of sexualization
>can only rattle off three comics you've kinda read
>can't even name your favorite book or the closest one
>trying to cover this up by implying you don't have time to waste on comics, subtly pushing the idea that you're in a superior position to people who do spend time on their hobby
>and also claiming to have memory issues
So basically I shouldn't be taking you seriously at all. You're arguing from a position of ignorance. At least tell me your favorite character and why, that should actually be piss easy.

>>92947022
>>92947054

I strongly disagree, because a competence artist can make such a design work fine. The mangakas of Japan do it all the time.

>>92947058
All current ideas are more or less offshoots of previous ideas, especially in using themes form different cultures. Relegating yourself to thinking that spandex needs to be in cape comics and armor needs to be in fantasy works needlessly limits your design space and increases homogeneity.

>>92947130
For medieval Fantasy sure. For cape comics just no.

>>92947166
Look depends from the character, and the franchise. If the character is an Asgardian, i could certainly watch such a design. But if the character is Superman or Supergirl, that are basically invulnerable, medieval armor is and just sounds ridiculous.

File: 817fe58d6f08f9b5534dbe0bd903eeee.jpg (103KB, 466x495px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 466x495px

>>92947130
A competent artist knows about composition and a WESTERN comic is structured differently than a manga. You know that. There is a detail threshold that a costume shouldn't cross.
And what manga are you even trying to use as an example? What manga with the level of detail you are suggesting comes out every month?

Look at this. What if everybody was wearing a cluttered as fuck costume? Even in this, the costumes are basically little more than colorful human forms.
George Perez knows more about what make a good costume than you do. Don't argue with him.

>>92947025
>focusing on her wearing more clothes
There's barely any more than usual beyond the cape. It does look much better though simply because it's interesting and fits her better, it has nothing to do with the amount of her skin covered.
>trying to cover this up by implying you don't have time to waste on comics
Bitch, I don't do almost anything anymore. I play games way less than I used to, I don't watch most new shows and cartoons even if I want to, I stopped reading regular books too. What a shock that comics got the same treatment. I already said that comics were never the main use of my time even though I find discussing them far more interesting than other media. If I can't list more than a few examples of things I spend or rather spent far more time on why would I be able to do it for comics? I read far more books than comic books yet I wouldn't be able to list more than a few. And yes I could've just checked but I don't consider this important, you're the one trying to prove something.

>>92946998
>Superman
https://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/solicitation-artwork/July-2015/Skipped/action42.jpg

>Supergirl
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_OCN273DVFU/VQnIfHRQ1CI/AAAAAAAAjEE/CXOK2f4ZdWM/s1600/SG-Cv40.jpg

>Scarlet Witch
https://a.dilcdn.com/bl/wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2016/09/5642307cd2e43.jpg

>Huntress
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Huntressrebirth.png

>Hawkeye
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/31/33/1c/31331cb09e26ab1a808dc12fb0c7420c.jpg

Sorry if the post is kind of sloppy, but like I said, everyone on that list has or has had a costume with more complexity than simple spandex.

>>92947025
I like the costume minus the cape. But I dislike the move overall of WW being compared to a Spartan, specifically, but that is exactly what this costume does. That with the lack of seeing Diana in any civilian capacity in years outside of the occasional visit to a club. Just pushes warrior too much. And It's not right for the overall depiction of her attitude, or at least what her attitude used to be overall.

So it looks good,but I would argue that for the theme of Wonder Woman, it's kind of off. It's a look closer to what Artemis might have.

>>92947426
>you're the one trying to prove something.
That's you, actually. You made a claim, I disagreed. So far you haven't backed it up at all and honestly I'm wondering what you're even trying to do here. You don't read comics, so what's the issue?

>>92947025
Cape needs to go. Liability in combat, if you want to push the warrior angle. It also clutters the design and looks closer to a travelling cloak.

File: 1494311698176.jpg (10KB, 242x144px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 242x144px

>>92943116
Not triggered anon but it sounds like now you are getting into the basic problems all comics have of not being able to connect to new audiences.

Females, hell most non nerds for that matter aren't going to enter a comic shop. Those places are few and far between to begin with.

That leaves web advertisement, word of mouth, and a lucky pull from a book store for non cape shit to spread out. You want new female audiences and shit, figure out a way to make a gripping story that a consumer of social media can't ignore.

>>92947426
I never said the new Wondy design is focusing on her wearing more clothes. I was referring to ugly designs like the new Star Sapphire and Vamperella shit that are being created now to cover up female characters.

I used new Wondy as an example of an inbetween costume that looks fantastic. And I'm assuming your 2nd paragraph was for someone else?

>>92947515
She's literally an Amazon warrior at heart. It fits very well. Civilian capacity outside of Justice League members hanging out is overrated. Stuff like Trinity where she has dinner with Bruce and Clark is much better.

File: dbfe5e9607fe1fc6f430b2a28db8d5fa.png (137KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 420x420px

>>92947657
Batman and Superman both have a cape. Who doesn't have a cape? It's a superhero comic, not real life. Capes are heroic and it fits very well with the Greek warrior theme she has going.

>>92947534
I made a meaningless remark about something I do. You wanted a proof and claimed I lied, and now you keep repeating that because you don't consider my low effort answer convincing enough. It's not my problem whether you believe me or not, you can go ahead and assume I'm lying because it's not going to affect my life in any way, I don't care if you believe enough to put in any effort into proving it. I will tell you that assuming that people lie to you about irrelevant shit just for the hell of it is pretty annoying though, interestingly I've never seen it happen in person, only online. Do satisfy my curiosity and tell me what country are you from?

>>92947130
>The mangakas of Japan do it all the time.
Funny, I'm reading the Bleach manga right now in the other tab, and I was thinking about how Kubo made such wonderful, simple designs in the earlier parts of the story only from him to clutter them up later on towards the end. And if they do it all the time, do you have any examples?

Also no bully for reading Bleach pls, it's a guilty pleasure.

>>92947755
>t's not my problem whether you believe me or not
Well it is if you want your argument to be taken seriously at all. If you don't care about the argument, please let me know because I have better things to be doing than wasting time with someone who isn't going to put effort into this at all.

>Do satisfy my curiosity and tell me what country are you from?
You know, I don't recall. Guess I'm just too busy these days.

>>92947848
And what argument is that? None of what I was actually trying to argue had anything to do with what you want me to prove, you just started clinging to that for whatever reason while derailing the actual conversation I was trying to have, which I think we finished anyway since it wasn't going anywhere. And you seem to be under assumption that refusing to answer is going to annoy me. Oh well, I do wonder if assuming whole world is lying to you all the time for no reason and paranoia is an American thing or is it just losers who are too antisocial to have any actual friends as opposed to people who lie to avoid you.

>>92947690
When I was talking about her "civilian capacity" I was referring to her role specifically as ambassador. And the good she tried to do outside of just fighting bad guys, which was part of the reason she was sent to mans world to begin with. Not just returning Steve but to be a bridge between Themyscira and mans world. Themyscira in no depiction I can remember has ever been portrayed as an entirely warrior culture. But one that while being formed of and built by warriors had grown into something beyond that. No matter how you look at it Wonder Woman did not grow up in some war torn environment filled with conflict. She was trained and prepared in case the worst should happen. But as I said before her and her home was not Sparta. The Amazons lived in isolation and developed a peaceful advanced society for centuries with a lack of conflict. When Steve first arrives she's the one that shows him kindness and speaks on his behalf for mercy or leniency or that he should be heard before being executed.

Wonder Woman absolutely knows how to use weapons and fight proficiently. But she has little to no reason to have "warriors heart". Her life was one of peace.

>>92947732
Looks like shit in that design though. An over-the-shoulder half cape would be better.

>>92948142
You are underrepresenting her "warrior princess" identity. She spent every day of her life training for battle. Also this is a comic book and she spends the majority of her time fighting. And, this is my opinion of course, but her ambassador personality is fucking boring. Her warrior princess, greek mythos aspect is what I read Wonder Woman comics for. They capitalized on it in her design and it looks fantastic.

>>92948030
>And what argument is that?
Your stance on sexualization in comics and how it can be improved for everyone? You can't provide examples of comics that would be improved by this, or even of comics that you've actually read. Wow, three, you must know so much. And now you're resorting to ad hominem, because you actually don't have an argument, or you're just rustled. I'm not acting from paranoia. You've shown a lack of knowledge when it comes to comics a couple of times, both in assuming that sexualization is a big issue that needs a solution (when in reality it's already toned down) and that superheroes rarely have designs that aren't spandex. So unless you actually start laying down examples, it's clear you don't know anything about comics. You didn't even say who your favorite character was and why. I also doubt that you'll actually address all my points, instead opting to pick out on and make a reply out that. You've done that a couple of times now.

So seriously, if you don't want to craft an actual argument, just let me know.

>why don't people who like something want it to change to appease people who don't like it?
Not everything has to be for everyone.

>>92942587
where's his dick

File: collage.png (4MB, 1100x1798px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1100x1798px

>>92946096
yes you don't like it and you don't have to, but your implication that the reason some comic characters wear spandex is the result of lazy artists is quite telling of your ignorance and biased outlook which ignores the actual landscape and how these things developed.
no most spandexed heroes don't look 'just naked'.
I don't know why I bother these are bait tier points any way, oh well.

notice in the image that new 52 superman design has an fitted armor padded look to it. and guy gardners (the guy wearing green) vest. and captain americas(the guy in red white and blue) chainmail scaley look.

oh I better spoil this pic because the women in the bottom don't seem to be wearing any pants!

>>92948324
Wonder Woman, when written correctly, doesn't have much of a warrior princess identity.

>>92948324
Yea I think I said at the beginning it's a good looking costume. I just feel that in terms of theme it represents a shallower one dimensional character. And that could be counter acted with story elements that in your opinion are boring or by a costume that is less warrior like in design. Not both, either or would work.

I personally liked Diana time out of costume, since New 52 she's felt like a much more distant and less approachable character and outside of her book up until rebirth she's been mostly annoying at best. Like you said her moments sitting around with Bruce and Clark are really enjoyable.

File: WW-design.jpg (299KB, 1069x913px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1069x913px

>>92947025
looks like a bad version of fabok's design

>>92948548
>when written correctly
and you know better then everyone else right?

>>92948691
Because it is.

>>92948732
Yes.

For example, "then" is not the right word for comparisons. That would be "than".

>>92948380
>not acting out of paranoia
>obsessing over a "proof" from a stranger on the internet for something irrelevant to the discussion
I have a question for you then, lets say I posted a list, how would you know I didn't simply make it up?
I did have an argument and if you weren't so obsessed with demanding proof for something unrelated I would've said that it's possible I have an exaggerated view on the issue, and that I haven't taken into account a lot of recent character changes. But why would you want to have an actual discussion when you can just sperg out instead? I still keep my opinion that a lot of costumes need a redesign, and a lot of artists need to be replaced though. But congratulations, I realised just how whiny the big two fans really are since I constantly see them whining about any slight design change like it's the end of the world and I never paid much attention to that.
>You didn't even say who your favorite character was and why.
And where did you ask that?

Priest's blog is really a goldmine. He freaking browses /co/.

>>92948832
>I have a question for you then, lets say I posted a list, how would you know I didn't simply make it up?
Well you would have to put some effort into it to do that, but what's more the content of the comics would also inform the argument, because of whether or not they contained the content you were complaining about, and exactly how much and what you've read.

>if you weren't so obsessed with demanding proof for something unrelated
It is related. You're complaining about a problem with comics, am I supposed to just not ask for proof that you actually read comics, and for specific examples of this problem? You've provided neither.

> I would've said that it's possible I have an exaggerated view on the issue, and that I haven't taken into account a lot of recent character changes.
You could have said this at any point, and by doing so would have just invalidated your entire argument, which is probably the real reason you didn't do it, not because I'm "sperging out" and "whining" (when I'm really just wanting you to back up your argument even a little bit).

> I realised just how whiny the big two fans really are since I constantly see them whining about any slight design change like it's the end of the world and I never paid much attention to that.
Where did I do that? Changes to designs are fine, as long as they look good and are done for a good reason. It's just that "skin bothers me so make special changes specifically for people like me" isn't a good reason. Or even a valid one, as most designs these days don't gratuitously show skin. But keep on with the ad hominem. I'm not even really a Big Two fan, I like Image more on the whole.

And where did you ask that?
>>92947078
One of the posts that you just cherry picked part of, the part specifically being how I said you don't have time for comics, which you replied to without properly quoting here>>92947426

>>92947426
Si you are claiming on a medium you don't have an interest in. I wonder what kind of people does that.

>>92949236
>because of whether or not they contained the content you were complaining about
But I already said I tend to drop comics that do that. Why would I purposefully read something I dislike?
>It is related. You're complaining about a problem with comics, am I supposed to just not ask for proof that you actually read comics
For arguments sake, you don't have to be a food critic to be able to tell when food is badly done. You wouldn't have asked if I haven't said anything. You didn't care whether I was reading comics until you decided I'm lying for no reason.
>You could have said this at any point,
As I already said, I'm treating this as a casual discussion and don't feel the need to reply to every word specifically. I'm not writing a paper. Which means that I'm focusing on responding to a few points that grab my attention, as you have already noticed, and you sure tried very hard to direct my attention away from everything besides your trust issues. If you don't like the way I talk then too bad.
>Where did I do that?
Not you, but you did make me realize that some of what I mentally associated with the comics was actually people spamming older designs or cherry picking the "good" ones, or rather the least imaginative ones.
I missed the character part. I don't have one, characters depend heavily on the writer and I stopped reading things for the sake of a character long ago. And a genuine, non sarcastic question, why do you and a lot of other people think someone has to have a favorite [something]? I can read a series where I don't particularly like any of the characters if the story itself is good and I wont read a shitty story even if the characters are amazing. That's actually something that has more influence over which webcomics I read rather than comics since those can have more drastic character or story based plot.

>>92949994
>But I already said I tend to drop comics that do that.
So you've read them, at least partially and should be able to point to them as examples.
>you don't have to be a food critic to be able to tell when food is badly done
No, but you do have to eat food, and to be able to point out what meal you ate that you think was bad.
>You didn't care whether I was reading comics until you decided I'm lying for no reason.
I decided you were lying because you've provided a whopping three examples of comics that you kinda read after avoiding answering for as long as possible, and have displayed ignorance of comics in general. I've already outlined how.
>you sure tried very hard to direct my attention away from everything besides your trust issues
I'm suspicious of you, anon, because you're shifty. You make excuses ("I'm busy, I have poor memory, I drop those comics" etc) instead of backing up your actual argument with actual proof. You've done your best to spin my desire for proof as paranoia and deep seated trust issues. This is literally ad hominem, you're coming after me instead of my argument. It would be like if I dismissed your points by saying you're just complaining because you're a sensitive, prudish, and self-entitled female.

>stuff about favorite character
It's all true, but it doesn't really matter because it's something that's subjective. Spider-Man is my favorite character, even though he's been run into the ground and rarely gets good stories anymore.

File: namoranimated.jpg (152KB, 550x552px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 550x552px

This thread needs more Namor.

>>92950255
>I'm suspicious of you, anon, because you're shifty.
See, I can absolutely see that at this point, but you decided to be suspicious before having any reason to, which I am pretty out of patience for not that it's any of your fault. So at this point I'm not citing any more examples partially because of that, partially out of laziness and partially because I think that it's not relevant. It's not like the list would be very long anyway which I did say already. You want an example of a comic I dropped? Fine, it's not an example of a design issue though. I started reading Rat Queens because I saw someone say it was good, and it sure wasn't. I don't remember anything wrong with the art but I remember the story was painfully mediocre and uninteresting. Dropped one of Transformers comics because of garbage art. And I can't remember which one but one of the D&D comics I started reading had both of those issues. Though I've yet to see a D&D comic drawn and written well so I'm not sure if it's fair to use that as an example.

>>92950668
Okay, but you didn't drop them because of sexualization, which is your big problem that you want addressed.

>>92950624
Life needs more Namor.

>>92950831
From what I recall it started from a post about poses not design even. Either way art is something you see immediately so unless a comic gets a permanent change of an artist which also changes the tone it's obvious from that start. So I can't list any examples because that specific situation didn't happen which means that any comic that I dropped because of sequalized art was either right at the start or close, so they weren't very memorable. Again though, I wasn't trying to prove that it happens, and the whole conversation about it was completely pointless, but rather prove that it's entirely possible to change an overly skimpy outfit to something more fitting without ruining a character and without making her unattractive. Which would be a good middle ground I think and since people said that they still want the original design to be used I tried to find a way for that to happen without constant switching between the two. That got completely derailed pretty fast though.

>This thread
I see Goalpost-kun is at it again, when will /co/ learn to recognize that he always does the same thing?

I left for the day to hang out with some friends. What did I miss? Did trigglypuff admit she doesn't read comics?

>>92951212
So you never had an argument.