Comic Book Resources

fail

Starting from the top …

14. I just love how they’re sitting on his fingers while caressing the sword and the gun and whatever that other weapon is. At least it’s an ATTEMPT at subtlety, even though it’s not really.

7. You’re brave, bringing that whole thing up again.

4. Ed Brubaker has gotten very offended by the whole “black man on fire” thing, as I’m sure you know. I really like that cover, even though Falcon’s torso is very bizarre. There’s nothing remotely creepy about it.

different idea of creepy i guess. maybe you meant “gross”?i was expecting “tales from the crypt” creepy. the powergirl cover is terrible, one of the worst covers i’ve seen in a while, but creepy? maybe this should just be “covers i didn’t like, mostly because they oversexualized the characters but also some other reasons.”
the cyclone one is arguably inappropriate but creepy?

i’ll agree with your #1 as it may be the creepiest and grossest too. the exterminators one is a pretty gross but genius and not creepy at all. bugs have sex — get over it. its not an all ages comic book.

ps, i had to add: i dislike the epting cover too. i think it is very poorly done, especially considering i like his work a lot. but the falcon on fire is being equated to burning the flag (symbolically destroying america) not presented as a patriotic act. i’m not sure how people could not get that. the burning flag makes the cover explicitly antiracist.

i’m more disturbed that iron man’s face is growing out of the falcon’s armpit and that the winter soldier is all up in sharon’s junk. one of the worst cover layouts i’ve seen by a good artist in a while.

regarding number 7…

I know it’s been said, but frankly, it bears repeating:

That is NOT what a man in a skintight costume having an erection looks like. That is what a man in a skin tight costume having a PENIS looks like. These are not the same thing.

Seriously, next time you get wood, take minute with just your briefs on and have a little look in the mirror.

I know we’re all used to comics pretending that male superheroes don’t have genitals, but you seriously over-reacted to that cover, and featuring it again here shows that you continue to do so. So you should probably expect me to continue to bitch about it.

…I meant to say “people like me”…

And just to make my spamming complete (sorry!), I should actually say that I think the rest of this piece is great. It’s about time Marvel and DC realised that they’re actually turning off at least as many people as they turn on with these covers.

Wow! 5 out of 15 (1/3 for those of you keeping track at home) were from Heroes For Hire. Are the covers turning people away from the book? Is that why it is selling so poorly?

Or is it the use of craptacular characters and off-portrayals of good characters?

Why hasn’t Elektra learned to wear armor around her stomach by now?

I like most of the Heroes For Hire covers. Aside from the one with the tentacles, I think they are all well done. A little bit heavy on the cheesecake, but nowhere near as bad as so much other T&A temed cover art that’s popped up in recent months.

Definitely have to agree with you on the X-23 cover, though. It creeped me out when I first saw it on the shelf at the comic shop. How old is the character supposed to be, fourteen or fifteen? She’s decked out like a pedophile’s wet dream!

Yikes, I hadn’t seen that Cyclone cover before.

That ain’t right.

I agree with the comment about “creepy.” I like the suggested “covers i didn’t like, mostly because they oversexualized the characters but also some other reasons,” but that’s definitely not what “creepy” means for most people.

I don’t want to spoil the shock of #10, buuuuut…

Shouldn’t the blood be green or something? It would take the edge off an excedingly violent cover. And, doesn’t Elektra know how to die any other way?

More unnecessary harping on a package. WOW. You’re very original, and overcompensating just a bit.

Did that close the italics? Sure hope so.

Why is X-23 looking like a prostitute creepy? Didn’t she used to actually be one? I guess age-appropriateness of the portrayal could be an issue, especially since I believe her aging has been artificially accelerated, so she’s actually even younger than she appears (I could be wrong; been a while since I read that craptastic mini, but if I am wrong, I don’t particularly care), but the fact that she’s a young girl who’s a vicious killer is far creepier than anything else about her.
I have to agree that oversexualized portrayals of characerts may be in poor taste, but that doesn’t equate with “creepy” in my mind.

Creepy is the old dude from Family Guy who keeps flirting with Chris Griffin. What’s creepier is the old guy’s dog.
The “hentai” Heroes For Hire cover just barely scratches creepy. The Exterminators cover is only creepy to those who are bothered by insects. The X-23 cover is disturbing, but hardly creepy. The rest…well…aside from some bad art (as usual) by Turner, aren’t even close to what creepy is.
I’d certainly wouldn’t call a cover featuring four of Ultimate Marvel’s hottest heroines creepy. I’d call that a reason to crack open a cold one, kick back, and say “oh yeah”…or whatever floats your boat.
So, I think (my opinion only) that all who read from here on in need to imagine that the title of this column is really “Judging The Top Fifteen Cheesecakiest/Beefcakiest Covers Of The Past Year”.

Yes…I made those words up.
I like them.

Yes, I know that bugs don’t qualify for beefcake or cheesecake. But…y’know…the whole floating your boat thing…
To each their own.

Yes, I know that bugs don’t qualify for beefcake or cheesecake. But…y’know…the whole floating your boat thing…

Hmmm, maybe “bugcake” is a term we could use. That’s creepy

Hey!! Where’s my WOLVERINE/BLACK CAT: CLAWS!! Felicia tickling Logan’s ass doesn’t count here? If Fel wasn’t unconscious, shackled and goobered in Dr. Terror’s House o’Tentacles right now, she’d demand justice!

My creepiest cover is the All Star Batman and Robin cover with Wonder Woman’s butt. It just isn’t right.

Eh….I don´t think a single one of these covers were creepy. I mean, where´s EC when you need ´em?

Why are the comments all Italics all of a sudden?

And I don’t think 9 is that creepy. In fact, I’d put it as less creepy than the Hawkgirl cover. The women are idealized, but they look somewhat realistic.

Hey girls in sexual situations are always gross and creepy. Icky girl parts, yuck.

I don’t see these “creepy” either. Except maybe the Exterminators cover. They could make you uncomfortable based on your attitudes towards sex and sexuality, but none of them ‘creeped’ me out because of that. Most of them qualify though for ‘worst drawn’ covers of the last year…

Is “creepy” really the word here?

“Is Cyclone even wearing underwear on this cover? Sure doesn’t look like it, does it? Creeeeeepy.”

You could say a lot of things about a woman without underwear but ‘creepy’ isn’t the first one that comes to my mind.

Since Cyclone’s about 16 or so, creepy is a perfect word to describe that cover. Also “inappropriate”.

However, the Steel cover really just ain’t creepy.

Cyclone is 16? I thought she was 19. That’s what her Wikipedia entry says. I know, I know; you can’t rely on Wikipeida, but still, I’m pretty sure she’s older than 16. Propriety remains an issue regardless, but I don’t think she’s underage.

And anyway, it’s possible that she’s just wearing a really really tiny thong.

Well, there’s an original topic that hasn’t been too worn out over the past several weeks. Tiresome, and the focus on Heroes For Hire evidences a lack of research beyond the obvious.

“a lack of research”

Agree or disagree, but if anyone’s spent a lot of time looking at and thinking about all of the year’s covers it’s Cronin.

[/i]Gonna disagree with a bunch. For one, the tentacle porn H4H cover isn’t out yet, so I don’t think that should count. (and frankly, Felicia and friends flocked on the felonious fiend’s phallic fingers is fairly far more fetishistic fare)

I don’t believe pin-up/cheescake/sexualize = creepy, as you seem to. 13, 11, 9 for example…what actually makes them creepy?

It is odd that Brian decided to dredge all this up, considering we’ve hashed over things like Steelgate and tentacle rape at length, and not that long ago, either. Also, Brian, I’d say that your fixation on the word “creepy” to describe over-sexualized (and/or allegedly oversexualized) covers suggests that you have an odd, uncomfortable relationship towards sex. Yes, your number-one choice is unabashedly creepy. But the majority of the choices here are just badly drawn cheesecake. Generally in poor taste, to be sure, and embarrassing to the superhero-centric mainstream comics industry. But not creepy. Laughable, really. Or eye-roll-inducing.

Meanwhile (if the site will let me), I’m just gonna post a link to the funniest post post I read about Steel’s alleged hard-on. Gotta tell you, I don’t know what you’ve been smoking, those of you who think you see a steel boner. It’s just his stuff in tight shorts. You’ve seen the same thing if you’ve ever been to a beach or watched Olympic men’s swimming or diving competitions.

http://comics212.net/2007/04/19/afraid-of-cock/

What’s funny is that I found these covers by going back through the past year’s worth of Judging Books By Their Covers, and going back, the amount of times I’ve called one of these covers “creepy” is amazing. Particularly the Heroes for Hire ones. I was calling them creepy, like, every month!

Didn’t people notice it then?

Brian, I’m afraid you missed one of the creepiest covers of the past year: Hawkgirl #55, and its giant tentacled space vagina.

The creepiest thing about the Hawkgirl cover at number 15 is how she can fly, deflect a blast with a shield and wield an ax simultaneously.

Conservation of momentum anyone?

I don’t think ‘creepy’ is the right word either, although I do definitely understand where you’re coming from, Brian.

To me creepy implies some sort of shock to the system…and cheesecake is about fun, playful, flirting with the possibilities. Other than #1 & #5, these covers are more just deadly dull than anything else…except maybe insulting to the intelligence and/or libido of the target audience. ‘Hey! I’m a girl! Looky, I have girl parts! See?!’

Yeah, this is more like “The Top Fifteen Most Tasteless Covers of the Past Year” or, barring numbers 4 and 10, “The Top Fifteen Most Over-Sexualized Covers of the Past Year.”

Come to think of it, where’s “Robin covered in sticky white foam” from DETECTIVE COMICS?

I agree with most of these but #8 is so blatently sexualised that I acually find it funny rater than creepy.

are hero for hire covers suppose to be ironic???

but you seriously over-reacted to that cover

No, this is what bears repeating:

YOU are the one over-reacting. Brian’s comments about that cover have always been short and sparing, as opposed to your multi-paragraph response of indignance. The fact that this has become any kind of scandal is completely due to the endless amount of people posting comments like yours and hurling invective like this:

Also, Brian, I’d say that your fixation on the word “creepy” … suggests that you have an odd, uncomfortable relationship towards sex.

That? That’s over-reacting.

If you would just take one second to remember that you’re reacting to Brian making fun of a superhero’s genitalia, you might realize that this issue is not a serious one. There’s no need for you to get up in arms.

Since when did it become unnacceptable to make fun of genitalia? Unclench, man.

Nobody did an Injury to the Eyeball cover last year? Cos that’s the creepiest.

“Unclench, man.”

Pot meet keetle.

Kettle.

God I can’t spell tonight…

How did you forget this one?

http://dccomics.com/media/covers/6923_400×600.jpg

My only thought on the Cyclone cover is “who the hell would even notice that?”

I’m not sure what’s supposed to be creepy about #9. Just that they’re all walking in unison?

Yeah, I gotta say, I don’t find the majority of those creepy. I actually find peoples’ fixation on some of them to be a lot ‘creepier’, to be honest, particularly because you’d really have to study some of them to appreciate the ‘creep’ factor, which I doubt many impressionable kids or whoever we’re trying not to offend are going to do.

There’s at least a few on there that are just par for the superhero comics course. Sure, some of the women wear revealing clothing, but it’s not like the men are all dressed in loose-fitting suits.

Aside from a few token entries, the covers seem to reflect the tendency of most people to be creeped out by sexuality more than violence, which is weird, to me. I’m not talking about Brian specifically, obviously, but mainstream attitudes in general, and the stance taken by any number of censorship bodies.

I should add, though, that it’s always good to see a Quagmire reference.

My only thought on the Cyclone cover is “who the hell would even notice that?”

It appears to be deliberately designed so that you’ll notice ‘that’ - her arm holding her skirt down creates a line leading right to ‘it’.

There’s at least a few on there that are just par for the superhero comics course. Sure, some of the women wear revealing clothing, but it’s not like the men are all dressed in loose-fitting suits.

Except that male superhero suits - and subsequent poses - are all about showing off their power, their strength. They don’t preen sexually because there’s really no point given the intended audience. Even on that Ross cover, the idea is clearly ‘whoa, check ME out!’ as opposed to ‘Hey, looky here!’

That’s a hiLARious response, Apodaca. Among other laugh-inducing bits, you wrote: “Brian’s comments about that cover have always been short and sparing.” I guess you’re forgetting that his comments about that Steel cover were NOT an offhanded remark in “Judging Books by their Covers” but the subject of an entire post at which he went on at some length about how creepy the imaginary boner is. So it’s kinda ridiculous to pretend that the “scandal” is the result of hot-headed oversensitive readers who were “hurling invective,” when Brian initiated it (as least as far as CSBG is concerned).

Here’s the thing: I really enjoy this blog and its writers here (and some of the regular posters), and I espcecially appreciate Brian Cronin for all his expertise and effort in keeping it going and keeping it interesting. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with him all the time. The tone in his post about Steel’s imaginary boner, as well as the tone in this creepy-covers post, doesn’t strike me as light-hearted “making fun of genitalia.” If somebody wants to do that, great, but there are surely funnier ways to go about it that make it clear that he’s cracking wise. He sounds serious to me. The vast majority of the comments on this very thread seem to suggest that most of us find his word choice of “creepy” to be odd. I’m not stewing over it, and it doesn’t make me like Cronin any less … it’s just that I’m connecting some dots and wondering about a peculiar trend in his thinking. Which also doesn’t strike me as “hurling invective” — that’s something I’ll leave to those who are more enamored of attacking rather than discussing.

I can´t believe the teen hooker cover didn´t get the same attention of tentacle rape.

I was ashamed of looking at it when i received my order.

“That? That’s over-reacting.”

And also pretty funny, if you actually know Brian.

#3, the Black Mary Marvel cover, is rather puzzling. Mary would never use such a cheap-whore-style skirt - and it doesn’t look like something Black Adam would condone either.

Is Ed Benes one of the illustrators of the current Supergirl? Looks similar to me, even the absurd skirt length rings a bell.

Yeah, this is more like “The Top Fifteen Most Tasteless Covers of the Past Year” or, barring numbers 4 and 10, “The Top Fifteen Most Over-Sexualized Covers of the Past Year.”

Fair enough, point, Ian, but I dunno - “tasteless” to me denotes a bit more of an objective measurement than “creepy,” which is more of a subjective thing. And if people take issue with me finding a cover subjectively “creepy”, can you imagine the reaction to finding a cover objectively “tasteless”?

it’s just that I’m connecting some dots and wondering about a peculiar trend in his thinking. Which also doesn’t strike me as “hurling invective”

I’m sorry, but how does making assumptions and inferences about someone having sexual issues in public comments NOT count as hurling invective. And don’t take that “I’m just here to discuss” attitude, because it’s there in plain black and white. You made the leap to guessing about the psychology of his sex life.

That’s all you.

Pot meet keetle.

Andrew Collins meet incomprehensibility.

Oh, I see you two have already been introduced.

but the subject of an entire post at which he went on at some length about how creepy the imaginary boner is.

Oh, and this? A massive exaggeration. Go look up the post. The biggest part is the paragraph at the top, talking about Don MacPherson and his blog. Then a couple of lines, and the two scans of the cover. Then, about five more lines.

That’s it.

So, no, Brian was not fixating on it. He was remarking on it. And there’s a difference.

I can’t fix my html mistake, whatever it was.

Andrew Collins meet incomprehensibility.

Oh, I see you two have already been introduced.

What has he said in this thread that’s been incomprehensible? This response doesn’t even make sense.

Reprinting silly complaints about an imaginary erection aren’t enough of an over-reaction? Pretending there’s something there when there’s obviously not? Adding fuel to the fire just because it’s fun to giggle at something pretend?

It appears to be deliberately designed so that you’ll notice ‘that’ - her arm holding her skirt down creates a line leading right to ‘it’.

It’s more designed to draw the eye to her head and shoulders, being the lightest parts of a dark drawing, and her hair, being a big red spot on a solid black field. And if the arm did somehow guide your eyes down, there are two immediate horizontal bars to keep it from being a quick journey. Someone had to really pore over this one to find something marginally objectionable.

Remember when you couldn’t draw blood red? Now you can have blood spurt out on a cover due to a sword wound?

Funny thing is, inside the book it’s still black…

Someone had to really pore over this one to find something marginally objectionable.

I’m still not sure you’d have to pore that hard…but I’m also not a design student, so will concede the point that far.

Still, though - speaking as a fully-qualified female - the sheer un-necessariness of adding that detail to that drawing feels a lot more than ‘marginally objectionable’. It feels a bit…well, creepy, actually.

Well said, “km” — tactful and polite. The fact is, that picture is well beyond marginally objectionable, and none of us needs to be a design student to see that. A detail that is unnecessary, absolutely.

My intention isn’t to add fuel to any fires, but I’ll come out of the closet as someone who had to look at that Cyclone cover for about half of one second before I noticed she didn’t appear to be wearing underwear (this was when I originally saw it several months ago, not when I looked at it after it had already been labelled ‘creepy’). I don’t think I’m unnaturally crotch-fixated, nor do I think I’m alone as someone who definitely did not have to pore over the image to pick up on that little detail. As always, YMMV.

“You’re over-reacting!”

“No, YOU’re over-reacting!”

“No, no, I insist, it is YOU who is over-reacting!”

It’s okay to just disagree, folks. If you think something is incorrect, you can just say so. I won’t begrudge ya for it!

“Andrew Collins meet incomprehensibility.

Oh, I see you two have already been introduced.”

Wow. Way to ignore my second post where I correct myself. Then again, I’m sure you’ll respond with a hugely melodramatic, hey-look-at-me post where you go nuts and overreact about how someone is overreacting when in reality they’re not. Keep making me laugh drama queen.

I’ll come out of the closet as someone who had to look at that Cyclone cover for about half of one second before I noticed she didn’t appear to be wearing underwear

Heh. And I’ve been seeing this book for… I don’t know how many months now, and never noticed. And when I read Brian’s statement about her not wearing underwear and scrolled down, my first thought was “what is he talking about? You can see her bra right there. He’s nuts.”

In the end, though, I’m with Annoyed Grunt: la belle dame sans merci underwear isn’t even close to my definition of creepy. Closer to my definition of “normal”…

(obviously, the comments don’t like the <s> strikethrough command. Curse you, html, ruining my jokes!)

Without having ever read the comic or seen it in a shop, I had no way of telling from the image above that the burning guy on Captain America is supposed to be black.

Yo go re:

If that cover is your definition of “normal”, well… you’ve found the right hobby, at least.

Where was the strikethrough, yo? I can edit it in.

Regarding number 13:

http://manstreamcomics.livejournal.com/8171.html

(NSFW)

regardless of where or wherenot Greg Land swiped from, the resultant cover 13 isn’t in it’s nature creepy unless you’re making the argument cheescake=creepy, which this list seems to be making.

I wasn’t ignoring anything, Andrew. I don’t know why you think I’m freaking out or something, or why you think I’m uptight, so I find your pot/kettle comment incomprehensible.

I can’t really understand your second paragraph, ’cause I have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you think you could manage to skip the name-calling, though? It’s pretty silly.

Oh, I get it. Telling someone that they’re over-reacting to a joke means I’m throwing a fit.

Yeah, that makes total sense.

I guess I’m in a minority, but I agree with Brian. “Creepy” may not be the perfect word, but it’s the closest.

Hypersexualized depiction of female characters: yeah, beyond a certain point it isn’t cheesecake, isn’t even bad cheesecake. It’s creepy.

Here’s an example. The Doom cover, #14? When I first look at it, my first reaction is to roll my eyes. But then I look a bit more closely at Doom’s fingers…

Bleah. Creepy.

(Note that the artist is obviously doing this deliberately; look at what the women are doing. La la la, I’m wiping a sword, cleaning a gun…)

Or #15. Why is Hawkgirl spreading for us? Remember, covers aren’t photographs; that’s a deliberate choice on the part of the artist. What’s he trying to say here?

No, I’ll go with creepy. Got your back, Brian.

Doug M.

WE TRIED!!!!

KG

http://phonogramcomic.com/phonogram5covertb.jpg

KG

Those wern’t creepy (well Exterminators was disturbing). I have Target X series and covers don’t make me buy the book. Man do people overreact. I did not even notice Ross’ cover until you pointed them out. And I think you hate H4H in general, yeah it’s oversexualized but not creepy, none of them are!

Dude, either that was a poor choice of words, or you have issues thinking that women portrayed the least bit sensually is creepy.

Number 4 is creepy, but in a different sort of way. Yes the Falcon on fire is disturbing, but not as disturbing as ‘Old Glory’ burning away behind him!!! Yeah, it puzzles me that someone can comment on ‘a black guy burning’, but not our nations flag turning into ash! How in the world could this have even been published??? Freedom of Speech you say? Bullshit.

wow… never before have i seen soooo much…
wow…
*ahem*
comics are a FANTASY escape… you know, a break from the real world, all the guys are buff godlike guys, and the females are all models with loose dress codes who live next door… of course the target demographic for comics are teenage boys, so the female characters will be oversexed and underdressed!
but to call ANYTHING “creepy” because of blatent sexuality strikes me as freaking odd!!

oh… as for the “black man” burning… tell me would you be more, or less creeped-out by a burnt white corpse? how about an asian one? why sould the color of the person being burnt add or subtract from the creep factor?

(just some thoughts)

oh! comics will always have sluty outfits…. thank god!
(psylocke’s cute onepeice sold me more than a few copies of X-men