Comic Book Resources

Batman isn't feeling her up anymore...but now you have an unimpeded view of her rack! Sneaky, DC. Verrrrry sneaky...

Oddly enough, I think the original works better simply from a visual balance viewpoint.

Oddly enough, I think the original works better simply from a visual balance viewpoint.

I think the BEST solution would have been to simply have Nguyen not draw it like that, because, yes, as you say, the balance is definitely thrown by the edit. I think it more than made up for by the lack of creepiness, but yeah, it's definitely a concern. One that should have been addressed earlier with, "Yeah, Dustin, GREAT looking cover mostly, but could you maybe move Batman's arm?"

So what is Bats doing with his hands NOW?????

I do wonder where his hand is now. Probably copping a feel on the other side.

I believe Batman has learned a valuable lesson here: put a hand on Orion's wife, and you'll pull back a stump.

I believe Batman has learned a valuable lesson here: put a hand on Orion’s wife, and you’ll pull back a stump.

This is the BEST possible explanation for the change. Kudos.

I don't know ... I think the first cover was better, at least you knew where his hand(s) is.

With the new cover, the mind boggles about what he might be doing.

Assuming that Bats is a deviant perv.

I always assume Bats is a deviant perv...
Just part of his roguish charm.

Is Batman doing that thing where you put your chin on someone's head and and then snap your jaw? God he's annoying.

Boobies?

Wayyyyyy boobies.....

Each one of them looks thicker around than her waist.
Watch for wind, she may break in half.

It did seem kinda creepy for a cover to have Batman almost copping a feel.

I think you should stop using the word "creepy." Forever. It never ends well.

I'd say "It did seem perfectly natural for a cover to have Batman copping a feel."

Assuming that Bats is a deviant perv.

The guy in the black leather mask and cape who likes to get beaten in front of young boys?

No way is he a perv.

He's Kewl!

You ruined it for all those drooling fanboys out there, big mouth!

I think visually the cover would've been better served by putting Batman's other hand on her waist, or at least carrying some sort of weapon.

Original was just weird, the new one seems to lack balance.

Original was just weird, the new one seems to lack balance.

I actually didn't think the original was that weird. The solicitation said that Batman and Orion's wife were sexually attracted to each other, and thus it made sense for Batman to have his hand over her chest. It symbolizes Batman staking claim to something that isn't his. The inappropriateness of his hand's placement is totally appropriate.

The original seems almost like a joke, like it was never meant to actually get past an editor or something. It's definitely an eye-catching cover though, and hey, more power to Batman.

I don't think I've ever heard someone use the word 'creepy' quite so much, though.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone use the word ‘creepy’ quite so much, though.

If the companies stop doing over-sexualized superhero covers, you won't hear it from me!

it depends on what your definition of "over" is.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone use the word ‘creepy’ quite so much, though.

Every time I'm out at a bar with one or more girls, there is guaranteed to be at least one stranger who gets called creepy. Usually because they're old. And creepy.

it depends on what your definition of “over" is

I would certainly imagine that my idea of what is over-sexualization would be based upon my definition of what "over" is.

Don't you get it, Brian? There is clearly a set level of sexualization that is entirely appropriate in a superhero comic.

Imagine how awful superhero comics would be if we didn't get to see any boobs!

he should of put both his hands on her breasts ala Janet Jackson.

I'm more concerned with the bat rope being used as bondage...on second though, no i'm not.

It'd be cooler and in character if he was slapping the guns out of her hands, or at putting pressure on her wrists.

Given the motivation / attraction already discussed, it would have been best to move his hand & arm away from het chest and wrap it around her waist. That would have been turf claiming & affectionate, without being overly sexual.

Wait, that's Barda?!

Barda is Mr. Miracle's wife.

I think having his other hand on her waist would have either framed her assets, er, boobsets even more, or it would have made it look like he was getting a grip to do something more inappropriate. When you've got Batman on a cover with a damn fine woman, you're damned no matter where you put his hands.

Personally, I think he should have had a cigarette in it.

Here's the thing.

I don't think the majority of our audience thinks that touching a woman's breast is creepy. Not to get all frat guy on ya, but I like boobs because they are shapely and beautiful and kinda squishy and nice. I can SORTA see the JSA-guy-who-didn't-have-an-erection-after-all being creepy, but here - I think it's the wrong word in this context. It's linguistically inefficient enough to separate your audience from the piece.

I think it's fine to argue against too much sexuals in comics - I don't agree that the original image was inappropriate, beyond being a shitty drawing of Barda- but I see your point.

But "creepy?" Nuh-uh.

Holy crap!!! That's supposed to be Big Barda? Last I knew, she was well over 6' tall, and probably at least 250 pounds of muscle. What the heck is she doing at 5'4 & 135? Extremely bad characterization by the artist.

beyond being a shitty drawing of Barda

You're going to have to elaborate on "shitty" because that cover looks pretty well rendered from where I'm sitting.

It's not Barda. It's Bekka, Orion's wife.

I don’t think the majority of our audience thinks that touching a woman’s breast is creepy.

Regardless of what the majority of your audience thinks, touching the breast of someone else's wife is definitely creepy. Especially when you're standing behind her.

We really need to have someone stake out what is and is not creepy in sexualized superhero comics covers once and for all. It might take all the scientists, linguists, anthroplogists, and snotty bloggers in the world, but I think we can do it! Or, you know, just write "Gregs Horn and Land and Michael Turner suck" and be done with it.

I think I liked the first image better, & I don't think that the hand-position is in any way offensive or demeaning, but I appreciate DC listening to it's fans. The change isn't an editorial muzzle but rather a response to dialogue. Good for them.

"Well, the published cover was released today, and it was hands down better!"
I was just scrolling past this post, and literally only just got this joke. Well played, sir.

The change isn’t an editorial muzzle but rather a response to dialogue.

Same as that silly Michael Turner Power Girl cover, which got toned down for the betterment of everyone.

I would certainly imagine that my idea of what is over-sexualization would be based upon my definition of what “over” is.

I'm not sure whether you got the joke and were playing along with it, or didn't get the joke and were trying to be smart. I'm going to assume the former, because I feel like it.

There is clearly a set level of sexualization that is entirely appropriate in a superhero comic.

A set level? No. But sexuality in a comic isn't automatically "oh noes! teh b@d!" which seems to be a lot of folks' opinion on the matter.

And if there was anything over-sexualized about the original, it wasn't Batman's hand placement - that's a possessive gesture, but not a sexual one. "Over sexualized" would have been one hand-span lower and four inches to the side...

Wait, that’s Barda?!

It isn't is it? She looks nothing like Barda. And someone said she was Orion's wife. I wasn't aware that Orion was married, but even if he is, surely Barda's still married to Scott. They're one of the unbreakable marriages in comics - like Ralph and Sue Dibney and.... pretty much no-one else.

Ignore me - I didn't see the post saying she's not Barda. All is good again.

I still find this cover creepy.

Yeah. If that ISN'T Barda, it's a fine drawing. No complaints. Except the old cover was better.

I assumed it was a reference to a piece of classical art, one, because it looks like it, and two, because I vaguely recognize the positioning.

This comment thread is balanced between people actually discussing the cover and guys with underdeveloped sexuality and socialization skills.

But I suppose that depends on your definition of "under."

I agree with Chris, that's definitely a homage to a painting but I can't remember what the original is.

I disagree that the new cover is better. Sure the first cover was disturbing, but what's art for if not to disturb the comfortable. Anyway it's Batman, he's supposed to be at least a little creepy.

The original was interesting in its creepiness. I think something is lost with the changes.

Tie Rack

I know!

No, you don't!