Don MacPherson of Eye on Comics provides analysis and annotations on the recent JLA/JSA crossover, the “Lightning Saga.” Check out parts one, two, three, four and five. The last post talks about the infamous cover to JLA #10:
Cover art: The art for the regular-cover edition — depicting Dream Girl, Black Canary and Michael Turner’s depiction of Power Girl’s ginormous bust — was the source of considerable controversy in the comics blogosphere when it was initially released to promote this issue. Word also broke that writer Brad Meltzer was so taken aback by Turner’s emphasis of the character’s impossibly large breasts that he demanded it be altered. Power Girl has been depicted as being well-endowed pretty much since she appeared in Keith Giffen and J.M. DeMatteis’s Justice League comics during the property’s humor era in the late 1980s.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
It’s serviceable, but a little lacking in various parts.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
That cover is juvenile and pathetic. As I’ve state elsewhere, it kept me from buying this issue, despite my having bought and read all of the previous parts of the story. It’s just too sexist, tacky, cheesy, etc., and I think it reflects poorly on the comics industry as a “boys club”.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
It’s funny. The original appearance of Power Girl showed her with large breasts. But “large” back then is actually small compared to typical super heroines today. Many of the depictions I’ve seen of Lois Lane lately have bigger breasts than what Power Girl started with.
The window on her chest has gotten bigger over time, too. Originally it showed a little cleavage. Racy? Yeah, a little, but I’ve worked with women who wore outfits to the office that showed a little cleavage. Today the window is often drawn bigger and lower, showing a lot more than a little cleavage.
And then Micheal Turner exaggerates both of those things. That cover that’s getting so much press? Brad Meltzer says that’s what it looks like *after* they got Turner to tone it down.
June 25th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Turner really needs to “knock” it off! Seriiously, it’s insulting. He’s starting to “Liefeld” himself!
June 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
5, 10 years from now, people will look at Turner’s art and think “What the hell were we thinking?” as is done with Liefeld’s work nowadays.
I’d really like to see him pencil something and have it inked properly again. Chicken scratchy + mannequinny = unappealingy.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
“He’s starting to “Liefeld” himself!”
“Starting to”? The guy’s been a laughing stock for years now.
June 25th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I prefer to think that 10 years from now people will look at this cover and think “My, how small her breasts are.”
June 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Smax,
That was pretty funny, whether or not one agrees with the sentiment!
June 25th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Matches Malone wrote:
5, 10 years from now, people will look at Turner’s art and think “What the hell were we thinking?” as is done with Liefeld’s work nowadays.
Liefeld may be the target of much derision online, but his comics still tend to sell well. I think his biggest problem these days isn’t his distorted vision of human anatomy but his lack of followthrough on every single project he undertakes.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Keith Giffen and J.M. DeMatteis, Um Powergirl was drawn like that way before that.
June 25th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
New way snarkily wrote:
Keith Giffen and J.M. DeMatteis, Um Powergirl was drawn like that way before that.
Yes, but they actually made a point of referring to PG’s big bust time and time again.
June 25th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
The phrase in the article was, “Power Girl has been depicted as being well-endowed pretty much since she appeared in Keith Giffen and J.M. DeMatteis’s Justice League…”
I think the problem is that the term “depicted” is confusing. She was drawn that way before those Justice Leauge days, but the Justice League comic talked about it. Is being drawn a depiction? Some people would probably say yes, others wouldn’t think of it that way.
So I think the disagreement is mainly a clarity issue.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
That’s just a butt ugly cover. Spookily attached boobs or not.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:45 am
I will never consider Powere Girl a credible hero. Its just ridiculous how she looks.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:54 am
I don’t like Turner’s artwork either and agree that the original was way too much. I find the new costume that Star Sapphire wears to be way too much. There are things that need to be fought. Like the original cover.
But, the new cover is relatively harmless. People online are making a bigger deal about then it needs to be. Just as they did with the cover to Black Adam #1 and the Mary Jane Zombie cover.
If it was Hawkman, Namor, and Conan the Barbarian on the cover, no one would say anything. There would be no cracks about impossible bodies, nothing about how demeaning it was. You’d have several female posters going ape-sh!t over a cover with Kyle Rayner, Nightwing, and Gambit. It’s the worst case of double standards out there.
And, it’s true, I’ve brought this up dozens of times and the self-righteous out there never respond. There are female bloggers out there that go on and on and on about Kyle Rayner and what DC hero they find attractive. If a male blogger does that, he’s a loser. He’s a clown. He’s a pervert. Whatever. Never, ever, does anyone post anything like that about a female blogger going on about Ted Kord being shirtless.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:55 am
David, Hawkman and Conan are not the same. Absurd muscles and lots of skin showing them off make the heroes look like body builders. Absurd breasts and lots of skin showing those off make the heroines look like stripers.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:07 am
I used to like Turner’s art when I was a little kid, but there are just so many other better artists out there now.
It’s a shame, really. I think his stuff on ‘Soulfire’ is decent, but it could be alot better. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say he’s on a ‘Liefeld’ level just yet. (But he’s getting pretty close, admittedly)
June 26th, 2007 at 10:28 am
The problem with the drawing wasn’t that she had large breasts, but that they appeared to be growing out of her ribcage.
There’s also the really vacant, lifeless expression.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:48 am
the bust seems to have reduced at the final cover… but Power girl anatomy is still horribly wrong…
June 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I don’t know what creeps me out more: Power Girl’s expressionless Barbie doll face, or her apparent lack of nipples.