Every one of these over-titted hookers have to get mastectomies.

On the one hand, Raises awareness of breast cancer, on the other hand, no more jizz fodder for the pigs. I dont have to feel like castrating evey fanboi in the comic shop when I see the racks (pun sort of intended) female chars will have to be more than empty sex objects, those that cant can be easilly wiped off the pages by the cancer … Im looking at you ‘shulkie’)

How perfect would that be?

Ofcouse it’ll never happen, the scum wont let it, but its a nice thought.

But you could make that argument about virtually ANY genre other than superheroes.

If we buy the book then they will think that their cheesecake, sexy advertising of the book works and that this is the proper way to market these books. If we don’t buy the book they will assume that nobody wants to buy a book featuring interesting, three-dimensional characters. It’s frustrating.

If I wanted a soap opera, I’d watch daytime TV.

But I do think Marvel screwed this up — they should’ve made art like this public sooner. And I think that’s pretty unfortunate, because I think this title could be great. I don’t think the people who would love it the most — women — will be inclined to pick it up at this point.

I agree with the whole Pride & Prejudice thing, too. It’s like Marvel gets so close to making comics that women will love, and not just in a “we think women will love this because our marketers told us so” but in a genuine way. But they always do something to screw it up terribly.

1.) People in the comics community who would “have no interest” because there was no cheesecake and the creators not treating these characters with reverence and maturity is indicative of a disturbing problem in the industry as a whole.

Don’t you think it’s a little messed up that Marvel can’t have a book with a female cast without marketing them this way? They’re not even in an action pose, or knocking someone’s teeth in. They’re not being portrayed as strong; they’re shown as sex objects. Period.

And it’s no wonder you can’t see it because the rest of the comic book industry apparently doesn’t see it, either.

2.) A cover with a bunch of dudes with bulging muscles IS different than this, no matter how much you try to satirize that fact with your “but, but.”

It goes back to comics being an adolescent male power fantasy and being unable to break out of that stereotype. Of course there are musclebound guys on the cover of comics because every little boy (or grown man, whether consciously or not) wants to be that big, powerful hero.

It’s not sexualized like the “Divas” cover, who only exist in this pin-up pose because Marvel doesn’t know how to sell their female characters as anything but whores (apparently), just waiting for some nerd fantasy to come along and undress them.

Which means Marvel have no confdence in the actual concept, and why comic books fans have such a bad rep.

Oh, I got the ‘pun’, but don’t believe for a moment Marvel weren’t playing on the other, more suggestive, meaning.

“She can feel and discover the lump then, for the most obvious example.” I really really really hope that Anjelica Jones isn’t getting dusted off to get Cancer from her radiation powers, although I suppose Samantha got breast cancer in Sex and the City.

What’s funny is that the first link on the page has Joe explaining why he did what he did. ‘Cause otherwise, the book wouldn’t come out at all, ’cause people would see the cover everyone else thinks is “proper”, have no interest, and preorder #s would come back probably at like, 4-5k.

Plus, I’m sorry, but having glanced at the cover, I’m not seeing the cheesecake-ness. Well, I DO, but compared to all the covers of guys with bulging muscles in skintight outfits displayed prominently on cover after cover after cover…its really about the same, all around.

*cue people coming in telling me how “But but, that’s different!”* -_-

There’s already a topic about this in the forums with dozens of posts and it seems weird that one part of Newsarama isn’t aware of another. Another reason why these blogs and front page articles need to have links to the forum instead of individual comments sections.

Here’s the thread:

http://www.newsarama.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7503

I liked the covers of Runaways. They were really pretty, attracted my attention, and the tone and style of the interiors matched them. If the cover of Divas matched this style of interior art, I might have thought it was at least interesting. Now I’m just confused.

And the people who are defending the move and saying that the people who dislike the marketing because it’s sexist (whatever the inside contents may be) are overreacting are only part of a much bigger problem–that they don’t even realize, apparently.

The cheesecake preview is indefensible.

It was a bonehead move.

Short term, it might have made sense for a company wanting to sell books but there’s only so much you can sell to the same audience and I wonder how seriously Marvel’s marketing people (or editors for green-lighting that cover) even take the long term or entertainment ethics (that could also serve to grow the fan base).

By releasing that cover, all Marvel did was perpetuate stereotypes that keep industry mentality incestuous, closed and inaccessible to new demographics.

Marvel have a long way to go in marketing their books to the demographic they are trying to attract; this is neither fish nor fowl – those who might actually be interested in the book, for the content as it is portrayed now, have already been turned off, and those who are looking for big tits, no waist, ‘sudsy’ fun are going to have a shock when they crack open that wank fodder cover.