Jim Shooter is thinking about sex in comics:
Think about good (or at least well-crafted) movies you’ve seen. Raiders of the Lost Ark, for instance. Every time Spielberg and Lucas show you anything, it is relevant to the story. Think about what they show you. Indy has a fear of snakes, demonstrated in an early scene. Later, trying to retrieve the Ark, he is surrounded by…snakes! Also, think about what they don’t show you. Maybe Indy is an expert ballroom dancer, but it’s irrelevant so they do not establish it. There is not a drop of fat on that film. Everything shown serves a purpose relevant to the story at hand. Same with Rocky. Or The Wizard of Oz. Or any story written by a skilled professional.If it’s not necessary, leave it out.In Body Heat the sex was absolutely germane. So it was there, and done with steamy effectiveness. In Cat People sex is the core of the conceit.In comics…? I’m trying to think of good examples. Hmm. Jaime Hernandez did some sweet, elegant, usually brief, intrinsic sex scenes in early issues of Love and Rockets. David Lapham did some well-crafted, germane sex scenes in Stray Bullets. I’ve been told that Bill Willingham’s Fables had some good and necessary ones. In Elfquest, Wendy and Richard Pini did some nice scenes. Others? Help me.
He goes on to say that, in comics, “characters are twisted to serve the whims, puerile fantasies and personal proclivities of the creators,” with illustrations of Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne’s sex scene from Geoff Johns’ Avengers run and the infamous Norman Osborn/Gwen Stacy sex scene from “Sins Past” in Amazing Spider-Man, amongst others. Coming from the man who wrote the unsettling Ken/Duck relationship into Star Brand – There was so much wrongness going on there, and yes, I have now referenced something that the majority of you have probably never even heard of, sorry – this rant is either the product of rethinking earlier attitudes or a great lack of self-awareness.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Oh god, DebbieDuck, thanks for reminding me how awful that was. I also loved that Shooter’s defense of the character was that she was based on a real person who acted just like that, making it approximately 20 times creepier.
December 28th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Graeme, in one sentence you’ve both gained too much geek credit and lost all respect by even admitting to the knoweldge of Ken with Debbie the Duck. Turn in your ‘Rama Reporter card immediately.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
graeme, actually i think you should totally reread shooter’s episodes of starbrand. it was a superhero story set in the real world, and the relationship between ken and debbie (who actually i remember as a layered character) was realistic indeed, even if in an unsettling way. it was “wrong”, but the point was that ken was a shallow person so it was also “right” cause it fit the story. i don’t see how you could compare it to the sex scenes shooter mentioned in his article, which were futile at best.
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:30 am
In the real world some very good people have low self esteem that causes them not to always act in their own best interests and causes them to fixate on relationships they can’t have. It doesn’t make them bad or creepy people. When you read about someone fantasizing about a rock star or actor, it’s not particularly creepy. And when you see girls who sleep with stars just to be close to fame or be a groupie… ok, well that might be kinda creepy, but it’s real. It happens. Comics are filled with highly idealized relationships and real relationships are often complex and not 100% comfortable. I think Jim writing about that aspect of human interaction was interesting and cliche busting. As well as making a point about a hero with some character flaws who was in the process of learning that he needed to be a better man. If Ken started out perfect there wouldn’t be much of a hero’s journey.