More Thoughts About JLA #14

It came out today.

I didn’t buy it.

I did, however, look through it. And looking through it, I realized I made a couple of incorrect assumptions in my original post.

The first is that the spread in question doesn’t lead off the issue. Luthor shows Superman and Black Lightning the video a bit further into the issue. It makes the scene seem a little less prominent than it did in the preview, where it was front-and-center.

Second, a quick read of the issue shows that Luthor was showing Superman those images to really piss him off. He wanted him good and angry; the story explicitly says so. So, whether it was in the panel description or not (I’m still guessing not), I could see how Ed Benes’s reading of the full script would lead him to pose that panel in that way—because Luthor might see it as a good way to press Superman’s buttons.

I still think it’s a bad idea.

Not that it’s ineffective. I mean, clearly it works. I was pretty damn mad.

But I think, even in a world where Luthor is a bad, bad guy, he should refrain from sexually exploiting Justice Leaguers. It devalues Wonder Woman and the others to build up Luthor, which is, frankly, a bad trade. Luthor is already pretty much the worst guy in the DCU—he’s already made his rep. Victimizing Wonder Woman does nothing for him that capturing her wouldn’t do, and it makes her...well, a victim.

But never mind that. What does it make the audience?

Looking at the Newsarama boards after the preview. the argument for the scene’s inclusion predominantly wasn’t “It’s exactly what Luthor would do to make them angry and easier to defeat” (although a few perceptive souls did point this out), but instead that comics aren’t just for kids, and that grownups like the jiggle, that complainers shouldn't be so prudish because there’s more T&A on any TV show and, of course, “HAWT.” With a lot -- I mean a LOT -- of boob jokes thrown in for good measure.

I wonder how all those appreciative fans feel now that they know that the scene they were getting off to was supposed to piss them off?

And that’s my problem with the entire episode. I’ve read a lot of heroic fiction where protagonists or sidekicks were tied up, and have never given it a second thought. If the plot called for it, it called for it, and that was that. But prompts the audience to react in the exact opposite way that the viewpoint character (Superman) is reacting, and the dissonance works against the story.

What the scene in JLA looks like is not that they were tied up for the villains. They look like they were tied up for me. As, I dunno, a present. A gift. Fan service, is what they call it.

No thanks. I'd rather have cash.

Rob

(On the plus side, I used that very cash to buy the first issue of The Umbrella Academy instead. So it’s not a complete loss.)

EXTRA LINKY GOODNESS: Val at Occasional Superheroine presents a similar argument (but with HAWT pix!) and Cheryl Lynne at Digital Femme offers a simple rule to publish by, days before the tempest touched down in the Justice League's teapot. Both are good reading.

Not This Again

Newsarama just put up a preview of the new issue of Justice League of America, continuing what’s been a hell of a good story so far, pitting the Justice League against the Injustice Gang. Written by Dwayne McDuffie, it’s really got everything you want in a JLA story – superpowered action, snappy dialogue, suspense. Great stuff, all around. The first issue of the story was drawn by Mike McKone. He’s a terrific artist, and he made the book a joy to look at.

The second chapter, issue 13, was drawn by Joe Benitez. He’s nowhere near as good as McKone, but still drew a decent comic story. By the end of it, much of the JLA was captured by the bad guys.

Now, regular series artist Ed Benes is back. Which is why issue 14 picks up with this opening spread:
Seriously?

Are you fucking kidding me?

A half dozen JLAers are incapacitated, and the three that just happen to be displayed for the screen as a goddamn two-motherfucking-page spread are the three hotties, all trussed up and bent over like porn models? Come on.

I mean, come on.

Who approves this shit?

How much disdain for the casual buyer, or a reader with any—any—level of maturity does this show? This is the Justice League. The book is in no stretch of the imagination about sex appeal. For the first time in a year, they put a writer on who finally gets the book, who not only knows how to write a good action scene, but realizes they’re essential in a book like this—and this is how they treat his script?
You’re goddamn right it is, Luthor.

I don’t know what McDuffie wrote in his panel description for that page. Maybe he did describe the women, front and center, spread eagle, bent over, and thong riding up. But I really, really doubt it. The man has class. He probably briefly described what sort of devices were sapping their superpowers, and left it to Ed Benes to stage the scene.

Look, I don’t give a crap whether this is degrading to Wonder Woman, Black Canary and Vixen. They’re lines on paper, nothing more. And honestly, I barely care if it’s offensive to women. Because some’ll be offended, and some won’t, and probably most will just scratch their heads and say, “Aren’t all comics like that?” But whatever their reaction, it’s their own lookout.

But this… Let me be clear. It’s not offensive to me. It’s just lines on paper, and all that. But it’s the intention behind the lines. It’s the absolute lack of respect for the reader. Not because children might read it, but because adults read it. Grownups who don’t need Black Canary, Wonder Woman and Vixen to be their…ahem… "date” for fifteen minutes. Awkward fifteen year olds will love this. Stunted man-boys will, too. But that’s not a club I wanna be in, because the members all sweat and stammer and the seats are all sticky.

This isn’t porn. But I have no doubt – none whatsofuckingever – that the artist and the editor (Eddie Berganza) expect this issue to be used as porn, and that it’s that market they’re catering to by drawing this shot, and by including it in the preview. And no matter how much I’ve liked the story up till this point, and no matter how good the story itself may continue to be, despite the art, I’m not going to line up on Wednesday with a bunch of arrested adolescents who rush home and hide this issue under their mattresses.

If they can’t sell the Justice League without relying on crotch shots and bondage fantasies, DC should get out of the Justice League-selling business.

I wish—hell, how I wish—that I could read McDuffie’s story without this. But until Benes is off of Justice League and replaced by someone who wouldn’t be better suited to the Shanna The She-Devil Shower Spectacular, I just can’t read this anymore.

This is a cynical, vile marketing ploy, appealing to the lowest common denominator. I’ve held my nose and picked up other books like this, but not this time.

I’m not in that fucking club.

Rob

UPDATE: More thoughts here, now that I've seen the issue.

WTF, WB?

According to LA Weekly's Nikki Finke, Warner Bros. studios will no longer be producing movies with female leads. apparently due to the underperformance of The Brave One and Invasion.

Now, I haven't seen either of those movies. I avoided Invasion because of the behind-the scenes, multiple-director brouhaha: I figured the best it could be with that many cooks peeing in the broth* was a wait-for DVD screening. As for The Brave One? That's just fallen victim to me not seeing as many movies as I'd like to see anymore. It and 3:10 to Yuma are high on my list, honest, but I don't know if I'll get to them while they're still in theaters.

But all that's beside the point, innit? What it really comes down to is that this is an extremely, almost comically shortsighted decision by WB head Jeffrey Robinov, that will earn WB studios a lot of ill will and make them exactly zero dollars. I am possibly the outsideiest of Hollywood Outsiders, but even I can tell you how this will play out:

• A lot of blog posts and opinion columns get written, talking about what a stupid decision this is. Some of them call for a boycott.


• A WB movie underperforms. Speculators wonder if the boycott is having any effect. (It won't have a noticeable one, but that won't stop people from wondering.) No big deal. Robinov keeps his job.


• WB continues to make movies, passing up scripts with female leads.


• One of those films passed up under the Robinov directive goes on to make crazy bank for another studio.


• Robinov rescinds the directive, but the damage to his career, and WB's reputation, is done. He leaves with scads of money...but he leaves.


• The next guy (and yeah, it'll still likely be a guy) picks up the pieces.

I could be completely off base here. But boycott or no boycott, I think what'll bring Robinov down is success of a property that he could've had, if only he weren't a sexist moron.

Here's hoping it comes soon.

Rob

*Am I mixing metaphors? So be it.