Frank Cho / Milo Manara controversy

[Mr Wallstreet]

We’ve discussed sexualization and depiction of female characters in comics on and off for a while and I wanted to see if anyone’s feelings had changed or remained the same.

Frank Cho stepped into controversy a while ago when he began making spoofs of the infamous Spider-woman cover. A lot of the criticism aimed towards the original cover, by Milo Manara, was that it portrayed women in a back breakingly unrealistic way.

Recently Cho walked off the Wonder Woman title he was working on with Greg Rucka because Rucka did not like/agree with his portrayal of Wonder Woman. Based on the articles I read, the understanding was that only the editor would be able to dictate art direction for their run, however, Rucka did not approve of Cho’s variant covers, called them vulgar and had been trying to “censor” Cho. Cho eventually left the title.

At a recent comic con in Italy called Lucca Comics & Games 2016, there was a panel co-hosted by both Cho and Manara called Art and Women, in which there was a lot of discussion of censorship, Social Justice Warriors, online outrage etc. At the end of the panel Manara presented Cho with a very graphic drawing of Spider-Girl climbing over a wall with her labia clearly visible through her costume. It was Manara’s gift to Cho for fighting against censorship. The panel went nuts over it.

http://cdn.bleedingcool.net/wp-content/ ... 00x818.jpg

What is your guy’s take on this? Are Cho & Manara right? Are they being censored? Are people too sensitive and need to get over it?

My own take is that enough women have come out and said that, yes while comic book portrayals of men and women are unrealistic, women are far more often depicted as sexual objects rather than fully formed characters. There are never any cheesecake shots of Hulk’s rage boner, Batman’s bat pole, or Superman’s butt. Where men get idealized as paragons of strength, courage and bravery, the focus of women become their boobs, butts and crotches. There are countless covers of Wonder Woman tied up in a submissive fashion and/or tied to a giant phallic object.

I genuinely don’t think Cho or Manara are being censored. No one is throwing them in prison or burning their artwork. They are still free to create, draw and sell to their heart’s content. The disagreement of character portrayal, I don’t believe, amounts to censorship. There are numerous creative teams that split up over creative differences; doesn’t mean one is being censored. Additionally, they are public figures. They are putting out artwork for sale to the public. When people buy or view it, they have a right to voice their opinion about. Disagreeing with something doesn’t amount to being censored or silenced.

Finally, there is the “don’t like it, don’t buy it argument” which I find to be complete bullshit. If women in particular are voicing their concern that they don’t like seeing themselves represented as mere eye candy and less than their male counterparts, then the industry should listen to what they have to say. It’s similar to movies and television where minorities were often depicted as stereotypes and caricatures. If we used the “don’t like it, don’t watch it logic” we’d have a lot more racist portrayals of minorities and women in tv/movies.

[wolf_2099]

I think they're over sexualizing characters that are in part, meant for children.

Some of Frank Cho's stuff, I like. Some of the covers he is doing is a disservice to women. Sexualizing characters like Wonder Woman, seems wrong to me. I was happy to see him off the book. One of the strong, smart female characters in comics, and he is drawing her with her panties showing, unnecessary.

That Milo piece? Way over the line.

[Stocky Boy]

I agree with you both.

Another point you could add - slight variant on Cam's - is that the art is very good and that there is a time and place for it. But that time and place isn't on a cover of a Marvel comic or even variant cover. Marvel comics is a PG brand. Manara's cover is 18. Nothing wrong with his 18 art. But what's it doing on a PG book?

[XIII]

Which piece are you guys talking about? Cause the one with the vagina visible was never meant to be a cover, it's a gift to Frank Cho.

[wolf_2099]

Which piece are you guys talking about? Cause the one with the vagina visible was never meant to be a cover, it's a gift to Frank Cho.

I knew that, I find even as a gift it's in poor taste.

He doesn't own that property, and it's a PG property.

[Stocky Boy]

Arn, same answer as Cam for which art pieces.

However, I don't care if one artist is gifting another with something they've drawn.

The variant cover thing is a misfire... or maybe intentional misfire on Marvel's part. I'm guessing enough people were buying them.
An easy way to look at this is would it be acceptable for Disney to do a Frozen Blu Ray box art with the sisters holding each other with sultry looks on their faces? Of course not. In fact, I'm not sure Disney would even want to create an Adult line to cater to a desire of it. This stiff is best left for other companies using public IP or similar looking IP or just online fan art.

[wolf_2099]

Which piece are you guys talking about? Cause the one with the vagina visible was never meant to be a cover, it's a gift to Frank Cho.

I knew that, I find even as a gift it's in poor taste.

He doesn't own that property, and it's a PG property.

I should also say, the gift could have been given privately, which would be fine, too.

Given publicly at a convention they're making a statement I disagree with.