Champs: New Millenium Cover Art (A little large?)
Chris Paladino
(Not starting a flame war, just stating MY opinions on the girls in C:NM
and other comics now that I think about it.) If you don't agree, fine,
to each his own, this is America after all)
Does anyone else find the artwork in C:NM a little tasteless? I bought
the game over an internet auction, and hadn't looked into it because I
KNEW it was Fuzion (which I don't like, I D/L the free version), but it
was like $8.00, so I figured what the heck!
Then I open it up just to see all kinds of cleavage, I mean, excessive,
stuff. Maybe no one will back me, but I'm not buying any of that crap.
Superheroes, yes, fine... Gigantic chests and scantly clad outfits?
4th Edition Champs. wasn't like that. Hero Games, the style of the art
was good, but tell your boy to tone it down... Just some advice.
--
Chris Paladino
Di...@En.com
CPal...@Jcvaxa.jcu.edu
http://www.en.com/users/dino/index.html
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Chris Paladino wrote:
>
> (Not starting a flame war, just stating MY opinions on the girls in C:NM
> and other comics now that I think about it.) If you don't agree, fine,
> to each his own, this is America after all)
>
> Does anyone else find the artwork in C:NM a little tasteless? I bought
> the game over an internet auction, and hadn't looked into it because I
> KNEW it was Fuzion (which I don't like, I D/L the free version), but it
> was like $8.00, so I figured what the heck!
>
> Then I open it up just to see all kinds of cleavage, I mean, excessive,
> stuff. Maybe no one will back me, but I'm not buying any of that crap.
> Superheroes, yes, fine... Gigantic chests and scantly clad outfits?
> 4th Edition Champs. wasn't like that. Hero Games, the style of the art
> was good, but tell your boy to tone it down... Just some advice.
Geez, man, where were you when I got lambasted for the same complaint.
--
Danke,
Rich
(To respond by email remove the letters BLOCK from my address.)
James Nicoll
In article <35811113...@En.com>, Chris Paladino <Di...@En.com> wrote:
>(Not starting a flame war, just stating MY opinions on the girls in C:NM
>and other comics now that I think about it.) If you don't agree, fine,
>to each his own, this is America after all)
>
>Does anyone else find the artwork in C:NM a little tasteless? I bought
>the game over an internet auction, and hadn't looked into it because I
>KNEW it was Fuzion (which I don't like, I D/L the free version), but it
>was like $8.00, so I figured what the heck!
>
>Then I open it up just to see all kinds of cleavage, I mean, excessive,
>stuff. Maybe no one will back me, but I'm not buying any of that crap.
>Superheroes, yes, fine... Gigantic chests and scantly clad outfits?
>4th Edition Champs. wasn't like that. Hero Games, the style of the art
>was good, but tell your boy to tone it down... Just some advice.
The thing I thought said a lot about CNM was that the fellow
who did the interior art apprently has a stamp for female faces. Check
out Bora, Pantera and Mentalla.
James Nicoll
--
"Pigs are not a fruit."
Chris Paladino
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr. wrote:
> Geez, man, where were you when I got lambasted for the same complaint.
Sorry man, I woulda backed ya! *Laugh*
Apparently it doesn't bother people, and that's fine... But personally,
it's just not my thing. (We won't even get into the fact that I'm a
Christian.)
I'll stick with C: 4th edition. Not only is it (in my opinion) a better
system (more flexible), but it doesn't need to resort to chicks with chests
and guns...
Chris Paladino
James Nicoll wrote:
> The thing I thought said a lot about CNM was that the fellow
> who did the interior art apprently has a stamp for female faces. Check
> out Bora, Pantera and Mentalla.
Yeah. I didn't even get that far though. I was turned out by the cover.
I flipped from the back of the book to the front, and said, "Hey cool, color
comic!" Then noticed that there were huge bulbous things everywhere. But if
that's what they need to sell! *Shrug* Whatever, I won't buy anymore.
I also got reemed by my girlfriend who thought I was a sick pig for buying
that crap. (I explained and she understood, but we both agree that it's
tasteless, and apparently there are four of us that won't tolerate it huh?)
Lady Fusion
Chris Paladino wrote in message <35811113...@En.com>...
>(Not starting a flame war, just stating MY opinions on the girls in C:NM
>and other comics now that I think about it.) If you don't agree, fine,
>to each his own, this is America after all)
>
>Does anyone else find the artwork in C:NM a little tasteless? I bought
>the game over an internet auction, and hadn't looked into it because I
>KNEW it was Fuzion (which I don't like, I D/L the free version), but it
>was like $8.00, so I figured what the heck!
>
>Then I open it up just to see all kinds of cleavage, I mean, excessive,
>stuff. Maybe no one will back me, but I'm not buying any of that crap.
>Superheroes, yes, fine... Gigantic chests and scantly clad outfits?
>4th Edition Champs. wasn't like that. Hero Games, the style of the art
>was good, but tell your boy to tone it down... Just some advice.
<snip>
I agree totally... Steve Peterson went for the whole "Image is hot right
now, so let's steal the art style!" package. The artist, if I remember
correctly, was the former artist for Image's StormWatch after all.... goes
to figure he would make the women scantily-clad, and with deformed spines.
Lady Fusion (absolutly NO relation to Fuzion, thank you)
Skytech
Chris Paladino wrote:
>
> Does anyone else find the artwork in C:NM a little tasteless?
>
> stuff. Maybe no one will back me, but I'm not buying any of that crap.
> Superheroes, yes, fine... Gigantic chests and scantly clad outfits?
> 4th Edition Champs. wasn't like that. Hero Games, the style of the art
> was good, but tell your boy to tone it down... Just some advice.
>
One man's meat is another man's poison. Possibly the art
reflects the style so prevalent in the comics the game
mimics.
Ever notice the complaints against exaggerated female forms
but not one word is mentioned about male characters with
highly exaggerated forms; bulked out ten times any real
human with veins like rampant vines, buns you could set a
tray on, and packin' a piece threatening to tear through
those unsable molecules between his legs!
Why is that?!
--
La kasigada vulpo
Skytech
^^
<@@>
.)
James Nicoll
In article <35826FDD...@ix.netcom.com>,
Skytech <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Chris Paladino wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone else find the artwork in C:NM a little tasteless?
>>
>> Then I open it up just to see all kinds of cleavage, I mean, excessive,
>> stuff. Maybe no one will back me, but I'm not buying any of that crap.
>> Superheroes, yes, fine... Gigantic chests and scantly clad outfits?
>> 4th Edition Champs. wasn't like that. Hero Games, the style of the art
>> was good, but tell your boy to tone it down... Just some advice.
>>
>
>One man's meat is another man's poison. Possibly the art
>reflects the style so prevalent in the comics the game
>mimics.
Heh. And that style is *so* successful that overall comics
sales drop by 15% per year.
Anyone remember a Fred Hembeck strip where the Golden Age
Daredevil and the modern one from Marvel are comparing powers?
Something like:
GA DD: I have a neat costume.
M DD: I have radar sense.
GA DD: I have a gun.
M DD: I have superhuman agility.
GA DD: I can sell 3 million issues a month.
M DD: [pause] Did I mention I have radar sense?
swru...@compuserve.com
In article <35826FDD...@ix.netcom.com>,
sky...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> One man's meat is another man's poison. Possibly the art
> reflects the style so prevalent in the comics the game
> mimics.
>
> but not one word is mentioned about male characters with
> highly exaggerated forms; bulked out ten times any real
> human with veins like rampant vines, buns you could set a
> tray on, and packin' a piece threatening to tear through
> those unsable molecules between his legs!
>
> Why is that?!
> --
> La kasigada vulpo
> Skytech
A while back a similar PC thread started up on rec.games.go. Go is a board
game popular in the orient and growing here in the us. Seems however that
someone took offense at he fact that in many of the english go books where
they chose pictures of go professionals playing from tourney matchs for cover
and interior art, they were all smoking.
"Why are we trying to promote smoking" etc etc.
Having read Xmen for a number of years as well as many other titles,
mostly marvel, i dont think i ever read an image comic, frankly,
most of the women were noted for their anti-gravity parts and those
spine breaking twister shots where they managed to highlight
both the females posterior and mammaric eexcesses in one pose.
So, like the poor go publishers branded for "promoting smoking" by reflecting
the actuality of their pastime, HERO gets branded for matching current
comix styles.
Cant please everybody. Me, i dont buy rpgs for their art. I buy them for their
rpg. Although there was that ONE TIME where i bought torg (bad call ripley, it
was a bad call) for the cute drow female on the cover. Will never EVER repeat
that mistake.
IRL: Number of breats implants is on the rise. West coast implants
recipients go for an average of two sizes larger than east coast recipients.
With CTNM set in Bay City, maybe they are not so unrealistic? :-)
Steve Rushing
swru...@compuserve.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/swrushing
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Chris Paladino
Skytech wrote:
> Ever notice the complaints against exaggerated female forms
> but not one word is mentioned about male characters with
> highly exaggerated forms; bulked out ten times any real
> human with veins like rampant vines, buns you could set a
> tray on, and packin' a piece threatening to tear through
> those unsable molecules between his legs!
>
> Why is that?!
Well, for me personally? I just don't see it as much. Yeah, you
mentioned it, and I think about it and say, "Hey, good point!" With the
girls, you don't have to think. It hits you right in the face! The guys are
huge w/ big veins and muscles, and stuff. As far as the large "units", I
haven't seen those. I think both sexes are portrayed exaggerated, and
that's to be expected. Heck, I couldn't go out and fight off an army of
aliens (and I'm in OK shape being a 22 yr. old 6'1", 230 lbs, 325 lb. bench
press ex-football player...) You should be a little more ripped, and a
little more attractive, and a little more etc... If you look in the comics,
they all outdid themselves. EVERY girl looks the same, and EVERY guy looks
the same. (Again, haven't read any comics lately.) But to show off
genitalia (of either sex) is totally uncalled for.
People have mentioned the drop in sales... That just _shows_ that it
isn't necessary.
Hero games wrote me back and said pretty much "Well, that's the style of
the comics these days." So what! The latest trend is to bring a gun to
school, is that fine too? If you don't agree with it, don't promote it. If
you do agree with it, admit it. Say, "Hey man, sorry, and I don't want to
lose a customer, but babes and big veiny guys sell our RPG."
(I semi-apologize to HERO games, but it is a sad excuse to say,
"Well, everyone else is doing it.", or "Well, he's a good popular artist".
If you don't agree with boobs everywhere, don't promote it.)
Sorry, I'm off my soapbox.
> --
> La kasigada vulpo
> Skytech
>
> ^^
> <@@>
> .)
Daniel Torres
> Heh. And that style is *so* successful that overall comics
> sales drop by 15% per year.
That, and killing off all the good storys that were out....
*sniff* I miss Shaman's Tears a heck of a lot...
Skytech
Chris Paladino wrote:
>
> People have mentioned the drop in sales... That just _shows_ that it
> isn't necessary.
I really want to see this evidence that exaggerated physical
sensuality directly equates to decreased comic sales. Hell!
Golden Age and Silver Age had lots of that! It wasn't til
the more socially aware and burgeoningly PC Seventies that
the test tube figure became popular while heroes became
boring mundanes. Drop in sales are across the board in
comics, sex or not, in content. Like so many other
industries, they oversold and stretched to the breaking
point. They were catering to investors, not superhero or
comic fans. Like so many industries, they are imploding.
> Hero games wrote me back and said pretty much "Well, that's the style of
> the comics these days." So what! The latest trend is to bring a gun to
> school, is that fine too? If you don't agree with it, don't promote it. If
> you do agree with it, admit it. Say, "Hey man, sorry, and I don't want to
> lose a customer, but babes and big veiny guys sell our RPG."
> (I semi-apologize to HERO games, but it is a sad excuse to say,
> "Well, everyone else is doing it.", or "Well, he's a good popular artist".
> If you don't agree with boobs everywhere, don't promote it.)
>
No, guns are not fine! How does mass murder equate to
sexuality or sensuality? Shouldn't violence, a major
constituent of comics and RPGs be treated as guiltily? Noone
seems to mind that aspect.
Comics and RPGs, including superheroes formats, are dreams
and fantasies of things often unattainable but no less
imaginable. This means being perfect physical specimens and
finally having the ability to take on life's worst.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where dreams and
imagination, especially if it even HINTS at sexuality, is to
be squashed and buried, period! That's as frightening as
kids shooting kids, worst maybe because it can be so
insidious.
By this train of thought, all RPGs should follow FASA's Star
Trek into oblivion; be PC or be history!
--
La kasigada vulpo
Skytech
^^
<-->
.-
Fitz
Chris Paladino <Di...@En.com> wrote:
>If you don't agree, fine, to each his own, this is America after all
It is? When did that happen? I mean, I know our parliament is a
sneaky, self-serving pack of low-lives, but I would have thought
they'd have said *something* if they were planning on selling us to
the Americans.
=========================================================
And remember, kiddies, never procrastinate today when you
can procrastinate tomorrow.
=========================================================
Fitz of Fitz Hall
'81 Virago 750
xf...@xsynapse.net.nz
http://www.synapse.net.nz/fitz
<<To reply via e-mail, remove any "x" you see in my address>>
Randy Buttram
>By this train of thought, all RPGs should follow FASA's Star
>Trek into oblivion; be PC or be history!
>--
>La kasigada vulpo
> Skytech
>
> ^^
> <-->
> .-
Except FASA's Trek had crappy rules mechanics, save for the background
features in character generation.
Just my 2 cents...
Skytech
Randy Buttram wrote:
>
> Except FASA's Trek had crappy rules mechanics, save for the background
> features in character generation.
>
> Just my 2 cents...
It never had a chance to print a 4th Ed. :)
--
La kasigada vulpo
Skytech
^^
<@@>
.]
Skytech
Fitz wrote:
>
> Chris Paladino <Di...@En.com> wrote:
>
> >If you don't agree, fine, to each his own, this is America after all
>
> It is? When did that happen? I mean, I know our parliament is a
> sneaky, self-serving pack of low-lives, but I would have thought
> they'd have said *something* if they were planning on selling us to
> the Americans.
>
You forgot already?! The US owns the net and the net rules
the world! As soon as Der Wilhelm Gates finalizes aquisition
of the net, he'll rule the world!
Didn't you get a handout?
--
La kasigada vulpo
Skytech
^^
<@->
.D
Chris Paladino
> > It is? When did that happen? I mean, I know our parliament is a
> > sneaky, self-serving pack of low-lives, but I would have thought
> > they'd have said *something* if they were planning on selling us to
> > the Americans.
>
> You forgot already?! The US owns the net and the net rules
> the world! As soon as Der Wilhelm Gates finalizes aquisition
> of the net, he'll rule the world!
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I forgot. I apologize to all the other countries.
(It's so easy to forget how big the internet really is.) Sorry guys.
LLWatts
>> Ever notice the complaints against exaggerated female forms
>> but not one word is mentioned about male characters with
I have no interest in buying C:NM, so I can't judge the artwork in it, but have
you ever seen bodybuilding competitions on cable TV? Talk about exaggerated
forms! Some of these guys look almost like the male comic book characters
mentioned above (though I can't vouch for the oversized "equipment"; personally
I think these men look gross, so I change the channel ASAP).
I don't know of any non-surgical way for a woman to baloon her chest up like
some of the female characters in comics. It is possible for a man to develop
overblown muscles with time and effort. That might be the difference.
Ray
Chris Paladino <Di...@En.com> wrote in article <35818B9E...@En.com>...
> Richard D. Bergstresser Jr. wrote:
>
> > Geez, man, where were you when I got lambasted for the same complaint.
>
> Sorry man, I woulda backed ya! *Laugh*
>
> Apparently it doesn't bother people, and that's fine... But
personally,
> it's just not my thing. (We won't even get into the fact that I'm a
> Christian.)
I'm a Christian too and I could care less about the artwork. Comics have
always exaggerated the appearances of its heroes and heroines. They use
this to show that they are stronger than the normal person. I know that
the women's breast sizes are overly big. What about the men's chest sizes?
Hmm, no complaints there? Why? Double standard? It is a game. It is
fiction. Treat it that way.
> I'll stick with C: 4th edition. Not only is it (in my opinion) a
better
> system (more flexible), but it doesn't need to resort to chicks with
chests
> and guns...
I'm bettin' that 5th Edition will have some busty females...maybe not as
busty as the ones in C:NM. Fuzion is a good system. I have played
Champions since it came out and when I started it was intimidating. C:NM
remedies that situation. What Hero/RTal. needs to do is reformat the C:NM
book and fix all the typos. I think when the Powers book comes out for
Fuzion people will find that Fuzion is more flexible than Hero and a hell
of a lot easier to learn. Actually, if you have the 4th Edition book,
Fuzion is more versatile than Hero. You can use the 4th Edition book to
create powers then port them over to Fuzion. Hmm, a game system that can
use two different systems to create powers, skills and equipment for...that
seems more versatile than Hero. Don't get me wrong, I like Hero. I like
Fuzion too. Which is better? IMO, it is Fuzion just for its ease of
learning and speed of play.
Ray
Ray
Skytech <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<3583CBFA...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Randy Buttram wrote:
> >
> > Except FASA's Trek had crappy rules mechanics, save for the background
> > features in character generation.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents...
>
> It never had a chance to print a 4th Ed. :)
> --
>
That could have been because Paramount didn't give FASA the license back.
Maybe?
Ray
Mad Hamish
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:31:39 GMT, Chris Paladino <Di...@En.com> wrote:
>(Not starting a flame war, just stating MY opinions on the girls in C:NM
>and other comics now that I think about it.) If you don't agree, fine,
>to each his own, this is America after all)
Damn, why didn't anyone tell me we'd joined the USA? <g>
>
>Does anyone else find the artwork in C:NM a little tasteless? I bought
>the game over an internet auction, and hadn't looked into it because I
>KNEW it was Fuzion (which I don't like, I D/L the free version), but it
>was like $8.00, so I figured what the heck!
>
>Then I open it up just to see all kinds of cleavage, I mean, excessive,
>stuff. Maybe no one will back me, but I'm not buying any of that crap.
>Superheroes, yes, fine... Gigantic chests and scantly clad outfits?
Had a look at comics recently?
>4th Edition Champs. wasn't like that. Hero Games, the style of the art
>was good, but tell your boy to tone it down... Just some advice.
Are you buying for the game or the artwork?
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au
Skytech
Ray wrote:
>
> That could have been because Paramount didn't give FASA the license back.
> Maybe?
>
Something of my original point. Paramount HATED that FASA's
Star Trek allowed non-diplomatic, agressive behavior, if
players so chose. A lot like their TV shows that I avoided.
The game was overtly riddled with political correctness yet
it wasn't enough.
We're playing S.T. and dump the sickening PC and have fun!
Vegetarian carnivores, phah!
This is why I'm glad HERO/R. Tal. and many other RPGs aren't
owned or licensed by ratings conscious, lowest common
denominator corps..
--
La kasigada vulpo
Skytech
^^
<@@>
./
Skytech
Mad Hamish wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:31:39 GMT, Chris Paladino <Di...@En.com> wrote:
>
> >(Not starting a flame war, just stating MY opinions on the girls in C:NM
> >and other comics now that I think about it.) If you don't agree, fine,
> >to each his own, this is America after all)
>
> Damn, why didn't anyone tell me we'd joined the USA? <g>
>
Tell that to Hawaii and Alaska (yeah and the rest of the
continental US)!
--
La kasigada vulpo
Skytech
^^
<@@>
.]
Sidhain
There is nothing wrong with overdoen art if its tastful, but CTNM is less
tastefu than gratititous....
Those of you who want to discuss this in veiw of the creaotrs amble over to
www.webrpg.com
look into the Hero games section...
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Ray wrote:
>
> Chris Paladino <Di...@En.com> wrote in article <35818B9E...@En.com>...
> > Richard D. Bergstresser Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > Geez, man, where were you when I got lambasted for the same complaint.
> >
> > Sorry man, I woulda backed ya! *Laugh*
> >
> > Apparently it doesn't bother people, and that's fine... But
> personally,
> > it's just not my thing. (We won't even get into the fact that I'm a
> > Christian.)
>
> I'm a Christian too and I could care less about the artwork. Comics have
> always exaggerated the appearances of its heroes and heroines. They use
> this to show that they are stronger than the normal person. I know that
> the women's breast sizes are overly big. What about the men's chest sizes?
> Hmm, no complaints there?
Sorry, but _I_ was complaining about both in this instance.
> Why? Double standard? It is a game. It is
> fiction. Treat it that way.
Righto. Cheap fiction's easy to write off. Danke!
>
> > I'll stick with C: 4th edition. Not only is it (in my opinion) a
> better
> > system (more flexible), but it doesn't need to resort to chicks with
> chests
> > and guns...
>
> I'm bettin' that 5th Edition will have some busty females...maybe not as
> busty as the ones in C:NM.
Wait for it...
There, did you catch it?
> Fuzion is a good system. I have played
> Champions since it came out and when I started it was intimidating. C:NM
> remedies that situation. What Hero/RTal. needs to do is reformat the C:NM
> book and fix all the typos.
Agreed.
> I think when the Powers book comes out for
> Fuzion people will find that Fuzion is more flexible than Hero and a hell
> of a lot easier to learn. Actually, if you have the 4th Edition book,
> Fuzion is more versatile than Hero.
And if you have D+D, Arduin Grimoire is almost playable.
> You can use the 4th Edition book to
> create powers then port them over to Fuzion. Hmm, a game system that can
> use two different systems to create powers, skills and equipment for...that
> seems more versatile than Hero.
Sounds like a nigh infinite set.
Use any other game to cover the holes. Cool.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Lady Fusion wrote:
>
> Lady Fusion (absolutly NO relation to Fuzion, thank you)
Of course not. You spelled it right! <G>
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Skytech wrote:
>
> One man's meat is another man's poison. Possibly the art
> reflects the style so prevalent in the comics the game
> mimics.
It does.
But that's a style of comics alot of us detest and by extension
implies a style of gaming that we likewise detest.
Chris Paladino
Mad Hamish wrote:
> Had a look at comics recently?
Not lately, but I've seen them in the store as I walked by, and if the
inside is anything like the covers, it is more tasteless junk.
> Are you buying for the game or the artwork?
I'm buying the game for the game, but if it is blatently tasteless, I just
won't buy it is all. My personal tastes/beliefs. *Shrug*
Kenneth Scott
LLWatts wrote in message
<199806142055...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Time Effort and STEROIDS. Sorry, nut the guys you see at pro events are
walking drug stores and many off them have been in prison because of the
Fed. law against 'roids...
Women get Surgery Men get Drugs. I've seen real bodybuilders that actually
dwarf the comic book characters that we read about. ... It's pretty darn
sad.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
- Nietzsche
Remove the NoSpam from my address to reply...
unless of course, you are a spammer :)
Chip Dunning
Fitz wrote in message <358317c3...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
>It is? When did that happen? I mean, I know our parliament is a
>sneaky, self-serving pack of low-lives, but I would have thought
>they'd have said *something* if they were planning on selling us to
>the Americans.
Yeah, the transaction was completed around June 1st. We purchased your
island and promptly sold it off to the Australians - they love you so much.
:)
Everything works out just fine... we get to bring in some decent soccer
players, you get scads of cash, and the Australians get reunited with their
best mates. I did hear a rumor that if this doesn't work the US plans to
annex most of England and Brazil.
Chip
-----
Change .com to .net to reply
Carl D. Cravens
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, Mad Hamish wrote:
> Are you buying for the game or the artwork?
But you can't get the game without the artwork. It's like saying you
buy Playboy for the articles... even if you do, you can't leave it
laying around on the coffee table and tell your visitors that you
really despise the art in the magazine. If you despise it, you
shouldn't have bought it.
My wife once bought a game book from which she tore off and threw away
the cover because she found the artwork offensive. And she let the
owner of the game company know that she didn't approve of the use of
the art.
But you can't very well tear out all the art inside the book if you
don't like it.
--
Carl D. Cravens Systems Administrator
cra...@southwind.net
SouthWind Internet Access, Inc. Wichita: 316-263-7963
http://www.southwind.net/ Elsewhere: 1-800-525-7963
Carl D. Cravens
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 swru...@compuserve.com wrote:
> So, like the poor go publishers branded for "promoting smoking" by reflecting
> the actuality of their pastime, HERO gets branded for matching current
> comix styles.
Bzzzt! Wrong answer.
If you go around and take pictures of professional go players, you're
going to get a lot of pictures of guys smoking. It's not the same as
being the art director of a game company and saying, "We need an
artist that draws busty babes, because that's what sells comics now
days."
It's one thing to show pictures of go players who happen to smoke.
There was no *choice* made to show or not show smokers; depiction of
smokers was unintentional.
It's another to intentionally *choose* to emulate the current market's
excess or not.
Brian Wong
Daniel Torres (vide...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: > Heh. And that style is *so* successful that overall comics
: > sales drop by 15% per year.
: That, and killing off all the good storys that were out....
I think it's the lack of stories and not the sensual art that is
dropping sales.
After all, some of the best selling titles of the 80's comics boom
were highly sexual.
Look at 'Love & Rockets'. A titled promoted as mature enough to be
read by the educated crowd, it had nudity and sex in almost every issue. And
was well read by both genders.
There are countless examples of this sort of thing.
In the mid-early 90's, the writing quality took a nose dive. It's really a
balance of art and writing. If either end gets to much focus over the other;
sales will drop.
As the current decade got underway; all the emphesis went into the
popular artists of the day. The writing became second. And any artist who could
draw with a similar style got a comic if he knew at least first grade english.
But the sensual art has always been there. And it has rode both good
and bad times, and been credited for both.
--
Rook 왕 용 기 WebRPG Town Hall Magistrate townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Superhero WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html Super Hero Links
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Brian Wong
Chris Paladino (Di...@En.com) wrote:
: Mad Hamish wrote:
: > Had a look at comics recently?
: Not lately, but I've seen them in the store as I walked by, and if the
: inside is anything like the covers, it is more tasteless junk.
Some of the titles now are better than anything the 'great era of the
80's rennaisance' ever gave us.
Look into:
Astro City (Mark, this is you chance to once again remind us of how
much San Angelo is like this. :) (I'm kidding, but I'm buying
your book anyway) )
Troublemakers
Impulse
Young Heroes In Love
Those four are defining a totally new style of Super Hero genre each.
Also very good are:
Stormwatch (buy after #37 of vol 1. Before that it's just another
action super comic.)
Thunderbolts (though it's slowly losing it's quality and becoming
Marvel sludge, I'd say the old issues up to about 3-4
issues from now will still be worth it.)
I think if you were to read those titles, you're opinion of modern
comics might change quit a bit.
Brian Wong
: >to each his own, this is America after all)
: >
Are you sure it's America?
: >Does anyone else find the artwork in C:NM a little tasteless? I bought
: >
: >Then I open it up just to see all kinds of cleavage, I mean, excessive,
: >stuff. Maybe no one will back me, but I'm not buying any of that crap.
: >Superheroes, yes, fine... Gigantic chests and scantly clad outfits?
: >was good, but tell your boy to tone it down... Just some advice.
: I agree totally... Steve Peterson went for the whole "Image is hot right
: now, so let's steal the art style!" package. The artist, if I remember
: correctly, was the former artist for Image's StormWatch after all.... goes
: to figure he would make the women scantily-clad, and with deformed spines.
First, I read Stormwatch. And it's not the same artist. Not unless
he had a major change in drawing style. I admit I'm missing a few issues
in the twenties. But otherwise I have a complete collection. Stromwatch art
is much better done. And frankly if you pick up any issue in the last 1.5 years,
it's 0% cheesecake. Not unless muscled fully clothed, plain Kenyan women in
marine haircuts is how you define cheesecake.
Try another Image title please, but don't attack the one's that aren't
guilty.
Now to the topic at hand:
For their first two C:NM books I was told they hired a brazilian who
didn't know the super genre, and simply explained what they wanted. FOr the
third book they got a person from the SF Bay Area region. That third artist
does have a large collection of nudie pics he sells at conventions.
Myself, I am no more bothered by cheesecake women than I am men. I've
seen this discusion on a Women in gaming forum as well. I think it's a trained
reaction of American's due to their PC movement to object to any form of
sexuality in public whilst continuing to put it in more and more mediums.
I also note that sexuality aimed at women is ok. Note fabio on
the cover of romance novels, and much of WW's gaming art. The fact that these
mediums are not subject to targeting and objection serves to back up my claim
that sexuality aimed at men is specifically under attack from the PC movement
as part of a trained reaction trying to convince us that such sexuality is
harmful.
Now, attractive men and women have been a staple of the comics' industry
for decades. I think objecting to it is absurd. These figure are supposed to be
larger than life in all ways. They are the modern epic heroes. Today's King
Aurther, Jason, Hercules, etc...
Mythic figures; often with some great, dramatic flaw.
But anyway. I have no problems with it. The look of the heroes and
villians enhances the story. ANd in a game about the genre, the art should
reflect it.
For a counter example, look at Hero Game's old Robot Warriors. It
was supposed to be Mecha for the Hero systems. The art was so poor that it not
only failed to capture the feel of either anime or battletech style mecha, it
actually detracted from and served to reduce the setting.
The art in C:NM was not as well drawn as it could have been; by the
second and third books it had imporved significantly. However, the art does a
good job of serving the flavor it grabs, that of sensuous heroes in a dark
world. This is the flavor of modern comics; Image or not. It's also a genre
very popular among other aspects of today's youth culture. Like the whole
vampire/goth thing.
So I had no objections to the art other than to the skill of the
artist.
Brian Wong
: > People have mentioned the drop in sales... That just _shows_ that it
: > isn't necessary.
: I really want to see this evidence that exaggerated physical
: sensuality directly equates to decreased comic sales. Hell!
There isn't any.
: > Hero games wrote me back and said pretty much "Well, that's the style of
: > the comics these days." So what! The latest trend is to bring a gun to
: > school, is that fine too? If you don't agree with it, don't promote it. If
: No, guns are not fine! How does mass murder equate to
: sexuality or sensuality? Shouldn't violence, a major
: constituent of comics and RPGs be treated as guiltily? Noone
: seems to mind that aspect.
OH MY GOD! THERE HAVING SEX IN THE STREETS!!!
No problem maam, I'll kill them!
Oh good, and here I thought we were going to suffer
moral catastrophe.
:)
: Comics and RPGs, including superheroes formats, are dreams
: and fantasies of things often unattainable but no less
: imaginable. This means being perfect physical specimens and
: finally having the ability to take on life's worst.
Exactly. It's part of the genre for the figures to be mythic in
both mental and physical stature. Thus lots of sensual women and herculean
men.
: Unfortunately, we live in a world where dreams and
: imagination, especially if it even HINTS at sexuality, is to
: be squashed and buried, period! That's as frightening as
: kids shooting kids, worst maybe because it can be so
: insidious.
I'll take sex over gunshots anyday. Unfortunatly, that
opinion seems to be in the minority.
swru...@compuserve.com
In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.980615...@jasper.southwind.net>,
"Carl D. Cravens" <cra...@southwind.net> wrote:
> If you go around and take pictures of professional go players, you're
> going to get a lot of pictures of guys smoking. It's not the same as
> being the art director of a game company and saying, "We need an
> artist that draws busty babes, because that's what sells comics now
> days."
Actually it seems to be pretty close IF in the RPG you are trying to emulate
comix, specifically comix xontemporary to the time of the publication of the
RPG.
> It's one thing to show pictures of go players who happen to smoke.
> There was no *choice* made to show or not show smokers; depiction of
> smokers was unintentional.
Uh, who says there was not or better yet should not have been.
Lack of thought does not imply lack of accountability.
> It's another to intentionally *choose* to emulate the current market's
> excess or not.
You could have stopped at "emulate the current market." and been just as
accurate.
OK for instance, if HERO5 comes out with GOLDEN AGE neo-characteur art, just
as wholly removed from what i think you guys are wanting to call "classic"
comic art as the edgy imagish is, you know the Captain Nice Guy with the
square jaw and the red, white and blue costume, bad guys all looking evil,
etc...
Would that be what you wanted? Possibly less tatseless, women were certainly
more clad tho they sometimes did have exaggerated proportions just highly
covered up.
I doubt it.
But hey, my preference is for hero to match the genre. IF H5 sets up a
campaign style which lends to the more 70's-early 80's comics games, then
fine, run that art. (possibly skipping the XMen)
If it creates a newer edgier more contemporary comic campaign, i hope they
emulate that with their art.
Either way, the art wont sell the book to me either way.
Personally i think golden age and earlier where you make sure and cover the
women folks unmentionable parts might just do good for those PC types out
there. :-)
Then again, they should probably also deal with smoking depiction and
probably should make sure their somewhat less than rainbow oriented character
set should be more PC too. Sure, the comics of that time were not necessarily
based that way, but since when would we let the definition of "emulate" or
"reflect" or "genre" get in the way of liberalism. :-)
DUCK and COVER!!
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Sidhain
Yes and the comics ye just named are the exceptions to the new rule....
They are actually good art story etc...
James Nicoll
In article <6m3gdm$kc1$3...@news.infinex.com>,
Brian Wong <ro...@infinex.com> wrote:
>Chris Paladino (Di...@En.com) wrote:
>: Mad Hamish wrote:
>
>: > Had a look at comics recently?
>
>: Not lately, but I've seen them in the store as I walked by, and if the
>: inside is anything like the covers, it is more tasteless junk.
>
>
> Some of the titles now are better than anything the 'great era of the
>80's rennaisance' ever gave us.
>
> Look into:
snip
> Young Heroes In Love
But look at it fast: the numbers say that if it hasn't been canceled
yet,it soon will be.
--
"Pigs are not a fruit."
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
Brian Wong wrote:
> The genre of comics has always been about larger than life people.
> They're supposed to be grand and epic. In action and look.
> So they're either very comely, or dark and mysterious, or wild and
> powerful. Or some combination. Never normal.
> Frankly the women had better be sensuous. The men had better be
> powerfully built. Otherwise we're not capturing the feel right.
I agree. However, I don't find the women in C:NM sensuous. Rather, they
seem deformed to the point where they are more repulsive than attractive.
It IS possible to exaggerate sexual characteristica and still get a sensual
result, Will Eisner did so in The Spirit and Al Capp in Li'l Abner. Frank
Thorne is also an example of an artist that masters this. However, in my
opinion, the C:NM artist (and many artists of the Image school) lack the
talent to do so.
> I can't understand why Americans are so afraid of sexuality, yet splash
> it about everywhere. Nor why erotica for women (Fabio, Chip'N'Dale dancers,
> romance novel art (and book content), WW's WoD art, etc.) is perfectly
> acceptable; yet an attractive woman in the art for something which has long
> held that as its tradition is not.
Speaking for myself only (and I'm Danish, not American), I am not at all
afraid of sexuality (it is about the most stupid thing to be afraid of).
But personally, I don't find the women portrayed in C:NM attractive, and
I find it hard to see why anybody out of adolescence would. To me, beauty
(and especially _sensuous_ beauty) in women has more to do with grace and
suppleness than with big bulges. But then, taste is a personal thing.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Klaus Mogensen <klau...@get2net.dk> "Never and forever are neither for men,
Elbagade 11 1-th, DK-2300 S You'll be returning again and again."
Copenhagen, Denmark - Sheelba of the Eyeless Face -
Chris Paladino
Brian Wong wrote:
> Or perhaps you're just saying you're not some prude who can't handle
> their own sexuality.
And we went so far w/o any name-calling/flaming.
> I can't understand why Americans are so afraid of sexuality, yet splash
> it about everywhere. Nor why erotica for women (Fabio, Chip'N'Dale dancers,
> romance novel art (and book content), WW's WoD art, etc.) is perfectly
> acceptable; yet an attractive woman in the art for something which has long
> held that as it's tradition is not.
Well, IMO, there is a lot wrong with our typical American. Yes, I'm an
American... Smut sells in America (unfortunatly), if you live here, you just hang
on for the ride, and try to do what's right for yourself/friends/family.
Chris Paladino
D.P. Russell wrote:
> You have got to be kidding. Your worried about women in small costumes
> with exagerated breasts. My god man have you thought about it. We're
This coming from a guy who's "organization" in his Email header is
Sexbunnies.com? C'Mon... You just have a different view of the art that's
all. You find it OK. And that is frankly none of my business. I have
ABSOLUTELY no right to try and censor your stuff. I do however have the
right to purchase it. By putting that art on C:NM, I won't support the
company, or buy any of it's products. Your choice. My choice. I am not
trying to end things that are not in my opinion, I'm just looking out for
myself, friends, family, and choose not to have that stuff.
Carl D. Cravens
On 16 Jun 1998, Brian Wong wrote:
> You could, you could also buy all the copies you can and take them to
> the next book burning at the local church. But it won't get you far.
Not if you want the book to be usable. This isn't about book-burning,
this is about a product I want that has art I don't.
> Or perhaps you're just saying you're not some prude who can't handle
> their own sexuality.
Rook, it's not about sexuality, it's about tasteless art. There's a
huge difference. I'm a monogamous, married Christian. I don't *want*
to look at sexually-stimulating materials, I already *have* the
stimulation I need. I don't want impossible sexual fantasy impinging
on my world; I don't want even fantasy temptation. I want to remain
faithful to my wife.
Unfortunately, I'd like to play a game which contains artwork which I
find morally offensive. Not intimidating or arrousing feelings I'm
afraid of, but simply *offensive*. Please do not confuse being afraid
of ones own sexuality with upholding a moral value. They are totally
different things.
I can't imagine a potential customer refusing to buy a product because
it *doesn't* have busty comic babes in it. I *know of* potential
customers who refused to buy a product because it *did*.
> The genre of comics has always been about larger than life people.
> They're supposed to be grand and epic. In action and look.
> So they're either very comely, or dark and mysterious, or wild and
> powerful. Or some combination. Never normal.
> Frankly the women had better be sensuous. The men had better be
> powerfully built. Otherwise we're not capturing the feel right.
Sensuous is one thing. Inhumanely proportioned (for reasons having
nothing to do with heroism) and displayed in sexually-enticing posts
is another. Face it, comicbooks have sexy girls in them to attract
the adolescent male crowd to buy them. There's no genre reason for
the way they're presented... it's a marketing tactic, because
immorality, even in tiny bits, sells.
> I can't understand why Americans are so afraid of sexuality, yet splash
> it about everywhere. Nor why erotica for women (Fabio, Chip'N'Dale dancers,
> romance novel art (and book content), WW's WoD art, etc.) is perfectly
> acceptable; yet an attractive woman in the art for something which has long
> held that as it's tradition is not.
There's a difference between a picture of an attractive woman and a
picture of an impossibly attractive (if one can call DD-cup and 10"
waist attractive) woman in a nearly-impossible spine-twisting pose
meant to display her in a sexually-enticing manner.
Carl D. Cravens
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, D.P. Russell wrote:
> You have got to be kidding. Your worried about women in small costumes
> with exagerated breasts. My god man have you thought about it. We're
> talking about heroes who fly around wearing only bathing suits, lifting
> cars, firing lasers out of their eyes, and saving the world from certain
> doom. ITS A FANTASY. Once upon a time, comics had bad artists. And,
> as artists got better, the art got more intricate. Its moved from being
> just a fantasy story to fantastical art work. That is what comics are
> about. Yes the female bodies are unrealistic, but so are the powers
> they have. Don't complain about un-realism in an unrealistic setting.
> Thats like saying your not going to watch tv because the shows are
> unrealistic. The goal is entertainment. Get Real!!
Fantastic powers is what the genre is about. Fantastic bodies isn't.
You can have superheroes without tasteless art. I'm not complaining
about unrealism, I'm complaining about lack of taste and lack of
morals.
The goal is entertainment. I am not entertained by comics which
feature erotic women for the purpose of selling the comic to
adolescent males. I'm entertained by comics that focus on the story
instead of on the tits and ass.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Orion26 wrote:
>
> Big Snip...
>
> >Don't complain about un-realism in an unrealistic setting.
> >Thats like saying your not going to watch tv because the shows >are
> unrealistic. The goal is entertainment. Get Real!!>
I hear a contradiction there.
Oh well.
Probably intended.
>
> Amen to that brother. This has got to be one of the silliest discussions ever.
Just cause some folks aren't on the same page.
Viktor Haag
Carl D. Cravens wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, D.P. Russell wrote:
>
> > You have got to be kidding. Your worried about women in small costumes
> > with exagerated breasts. My god man have you thought about it. We're
> > talking about heroes who fly around wearing only bathing suits, lifting
> > cars, firing lasers out of their eyes, and saving the world from certain
> > doom. ITS A FANTASY.
> >
> > Once upon a time, comics had bad artists. And,
> > as artists got better, the art got more intricate. Its moved from being
> > just a fantasy story to fantastical art work. That is what comics are
> > about.
I take strong issue with this statement that "once comics had bad artists". I
think that, even among the comic artists themselves, you'll find little doubt
that folks like Kirby, Eisner, Steranko, Adams, etc. are relatively unmatched
artists, and that most of today's crop of illustrators don't come close to their
abilities. Mind you, there were probably a number of hack artists in Kirby and
Steranko's hey day as well -- 90% of anything is crap, after all.
> > Yes the female bodies are unrealistic, but so are the powers
> > they have. Don't complain about un-realism in an unrealistic setting.
> > Thats like saying your not going to watch tv because the shows are
> > unrealistic. The goal is entertainment. Get Real!!
The goal is *not* entertainment, the goal is to tell a story. Entertainment is
the *by product*, or the process, of telling the story, and listening/watching
the story being told: it isn't the goal.
So, what's important is the quality of the story. In the long run, relying on
cheap-ass tricks like boob-art in your stories, is like mechanical sex or the
old "cat in the closet" routine in slasher flicks. All these hackneyed
fall-backs show is the lack of ability on the part of the artist/story-teller to
do his/her job properly -- be imaginative, fresh, meaningful, *entertaining*.
And there's a point at which the exploitation of these cheap visceral tricks
overwhelms whatever artistic merit lies in the story, and *bam* you've got
pornography -- a collection of visceral tricks designed to punch the sensory
buttons of the audience for little more purpose than to elicit a knee-jerk
response.
> Fantastic powers is what the genre is about. Fantastic bodies isn't.
Incorrect. Superhero comics aren't about "fantastic powers" or "fantastic
bodies". These things aren't real. Superhero stories are about (or they are when
they're well done) what it means to be human and live in a world *without* those
powers.
The point of any fantastic story is to provoke us into a deeper examination of
our own, mundane, reality. They call it fiction for a reason, after all.
> You can have superheroes without tasteless art. I'm not complaining
> about unrealism, I'm complaining about lack of taste and lack of
> morals.
What you *should* be complaining about is lack of *talent*, Carl. Taste and
morals have very little to do with it. Judge comic art within the context of the
medium. I agree that better stories don't need to rely on bad art, or shoddy
plots. But "taste" and "morality" are essentially personal notions, and
shouldn't really have a part in any kind of critical appreciation of art of any
sort.
That doesn't mean that taste and morality are useless -- far from it. But
slamming CNM, or Image comics, or other similar things, because you find their
depiction of humans "immoral" is a *far* different thing from slamming them
because they're simply shoddy artistically.
--
Viktor Haag The PEER Group, Inc.
mailto:vik...@peergroup.com Technical Writer
"Unlike serial-killer profiling, writing is a
lonely and depressing profession ..." Jose Chung
cyberbot
You can get the Champions New Millenium RULES for Free and SANS artwork
if you want the book, which has Millenium campaign info, that's something
else..
Carl D. Cravens wrote in message ...
swru...@compuserve.com
In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.98061...@jasper.southwind.net>,
"Carl D. Cravens" <cra...@southwind.net> wrote:
> Not if you want the book to be usable. This isn't about book-burning,
> this is about a product I want that has art I don't.
And we all make these give and take decisions every day. i have bought many
an rpg with an eye to the setting or source material and beyond a cursory
galnce at the rules to see how BAD they were, i ignored those sections.
Art on the other hand for me is more a style issue.
BTW, in other forums Peterson has stated that H5 will he hero system rulebook
abnd will have less art and it will be of varying styles to represent the
varying genres the rules are designed to cover.
So it appears the incidence of the offensive art would have to be lessen in
H5.
>
> Rook, it's not about sexuality, it's about tasteless art. There's a
> huge difference. I'm a monogamous, married Christian. I don't *want*
> to look at sexually-stimulating materials, I already *have* the
> stimulation I need. I don't want impossible sexual fantasy impinging
> on my world; I don't want even fantasy temptation. I want to remain
> faithful to my wife.
All admiral traits and establishing securely the foundation you are coming
from. THANK YOU.
> Unfortunately, I'd like to play a game which contains artwork which I
> find morally offensive. Not intimidating or arrousing feelings I'm
> afraid of, but simply *offensive*. Please do not confuse being afraid
> of ones own sexuality with upholding a moral value. They are totally
> different things.
> I can't imagine a potential customer refusing to buy a product because
> it *doesn't* have busty comic babes in it. I *know of* potential
> customers who refused to buy a product because it *did*.
I admire you position, i disagree with it.
I think the focus of RPGs is to reflect the genre they are about, their
source material. You seem to have objections with what is in the industry
today (but by no means is it universal and seems to be a letest trend). Note
that similar art forms excesses in comics have been around forever. I still
remember very very spine busting double shots of jean grey and such and have
seen plenty of older golden age stuff which was more characteurish but
definitely as exaggerated as today.
I honestly dont want HERO GAME to listen to my preference about morality when
designing their games or when choosing their arts (trust me you dont want
them listening to me either) and dont think they should do do for others. I
think that they should base their art choices on comtemporary comics most
like the setting they are RPGing. CtNM is very definitely not
your-fathers-hero-setting. The art suits it in terms of subject matter.
Quality is a wholly seperate issue. Poorly drawn art is bad anywhere but some
people seem to be expressing opinion that the subject "overly large breasts
and poses" are bad art when instead it is likely the artist drew just what he
wanted. Confusing subject matter and quality of drawing is a waste of time.
> Sensuous is one thing. Inhumanely proportioned (for reasons having
> nothing to do with heroism) and displayed in sexually-enticing posts
> is another. Face it, comicbooks have sexy girls in them to attract
> the adolescent male crowd to buy them. There's no genre reason for
> the way they're presented... it's a marketing tactic, because
> immorality, even in tiny bits, sells.
YES, and that is the source material and subject matter the RPG is designed to
represent.
See, from my perspective, a simlar very laudable position could be taken about
guns in comics or smoking in comics. This seems especially
true in the wake of recent gun incidents with children and smoking-children
bandwagons across the country.
Now imagine a RPG that "represented" Punisher or practically any comic but did
not include GUN STATS or maybe characters drawn with guns. Seems silly and
REMOVED from the source. All it does is force GMs to develop their own guns
rules.
Imagine a street level or goth comic rpg setting (or a WW2 or a prison) that
refused to show pictures of characters smoking. Again seems silly.
All of these just like your objection to the oversized and backbreaker poses
are laudable and high moral ground in their own right, but by the time all
these laudable or high moral ground issue get in play, we have just
eliminated a lot of references to the source material.
> There's a difference between a picture of an attractive woman and a
> picture of an impossibly attractive (if one can call DD-cup and 10"
> waist attractive) woman in a nearly-impossible spine-twisting pose
> meant to display her in a sexually-enticing manner.
Agreed completely. But the more extreme one is more like the comic images than
more "mainstream" art.
Again, I simply fall onto the balance of make the art match the rpg genre
source, which means totally different art for a golden age, a late-70's, a
western, and a jazzy 90's edgy type. CtNM looked OK to me intermes of art
subjects and i felt it added to the feel from the book.
if the same art had been in a golden age supplement, i would not be happy with
it, tho art is a minor consideration for me. i liked the older style when they
used it in golden age champions.
thanks for the chat.
Steven Rushing
swru...@compuserve.com
Brian Wong
: > You have got to be kidding. Your worried about women in small costumes
: > with exagerated breasts. My god man have you thought about it. We're
: right to purchase it. By putting that art on C:NM, I won't support the
: company, or buy any of it's products. Your choice. My choice. I am not
: trying to end things that are not in my opinion, I'm just looking out for
: myself, friends, family, and choose not to have that stuff.
I still can't understand how a woman in something which amounts to
much more than the average bikini could be found as morally objectionable.
As to their figures, from what I see on a daily basis the figures in
C:TNM were a little 'well built', but not unaturally so. They were slim, but
less so than the average 19-20 year old I see here in San Francisco (but then
we have many asians, and they are slimmer than caucasians or blacks). The big
gripes comes from a lack of understanding of body porportion, and a frequent
repitition of the same art, with slight mods in each pic.
Those gripes are not about cheesecake, but about the artists skill
level. By the second C:NM book that same artist showed a marked improvement in
those areas. Still no Jim Lee by a long stretch, but there were less flaws.
Carl D. Cravens
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Viktor Haag wrote:
> Incorrect. Superhero comics aren't about "fantastic powers" or
> "fantastic bodies". These things aren't real. Superhero stories are
> about (or they are when they're well done) what it means to be human
> and live in a world *without* those powers.
That's certainly debatable.
> What you *should* be complaining about is lack of *talent*,
> Carl.
Hm. That could be why I have so much trouble finding comics I like.
(What I should *really* be complaining about is the outrageously high
cost of comics.)
>Taste and morals have very little to do with it. Judge comic
> art within the context of the medium.
Can't. I judge it within the context of life, because that's where it
exists. Situational ethics is for the birds.
> I agree that better stories don't need to rely on bad art, or shoddy
> plots. But "taste" and "morality" are essentially personal notions,
> and shouldn't really have a part in any kind of critical
> appreciation of art of any sort.
I'm not criticizing the art, I'm criticizing the choice of subject
matter. Specifically, I'm criticizing the *artist* and his *employer*
for choosing to create this art.
> That doesn't mean that taste and morality are useless -- far from
> it. But slamming CNM, or Image comics, or other similar things,
> because you find their depiction of humans "immoral" is a *far*
> different thing from slamming them because they're simply shoddy
> artistically.
Yes, it is. But I'm not concerned with their skill in portraying what
they attempt to portray... I'm concerned with *what* they're
attempting to portray. Skillfully or poorly executed, pornography is
still pornography.
(Not to imply that I put comics anywhere near the level of hardcore
pornography, but I'd enjoy comics more if they left out the
offensive "cheesecake".)
Carl D. Cravens
On 17 Jun 1998, Brian Wong wrote:
> I still can't understand how a woman in something which amounts to
> much more than the average bikini could be found as morally objectionable.
A woman in a bikini isn't. A woman in a bikini displayed for sexual
enticement is.
Morals don't concern things, they concern action and intent.
Orion26
Never let this guy judge an art exibit that has any nudity or stray from the
norm of human average.
##Randall
$438$2...@news.infinex.com> <Pine.BSI.3.96.98061...@jasper.southwind.net>
Organization:
Carl D. Cravens <cra...@southwind.net> wrote:
: A woman in a bikini isn't. A woman in a bikini displayed for sexual
: enticement is.
Let me go out on a limb...here, there are times when a woman in a bikini
isn't displayed for sexual enticement?
--
Randall Wright
---------------------------------------------------------
"I told her we'd make beautiful music together, but she
left me singing the blues....
in soprano"
---Johnny Bravo
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Paladino
swru...@compuserve.com wrote:
> And we all make these give and take decisions every day. i have bought many
That's our point. We have to make the decision between our tastes (or
religion/faith/whatever), and what we enjoy (the HERO system). I chose my
"tastes" over C:NM. I play the older HERO stuff because it's art doesn't offend
me. Why would you want to repel potential buyers by having questionable material
when we aren't debating the quality of the art, or the artist, but the subject
matter/positionion/lewdness of the art.
> Art on the other hand for me is more a style issue.
Right, and that's fine! You can have a dark, sinister style without having
boobs everywhere. And that would be a good compromise. I mean, I don't mind a
darker less-four color setting, but I do mind the chests. You don't need sex to
sell a dark setting. Would you really mind if the darker setting had less
questionable art? I doubt it. YOu said yourself you want style, not so much the
degree of sex.
> All of these just like your objection to the oversized and backbreaker poses
> are laudable and high moral ground in their own right, but by the time all
> these laudable or high moral ground issue get in play, we have just
> eliminated a lot of references to the source material.
What could you possibly use big-chests, and those spinebusting poses as
reference material for? I mean, yeah, I get your point about the guns. But huge
chests, scantly clad? What is that reference material for?
> Again, I simply fall onto the balance of make the art match the rpg genre
And that's fine. That's what most of us want. Just dont' offend us in the
process.
>thanks for the chat.
Ditto!
Chris Paladino
Orion26 wrote:
> Never let this guy judge an art exibit that has any nudity or stray from the
> norm of human average.
While I understand the cynacism behind your point. It has nothing to do
with the topic really. We are not judging an art exhibit. Not are we looking
to. We are discussing the tasteless art in C:NM. We aren't out to stop the
world's problems. We are trying to enjoy a game that we like. (For those of us
who like HERO games.) And what is taking away from that is art that offends
us. Note: Not just one or two people are offended. We've heard a few offended
individuals, a lot more not offended, a few "boy you guys are stupid", and
uncountable "I don't give a crap either way"s.
swru...@compuserve.com
In article <6m9ao9$rg4$1...@news.usit.net>,
##Randall <rewr...@use.usit.net> wrote:
>
> $438$2...@news.infinex.com>
<Pine.BSI.3.96.98061...@jasper.southwind.net>
> Organization:
>
> Carl D. Cravens <cra...@southwind.net> wrote:
> : A woman in a bikini isn't. A woman in a bikini displayed for sexual
> : enticement is.
>
> Let me go out on a limb...here, there are times when a woman in a bikini
> isn't displayed for sexual enticement?
One name...
roseanne barr
swru...@compuserve.com
In article <35883191...@En.com>,
Chris Paladino <Di...@En.com> wrote:
> me. Why would you want to repel potential buyers by having questionable
material
Because of several reasons...
1> by the time you eliminated all the stuff that "potential buyers" might
consider or do consider questionable... you have little left except maybe
some archie comix. Frankly i would find bland art (or bland stories or
settings) offensive moreso than art. How many people might find the guns
questionable? The smoking? Maybe some peoples religions or morals make
vampirs or stories or rules allowing or describing spirits and
supernatural... maybe some people would find ANGEL or ARCHANGEL of the XMen
offensive... at least questionable..
2> The RPG IS SUPPOSED to be about roleplaying comix. its rules and setting
and art need to reflect that. Those poses and breasts are rife thru the
comics.
If the goals or the limits of your product stray from marketability and sourc
too far and into all these PC areas, you dont really end up with much.
Its fine and easy to make these broad brush statements about breasts or
smoking, but in doing so you lay the exact same foundation for things you
might think "part of the genre" but your neighbor finds offensive.
>
> > Art on the other hand for me is more a style issue.
>
> Right, and that's fine! You can have a dark, sinister style without
having
> boobs everywhere. And that would be a good compromise. I mean, I don't mind
a
> darker less-four color setting, but I do mind the chests. You don't need sex
to
> sell a dark setting. Would you really mind if the darker setting had less
> questionable art? I doubt it. YOu said yourself you want style, not so much
the
> degree of sex.
From the comix i read, XMen, i see those poses when i think of the
genre.Sorry but the spinebreaker double takes of the babes were there. Do a
comix rpg pretending to emulate those but leave out all the sex, and its as
constrained as tv sitcoms.
>
> What could you possibly use big-chests, and those spinebusting poses as
> reference material for? I mean, yeah, I get your point about the guns. But
huge
> chests, scantly clad? What is that reference material for?
Easy, visuals of the npcs. I actually use modified versions of npcs if they
fit my needs. Amazingly most of the ctnm characters are so detailed and
intertwined, i needed little or no revision. The visuals help. When the
players go "WOW" it usually helps set he scene.
> > Again, I simply fall onto the balance of make the art match the rpg genre
>
> And that's fine. That's what most of us want. Just dont' offend us in the
> process.
Well, if you are offended by something that part of the genre, i do not agree
withn that sentiment. Maybe produce a Vanilla Hero supplement with no guns, no
breasts, no smoking, no language too foul, no racist villains, no sexist
characters, no homosexual or anti homosexual characters...
now maybe you find only a few of these offensive but as many people find the
others. Do YOU REALLY WANT HERO to adopt a "drop all questionable
art/material" policy or just a "drop stuff objectionable to me" policy.
Again i say, make the art fit the source. Golden hero has large parts but they
are covered and the art is characteur. Western is gritty almost litho in its
detail but pretty much sexless. etc...
swr
J.Reynolds
swru...@compuserve.com wrote:
> Because of several reasons...
>
> 1> by the time you eliminated all the stuff that "potential buyers" might
> consider or do consider questionable... you have little left except maybe
> some archie comix. Frankly i would find bland art (or bland stories or
Hey now... I found those Archie comics HIGHLY offensive! Look at the short skirts
the women wear... or the way the men are portrayed as total idiots. ;-)
> settings) offensive moreso than art. How many people might find the guns
> questionable? The smoking? Maybe some peoples religions or morals make
> vampirs or stories or rules allowing or describing spirits and
> supernatural... maybe some people would find ANGEL or ARCHANGEL of the XMen
> offensive... at least questionable..
>
> 2> The RPG IS SUPPOSED to be about roleplaying comix. its rules and setting
> and art need to reflect that. Those poses and breasts are rife thru the
> comics.
>
> If the goals or the limits of your product stray from marketability and sourc
> too far and into all these PC areas, you dont really end up with much.
Just a note to clarify the term Political Correctness. It's a term created by
Liberals to describe attitudes prevelant in conservative groups about how things
were changing and how they didn't like that. I.E., bikini's are a bad thing
because they reveal too much of a woman, NOT bikini's are a bad thing because they
objectify the female body (which is current the conservative use of PC applied to
Liberal beliefs).
Frankly, there IS no such thing as Political Correctness. There IS such a thing as
Personal Correctness (which still gives us the nice PC since people don't like
things to change), and if enough people have a similar Personal Correctness (even
if their reasoning is different concerning why) then social attitudes can be
changed. Political Correctness is just a red herring supplied by anyone who
doesn't want to be told that someone else finds their stuff objectionable. It has
no bearing on someone expressing their personal opinion, and if they don't LIKE the
personal opinion, they can just ignore it.
> Its fine and easy to make these broad brush statements about breasts or
> smoking, but in doing so you lay the exact same foundation for things you
> might think "part of the genre" but your neighbor finds offensive.
People have a right to find something offensive. Other people may chose to agree
with them or not. If the artist and the designer of the RPG like what they've
created, then it won't matter unless the outcry causes profits to fall off. Then,
they might want to re-consider their target audience and what they need (in this
case, I don't think it's going to be a real issue, though... I think this product
and its artwork is well targeted at those most likely to buy it).
> From the comix i read, XMen, i see those poses when i think of the
> genre.Sorry but the spinebreaker double takes of the babes were there. Do a
> comix rpg pretending to emulate those but leave out all the sex, and its as
> constrained as tv sitcoms.
I completely agree with you that the main audience of the RPG is going to be the
same young people who tend to read comics like X-Men (and of course there are those
of us much older folks who read them as well). However, from the viewpoints
expressed here, I get the sense that the average roleplayer is a bit older than the
average comic book reader, and perhaps has a slightly more developed sense of
asthetics. Not to say some of them won't like the T&A method of art design as
well, just that many of them posting here don't seem to care for it. Hey, isn't it
amazing when people actually learn new ways of thinking? ;-)
> Well, if you are offended by something that part of the genre, i do not agree
> withn that sentiment. Maybe produce a Vanilla Hero supplement with no guns, no
> breasts, no smoking, no language too foul, no racist villains, no sexist
> characters, no homosexual or anti homosexual characters...
No need. If the product sells, obviously not enough people are suffering from a
Personal Correctness for it to matter. If it doesn't, then it's time to go back to
the drawing board. Personally, while I find oversized breasts on ALL female
characters to be out of line with reality and would prefer many more smaller
chested heroines, I like the idea of strongly "questionable" material, because I
like how it makes people think. Obviously the people posting in reply to this
thread are thinking, which is a refreshing change from what the average person
does. If it's truly offensive, the game won't get bought and the designers will
have to rethink their plans.
-----
J.Reynolds
"The church says the earth is flat. But I know it's
round for I have seen its shadow on the moon and
I have more faith in a shadow than the church" - Magellan
"Wherever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
Bertil Jonell
In article <89802080...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
James Nicoll <jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>The hack R Tal
>hired apparently not only never saw a naked woman but may not ever have
>taken a good look at itself in the shower because there is no direct
>knowledge of human anatomy shown.
I have heard that K'Kree 'artists' are cheap and work fast :)
> "Pigs are not a fruit."
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Carl D. Cravens
On 17 Jun 1998, Orion26 wrote:
> Never let this guy judge an art exibit that has any nudity or stray from the
> norm of human average.
Me? The human body is a beautiful creation. I have no problems when
it is displayed for the purpose of art.
But unlike you, I see that there are differences in intent when
displaying the human body. Comic books (in general) do not display
the female body for the purpose of art or even story, they display it
for the purpose of enticement, to sell their product to people who
enjoy being enticed by sexual displays. While on an entirely
different scale, it's essentially what Playboy does, except Playboy
doesn't deny what they're doing.
Carl D. Cravens
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 swru...@compuserve.com wrote:
> > Let me go out on a limb...here, there are times when a woman in a bikini
> > isn't displayed for sexual enticement?
>
> One name...
> roseanne barr
ROTF! Thanks!
Carl D. Cravens
On 17 Jun 1998, ##Randall wrote:
> Let me go out on a limb...here, there are times when a woman in a bikini
> isn't displayed for sexual enticement?
Well, that is often the reason a woman wears one. :)
But a woman might wear one to get a tan, or to display it in a
catalog. It's a gray area.
An attractive woman is attractive no matter what she wears. So if she
wears non-revealing clothing in public and men find her sexually
attractive, there's nothing immoral in her actions because it was
never her intent to entice. If she wears a bikini to the
beach... well, why is she wearing it? Because she's attractive and
likes to display her body, but isn't interested in attracting someone
sexually? Aside from maybe the sin of pride, I'm not sure that there
is anything wrong with that. I certainly enjoy seeing her, and I can
admire God's (and tummy crunch's) handiwork without being sexually
attracted to her. Like I said, immorality is in the intent. (And if
I obsessed about her sexually, my own thoughts would be immoral, but
that wouldn't necessarily be her fault.)
Do remember that immorality isn't a black and white issue. Playboy's
actions are more immoral than the producers of Baywatch, but I still
consider Baywatch to fall into the same category... women displayed
for the purpose of selling a product.
Carl D. Cravens
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 swru...@compuserve.com wrote:
> 2> The RPG IS SUPPOSED to be about roleplaying comix. its rules and setting
> and art need to reflect that. Those poses and breasts are rife thru the
> comics.
But these aren't present in the actual *play* of the game, are they?
Bustalina
Bust Size: 42 DD
Waist: 20"
Hips: 34"
Powers: Flys fast, punches hard
Special skills: Spine twister, able to display both breasts and
buttocks to the "camera" at the same time.
GM: Okay, you've punched the villain and he flys half a block. He's
out!
Bustalina: Okay, I've got a second, so I'll do my spine-twister thing
make sure the reader gets a good view of both my impressive tits
and ass at the same time.
GM: Great!
Yeah, right. :) These just aren't part of the game because they're
meaningless to the story. They're only in comics as part of the
*marketing* tactic and sometimes because the artist gets his jollies
out of drawing them.
> From the comix i read, XMen, i see those poses when i think of the
> genre.Sorry but the spinebreaker double takes of the babes were there. Do a
> comix rpg pretending to emulate those but leave out all the sex, and its as
> constrained as tv sitcoms.
I don't think it is. Champions never had these things before and yet
it has been the most popular supers game for years. Champions did it
just fine without the cheesecake. (And it certainly isn't necessary
if you consider the relative success of CtNM.)
Hero Games
<<I don't think it is. Champions never had these things before and yet
it has been the most popular supers game for years. Champions did it
just fine without the cheesecake. (And it certainly isn't necessary
if you consider the relative success of CtNM.)>>
Champions: The New Millennium has been the most successful Champions product
in the last 9 years, since the release of the 4th Edition rules in 1989. The
supplements (Alliances and Bay City) have also been extremely good sellers. I
might note that Bay City uses a different artist than Champions: The New
Millennium and Alliances; those who find the art style important in their
purchasing decisions might wish to check out the Bay City artwork.
-- Steve Peterson, Hero Games, www.herogames.com
<Send email with your postal address to hero...@aol.com to get on the Hero
Plus mailing list; you'll get all the latest Hero news!>
Brian Wong
: > For their first two C:NM books I was told they hired a brazilian who
: >didn't know the super genre, and simply explained what they wanted. FOr the
: >third book they got a person from the SF Bay Area region. That third artist
: >does have a large collection of nudie pics he sells at conventions.
: >
: Huge snippage. Context deleted
: But CNM has really badly done cheesecake. Compare, oh, Vargas
: to whoever did CNM. Vargas' women are idealized but Vargas almost
: certainly actually saw a naked woman at some point. The hack R Tal
: hired apparently not only never saw a naked woman but may not ever have
: taken a good look at itself in the shower because there is no direct
Yes. This is true. My issue with it's art was not that the women
wore superheroine style costumes. It was that were drawn poorly.
Brian Wong
: Carl D. Cravens <cra...@southwind.net> wrote:
: : A woman in a bikini isn't. A woman in a bikini displayed for sexual
: : enticement is.
Ok. Why?
What's so morally objectionable about expressing sexuality. Especially
when it's in such an extremely mild form.
It's not like superheroine's are depicted as weak, stupid, and in need
of help by 'superior males'... They're ussually very potent figures.
On a side issue:
Where are the armies of people protesting Romance Novel covers?
Chip'N'Dale dancers? The men on Baywatch and not just the women?
Brian Wong
:> And we all make these give and take decisions every day. i have bought many
: That's our point. We have to make the decision between our tastes (or
: religion/faith/whatever), and what we enjoy (the HERO system). I chose my
: "tastes" over C:NM. I play the older HERO stuff because it's art doesn't
: offend me. Why would you want to repel potential buyers by having
: questionable material when we aren't debating the quality of the art, or the
: artist, but the subject matter/positionion/lewdness of the art.
I think it really comes down to this:
We can't shape our society based on the views of moral extremists;
which is frankly what the people objecting are. But we can't go with
either extreme really. A completely amoral society is just as bad as one with
with extremely strict morals.
And selling to either catagory is going to give you a very narrow
market; and objections not only from the opposite extreme but frankly from
most of the middle ground as well.
There is nothing extreme about the art in C:NM, save for it's possible
lack of skill in the style chosen. Extreme would have been nude superwomen
engaged in sex acts with each other... Or dressed in the puritan costumes
some seem to be desiring.
:> Art on the other hand for me is more a style issue.
: Right, and that's fine! You can have a dark, sinister style without having
:boobs everywhere. And that would be a good compromise. I mean, I don't mind a
:darker less-four color setting, but I do mind the chests. You don't need sex to
: sell a dark setting. Would you really mind if the darker setting had less
: questionable art? I doubt it. YOu said yourself you want style, not so much
: the degree of sex.
Lots of women have varying sizes of chests. The idea of shaping and
sizing them in the Super Hero genre to be attractive is a long held standard.
It's done to the bodies of the men as well. In fact it's more extreme on the
men if you examine how built up some of them get. The idea is that they are
grand figures and should look so to make them stand out as such. That is in fact
a quote from an art text I have on drawing figures of mythic stature. You make
them bigger, impressive, attractive, imposing. It makes them stand out right
away as the heroes or villians.
C:NM chose that style. Implimentation was poor. But style was proper.
:> All of these just like your objection to the oversized and backbreaker poses
:> are laudable and high moral ground in their own right, but by the time all
:> these laudable or high moral ground issue get in play, we have just
:> eliminated a lot of references to the source material.
: What could you possibly use big-chests, and those spinebusting poses as
: reference material for? I mean, yeah, I get your point about the guns. But
: huge chests, scantly clad? What is that reference material for?
It's the same issue as that for making the men big and impressive. It
marks them as 'figures of mythic porportion' the moment you see them; before
you read the text. Comics are a graphic medium. They are a balance of art and
words. The message must be equally present in both. So the figures need to
look like something more than human. Just as the words say they are.
:> Again, I simply fall onto the balance of make the art match the rpg genre
: And that's fine. That's what most of us want. Just dont' offend us in the
: process.
I honestly doubt it's what you really want. Cause frankly C:NM did
match the source material perfectly. Heck, if you read a Lifield comic you'd
even be able to say the skill level in C:NM was better than the source
material. :)
Even in the 'good' comics that have highly proffessional art or are
in more four color settings the men and women are drawn this way. Just the
shading is changed a bit. :)
Viktor Haag
Carl D. Cravens wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Viktor Haag wrote:
>
> > What you *should* be complaining about is lack of *talent*,
> > Carl.
>
> Hm. That could be why I have so much trouble finding comics I like.
>
> (What I should *really* be complaining about is the outrageously high
> cost of comics.)
You have a point there, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were quite costly
things to produce in the first place.
> >Taste and morals have very little to do with it. Judge comic
> > art within the context of the medium.
>
> Can't. I judge it within the context of life, because that's where it
> exists. Situational ethics is for the birds.
This has nothing to do with situational ethics. Criticism about any art form
should be done primarily within the context of the medium. Otherwise you're
comparing apples an oranges. However, we're really not disagreeing with one
another here Carl. The judgements you're making are personal ones, not critical
ones (critical in the sense of "art critic").
> > I agree that better stories don't need to rely on bad art, or shoddy
> > plots. But "taste" and "morality" are essentially personal notions,
> > and shouldn't really have a part in any kind of critical
> > appreciation of art of any sort.
>
> I'm not criticizing the art, I'm criticizing the choice of subject
> matter. Specifically, I'm criticizing the *artist* and his *employer*
> for choosing to create this art.
We need to clarify our use of words here. When I refer to "critical
appreciation" or "critical analysis" of comics, I mean
discussing/evaluating/describing their relative worth/impact/meaning as an art
form. It appears to me, that when you use the term "criticizing", you mean
"forming personal objections to". That's fine, but then we're really talking
about apples and oranges. Which was kind of my point in the first place. I'm
sorry if I wasn't clear enough on that point.
> > That doesn't mean that taste and morality are useless -- far from
> > it. But slamming CNM, or Image comics, or other similar things,
> > because you find their depiction of humans "immoral" is a *far*
> > different thing from slamming them because they're simply shoddy
> > artistically.
>
> Yes, it is.
Good. It would seem then, that we both realise we're talking about two different
responses to the same subject matter. One personal, and one critical.
> But I'm not concerned with their skill in portraying what
> they attempt to portray... I'm concerned with *what* they're
> attempting to portray. Skillfully or poorly executed, pornography is
> still pornography.
I take issue with this. I disagree that pornography can ever be "skillfully"
executed. The minute pornography involves "skillful" execution, it stops being
pornography and starts being a legitimate medium -- erotica, high fantasy, genre
fiction, film noir, etc, etc. Pornography is, defacto, hack art with poor
execution. And while there are comics available today which I would consider
pornographic (in that they seek only to stimulate basic viscearl reactions in
their readership, whether sexual, violent, whatever), I would by no means
instantly categorise a comic as pronographic simply because it has the odd bit
of boob-art in it.
Which seems to be what you're doing. I think *that's* where we disagree. You
*seem* to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the odd bit of boob-art
instantly makes something "offensive" or "pornographic". *I'm* arguing that the
odd bit of boob-art does little more than lower the artisitc quality of the
medium, although it can *lead* to pornography.
> (Not to imply that I put comics anywhere near the level of hardcore
> pornography, but I'd enjoy comics more if they left out the
> offensive "cheesecake".)
That's a fair enough personal observation, but I still maintain that there's a
far cry from "I won't enjoy this comic because of the boob-art in it" to "This
comic is pornographic or immoral because it has boob-art in it". In the end, I
suspect we agree with each other, and we're just talking around the issue.
By the way, Carl, I wonder what you make of comics like "Kabuki" where it's
obvious that the artist is depicting at-times fetishistic and/or erotic
material, but where (a) that's not really the point of the story much, and (b)
the art is of a quality and realism that brings it above the level of
silly-Liefield-chick-with-bikini. I don't care much for Kabuki myself, as I find
it rather pretentious, but how do you approach books like this that are
obviously intended to "deal with mature subject matter", etc, etc?
Did you find "Sandman" immoral, for example, or "V for Vendetta", or "Golden
Age"?
Just curious...
James Nicoll
In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.98061...@jasper.southwind.net>,
>
>> Never let this guy judge an art exibit that has any nudity or stray from the
>> norm of human average.
>
>Me? The human body is a beautiful creation. I have no problems when
>it is displayed for the purpose of art.
>
>But unlike you, I see that there are differences in intent when
>displaying the human body. Comic books (in general) do not display
>the female body for the purpose of art or even story, they display it
>for the purpose of enticement, to sell their product to people who
>enjoy being enticed by sexual displays. While on an entirely
>different scale, it's essentially what Playboy does, except Playboy
>doesn't deny what they're doing.
Playboy does it will more skill as well: in the 1960s when
they airbrushed the models the resulting pictures were unlikely but
within the possible range of human anatomy. Dunno if they do that
these days since I haven't read PB since it broke $3.00 an issue.
Compare that to plastic-man spine twisting poses in CNM.
--
"Bad nun. No rosary."
swru...@compuserve.com
In article <6mbcpm$bgt$2...@news.infinex.com>,
ro...@infinex.com (Brian Wong) wrote:
>
> : Carl D. Cravens <cra...@southwind.net> wrote:
> : : A woman in a bikini isn't. A woman in a bikini displayed for sexual
> : : enticement is.
>
> Ok. Why?
>
> What's so morally objectionable about expressing sexuality. Especially
> when it's in such an extremely mild form.
> It's not like superheroine's are depicted as weak, stupid, and in need
> of help by 'superior males'... They're ussually very potent figures.
Don't forget "submissive" to toss a little current events of a
religious/morality nature in.
Chris Paladino
Hero Games wrote:
> Champions: The New Millennium has been the most successful Champions product
> in the last 9 years, since the release of the 4th Edition rules in 1989. The
Correct me if I'm wrong (no sarcasm here), isn't C:NM pretty much the only
MAJOR thing to come out for Champs in the last 9 years? I mean, the BBB sold
well, and after that there were only kinda sourcebook types right? C:NM was a
new product from a company who hadn't released anything MAJOR in 9 years... That
alone could have accounted for some sales?
Brian Wong
:> me. Why would you want to repel potential buyers by having questionable
: material
: Because of several reasons...
: 1> by the time you eliminated all the stuff that "potential buyers" might
: consider or do consider questionable... you have little left except maybe
: some archie comix. Frankly i would find bland art (or bland stories or
I've seen lots of well built women in bikini's in Archie titles. :)
: 2> The RPG IS SUPPOSED to be about roleplaying comix. its rules and setting
: and art need to reflect that. Those poses and breasts are rife thru the
: comics.
As are their male equivalents, to be honest. Why just single out the
women?
: If the goals or the limits of your product stray from marketability and sourc
: too far and into all these PC areas, you dont really end up with much.
Yep. Lets take this in reverse and imagine we 'sexed it up' a bit...
If we had nudie pics and x-rated scenes throughout the book we'd have the
same problems as if we "puritanized" it. It frankly wouldn't sell well and
would got lots of 'what the hell is this?' comments.
: Its fine and easy to make these broad brush statements about breasts or
: smoking, but in doing so you lay the exact same foundation for things you
: might think "part of the genre" but your neighbor finds offensive.
True.
: From the comix i read, XMen, i see those poses when i think of the
: genre.Sorry but the spinebreaker double takes of the babes were there. Do a
: comix rpg pretending to emulate those but leave out all the sex, and its as
: constrained as tv sitcoms.
Frankly, it's not just in those kinds of titles. You'll find it in
Astro City, Impulse, Archie, etc...
It's the nature of making something seem bigger than life.
: Easy, visuals of the npcs. I actually use modified versions of npcs if they
: fit my needs. Amazingly most of the ctnm characters are so detailed and
: intertwined, i needed little or no revision. The visuals help. When the
: players go "WOW" it usually helps set he scene.
Exactly. That's the whole intention.
:>> Again, I simply fall onto the balance of make the art match the rpg genre
:> And that's fine. That's what most of us want. Just dont' offend us in the
:> process.
: Well, if you are offended by something that part of the genre, i do not agree
: withn that sentiment. Maybe produce a Vanilla Hero supplement with no guns, no
: breasts, no smoking, no language too foul, no racist villains, no sexist
: characters, no homosexual or anti homosexual characters...
No magic characters, no religious characters, no non religious
characters, no mixed raced characters...
Hmm... Not much left after we finish this is there?
: now maybe you find only a few of these offensive but as many people find the
: others. Do YOU REALLY WANT HERO to adopt a "drop all questionable
: art/material" policy or just a "drop stuff objectionable to me" policy.
: Again i say, make the art fit the source.
Exactly.
Hero Games
<<Correct me if I'm wrong (no sarcasm here), isn't C:NM pretty much the only
MAJOR thing to come out for Champs in the last 9 years? I mean, the BBB sold
well, and after that there were only kinda sourcebook types right? C:NM was a
new product from a company who hadn't released anything MAJOR in 9 years...
That
alone could have accounted for some sales?>>
You are wrong. We had more than 60 products released since 1989, including
major releases such as Fantasy Hero, Dark Champions, Champions Universe, Cyber
Hero, Horror Hero, Ultimate Martial Artist, Ninja Hero, and others.
So Champions: The New Millennium sales do represent an important sales
milestone, particularly if you allow for the overall decline in sales
experienced by the industry in the last 5-6 years. With that factored in,
Champions: The New Millennium becomes even more successful.
swru...@compuserve.com
In article <89819152...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> Compare that to plastic-man spine twisting poses in CNM.
and to the same poses in xmen titles over YEARS or decades and to same in amny
other titles. Its not something CtNM pulled out of a hat, its something comics
have ben doing for decades. Its, imo, as relevent as the silly spandex.
It genre
Chris Paladino
Hero Games wrote:
> You are wrong. We had more than 60 products released since 1989, including
> major releases such as Fantasy Hero, Dark Champions, Champions Universe, Cyber
> Hero, Horror Hero, Ultimate Martial Artist, Ninja Hero, and others.
Well, Fantasy, Horror, Cyber, etc... Non of that was really Super heroic...
So, yeah, you could count that in with HERO games, but I'm not so sure if you
could include that with MAJOR releases for Champions. As far as Dark Champs, that
was a good book. Lots of good info in it. Champions Universe? No idea what that
was. So pretty much yes, C:NM did a TON of sales (I'm assuming), but for me at
least, that was the only thing close to major that came out since the BBB. Yeah,
I bought adventures, and some sourcebooks, but nothing "NEW" (IMHO) till C:NM.
> experienced by the industry in the last 5-6 years. With that factored in,
> Champions: The New Millennium becomes even more successful.
NOTE: I'm not trying to deter the fact that C:NM has been a sucessfull
product for HERO...
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
swru...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
> In article <89819152...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
> jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> > Compare that to plastic-man spine twisting poses in CNM.
>
> and to the same poses in xmen titles over YEARS or decades and to same in amny
> other titles. Its not something CtNM pulled out of a hat, its something comics
> have ben doing for decades. Its, imo, as relevent as the silly spandex.
>
> It genre
Granted, but it's a subset of genre that some of us have a heavy
aversion too.
Soon to be a similar subset of gaming?
--
Danke,
Rich
(To respond by email remove the letters BLOCK from my address.)
Ray
Carl D. Cravens <cra...@southwind.net> wrote in article
<Pine.BSI.3.96.98061...@jasper.southwind.net>...
> On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 swru...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
>
> But these aren't present in the actual *play* of the game, are they?
>
> Bustalina
>
> Bust Size: 42 DD
> Waist: 20"
> Hips: 34"
> Powers: Flys fast, punches hard
> Special skills: Spine twister, able to display both breasts and
> buttocks to the "camera" at the same time.
>
> GM: Okay, you've punched the villain and he flys half a block. He's
> out!
> Bustalina: Okay, I've got a second, so I'll do my spine-twister thing
> make sure the reader gets a good view of both my impressive tits
> and ass at the same time.
> GM: Great!
>
Actually, this might be a good place to start running a Comedy Superhero
campaign. Something along the lines of THE TICK, but give the
heroes/heroines fantasticly unproportional bodies with back-breaking poses
special skills. :-)
If the above player did this in my campaign, I would chuckle and probably
give him/her a couple of extra xps for the laugh.
Ray
James Nicoll
In article <358A7A...@erBLOCKols.com>,
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr. <rich...@erBLOCKols.com> wrote:
>swru...@compuserve.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <89819152...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
>> jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
>> > Compare that to plastic-man spine twisting poses in CNM.
>>
>> and to the same poses in xmen titles over YEARS or decades and to same in amny
>> other titles. Its not something CtNM pulled out of a hat, its something comics
>> have ben doing for decades. Its, imo, as relevent as the silly spandex.
>>
>> It genre
>
>Granted, but it's a subset of genre that some of us have a heavy
>aversion too.
>
>Soon to be a similar subset of gaming?
And publishing: Marvel is in bankrupcy and almost $1B in debt
thanks to a previous owner. Everyone in NorAm pretty much is subject to
sales contractions of 15% a year. Compare that to Japan's or France's
comics industries.
James Nicoll
Michele Ellington
> > Let me go out on a limb...here, there are times when a woman in a bikini
> > isn't displayed for sexual enticement?
I can't think of a circumstance except an effort to sell a bikini
when a woman might be "displayed" in a bikini without sexual
enticement being at least part of the intent. Arguably, the
reason they put "sexy" women in even the bikini ads to sell bikinis to
women, might be considered a sort of vicarious sexual enticement,
since the implicit message is "buy our product and you too can attract
guys (or a particular guy) by looking like this woman." When they drape
a half clad model on top of a car to sell the car to the man, they
are implying, "buy our product and you will have sex with a beautiful
model". When they drape a bikini over an airbrushed barbie-doll
model in an effort to sell me a bikini, they are saying, "buy
our product and you will have sex like a beautiful model". I
use my Fredericks catalog to draw superchicks for Champions. I
use my catalog from Walmart (who uses regular employees as models)
to see what real people look like in clothing.
For me it isn't a matter of moraility, it is an insult to my intelligence
as a consumer to push unrelated sex objects instead of selling the product
on its merits. A local tire company runs late night ads with swimsuit
clad local girls sprawled on top of piles of tires and climbing
up into big trucks. They don't say much about why I should shop there,
nor do they say much about why guys should shop there. It's like they
think ya'll guys are going to come sniffing around there after those
women and buy a tire to make up a reason to hang around or something.
More insulting to you all than to us, I think. There's usually a certain
amount of whimsy yet in men presented as sex objects for women, like
the famous Lucky Vanous Coke commercial. We're still pretty self
conscious about admitting we see guys like that. The gritty, no frills
sex object mentality that coarsens a lot of the sexual fantasies presented
for men isn't widely seen in the much rarer sex fantasy offered to we women.
> An attractive woman is attractive no matter what she wears. So if she
> wears non-revealing clothing in public and men find her sexually
> attractive, there's nothing immoral in her actions because it was
> never her intent to entice. If she wears a bikini to the
> beach... well, why is she wearing it? Because she's attractive and
> likes to display her body, but isn't interested in attracting someone
> sexually? Aside from maybe the sin of pride, I'm not sure that there
> is anything wrong with that. I certainly enjoy seeing her, and I can
> admire God's (and tummy crunch's) handiwork without being sexually
> attracted to her. Like I said, immorality is in the intent. (And if
> I obsessed about her sexually, my own thoughts would be immoral, but
> that wouldn't necessarily be her fault.)
I agree, but we seem to be in the minority. For me there is a
distinct difference between being sexually attracted to someone
and having an aesthetic appreciation for their appearance or
the way they move. Rarely do I feel a strong physical draw to
someone who is just passing by, but my eye is frequently captured
by a perfect pair of eyes, beautiful hands, an exceptionally
graceful stride. Gender is irrelevant to this appreciation, because
it isn't about sex. I guess it's because I'm an artist, at least
partly. But a well made creature of any gender or species is a
wonder to behold, like a sunset or an ocean view. When we become
so focused on sex that we forget there is beauty beyond that,
we lose a great deal.
> Do remember that immorality isn't a black and white issue. Playboy's
> actions are more immoral than the producers of Baywatch, but I still
> consider Baywatch to fall into the same category... women displayed
> for the purpose of selling a product.
I don't even know if it's immoral, it depends on your moral standpoint.
I see Baywatch as more acceptable, because it's an equal opportunity ogle.
They have attractive half clad members of both sexes on display, and
the camera spends time stroking them all. I have enough (perhaps
misplaced) respect for our species to believe that looking at airbrushed
barbie and ken dolls with their surgically and hormonally augmented
figures will not cause us to forget that these are fantasies, and we
must share our lives with real, 3D people. I'm just looking for
equal opportunity ogling here. For every movie with a guy in his
mid fifties hooking up with a girl in her mid twenties, I want a
movie with a fifty something woman hooking up with a twenty something
boy. Okay, for every three. Every ten? Can anybody name even
one where they ended up together and happy? I can't off the top
of my head.
Anyway, that's one woman's perspective. As long as I can have
Hercules, ya'll are welcome to Xena and her little sidekick.
S Perrin
In article <6mh45u$k...@rgfn3.epcc.edu>, ad...@rgfn.epcc.edu (Michele Ellington)
writes:
>
>Anyway, that's one woman's perspective. As long as I can have
>Hercules, ya'll are welcome to Xena and her little sidekick.
>
>
>
What, no lust for Iolas?
Steve Perrin
J.J.
Carl D. Cravens wrote:
> On 16 Jun 1998, Brian Wong wrote:
>
> > You could, you could also buy all the copies you can and take them to
> > the next book burning at the local church. But it won't get you far.
>
> Not if you want the book to be usable. This isn't about book-burning,
> this is about a product I want that has art I don't.
>
> > Or perhaps you're just saying you're not some prude who can't handle
> > their own sexuality.
>
> Rook, it's not about sexuality, it's about tasteless art. There's a
> huge difference. I'm a monogamous, married Christian. I don't *want*
> to look at sexually-stimulating materials, I already *have* the
> stimulation I need. I don't want impossible sexual fantasy impinging
> on my world; I don't want even fantasy temptation. I want to remain
> faithful to my wife.
>
> Unfortunately, I'd like to play a game which contains artwork which I
> find morally offensive. Not intimidating or arrousing feelings I'm
> afraid of, but simply *offensive*. Please do not confuse being afraid
> of ones own sexuality with upholding a moral value. They are totally
> different things.
>
> I can't imagine a potential customer refusing to buy a product because
> it *doesn't* have busty comic babes in it. I *know of* potential
> customers who refused to buy a product because it *did*.
>
If you can be turned from your wife and Christian lifestyle because of a little
cartoony image (which, btw, emulates the comics the game is trying to emulate) then
I agree... you had best stay away from any and all such materials. Save yourself
from the temptation, the world (and gaming system) will get on without you. I'm
curious as to your wife's opinion of the incredibly, impossibly well built handsome
cartoony men...including characters such as Seeker with that bare chest (which is
just as much impractical as a battle bikini or whatever).
The artwork was meant to reflect the style of comics read by the target audience.
Older gamers are already gamers... the new blood needs to be drawn to, in this
case, art and style which is popular with said audience. The target audience wasn't
you...obviously so.
Stick to your right of ultimate consumer veto. Don't buy it. If you are interested
in the game, download the free version (I haven't done it, myself...but if there's
artwork, I'm sure you can blot it out faster than you'll suffer any temptations or
moral dilemmas).
> > I can't understand why Americans are so afraid of sexuality, yet splash
> > it about everywhere. Nor why erotica for women (Fabio, Chip'N'Dale dancers,
> > romance novel art (and book content), WW's WoD art, etc.) is perfectly
> > acceptable; yet an attractive woman in the art for something which has long
> > held that as it's tradition is not.
>
> There's a difference between a picture of an attractive woman and a
> picture of an impossibly attractive (if one can call DD-cup and 10"
> waist attractive) woman in a nearly-impossible spine-twisting pose
> meant to display her in a sexually-enticing manner.
I personally don't find that sexually enticing, at all. You must be a breast man...
Personally, when I see most of that sort of art I think "Man, what a spinal
problem. That poor woman."
J.J.
J.J.
swru...@compuserve.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.98061...@jasper.southwind.net>,
> "Carl D. Cravens" <cra...@southwind.net> wrote:
>
> > Not if you want the book to be usable. This isn't about book-burning,
> > this is about a product I want that has art I don't.
Hell, this describes most of the ICE run of Hero product. Fredd Gorhamm and Glen
Johnson (brrr). Sorry, guys, you two really put me off.
Sbennie
>>We can't shape our society based on the views of moral extremists; which is
frankly what the people objecting are.
Who defines what an extremist is and what he isn't Rook? It's real easy to
label someone ("extremist", "politically correct" "radical" "fundamentalist"
"liberal", etc.) ) and not give their ideas and opinions a fair hearing. This
is unacceptable to me, whether I agree with the expressed views or not.
Of course it's arguable that the extremes (moral and otherwise) do shape the
society more than the mainstream, because extremists are more likely to be the
agents of change and they produce work that's more noticeable than the
mainstream. But that's neither here nor there.
As for CNM's artwork, I find it offensive. I accept that the superhero genre
has heavily erotic subtexts, and I have fun with that subtext in my games. My
objections to CNM art are twofold.
First, the poses of the female characters in CNM are blatantly erotic, more
remisincent of pornography than mainstream superhero comics that I enjoy, and
suggestive of the art in comic titles that I despise and which I believe has
contributed to the genre's downfall.
Second, the illos portray characters at complete odds with their listed
personalities. If it's appropriate for a character to pose like she's doing the
SI swimsuit issue video, show it. If it isn't, don't. Don't titilate at the
expense of character.
The objections to the art in CNM were not enough to dissuade me from being
interested in the line, and Steve is correct to cite improvements in Bay City's
art (which is a wonderful product in general). Sometimes you have to do a
"that was then, this is now" check and let the old wounds heal. It's something
gamers don't do often enough; we can hold onto our opinions longer than a pit
bull on filet mignon..
Scott Bennie
("The human body is a beautiful thing. But I wouldn't want to see 75% of the
world's population naked. Hmm, maybe it isn't as beautiful as I thought.")
pereg...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6m6dbj$sb6$2...@news.usit.net>,
##Randall <rewr...@use.usit.net> wrote:
>
> Brian Wong <ro...@infinex.com> wrote:
> : They're supposed to be grand and epic. In action and look.
> : So they're either very comely, or dark and mysterious, or wild and
> : powerful. Or some combination. Never normal.
> : Frankly the women had better be sensuous. The men had better be
> : powerfully built. Otherwise we're not capturing the feel right.
>
> Amen, preach it brother. Lest we forget and abandon the true wonder and
> roots of the comicbook tradition. Eisner and Inger had their share of
> cheesecake and the golden age was ripe with sexuality (Wonder Woman lost
> her powers when bound by a man...hmmmm). But the Silver Age was gelded,
> thanks to the CCA. Now i prefer Matt Baker's Phantom Lady to Jim Lee's
> Ladydeathkillerstrike , but that is just a matter of taste.
>
> See the problem most folks are saying about the art is that its "Image"
> style, had good ol' George Perez drew like he did the Teen Titans in the
> early 80's ....then they would be probably no fuss. (and you don't get
> much sexier than that , with skimpy costumes, hottub scenes)
>
> Its a matter of style, but you sound better if you take the moral high
> ground.
>
> Randall
>
>
My take on comic art: it's there to tell the story. Perez, on Teen Titans,
did just that. (Hell, Perez, on Avengers today, is doing the same.) The art
in question, as shown in C:NM and current comics, does not (to me) tell the
story; it's there for other purposes. Back when Bill Sienkeivetch (I KNOW I
spelled it wrong! :}) had his much-heralded run on New Mutants, I DROPPED the
title, because, to me, his art DETRACTED from the story rather than telling
it or (as the best art does) adding to it.
My take on C:NM? Nothing to do with the art. The UNIVERSE doesn't do it for
me. There's nothing there that I look at and say "I want to use that in a
campaign".
pereg...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6m9js5$1rr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
swru...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
> In article <6m9ao9$rg4$1...@news.usit.net>,
> ##Randall <rewr...@use.usit.net> wrote:
> >
> > $438$2...@news.infinex.com>
> <Pine.BSI.3.96.98061...@jasper.southwind.net>
> > Organization:
> > : enticement is.
> >
> > isn't displayed for sexual enticement?
>
> roseanne barr
>
ACK! I just finished EATING, for Pete's sake! Gaahhhh.
CpSpalding
<< I agree totally... Steve Peterson went for the whole "Image is hot right
now, so let's steal the art style!" package. The artist, if I remember
correctly, was the former artist for Image's StormWatch after all.... goes
to figure he would make the women scantily-clad, and with deformed spines.>>
I have to admit many of my biggest problems with the gaem have to do with the
art. The problem is that it so hard to find the rules in the rules with the
glossy Image-style art everywhere. I really hate that style for lack of a
better word, but even more importantly I have never seen a game book with a
poorer layout.
----------------------------------------
In 1992, we had The Death of Superman kicking off the gimmick era, Youngblood
#1 kicking off the Image era, the star of the Wizard era, and DC axing a
profitable JSA series kicking off the Logan's Run era at DC.
CpSpalding
<<>
>Personally i think golden age and earlier where you make sure and cover the
>women folks unmentionable parts might just do good for those PC types out
>there. :-)
Hmm, have you ever seen any Matt Baker Golden Age art?
StornC
I thought I would drop my few cents into this conflagaration. I'm one of
the old guard. My name is Storn Cook and I used to do art for the older hero
products. Since I am an artist... I thought you might like to hear a couple of
my thoughts.
1) C:NM art style is not one that I can do. It isn't that I don't like
some practitioners of the Image style... I do. But my sensibilities lie
elsewhere. I have never copied anyone else style. But I seem to be striving
for Hal Foster, Wally Wood as oppossed to Kirby, Steranko, Jim Lee, or Walter
Simonson. It is just where my natural direction takes me.
But quite a bit of C:NM does seem derivitive of the worst aspects of Jim Lee
and Liefeld. Which is what happens when one TRYS to copy another's style...
you pick up all the worst mistakes and generally miss the "good" stuff.
I think Travis Charest is the best over at Image, but I really like Jim
Lee, Bryan Hitch and the guy who does WitchBlade. Can't remember the name.
2) Sexuality is important and acceptable IN CONTEXT! If Heroine X is
suppossed to be a knock-out and Heroine Y is not... then they should be
portrayed that way. Yes, comics are about exaggeration, idolation of the human
physique. But C:NM art just doesn't have the execution down. ]
The Witchblade artist draws some of the most blatant cheesecake poses
around... but there is a certain "something", a vulnerabilty to Sara and the
other women. Adam Hughes draws the hugest breasts in comics, but it is done
with such humor, such a nudge and a wink... that one can accept it. Both
mentioned artists are also masters at drawing all the other things in comics
such as backgrounds, normal people, cars, equipment etc.
However, most of the art in C:NM is not very good. The backgrounds
don't hold up, the faces are too similar/ not enuff personality. Just my
opinion. It is trying too hard to capture the Image style. It doesn't have
that certain "something"
--storn
light...@home.com
One thing I have noticed on this thread is the fact a lot of the 'Old
Guard', shall we say, have problems with the artwork. You can toss myself
into the mix on this.
For me, the cheesecake poses were reminicent of those fake porn pictures out
there, where someone slaps another person's head on top of a Playboy model's
body and claims it is the real person. The art also fell short when it was
matched to various characters. Solitaire being a blonde bombshell was not
even close to the essence of that character's conception. The text even
contradicts the picture.
To me, it seems the artists of C:NM not only went towards Image, but also
into the realm of comics like FemForce and other off-brand comics. These
comics are typically filled with two things - t&a and extreme violence.
Lastly, to those who try to ridicule the objections which are being brought
up on the artwork -- I wonder just how many parents would object to their
kids buying the product because of the artwork? Especially considering the
market C:NM is aimed for...
--David West
one of dem ol' former Hero freelancer dudes
S Perrin
In article <aV_j1.1935$j93.18...@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>,
light...@home.com writes:
>
>To me, it seems the artists of C:NM not only went towards Image, but also
>into the realm of comics like FemForce and other off-brand comics. These
>comics are typically filled with two things - t&a and extreme violence.
>
>
With the difference that the FemForce artists understand how to make
overendowed women attractive, rather than grotesque. As old guard as I am (and
you don't get much older) I have no problems with cheesecake. I do have
problems with grotesques.
Steve Perrin
Mike sama
>
>> You have got to be kidding. Your worried about women in small costumes
>> with exagerated breasts. My god man have you thought about it. We're
>> talking about heroes who fly around wearing only bathing suits, lifting
>> cars, firing lasers out of their eyes, and saving the world from certain
>> doom. ITS A FANTASY. Once upon a time, comics had bad artists. And,
>> as artists got better, the art got more intricate. Its moved from being
>> just a fantasy story to fantastical art work. That is what comics are
>> about. Yes the female bodies are unrealistic, but so are the powers
>> they have. Don't complain about un-realism in an unrealistic setting.
>> Thats like saying your not going to watch tv because the shows are
>> unrealistic. The goal is entertainment. Get Real!!
>
>Fantastic powers is what the genre is about. Fantastic bodies isn't.
>You can have superheroes without tasteless art. I'm not complaining
>about unrealism, I'm complaining about lack of taste and lack of
>morals.
>
>
Lack of taste I can see, lack of morals is quite annother thing entirely. I
didn't buy C:TNM for it's cover art (on of my first quotes was "oh my god, look
what they did to Solitare")
The fact of the matter is that I wanted the new system, not the art (altjhough
I had a few problems with the system to.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Sama the lord of his realm has spoken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike sama
> And publishing: Marvel is in bankrupcy and almost $1B in debt
>thanks to a previous owner. Everyone in NorAm pretty much is subject to
>sales contractions of 15% a year. Compare that to Japan's or France's
>comics industries.
Don't know about french but Japanese comics are just as bad when it comes down
to not quite human proportions, only it's their drawing conventions and they
all just seem to follow it. Besides you notice about 1/2 to 2/3 of all
charaters are beutiful 14-17 year olds in short Fukus.
DShomshak
In article <199806231359...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, sto...@aol.com
(StornC) writes:
>Both
>mentioned artists are also masters at drawing all the other things in comics
>such as backgrounds, normal people, cars, equipment etc.
> However, most of the art in C:NM is not very good. The backgrounds
>don't hold up, the faces are too similar/ not enuff personality. Just my
>opinion. It is trying too hard to capture the Image style. It doesn't have
>that certain "something"
Yes! One of my friends who attended a talk Jim Shooter gave on comic art had
the same comment. There are a lot of people out there who can draw gorgeous
bodies posing...and not much else. No normal people, clothing, expressions or
objects. Or as he said, you can see they dre and umbrella, and they drew a
wall, but they didn't really draw an umbrella leaning against a wall -- it all
just sort of hovers in space.
I'm so glad that you and Greg Smith did the artwork for my "Creatures of the
Night: Horror Enemies" and "Ultimate Super-Mage." You did the demons in
CotN:HE exactly right: Mephistopheles looked suave, classy and corrupt; the
gluttony demons were wonderfully flabby and sullen; and Aratron was just as
spooky as I'd imagined. And I'm also glad that I finally got a chance to
publically compliment you.
Dean Shomshak
**********************************************************
Send e-mail responses to DSho...@juno.com.
The AOL address is a spam trap.
**********************************************************
Brian Wong
light...@home.com wrote:
: One thing I have noticed on this thread is the fact a lot of the 'Old
: Guard', shall we say, have problems with the artwork. You can toss myself
: into the mix on this.
Been at Champions since 1985, and I had no trouble dealing with what
is and has been the norm in comic book art since at least 1980.
: For me, the cheesecake poses were reminicent of those fake porn pictures out
: there, where someone slaps another person's head on top of a Playboy model's
: body and claims it is the real person. The art also fell short when it was
I wouldn't go that far. It was hardly cheesecake at all. If you
want to see cheesecake, look at AC Comic's Femforce or the RPG based on it
called Superbabes. You'll see the diference.
: matched to various characters. Solitaire being a blonde bombshell was not
: even close to the essence of that character's conception. The text even
: contradicts the picture.
I didn't get that impression. But even if that's the case, look at
your average super woman in the comics. Frankly they are drawn to look good;
even when it's not vital that they be so.
: To me, it seems the artists of C:NM not only went towards Image, but also
: into the realm of comics like FemForce and other off-brand comics. These
: comics are typically filled with two things - t&a and extreme violence.
Ok, you're familiar with it. Now I can hardly see how you could draw
a comparison between such difering styles.
: Lastly, to those who try to ridicule the objections which are being brought
: up on the artwork -- I wonder just how many parents would object to their
: kids buying the product because of the artwork? Especially considering the
: market C:NM is aimed for...
Likely only a few in the bible belt. There was nothing overtly sexual
in the book that I could find. But I don't spend my life searching for such
things out of response to some great paranoia that they bad people are coming to
get me like some seem to do.
It was just as tame, if not tamer, than the average comic book.
Brian Wong
: >To me, it seems the artists of C:NM not only went towards Image, but also
: >into the realm of comics like FemForce and other off-brand comics. These
: >comics are typically filled with two things - t&a and extreme violence.
: With the difference that the FemForce artists understand how to make
: overendowed women attractive, rather than grotesque. As old guard as I am (and
: you don't get much older) I have no problems with cheesecake. I do have
: problems with grotesques.
: Steve Perrin
I dunno. I found the FemForce characters to be somewhat mishappen.
My opinion on the C:NM art is that it was poorly drawn, but not scadelous or
pornagraphic.
I'll flame it all you want for drawing skill in a professional
publication. Though I have seen much much worse (Robot Gladiators and the
1st edition of Mekton win the booby prize here if I'm judge).
However I will defend it to the hilt on accusations of it being morally
objectionable.
Eric Tolle
mike...@aol.com (Mike sama) wrote:
>> And publishing: Marvel is in bankrupcy and almost $1B in debt
>>thanks to a previous owner. Everyone in NorAm pretty much is subject to
>>sales contractions of 15% a year. Compare that to Japan's or France's
>>comics industries.
>Don't know about french but Japanese comics are just as bad when it comes down
>to not quite human proportions, only it's their drawing conventions and they
I woulden't call it"bad"-but I would agree that it's a drawing
convention-which far from all manga artists follow. The creators of
"Sanctuary" and "Diary of a Fishing Fool" follow very different
conventions.
>all just seem to follow it. Besides you notice about 1/2 to 2/3 of all
>charaters are beutiful 14-17 year olds in short Fukus.
Really? I hadn't noticed that about the characters in Crayon
Shin-Chan or Sazae-San, or Hotel.
Of course for the manga that have been translated, what you said rings
true-but those are mostly Shonen comics that have a target audience of
teanage boys. In other words, the same demographic American comics
are aimed for.
redw...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35865954...@En.com>,
Chris Paladino <Di...@En.com> wrote:
(SNIP)
> Nope. And maybe (just maybe) if you buy the book in the first place,
> your sending a "It's OK, I'll buy it anyway and just censor it myself"
> message to the company. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> --
> Chris Paladino
>
> Di...@En.com
> CPal...@Jcvaxa.jcu.edu
> http://www.en.com/users/dino/index.html
>
>
(Startled gasp) WHAT A CONCEPT! Deciding what YOU want to veiw with out
limiting what others can veiw!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Chris Paladino
redw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> (Startled gasp) WHAT A CONCEPT! Deciding what YOU want to veiw with out
> limiting what others can veiw!
I'm so sorry if I'm limiting your daily dose of cleavage. If it bothers
you that much, go read Gen 13 or something.
I am not limiting what others can view. I'm just trying to make it known
that not only is there no need for that, but it isn't wanted, and it stopping
potential customers from buying it. I'm sure if the cleavage ain't there,
you'll still buy the stuff right? Fine. If it is there, I won't. That's all.
StornC
>>>I'm so glad that you and Greg Smith did the artwork for my "Creatures of the
Night: Horror Enemies" and "Ultimate Super-Mage." You did the demons in
CotN:HE exactly right: Mephistopheles looked suave, classy and corrupt; the
gluttony demons were wonderfully flabby and sullen; and Aratron was just as
spooky as I'd imagined. And I'm also glad that I finally got a chance to
publically compliment you.<<<<
Yikes... I was very reluctant to get involved in this thread, because I
wassn't looking for any validation of my own artwork over the years.
But thank you....
But "years" should be stressed. My artwork has never been slick or by
any means, great. I have always strived to get better and better. I think I
have. I wish I had the chance to do every Hero book that I ever did all over
again.
Hero was a good format for a lot of growth and experimentation and I'm
blessed to have had the opportunity.
And let me state that I don't want to knock other artists directly. That
my statements were aimed at the intention of this particular style called
"Image". I hhope that the artists of the New Millenium using these products as
a springboard to bigger and better things.
--storn
redw...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35981D3E...@En.com>,
My apologys for the sarcasim. The point I'm trying to get across here is
that the art is not offending US (as in all who buy the product) it is
offending YOU (as in the handful of people complaining). Quite frankly I
don't give a rats rear end WHAT the art looks like, I play the game not the
pictures. Some may like the art some may not, personaly it seems prety ugly
to me but I don't find it in any way immoral, or as one person over reacted
pornographic. My point was that there may be some who DO like the art and
you shouldn't deprive them of it when you can exercise your right to censor
yourself instead of censoring the company.
P.S. You may not be able to rip the pictures out but a black marker does
wonders . . .