Invincible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey, look at Japan. In Japan they literally block out genitalia in their pornography.
 
Thats just it, the regulations are what the regulations are. And especially for a smaller company like Image, its really hard to limit your potential customers by slapping an 18+ only label on a title, especially on one that could have mass appeal such as Invincible.
 
What mass appeal? Kids don't read comics anymore. Truth be told, 18+ is your audience.
 
What mass appeal? Kids don't read comics anymore. Truth be told, 18+ is your audience.
That and if a kid picks up a comic it'll mostly come from the big two as their the name brand. At least thats what I did when I first walked into a store. As they have the cartoons. Next I bought Transformers as I knew them from Beast Wars, I moved on to Hellboy as I knew the movie, and as I moved further down the shelfs I saw Savage Dragon which I remember back on USA.
 
I still don't understand how they can get away with so much adult content and violence but they can't show nudity. And I think they should be allowed to show nudity in this book because it is very much an adult book. I probably wouldn't let 15 and under kids reads this book.

One problem I sort of see is that Kirkman feels this book is totally appropriate and fine for kids under 18 and is trying to sell it to them.
That does raise some eyebrows. Despite what Kirkman may feel, Invincible is not an all-ages book. And with so many hits reducing characters' faces to such well rendered bloody hamburger from one issue to the next, the book should be rated 18+. As Anubis said, that's already the comic's audience anyway.
 
Why would your really wanna see nudity in the book anyway? Your on the net and can get free porn. Do you really need hand drawn porn to get your rocks off?
 
Personally, I don't think the comic needs nudity and I don't even really want to see it in the book. But with Kirkman claiming that he can't put nudity in the book because that would be for a more mature readership, while simultaneously being quite proud that his creator-owned property can (and often does) shovel ridiculous levels of blood and gore at us, it's a very flimsy excuse at best, since it's obvious that the comic has been aimed at a more mature audience for some time now.
 
Why would your really wanna see nudity in the book anyway? Your on the net and can get free porn. Do you really need hand drawn porn to get your rocks off?


Well, when the mood strikes. :o

I'm an equal opportunity pervert.
 
Why would your really wanna see nudity in the book anyway? Your on the net and can get free porn. Do you really need hand drawn porn to get your rocks off?
Preacher and Y The Last Man say hello.

Good comic stories can have nudity. Nothing wrong with it.

Well, when the mood strikes.

I'm an equal opportunity pervert.

Well . . . I wouldn't go THAT far.
 
So there's nothing degrading about her skimpy outfits or seeing her just about nearly naked in love scenes?

Why is nudity and people who appreciate the female form, even if its drawn in art bad? Kirkman admitted to having original art like this from Ottley (even if it was slightly facetious).
 
The violence makes the fights realistic and edgy. I can feel the hurt with each panel, and it really gives everything a sense of danger. In other words, it serves the story well.

Peeps just want nudity to see Eve's nips. It would only degrade her character.
Nipples are degrading? Well, chop mine off then. God forbid I should be degraded in such a manner.
 
So you're okay if they start showing Mark's dong?


Didn't have a problem seeing Dr. Manhatten's hairless glowing blue dong, doubt i'd have a problem seeing Mark's. :o (That smile seems....suggestive considering this posts content. )
 
If having nipples is degrading, there must be a special circle of Hell for people with penises. :eek:
 
Well . . . there probably is.

I just can't wrap my head around on if Eve being drawn MORE naked is more degrading than making her an alluring object already is.
 
Yeah, she's already drawn as being naked in certain scenes, only tastefully being covered in specific areas, but if they showed a small fraction more of her skin, it would push it into Degrading territory? Wha-?
 
so everyone went from "how dare that kill eve" to "why cant i see her goods"?
 
It's more of a discussion of how can nudity be considered too much for a comic where a guy can get ripped in half, intestines flung all across the page and what not....but after awhile, everything always comes back to boobs.
 
I do not find nudity or hot comic babes' boobs offensive or degrading.
 
It's more of a discussion of how can nudity be considered too much for a comic where a guy can get ripped in half, intestines flung all across the page and what not....but after awhile, everything always comes back to boobs.
i understand just seems like it went down hill fast to "i want to see eve naked"
 
So I wonder...if the artist of the book made Eve nipple-less...would showing her full chest be okay?
 
So it's not a case of "I want Eve naked now!" more, "How can Kirkman say naked is too much? That makes me want it more :cmad:"
 
Kahoot said:
So it's not a case of "I want Eve naked now!" more, "How can Kirkman say naked is too much? That makes me want it more :cmad:"
Seems to be. When the topic first came up here, I couldn't have cared about seeing any of Eve's naughty bits, but the more it was debated, the more I actually did want to see her funbags just for the sake of saying "See? That's supposed to be more upsetting than showing someone's arm or face bloodily smooshed or ripped apart on-panel? Nipples aren't as a big deal as the disturbing amounts of gore that you guys love so much."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,288
Messages
22,079,714
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"