Rafael Albuquerque's Batgirl #41 Variant Controversy...

[Cain]

For me it has nothing to do with sex. Just betrayal of characterization really. I'll put it to you this way. If there was a Red Hood and the Outlaws variant with Jason cowering on the floor helplessly with tears of horror streaming down his face while The Joker holds a crowbar over him it would've been just as tasteless to me. For the same reason. The character has overcome that trauma ages ago and is beyond being victimized in his current iteration as presented in that book.

 

[Nadal_Fan]

For me it has nothing to do with sex. Just betrayal of characterization really. I'll put it to you this way. If there was a Red Hood and the Outlaws variant with Jason cowering on the floor helplessly with tears of horror streaming down his face while The Joker holds a crowbar over him it would've been just as tasteless to me. For the same reason. The character has overcome that trauma ages ago and is beyond being victimized in his current iteration as presented in that book.

You mean kinda like this:

 

[roach]

and yet no one is saying a thing about this cover which I think is 100% worse...Joker violently beating Robin to death with a crowbar...eye violence evoked with his mask hanging from the end of the crowbar.

 

[Cain]

Is that part of the new variants? I didn't see it and I believe I saw them all. The only "dark" one with horror vibes was the Batgirl joint.

Regardless it may be crass but it's also accurate to a moment in comic book history.

Unlike the Batgirl cover. Which tried to blend a moment in comic book history with present day comic book elements. I think if you had present day Red Hood Jason Todd in the same predicament as he is in that cover you posted and with a victimized look on his face you'd see the reactions that you were expecting from people.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Yeah because she has overcome that trauma and no longer fears The Joker especially not the point that she'd shed tears of horror and seem helpless around him. It just really clashes with the characterization of Batgirl today.

co-sign

Now a small group considers this offensive and DC is going to fold faster than Superman on laundry day? Give me a break.

DC didn't "cave" because a "small group of people found it offensive". They pulled it at the request of the artist, who made the request after learning that threats of violence and harassment were being made against some of the objectors.

In short, idiot fanboys making stupid threats because "muh comics" is why this whole thing blew up in the first place and why those who want one won't be able to get their hands on a copy.

 

[Decepticonus]

I know this is DC and not Marvel, but Ultron has the solution - extinction. Humans just suck.

 

[MadVillainy]

I guess my opinion is biased because I haven't read the new Batgirl. But I really don't see the big deal.
As some have said I don't see a problem with a hero showing vulnerability. And it's also weird that that Robin cover is getting no controversy but this is

 

[Tron Bonne]

It's a good cover, but it just doesn't fit at all with the current direction of the Batgirl book. If this were the Gail Simone New 52 period for the book I think it would have worked, but with the Fletcher/Stewart period, it's just completely out of place.

That works so much better as a cover because it doesn't betray who the character is in her book.

Even though I found the cover to be tasteless because of context myself I liked the original image as a stand alone. Could've even worked as a panel in some grimdark story like Snyder's Death of the Family or something. It just really doesn't gel not only with the rest of the Joker variants from that month but with the tone of the book it's a cover to.

Uh, at what point in time has there ever been some kind of idea that variants had to keep up with the tone of the book? The main cover, sure, but variants have always been something that's just there. Remember when they were doing all those cutesy covers over at Marvel? Or the zombie covers before that? Almost every book had at least one of those, and I can guarantee you it hardily ever matched the tone of the book.

You can use whatever criticism you want to otherwise, but saying that it 'betrays' the tone of the book is incredibly silly considering how variants have always been done in the past.

 

[MadVillainy]

There was that time DC did all of those selfie variants. Pretty sure they didn't convey the tone of the books

 

[Tron Bonne]

Oh yeah, even better recent example.

 

[Cain]

^ yes but it also isn't out of character for the New 52 version of these characters to pose for selfies. So those were overall pretty consistent with the brands they represented.

Uh, at what point in time has there ever been some kind of idea that variants had to keep up with the tone of the book? The main cover, sure, but variants have always been something that's just there. Remember when they were doing all those cutesy covers over at Marvel? Or the zombie covers before that? Almost every book had at least one of those, and I can guarantee you it hardily ever matched the tone of the book.

You can use whatever criticism you want to otherwise, but saying that it 'betrays' the tone of the book is incredibly silly considering how variants have always been done in the past.

Then use a different version (costume and even time period) of Batgirl if you're going to go all nostalgic with it. It's gonna be it's own thing after all.

Don't get mad if it doesn't exactly sit well with fans of that particular version of Batgirl because it's got her all out of context. Even the people who write the book agreed on that and so did Rafael Albuquerque.

Like I said before as a stand alone piece of work in a suitable narrative I don't have any real issues with it. However I also do see how it's tasteless by featuring that particular Batgirl in such an out of character context. That could be jarring to a lot of the readers many of which are new BTW and got into comics thanks to stuff like Batgirl and Harley Quinn recently.

It's actually kinda sad that others don't have the same empathy I do for their concerns cause they can't seem to comprehend that. It's about respecting other type of fans in the community. They have a right to voice concerns too you know. You don't have to agree with them but at least learn to respect them.

"Boo hoo they're sensitive" they say. Well yes. There are sensitive people all over the place maybe being less rude and more thoughtful when approaching them could lead to better communication is how I see it. I'm very thick skinned. But I'm also a born and raised New Yorker who remembers when Time Square wasn't Disney land. I grew up in a different era.

With all that said I could still see why it would bother some 17 year old girl in the mid west somewhere. Once again it was kinda executed in bad taste. I think too many people are forgetting that DC Comics caters to more than just straight males in their 20's and 30's and they're bound to find such extremely dark artwork to be kinda off putting.

 

[Tron Bonne]

^ yes but it also isn't out of character for the New 52 version of these characters to pose for selfies. So those were overall pretty consistent with the brands they represented.

That is beyond stretching

Then use a different version (costume and even time period) of Batgirl if you're going to go all nostalgic with it. It's gonna be it's own thing after all.

Don't get mad if it doesn't exactly sit well with fans of that particular version of Batgirl because it's got her all out of context. Even the people who write the book agreed on that and so did Rafael Albuquerque.

Like I said before as a stand alone I don't have any real issues with it but I do see how it's tasteless by featuring that particular Batgirl in such an out of character context. That could be jarring to a lot of the readers and it's actually kinda sad that others don't have the same empathy I do for their concerns cause they can't seem to comprehend that. It's about respecting other type of fans in the community.

"Boo hoo they're sensitive" they say. Well yes. There are sensitive people all over the place maybe being less rude and more thoughtful when approaching them could lead to better communication is how I see it. I'm very thick skinned. But I'm also a born and raised New Yorker who remembers when Time Square wasn't Disney land. I grew up in a different era.

With all that said I could still see why it would bother some 17 year old girl in the mid west somewhere. Once again it was kinda executed in bad taste. I think too many people are forgetting that DC Comics caters to more than just straight males in their 20's and 30's.

You're mixing what I'm saying up with other things. I really don't have an issue with people who have a problem with the variant. I get it in some ways, even if I don't agree with the criticisms. I'm just pointing how that is very flawed to use the argument that it doesn't gel with the tone of the book, since that has never, at any point in time, been a standard thing that variant covers have strived to do. Hell, with this argument, you basically say that any homage to older covers betrays the tone of the current book and shouldn't be made.

 

[Cain]

That is beyond stretching

How is that stretching when the purpose of the New 52 incarnation of DC characters is to reintroduce them within the sensibilities of the modern 21st century. Selfies are a major part of the 21st century pop culture lexicon.

This isn't supposed to be your father's Superman and Batman anymore.

 

[Tron Bonne]

How is that stretching when the purpose of the New 52 incarnation of DC characters is to reintroduce them within the sensibilities of the modern 21st century. Selfies are a major part of the 21st century pop culture lexicon.

This isn't supposed to be your father's Superman and Batman anymore.

Because goofy selfies don't portray the tone of the books or the characters in a majority of those situations. They are exactly like Zombie covers Marvel did back in the day, goofy fun for a few extra bucks, like variants have always been. Or like the other character variants have done with Flash or Joker. They aren't meant to portray the books or the lines.

And stop putting words in my mouth. Nothing I'm saying is remotely about representation of a superhero for generations or anything of that nature. I don't know what tirade you're trying to tap into, but I'm not part of it.

 

[Cain]

No tirade.

You're just clearly not understanding what I'm talking about and misrepresenting the way I'm approaching this conversation and getting frustrated for no reason.

I said it's consistent with the brands it represent. New 52 Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman etc. those are brands. They're not real people obviously. Yes it doesn't represent the particular tone of any individual book but it still features a version (key word and now it's a tirade) of the character with whom the idea of a selfie wouldn't be out of whack. It's not like it's Golden Age Batman taking a selfie on a cover is what I'm trying to say.

Presenting a confident, competent and self assured Batgirl who now looks at The Joker as more of a nuisance than a creature of nightmare or a trigger of traumatic memories as an incompetent cowering victim of The Joker isn't as consistent. The Killing Joke was almost 30 years ago. The character is way beyond that in 2015.

Even the Gail Simone written Batgirl from 2011 - 2013 would've made more sense for use in this cover (she's still New 52 branded too) because that particular iteration of the book dwelled on TKJ trauma and milked any emotional resonance it may have had to the point that those moments no longer really resonated.

 

[roach]

Presenting a confident, competent and self assured Batgirl who now looks at The Joker as more of a nuisance than a creature of nightmare or a trigger of traumatic memories as an incompetent victim of The Joker isn't as consistent.

Because variant covers have always remained consistent with the book's tone

 

[Tron Bonne]

No tirade.

You're just clearly not understanding what I'm talking about and misrepresenting the way I'm approaching this conversation.

I said it's consistent with the brands it represent. New 52 Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman etc. those are brands. They're not real people obviously. Yes it doesn't represent the particular tone of any individual book but it still features a version (key word and now it's a tirade) of the character with whom the idea of a selfie wouldn't be out of whack. It's not like it's Golden Age Batman taking a selfie on a cover is what I'm trying to say.

Presenting a confident, competent and self assured Batgirl who now looks at The Joker as more of a nuisance than a creature of nightmare or a trigger of traumatic memories as an incompetent victim of The Joker isn't as consistent.

No, I completely understand what you're getting out, but you're either reading far too much into my counter or deliberately being obtuse in replying to it. The bottom line of what I'm saying is that variants do not, nor have they ever, strived to portray the tone of a book. Yes, sure, they can, but for every example you may find of one that does so, you'll find 10 more that do nothing more than homage a previous cover or just have a totally unrelated action to anything that happens within the book. That's why that criticism for this cover is silly, as it tries to set a precedent for variant covers that never was.

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

Next month Marvel is coming out with Howard the Duck themed variant covers for a bunch of their books. I'd like to know how they're conveying the tone of...

Ant-Man

Daredevil

Hulk

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

Star-Lord

Spider-Gwen

Deadpool

 

[Decepticonus]

How is that stretching when the purpose of the New 52 incarnation of DC characters is to reintroduce them within the sensibilities of the modern 21st century. Selfies are a major part of the 21st century pop culture lexicon.

This isn't supposed to be your father's Superman and Batman anymore.

Yet, this cover is coming in June. By then they are dropping the whole New 52 brand, canon over continuity am I right? So who cares about tone and recent events.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Tempests and tea pots all around.

 

[Decepticonus]

None of those Howard The Duck covers make any sense! But they're great!
See here covers are used as promotion. A Hulk fan who may be a new reader pick that up and be like "Howard The Duck? Hmm, maybe I should look into those comics."

 

[The Infernal]

For me it has nothing to do with sex. Just betrayal of characterization really. I'll put it to you this way. If there was a Red Hood and the Outlaws variant with Jason cowering on the floor helplessly with tears of horror streaming down his face while The Joker holds a crowbar over him it would've been just as tasteless to me. For the same reason. The character has overcome that trauma ages ago and is beyond being victimized in his current iteration as presented in that book.

I can understand that. Personally I take the opposite approach. I would be fine with a cover like that since I prefer to think that something as traumatic as that should always be something they have trouble with and while they might learn to accept what happened, move on and grow as a character there should still be some level of vulnerability for those characters when it comes to those moments.

 

[Weapon0]

Ok DC, here's a million dollar publicity idea. Make a limited run of the Batgirl: Joker variant covers and auction them off with all proceeds going to a battered women's shelter charity. You are welcome, you can have that one for free. If you think this is a good idea, tweet it to @DCComics. #SaveTheCover

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

This was hardly the most violent cover DC has ever (or WOULD have ever. i guess), published. Jason Todd, anyone?

Leads me to believe that DC staged the entire thing just for publicity.

Just my personal opinion.