Ms. Invisible
Added by Ms. Invisible on Aug. 2, 2009
Hey guys,
Just to let you know, because of this stupid recession, I am not currently employed, thus running low on money, which means I won't be buying comic books for a while now. I'm searching really hard for a job so hopefully I can start earning some money and start up my comic book buying, but in the meantime, I don't see any point in visiting Comic Vine if I'm not exactly buying comic books. I know, sad face. Anywho, I'll be back soon. Maybe by then, the Wonder Woman live action movie will be made. We can only hope.
Added by Ms. Invisible on May 12, 2009
I know, I've had these rants before, but I'm just going to do another quick one.
Okay, on the topic of "Superman is not flawed enough". I am so sick of those statements. Well, what do you want DC to do? Have a frickin' cry, if you want Superman to be so "flawed". And what the Hell does "flawed" mean anyway? What, like Wolverine? Spider-Man? Superman's whole planet was wiped from the universe. Apparently that's not tragic enough.
Yes, I'm sorry that there are characters who do not focus solely on tragedy. Yes, boo-frickity for you. Sorry that not every character does not appeal to you. But just for you, we SHOULD make every character flawed. Just for you.
Rant over.
Added by Ms. Invisible on May 4, 2009
Megan Fox called Wonder Woman lame. THAT'S RIGHT! She called Wonder Woman lame.
I have to echo what the author of this blog post and G-Man said. I have no idea what Megan Fox has done talent-wise in order to increase her profile. All I ever hear is, "Megan Fox should play Wonder Woman!" on the Vine forums. But I fear people only say that because she looks "hot". I had tolerated such comments because an opinion is an opinion, even though I figured she was someone with no talent whatsoever.
Hopefully, if the Megan Fox gets offered the role of Wonder Woman in the live action movie, she'll reject it. And I'll be glad when she does.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Related to:
Wonder Woman
Added by Ms. Invisible on April 13, 2009
Because Marvel's gotten two strikes. Almost ouuuuuuttt! Marvel is now appealing/attracting women to comics now! Apparently:
First off, maybe it's just me, but I feel a bit dehumanised when I'm referred to simply as a "female" when in contrast, the writer uses the words "men" and "guys" in contrast to refer to, well, men. Of course, saying "female" as an adjective is fine, though if you want to use it as a noun, "women" would have been much better because it's simply recognition of a woman as a human being.
And of course, comes this quote, just to show how male-dominated the comics industry still is:
"Since our core customer has always been guys, we need to be very careful when we introduce female product so that we don't alienate our core," said Paul Gitter, president of consumer products, North America, for Marvel Entertainment Inc. "What we have found through testing is that we haven't alienated them, which gives the OK to move forward with the female product."
So when we want to get women in comics, we can't alienate our "core audience" because of course, it's what men want in comics that is most important.
And just to get onto the actual products themselves; it's typical "girly" stuff like lip-gloss and shirts that put you in the role of a secondary female character. You know, the ones that died in refrigerators?
I am actually not angry at the existence of such merchandise, but rather their targeting. They target this stuff specifically towards girls and women. As if all girls and women love cutesy-fluffy stuff. I find this extremely insulting; my interests in being a musician, or reading comics is not cute or something you can go "Awwwww!" over. Why are my interests being treated differently simply because I have a vagina? I'd like to be taken seriously, thanks. I see no logical flow here.
I am aware that marketing towards men can also appeal to women as well, and that doing the reverse is much trickier due to gender-stereotyping and gender-specific marketing. However, I'm no marketing guru, and yet I can see how bad this is. This male, Paul Gitter, is frickin' head of president of consumer products at Marvel Entertainment. You must have used some of your brain to get up to a position that high up. Can you use it again? What testing did you do? Did you ask REAL female comic readers?
Onto the second strike, Marvel imagined Sex and the City and superheroines. And so it was born.
"The idea behind the series was to have some sudsy fun and lift the curtain a bit and take a peep at some of our most fabulous super heroines. In the series, they’re an unlikely foursome of friends–Black Cat, Hell Cat, Firestar, and Photon–with TWO things in common: They’re all leading double-lives and they’re all having romantic trouble. The pitch started as “Sex and the City” in the Marvel Universe, and there’s definitely that “naughty” element to it, but I also think the series is doing to a deeper place, asking question about what it means…truly means…to be a woman in an industry dominated by testosterone and guns. (And I mean both the super hero industry and the comic book industry.) But mostly it’s just a lot of hot fun."When I read Wonder Woman, I don't want her kicking arse. I want to read Wonder Woman having a sit-down with Supergirl, Vixen, Black Canary, Donna Troy and Wonder Girl, talking about the $3000 Prada shoes they bought last week, or how that guy over there just gave a "look" to Supergirl. Puh-lease.
So can we just get some perspective on this? Do you EVER think there would be some kind of development on a comic book dedicated to Superman, Batman, Green Lantern and Nightwing talking about last night's baseball scores or how many beers they drank last night? Hell no! And you know why there wouldn't be such a series? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BORING.
Sorry ladies, but comics are still a boy's club. You're not welcome. Did I say ladies? I meant females. But we'll call you ladies if do some "hot sudsy fun", like bubble bathing or pillow fights.
Related to:
Marvel Publishing
Added by Ms. Invisible on March 7, 2009
I remember when I did a blog post about female superheroes getting put into high heels. Of course, common sense tells me that no one could possibly do such things like fighting, jumping, running, let alone doing super backflips in high heels. For high heels, my suspension of belief (or is it disbelief?) is in fact not suspended because the main reason why I don't like high heels is because of a bigger gender issue I see in society - that women are expected to wear high heels because that is considered attractive and it's the "feminine" thing to do.
It then occurred to me that I am okay with capes. Is it fair that I dismiss high heels but accept capes?
Capes are gender neutral. There is no masculine or feminine quality to them. Both women and men can wear them, and while it's added for aesthetic value, it's not there to make heroes look attractive, but give an aura of respect/power/authority etc. High heels are there so people can judge whether a female hero looks sexy or not, something that irks me to death because of the way women are still judged today (great example are female politicians. You always see the media judging what they are wearing, and yet male politicians are never judged for what they wear?). The cape is there so it makes you think that hero is here to judge you.
That is why I'm okay with capes. It's true, if heroes like Wonder Woman were real, capes would be stupid. Just imagine flying at the same altitude as planes. Can you imagine just how windy it would be up there? But because we don't judge heroes and they way they look with capes, that's why I can let them go (plus Wonder Woman isn't real either).
Related to:
Do flying superheroes really need capes?
Comic Vine is Whiskey Powered with Django
