@rdclip said:
@mraugen said:
@achilles100: Besides the nonsense off "family friendly" given dozens of cases in DC history what gets me more is "21st century" and women.
The idea that women covering up is suddenly progressive baffles me. "I can see skin on you woman, you do not deserve respect" seems so backward and puritanical. It is all about agency and fitting the character. Power Girl is comfortable in her sexuality and attractiveness and that confidence comes across in her design.
I see women all the time wearing revealing clothing. When I exercise many women I see wear a sports bra and short shorts. They do this for form, but also because they are proud of their bodies they work hard to maintain. This whole shaming women thing is not the direction I want for society or comics.
Also, I thought the costume was average at best.
There is a very weird sex-negative thing with modern feminism. Add to that, the fat acceptance movement and you have a recipe for disaster if comic companies cowtow to SJWs. Remember when Wonder Woman was made the honourary female ambassador to the UN? Though she was basically just a temporary mascot, people threw a hissy fit because she represented an idealized, confident, strong woman and not an average person.
You are right, it should be the personality of the character that matters. Power Girl, when not written by a writer who is intentionally sabotaging her (cough, Levitz), has never been shown as a sexpot type of character. Hell, in like the decade before n52, I can't remember one time she was even romantically interested in anyone. There are characters that are covered head-to-toe (like Catwoman) who are much more overtly sexual in their personality.
It really shouldn't matter for DC, the people who complain about things like that probably don't buy comics anyway and certainly wouldn't buy a PG comic. There are probably at least 20k people (low balling, but that number is apparently acceptable in modern comics to justify continued publication) who would buy a PG comic every month.
@teliporter334 said:
@rdclip: Really? Huh, well then I guess it holds a lot more significance to me than it does to you fellas. Well then let's agree to disagree then I suppose.
Well, like I said, I like it and would prefer if they kept it. To me, however, it isn't an intrinsic element to her like Superman's insignia, Batman's cowl or Wonder Woman's circlet. I just see it as an iconic part of her costume that can be removed like the trunks on Superman or Batman's pre-flashpoint costumes or having Wondy in her bloomers (which has now been replaced by a armoured skirt) I might be a little disappointed to see it go and it might take a while to get used to a suit without it, but I'll be able to move on as long as the new suit is similar to her old one.
Oh I can remember a number of times when she was romantically interested in guys....but you might have to go back before your decade time limit. But it was rare. And usually played for laughs, and to show her as being rather unlucky and/or inept at those sorts of relationships. Which is part of her characterization over the years, the joke being that despite her looks, she just can't seem to even hook up.
The costume from Injustice to me represents a decent redesign I can live with. It keeps a version of the window, adds pants, and importantly, adds a bit of color, a very light blue IIRC, around her midsection that emphasizes her figure and most importantly, breaks up that huge expanse of white that was her classic costume's biggest flaw IMO. I'm talking of course the predominantly white version of her Injustice costume, rather than the blue one, which doesn't work as well IMO. The logo? It seems to me that DC wants to brand her in the Superman family, and her name doesn't immediately suggest to the non-fan a Superman connection. That would seem to be why they were putting the "S" on her even outside of the nu52, or during it when they weren't calling her Supergirl. I would suggest that if they absolutely have to do that again, they either change the logo somewhat, or make it a more subtle design element, (possibly on her belt buckle, or the same color as the background....which was the MoS route for the other Kryptonians). Changing the color of a family crest BTW has history in European heraldry, usually for younger sons, so it could be explained easily along those lines.
That, BTW, is something I hope never comes back, any history of anyone calling her Supergirl...
A case can be made in character for her deciding to wear the "S" logo---that it's the crest of the "L" family rather than a logo for Superman, but considering her history, it's much more problematic that she would EVER choose to call herself "Supergirl".
Log in to comment