Dynamite Makes ERB Explode

Dynamite Entertain ment have sparked off a potentially explosive legal battle with the estate of Edgar Rice Burroughs by continuing to use ERB's characters without permission. Dynamite had apparently approached the estate for permission to publish comics based on Tarzan, John Carter of Mars and other characters but been refused, but went ahead anyway, adapting stories which are now out of copyright in the US but leaving ERB's trademarked names off the covers (so, John Carter became just "Warlord of Mars" while Tarzan is simply "Lord of the Jungle"). Unfortunately, many of these stories are not out of copyright in countries outside the US where Dynamite also sell their product, and they've further infuriated the ERB people by publishing a spin-off series starring Carter's love interest Dejah Thoris, which has gained a certain amount of notriety for its reliance on "Good Girl Art" and, following the sales success caused by this, such gimmicks as nude cover variants! The pity of it is, a lot of their stuff is genuinely rather good and needs no such gimmicks, and if they'd kept under the radar I suspect this whole situation could have been avoided...

Just an update on this: Dynamite and the ERB people have now come to an agreement, and as a result, Dynamite can now publish books about these characters with the estate's blessing (though they apparently still can't use the name Tarzan on a cover, as someone else has the licence to publish Tarzan reprints). ERB have said they are looking forward to working with Dynamite, who they know will treat the characters with respect (despite their having previously claimed Dynamite's material was pornographic).
I'm guessing Marvel declined to renew the licence to John Carter, then...

Aw, nuts. I was hoping they'd fix that Dejah Thoris comic so I could actually read the thing in the presence of my children. I guess I'll just stick to The Shadow and Battlestar Galactica for now.

Sam_Vimes wrote:Aw, nuts. I was hoping they'd fix that Dejah Thoris comic so I could actually read the thing in the presence of my children. I guess I'll just stick to The Shadow and Battlestar Galactica for now.

I don't really see the problem people have with the book, to be honest. What Dejah wears amounts to a very brief swimsuit, and it's considerably more than ERB had her wearing in the books.

tony ingram wrote:

Sam_Vimes wrote:Aw, nuts. I was hoping they'd fix that Dejah Thoris comic so I could actually read the thing in the presence of my children. I guess I'll just stick to The Shadow and Battlestar Galactica for now.

I don't really see the problem people have with the book, to be honest. What Dejah wears amounts to a very brief swimsuit, and it's considerably more than ERB had her wearing in the books.

Hey, man, I'm not saying it's inaccurate! It just makes me uncomfortable, is all. Which is weird, because I can watch stuff like Game of Thrones just fine, but put a scantily-clad lady on the cover of a comic and suddenly I prude up. Probably just a psychological problem on my end, nothing to worry about, carry on.

You must have hated the nineties. Every female in comics wore a thong, with the exception of Aunt May...  

Sam_Vimes wrote:Hey, man, I'm not saying it's inaccurate! It just makes me uncomfortable, is all. Which is weird, because I can watch stuff like Game of Thrones just fine, but put a scantily-clad lady on the cover of a comic and suddenly I prude up. Probably just a psychological problem on my end, nothing to worry about, carry on.

'S okay, I'm a prude too. Prudes unite! *high five*

Lucy McGough wrote:

Sam_Vimes wrote:Hey, man, I'm not saying it's inaccurate! It just makes me uncomfortable, is all. Which is weird, because I can watch stuff like Game of Thrones just fine, but put a scantily-clad lady on the cover of a comic and suddenly I prude up. Probably just a psychological problem on my end, nothing to worry about, carry on.

'S okay, I'm a prude too. Prudes unite! *high five*

We'll make it an air-five, as obviously skin-to-skin contact of any sort is unseemly.

tony ingram wrote:You must have hated the nineties. Every female in comics wore a thong, with the exception of Aunt May...  

Well, I certainly hated the thongs! And thanks to you, I now hate my power of imagination as well. Ugh.

Sam_Vimes wrote:We'll make it an air-five, as obviously skin-to-skin contact of any sort is unseemly.

Quite right too   

Sam_Vimes wrote:Aw, nuts. I was hoping they'd fix that Dejah Thoris comic so I could actually read the thing in the presence of my children. I guess I'll just stick to The Shadow and Battlestar Galactica for now.

Yeah, I have a similar issue. I'm not contributing to the image of comics as "for perverts" by buying those covers. I don't care how good the book might be.

I am baffled by this attitude.
But then, I live in a country where the best selling daily newspaper features a full page topless (or sometimes fully nude, though never full frontal) glamour pin-up on page three every day of the week.

Basically, we're a country of perverts.

Lucy McGough wrote:Basically, we're a country of perverts.

There's nothing perverse about an appreciation of the female form.

Then they should put nudes by Titian and Modigliani on page three

Lucy McGough wrote:Then they should put nudes by Titian and Modigliani on page three

I didn't know they were photographers!  

No, they are not photographers, they are artists who would bring culture and sophistication into the 'orrible little lives of the Great British Public.

Ah, right. Drawin' and stuff. Nah.

But it's ART! It illuminates the soul and puts frail mortal man in contact with the sublime. Kayleigh, 17, from Scarborough can't do that.

I wouldn't mind bein' in contact with Kayleigh. That'd be pretty sublime. Phwoar!  

I'm sure Kayleigh would feel the same

tony ingram wrote:I am baffled by this attitude.

In America, comics were long seen as for people with mental issues. No lie. And one of the common stereotypes was of guys (long past their teens) who didn't bathe, had no social skills and who wanted to look at pictures of very scantily clad women for their pleasure. (I once took a friend into a comic shop, where there were two guys in their 30s who were looking at comics and seemed to be deciding which to buy based on what they could see. My friend refused to go into a comic shop ever again. And this was a guy who had NO issue with porn).
I won't play into that stereotype.
I am of two minds about some of this. I think that having female characters constantly drawn in sexualized poses and wearing very little IS an issue with superhero comics. I don't have issues with females being able to make their own choices, but I DO have issues when it's done by men for men, and then it's played off as being "her choice", when it's a fictional character. I'm NOT a prude, but I don't think we can continue to ignore how women are portrayed in comics.
So, for me it's just a matter of wanting something else to do with my money.

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:I am baffled by this attitude.

In America, comics were long seen as for people with mental issues. No lie.

That's...odd...  

And one of the common stereotypes was of guys (long past their teens) who didn't bathe, had no social skills and who wanted to look at pictures of very scantily clad women for their pleasure. (I once took a friend into a comic shop, where there were two guys in their 30s who were looking at comics and seemed to be deciding which to buy based on what they could see. My friend refused to go into a comic shop ever again. And this was a guy who had NO issue with porn).
I won't play into that stereotype.
I am of two minds about some of this. I think that having female characters constantly drawn in sexualized poses and wearing very little IS an issue with superhero comics. I don't have issues with females being able to make their own choices, but I DO have issues when it's done by men for men, and then it's played off as being "her choice", when it's a fictional character. I'm NOT a prude, but I don't think we can continue to ignore how women are portrayed in comics.
So, for me it's just a matter of wanting something else to do with my money.

Thing is, we're not talking about superhero comics here, we're talking about comics about ERB pulp characters who inhabit worlds where people dress in animal skins or the kind of outfits you'd find in a D&D game. Characters in fantasy dress in skimpy clothing. It's standard for the genre.

tony ingram wrote:Thing is, we're not talking about superhero comics here, we're talking about comics about ERB pulp characters who inhabit worlds where people dress in animal skins or the kind of outfits you'd find in a D&D game. Characters in fantasy dress in skimpy clothing. It's standard for the genre.  

A genre built by men, for boys and men. Essentially the same issue. Women are dressed as men want them to be, they act the way men want them to act, and the response when it becomes a problem for either current or potential female readers is "that's just how it is". And then women don't read, and right now comics can use all the readers they can get.
Plus, for me, it's more than a business issue. It's a cultural/moral issue. I don't like the idea of comics as a "boys only" club, and that's often the way they're done, and when THAT becomes an issue, people often say girls "can/could" read them, without acknowledging the cycle of media and behavior might be an issue.
I don't want to support that.

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:Thing is, we're not talking about superhero comics here, we're talking about comics about ERB pulp characters who inhabit worlds where people dress in animal skins or the kind of outfits you'd find in a D&D game. Characters in fantasy dress in skimpy clothing. It's standard for the genre.  

A genre built by men, for boys and men. Essentially the same issue. Women are dressed as men want them to be, they act the way men want them to act, and the response when it becomes a problem for either current or potential female readers is "that's just how it is". And then women don't read, and right now comics can use all the readers they can get.
Plus, for me, it's more than a business issue. It's a cultural/moral issue. I don't like the idea of comics as a "boys only" club, and that's often the way they're done, and when THAT becomes an issue, people often say girls "can/could" read them, without acknowledging the cycle of media and behavior might be an issue.
I don't want to support that.

But if you read any issue of Lord of the Jungle or Dejah Thoris, the blokes aren't generally wearing any more than the women!

Mbast1 wrote:I am of two minds about some of this. I think that having female characters constantly drawn in sexualized poses and wearing very little IS an issue with superhero comics. I don't have issues with females being able to make their own choices, but I DO have issues when it's done by men for men, and then it's played off as being "her choice", when it's a fictional character. I'm NOT a prude, but I don't think we can continue to ignore how women are portrayed in comics.
So, for me it's just a matter of wanting something else to do with my money.

Hear, hear!

tony ingram wrote:But if you read any issue of Lord of the Jungle or Dejah Thoris, the blokes aren't generally wearing any more than the women!

I've seen this addressed a number of times, including here (http://www.themarysue.com/shortpacked-false-equivalence/) where the point is made (and I think well) that strong physiques and showing them off with either few clothes or skin-tight costumes is STILL a male fantasy, just this one is about power instead of sex.

I know this is a larger issue than just comics, and involves a lot of academic analysis and isn't all that fun for many people, but I just don't want my money going to support things I don't like.

Well, fair enough, I guess. Different strokes and all that.