Joker: Another Banned Comic Cover

[Earth 2 Chris]

Sounds like a non-issue to me. I agree the Joker cover doesn't belong on a book targeted at young girls. Would you want that cover on Scooby-Doo Team-Up?

What's disturbing is that enough people at DC didn't think it through, or show the creative team of the book before it was pushed through the pipeline. Very telling.

Chris

[thunderbolt]

That Spider-Woman cover is laughable, the pose is probably impossible for an actual human, and it looks like it was lifted from elsewhere. its a Penthouse Comix cover that I can't post here. Just Google Spider Woman cover, it shows up.

[Hector]

Well, I haven't read a comic book in about a decade...and I don't have kids...so that's just my personal take and perspective, that's all.

[enyawd72]

If you disapprove of that particular Spider Woman cover...then Im sure you want this one gone too...

First of all Hector, I don't think I said I wanted either cover gone...I said I thought they were in poor taste. There are many, many covers that I feel have crossed the line over the years. One in particular that springs to mind is Hulk #291 with General Ross about to shoot himself in the head, and that was 31 years ago! I was only 13 years old then, that cover was on newsstands, and inappropriate for a 13 year old.
That's the biggest problem with comics today.
People like Frank Miller, etc. thought comics needed to appeal to "adults".
Thing is, in doing so, they left their innocence behind and destroyed it for the next generation of kids.
What's more, comics don't NEED to be this way. Back in the 1960's Marvel comics were completely innocent and were still a huge hit with college kids. They weren't full of graphic violence and borderline porn, yet adults in their 20's enjoyed them just the same.

[thunderbolt]

The new Batgirl comic is aimed at girls and a younger demographic than DC usually does. The team that works on the comic was not aware of the cover ahead of time and did not approve of it when they saw it. They made the decision to not use it. Not only does the Joker not even appear in the issue, they've also said the Joker will never appear in the new Batgirl comic. If people think that is an appropriate cover for a light hearted comic aimed at young girls, I just don't know what to say.

the cover was a variant for a stunt "joker Month" line of covers at DC. So apparently those creators missed a memo. He's on all the variant covers for the month, not appearing in any of the books.

[firestarcomics]

Its pretty disturbing to see both covers. The first one I can understand if that was aimed at little girls and the second one was pretty crazy. What was up with the outfit going up Spider Woman's butt? Was that even necessary? It is very similar to when comic book artists over sexualize Wonder Woman and put her in a THONG and make her look like a prostitute. It pretty much cheapens the idea of the character. I don't see much crazy sexual exploitation with male characters. Im an artist myself and am against censorship but at some point certain things start to just be too much.

[Werewolf]

The Spider-Woman one is not comparable to the Spider-Man cover or a real spider. Also, the Spider-Woman cover didn't work because the new Spider-Woman comic is targeted at female readers.

[Hector]

I'm sorry...but they are both mimicking spiders...not a big deal in my eyes.

Imagine if they accurately displayed factual abilities of a real spider...an arachnid that deploys webbing though its butt...




Now that would not make a pretty picture in human form...

[Hector]

If you disapprove of that particular Spider Woman cover...then Im sure you want this one gone too...

[HardyGirl]

I think both are in poor taste...I don't think graphic violence or sexual imagery belong in any superhero comic, but I'm just old fashioned.

Amen! (And pass the gravy)

[CrimsonGhost]

I think DC is lying when they said they weren't aware of the cover ahead of time. Covers are done months in advance for soliciting, so this was penciled, inked, and colored with a sign off from the editor. It was probably in Previews and that's when a complaint came in. DC was fine with it until then.
I also think the penciler/artists are just taking the blame and DC is lying about them requesting to not print the cover.
I say lying, but I guess it's just spinning. Either way, I don't believe them.

[enyawd72]

I think both are in poor taste...I don't think graphic violence or sexual imagery belong in any superhero comic, but I'm just old fashioned.

[PNGwynne]

I think it's offensive that they canceled the cover. Grow a pair and publish it. Those that don't like it don't have to buy it. It is a VARIANT cover after all.

Why the bravado? If DC is publishing a kids/tween-oriented book, and rejects a "Vertigo"-themed cover for it, isn't that its right to make a decision relevant to creative focus, marketing, and audience?

Cover treatments are rejected every day by editors, that is not censorship.

[justzeg18]

I really wish they would have re-numbered for the creative team switch on Batgirl, as this cover would have been just "fine" for the the first 30ish issues of the new 52 run.

I actually started reading from issue #1 recently because I was hearing such good things about the most recent arch. I found myself MUCH preferring the initial run, and not connecting to the change in the least.

I almost feel like they shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.

A simple re-numbering would get the new creative team out there on their own, not riding the momentum of a very well written and illustrated run, and put them in a spot to develop the character on their own w/o giving The Killling Joke the weight they (and by extension, the new fans) don't want it to have on the character, and it would avoid issues such as this cover (which really isn't out of place in Batgirl canon up until now.)

[WannabeMego]

My understanding is that the Artist of the Cover asked DC not to publish it, DC is honoring his wishes, there is no censorship issue here as far as I can tell.