Saturday, May 12, 2007
Chasing the all mighty comic book smut dollar
I don’t understand why Marvel Comics would give the go ahead for something like this. Is this really how they want one of their main properties to be displayed? All sexed up? I was under the impression that they kind of liked Spider-Man and valued the entire Spider-Man property. If that’s true, why resort to making Spider-Man’s wife a bare foot, thong wearing laundry tub slut?
I’m no prude. I’m also not one to get offended. I just think this is stupid and even a little hypocritical. My favorite monthly Marvel comic Alias was supposedly canceled because writer Brian Michael Bendis was not allowed to use top-line Marvel characters such as Spider-Man. Alias dealt with stories more of an adult nature in content.
Just because there are statue companies out there that make sexed up weirdo friendly Japanese anime figurines, doesn’t mean Marvel Comics needs to do it too. They should let other companies, companies not called Marvel Comics corner the creepy pervert adult figurine market.
Marvel Comics should be above this.
Ok, I’m back. After typing the above sentence I broke out in uncontrollable laughter which resulted in me falling down, hitting my head, and blacking out.
I feel much better now. What was I blogging about? Oh yes, the pervert Mary Jane statue. I’ve been reading that people have been letting both Marvel Comics and Sideshow Collectibles (the company that is making the perv statue) know what they think about this statue. People have been leaving comments on both Marvel Comics and Sideshow Collectibles websites detailing their displeasure with this statue. Both Marvel Comics and Sideshow Collectibles have been responding by deleting these comments. They have allowed all the other comments to remains. The comments left by pervy men wanting to buy this statue.
What’s Marvel Comics trying to do, attract even more weirdos to the medium of comic books?
Ragnell over at Written World blogged about someone leaving a comment on Marvel Comics Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada’s blog asking him if he’d please write about the approval process for this figurine. Regnell writes that two hours later, the person’s comment had been deleted.
Talk about dealing with a problem head on.
I think this statue is disrespectful. Not only to women in general, but to one of their own intellectual properties. So what will Marvel Comics do next, approve the making of a collectible statue showing Spider-Man putting on a condom?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
If Marvel’s not above publishing Swimsuit Specials like the ones they made in the early 90s, this is hardly a shock. The smutty collectibles always gain value the fastest. Better stock up!
I just realized, this makes two posts in a row about Mary Jane.
LOL! That’s funny. I never would have even noticed that, but you are right.
That statue has some fine breasts.
It’s catering to the lowest common denominator. Something Marvel (and comics in general) is seemingly only too willing to do. It helps propel the notion that comics are for creeps.
[...] thought the Mary Jane statue and the Heroes For Hire cover were things worth complaining about. In fact I complained about [...]
[...] Redhead Fangirl’s latest post is entitled Fact vs. Fiction and I think superbly nails it with this photo. The statue, based on the art of Adam Hughs is both incredibly degrading to woman and frankly, is more then just a little stupid. I blogged about it here. [...]
[...] For instance, when Marvel Comics authorized that ridiculous Mary Jane Watson statue. The one where she is doing the laundry. For some reason, this doesn’t bug me too [...]
hahaha, this just shows the people will find anything to complain about.