Sunday, 9 October 2011

"Exciting" New Looks: Supergirl

Supergirl 1
Writers: Michael Green and Mike Johnson
Penciller: Mahmud Asrar

DC binned off the top work Sterling Gates and Jamal Igle did with Supergirl (turning her from a typical comics sassy-megabrat into a well rounded character) to make room for this relaunch. A rather hasty relaunch too considering Brian Wood was supposed to write this series until he was given the elbow at the last minute.

What a scandal! I like his work on Northlanders and recently read his New York Five collection. He’d have been perfect on Supergirl! But no! Instead we’ve got Michael Green and Mike Johnson (never heard of them) running the show.

Essentially this is a 20 page fight scene which covers the following amount of plot: Supergirl crashes to Earth. She doesn’t know why.

Thenceforth she fights blokes in giant robot armour and Superman turns up in his crap new costume. The End.

Presumably we’re supposed to be ‘intrigued’ by the ‘mystery’ as to Who She Is. Unfortunately this was the exact same set-up with the last Kara Zor-El reboot in Superman/ Batman and the first year or so of her last title (which was pretty crap until Sterling Gates took over.) So it’s the same old, same old.

In typical reboot / retcon / same old story tradition it looks like the ‘action’ is going to unfold at a typically decompressed / glacial pace. Maybe we’ll find out ‘who she is’ by issue 12. Perhaps she’ll get a secret identity / something to do around issue 36. If we’re lucky Streaky the Supercat will re-debut somewhere around 2028.

If that wasn’t enough to put me off the horrific new costume’s proved a clincher.

Behold:
The over-fussy collar has the meddling fingerprints of Jim Lee all over it. As for the lower half…would either Lee or penciller Mahmud Asrar be prepared to take responsibility for that?

Comic book heroines typically have more skin on show than their male counterparts but I’ve never seen a superheroine outfit which puts so much ‘crotch cleavage’ on display.

From the splash panel it looks like Supergirl is wearing a top with a shield-thing over her genitals. Let’s keep our fingers crossed this look doesn’t take off in cosplay competitions…

Asrar’s depiction of the costume in action sequences is similarly ludicrous. She’s almost falling out of it in this explosion:

And the ‘get up’ doesn’t look practical to run in here:


I Tweeted Asrar to say ‘Supergirl’s got a bit of a camel toe problem hasn’t she?’ He, flying in the face of the evidence, Tweeted back ‘No.’

Look at the facts!!! This is the equivalent of having Superboy scamper around with his testicles dropping out of his shorts. RIDICULOUS!!

Admittedly it makes a change from the sort of boob-centric depictions of superheroines we typically see but it’s completely unnecessary. Why can’t she just wear a pair of knickers that fit her?? How about that? Why do superheroines always have to wear something preposterously low or high cut? Or is this another part of DC’s strategy to appeal exclusively to 12 to 14 year old boys and piss everyone else off?

I won’t be buying Supergirl 2 because I’ve got enough sources of irritation in my life without paying £2.30 to be confronted with more of Asrar’s eyewatering camel-toe costumery.

It’s a shame because he’s a good storyteller and the rest of the issue looked great.

That’s me finished with this for the time being. Let me know when she puts some pants on.

On a chirpier note here are two of her previous classic looks. I actually like her 1980s hairband outfit! And here she is wearing it for the first time in the final panel of Supergirl 17 – which seems to be shoe-horned in to match the costume that was being screentested in the Helen Slater film and was later ditched.

The hotpants look is also a favourite! The choker, puffy sleeves, neckline and small S logo was a bit ‘busy’ but Curt Swan always made it look good. And here it is in the first Supergirl story I ever read – ‘When Kryptonians Clash’ from Superman 365. Did the world ever ‘shower her with the credit she always deserved?’ No.

Starfire: Alien Sex Fiend

Redhood and the Outlaws 1
Writer: Scott Lobdell
Penciller: Kennth Rocafort

As we all know by now Starfire, a character who has been around for 30 years in various incarnations, has been rebooted in DC’s “new 52” as an amnesiac sex addict – happy to shag both male protagonists in her new team book, Red Hood and The Outlaws, while posing in ridiculous lads-mag-photoshoot-esque compositions.

There’s been a lot of commentary on this. From Laura Hudson’s thoughtful piece for Comics Alliance, to a 7 year girl’s assessment on io9. John Siuntres mulled it over on Word Balloon with Newsarama’s Vaneta Rogers recently and completely missed the point. They accused readers who didn’t like Starfire’s radical overhaul of ‘fangirlism’ or ‘character ownership.’ Rogers suggested the response from appalled readers was “what have they done to my character?”

Unconvincing! Because surely the response was actually: “Are DC really producing a comic book where the heroine is a mentally handicapped megaboobed sex toy??!!”

I’m amazed there is any confusion about this – people are appalled, by and large, because this Starfire reboot is in outrageously juvenile bad taste.

In the unlikely case you’ve missed it here’s what the fuss is about:


To some extent Starfire’s always been portrayed as flesh-flashing fantasy figure for adolescent boys. However there’s a huge distance between the kind of art found in New Teen Titans in the 1980s (below, the first page of the Judas Contract) and the set-up in Red Hood.

What might this modern day Mona Lisa by thinking as rendered by George Perez? Perhaps ‘Yoo hoo! Look at my ginormous knockers clanging together in the breeze!’ What’s on her mind in Red Hood and the Outsiders? This: ‘……..’

In Red Hood Scott Lobdell has reduced her to the status of a fleshy sex toy. According to the dialogue she’s easily manipulated (she doesn’t even decide to take part in the ‘mission’ which kicks this farce off, Red Hood lures her into it – which he boasts about later to Arsenal) she can’t remember anything and she will have sex with any man standing around in the general vicinity.

Presumably Lobdell is pitching this nonsense to young teenage readers who don’t know any better? Worryingly, Lobdell said in an interview that the page of Starfire posing in her bikini was his favourite in the while issue.

Lobdell: “Kori stepping out of the ocean, just basking in the sunshine. I love the joy on her face. The people of this planet may not want her here…but God, how she loves this place.”

I don’t think anyone’s looking at her smile. Is Scott for real??

The best that can be said about this whole issue (and Catwoman’s antics in her new issue 1) is that it sets a very confusing tone for the whole DC relaunch. Who are these new comics supposed to be aimed at?

Some of the earlier marketing stuff suggested DC was going after new readers who would be downloading the comics onto their iPads. I’m guessing they’re hoping this new demographic will be very young – as any new adult readers blundering across Red Hood or Catwoman 1 will be put off by the juvenile crassness of both.

Folding the Vertigo characters into the DCU has also made it difficult to establish what sort of identity the ‘new DC’ is going for. On the one hand there’s good stuff like Jeff Lemire’s Animal Man, on the other there’s puerile rubbish like this – but it’s now all under the same banner.

DC have told concerned parents who don’t want their children to read about the adventures of two douche bags and their mentally handicapped sex slave that they should check the age rating on the front cover. “T” apparently means for ‘teens and above.’

It’d be handier if DC introduced a symbol to tell both older and younger readers that a particular book is aimed at the ‘adolescent-hormones-in-crisis’ market – so the rest of us could avoid accidentally buying stuff like this.