Draw Harley Quinn Naked, Killing Herself, To Win DC Artist Contest

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Yeah, blame society but get mad at the people who may not be a part of that society you hate. Think I wouldn't be disgusted if it were Batman, or Joker in the exact same spot as Harley killing themselves in the same 4 ways in a contest open to the public? You'd be wrong. 'm sure a lot of people would be proving you wrong.
Society's going to have to change to get rid of why you're angry at it. I don't really have much of a solution to this.

Here's the thing your missing though.

Because its Harley Quinn, and she is female. The outrage is that they are sexualizing a female committing suicide. The outrage is not because they are trying to kill Harley Quinn!
If this were batman, or the Joker. The outrage wouldn't be over sexualizing male suicide. it would be, because they were killing batman/joker!

Desert Punk:

erttheking:

Desert Punk:

Atleast I am not calling them white knights?

The reason it probobly annoys people so much is because it strikes too close to home, I am sure the people whining up a storm about this KNOW that their complaints are silly and pointless, but they are just being offended for the sake of being offended or so that they can seem progressive.

And why would I take their views seriously? There is nothing there to address, it is a person commiting suicide in a bathtub. OH NOES SHE IS NUDES! is not something that needs to be addressed.

I'm sorry but I don't buy that explanation. If you use a widely used term constantly to dismiss people's arguments with a flick of a hat, acting like using the term has netted you an automatic victory and kinda looks down on them, people are naturally going to be pissed when you use it. And no, that is not what's happening at all. Many people, myself included, see a lot of problems with the gaming industry and some trends in general. A lot of people, myself included, don't think they're bad per say, but the overwhelming leaning towards certain kind of trends gets frustrating and generic. But we can't criticize them without being reduced to "being offended for the sake of being offended so that they can seem progressive" That's a major part in why that term is so frustrating. A wide variety of views on different matters are thrown under one massive generalization combined with the people using it putting words in their mouths. It's frustrating in every sense of the word.

You're doing it again. You're massively oversimplifying the views of the other side and then dismissing the simple argument that doesn't accurately reflect their views. Heck, earlier in the thread I made a bit of a fuss over the concept behind the nudity, AND the fact that Harley Quin of all people was actually going to kill herself. That was not the argument I used at all. Please don't do that.

I have used the term a grand total of once, and I didn't do it at a flick of the hat, I read most of the complaints and dismissed them and looked down on them. I don't much care that the fact that I think some people are silly annoys them.

And I am not oversimplifying most of the views. I am commenting on the majority of the whining views I have read on the topic here and on other forums.

I will answer to your post from before though seeing as how you seem to want me to. A, some insane people like to be naked, some dont, I have worked in mental health facilities before, and some do. Harley isnt one of those surely. But she is in a bath, she doesnt seem the type to hop into a bath fully clothed either.

And as for WHY she is killing herself. It is believed that the joker is dead, and she doesn't want to go on living without her 'puddin.'

Yeah, the main problem with it is that it's all over the place. The reason I complained to you about it was the case of a straw that broke the camel's back situation. Just having your arguments constantly spit on for not taking one side is just infuriating, especially when countless people are doing it.

I'm sorry, taking a dozen different posts and summarizing them all in one sentence is oversimplification.

Thank you. Well if that's the case I can kinda see that. On the other hand I can't help but question if your mind is in such a state where you're actively attempting to end your life why would you care if your clothes got wet? I guess it is kind of a nit pick when I think about it, but I guess I fall into the camp of "I wouldn't have complained if they had gone out of their way to say that they wanted her nude." I guess you can argue it's a case of a straw that broke the camel's back considering that D.C. has had a really bad history in the last few years about sexualizing their female characters. They've been doing it so much I can't help but feel like they're going to do it again here.

Ok fair enough, that makes sense. I can respect that, but I think I would've preferred the Roaring Rampage of Revenge route her character took in Arkham City.

wulf3n:

Rebel_Raven:

Naked men are sexualized unless they're unplesant to look at which is the same case for women. C'mon, all these commercials, TV shows, and movies where a guy's shirt gets removed? Ladies clubs with male strippers?

Not necessarily, I don't think Daniel Craig's torture scene in Casino Royal is supposed to be sexy, nor is Maggie Gyllenhaal's strip search scene in Strip Search.

While invariably someone will find it sexy, it doesn't necessary mean it was intended to be sexy or sexualized.

I prolly should've expanded on "unless they're unplesant to look at" with "unless they, or the situation is unplesant to look like," yes, you're right on that.
Still, do note that they're not looking for the results of her suicide attempts, they want her in the act of attempting it. That said the unplesant to look at factor does kinda go down from the actual results, especially a successful attempt.

That does sort of leave that stipulation that Harley has to be naked in the 4th pannel out there. Either it's going to be understood that she should be naked, or she's going to be in costume. Roughly 2/3 (her harlequin outfit, her revised look, and her nurse look) leave little to the imagination as far as her body shape goes. It's a similar result either way. It certainly leaves some morally ambiguos lee way allowing more modest artists to interpret the scene while more open/lewd/etc. artists to go their way.
Lets face it, Harley Quinn has decent odds to be dressed when she comnmmits suicide so she's more immediately recognizzed and it's the less sane thing to do, yes?

This could've been handled way better than it was, IMO.

erttheking:

Desert Punk:

erttheking:

I'm sorry but I don't buy that explanation. If you use a widely used term constantly to dismiss people's arguments with a flick of a hat, acting like using the term has netted you an automatic victory and kinda looks down on them, people are naturally going to be pissed when you use it. And no, that is not what's happening at all. Many people, myself included, see a lot of problems with the gaming industry and some trends in general. A lot of people, myself included, don't think they're bad per say, but the overwhelming leaning towards certain kind of trends gets frustrating and generic. But we can't criticize them without being reduced to "being offended for the sake of being offended so that they can seem progressive" That's a major part in why that term is so frustrating. A wide variety of views on different matters are thrown under one massive generalization combined with the people using it putting words in their mouths. It's frustrating in every sense of the word.

You're doing it again. You're massively oversimplifying the views of the other side and then dismissing the simple argument that doesn't accurately reflect their views. Heck, earlier in the thread I made a bit of a fuss over the concept behind the nudity, AND the fact that Harley Quin of all people was actually going to kill herself. That was not the argument I used at all. Please don't do that.

I have used the term a grand total of once, and I didn't do it at a flick of the hat, I read most of the complaints and dismissed them and looked down on them. I don't much care that the fact that I think some people are silly annoys them.

And I am not oversimplifying most of the views. I am commenting on the majority of the whining views I have read on the topic here and on other forums.

I will answer to your post from before though seeing as how you seem to want me to. A, some insane people like to be naked, some dont, I have worked in mental health facilities before, and some do. Harley isnt one of those surely. But she is in a bath, she doesnt seem the type to hop into a bath fully clothed either.

And as for WHY she is killing herself. It is believed that the joker is dead, and she doesn't want to go on living without her 'puddin.'

Yeah, the main problem with it is that it's all over the place. The reason I complained to you about it was the case of a straw that broke the camel's back situation. Just having your arguments constantly spit on for not taking one side is just infuriating, especially when countless people are doing it.

I'm sorry, taking a dozen different posts and summarizing them all in one sentence is oversimplification.

Thank you. Well if that's the case I can kinda see that. On the other hand I can't help but question if your mind is in such a state where you're actively attempting to end your life why would you care if your clothes got wet? I guess it is kind of a nit pick when I think about it, but I guess I fall into the camp of "I wouldn't have complained if they had gone out of their way to say that they wanted her nude." I guess you can argue it's a case of a straw that broke the camel's back considering that D.C. has had a really bad history in the last few years about sexualizing their female characters. They've been doing it so much I can't help but feel like they're going to do it again here.

Ok fair enough, that makes sense. I can respect that, but I think I would've preferred the Roaring Rampage of Revenge route her character took in Arkham City.

its fine, we all have things that push us over the edge and make us lash out, completely understandable.

And as for why she would get nude before doing it, probably because its a bath. She would get nude I assume because that is what people do before they go in the water, another option I would consider valid would be either nude, or very nicely dressed.

I have heard of and known a number of people who offed themselves in their best cloths so they would be found a particular way. But Harley could just be insane enough that she does it nude because she doesnt care what happens to her but doesnt want to ruin her toys. :P

I think we are, as sane people, fundamentally ill-equipped to think of why a crazy person might do what she does.

Rebel_Raven:
[quote="wulf3n" post="7.827787.20130634"]
I prolly should've expanded on "unless they're unplesant to look at" with "unless they, or the situation is unplesant to look like," yes, you're right on that.
Still, do note that they're not looking for the results of her suicide attempts, they want her in the act of attempting it. That said the unplesant to look at factor does kinda go down from the actual results, especially a successful attempt.

That does sort of leave that stipulation that Harley has to be naked in the 4th pannel out there. Either it's going to be understood that she should be naked, or she's going to be in costume. Roughly 2/3 (her harlequin outfit, her revised look, and her nurse look) leave little to the imagination as far as her body shape goes. It's a similar result either way. It certainly leaves some morally ambiguos lee way allowing more modest artists to interpret the scene while more open/lewd/etc. artists to go their way.
Lets face it, Harley Quinn has decent odds to be dressed when she comnmmits suicide so she's more immediately recognizzed and it's the less sane thing to do, yes?

This could've been handled way better than it was, IMO.

True and I wouldn't be surprised if they were going for sexy in their description given their reputation.

zelda2fanboy:
I'm also surprised that no one has pointed out that the current comic that most features Harley Quinn is called Suicide Squad. Grr, controversy, grr.

That makes sense of this how?

Suicide Squads are named not because the people in them want to kill themselves, but because they are willing to accept missions that have a high chance of getting them killed.

People saying that Harley would be in character trying to kill herself aren't making a good argument.

For one, we are given no reason for why she wants to do it. This isn't like the short Mickey Mouse comic where we are told Mickey is suicidal because Minnie dumped him.

And we actually have a recent example of what Harley would do at "her lowest point".

In the end, even if ya took out the nudity. This whole thing would still be in very bad taste, and I'd even go as far to say a misuse of a good character.
Especially sense they started it so close to suicide prevention week.
God I hope they just didn't realize how bad the timing was.

....No. That is not, at all, okay. Not even slightly.

Are people just this fucking retarded? Suicide has been done humorously (Or at least light heartedly) before, but come on, zero class here.

SinisterDeath:

Yeah, blame society but get mad at the people who may not be a part of that society you hate. Think I wouldn't be disgusted if it were Batman, or Joker in the exact same spot as Harley killing themselves in the same 4 ways in a contest open to the public? You'd be wrong. 'm sure a lot of people would be proving you wrong.
Society's going to have to change to get rid of why you're angry at it. I don't really have much of a solution to this.

Here's the thing your missing though.

Because its Harley Quinn, and she is female. The outrage is that they are sexualizing a female committing suicide. The outrage is not because they are trying to kill Harley Quinn!
If this were batman, or the Joker. The outrage wouldn't be over sexualizing male suicide. it would be, because they were killing batman/joker!

And here's what you're missing:

It wouldn't be a sexualized thing if they didn't explicitly state Harley Quinn had to be -naked- in the 4th pannel. Right now it's a mixture of both "What? Why are they killing Harley Quinn?" and "What? Why does she have to be naked?!" along with a dose of "Why the hell are they even running this contest?!"

You're dismissing the possibility that a Naked Batman, or a Naked Joker committing suicide via bathtub electrocution would generate similar responses about sexualization, disgust at the situation, and so forth.

Lets not forget that this isn't an in house project here. They're getting the public in on it. Infact they're letting pretty much anyone that knows about it participate, and this isn't exactly a wholesome, innocent request.
Oh, and the fact that it's clearly implied they have to be naked.

The thing is, we don't know how replacing Harley Quinn with a popular DC character would work. I can't blame you for jumping to the worst case scenario as I often do the same (I.E. They'd NEVER do this with Joker, or batman, so we will never know what sort fo reaction would be garnered), but I feel we should keep in mind some of the better scenario cases, and look at things from other angles.

Imp Emissary:

I swear the more I read into the internet's outrage the more I honestly think that the next moral movement will come from people who spent their whole life playing video games. Kinda like the same people who participated in the hippie movement goes full bore to enforce their new found morality upon others.

First off, Harley Quinn is not a real person. She is a character. Can we just get that straight? I'm really tired of the argument that fictional characters especially women should be treated as real life people and should be given the same rights and dignity as actual people. There is a reason it is called fiction in the first place that enables writers, artists and anyone else to use their imagination and think of impossible situations not bound by reality. So let's just realize that just cause a fictional character is put into a situation does reflect anything on real life people.

Second, in terms of canon can we just admit that Harley as a character is one messed up character and is intended to be as such? I mean being in an abusive relationship and being constantly manipulated doesn't exactly make a character sane. The whole point in the most terrible situations she puts on a smile and yet in the best situations she'll be sad.

Finally, as for the art. It's just art and still open to interpretation to the artist. Sure there are guidelines but one could certainly make a strong statement through said contest. So even if you disagree with the premise a good artist could easily meet the criteria and also by making their own interpretation could certainly show the criteria but have the viewer interpret as against suicide.

The only people who should feel bad right now are those who feel as if their opinion is some sort of moral fact because the last thing people need is someone enforcing their morality upon others. Also, given the guidelines and the requirement that said bathtub requires water you could easily have Harley be "naked" and just have the water cover up her entire body with the exception of her shoulders and head. The guidelines didn't say of having to explicitly show her breasts or vagina.

I'm a digital artist and a Harley Quinn fan and I could easily create an entry for this but I completely and utterly refuse. They could pay me to do it and I still wouldn't. This isn't dark humor this is completely horrible shock for shocks sake, a giant middle finger to Harley fans and comic readers. DC what the hell is going on with you lately, seems like every new decision you make is an awful one.

wulf3n:

Imp Emissary:

Very True.
Granted, that was her last resort. Her and Joker have both been shown before willing to kill themselves to seceded in killing Batman.

Imp Emissary:

zelda2fanboy:
I'm also surprised that no one has pointed out that the current comic that most features Harley Quinn is called Suicide Squad. Grr, controversy, grr.

That makes sense of this how?

Suicide Squads are named not because the people in them want to kill themselves, but because they are willing to accept missions that have a high chance of getting them killed.

People saying that Harley would be in character trying to kill herself aren't making a good argument.

For one, we are given no reason for why she wants to do it. This isn't like the short Mickey Mouse comic where we are told Mickey is suicidal because Minnie dumped him.

And we actually have a recent example of what Harley would do at "her lowest point".

In the end, even if ya took out the nudity. This whole thing would still be in very bad taste, and I'd even go as far to say a misuse of a good character.
Especially sense they started it so close to suicide prevention week.
God I hope they just didn't realize how bad the timing was.

Games, movies, and TV shows do not follow the comic book continuity. They are spin offs and not related to the actual continuity.

Arkham city uses the OLD joker. The OLD universe that was written out of existence. Its not a guide book for modern continuity, not a guide book for new 52.

This is the new 52. This is the joker that's been used a for a couple years now.

And everyone got a revamp, even going as far as personalities. So we can't bring in Arkham city as evidence, because DC hasn't really rolled out the new 52 into the main stream because people only remember the 1990s continuity.

BernardoOne:

Seanfall:

BernardoOne:

Erm, the "4th wall breaking" was said from the start. The media sites that decided to report on it conveniently forgot to say that part. And no, they are anot alienating anyone but the people who love to be offended at everything. Other people will not give a shit and just continue to read the comics instead of trying really hard to see things that arent there and being offended about it.
And no, they are not sexualizing suicide. People that are in bathtubs, are usually naked. Do you know that?

Trying so hard to be offended at something and not even looking at the context of the story.... /sigh

The 4th wall breaking was mentioned on Twitter first as far as I know. it was not reported with the first script. Yes people get offended at stuff. Stuff that is offensive and meant to incense and anger. And those people who don't give a shit? Good for them, but I and many others aren't any of them. This things are there subtext matters. Yes I know people are naked there's not need to try to insult my intelligence. But they didn't need to draw attention to that point in the script, and you know what...SHE DOESN'T NEED TO BE KILLING HERSELF! I wouldn't have a problem with this if the Joker for instance had the rope that would be fine why? Cause the jokers fucked like that.

Yes I am looking at the context and Yes I am offended and no I didn't have to try. Stop assuming that...I don't know why i'm even making this post. As everything i've said is just going to be disregarded in favor of straw man arguments. And what story? the reporting of this event? The event itself? The event is to draw An attractive woman in various dangerous or suicidal situations. The first three I don't mind their almost comical it's the final one that gets me.

Wait, you just said you would be fine if it was Joker doing it? And im the one using straw man arguments?

And of course they have to mention that in the script. Do you even know how scripts work? Like, at all?

I said I'D be fine if Joker was doing it. Because that's the dynamic they set up. Because it would fit the Character I didn't say Harley would look happy during it, but it would fit. And yes I know how Scripts look here's the original post that DC Made from there site: http://www.dccomics.com/node/305151 do you see anythinga bout breaking the fourth wall? I don't. Only the descriptions we were given. Other people have brought up the naked and all I have to add is that well look at how sexualized women are in DC comics when they don't need to be. So chances are, that the most Cheese cake one is what's going to be picked, is it certain? No but given past examples it's a good chance.

-Dragmire-:

Father Time:
So why should we be outraged again? It's not even canon and it's a fictional person.

"The sexualisation of suicide is something I will not be putting effort into"

Newsflash: Not all nudity is sexual and sometimes nudity is appropriate given the context, like say for example a bath.

Seriously show that description to a nudist and ask them to find anything sexual about it. They'll either go for the chicken bikini or give you a disturbing stare like you get off on people killing themselves.

I've found that certain cultures have quite a bit of difficulty separating nudity and sexuality. Not too sure why but it's not that uncommon to find people who can't seem to separate them. On the other hand, comics have often sexualized female characters which could lead people to the assumption that DC wanted the character to be depicted that way.

I don't know how I feel about some of the debates brought up by this controversy but I do feel that this is a pretty dumb contest.

They never specified if it should be sexual so that's left up to the artist to decide.

LazyAza:
I'm a digital artist and a Harley Quinn fan and I could easily create an entry for this but I completely and utterly refuse. They could pay me to do it and I still wouldn't. This isn't dark humor this is completely horrible shock for shocks sake, a giant middle finger to Harley fans and comic readers. DC what the hell is going on with you lately, seems like every new decision you make is an awful one.

It is dark humor though.

Quin keeps trying to kill herself and keeps failing.

D'oh ho ho, will that bumbling ninny ever get anything right?

Ultratwinkie:

Imp Emissary:

zelda2fanboy:
I'm also surprised that no one has pointed out that the current comic that most features Harley Quinn is called Suicide Squad. Grr, controversy, grr.

That makes sense of this how?

Suicide Squads are named not because the people in them want to kill themselves, but because they are willing to accept missions that have a high chance of getting them killed.

People saying that Harley would be in character trying to kill herself aren't making a good argument.

For one, we are given no reason for why she wants to do it. This isn't like the short Mickey Mouse comic where we are told Mickey is suicidal because Minnie dumped him.

And we actually have a recent example of what Harley would do at "her lowest point".

In the end, even if ya took out the nudity. This whole thing would still be in very bad taste, and I'd even go as far to say a misuse of a good character.
Especially sense they started it so close to suicide prevention week.
God I hope they just didn't realize how bad the timing was.

Games, movies, and TV shows do not follow the comic book continuity. They are spin offs and not related to the actual continuity.

Arkham city uses the OLD joker. The OLD universe that was written out of existence. Its not a guide book for modern continuity, not a guide book for new 52.

This is the new 52. This is the joker that's been used a for a couple years now.

And everyone got a revamp, even going as far as personalities. So we can't bring in Arkham city as evidence, because DC hasn't really rolled out the new 52 into the main stream because people only remember the 1990s continuity.

Wasn't talking about comic continuity.(also Harley is from the TV show first, not the comics) More about how the character generally acts in situations.

But lets go with that for a bit.
All the characters are now different, and not really like what they use to be? Then aren't people still wrong in saying that killing herself is "in her character". Since they are using an old and outdated version of her?

Cool concept bad exicution. Nice idea to give a new artist a few wacky scenes to draw. But maybe a little tactless, could've said she was just sitting in a bath tub as people would assume nude 90% of the time and that sentance would've probally gotten past the bad press that is following.

But hey DC ain't marvel... Marvel have Disney to watch there ass :P

Imp Emissary:

Ultratwinkie:

Imp Emissary:

That makes sense of this how?

Suicide Squads are named not because the people in them want to kill themselves, but because they are willing to accept missions that have a high chance of getting them killed.

People saying that Harley would be in character trying to kill herself aren't making a good argument.

For one, we are given no reason for why she wants to do it. This isn't like the short Mickey Mouse comic where we are told Mickey is suicidal because Minnie dumped him.

And we actually have a recent example of what Harley would do at "her lowest point".

In the end, even if ya took out the nudity. This whole thing would still be in very bad taste, and I'd even go as far to say a misuse of a good character.
Especially sense they started it so close to suicide prevention week.
God I hope they just didn't realize how bad the timing was.

Games, movies, and TV shows do not follow the comic book continuity. They are spin offs and not related to the actual continuity.

Arkham city uses the OLD joker. The OLD universe that was written out of existence. Its not a guide book for modern continuity, not a guide book for new 52.

This is the new 52. This is the joker that's been used a for a couple years now.

And everyone got a revamp, even going as far as personalities. So we can't bring in Arkham city as evidence, because DC hasn't really rolled out the new 52 into the main stream because people only remember the 1990s continuity.

Wasn't talking about comic continuity.(also Harley is from the TV show first, not the comics) More about how the character generally acts in situations.

But lets go with that for a bit.
All the characters are now different, and not really like what they use to be? Then aren't people still wrong in saying that killing herself is "in her character". Since they are using an old and outdated version of her?

Halrey from the kids show, to the game, and comics are all different. It doesn't matter if she is from a TV show, the comics are way different. Its the reason Mr. Freeze is a joke in the 60s TV show but got more serious in the comics.

We can't expect the kid show Harley to kill herself because the joker ripped his face off. Its a kids show.

We can't use Arkham to show who she is, because the new 52 revamped and changed everything. Its old continuity.

The new 52 Harley sets her own identity, and that identity just so happened to be suicidal. Since this is a comic we are talking about, other media sources are irrelevant. You can't say "comic continuity doesn't matter to the comics."

And yes, if they use Arkham city they are still technically wrong for using non canon sources.

What's the matter DC? Did you finally run out of staff willing to go through with your pointless shock deaths?

A few things.

Tenmar:
First off, Harley Quinn is not a real person. She is a character. Can we just get that straight?

Who said she was real?

Tenmar:
I'm really tired of the argument that fictional characters especially women should be treated as real life people and should be given the same rights and dignity as actual people.

Again, I don't think anyone is calling for "equal rights" for fake people.
Also, why can we "especially" not treat fake women better?

Tenmar:
Second, in terms of canon can we just admit that Harley as a character is one messed up character and is intended to be as such? I mean being in an abusive relationship and being constantly manipulated doesn't exactly make a character sane. The whole point in the most terrible situations she puts on a smile and yet in the best situations she'll be sad.

Messed up? Yes. Suicidal? Not really.

Tenmar:
The only people who should feel bad right now are those who feel as if their opinion is some sort of moral fact because the last thing people need is someone enforcing their morality upon others.

You mean like what you said about fictional characters? Or even that very sentence above?

Look. Here's why I don't like this whole idea;

1. The way they're going about this is kind of making light of suicide, with no context as to why she is committing it.
2. They are doing such a thing at about the worst time they could have picked(right before Suicide Prevention week).
3. I like the Character, and don't appreciate how they are using her, symbolically.

Do I think fictional characters should be treated like real people? No more than I think businesses should be treated like people(the answer is no, not at all)

Do I think they can show more respect to a character who is important to a lot of people, and an issue that affects probably even more people? Yes. Yes indeed.

Ultratwinkie:

Imp Emissary:

Ultratwinkie:

Games, movies, and TV shows do not follow the comic book continuity. They are spin offs and not related to the actual continuity.

Arkham city uses the OLD joker. The OLD universe that was written out of existence. Its not a guide book for modern continuity, not a guide book for new 52.

This is the new 52. This is the joker that's been used a for a couple years now.

And everyone got a revamp, even going as far as personalities. So we can't bring in Arkham city as evidence, because DC hasn't really rolled out the new 52 into the main stream because people only remember the 1990s continuity.

Wasn't talking about comic continuity.(also Harley is from the TV show first, not the comics) More about how the character generally acts in situations.

But lets go with that for a bit.
All the characters are now different, and not really like what they use to be? Then aren't people still wrong in saying that killing herself is "in her character". Since they are using an old and outdated version of her?

Halrey from the kids show, to the game, and comics are all different. It doesn't matter if she is from a TV show, the comics are way different. Its the reason Mr. Freeze is a joke in the 60s TV show but got more serious in the comics.

We can't expect the kid show Harley to kill herself because the joker ripped his face off. Its a kids show.

We can't use Arkham to show who she is, because the new 52 revamped and changed everything. Its old continuity.

The new 52 Harley sets her own identity, and that identity just so happened to be suicidal. Since this is a comic we are talking about, other media sources are irrelevant. You can't say "comic continuity doesn't matter to the comics."

And yes, if they use Arkham city they are still technically wrong for using non canon sources.

I wasn't saying each next version is exactly like the last, but indeed. They do get very different from time to time.

That said, I still think it's not unreasonable to say that some aspects can still carry over.
Like the Joker using "humor" in his crimes, and Batman being a bit bummed about his parents being killed in front of him.

I think some of the issue is that we aren't given any context about why Harley wants to die.
Everyone wants to die at some point, but they didn't really give us a reason this time.
Then again, I guess to do that they would have to make the comic bit longer.

Imp Emissary:

You mean like what you said about fictional characters? Or even that very sentence above?

Look. Here's why I don't like this whole idea;

1. The way they're going about this is kind of making light of suicide, with no context as to why she is committing it.
2. They are doing such a thing at about the worst time they could have picked(right before Suicide Prevention week).
3. I like the Character, and don't appreciate how they are using her, symbolically.

Do I think fictional characters should be treated like real people? No more than I think businesses should be treated like people(the answer is no, not at all)

Do I think they can show more respect to a character who is important to a lot of people, and an issue that affects probably even more people? Yes. Yes indeed.

I'm pretty sure the guidelines are simple criteria to be met but the context is still in control of the artist. Also Never even heard of this "suicide prevention week". Then again there are literally THOUSANDS of made up weeks and other crap made by cities, organizations, governments, businesses EVERY DAY! And last I checked does anyone know hwo created the whole suicide week? Personally I'm quite apathetic to when people make up weeks and such but hey I guess I should celebrate Smurf week in Los Angeles cause of The Smurfs 2 coming out soon. Seriously go out and ask people if they even know what week this is and chances are the amounts known and the fucks given would be equal, none.

I can get why people wouldn't like it but it's just a stupid contest. It's not canon or anything. Hell if you really cared so much about the suicide prevention then you could easily meet their criteria by DC and give the opposite message within the work. Nowhere in their guidelines are they endorsing or making light of suicide so that is literally you interpreting the contest the way you want it to mean to be offended.

SinisterDeath:
If this were batman, or the Joker. The outrage wouldn't be over sexualizing male suicide. it would be, because they were killing batman/joker!

Though I have a feeling if they were asking for illustrations of Batman or the Joker committing suicide in a bathtub, and made sure to explicitly state that they must be naked even though as much is implied by their simply being in the bathtub, I'm sure that would have raised more than one eyebrow.

"but the main thrust of the response was that a strong female character was being reduced to a sexualized nothing"

And here we have definitive proof that the people complaining about this are reactionary idiots who have no idea what they're talking about. Apparently all female characters are "strong female characters" now, otherwise the people complaining about this might have noticed that Harley's entire purpose is a punching bag for the Joker. Her existence is a sick joke about domestic violence. And while, yes, the character may have evolved beyond that, there's no denying that's what she was created as. So, what, all of a sudden violence happening to her is a bad thing? When the Joker flings her out a window in Mad Love, that's just fine. But her killing herself is a big deal? And it'd be nice if this article wasn't blatantly dishonest in pretending that nudity is a requirement of the contest.

Here's my point: either dark humor is funny or it isn't. Either be offended consistently or be ignored.

Tenmar:
Also Never even heard of this "suicide prevention week". Then again there are literally THOUSANDS of made up weeks and other crap made by cities, organizations, governments, businesses EVERY DAY! And last I checked does anyone know hwo created the whole suicide week? Personally I'm quite apathetic to when people make up weeks and such but hey I guess I should celebrate Smurf week in Los Angeles cause of The Smurfs 2 coming out soon. Seriously go out and ask people if they even know what week this is and chances are the amounts known and the fucks given would be equal, none.

I can get why people wouldn't like it but it's just a stupid contest. It's not canon or anything. Hell if you really cared so much about the suicide prevention then you could easily meet their criteria by DC and give the opposite message within the work. Nowhere in their guidelines are they endorsing or making light of suicide so that is literally you interpreting the contest the way you want it to mean to be offended.

National Suicide Prevention week has been going on since 1975. It is held in the week which surrounds World Suicide Prevention Day, which is hosted by the International Association for Suicide Prevention, World Health Organization, and the World Federation for Mental Health. These organizations join forces to hold events, rallies, and seminars to spread awareness and outreach about suicide prevention, to provide people resources and information on what to do if a loved one tries to commit suicide or if they suspect they might, and to provide resources those who are themselves contemplating suicide.

Unless you are the almighty and omniscient Keeper of All Knowledge, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Allright, I was wrong. I looked over the description quoted here and the nudity seemed pretty clearly a suggestion. But when I was linked to the DC page describing the four panels, it was definitely mentioned. STILL, it is nonetheless irresponsible for this writer to act as if that is the FOCUS of the contest.

Lieju:
That description was from the first panel.

I know. She is standing in a rooftop trying to attract lightining and failing. She has this "I can't believe this shit!" look on her face.

Lieju:
And if that's what they want, maybe they should have mentioned it?

Nope. This was likely not written as a contest. This is likely Palmiotti's instructions to his artist that DC just took and made into the contest.

Part of an artist's job is to gleam meaning for his writer. Some writers make this easy with painstakingly detailed instructions (Moore, Gaiman) others give just the bare bones (Stan Lee), but most are in the middle. Being able to draw the meaning from that is a key part of the job. It's not just "drawing pretty things."

Lieju:
And made the description of last panel NOT over-the-top, and very simple, maybe depict her slitting her wrists?

It's still a comic. If I were to hazard a guess here, Palmiotti pictures her standing on the bathtub, holding all that crap over her nakedness.

Lieju:
Although I don't think that's the tone they wanted, but this just proves they should have mentioned it in the description.

They could have wanted a different tone. But here's the thing: Nothing there is inherently sexual nor objectifying. You read the tone you want to read into it. The question isn't "Why did DC write a sexist description of a comic panel?" It is "Why are you incapable of imagining a naked woman NOT being sexualized?

Tenmar:

Imp Emissary:

You mean like what you said about fictional characters? Or even that very sentence above?

Look. Here's why I don't like this whole idea;

1. The way they're going about this is kind of making light of suicide, with no context as to why she is committing it.
2. They are doing such a thing at about the worst time they could have picked(right before Suicide Prevention week).
3. I like the Character, and don't appreciate how they are using her, symbolically.

Do I think fictional characters should be treated like real people? No more than I think businesses should be treated like people(the answer is no, not at all)

Do I think they can show more respect to a character who is important to a lot of people, and an issue that affects probably even more people? Yes. Yes indeed.

I'm pretty sure the guidelines are simple criteria to be met but the context is still in control of the artist. Also Never even heard of this "suicide prevention week". Then again there are literally THOUSANDS of made up weeks and other crap made by cities, organizations, governments, businesses EVERY DAY! And last I checked does anyone know hwo created the whole suicide week? Personally I'm quite apathetic to when people make up weeks and such but hey I guess I should celebrate Smurf week in Los Angeles cause of The Smurfs 2 coming out soon. Seriously go out and ask people if they even know what week this is and chances are the amounts known and the fucks given would be equal, none.

I can get why people wouldn't like it but it's just a stupid contest. It's not canon or anything. Hell if you really cared so much about the suicide prevention then you could easily meet their criteria by DC and give the opposite message within the work. Nowhere in their guidelines are they endorsing or making light of suicide so that is literally you interpreting the contest the way you want it to mean to be offended.

If the best thing you can say about something you're defending is that it's "a stupid contest", I don't think the thing is very redeemable.

That said, it is very possible that they didn't know Suicide Prevention Week was coming up(though this is the 39th Annual year of the event, so it is hardly a new thing out of the blue). http://www.suicidology.org/resources/nspw

As for me interpreting the contest the way I want to so I can be offended? That is ridiculous.
I'm offended because they have made it clear they are trying to make light of suicide with the depiction details of Harley's suicide.

I don't believe that their intentions were ill. Just like with many PR problems gone belly up, I'm sure it was started as just a nice way to give some artistic fans something neat to do.
In this case, they shit in the bed.

Suicide is an issue that affects almost everyone at some point or another. If you're going to make light of it, you should have a good reason/cause. In this case, I don't see any.

You could argue a good joke could be worth it, but in this case the joke isn't all that good. Without much narrative context it just doesn't work when using a well established character.

xaszatm:
Okay, the reason people are angry about that fourth panel is not JUST because she is naked.

It's why SHE complained. Even if it isn't YOUR complaint.

xaszatm:
That entire paragraph is, in contrast to the three previous panels, telling a fairly more realistic version of suicide.

That'd be the point, wouldn't it? They are all zany, and crazy, and done by Harley in full zany costume.

The seriously, realistic, depressing one? Is done by the woman beneath the mask. Remember that naked means more than just nude. It means exposed and vulnerable.

xaszatm:
After all, if you're going to state the obvious,

But it isn't obvious. She is a lunatic trying to kill herself with electricity. Taking her costume off isn't a requirement. It would have been perfectly legitimate to draw her in her unniform.

xaszatm:
It doesn't matter that naked is only one word in that sentence, its the fact that it is included in that sentence at all.

It matters that her THOUGHTS and FEELING in the scene are given far more attention than her appearance.

When a writer wants cheesecake, they ASK for cheesecake. There was no mention of poses, or curves, or anything. One word for appearance (naked) and TWO SENTENCES WORTH OF EMOTIONS.

Objectifying is taking away all personality traits (emotions, thoughts and feelings) and replacing it with physical gratification. Something to look at.

xaszatm:
I am a horrible grammar person so ask if things are confusing. The fact that this disclaimer is becoming more required on forums is sad indeed.

Your grammar is fine. I do feel bad you find the need to add the disclaimer. I never assumed otherwise.

I think we should wait until we can see the contest entries before we lay down the judgement.

The Deadpool:

Lieju:
That description was from the first panel.

I know. She is standing in a rooftop trying to attract lightining and failing. She has this "I can't believe this shit!" look on her face.

Not what it says. The words are 'She is looking at us like she cannot believe what she is doing. Beside herself. Not happy.'

What kind of mood and expression that makes you think of?

The Deadpool:

Lieju:
And if that's what they want, maybe they should have mentioned it?

Nope. This was likely not written as a contest. This is likely Palmiotti's instructions to his artist that DC just took and made into the contest.

Part of an artist's job is to gleam meaning for his writer. Some writers make this easy with painstakingly detailed instructions (Moore, Gaiman) others give just the bare bones (Stan Lee), but most are in the middle. Being able to draw the meaning from that is a key part of the job. It's not just "drawing pretty things."

So? That just means the fault of this is not the one's who originally wrote the description but the one who decided to take it out of context to make a contest out of it.

If this were an actual script the context would presumably be more clear, but seeing as no-one agrees on what the meaning of mood should be, are you expecting your artist to be a mind-reader?

The Deadpool:

If I were to hazard a guess here, Palmiotti pictures her standing on the bathtub, holding all that crap over her nakedness.

So, you are a mind-reader! Especially when the description especially says she should be sitting in the tub, the appliances hanging above her.

The Deadpool:

They could have wanted a different tone. But here's the thing: Nothing there is inherently sexual nor objectifying. You read the tone you want to read into it. The question isn't "Why did DC write a sexist description of a comic panel?" It is "Why are you incapable of imagining a naked woman NOT being sexualized?

Because US superhero-comics (and especially DC lately) have a bad track-record of it. (Nudity doesn't equal sexual or objectifying for me personally.)

So they might have wanted to put it in the description. Or not mention specifically they want her naked.
Or put in some totally different scenario that doesn't include nakedness. I can think of a lot of ways of killing yourself that don't include stripping down.

Not that electrocuting yourself does either.

Lilani:

National Suicide Prevention week has been going on since 1975. It is held in the week which surrounds World Suicide Prevention Day, which is hosted by the International Association for Suicide Prevention, World Health Organization, and the World Federation for Mental Health. These organizations join forces to hold events, rallies, and seminars to spread awareness and outreach about suicide prevention, to provide people resources and information on what to do if a loved one tries to commit suicide or if they suspect they might, and to provide resources those who are themselves contemplating suicide.

Unless you are the almighty and omniscient Keeper of All Knowledge, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And yet I'm still not giving a fuck. Nor have I heard of ANY of that having actually spent a younger part of my youth actually working with people who considered suicide. So yeah sounds like a nice cause but also sounds like it's just in it's own little echo chamber.

No really I've already expressed my opinion on the matter that it really isn't a big deal at all. Also love the quip at the end. Cause it's this stuff that really has made me stop posting or even dealing with these forums.

Tenmar:
And yet I'm still not giving a fuck. Nor have I heard of ANY of that having actually spent a younger part of my youth actually working with people who considered suicide. So yeah sounds like a nice cause but also sounds like it's just in it's own little echo chamber.

No really I've already expressed my opinion on the matter that it really isn't a big deal at all. Also love the quip at the end. Cause it's this stuff that really has made me stop posting or even dealing with these forums.

I only added the quip on the end because your post was dripping with a desire to put down the poster you were talking to. You were using your assumption that the event is fake or new as a device to gain superiority and thus "win," and now that that's been taken away you're resorting to the "I win because I give no fucks" strategy. I too am tired of seeing this sort of attitude on these forums.

I think this whole situation is just weird.

That said, if I were drawing a comic book character in the bath, I think that saying that that character is not wearing the costume that is covering their entire body head to toe at all times might be an important distinction.

I guess this is one of those things where there's not way to really judge the intentions fairly without knowing what the creators were thinking at that exact moment. Not that that prevents everyone from just assuming and going bat-shit crazy over this.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here