WorldWatch

MabusRex · Post by **MabusRex** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 2:46 am

Link to X-Fan Article

Well, it's not gonna be out til '04, but Comix-Fan has a preview article up about Chuck Austen and Tom Derenick's creator-owned project. Looks interesting enough, for me.

kladyelf · Post by **kladyelf** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 2:58 am

*klady wanders in and clicks on the link*
well the concept is interesting,
and the art *clicks on warrior princess* (OH MY GAWSH MY EYES!!!!) is typical of comic-herodom (skimpy) and then there's the dude with the horns.... sorry mate Wolverine's beaten you to the "naked hero" schtick (in fact half the X-men come to mind for that category - including Nightcrawler......)

MabusRex · Post by **MabusRex** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:22 am

There's a point to her being as scantily clad as she is. And if I heard correctly, she starts out with more clothes on, then gets less and less as the story progresses.

fuzzy yukon · Post by **fuzzy yukon** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 7:53 pm

YEEK!:surprise Thats quite an outfit! (and quite impossible boobs i might add although it does appear that gravity is doing some of its downward magic on them) anyway.... the concept of the book seems to be similar to the concepts that fueled the Watchmen series.(great books and a good read) It will be interesting to see how the book manifests itself if its anythisng like aa more contemporary watchmen I'll absolutely be picking it up.. thanks for the link Mabus Rex

Bamfette · Post by **Bamfette** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 6:00 pm

ok guys, don't panic about the outfit. there IS A POINT and it is integral to the story that she be dressed that way.

what wasn't mentioned in the article is that WorldWatch's characters are paralells to companies and eras of the comic industry. Warrior Princess' (come on, a name THAT lame should have been a clue it is a parody :p) clothes change accordig to the eras of the comic industry, when she starts out in the golden age style costume, she's kinda like Wonder Woman, her look there is representative of the 90's, and specifically early Image.

truuuust me

while Chuck is like any other man and appreciates a scantily clad heroine as much as the next guy (:p). and he is anything but a prude, and will write frankly and explicitly about sex if given the chance. we've had very long discussions on this very matter, and he made his feelings on it very clear. he's not doing this for kicks, he has something to say about it. he finds the barely there costumes to be ludicrous and degrading, and the reasons for those costumes to be strange and a bit disturbing.

seriously, comic fans are a very bizarre bunch. many of them will scream bloody murder if a woman is shown naked, even if it is in a non-sexual context, saying it's porn and inappropriate, but they are perfectly ok with costumes like THAT?! just because it just barely covers the 'naughty bits'? WTF? I saw it with the Eternal at X-Fan, some people just going on and on about how they were *gasp* NAKED and they had *gasp* SEX! how COULD they?! but the same people were fans of Emma Frost, and had no problem with her various costumes over the years. hello? the woman walks around in lingere, for crying out loud... and here on Nightscrawlers i saw it,and was dumbfounded. someone wouldn't buy Uncanny 408 beause Stacy X was on the cover naked but covered. because of a cover drawing of STACY, a PROSTITUTE whose costume consisted of a tight fitting leather bikini was tastefully nude. i mean geez, she wasn't naked ONCE inside the issue...

truthfully, which does more to 'sex up' a female character? simple nudity, or a costume (usually acompanies by highly improbable or downright impossible anatomy) that does everything it can to sexualize the character? a lot of comic fans out there (and realize, i am not talking about whoever may be reading this, necessarily. as with anything, not every statement applies to everyone. many people out there, myself included, have chosen to ignore these things in comics because they genuinely enjoy the stories. but there is a reason thse costumes and depictions are so prevailent, and that's what i am getting at.) have an EXTREMELY warped sense of what is appropriate and acceptable as far as sex goes. they are perfectly ok with this bizarre unatainable ideal of female beauty, and juvenile ideas about sex, but get upset and act like total prudes if a character shows her bare breasts in the X-Men. comic fans (especially duringthe 90's, it is changing now, thankfully) tended to be a bunch of repressed males (and/or teenagers afraid of being caught looking at nekkid ladies), afraid of actual nudity and frank and real depictions of sex, having the idea that nudity is wrong hammered into their heads by a puritant society. so instead latched on to these near naked female heroines, thinking it's ok because they're 'not naked'. and i do believe Chuck will be making a comment on that in this series. trust me, he can go on about it for *quite* some time....

as a female, i find the barely there costumes to be FAR more offensive than nudity.

taekwondodo · Post by **taekwondodo** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:39 pm

Extremely good point on the costumes. I mean, really, what's more un-natural or inappropriate - being naked in private in a consensual sexual situation, or running around in public in skin tight, leather leather lingerie or the equivalent. I can't believe some of the things comic characters are supposed to have worn over the years. Saving the world in a bikini and thigh high leather boots, what a fashion statement.