I know, it's one of those hard calls when it comes to which word to use. I feel like selfie is a good blanket term for self portrait, whether full body with a timer or hand held, so the term selfie gets used a lot these days.
I do remember Freakies! Those animated commercials were so cool, I was a little young to see the cereal in the stores but I remember loving the toys based on the creatures.
The tribute is heartwarming and really shows you how much care went into creating some advertising characters back in the day, now they all just seem like throwbacks or some utterly lame creation of a marketing team, totally soulless.
First of all the NeatoShop is what keeps Neatorama alive, so if you like what you see here then realize the shop is why you're still able to enjoy reading the site.
And the post was supposed to have a page break put in so if you wanted to look at more you can, I agree that without a page break it's a little much.
I'll make sure to add you to the list of "readers who like to complain" Sudz!
I can't help but wonder- do you actually read comic books, Lisa? Anybody who does knows that this issue is pretty silly, because men are just as objectified- powerful male superhero= steroid beefcake, many of which run around half naked as well. And if you're scrawny? Well, you'd better have a cool power or you're screwed.
Wonder Woman is one of the most powerful characters in the DC Universe, nearly a match for Superman, and her classic outfits aren't particularly objectifying. Superheroes are about idealization, not reality, and this whole objectification issue is based on people who don't even read comics taking offense to the cover art, which any true comic reader knows hardly ever matches the storyline within the issue.
Are men offended when every romance novel in the world features a Fabio beefcake on the cover? No, because we know this is all marketing, a way for publishers to sell their books.
Another thing that makes this whole issue ridiculous is the fact that many superheroes wear clothes simply because of censorship. Comic book creators from the Golden Age have been quoted as saying if they could draw their characters naked they would, both male and female, because virtually invincible aliens wouldn't really feel the need to wear clothes. So Superman is actually supposed to be flying around naked, but that wouldn't fly with the parents and censors. How's that for objectification?
This issue is being pushed by non-readers but isn't stopping the publishers from doing what they've been doing for decades- making their target audience buy their books. They're never going to care much about these arguments because the people perpetuating this BS don't buy comics.
I suppose the only true test of public opinion would be a massive increase in male comic book characters being sexually objectified. I daresay if, however unlikely, that did happen all of a sudden, the only quantifiable result would be a reduction in comic book sales.
Personally I've been reading comics for over thirty years, and I know doing this wouldn't result in a reduction of sales because the so-called objectification would only take place on the covers, and real readers would still be buying issues so they can read the stories. But, as I said before, this is only an issue to people who don't actually read comics.
Lastly, on the topic of the recent Manara cover for Spider Woman- she's a character from the Bronze Age, and Manara was most active during the 70s and 80s, so this is clearly meant to appeal to older readers who actually remember reading Bronze Age comics with Spider Woman in them and appreciate Manara's style. The cover isn't meant to appeal to fans who jumped on board the comic book trend after watching The Avengers, it's a throwback meant to appeal to readers like myself who have been reading comic books their entire life.
I agree with John's point that "if you don't like them then don't read them", but sadly this whole issue is being pushed by people who don't even read comics, people who are capitalizing on the current popularity of comics and writing articles about things they know nothing about.
I thought the same thing! He definitely found some historical artifacts, since one of the articles mentions using them to link the city to the Hittites, and artifacts can be mighty valuable.
Actually each piece is made out of gold and 3D printed biopolymer, and while they obviously don't "work" they are made with sharp spikes on the ends to attach to the skin. As for whether or not the models agreed to let them be attached, who knows? But these aren't photoshop creations, just some strange jewelry designs.
I totally agree- people I know who started smoking in junior high (11-13) still struggle with it to this day, but my friends and I who started smoking late in high school were able to quit much easier. Imagine how hard it's going to be for these kids to kick the habit when they're smoking at such a young age! I see gummy nicotine tablets in our future...
If you find this work of art disturbing then I'm guessing you're never going to watch Game of Thrones or The Godfather ever again? And whatever you do don't watch any news from Mexico, because drug cartels are doing stuff like that every day, and Mexico is way closer to home than the Middle East...
I thought about that, since I couldn't find much info on the Redditor, but it's not my job to police the internet so I posted it. It's a link article, so if someone else like Bored Panda posts it the rest of the internet goes along for the ride. However, if the actual person who originally posted the image ever comes forward to claim it I'd be happy to give them credit.
I thought about that, but then I figured the billion or so people who saw the movie Avatar would get the reference, since all the action in that movie takes place with his avatar and not his normal body. I'm guessing you never saw Avatar?
The tribute is heartwarming and really shows you how much care went into creating some advertising characters back in the day, now they all just seem like throwbacks or some utterly lame creation of a marketing team, totally soulless.
And the post was supposed to have a page break put in so if you wanted to look at more you can, I agree that without a page break it's a little much.
I'll make sure to add you to the list of "readers who like to complain" Sudz!
Wonder Woman is one of the most powerful characters in the DC Universe, nearly a match for Superman, and her classic outfits aren't particularly objectifying. Superheroes are about idealization, not reality, and this whole objectification issue is based on people who don't even read comics taking offense to the cover art, which any true comic reader knows hardly ever matches the storyline within the issue.
Are men offended when every romance novel in the world features a Fabio beefcake on the cover? No, because we know this is all marketing, a way for publishers to sell their books.
Another thing that makes this whole issue ridiculous is the fact that many superheroes wear clothes simply because of censorship. Comic book creators from the Golden Age have been quoted as saying if they could draw their characters naked they would, both male and female, because virtually invincible aliens wouldn't really feel the need to wear clothes. So Superman is actually supposed to be flying around naked, but that wouldn't fly with the parents and censors. How's that for objectification?
This issue is being pushed by non-readers but isn't stopping the publishers from doing what they've been doing for decades- making their target audience buy their books. They're never going to care much about these arguments because the people perpetuating this BS don't buy comics.
I suppose the only true test of public opinion would be a massive increase in male comic book characters being sexually objectified. I daresay if, however unlikely, that did happen all of a sudden, the only quantifiable result would be a reduction in comic book sales.
Personally I've been reading comics for over thirty years, and I know doing this wouldn't result in a reduction of sales because the so-called objectification would only take place on the covers, and real readers would still be buying issues so they can read the stories. But, as I said before, this is only an issue to people who don't actually read comics.
Lastly, on the topic of the recent Manara cover for Spider Woman- she's a character from the Bronze Age, and Manara was most active during the 70s and 80s, so this is clearly meant to appeal to older readers who actually remember reading Bronze Age comics with Spider Woman in them and appreciate Manara's style. The cover isn't meant to appeal to fans who jumped on board the comic book trend after watching The Avengers, it's a throwback meant to appeal to readers like myself who have been reading comic books their entire life.
I agree with John's point that "if you don't like them then don't read them", but sadly this whole issue is being pushed by people who don't even read comics, people who are capitalizing on the current popularity of comics and writing articles about things they know nothing about.