On April 12, “Young Sheldon” aired an episode called “A Mother, a Child, and a Blue Man’s Backside.” In it, Sheldon’s mother goes ballistic when she discovers her son is reading a smutty comic featuring full frontal male nudity. It was called “Watchmen.”
The episode seemed charmingly antiquated. I don’t really recall much offended fan reaction back when the book was initially published, although granted that was somewhat before the modern age of social media. By the way standards have changed in comics, I figured if it was done today, it would result in little reaction at all.
Well, not so much, as it turns out. In the first issue of “Batman: Ðámņëd,” well…there’s been lots of talk about Bruce Wayne’s dìçk in the past years, but it’s always capitalized and has the last name of “Grayson.” This time we see a heavily shadowed version of the real thing.
And I’m told by my wife that there are actually some fans who are offended.
Really? If it was Selina Kyle’s pubic hair, fanboys would be all over it. But depict a shadowed outline of the dìçk knight and those same fans are appalled.
I mean, you guys DO get it’s a drawing, right? That Bruce Wayne is fictional. That it’s one artist’s interpretation. That other than an attempt to justify the adult label on the book, it’s utterly pointless. That “Watchmen” was far more explicit thirty years ago.
Jesus. Chill, people. It’s a dìçk. Almost every other person in the world has one. No big deal, in any interpretation.
PAD
• 
Haven’t seen the issue myself but from what I understand, it’s a very difficult pëņìš to see. One reviewer’s comment was to the effect of “I heard it was there so read the book looking for it. Got to the end and had to go back and search for it, it’s that not obvious.”
.
I gather it’s a heavily backlit Batman and a faint line on otherwise black area to indicate an outline.
.
If that’s the case, can’t really do anything other than shake my head at the folks getting riled up about this. Or the comic creators who, decades after Maus and Watchmen and many other such works, still seem to think nudity is what makes a story “mature”.
The reviewer was either disingenuous or is especially bad at their job. There’s several shots of it ranging from a lit oval in an otherwise black area to a somewhat more graphic shot or two. It’s incredibly hard to miss if you’re actually you know, looking at the artwork.
.
Much of it done with shadows, yes, and there’s not a Ren and Stimpy style close up. But let’s be honest, Batman’s D is very much on display. In a couple of the shots, the goods were intentionally drawn to the our left, Batman’s right, in order to justify the light source. It would have been no trouble at all to keep it centered and covered in black.
.
So it’s weird. On one hand, I have no issue with it, and I am surprised other people do. It seems a side effect of “Let’s get offended at everything!” that’s so prevalent, for good or bad. On the other hand, DC got exactly what they wanted: buzz on their Black Label. So, it does come off as kind of skeevy, or at the very least silly.
I like Stephen Colbert’s take: “The scene is from Batman:Ðámņëd, part of DC’s Black Label for mature readers. Though I’m not sure “mature” is the right word to describe a super-hero comic with wiener pictures.”
I will respectfully disagree with Colbert. There is nothing about “protagonist with superhuman abilities in a medium that joins words and picture” that makes it any more or less capable of carrying sexual elements than any other story with any other kind of protagonist in any other medium.
.
Of course, it doesn’t mean that this particular story is mature or good. “Identity Crisis” was not saved from being utter garbage by containing mature themes.
I haven’t seen it either. But my only complaint would be: If you can see it in silhouette, then Batman’s cape isn’t spread and flowing Neal Adams style, to scare the tobacco juice out of some bad guys prior to their through beating. That’s a failing right there.
He also peed himself once and it was the worst thing ever.
This comic is also supposed to be part of DC’s “Black Label” of more mature titles.
.
I am always disgusted with the “concerned citizens” that lose their šhìŧ about the possibility of some unconcerned parent carelessly buying some black label comic book for their kids or letting the kids browse some adult-oriented Netflix movie.
.
The companies have a responsibility to mark their products as not appropriate for kids. Period. It’s the parents’ responsibility to make sure that their kids are not exposed to such inappropriate material. Don’t ask the companies to make all material all-ages just so you can be a lazy parent.
So… Trip to the art museum?
I call shotgun!
I have no objection to the depiction except that it is gratuitous. Why was it necessary? I suspect just for the publicity it generated. It doesn’t advance the story.
Yes, Dr. Manhattan’s full frontal was much more obvious but that served a purpose. It was to indicate Dr. Manhattan was drifting away from his humanity and the social conventions of that humanity.
Isn’t it a shame that despite Lee Bermejo’s wonderful artwork, the thing that got everyone talking about one of his works is whether they can see a dìçk in it?
.
I looked at what I assume is the scene in question, and I can’t see it, outlined or no.
.
What I did see, was Bermejo’s beautiful artwork, and what got me wondering was what technique he uses. Does he paint all that? Or does he use graphics software? I’m acquainted with his work, mind you, I just haven’t read many works that he’s illustrated. I wish he would illustrate more of the stuff that I regularly read.
.
You may return to your talk of pëņìšëš.
“You may return to your talk of pëņìšëš.”
.
If you haven’t read the Stormy Daniels book and how she describes Trump’s…
Yeah, it was on my pull list but I hadn’t read it yet when the owner of my comics shop was bìŧçhìņg about it. I thought it must be a full-page spread of the offending member. I did see it first read, and my reaction was “THAT’S what the fuss is about?”
Did Michelangelo have this sort of problem when “David” was unveiled?
Kim Metzger: “Yeah, it was on my pull list…”
.
Luigi Novi: (Snickering) LOL. I’m sure it was!
Is it possible that it isn’t the pëņìš itself, but rather it as a symbol for lost potential?
“Black Label” was billed as DC mature imprint. The end product was a comic that didn’t seem a ll that different from any other Batman mini series, with a notable exception.
Perhaps it was less about the appendage itself, but rather the idea that it alone constituent a mature story.
Vertigo had its fair share of nudity, but it was to serve a purpose… male and female. It was in the service of more mature themes and character arcs.
This seemed, to me at least, a Batman story that was no more mature than the average. It wasn’t less mature either.
It just had a few things tacked on to get an “R rating.”
Just a thought.
No, it’s just the pëņìš.
.
They are (see below) scrubbibg the “offending” images from the future reprints and digital editions, but the mature readers label remains.
Really, because that link says it is because it isn’t additive to the story. Which it wasn’t.
Either way, that is less about hoe comic readers perceived it, as much as DC’d response to having late night talk show hosts crack jokes about it. As stated above by Gray26, stating that it isn’t mature.
In short it is a P.R. move, Which is fitting.
Showing Batman’s gentiles was most likely a stunt to drum up sales, not something needed to tell a mature story.
I would so like to point out that nowhere in the link you put up does it say anything about getting complaints about it being offensive. I have heard no one anywhere say it was offensive.
Merely looking at it like the sales stunt it was, and having it overshadow the story. A common problem with P.R. stunts.
This is off-topic but since this is a non-political thread, I’ll post it here.
.
Why wasn’t Harlan Ellison listed in the In Memoriam reel in the Emmy Awards? HIs many writing credits for television certainly qualified him.
Because they suck.
.
PAD
So much this. Harlan deserved at least his name appearing.
I always think of Ellison as a prose writer first, though that really isn’t fair.
However, because of that I am always shocked when I remember just how much he did write for television.
I have don’t watch the Emmy’s so I couldn’t tell you how often they mention writers in the “In Memoriam” section.
I would suspect that if they do mention prolific writers, it is about a snobbery towards genre fiction. But that is only a guess.
HOWEVER, Ellison will surely get his moment when James Cameron dies, and his ghost is greeted by Ellison’s spirit saying “You’re copying me again!”
Two words: Connie Willis.
She’s irrelevant to this discussion. I strongly suggest you don’t bring her up again.
Appropriately for the column’s topic, because they’re dìçkš.
Don’t bring up Connie Willis? OK, I won’t bring up Connie Willis. You can bet I won’t bring up Connie Willis. Did I mention I won’t bring up Connie Willis?
How about Al Franken?
Thus far, I haven’t seen any comments myself that display offense, more mystification and cynical amusement at how transparently gratuitous the panel in question is felt to be. It brings to mind a Mark Millar comic (the title of which I forget) of a few years back that displayed a character’s pëņìš; in the resulting kerfuffle, Millar published a comment on how over-the-top all the reaction was given that it was “just a pëņìš,” which is simply a part of the human anatomy, etc etc. However, the panel in question was a full splash with the exposed character’s privates essentially dead center in the page, with his dialogue and the dialogue in the next several panels being about how his dìçk was hanging out. So Millar’s attempts to downplay the fact that the entire scene was about exposed privates was a tad disingenuous. I think any attempt to try to say that the panel from Batman:Ðámņëd isn’t all about Batman’s pëņìš are also a tad disingenuous, especially given that it looks like they’ve got it swinging around.
Inconspicuous nudity CAN be done. You mention Watchmen, and that’s the way to do it. You’re a mite surprised that Dr.Manhattan is nude, and then you hardly notice it after that. The brief shots of a topless Silk Spectre later on are the same way. They’re short and in context, and attention is not drawn to them.
If conspicuous nudity is the point, fine. But don’t then try to take the artistic high ground and argue that the point was not to be conspicuous.
As for Selina Kyle’s pubic hair, don’t kid yourself. Some fans might be all over it, but given the response to Milo Manara’s fully clothed Spider-Woman with her butt in the air, I don’t think any officially published display of Catwoman’s privates would go by quietly.
It’s a two-way street. Cynical attempts to engineer controversy are only possible because there ARE people who will feed the controversy by being shocked.
.
My first thought was: “It’s 2018 and I can’t believe there are people who still think a pëņìš is a big deal and Batman’s comics have not been for kids for a long time now.”
.
But my second thought was: “Of course they’re shocked. It’s 2018 and now we have two righteous armies of censors, not just one. The good old reliable censors on the right who still think sex and genitalia are too sacred or whatevs to be depicted and the new feminist censors on theleft who think almost any sexual depiction is demeaning to women or whatever.”
So, in an industry where “adult” books have had breasts on full display for years, a pëņìš so heavily in shadow you couldn’t actually see it gets erased from future copies? Doctor Manhattan better watch his step. They’ll set out to “fix” him next.
.
BATMAN Nudity Nixed from BATMAN: ÐÃMNÊÐ #1 Digital & All Future Reprints
https://www.newsarama.com/41926-báŧmáņ-ņûdìŧÿ-ņìxëd-frøm-báŧmáņ-dámņëd-dìgìŧál-áll-fûŧûrë-rëprìņŧš.html
There has historically been an odd standard in the display of nudity in comics. In places where nudity WAS displayed, it was considered fine to display characters topless, or to show their backsides, but any display of genitalia was a no-no. This went for both women AND men. If you look at those old Marvel Conan b&w magazines, you’ll frequently see a topless female, but with her nethers either obscured or covered. You could honestly say the female characters are never any more uncovered than Conan himself, who went around shirtless more often than not. Again, I sense some disingenuousness at play.
Pity about the censorship. Think of the opportunities that DC has now missed to update the bat signal.