Printable View
Got to thinking to night (shouldn't do that, it hurts) and began to wonder if writers are more reliant on 'Eye Candy' characters today then say twenty odd years back. I mean we had Aurora in Alpha, but her character was more interesting than the fact that she was no slouch in the 'whey hey' department.
I'm of the opinion that in what was once a medium for kids, there now seems a reliance on sexuality to sell he product. Right/Wrong?
I'd say it comes and goes, more often coming. Back in 1990 they had those swimsuit things and Image and Marvel kept drawing bigger proportions on men and women, like Rogue.
Some Vol. 1 artists even started drawing Northstar as gigantically buff...Which is just wrong on many levels. He is athletic and slim, not a weightlifter. Heather even fell prey to the bigger boobs, bigger booty thing.
Dana :roll:
Another one that comes to mind is Laura Dean going from innocent 11 yr old to big breasted totty. However, the one that stands out most to me is when the Invisible Woman took on her 'Malice' personna. If Cher had worn that in any of her videos, I would have bought the record no matter how **** is was 8) .
I think it depends on the writer / artist. John Byrne didn't rely on things like that. Others did then and do now.
As for it being aimed at kids... unfortunately, that's no longer a barrier to sexualisation.
- Le Messor
"We were driving into Canada and they asked if we have any firearms. I said, 'What do you need?'"
- Steve Wright
I'm always looking for these issues! Marvel Illustrated in 1991 and the subsequent Marvel Swimsuit Specials dated 1992 thru 1995 (the threat of a lawsuit from Sports Illustrated made them change the name) feature Alpha Flight members. I just picked up the 1995 issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mokole
Love,
rplass