I don't feel they're objectified in the original. Those are fairly practical outfits, even if they do feature leggings and cleavage. I loved this issue when I was a kid.
The background on the new one is great, but I'm not a fan of the blobby faces on the ladies.
This is like the Tiny Toons version. I think the general composition is an improvement, but the anatomy and costume changes to the central figures are not. I don't like to run down people's work, but this is just childish.
Just as a note, the original cover may be solely credited to Tom Palmer on the GCD site, but I believe that it's actually his inks over Frenz pencils/breakdowns.
Ugh.
ReplyDelete"What this cover needs is to infantilize & objectify the women more!"
I don't feel they're objectified in the original. Those are fairly practical outfits, even if they do feature leggings and cleavage. I loved this issue when I was a kid.
ReplyDeleteThe background on the new one is great, but I'm not a fan of the blobby faces on the ladies.
"Lahsbane?" Really? Fairly transparent, don't you think? Especially back when they were wearing "practical" outfits.
ReplyDeleteThis is like the Tiny Toons version.
ReplyDeleteI think the general composition is an improvement, but the anatomy and costume changes to the central figures are not.
I don't like to run down people's work, but this is just childish.
Just as a note, the original cover may be solely credited to Tom Palmer on the GCD site, but I believe that it's actually his inks over Frenz pencils/breakdowns.
ReplyDelete