Translation from English

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Gizmodo- Spider Woman

Here's How Anatomically Impossible That Spider-Woman #1 Cover Is (NSFW?)

Here's How Anatomically Impossible That Spider-Woman #1 Cover Is (NSFW?)
A few weeks ago, our pals over at io9 showed the Milo Manara cover illustration for Spider-Woman #1 in all its as(s)tounding opposite-of-majesty. Now, a Redditor did a 3D rendering to show just how ridiculous that pose is, from an anatomical standpoint. Some nudity and a lot of weirdness ahead.
Here's How Anatomically Impossible That Spider-Woman #1 Cover Is (NSFW?)

Yeeeeeesh. Torsos, necks, and heads do not work like that. 

Marvel's decision to use this particularly porn-y illustration for an alternate cover is pretty tone-deaf. As Rob Bricken over at io9 puts it, "She looks like she's wearing body-paint, and that's a big no-no for an industry still trying to remember that women exist and may perhaps read comics and also don't want to feel completely gross when they do so." 

Now that we've seen this pose from another angle, it also looks like she seriously needs a visit to the chiropractor. [Reddit via Oz Mills]
54 636Reply
Well, that supports what I said on a previous article about it. Aside from the pose being tastelessly pointless for a cover it is just one of the most abysmal examples of comic art since Liefeld.
It looks like something done by an amateur working (poorly) from reference material and shows a lack of understanding anatomy and dynamic form.
1) I'm in complete agreement that the art is abyssmal. It does look like the artist looked at other material and just copied it using art pencils.

2) I agree the composition is poor, conveying no sense of dynamism. Probably intended as poised to spring, but looks more like cowering. And whether intentionally or unintentionally porny, the pose should have conveyed a clearer dynamic.

3) Where I begin to disagree is that using Poser or other 3-D software proves the pose is impossible. Any artist who has used it will admit it produces visual artifacts, and moves primarily from the major limb and neck joints and poorly reflects things like shoulder motion, back arches, and range of motion. a) One of the few things that are clearly and correctly done is the reversed arching back. SW clearly has her back bowed down, shoulders down and forward, not up and pulled together, as the Poser figures shows. This makes the neck a little more believable, though it's still probably past the borderline of credible. b) How many impossible poses have I seen Spider-MAN display, scratching the back of his head with both feet while he swings through the air. If either/both are superhumanly flexible, then that also argues that the pose is not impossible.

I think comics should be made more approachable for women. I don't know any long-time male fan that wouldn't like to have conversations with women idly discussing the merits of this or that comic or hero. I'm pretty sure I could find a thousand examples of Spider-MAN in porny poses as well. The art is crappy with poor composition and even poorer execution. But, I don't read into the pose what others are seeing.
Listen, in the world of Marvel, some clipping may occur.