|
Post by brigante133 on Dec 14, 2006 3:12:26 GMT -5
yes, nothing says the holidays like a woman and grinch's bare ass on the same picture. in fact, wasn't ww wearing that little number the grinch has on in the picture you did last year scott?
|
|
|
Post by starlord on Dec 14, 2006 7:27:20 GMT -5
nice shot there. well, I mean nice picture. no, I guess I mean nice shot. ;D
seriously, great job!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2006 7:49:31 GMT -5
Made me laugh outloud! Great job, Steve! Hubba-hubba!
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Dec 14, 2006 8:56:45 GMT -5
You are all perverts.
|
|
|
Post by goldk on Dec 14, 2006 14:25:23 GMT -5
Here's my hat.
|
|
|
Post by starlord on Dec 14, 2006 14:39:03 GMT -5
LMAO!!! That's awesome, Roy!!! actually exalted you for that one. Made me spit my coffee back in my cup.
|
|
|
Post by goldk on Dec 14, 2006 14:53:23 GMT -5
ewwww, did you still drink it?
|
|
|
Post by >>Riz! on Dec 14, 2006 14:59:07 GMT -5
Exalt
|
|
|
Post by Crow on Dec 14, 2006 15:14:26 GMT -5
Sexy! I'll put on a grinch costume if Wonder Woman will come get me!
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Dec 14, 2006 15:37:52 GMT -5
oh i thought you said klaus in that superman costume was sexy...
|
|
|
Post by Crow on Dec 14, 2006 18:44:43 GMT -5
Yeah, for some reason I could have sworn that i wrote this after seeing the WW pic...maybe i didn't go to the "last" page like i thought...
But then again...Santa looks good in blue...
just kidding!
Cool work though! At first I thought Big Blue had gained some weight lol
|
|
Dr Dread
Staff
The Odious-1
Posts: 1,547
|
Post by Dr Dread on Dec 14, 2006 19:58:48 GMT -5
Some great submissions so far. I'm just waiting for inspiration to hit me.
|
|
The Anti-Tupper
Staff
Secret Assistant to the Art Director
Because robots have feelings too!
Posts: 370
|
Post by The Anti-Tupper on Dec 14, 2006 21:22:59 GMT -5
Roy's is very nice...
But Steve, I gotta say, as nice as the artwork is, it's just too....filthy for christmas. And I think Diana would have a little more sense to make her skirt non-transparent. I know this sounds odd coming from me, but give the woman some dignity! She's Wonder Woman, not Wonder Slut!
(dictated, not typed, and Adam is aware of the hypocracy of commenting in a contest that he is too busy/lazy to compete in.)
|
|
|
Post by HoM on Dec 15, 2006 5:44:47 GMT -5
But Steve, I gotta say, as nice as the artwork is, it's just too....filthy for christmas. And I think Diana would have a little more sense to make her skirt non-transparent. I know this sounds odd coming from me, but give the woman some dignity! She's Wonder Woman, not Wonder Slut! I'm not gonna' rant about my feelings on this subject, but Adam kind of sums it all up in his eloquent way! And Roy... Roy... You've got my vote!! And WHY is Wonder Woman's arse always visible whenever you draw her? It's pretty disconcerting!
|
|
|
Post by artteach on Dec 15, 2006 7:37:25 GMT -5
Why you guys freak out when ever I draw an attractive woman is pretty disconcerting to me. I just draw them the way god ment them to be. He didn't make them men shaped with wigs and couple of bumps in the front. Sorry if they are too hot for some of you to handle.
Boy, You guys are really going to love the next Ambush Bug cover. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 15, 2006 7:57:26 GMT -5
I'm about as strait-laced as they come, and I have to say I am not in the least bit offended or put off by Steve's banner image. Is it fit for 8 or 9 year olds--- probably not, but then neither is (most) of our fan fiction (nor, to my knowledge, do we have any members under 13 or 14--- and even then, most of those aren't regular visitors)!
It is a tongue in cheek image, and should be taken in the sense of humor it was presented, I think.
We should be careful to differentiate our opinion from objective declarations, though. I know you meant no offense by it Adam, but I would hardly characterize the image as "filthy", or Wonder Woman as a slut. Sensibilities are as varied as the diversity on this board (and, by the way, the legends of the "true" Amazon tribe tell us that they went into battle with one breast bared, but this should indicate nothing of their sexual proclivities).
|
|
|
Post by starlord on Dec 15, 2006 8:20:48 GMT -5
really I have no problem with it either. I thought it was a hoot! and a great pic.
|
|
|
Post by artteach on Dec 15, 2006 8:32:37 GMT -5
It's like the "He man women haters club" has started a chapter on our board. Spike my hair in the back and call me alfelfa (however you spell his name). I like girls and all you little spankies are not going to get me to change my mind.
|
|
|
Post by starlord on Dec 15, 2006 8:44:07 GMT -5
I have a great line about spankie and the this entire subject, but I'm in weird mood today, so I'll keep it to myself.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Dec 15, 2006 9:59:41 GMT -5
(because you know I'm going to offer my opinion)
Woo! Somebody lit a fire under the Christmas tree in here!
Seriously, I can understand Adam's point. On one hand Steve's art can be considered risque, on the other it can be considered the artist is pushing an aesthetic boundary. But the line between what determines what is sexy and risque (my computer doesn't have that accent thing) and what is indecent or tasteless is a mercurial thing and almost impossible to pin down. There is some amount of cultural divide to think about. I know a lot of countries that are represented here share our "culture" (United States that is) to some degree, but it is also understandable that they are still different. Please know that we live in a country where young porntastic starlets like Britney and Paris are catapulted to superstar fame and sex is everywhere. Add to that the fact we are talking about comics, which has been exploring the portrayal of fantasy women for well before most all of us were born. Similar questions could just as easily be posed to what is an acceptable level of violence in our stories, so the matter of keeping a boundary to be pushed is something good to at least consider.
But, Steve's art has never crossed any real lines of appropriateness as far as what is actually being shown, so ultimately it is a matter of "to each his own".
|
|
|
Post by artteach on Dec 15, 2006 19:08:19 GMT -5
"Don't hate me cause I'm beautiful," would be Diana's response.
|
|
The Anti-Tupper
Staff
Secret Assistant to the Art Director
Because robots have feelings too!
Posts: 370
|
Post by The Anti-Tupper on Dec 15, 2006 19:09:00 GMT -5
I knew if I threw in words like 'filthy' and 'slut' I'd get a good reaction.
And again, the quality of the image is not in question, it's a great piece. I'm just a bit of a stickler when it comes to the characters sometimes. Diana's clearly comfortable in her own clay molded body, but I just don't see her in cheescake poses like that (again, pot calling kettle black from the guy who uses models in underwear as reference). I'm a realism fan, and it just screams "exploitative 90's comics" to me.
But some good debate that's for sure! And Steve, I expect nothing less than your next image to be even more naughty. We are totally doing a 'hot girl off' in the new year.
|
|
|
Post by artteach on Dec 15, 2006 20:18:12 GMT -5
I think people's heads would explode if we did the Dc2 Illustrated Swimsuit Edition.
Adam Hughes did the basically same pose a couple of times with WW and all it did was sell more issues.
|
|
|
Post by Crow on Dec 15, 2006 22:26:26 GMT -5
(because you know I'm going to offer my opinion) Woo! Somebody lit a fire under the Christmas tree in here! Seriously, I can understand Adam's point. On one hand Steve's art can be considered risque, on the other it can be considered the artist is pushing an aesthetic boundary. But the line between what determines what is sexy and risque (my computer doesn't have that accent thing) and what is indecent or tasteless is a mercurial thing and almost impossible to pin down. There is some amount of cultural divide to think about. I know a lot of countries that are represented here share our "culture" (United States that is) to some degree, but it is also understandable that they are still different. Please know that we live in a country where young porntastic starlets like Britney and Paris are catapulted to superstar fame and sex is everywhere. Add to that the fact we are talking about comics, which has been exploring the portrayal of fantasy women for well before most all of us were born. Similar questions could just as easily be posed to what is an acceptable level of violence in our stories, so the matter of keeping a boundary to be pushed is something good to at least consider. But, Steve's art has never crossed any real lines of appropriateness as far as what is actually being shown, so ultimately it is a matter of "to each his own". Don't want to say much, so this can die down, but I have to say I agree. I think it's funny how taboo sexuality can be in this country but violence is easy grounds most of the time. Even when we have Britneys and Parises, we are constantly for then AND against them in the media on the terms of that sexuality. Sex is literally a guilty pleasure for some cases. But the WW pic is in no way in that direction. It's a natural pose that just becomes a "Sexy" pic because of the angle. It's not like Diana is, I don't know, straddling the Grinch, or tickling him, or straddling and tickling a christmas tree. That, my friends, is very risque.
|
|
|
Post by Lantern Lad on Dec 16, 2006 0:14:22 GMT -5
I think people's heads would explode if we did the Dc2 Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. Adam Hughes did the basically same pose a couple of times with WW and all it did was sell more issues. I would have to say that this is, by far, the best idea to come out of this debate so far! Honestly, I think the pic is fine & could just be tight fitting rather than see-trhough! Otherwise we'd probably see other bit's -n- pieces. Which, frankly, then I'd even step on the soapbox simply because some things should remain sacred (Wonder-Woman's bits, for example). I for one find that the acceptance of extreme violence in movies/television/etc. over the acceptance of a nude body in our society (saying 'our' meaning the American society, don't live anywhere else, so I don't really have another frame of reference) is what I truly find disturbing! We can see poeple being torn apart, mutilated, and performing horrible atrocities to others on prime time, but show a hiney or a breast and all Hell breaks loose. For example, look at Janet(Ms. Jackson if you're nasty)'s performance at the Super Bowl and the outrage it caused... then the subsequent reaction from the FCC. Idiotic! But, maybe I'm desensitized from sitting in a room for hours sketching nude models...
|
|
|
Post by starlord on Dec 16, 2006 0:21:32 GMT -5
I know we're digressing here, but Scott hit on something that I discuss with my friends, friend, people on the street corner, a lot.
I would rather have my kids watch a show or movie with nudity in it then with violence. I have never understood, either, how so many americans can get into the blood and gore and not bat an eyebrow, but show a butt or a breast and it's the end of the world.
My two cents.
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Dec 16, 2006 0:41:22 GMT -5
how intense of nudity or violence? would you let them watch some guy walking around "walking his dog" in the nude as opposed to like.... a roadrunner cartoon? i'd say those are both on the same pole
|
|
|
Post by starlord on Dec 16, 2006 0:46:16 GMT -5
well I draw the line at nude dogs. Seriously, I see where you're going with this, but Roadrunner cartoons and outrages cartoon "violence" just isn't the same to me as letting them watch "Natural Born Killers." although don't get me wrong, they don't really watch anything with nudity or much violence in it. Of course stuff like Batman Begins and Spider-Man movies I allow. Hmmm... perhaps I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by artteach on Dec 16, 2006 1:15:30 GMT -5
Wait a minute, her bum is not bare and her naughty parts are not showing. The blue was a lighter blue which I darkened, but she was never bare of bum or showing any parts. She may have some light reflecting off her bum but that is about it.
|
|
|
Post by Crow on Dec 16, 2006 9:11:26 GMT -5
We can see poeple being torn apart, mutilated, and performing horrible atrocities to others on prime time, but show a hiney or a breast and all Hell breaks loose. For example, look at Janet(Ms. Jackson if you're nasty)'s performance at the Super Bowl and the outrage it caused... then the subsequent reaction from the FCC. Wasn't it crazy? I thought, when I heard about it, that Janet had gotten naked or something. When I saw it later, one measly bra-thing came off, and she covered up in 2 seconds. I was really surprised that they got so mad at just her, when it seemed like Justin was the one to snatch it off. Wierdness. THe FCC went nuts, but then I can turn on the TV and Paris Hilton is practically washing a car with her lack-of-boobs for a BURGER king commercial, and then I can change the commercial and see a Rambo movie on at 6 in the morning. I don't know about you guys, but when I was really young, I used to get up at 5 waiting for any sign of cartoon or movie to show up. As for me, I'm a little more easy going. I say if you don't make a big deal out of sex, violence, alcohol or whatever, it won't be so taboo, and so many people won't feel the guilty desire to touch that taboo. Look at the European countries that have nude weather forecasts and commercials with sex innuendo in it. They aren't that bothered by it and they have less problems because there are less people making a stink about it. Or lowered alcohol ages. Places that have it don't treat it as a "major thing" because they don't have to wait until they're 21 to get some legally. All you have to teach it moderation. ANyways, I've gotten preachy because I've had discussions with people on this before... Doesn't anyone else have a submission?
|
|