Mary Jane Statue uproar
 

geez, arent there other things in life to raise hell about?

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=113690

Last week, bloggers started in on it and ran, and then, impossibly, the story made its way to The New York Post Fox News, MSNBC and other outlets. And it was about comics – kinda.

It’s Sideshow’s Mary Jane statue, based on a design by Adam Hughes. The statue was announced and made available for pre-order, with a release date of the third quarter. Like many of Sideshow’s collectibles, it was a limited edition, with an unspecified number being produced.

The issue about it – take your pick: opinions ranged from outrage to seeing it as no big deal, and everything in between, with the majority (or at least the majority talking about it) leaning towards outrage.

And then things got weird – the bloggers fire over the statue was enough to catch the attention of major media…well, The New York Post, Fox News, MSNBC and others, who reported with their own spins which ranged from close to representative of fan outrage to downright embarrassing (MSNBC called in Feedback, winner of Who Wants to be a Superhero as an “expert.” Warning – wear your anti-stupid helmet when you watch the MSNBC video clip – otherwise, you’ll get a welt from banging your head on your desk.)

Why was this news at all? After all, if you’ve been collecting comics for any length of time, you’ve seen worse – you’ve probably even seen worse with the aforementioned Mary Jane Watson. Well, more than anything else, think news cycle. Were the major media outlets worried about a Mary Jane statue designed and manufactured for a small cohort of hardcore Spider-Man fans? Nope. Spider-Man 3 had opened, was doing pretty darn well, and anything with a Spider-Man image on it was likely to pull in eyeballs and viewers…even if you were then going to trot out a costumed adult as some kind of “expert.”

That’s not to say that those critical of the statue’s points weren’t valid. For some, the statue was an overt sexualization of a comic book character (who, to be fair, has spent the bulk of her four-plus decades in comics as a sex symbol of some kind or another), while for others, it was a degradation of a female in comics. And to some…well, they just saw it wrong.

How so?

Originally, one of the views of the statue that took hold was that it showed Mary Jane physically washing Peter Parker’s laundry, which served as a foundation of a litany of complaints and assumptions. As others have since pointed out, that’s not what’s going on, given, for one, Sideshow’s description of the statue on their website:

The Mary Jane Comiquette was designed by artist Adam Hughes, who's critically acclaimed realistic illustration meets "good-girl" pin-up style art has made him one of the comic book industry's most sought after artists and a perennial fan favorite. The consummate "girl next door," Mary Jane discovers that her superhero husband has slipped some of his laundry into the mix, but she's not looking too displeased about Peter's naughty little transgression.

http://www.newsarama.com/Merchandise...ress01-001.jpg

http://www.newsarama.com/Merchandise...ress10-001.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/images/283648...mary_jane1.jpg

I wish I could get one, but they are already sold out

:lol: rotfl :lol:

OMG that's so degrading!!!!11!! Jeeesus!

:lol:

Have you gotten on Sideshow's waitlist for this? There are always cancellations and credit card declines. I've gotten quite a few items from the waitlist.

I saw this on the Sideshow website and would have ordred it had I studied harder in college ie had more money today. No idea why anyone would be offended by this. I see worse at the supermarket check out lane on the cover of Cosmo most months.

Not one of my favorite positions.

I'm still waiting for "Missionary" Mary Jane.

Just be grateful it wasn't Aunt May.

Wasn't there also "outrage" over a similar Catwoman bust?

There's always other things in life; that doesn't make the things we chose to do necessarily less worthwhile. I personally am not particularly offended by the statue, but I can certainly see why some are. And if they chose to spend their time vocalizing that offense -- well, I'm spending my time talking about it on DVDTalk, so who am I to cast stones?

I for one, am shocked that they can objectify Mary Jane in this way.

Next thing you know, she’ll be portrayed as a go-go dancer in the comics!


http://www.samruby.com/AmazingSpider...der-Man059.jpg


(Oh… wait…)

I've read a lot of the more venomous posts coming from the feminist LJ using set. And while they're certainly rabid about this, I can see why they don't like it.

I personally just think it is corny as all hell. I really dig pin-ups and all, but this is just...yeah. But I feel bad for AH! Looking at his original art it really isn't bad at all even though his defense of the statue on Newsarama was pitiful.

If only they got someone that curvy to play her in the movies, instead of stick-figure balloon head Kirsten Dunst.

Hmm... haven't looked at the newsarama article yet... are they upset because of the cheesecake, or because she's depicted washing clothes?

Bryce Dallas Howard would have been perfect to play MJ. Although she is not busty, she still has a gorgeous figure and a beatiful face. Dunst, although cute in her own quirky way, is the knockout MJ is supposed to be in the comics.

As for the bust, this is nothing new. Media outlets want to create news, so the do this puff pieces about a hot topic, like Spider-Man, and create a big fuzz about nothing.

People have been complaing about both, separately and together.

Anyone complaining about the cheesecake desparately needs to take off the rose colored glasses next time they read a mainstream comic book.

I thought his defence was pretty good, and it makes a lot more sense than the idea of having her do laundry for no particular reason (which just seemed strange).

I read a lot of feminist theory books for my literary theory classes, and I get the complaints about choosing a subservient position as the iconic image. But I certainly don't think there was anything intentional about it. They wanted a sexy pose + spider-man reference (without spider-man himself) using just the costume is an obvious choice, and putting the two together wouldn't be much of a trip.
Of course, feminists would say it's a product of the sexist ideology, that's inclined to put women in these roles, and there's truth to that.

Have any of the people complaining about the cheesecake even seen an Adam Hughes drawing before? Their heads would probably explode... that's all he does (and he does it well).

How come no one complained when the Emma Frost statue came out? Or did I miss it?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ress06-001.jpg

Good thing I had one pre-ordered since it was announced. Thank you overreacting media. Now if I decide to make some money on the after market when it comes out the price just got bumped up.

Good ol' sideshow collectables exclusives. I've learned to pre-order all the potential hot pieces now and cash in later.


On a serious note. I don't get the outrage. It's Adam Hughes. Did they not see the "WOMEN OF DC" Bust that came out? Catwoman putting a diamond down her front, Supergirl opening her shirt to reveal the S logo. Power girl... being power girl. Big Berda in a way we've never expected to see her before. It's just what he does and most females don't have a problem with it because it's tapping into the roots of comic books. You know, those old pulp comics and the 40/50's pin ups.

Hah! when I first saw the MJ statue I knew someone was gonna shit a brick. :lol:

Meahwhile no one says a thing abouthe tit shots of Dunst as MJ in teh 1st 2 Spider-man movies.

I know what you mean. But you know Jack, after seeing how some of the guys here on dvdtalk talked about how women are portrayed in comics I've come to realize some people just aren't interested in that sort of thing. To me it's cheeky fun to others it's a degrading off putting thing. Enough that some stopped reading comics over it.

You might as well argue about how women are portrayed in the media in general. It's not limited to comics.

Hell, even in comics men are treated with extremely high standards and unrealistic goals as well. Does anyone think they can ever look as buff as batman does or have abs like most every superhero male? How many horse pills will be needed to even come close to the muscle builds some of those characters even have?

Yeah, women get skimpy outfits. great. but men also run around in their underwear in capes saving the world. It's not limited to one gender getting unrealistic comic versions.

:thumbsup:

A bunch of straight guys incredulous that anyone could find such a sexist and ridiculous statue degrading? SHOCKING!

I have pointed out in this forum before that the representations of men and women in comics are not comparable. Women are hypersexualized fuckdolls (god, I love that term) because that's what straight teenage males want to see. Comics' portrayal of men is much more rooted in the perfection idolization of teenage males to have perfect bodies. There is very little to nothing sexual about it.

Yeah but stilll, we're always being told by certain groups how "uptight" and "conservative" Americans are when it comes to sex and how we should "loosen up" and be more easy going about it. They tell us to treat sex and sexuality like the Europeans do because they're attitudes are more advanced. Then when someone does something that appeals to certain sexual tastes, the shit gets stirred up.

I'm so confused about what Americans can and cannot do when it comes to sexy images. :lol::lol:

Perhaps they should hire more Women and Conservative men to draw and sculpt comic images then the Offended parties can return to comics and be less offended....