The Riley one-shot

[riker]

Aug 24, 2010 17:47:58 GMT -5 Wyndam said:

Exaggerating doesn't work when the artist strives for photo realistic likenesses. If Willow's face looks perfectly like Willow's actual face, why shouldn't her boobs? Doesn't work.

Works for me, though. And it's only photo realism to an extent. If it were truly photo realistic, you wouldn't even be able to tell she painted it.

Personally, I want my comic book characters to look gorgeous. It adds to the fantasy---if they can live in a world with vampires, monsters, and ghoulies, then surely they can all be stunningly hot and have big breasts and big packages.

[krazyxxxdj]

Just my opinion here... not to offend anyone

I'm a guy who just finished two semesters of a grueling art/drawing class.
My experience was probably not the same as other's, as art is not my major...

but I found it REALLY hard NOT to draw big breasts.
Three reasons, really...

#1. If you are doing a loose drawing, long hair, lips and breasts usually identify the subject as a woman (unless clothes are involved, skirts and heels can work in that case). It's not as easy as it sounds. If you do a drawing of a figure with no or small(er) breasts, especially with short hair or pony tail, it's hard to distinguish sometimes. I think artists sometimes purposefully do this so it's distinguishable on first glance.

#2 Big breasts in art are just easier to draw. Maybe it's the circular motion, the swoop of the pencil, maybe not. It's hard to draw smaller breasts and feel like the subject is balanced/even. I found it even harder to draw EVEN boobs. (My girls all looked like they belonged in the Sunday funnypapers)

Circular, big = pretty easy, just a swoopish hook kind of motion.
Smaller, kind of has the "tent" thing going on. Which means making more of a triangle. Which is hard. You don't want to make them "lumpish", nor too pointy. Erase, erase, erase. Then mess on paper.


I can't speak for anyone for myself, but that's where I was coming from when my characters and drawings ended up looking like something out of THE FAR SIDE.

#3 Of course marketing has something to do with it.
Get a picture of Olive Oil and one of Vampirella, show them to your uncle. Which one is he going to linger over, buy? It IS sexist, but it bottom line is the sale. This is a side character from a show that's been off the air for a while now. It was probably done on purpose to give it a bigger chance of someone picking it up.

[The Night Lord]

Well, while everyone's bitching about boobs and their size, I'm bitching about Riley's scar. Where the f**k is it? I'm pretty sure it was there in his final onscreen appearance. Let me guess, it was 'accidentally' forgotten?

[zamolxis]

If Riley (and Sam) entered the spy action-section of the army, maybe it was the removal of the scar was necessary.

[Dorotea]

Aug 25, 2010 16:36:10 GMT -5 krazyxxxdj said:

Get a picture of Olive Oil and one of Vampirella, show them to your uncle. Which one is he going to linger over, buy? It IS sexist

ROFLMAO,

Maybe it is sexist , but it is bloody understandable from purely evolutionary PoV too. Hourglass type figure - big boobs and wide hips == image of healthy fertile female suitable for reproduction. That's really why your uncle is going to linger over it - it is evolution. Look at the bronze age statuettes of female persuasion - they sometimes lack heads , lol, but they are always have hips and boobs. It really puzzles me why many consider woman's body drawn as female offensive - have something to do with equating equality with body-type being androgynous as well ?

[wenxina]

Again, it's not about drawing a female body. It's about accurately representing the body type of the model. In other words, Buffy and Willow shouldn't have huge boobs because they just don't. They're still very feminine, but without the T&A.
So, no, a "woman's body drawn as female" isn't offensive. But majorly blowing up certain characteristics that were absent or lacking in the character is a little offensive, when done in the context of "prettifying" the image, because what it then says is "These beautiful women aren't good enough unless they have huge tits".

[AndrewCrossett]

It's easier to make 'em big. You can just use a compass! Or trace a penny or something.

[wenxina]

I'm not arguing ease here. Going big may be easier, but that's hardly an excuse for an artist who draws human anatomy every single working day. An artist who extensively photo-references to the point that her references are so obvious at times.

[47kwest]

Oh, come on everybody, think about all those poor, poor plastic surgeons that would be put out of business if we women didn't have "body" issues.

[wenxina]

Well, the plastic surgeons could them move on to capitalizing on men's body issues, which are on the rise.

[47kwest]

Sooo true! But yuck! Fake pecs and butts, not pleasant idea! But while we're on the subject men are just as idealized as women in these comics. Did you check out Angel in his underwear? Nice! How do you guys feel about that? Just curious. Does it bother you?

[Dorotea]

I guess I am pretty relaxed on sexism then. I would see scantily clad superheroine in impractical chainmail bikini, or leather armor too cropped to protect anything, drawing as sexist. I would consider boobs the size of watermelons offensive and sexist, but Jo's cover was not anything like that , and slight exaggeration of proportions did not strike me as sexist in this particular case. ( Neither was I offended by nude panels in 34.)

Angel in his underwear was actually tamer than DB nekkid inS3 - when he was returned from Hell. Yeah, it was nicely drawn , but the original actor is well... more impressive.

[richie]

well drawing apart i loved the issue.... i liked to know that the TPB are behind something too....
i think i might see a redemption for twangel in the end....

[47kwest]

Yes DB very nice did you see him on bones in his underwear? He has lost sooo much weight! Not anywhere where he was in his AtS days. I wonder why? Brad Pitt fight club syndrome? Ultimately I think as viewers we all want to see the same thing, people who look healthy, no matter what body type.

[beeemkcl]

Just want to get this out before I get #36.

First off, nothing really important happens to Riley or Sam in this Issue. All the meat is with Angel.

(I may mix in stuff from this Issue and the preview for #36, so sorry about that.)

Secondly, this is another Issue that I feel I need to read the next Issue to fully talk about this one.

Thirdly, they seem to be really trying to justify all that Angel’s done as Twilight and make him seem good this whole time.

Fourthly, most of the Riley and Sam stuff seemed like filler. The only important parts is that they don’t seem to any longer be involved in hunting and/or killing demons and Riley thinks he could get with Buffy if he tried. Or at least Sam thinks so.


Now for the ‘review’:

Dismissing Buffy as simply a “cheerleader” or former “cheerleader”:
At some point, are they going to rename the ‘verse the “Angelverse”? Wolfram and Hart didn’t care about Buffy. Now Whistler is dismissing Buffy and saying that Angel’s always been the important guy.

Why is there no discussion of Jasmine? Angel’s hadn’t had a guy from the PTB since Doyle other than Cordelia stopping in for a single episode.

Wouldn’t Angel have heard everything Riley and Sam were talking about in that island? Maybe that’s why Angel was so ‘trusting’ of Riley?

It’s kinda odd Angel doesn’t react to Whistler’s referring to Riley as Buffy’s “other ex”. I guess Angel thinks Spike’s out of the picture.

And, yeah, why is there no mention of Spike, Illyria, Connor, Spider and Co., etc? Whistler and Angel assume that all these powerful creatures aren’t going to be doing anything that might spoil their plans? Is this why/one of the reason why Angel looked upset in that second-to-last panel of #35? He didn’t think Spike would ever show up?

A missile is launched and goes off over an island and no one seemed to notice? Does Angel already have the entire US Military and CIA and NSA and Pentagon and such under his influence? And Russia, China, France, the UK, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, and anyone else who would be interested in a missile going off and exploding?


It seems Angel being Twilight is going to be explained away and ‘made better’ by him doing it because the PTB told him to be Twilight and not tell Buffy about it. But this makes Angel again simply something that is used by bigger powers. Angel’s been used by the PTB and then Wolfram and Hart and now the PTB again since his introduction in the Buffyverse.

And I don’t like the idea that now Buffy is actually just some pawn of the PTB as well.


Finally, why does Angel trust Whistler? If the PTB really didn’t think that Buffy would fall for Angel and have sex with him, pretty much this whole Angel and Buffy becoming superbeings wasn’t going to happen. So, were Buffy and Angel becoming superbeings only possible because Buffy fell for Angel and decided to sleep with him? And if the PTB didn’t want Buffy falling for Angel, couldn’t they have simply told Whistler to tell Angel not to try to flirt with Buffy, ever? And to certainly refuse to date her if she wanted to date him? What did showing Buffy to Angel really accomplish besides Angel almost sending the world to hell and now this whole Buffy and Angel are superbeings thing? Really, wouldn’t the world have been better off had Angel stayed a bum in NYC and eventually wasted away? Someone else could have been sent to help Buffy. How about Doyle? Doyle could kick ass and Buffy wouldn’t be wanting to have sex with him. Problems solved. The PTB here seem to know Angel’s immense ego and sense of self-importance and knew that they could get Angel to be Twilight simply because Angel would like the idea of being important and getting to eventually be with Buffy.

Although, they still haven’t explained the whole ‘glow’ thing, which I assume will be dealt with in #36. Can’t imagine Angel would believe that Buffy wouldn’t kill Angel after learning he was Twilight unless Angel could somehow prevent her from wanting to do so.



AndrewCrossett

One has to wonder why Angel, with his superpowers far beyond those of any Slayer, wasn't just as frightening to those in power as the Slayers were.

Yes, this is also something that doesn’t make sense. How really was Angel able to get so many to follow him?



wenxina

At the moment, Angel has chosen to screw prophecy alongside Buffy.

Angel didn’t want to in Twilight alone. Perhaps Angel alone couldn’t make a new world. Angel really didn’t have much choice. Besides, they knew Spike was going to be back, so how would things have worked if Angel was still in Twilight and now Buffy sees Spike’s back?

Angel is one man. A Slayer army is another matter entirely. And hey, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Buffy was apparently a common enemy.

But Angel is like Superman. They know that Slayers can be killed with such things as bullets.


Sidenote: I operate under the valid assumption that Angel would never kill Drusilla unless he absolutely had to. Besides Spike not letting it go and Spike being a great danger to Angel, Angel has let Drusilla live this whole time. Even though they are both ‘good’, neither Angel or Spike would willingly dust Drusilla unless she was going to destroy the world or something kind that severe. So, of course, Angel was going to do nothing to stop Drusilla from killing lawyers and Angel was not going to try to actually dust Drusilla just because she was killing dozens of people in Los Angeles.



Maggie

This is what bothers me about Angel's actions here. He does NOT have the full picture. He's presented with an unimaginably awful choice: betray Buffy and kill hundreds or thousands or let the world be destroyed. Before choosing option (a), a person should work damned hard to make sure option (a) really is the last resort. Especially if one has been through the school of Buffy where resourcefulness and a refusal to play by rules like that are essential parts of the playbook.

Angel has no idea what's going on, ergo he can't have worked very hard to make sure option (a) was really the last resort.

In fact, narratively speaking we can be pretty darned sure that option (a) isn't the last resort, since it's unlikely that Joss is going to write a story where the way the world gets saved is by having Angel swoop in, work behind Buffy's back manipulating and betraying her in order to save the day. How much more unfeminist could you get than a story where the guy not only has to take control, he doesn't even consult the woman whose role he's usurping.

I'd be deeply surprised if Whedon wrote a story where Buffy's boyfriend was RIGHT to have faith in Whistler's presentation of the fact rather than in Buffy's judgment and RIGHT to undermine her in an attempt to destroy her so much that she could get powered up into superduper Buffy.

Excellent post. Even in “Chosen” (7.22), the world is saved only because of Buffy’s faith in Willow and Spike. Buffy is the reason Willow and Spike became such heroes in the first place.

With this whole Angel thing, it’s been all about Angel and the PTB simply imposing their will on Buffy and Buffy going along. Then Angel pretty much raping Buffy into going to this Twilight place and then believing that Buffy loves Angel so much and thinks he’s so cool and so important to her, that she’d rather be with him and let her friends and the entire world be destroyed than go use her powers to help her friends and the world so they and the world is not destroyed.


Maggie

Pick whoever it is that you most trust who has guided you well all your life. That person comes up to you and says "based on this crystal ball I've got, I've run some scenarios and in all of the ones I've examined where you don't flay your mother alive, the world comes to an end".

Do you just nod and say "darn, I've got to choose between killing my mother and saving the world, and much as I love my Mom, the world has to come first"? Or do you maybe challenge your trusted advisor? Do you maybe try to brainstorm to find a way around the apparent dilemma? Do you maybe (just maybe) decide to go to the one person in all the world who is best at thinking outside the box and not letting prophecies or tough trade-offs limit her options? Do you pause to wonder if your trusted advisor has lost his mind? Or gotten taken over by evil powers?

Angel's choice to trust Whistler back when he first met him was trivial. Angel didn't risk anyting by seeing what Whistler had to show. Even though Whistler proved to be on the money that time, that doesn't mean Whistler has earned the sort of trust that justifies Angel choosing to kill hundreds and to betray and demean Buffy on his say-so. IMO.

Another great post. Hopefully, this is more detailed in #36.



Emmie

And yeah, I'm going to say that considering Willow and Buffy's characters (who are A, maybe even double AA) breasts become practically porn-star sized--that's not a Chen style. That's a sexist comics style.

While I do like the character’s figures being close to what the actors’ figures are, unless you are simply exaggerated to make a point, Willow and Buffy aren’t A cups. Sarah Michelle Gellar is a B or something and Alyson Hannigan is probably a C. But, yes, I prefer (especially Buffy) having “Buffy breasts” instead of sporting Ds.

Willow, Dawn, Faith, Cordelia, etc. all had ‘big’ breasts relative to their figure.
Buffy and Anya are kinda the only ones who didn’t have ‘big’ breasts.

_________

Wow, a lot of posters are saying that Willow didn’t have breasts any bigger than Buffy’s. They were ‘big’ relative to Alyson Hannigan’s figure. I consider ‘C’ or bigger ‘big’ and Aly probably had Cs. SMG and Emma Caulfied were the only ones with ‘small’ breasts, but they still had breasts.

_________


wenxina

Again, it's not about drawing a female body. It's about accurately representing the body type of the model. In other words, Buffy and Willow shouldn't have huge boobs because they just don't. They're still very feminine, but without the T&A.

I talked about Aly’s breasts above. But let’s not kid ourselves. Alyson Hannigan has in FHM . Sarah Michelle Gellar flaunted her legs (as their her best feature body-wise) and was voted as having the best ‘ass in Hollywood’ at the time Buffy the Vampire Slayer was still airing. SMG was a sex symbol.

And, yes, for me is simply about making the characters look like the actors. Like in the Riley , Angel doesn’t look at all like Angel. He’s a White guy with dark hair. And I don’t really like that Drusilla has always been drawn as simply a beautiful woman ( Spike and Dru: Paint the Town Red notwithstanding). Spike is pretty much only distinguished by his white hair and cheekbones. Etc. So, body-type is part of this. How the actors looked is a part of who the characters are. Having Buffy suddenly looking like some blonde bombshell is not presenting a character trait of Buffy: That she wasn’t the prettiest girl around. Besides being pale, Aly had a nice body, as made clear when she’s Vampire Willow and in her FHM spread.

[AndrewCrossett]

I think the purpose of the issue wasn't so much to tell us "See? Angel's been good this whole time" as to let us know there's more to the story than "Angel is an evil bastard." It's supposed to calm down the Twangel-hate just a couple of notches so people are more willing to listen to his story without shaking their fists every time he appears on the page from now on.

I always assumed he had some reason for what he was doing... he didn't just decide one day it would be fun to torture the love of his life and butcher young girls for fun.

I think it's important to keep in mind that Whistler is not a Good Demon... he's a Balance Demon. The last time he showed up, the balance was threatening to tip over to evil, and he took steps to stop it. This time, with the Slayers, it appears the balance is shifted too far to the side of good, and he's going to stop that too.

Seems like if you're a Champion of Good, a Balance Demon is going to be your friend roughly 50% of the time.

It's also not lost on me that both of the times Whistler has shown up, it's been to "reluctantly" pit Buffy and Angel against each other.

[Emmie]

Aug 23, 2010 21:24:35 GMT -5 @riker said:

I doubt the kinds of girls with self-esteem issues read comics anyway.

Shut it down. This is offensive to women. Refrain from making speculations and judgments of female fans. It is not relevant to the topic and won't be tolerated on this board.

It's one thing to speculate on the message of the material at hand, but it's a step too far to make dismissive, judgmental remarks about the audience.

[wenxina]

If anyone would like to hear why Jane Espenson thinks that Riley deserves his own one-shot, check it out HERE.

[Mr. Savath Bunny]

What about the original Kristy Swanson in the original Buffy, I would classify her look as more athletic but again, SMG IS our Buffy symbol thanks to the successful series. I don't really pay attention to the body shapes until they are specifically pointed out. Sam does have some wow-ing breast but again, I think it falls into general fall back style in comics. Like Selina Kyle or Maryjane Watson, they are typically drawn with gushing naughty bits popping out of their shirts or costumes, but again, it has been the way the artists visualized the character. If I drew the women, I would concentrate on their face, making it beautiful to the eye and having a justifiable cute body. I look at faces, if a woman, like comic-Buffy looks horrible I really struggle reading the story because I (not being shallow, I swear) just don’t connect with them. Example, the Preacher, GREAT story but Tulip (being drawn in the ‘80s) looks awful IMO, but I read for the good story, but again… its hard for me to follow.
In other aspects of Jo Chen’s art, the Spike cover when Jo didn't add his "blue eyes" or the classic "scar," she simply stated that they tell her what to draw but sometimes they leave it to her for the details.
I enjoy how Georges does his research for the characters but if Jo doesn't go above and beyond, I won't hate her for it, but the fans will notice.
Overall I do think that staying close to the true form upon which the comic came is SUPER important. I myself am preparing storylines for my own comic works and the characters I have are distinctly different in size and shape (regarding women) simply because they (like Buffy) are based off real human people who I designed the roles for. One female is completely athletic and has A's where another female has D's, I would hope whoever draws my comics (if it’s not me) they keep true to the fact that I designed them that way. So I would hope that generally, people wouldn't alter a body just for profit because S8 was made for the fans of the show.

[The Girl In Question]

Aug 25, 2010 16:36:10 GMT -5 krazyxxxdj said:

Just my opinion here... not to offend anyone

I'm a guy who just finished two semesters of a grueling art/drawing class.
My experience was probably not the same as other's, as art is not my major...

but I found it REALLY hard NOT to draw big breasts.

Okay. Everyone must be different because I am a female, and I have a degree from an art college, and I've been drawing all my life and I have no problem at all drawing small boobs. Or large boobs. Boobs just aren't that hard to draw. Period. Although I did notice some men I've gone to school with did not know how to draw boobs accurately (they'll be too far apart, too high, etc). And this was in the case of actual life drawing, not stylized work.

Aug 25, 2010 16:36:10 GMT -5 @ beeemkcl said:

Willow, Dawn, Faith, Cordelia, etc. all had ‘big’ breasts relative to their figure.
Buffy and Anya are kinda the only ones who didn’t have ‘big’ breasts.

See, I find that strange because IMO Cordelia and Fatih had large breasts (relative to their figure), Dawn, Buffy and Anya were more on the average side (relative to their figure) and Willow was the only one with particularly small breasts (and then there's Fred also). Maybe this is part of the problem? That we are all seeing different breast sizes? Lol.

I still haven't picked up this issue yet. Sad face

Aug 25, 2010 16:36:10 GMT -5 wenxina said:

If anyone would like to hear why Jane Espenson thinks that Riley deserves his own one-shot, check it out HERE.

And that article was very strange. I thought it was going to be serious, lol.