Is this the first time cover artists on Greg Rucka’s Wonder Woman have walked off citing intolerable interference?
Adam Hughes ended a multiple year run as cover artist of Wonder Woman three issues into Greg Rucka’s first tenure as writer, after Wonder Woman #196. The printed cover looks very different to the original solicited version, though you can still see reused images, such as the large foreground hands being mobved around and Wonder Woman’s own hands.
The owner of one of the preliminary sketches of the cover to Wonder Woman #196 writes,
This cover had quite a few prelims, one of which I’m lucky enough to own. The eventual cover (far right) was quite different to the study. What I heard is that someone at DC said that in the first colour prelim (the central image) having one of the autograph hunters touching Wonder Woman’s thigh was inappropriate. Adam was asked to redraw it. I don’t think Adam was that impressed with the interference and he changed the whole piece, put Diana in a skirt and cloak, raised her arms up to cover her chest and obscured as much flesh as he could – just to make sure no puritans were offended. The end result was actually a beautiful cover, with a very innocent Wonder Woman looking like a rabbit trapped in a cars headlights. Quite different from what was originally intended. Only Diana’s face survived the cut more or less unchanged.
One cover later, Adam Hughes stepped down from drawing covers for the title, replace by JG Jones. Recently Hughes tweeted, http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/07/18/when-adam-hughes-walked-off-wonder-woman-as-cover-artist/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
There's really no defending Rucka at all. The guy has a history of valuing his "I'M A MALE FEMINIST" shit that he's willing to throw tantrums and run off popular artists from fucking covers of all things.
He also wouldn't come back to Wonder Woman unless they basically let him completely retcon Azzarello's run.
The guy is just completely unprofessional and shouldn't really be getting jobs anywhere.
I'm 99% sure Hughes was exclusive during most of his DC covers and he didn't have much of a say on what books he worked on. On Before Watchmen, I remember reading in an interview he wanted to be on something like Nightowl not Dr. Manhattan but he didn't say in the matter.
I feel this was probably more editorial being fags then the writer being a faggot.
The timing just looks really bad on ruckas part now that he has driven cho off with his faggotry
Look, I love Hughes, I really do, but he likes to draw what is essentially porn. Nothing wrong with porn, but not all comics are porn. Greg Rucka doesn't write porn comics. Comic covers are meant to be representative of the comic's content. Therefore, Hughes is a bad fit for a Rucka comic. Makes sense that he'd prefer to work on something else that's more suited to his strengths and preferences. There's nothing unusual about that. There's nothing unusual or unreasonable about any of that.
You know what is unreasonable? Thinking that all comics books should have cheesecake covers, without exception, even when it doesn't fit the tone of the work at all.
You know what's unprofessional? Whining about censorship when you get feedback from a your employer, quitting, and then airing your dirty laundry. Of course, a professional like Hughes wouldn't do anything like that.
>what is essentially porn.
Cheesecake is not porn.
>Comic covers are meant to be representative of the comic's content.
Comic covers are meant to grab a browser's attention. Whether or not it is indicative of the story within the book varies from comic to comic.
>You know what is unreasonable? Thinking that all comics books should have cheesecake covers, without exception
No one has ever claimed that.
>Comic covers are meant to be representative of the comic's content
>Greg Rucka doesn't write porn comics
He does if it involves lesbians
>You know what is unreasonable? Thinking that all comics books should have cheesecake covers, without exception, even when it doesn't fit the tone of the work at all.
How is that pertinent? Who said otherwise? What was the point of this sentence?
>You know what's unprofessional? Whining about censorship when you get feedback from a your employer, quitting, and then airing your dirty laundry.
Cho only said anything because BC were going to run a story without all the facts. Maybe he's the kind of guy who values the truth over "professional integrity."
I think that Rucka feels he's protecting Diana's image or something by driving cheesecake cover artists from the book. Which is an ironically patronizing and old-fashioned mentality for a self-identified feminist, but a common one.
Although in a way I suppose the cho stuff is an editorial fuckup to in that they never should have given rucka control over the covers.
Still this doesn't really mean anything against rucka like cho does.
I like Hughes and all but he seems to have something against hips. So his women end up top heavy with nothing else. I like Cho better.
Also they should put Amanda Connor on these covers. She draws as much "cheesecake" as Cho and Hughes, but being female I wonder if Rucka would dare throw a shit fit over it.
>Greg Rucka doesn't write porn comics
The appeal of cheesecake is purely visual, 85% of the time, it has NOTHING to do with the fucking writing.
It exist to be a separate visually pleasing element.
I just want to, like,
hold her hand.
Okay, even if I agree with your point, I have to point out that cuck is a stupid /pol/ buzzword and you're fucking using it wrong.
Cuckolding is a fetish. Its when someone fucks your spouse, and you jack off to it. It has nothing to do with politics, having children, or any permanent relationship. People who jerk off to feet for example have nothing to do with walking, and trying to connect a foot fetish to people who are homeless just makes you look fucking stupid no matter how many /pol/tards say it.
Also, yer a faget.
>No one has ever claimed that.
Fuck all of you, I'm claiming that.
Beefcake and cheesecake, all the time. Every time.
If you don't like it, get back in the Amish country where you belong.
Its Puritanism, pure and simple.
True feminism is about sexual equality. Women can go topless. Guys can wear speedos on the beach without being arrested. A guy who bangs a hot chick and a chick who bangs a hot guy both give each other high fives. Anyone, male or female, who sleeps around too much is labeled a filthy slut.
But these new age "feminists" want both men and women in burkas. No sex, no sexuality, just one giant asexual mess.
The sex wasn't a crime. The murder was.
But who cares, they were Portuguese. I'm actually shocked that apparently the British hate the Portuguese. I mean, 99% of the time we forget Portugal even exists.
Well to be fair they're close, like a moderately timed boat ride close. I'm sure most countries don't give a shit about Mexico, but they're our neighbors. And we don't give a shit about Guatamala or Belize. I honestly thought Belize was a city in a more important country until I looked it up. But I'm sure Mexico has Belize on the radar in some capacity. Portugal is Belize.