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
>>84590827
I can see why Rucka would have issues... The body language is all wrong and the bottom of that unitard is riding up way too high
>>84590827
>bleeding cool
Rich, pls. No pageviews today.
This just makes Hughes sound like a cunt.
>>84590894
>the body language is all wrong
What? It's classic "get the fuck away" body language
>>84590894
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.
Anyone have a pastebin or whatever?
>>84590827
Greg "lesbian trapped in a man's body (but totes not trans)" Rucka is a sjw cuck that censors art. What else is new?
Prefer the end cover, much like I suspect I'll prefer Cho's replacement. Shitty reasoning both times, but if it ends with better art then no big deal
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.
>don't have he being groped and sexually assaulted on the cover please
>CENSORSHIP I'M LEAVING
these stories are making the artists seem like babies
>>84590931
How?
>>84590894
>I know more about art than Adam Hughes
Can someone post the stuff?
>>84592545
But the hand isn't groping her
>>84593110
you are correct, it's like melting into her or something
>>84592895
Just go to Bleeding Cool.
>>84590827
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
>posting any journo site other than based breitbart
This board is really cucked in the head.
>>84590827
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.
>>84592799
ok yes but at the same time this is america and we generally try and censor sexually explicit images cuz muh children
>>84590894
>the bottom of that unitard is riding up way too high
That was her costume/design at the time
>>84593275
No.
>>84593756
And who runs America?
>>84594041
Christians
>>84594075
Close.The Answer is Jews
>>84593718
>comic covers are meant to be representive of the comics content
Are you fucking for real?
If it were just Cho or just Highes it could be passed off as them being the problem, but both in close succession is pretty damning for Rucka.
>>84593718
Rucka isn't Cho's employer. Cho's actual employers, DC comics, were perfectly fine with the work he was producing.
>>84593718
>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.
>>84593718
When your idea of cheesecake is the slightest sliver of Wonder woman's leotard of 75 years than you lose the right to decide what is cheesecake and what is not.
>>84593718
>Hughes draws what is essentially porn
You might as well label all figure drawing as porn then.
>>84593718
>Comic covers are meant to be representative of the comic's content
LMFAO
>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."
>>84594285
It's not close succession it's a story from years ago.
>>84594326
And from the sounds of it, he actually had a verbal contract with his Editor that gave him moderate free range.
I like the final version of Hughes's cover -- but probably just because I LOVE that outfit combo on her.
But there's nothing inappropriate about the prelims, god damn puritans.
>>84594686
Can someone post the preliminary sketches?
>>84590638 nice
>>84594686
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.
>>84592387
...anon. really. Better than Cho or Hughes?
>>84593343
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.
>>84597559
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.
The evidence feels circumstantial in this case if rucka had not been a dick to cho recently we would still be blaming this one on editorial.
I can't fucking wait for Hughes's variants on Orlando's Supergirl
>>84594101
I thought they liked that explicit stuff.
>>84597863
Wait Hughes's is doing variants for super girl his power girl variants were nice.
>>84593718
>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.
>>84592799
You could at least point out how some of them are wrong. This like telling someone to go back to /pol/ without addressing the point.
>>84597863
>>84597947
I just want to, like,hold her hand.
>>84592249
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.
>>84598286
no one cares
>>84594101
Are you fucking kidding? Jews only run Hollywood.
'murrica is run by Monsanto and GE.
>>84598048
Very cute
>>84594440
>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.
>>84591300
>muh amazon murder rape
>>84597557
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.
>>84598321
That's because they're cucks.
>>84598431
Hey it was completely consensual murder sex.
>>84598485
This.
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.
>>84598540
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.
>>84591300
I don't think I've ever heard of a writer having having any concern or say in covers before.
>>84598286
Cuck is used in place of bitch nowadays. Doesn't seem that much of stretch to me. The fetish you described sounds like something a certified pussy would get off to.
>>84597633
Then again if not for this incident I doubt rucka would have even thought to ask for control over covers.
