Friday, May 11, 2007

Y'know...I know this phrase gets overused and all, but seriously: This is wrong on so many levels.

How is this wrong? Let me count the ways.

  1. MJ, quite simply, deserves better. Just as one of the many people with fond memories of her from the comics, this offends me.
  2. The pearl necklace. As Jr. High School students everywhere snicker.
  3. It's a statue of (what is supposed to be) a lovely girl bent over, showing thong and tits, washing her husband's clothes, for god's sake. Talk about your sex(ist) fantasies.
  4. A few words about those breasts: No wonder she's bent over. A few years ago, Mark Evanier called for a rule that no guy should draw a naked woman until they've actually seen a real one. In person, not porn mags. Apparently, we need to apply that to the makers of statuary, too.
  5. Relates to 4: Just asthetically, that face is hideous. It doesn't look like Kirsten Dunst or any of the many well worth remembering versions of MJ from the comics, beginning always with John Romita, Sr's famous first panel. It looks like something somebody would put togther if they'd only ever caught half a glimpse of a porn star's face on a box.
  6. Oh, and I almost forgot: Just as a once and maybe future comic reading guy, this offends me because it plays so deep into the stereotype of us.

As I say: Wrong. On so many levels.

I found this at devildoll, via thoughts from an empty head.


SAP said...

Yeah, that face really bothered me, too.

Anonymous said...

Gavin says that he is dumbfounded that Marvel actually licensed this.