The Four Color Media Monitor

J. Scott Campbell drew a variant for Brian Bendis's diversity-driven replacement for Tony Stark featuring Riri Williams in a tank top, and SJWs went bonkers, resulting in Marvel caving:

Marvel has pulled a forthcoming comic cover after it was criticised for “sexualising” the 15-year-old girl who is the new Iron Man.

Or did they? There are mid-teen girls who wear bare midriff outfits, so this does sound like an overreaction. Besides, Tula, the original Aquagirl, wore one in the late 60s, so I don't see why this is such a big deal. If they don't like the variant, they don't have to buy it. But what really undoes the whole fauxtrage is a certain cover that's not mentioned in the MSM:

@JScottCampbell these faux controversies happen once in a while when people get bored. No one complained over the original pic.twitter.com/4BaRqJTgY9

— Sighphi (@Sighphi) October 21, 2016

It's pretty clear now this was all just an excuse to attack Campbell because he represents everything an obsessed SJW wants to hate because they simply must. If Campbell is "sexualizing" the character, isn't the artist who drew the original cover doing it too? I'm not sure who the guy is who drew that one, but one can only wonder why he gets off almost scot free while Campbell doesn't.

The variant cover showed Riri Williams, a science genius who reverse engineers one of Iron Man’s suits in her dorm room at MIT, in a revealing crop top, and drew sharp criticism online. “It’s as though they decided a teenage girl’s face was fine, but let’s attach a more grown-up body to that face, because she’s not a true female superhero until you can imagine having sex with her,” wrote Teresa Jusino at comics site the Mary Sue, calling on Marvel to “stop sexualising female teenage characters like Riri Williams”.

It's almost amusing the same sources who see nothing wrong with adding on these PC replacements at the expense of established heroes suddenly complain about the characters being sexualized when the whole product is hardly worth the fuss to begin with.

Marvel has subsequently withdrawn the Campbell variant cover, which was exclusive to Midtown Comics, and released images of interior art from the comic by the artist Stefano Caselli, showing a very different version of the character. Another variant cover by Campbell, in which the character is wearing the Iron Man armour, is still on sale and out in November.

Let's see, this was only going to be sold at a single store or chain? In that case, I'm not sure what the point was of bothering, since there's bound to be only 2 or 3 dozen covers available. All they're doing is making jokes out of themselves, to say nothing of taking up socialist positions.

Campbell called the decision “unfortunate” and said that he “simply attempted to draw a sassy, coming-of-age young woman”. “I greatly appreciate the noticeable uptick of support today in the wake of the fallout of this faux controversy,” he wrote on Twitter. “I gave her a sassy ‘attitude’ … ‘sexualising’ was not intended. This reaction is odd.”

It sure is. All they're doing is boosting support for Campbell.

But Brian Michael Bendis, the writer of the series, said he was “very glad they are not going forward with the cover”.

Then why did he have no objections to the first one? As if this weren't silly enough, there's even been complaints lodged that Riri's skin color was "lightened". Please. It's hardly that. It's just a case of using lighter looking graphical effects. Yet another goofball looking for excuses.

It's pretty clear that as of now, Campbell's become the ideal scapegoat for many SJWs looking for somebody - anybody to attack because they loathe his/her style. Yet I want to note that unfortunately, Campbell's still not making the best choices for assignments. Look what he's been promoting:

🔊🕸 PRE-ORDERING for our 3 EXCLUSIVE covers (1-C shown here, the RAREST of the 3!) to The AMAZING-SPIDER-MAN: Renew … pic.twitter.com/zijuemO9b6

— J. Scott Campbell (@JScottCampbell) October 22, 2016

I can't believe this. He's touting a storyline that turned out to be a ripoff? Which didn't restore the marriage of Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson? What's the point? I don't see why we should buy something written by a writer as awful as Dan Slott. That Campbell's been lending his talents to those kind of people's work is hugely dismaying. Besides, I for one have no interest in supporting "Iron Maiden" when it's all being done at the expense of Tony Stark, who's been kicked to the curb in the latest crossover. I look at what Campbell's been doing lately and have to shake my head and wonder why he's wasting his talents doing cover drawings for books that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Campbell doesn't deserve this kind of petty hostility. But he's not making things any better by propping up books written for a SJW crowd that even they probably don't buy and read.

Update: it turns out the cover above by Campbell is for an unrelated miniseries written by Gerry Conway that's different from the vision pushed by Joe Quesada in the past decade. So Campbell's off the hook for that, though I still think he made a mistake lending his talents to the SJW-pandering vision for Iron Man.

Labels: censorship issues, Iron Man, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics