[ SECRET POST #4014 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4014 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[The Shape Of Water]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Nick Rhodes of Duran Duran]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Great British Bake Off]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Marvel's Runaways]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Ursula, The Little Mermaid]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Guardians of the Galaxy, Volume 2]












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #575.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: How do you feel about fanart changing canon physical characteristics of a character?

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. Thinking about it more, it's specifically the fact that they're trying to moralize. I mean all creative stuff carries some biases.

Like trying to find it again would be a nightmare, but here goes. A comic someone did created some confusion because you had an 'indie comic seller' who was drawn very average to attractive dude. A redneck hick yokel dude looking 'fanart seller' and a ditzy looking female customer. she goes up to the indie comic seller, who presents her with a comic that's nothing but a giant pair of breasts and she's put off by it, running over to the 'fanart seller' who's selling sexy Green Lantern fanart instead.

It confused people because the art made it obvious you were supposed to be rooting for the indie comic guy, but the lady's actions made sense! Why wouldn't she choose the sexy green lantern art over a disembodied pair of tits?

It turns out the guy hadn't known what to draw to represent the indie comic cover, drew on a pair of tits because they're fun and easy to draw, and never stopped to think about how duh, oversexualization and bimbofication of female characters IS a problem for attracting women readers to comics and so entirely changed the message of his comic, which was supposed to be 'idiots will always go for fanart over original work.' And in its own way highlighted the blind spot that, yeah, comics creators truly aren't stopping to think what appeals to fans.

And so biases are there, especially when you know what to look for. I remember being really upset with one fandom, with two POC main characters, and the fandom fave was always whitewashed to make him significantly lighter skinned than the other character, even though in reality he had darker skin. Do I think they were sitting down and thinking "Ugh, I hate brown people, lets improve him?" Heck no. I think they just unconsciously mentally auto-corrected to make him sexier to them, which means whiter skin.

So short version, creative work always has some element of "I'm doing it this way because I want to." and pretending it doesn't is ridiculous. So if I were to draw Tinkerbell as a My Little Pony there's a reason why. Maybe I like Tinkerbell and I like MLP. Maybe I hate Tinkerbell and want to draw her as an ugly horse. Maybe I have a pony play or transformation fetish. (I mean how many people praise Lilo and Stitch for Nani's realistic body type, when the character designer is well known for his thigh/butt inflation fetish art? He's still drawing his ideal sexy woman, it's just different from the Glen Keane big eyed twig's ideal sexy woman) So it's a complicated mess of 'yes, the artist did have a reason, but the reason is not always obvious.' so pretending art is pure and without bias is stupid, but I also don't think fanartists should be censored. If someone whitewashes, just ignore them. If a ficcer writes a female character as a misogynic shrill screaming harpy in the way of the boys' True Love, ignore them.