The first issue of ‘Batman: Damned‘ has dropped and with it a firestorm of discussion around the question of Batman’s junk. In the context of an adults-only Black Label title, in a story that is meant to be realistic and gritty, the kind of tale where even a superhero has all the human organs, the story moment makes sense but it’s still Batman and it’s still a hint of the usually-never-seen male frontal nudity, raising any number of queries. Is it a meaningful artistic risk or just an attention-grab for ratings? And, most importantly, is it an issue that’s really worth seven dollars, leading to today’s subjective query…
The MS-QOTD (pronounced, as always, “misquoted”) can actually see valid dramatic reasons to show characters in the nude, but not every character, asking: Do you understand the decision to show Batman’s junk as part of a realistic, gritty story or is it just gratuitous?
3 Comments
There is even any question? This is more calculated than a Bachelor finale. But hey, anything that sends Tipper Gore into a frenzy is ok by me!!
Given where and when it was used, totally calculated. That said, even the most commercial mainstream (can’t get much more of those than Batman) comic still has artistic elements in it, so I think it still counts as an artistic choice at some level. I’m from Europe and won’t bat an eye for comic wangs or boobs, seen plenty of those. We got Manara in public libraries’ comic shelves.
No, there’s nothing even vaguely artistic in this. This was the very definition of gratuitous. Whenever you’re doing something like this just to show off how mature you are, you’re undercutting your message as it feels painfully and obviously immature.