September 15 2007
(SPOILER)
IDW releases info and cover art for 'Angel: After The Fall' #2.
This issue will be out in December.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.


Urru's cover is all right, but the variant is fantastic.
UnpluggedCrazy | September 15, 16:11 CET
Pretty much my first reaction to the cover too. :)
Great to see Spike back. Until these canon comics began I'd been missing the Buffyverse in general but I have to admit that it's the character of Spike I miss the most. The guy is a legend. I'm really looking forward to seeing the story behind that cover.
Koven | September 15, 16:20 CET
And yeah, mores to the point, Spike!!!
sueworld2003 | September 15, 16:21 CET
Great covers, though I prefer the angsty one over the red jammies.
But more Spike, what's not there to love!
kellyhk | September 15, 16:35 CET
Craig Oxbrow | September 15, 16:54 CET
sueworld2003 | September 15, 16:56 CET
newcj | September 15, 17:14 CET
Derf | September 15, 17:30 CET
Haunt | September 15, 18:04 CET
skeezycheeses | September 15, 18:20 CET
And I love how the solicitation gives nothing away. Thank God cos I really wanna avoid spoilers, but Im so anxious for more news that I cant help reading them lol:)
angeliclestat | September 15, 18:34 CET
Pointy | September 15, 18:40 CET
Thats a good point. I suppose the first cover is Contemplative vs Kickass :)
angeliclestat | September 15, 18:58 CET
Berry | September 15, 18:59 CET
luvspike | September 15, 19:18 CET
Bobbi | September 15, 19:27 CET
Reddygirl | September 15, 19:28 CET
Urru's art has been amazing all through the Spike series of comics. Asylum, and Shadow Puppets have been beautiful to look at as well as great to read, but I like the Tony Harris one here as well.
Xane | September 15, 19:33 CET
Awesome covers. Urru works miracles with season 6.
Moscow Watcher | September 15, 19:39 CET
cookie_dough | September 15, 19:47 CET
luvspike | September 15, 20:05 CET
deborahmm | September 15, 20:44 CET
SO unfairly cool! Urru's art gets better and better, and the Tony Harris one is a sight to behold!
Dan Corson | September 15, 21:07 CET
So good to see Spike, in all forms.
JuliaL | September 15, 21:48 CET
silvius | September 15, 21:59 CET
Brian Lynch | September 15, 22:01 CET
Koven: you mean you haven't read 'Spike: Asylum' and aren't currently reading 'Spike: Shadow Puppets'? Because they are awesome, seriously.
embers | September 15, 22:11 CET
And i'm getting a bad feeling that Spike might have been dusted..again, which i hope isn't true because the guy already died 2 times already. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that if Angel was able to survive, then so would Spike.
Vergil | September 15, 22:17 CET
Shade of Pale | September 15, 23:28 CET
electricspacegirl | September 15, 23:33 CET
Hmm, I had a theory after S5 of Angel that our heroes all wind up in hell after the big battle, and have to band together to escape back to Earth. I might not have been too far off, judging by this art.
deanna b | September 16, 00:04 CET
Dan Corson | September 16, 01:14 CET
NotaViking | September 16, 03:17 CET
palehorse | September 16, 03:26 CET
anindoorkitty | September 16, 08:53 CET
Much like Spike. ;)
Dan Corson | September 16, 09:05 CET
Actually, those demons on the first cover are showing MORE skin, which I think is demonist.
Immature? Not really. He's like, really old. He's OVERLY mature, is the problem.
Trashy? Hello, that is VERY expensive garments they're wearing.
Can't please them all.
Brian Lynch | September 16, 11:05 CET
Just really wanna read them at this point - they sound smashing, and me hates waiting...
QuoterGal | September 16, 13:35 CET
Madhatter | September 16, 13:45 CET
A picture isn't sexist because there are ladies in it? Or because the male in the picture is also showing some skin? I think you need to rethink that one.
I don't know if you misinterpreted my comment by accident or on purpose, but clearly I was calling the picture, not Spike, immature.
That cover doesn't please me because it's everything I don't want to see on an Angel comic. Women are too often depicted in a demeaning and overly sexualised way in comic books and it reinforces the commonly held viewpoint that comics are just for 14 year old boys (nothing against 14 year old boys - I was one once (for a whole year actually)).
Other people are entitled to their opinions and anyone can post on this site as long as they don't go over the line and the admins step in.
NotaViking | September 16, 20:40 CET
But Spike and the ladies are hanging out, and it's hot, so they're not wearing a lot of clothes. That's what I do when it's hot, I dress down. Look, some of them even have a refreshing glass of grape juice. Some have Ecto-Cooler.
I'm sorry you don't like the cover. Spike seems to, though.
[ edited by Brian Lynch on 2007-09-16 17:51 ]
Brian Lynch | September 16, 20:50 CET
Dan Corson | September 16, 21:06 CET
Brian Lynch | September 16, 21:28 CET
I'm thinking that Spike has gone "under cover" and, being Spike, is making the best of it - or making a show by playing up people's (or demons') expectations of him. Of course this is simply wild speculation since, other than the covers, we have no idea what's going on and won't until November. I'm loving what I've seen so far and expect to be at my comic store when it opens the morning the first issue comes out.
MacGuffin | September 16, 21:41 CET
The sharp difference in the two covers makes me pretty curious about where the story is going, though. Is Spike in heaven? Hell? Persia? I can't wait to read it.
RaisedByMongrels | September 16, 21:43 CET
Anyway...it's SPIKE!!! What's not to love??????
Great job Brian,and all the fabulous artists.
By the way...is the subscription up for preorder yet!!!!!
kathylovesspike | September 16, 21:55 CET
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=335358&blogID=310468878
Buffyfantic | September 16, 22:08 CET
Simon | September 16, 22:14 CET
In any event, both these covers are amazing. Can't wait to see what the artists do with the other characters. Wes will have one, I hope.
cheryl | September 16, 23:35 CET
jcs | September 16, 23:53 CET
I'm liking both covers. Hey, it's Spike what's not to like. In fact the two totally different covers do play on the rich mix of levels there are that make up Spike. Just when you think you've got him pegged he suprises you again.
JuliaL | September 17, 00:05 CET
luvspike | September 17, 00:24 CET
Brian seemed to be pointing out that the cover treats the male on it the same way as it treats the females on it, and that is the definition of not being sexist.
Sexualized, sure. But sexist? As long as the cover has relevance to the actual story, I have no problem with it.
Niels | September 17, 01:39 CET
Oh, HELL yeah! I knew you wouldn't let us down.
Dan Corson | September 17, 02:08 CET
Yes I know what you mean. And it's still quite prevalent in the comic book industry. It kinda weakens my argument that comic books are a valid form of literature when the counter argument from a non comic book is "then why the need to show a semi-naked woman on the cover?".
Simon | September 17, 02:43 CET
samatwitch | September 17, 03:32 CET
JuliaL | September 17, 03:46 CET
Sorry some of you didn't go "huhhhh" so much as "whaaa? well, I NEVER!" but trust me when I say you should look at Harris' cover and Urru's cover together as kind of a "two sides of the same coin" kinda deal.
And Angel is still the star of ANGEL, don't worry. The covers just kinda spotlight who else is in the book. I do believe Angel returns to full cover duty for issue 3, along with...
...well that would be a spoiler. But it's awesome.
Brian Lynch | September 17, 04:29 CET
Well, he does seem to be saying that, but it doesn't make it quite... true.
If one doesn't recognize that the one male surrounded by females, with two of 'em at his feet, for cryin' out loud, is being depicted rather differently than the females, than I dunno what more to say. I will be interested, however, in seeing how this relates to the story. And just 'cause it's got Spike in it doesn't mean "it's all good" in my book, or that it's only what's inside that matters, much as I like the character and the show. It all matters, to me.
My first, second and third reaction to the cover was not unlike that of cypher, and, like samatwitch and jcs, I am not accustomed to seeing a whedon'verse-project showing females - human, demon or vampire or whatever - like this, though I am very aware that many comics have had covers that look very much like this for decades.
However, the demon brothel in the TV Angel series had women portrayed similarly in a way that made some kindof sense - and I can't assume that women being shown in this kind of situation doesn't have greater meaning that will be revealed in the content. To show a sexist situation doesn't necessarily say much about how it's being used, until we have the context - this cover might even be raising such expectations only to subvert them inside.
I'll be looking to see if that's the case when it comes out... but I still probably won't be buying this cover.
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2007-09-17 01:46 ]
QuoterGal | September 17, 04:42 CET
Though, I'd like to point out, nothing is usually as it seems in the whedonverse, no? Noooooooo...
Brian Lynch | September 17, 04:53 CET
However, I think what was a little shaky were attempts to try to explain this cover by itself as somehow not sexist, because all were showing some skin and "hanging out" together...
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2007-09-17 02:10 ]
QuoterGal | September 17, 05:07 CET
Being OTT on purpose doesn't sound like a good excuse to me. Post-modernism and irony have been convenient excuses in recent years for discrimination in various forms of entertainment.
The context of that image in relation to the story is important, but with this being a cover it is also taken entirely out of context. It will be seen by many people who will never read the comic and by us before we read it.
I'm glad that we've got a debate going on this. These types of issues have been discussed in relation to non-'verse related films and products and I think it's only right that we've done the same now.
Simon, you're telling us that you have a non comic book that argues with you - how irritating ;). I suggest you leave it near a fireplace. Or start talking to it about Pulp Fiction (Pulp Fiction, pulp fiction, do-you-get-it, do-you-get-it, I'm here all week, try the veal).
Jo Chen's covers are definitely sexy, no argument there.
Brian, thanks for your last two posts - I look forward to the issue three covers (and just saying that they're great and nothing more).
I was wondering how long it would take QG to give it both barrels (very well put as always).
Perhaps I'm taking this all too seriously (not the bit about Simon's book). I'm pretty liberal about this sort of thing in general - in a right time, right place way. If this was the cover of another comic, I would simply shrug my shoulders - it's just a drop in the ocean. My problem is that this is our drop in the ocean.
NotaViking | September 17, 05:18 CET
Dan Corson | September 17, 05:24 CET
All I'm saying is, choose your battles. Instead of speaking out for pretend demon babes, donate $20 to Equality Now or a local woman's shelter. It'll do more good, and you'll feel a lot better afterwards.
[ edited by dingoes8 on 2007-09-17 07:13 ]
dingoes8 | September 17, 10:12 CET
Doing one or some or most or all of of the activities you mention doesn't cancel out my impetus or desire to do any other. Quite honestly, I'd rate my record of helping women in all kinds of need pretty high, from the very personal and one-to-one volunteering and helping, up to and including money, goods and letters sent worldwide.
This kind of argument can only have any kind of limited validity in cases where you have some particular knowledge of the speaker's "battle-choosing" but sadly, dingoes, you don't - at least, in my case, you really don't.
Additionally, I'd venture to say that neither you or I can possibly determine the longterm "real" effects of altering the way women (and you know, or you must, of course, that this isn't remotely about "pretend demon babes," right?) are portrayed in all kinds of media, but I am willing to bet that in this consumerist society, the more folks say they won't buy stuff and why, and then don't, the less it'll be made.
This is not at all to say that I think any of this necessarily applies to this cover in this case - I'll wait to see if this stereotypical depiction is subverted by the story. But the "this battle doesn't matter, pick a real issue" kind of comment is not something I can happily ignore, and was kicked off, if not about, this cover.
It all matters to me, and "it's not a valid issue" or "important enough" or "real life issue" is something I've been hearing about various feminist issues my whole life. It just doesn't cut it.
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2007-09-17 07:57 ]
QuoterGal | September 17, 10:55 CET
As another mature woman, the cover in question is offputting - to the extent that if it was the only one around, I wouldn't buy it, and borrow a friend's copy to read. But then I suffered through far too many lurid SF book covers when young, to ever like something like this.
Lioness | September 17, 15:47 CET
What I mean is, let's say that this cover was actually a photograph of a guy and four women in exactly the same clothing and positions (obviously with less green skin and horns). Now let's assume that the four girls were where they were because they wanted to be. Simple as that. No sexism involved, no exploitation of the girls by the guy in the centre. Just a group of people who were all enjoying themselves and were equally in control of what was going on and all wanted to be exactly where you saw them. What is the problem with that scenario?
Again, this isn't making light of what QuoterGal has been saying because in many ways I can see her point but on the opposite side of the argument it has to be acknowledged that there are people, both male and female, who very much enjoy acts of group sex and also people, again male and female, that enjoy being submissive in such a situation. Automatically going to the assumption that this image is sexist takes away the possibility that this is just about sex, full stop. I think that it's important that the intent and free will of all involved parties be taken into consideration when discussing any issue of sexism, because like it or not there will always be people that simply like to be dominated. If that happens to be a girl enjoying the domination of a guy in a sex act then surely that is her right? Equality is one thing but expecting anyone to give up their sexual pleasures because the way they are acting could be seen as portraying their own gender as sexual objects seems to be stepping on personal freedoms.
Koven | September 20, 22:55 CET
Being a fan of the medium of comics for over thirty years now I cringe whenever people discuss the state of sexist artistic representations of women in comics... as if all comics are the same. There's a tendency to forget that comics are, as I said, a MEDIUM, not a genre or category. All kinds of stories can be told in the medium of comics, both good, equality friendly stories, and "bad", sexist and prurient stories. The cliche of comics being about musclebound man-childs and big breasted damsels is, frankly, dated.
More later, I have a flock of flamingo chicks trying to escape their enclosure.
Haunt | September 21, 01:29 CET
Simon | September 21, 01:55 CET
I'm curious if this cover is any more tacky than the various examples of scantily clad women that have popped up in the series before? Is this cover more juvenile and offensive than "She?" Or hell, why just scantily clad women? Why not scantily clad men? I mean this is all about equality, yes? What about the dozens of eps that featured naked Spike? Or shirtless Angel?
I just don't feel (personally) that this is really a federal case of sexism. But I'm a fairly liberal, live-and-let-live kind of guy (operative word being "GUY") so it's entirely possible I don't have a f%*#ing clue what I'm talking about.)
[ edited by Haunt on 2007-09-21 17:13 ]
Haunt | September 21, 02:14 CET