Apparently giant-size mascara isn't a problem.

draculatte | December 14, 02:13 CET

I smiled all throughout reading that. Not that I didn't love BKV's run, but you can always tell a Joss script. There's a verisimilitude to his writing of Buffy.

IMForeman | December 14, 02:36 CET

You're flying. I'm dangling.

Hah!
Yes, much smiling.

jcs | December 14, 02:55 CET

I don't like the art as much, at least from these few pages. Do we know if we're getting Georges back?

5X5B | December 14, 03:17 CET

"That's bettNOT BETTER!" LESS BETTER! ;)

*sigh*

As glad as I am that we have the comics, it's moments like these that make me miss the show. But then again, maybe that the genius of the whole thing. :)

deepgirl187 | December 14, 03:18 CET

I also don't like the art as well, but there were certainly some nice bits of dialogue. :)

swanjun | December 14, 03:54 CET

LOVE THE ART!

Sorry. Didn't mean to yell. I'm just sooo tired of the bobbleheads. These Scoobies look like real people. Yay!

The writing flowed wonderfully well. Deeopgirl187, I love that line too. I stopped and rewound, er, re-read it a few times just to turn it over in my mind.

Looking forward to 2. January.

ohbejoyful | December 14, 04:13 CET

If I were a snarky, less well-adjusted person I'd pay homage to some of the complaints about the big boob art in ATF by getting all offended at Daniel Craig's "beanbag". I mean I'm just trying to read a good comic, I don't need to be pulled out of the story by gratuitous, exaggerated beefcake. I cry foul! I cry SEXISM!!

Or I would... cry I mean. I would cry all that... IF I were snarky and less well-adjusted.

Thankfully I'm not. Not snarky that is. And not well-adjus-- no, no dammit, not LESS well-adjusted. I'm well adjusted, not snarky and not less well-adjusted.

*sigh* Nevermind. Not liking CR's artwork here any more than I did in his previous Buffy works.

[ edited by Haunt on 2007-12-14 05:35 ]

Haunt | December 14, 04:20 CET

I wonder how they'll work in the contest winner.

The writing seemed good, but the intense cleavage was distracting and not something I'd expect from my favorite show.

Also, did anybody else think Dawn looked a little like Julie Cooper from the OC and a marionette? (I think the same actress was on Firefly, but I actually don't know because I didn't watch it.)I'm not trying to diss the pictures, though, I could tell who everybody was and besides the boob thing they didn't detract from the story..

[ edited by ProphecyGirl16 on 2007-12-14 04:34 ]

ProphecyGirl16 | December 14, 04:32 CET

Honestly? Until I read the speech bubble of Buffy's about how only Daniel Craig could interrupt her charbroiling...I thought she was jonesing for a non-solar allergy Spike? Cuz come on...someone can't tell me that they didn't automatically assume she was dreaming Daniel Craig!

;)

Really can't wait to read this...though it may be awhile. Like second or third TPB collection "awhile"...:(

BlueEyedBrigadier | December 14, 04:47 CET

Ha. Xander bribes Dawn for the information!

I think the physiques in Buffy's imagined beachscape are intentionally a bit overdone. I thought it was funny, anyway. Buffy picking up a copy of Lestat for a little beach reading, I find much harder to believe.

Does the last scene make anyone else think that Tiny Xander would have been kind of awesome, had Giant Dawn not worked out?

Sunfire | December 14, 04:53 CET

"I dn't lff you hnymore." lol

dulce_serenidad | December 14, 05:02 CET

Awesome! I want more!!!

alexreager | December 14, 05:11 CET

Comic-book XanMan's lookin' gooood. But {{sigh}} Willow just doesn't really ever translate for me. If Jo Chen could just draw the Willowbits inside the pages of Buffy 8...

Kat Jetson | December 14, 05:18 CET

I'm actually loving this art.

But more than that, the script. This is already awesome.

(And by the way, does anyone know if Georges is returning for #11 or are they going to keep revolving different artists on the standalones?)

UnpluggedCrazy | December 14, 05:34 CET

Never commented on the art before, but this? - makes me miss Jeanty. I like the conversations, but I hope Buffy brings up the Giles stuff quickly. I want to know what's going on with those two.

shambleau | December 14, 06:06 CET

I don't think the boobs should be an issue. Buffy is having a sexual fantasy, most people enhance certain parts of their fantasies to make the whole thing more sexy, including themselves even to make them feel better. This wasn't actual Buffy, this was fantasy Buffy how she would love to see herself.

Loved the dialogue it was just so Joss and great to see the Scoobs chatting care-freely like this. Just awesome, cannot wait for this issue!

vampmogs | December 14, 06:16 CET

I prefer this artist over Jeanty, actually. There are some weird shadow things that bug me, but I just never could get into Jeanty's slightly cartoony style.

RaisedByMongrels | December 14, 06:22 CET

I think the artwork is great. Excited and can't wait to see how the winner of the contest is worked into the story.

[ edited by Chelleatrix on 2007-12-14 06:27 ]

Chelleatrix | December 14, 06:26 CET

Wait...does this mean that Buffy doesn't want James Spader to call her anymore?

And regarding the art: I find it highly amusing that Cliff Richards is getting such raves now. When he worked on the original BtVS comic, an occasional complaint from some was that he was a bit weak at capturing the accurate look of the actors, unless he was working from a photo. Whether that's true or not, just looking at these pages, it seems to me that Cliff has really stepped up his game, and he's turning in some of his best work ever. And it's certainly nice to see an old hand from the first run of the comic back in harness, even if only temporarily(?).

[ edited by Shiai on 2007-12-14 06:47 ]

Shiai | December 14, 06:43 CET

I loved this, both the script and the art. LOVED the art. Loved. Did I mention...loved?

I didn't mind Buffy's boobage. I didn't think it was anymore overdone than in S1...they made SMG wear a lot of pushup bras back in the day!

Great likenesses too, I thought.

ladygrey | December 14, 06:49 CET

Exactly when this is taking place is beginning to bug me. Weren't we told about eighteen months after Chosen? The Daniel Craig thing, combined with the Amy Winehouse and Arctic Monkey references, fits three years after Chosen better, IMO.

shambleau | December 14, 06:54 CET

A very fun opening to an issue that I expect will be very moving by the end. I can just imagine people reading that last panel and going "LFF!? WHAT DOES HE MEAN BY LFF!?"

Lady Brick | December 14, 07:22 CET

I think the timeline can be reconciled, Shambleau. Winehouse and the Monkeys were rising stars in the UK long before they hit it big in America, and Buffy and the gang are now ensconced in Scotland. Also, Craig was an overnight media sensation the moment he was announced as the new Bond two years before the film was even released, so again, Buffy could very conceivably have known all about him at the time.

Shiai | December 14, 07:37 CET

It's an alternate reality. Events move at a faster pace in Buffy's world.

Simon | December 14, 08:06 CET

I liked the art. Its less ink heavy and more dependent on shading, which is the way I think it should be (but then again, I know nothing about comics, so never said anything).

Issue 9 was so good, it has me going through the box set and I'm ready for this one. I love preview pages; it gives me so much to chew on.

Arabchick | December 14, 08:24 CET

I find it difficult to comment on the art-style until I've read the entire issue. Based on both the title and cover I find it kind of fitting though. Not what I would want for a regular series artist, but definately a nice change of pace if the issue is going to be a bit more interspective.

I am adoring Buffy Season 8 so far. I actually just picked up the first trade last week and have been rereading it every few days (works better collected imo.) Brian K. Vaughns run was also pretty close to perfect imo.

Added: If you mean that the comic has you watching the show again Arabchick.. it's the same way for me. I have been frequenting this site since Angel Season 5 was airing, but I haven't posted in forever. After the last issue of the buffy series I actually popped in my buffy DVDs. I'm actually about to watch Dead Things as I type this.

[ edited by rabid on 2007-12-14 15:10 ]

rabid | December 14, 15:07 CET

I cry foul! I cry SEXISM!!

I cry "Dream!!!" (one more exclamation point, I win ;). Also, have you seen 'Casino Royale' Haunt ? That's actually not far off how he looks, the guy must've frikkin' lived in the gym before filming. Buffy on the other hand ... well, let's just say she's definitely dreaming ;).

(i'll fly with 'gratuitous' though. Except the funny trumps that)

It's an alternate reality. Events move at a faster pace in Buffy's world.

That fits with my theory that this world is actually in a Hell dimension. A hundred years, the slooowwww way.

Don't mind the art, not mad keen on the way some of the colours have been done though (the shading on the faces is a bit weird I reckon). And the dialogue ? Ah ... the dialogue. BKV did a great job but Joss is still boss ;).

Saje | December 14, 15:30 CET

Er... as opposed to this? This kinda looks like Archies to me. Large exaggerated and overdone crosshatching and deformed anatomy with less panel to panel consistency? I'll take Georges back now, please.

zeitgeist | December 14, 15:37 CET

I'm with zeitgeist on the art style. This seems much more cartoony than Jeanty. Totally Archies.

But never mind. These preview pages are awesome. I lovelovelove the dialogue and character interactions. I'll probably end up liking the art much more when I've read through the whole thing. I can't wait till I get my hot little hands on this.

Speaking of hot, or not, Daniel Craig here doesn't have much of a package, imo. Bulge? What bulge? He's all bulging thighs and outsized arms/torso/shoulders. Not so much with the bulging elsewhere. Kinda reminds me of how Ken dolls strangely lose their masculinity down about there. Barbie's got the huge boobies. Ken? Big old chest and arms but nowheresville down there. All that aside, 'twas an amusing attempted "dream."

Apropos of something someone said upthread about this Dawn resembling Julie Cooper from the OC - I don't think she does, but does anyone think that in the recent Faith arc, right after Faith has forked Giles and he's pulling down his sleeve, there's a panel in which he looks exactly like William Hurt? I find it extremely disturbing.....:)

[ edited by phlebotinin on 2007-12-14 16:06 ]

phlebotinin | December 14, 16:01 CET

I like both covers so much I might actually try to acquire an additional copy of this one.

Maeve | December 14, 16:27 CET

Much, much better art. At least the characters are starting to actually look like the people, they are meant to be.

I hope we see more of Mr Richards work on this series.

Oh and the fist cover art of Wilow and Buffy flying, just astoundingly beautiful.

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2007-12-14 17:05 ]

sueworld2003 | December 14, 17:04 CET

Wow... I'm literally stunned by the number of people who like this art. I've never been a fan of Cliff's, but I really think what I'm seeing here is a significant step DOWN from his older stuff. This looks incredibly rushed, sloppy and imprecise. The layout is pretty basic and pedestrian. And since I have a "secret source" on the inside of production on this I happen to know WHY the inking looks so rough.

*shrug* I just don't think this is anywhere near as good as the art could be, to say nothing of how good it SHOULD be. But it all (mostly) comes down to personal taste I suppose, so whatever blows your skirt up. :)

Haunt | December 14, 17:21 CET

And since I have a "secret source" on the inside of production on this I happen to know WHY the inking looks so rough.

Hey, no fair teasing. Spill ? Pretty please ? ;)

Saje | December 14, 17:28 CET

I much prefer the art in this. As sueworld said, the characters actually *look* like the people they are supposed to be.

Also come on!...huge complaints on the Angel thread about boobage, and everyone is fine about it on this? I mean no disrespect to the actress, but in what Bizarro world was Buffy ever so endowned as that first page?I dunno.....strange...

Anyway looks good, am looking forward to reading it.

angeliclestat | December 14, 18:00 CET

Hey angeliclestat, I tried to stir up some $#!% in this thread with my totally-not-snarky-or-mischievous post upthread, but who knew there'd be no problems with it here 'cause it's a "dream"? *shrug*

Haunt | December 14, 18:13 CET

Personally, if I were in charge of BtVS Season 8 and I had bucks to throw around, I'd go digital. I'd make scans of the actors, or have a talented 3D artist recreate all the actors using stock footage. Then I'd raytrace render everything, and hire an artist who really understands lighting to set the mood of a scene. In short, it'd be a movie, only on the printed page.

Of course it would probably cost $20 an issue, but hey, it's my dream! Go get your own.

quantumac | December 14, 18:19 CET

Are you seriously saying you don't see the difference Haunt ? Ah well.

*shrugs even harder but, at the same time and somewhat paradoxically, more nonchalantly*

Saje | December 14, 18:21 CET

(i'll fly with 'gratuitous though. Except the funny trumps that.)

Even though I'm in agreement with that statement, it's getting a lot harder for me to deny Dreamlogic's point from a different thread about the gratuitous nature of some of this. Almost every issue has had something sexual in it, which is far more often than the series did. I can justify it if Buffy's NGA is going to be the thrust (sorry, couldn't resist) of the series, though. And I'm beginning to think it is.

So Buffy's gonna have a little fling down the line or Xander will have his dreams come true. Not sure I'd be happy with the latter outcome. I like Renee, and I'd prefer that Buffy and Xander remain friends. On the other hand, if somebody new is introduced for Buffy, there's almost no way to do justice to them as a character in the comics. Not enough time. It would necessarily have to be a brief affair.

shambleau | December 14, 18:24 CET

Was it just me or did Daniel Craig look a little like Riley in those pics? In fact, that is who I thought it was supposed to be. Before I, y'know, read the words and stuff.

RockRage | December 14, 18:36 CET

<quiet little squee>

I love my Scoobies.

Jet Wolf | December 14, 18:39 CET

I noticed that allright Haunt:)

angeliclestat | December 14, 18:40 CET

Saje, I was mostly being snarky and sarcastic (which as we know always translates well on the ol' interwebs). But if this were to devolve into an honest-to-Hoyle debate here in this thread too, I could conceivably make the argument for nope. I see how one could nitpick and claim that this is different than what's going on in ATF. But on the other hand I could play devil's advocate and say that the exaggeration of a woman's physical attributes in one place is just as sexually objectifying as in the other. I mean if in the story itself it became evident that Buffy's dream image of herself is subconciously "enhanced" and that plays a role (or is even just spelled out in ink) in the tale being told, well that'd be one thing. But as it stands right now it's borderline fanwanking, and it certainly comes close to the dismissive justification some of us are being accused of in the ATF art debate.

Haunt | December 14, 19:31 CET

But if this were to devolve into an honest-to-Hoyle debate here in this thread too, I could conceivably make the argument for nope.

Oh gods, let's not and say we did, eh ? ;-)

I mean if in the story itself it became evident that Buffy's dream image of herself is subconciously "enhanced" and that plays a role (or is even just spelled out in ink) in the tale being told, well that'd be one thing.

I'd really like that to be the case, doubt it though. I don't think i've ever seen a Joss comic script so i've no idea if he tends to the detailed end of the spectrum but specifying Buffy's boob size would definitely qualify (I tend to think it's just a throwaway, solely there for the joke and if the "enhancement" is even conscious then it's an artist improv - not seen this guy draw Buffy before so I don't know how he tends to do it).

To be perfectly honest, i'm struggling to articulate why this is different myself Haunt (it certainly feels different but I realise that's basically worthless). Maybe because it's clearly fantasy (within the story itself I mean) and more importantly, clearly Buffy's fantasy ? Or because we know Buffy better, know she's certainly no mere sex object and doesn't treat others that way either ? Or because it precedes an interaction where we see how very human and rounded both Buffy and Willow are, how they're very much not the decorations of Kr'ph's "groupies" or the "bitch in heat" of Nina's current characterisation ?

Saje | December 14, 20:45 CET

Fair enough. :)

Haunt | December 14, 21:11 CET

quantumac: Comic books from scans couldn't include Harmony. . . .

DaddyCatALSO | December 14, 21:57 CET

Yeah I liked the "cartoony" style of Jeanty. This cartoony style feels...not right. Maybe that's just because I've become accustomed to Jeanty over the past so many issues. And I'm sure it'll barely affect my love of this issue..but still.

And Shiai: James Spader.....hahahaha loved it.

5X5B | December 14, 22:27 CET

Or because we know Buffy better, know she's certainly no mere sex object and doesn't treat others that way either?

Come on, Daniel Craig is nothing more than a sex object in this fantasy of hers. And let's not forget that she admited to treating Spike like a sex object throughout most of season 6. She's a healthy, mature adult, and healthy, mature adults tend to find people of their prefered gender sexually attractive. There's nothing wrong with it. It's a reality of humanity, and therefore has a deserved place in any story that portrays humanity.

But the reason this bikini scene might seem different than the bikini scene in Angel is because there's nothing inherently sexual about this image. It's just a woman relaxing on the beach in a bathing suit. Unless you're living in the 1930s or extremely repressed, this should be something you're used to seeing. I looked at the panel with Buffy in the bikini and thought "Okay, Buffy's at the beach," not "Hehehe, Buffy's boobs." I assume it's because I'm mature and have been exposed to it enough times that a woman's figure is no longer shocking or scandalous.

But that doesn't change the fact that even if it was genuinely sexual, it could still be appropriate to the story, because people are genuinely sexual creatures.

dingoes8 | December 14, 23:00 CET

Re: Buffy vs. Nina
It does feel different for some reason. Maybe one of the ones Saje mentioned. Or maybe because I was so happy to hear Buffy's voice that I didn't care about her body. Or maybe it's a question of acreage. I mean, they're big, but not as big as Nina's.
I went back & looked at Y, and many (though not all) of the women in Y are very hour-glassy, but they still look like reasonable approximations (well, OK maybe exaggerations) of sexy adult women, as Buffy does here. I mean, Buffy could look like this in her fantasies. But Nina looks like...a comic-book character. I can't imagine that anyone would fantasize about herself looking like Nina.

jcs | December 14, 23:01 CET

I assume it's because I'm mature and have been exposed to it enough times that a woman's figure is no longer shocking or scandalous.

Mmm. I think the point some people are making is about the "enhancement" rather than the fact that Buffy's in a bikini (though as mentioned, not me). Seeing people as sexual beings is obviously fine both in real life and the Buffyverse (where it always has been). Seeing them as sexual objects ? Not so much.

On the other hand, seeing a good looking woman with very little clothing on usually has a sexual component for me (maybe i'm just immature but it seems i'm in good company since Buffy apparently sees Daniel Craig as nothing more than a sex object when all he does is stand on the beach in a bathing suit ;).

Saje | December 14, 23:44 CET

It seems to me that people may be choosing to see what they want to see, regarding the whole issue of how the female characters are being represented in the comics. Nina's breast size increases and people react in disgust. Buffy's breast size increases and it's not so bad. Yes, there are differences in circumstances (one is "real", one is a fantasy and so on) but anyone can rationalise anything away if they so wish. I don't think it's fair to say that Nina should be properly represented and Buffy is allowed a little increase, as long as it's her doing the daydream boobjob.

If we are truly talking about not letting the reputation of the Buffy/Angelverse be tainted by the more exaggerated aspects of comic book art then we have to ask this to be true in all cases. Alternatively, if we can excuse a little artistic licence for Richards' beach-babe Buffy (TM) then we also have to allow the same to Urru and how he chooses to draw Nina, or anyone else for that matter.

The truth is that we are not seeing in the comics anything near the same seasons we would have been given had they been on television. From budget issues like Giant Dawn and the relocation to Scotland, not to mention a regular character in the shape of Angel's winged dragon, to the very style of what we are seeing and how that allows the characters to act. Would Joss have gone with the "gorgeous naked slayers in the soapy tub" scene if this was still on the screen? I doubt that very much.

Quick question to anyone who has any issues with the comic art style in either book. If this was still on television and Joss had made the call to do the Faith scene with her getting out of the bath naked, or the Giant Dawn bathing in lake scene, or had Nina start wearing the tight spandex you see her wearing now and acting as she now does, would that be okay? If you remove the aspect of the size of the boobs not being accurate would all the other sexually increased ideas of the two series then be acceptable? Because the way I see it, even if every breast in every book was drawn to the exact size of the actress in question, we are still getting the characters in situations a great deal more explicit than any comic book artist could be blamed for alone. My point being that I don't think it fair to point fingers at the artists for changing the tone of the stories by "comic-arting" up the girls and ignore the fact that the writers, Joss included, are clearly using more extreme elements themselves that would never have been seen if we weren't now in comic format.

RockRage | December 15, 00:02 CET

Yes, there are differences in circumstances (one is "real", one is a fantasy and so on) but anyone can rationalise anything away if they so wish.

Sounds a bit like "Well, you can prove anything with facts" ;-). If it's not so bad then it's not so bad (i.e. why treat it the same if it's different ?) and rational ideas are the easiest to rationalise of all.

If this was still on television and Joss had made the call to do the Faith scene with her getting out of the bath naked, or the Giant Dawn bathing in lake scene, or had Nina start wearing the tight spandex you see her wearing now and acting as she now does, would that be okay?

I don't really have a problem with any of those as it is (i'm not exactly enamoured with Nina's characterisation at the moment but at the same time i'm optimistic that there's more to it than an excuse to show her acting horny for laughs - if not then that'll be a pity I reckon. The odd facetious comment aside, I suppose her clothes make sense in context, like Buffy's do here).

Saje | December 15, 00:54 CET

To be honest, Saje, you aren't really who I was pointing the question towards and your answer is one that I fully expected and agree with, going off some of your other comments in this and the other thread. Not that I have a problem with you answering it, of course ;) I just already had a feeling that the examples I offered wouldn't have been an issue to you because I get where you are coming from in the "boobgate" debate.

I should also point out here that I have no problem at all with the scenes I have mentioned. This is just a question to those who believe that the artwork is forcing them out of the story, as has been said on a few occasions. I'm wondering if it is just the artists who are making this happen or does the fact that writers are also sexualizing the female cast in scenes that could easily have been written very differently also cause an issue for you.

It would have been very easy to have that scene with Faith and Savidge set at a table, over a meal with the two girls fully clothed. However, Vaughan chose to write them naked in a bath and have them both get out of the tub during the conversation. Realistically there was no need to show the fact that Dawn bathed in the loch at all. It could have been mentioned in conversation without Jeanty ever having to draw the scene, yet Joss chose to write it in anyway. Neither of those two examples add anything to the characters in question or the overall story whereas the fact Nina is clearly going through changes that are leading her to act and dress differently is a problem, not to mention an artist's choice to make her boobs look larger than we are used to.

So it goes again to what we are seeing as acceptable use of the female characters in the comics. Is Joss writing a "Giant Dawn takes a bath" scene really any better or worse than Urru upping Nina's bra size? Again, in all these cases I have no personal problem with what we saw but I am interested to know what others feel.

RockRage | December 15, 01:44 CET

I didn't know folks had a problem with the Giant Dawn bath scene!

I thought it was funny showing her taking a bath in the loch, and at least in what I read, it certainly wasn't sexualized.

UnpluggedCrazy | December 15, 03:37 CET

Neither of those two examples add anything to the characters in question or the overall story whereas the fact Nina is clearly going through changes that are leading her to act and dress differently is a problem, not to mention an artist's choice to make her boobs look larger than we are used to.

*bzzt*

The Faith and Savidge scene clearly shows how close and comfortable the two characters have become over a short time, which is why Genevieve is so furious later because of the betrayal.

The Dawn thing is comedy and not a sexual image at all. Not all nudity is sexual. Unless you're a 13 year old boy? Are you a 13 year old boy?

The Buffy's boobs versus Nina's boobs argument is a pretty easy one to settle - Buffy's breasts are slightly bigger than in reality. Nina's breasts are a grotesque exaggeration of female anatomy and make it look like she's going to fall over forward a hell of a lot.

At least in the Buffy scene, Daniel Craig is A) even more naked and B) also slightly exaggerated for effect. The Nina thing (and frankly the Urru cover for #2) is just impossible to defend.

crossoverman | December 15, 11:46 CET

...and at least in what I read...

Which is kinda the point I'm making, UnpluggedCrazy. You saw nothing sexualized in the scene (nor did I, to be fair) but it could be easily argued that showing a scene with a giant, naked teenage girl taking a bath out in the open was an attempt to add a sexual element to the character of Dawn. One that Joss never would have attempted had this still been on television, for many reasons. I'm not saying Joss intended it that way but it could be seen that way. Let's be honest. There are many male Buffy fans (not to mention just Michelle Trachtenberg fans) who would consider a soaped up Dawn scene very much a sexual thing. The thing is that, like both you and I, people didn't see it that way, or at least didn't make a fuss if they did. Yet Urru increases Nina's breast size and he is making her a sex object. It still seems to me that people are too ready to throw accusations at comic book art when even the writers are changing the tone of what we knew on the series.

And, *bzzt* backatcha, crossoverman, because again there you are simply proving my point that we see what we want to see. You accept the elements of both the Dawn and Faith scenes that you want to and choose to ignore that there was absolutely no reason why either scene had to be there in the way that they were presented. Faith and Savidge couldn't have been shown to be close over a meal or any other conversation? Joss couldn't have written a different comedy type scene for Dawn's size issue that didn't involve her being naked?

As I've pointed out, not being a 13 year old boy, I actually do agree with all your above points and don't see any of the scenes as inappropriate. What I do see is that the change from television to comic books has meant a change to what we see the characters doing and how they are represented by both the artists and the writers. There are so many things we are going to see in the comics that differ to how we would have seen them on screen, including the fact that some artists choose to exaggerate the physical form. That isn't a sexual thing by default either, but people only see that element of it. However, you can see a sexual element in any of the points I've made, if you want to, but only inaccurate artwork is being discussed.

RockRage | December 15, 12:11 CET

What I do see is that the change from television to comic books has meant a change to what we see the characters doing and how they are represented by both the artists and the writers.

Which I think is the core of my problem with this transition between mediums - because I'm not reading a comic about people I haven't seen before, I'm reading a comic about characters I've come to appreciate on television and now they are being mistreated in a way. I don't think the translation needs to be this way. There's no reason Nina has to be portrayed that way. I accept that we can read the Faith and Dawn scenes differently, but it's impossible for me to agree that Nina should be drawn that way - it serves nothing but titillating boys and men.

crossoverman | December 16, 01:00 CET

Well, I personally could do without Buffy three-way fantasies and Buffy on the beach fantasies. As far as I am concerned the latter is two not very pretty looking wasted pages of valuable comic book space*. Buffy's breasts look artificially enhanced while are her legs are really, really odd looking.

*Of course I'll take this back if these pages are significant for the rest of the issue.

moley75 | December 16, 02:49 CET

I haven't gotten the chance to read the first Angel comic yet, but in regards to Nina's characterization, I'll say this:

Nina was in three episodes, I think? There's not a lot we can surmise about her characterization. I'm not saying I agree with the apparent changes, but let Brian and Co. have some wiggle room. And besides, it's the first comic. We don't have much of an idea where he's going yet.

deepgirl187 | December 16, 20:45 CET