Comments on: PR: What Not to Do: Ant Apology

By: Comic Cancellations » Comics Worth Reading

Comic Cancellations » Comics Worth Reading — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:28:57 +0000

[...] the focus is on perfectly rounded buttcheeks. The only time I’ve talked about it was when Gully apologized for drawing a stripper naked. (Think about [...]

By: Journalista » Blog Archive » Aug. 28, 2006: Volleyball with Jim and Ellen

Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:29:28 +0000

[...] My reaction to Mario Gully’s retarded-even-for-comics series Ant has been pretty much one of amused contempt from the first time I saw it. Back when I was editing the Journal, a friend visited me at the office and during the course of conversation, I made a reference to a subgenre of “superhero comics for lifelong virgins.” When asked for an example, I dug out an issue of Ant. I’d explain further, but Johanna Draper Carlson has found an incident which shines a better spotlight on this phenomenon than I ever could. Man, that’s just pathetic. [...]

By: Jason Rodriguez

Jason Rodriguez — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:56:13 +0000

“This started off as a character based off of my daughter and truthfully, I feel that I got side tracked by what will be more widely accepted from comic book fans, rather than what was truly in my heart. I can’t do that anymore.”

That’s great. At least he decided to live by the wisdom of Chris Rock, “And I realize my only job in life is to keep her off the pole. Keep my baby off the pole.”

By: Dan Coyle

Dan Coyle — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:46:55 +0000

This entire enterprise sounds like a stunt to me, and not a very clever one.

By: Paul Sizer

Paul Sizer — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:25:59 +0000

I chirped in on the New-a-rama thread for this story a few days ago saying I was at least glad to see Mario Gully taking responsibility for his property as a creator (which I am), but truthfully, I agree with the rest of you: this book is really dumb and sexist. It’s a T&A book with an excuse of (supposedly) noble intentions. I almost laughed out loud when the desire for this book to be seen as an “all ages book” were mentioned…

This always reminds me of when the 2 Live Crew was being charged with crimes in Florida for their “As Nasty As They Wanna Be” album, and all the fighters for the First Amendment Rights were out in force. I remember thinking, ” I’m all for the cause, but can’t we fight for something better than THIS stupid, awful, badly produced album?” Same thing here for me; I’m all for comic creators standing up for, and taking responsibility for their creations, but does it have to be for a stupid, badly done comic like this?

By: David Oakes

David Oakes — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 06:03:05 +0000

You mean ANT *isn’t* satire?

Oh…

By: Rob Staeger

Rob Staeger — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:46:11 +0000

For some guys, it’s all about the carapace.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:58:42 +0000

I think you’ve hit on something, Ray — I love the title Hornet HoochieMama!

By: Ray Cornwall

Ray Cornwall — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:53:34 +0000

I’m still trying to figure out the audience for this book. A normal T&A book has its target audience of horny adolescents and all, but this is an ant with boobs and butt. It’s not even that appealing to the furries. Is there a whole audience of insect perverts that other comics publishers are ignoring? What’s next, the adventures of Grasshopper Geisha and Hornet Hoochie-Mama?

By: Dorian

Dorian — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:15:05 +0000

If I were a cynical man, I’d wonder if this was a deliberate stunt to increase interest in the book and drive up the after-market value by having a “rare and uncensored” version of that issue in the marketplace.

But that would be WRONG and I’m a BAD MAN for even suggesting such a thing…

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:40:55 +0000

When the first Ant series was announced (prior to any art being revealed), I was interested.

Then I saw the art and asked Gully how this was supposed to be a model for female readers or even remotely appropriate for the family (which – given his earlier comments – I was led – perhaps a bit naively – to believe).

He said some nonsense about it still being a family book and that I should read it to know that the art was not gratuitious.

With this latest writing “goof”, I guess the writing and the art are finally in sync.

By: James Schee

James Schee — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:41:24 +0000

Oh and of course this reminds me that famous quote, you made a snarky comment way back when, about Jim Balent calling one of his books All Ages.

By: James Schee

James Schee — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:39:14 +0000

That book has just always looked very… scary? disturbing? or something in that range from just the covers alone. What is supposed to be going on in that cover? Trying to appeal to the scat audience?

I do find it interesting to see what is acceptable to air even on TV these days though. I was turning channels the other night and happened to stop on the Blade TV series. Where it had a clear shot of a woman’s backside walking across the floor.

By: markus

markus — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:10:00 +0000

a change of heart is possible, but unlikely. I called Gully on the T&A back in October 05 in response to this comment:
Gully: …I guess it was April 03. One guy said he would by EVERY issue with Ant If I promise to put atleast one BOOTY SHOT in the books. I thought it was a good deal. I’ll have a fan for life.

http://www.imagecomics.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=9448

By: Rob Staeger

Rob Staeger — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:41:15 +0000

It seems more like a publicity stunt than an actual mistake and apology to me: basically a big story on Newsarama saying “if you like T&A, we’re your bug!”