Actress Brea Grant, artist David Hahn and cover artist Cameron Stewart are not a creative team to be taken lightly. The Suicide Girls are an early adapter in the “tattoo’d Goth Girls are sexy” derby, and for a subscription you can look at naked but kind of artful photos of lots of them, and the individual models have more of an empowered air about them than most naked girl sites. Anyway, a comic book.
IDW Publishing and the SuicideGirls are excited to announce a contemporary take on girls in comics, kicking off in March. A four-issue series, SUICIDEGIRLS is a wild adventure helmed by writer/actress Brea Grant (We Will Bury You), with art by David Hahn (Bite Club). This series features covers by Cameron Stewart, who also will be contributing mini-historical tales of the SuicideGirls in each issue. SUICIDEGIRLS pits an awesome gang of beautiful, tattooed, ladies against the deranged leader of a techno-religious cult, with lots of butt-kicking and witty banter.
The up-coming series is created under the direction of Missy Suicide, one of the founders of this respected contemporary lifestyle brand. SuicideGirls offers a unique attitude of alterative cultures in a vibrant, positive community of women and men.
From SG headquarters, Missy enthused “SuicideGirls and comic books are a natural fit. We are huge comic nerds and are thrilled to finally be bringing a book we can be proud of to the fans that have been asking us at conventions for years. We couldn’t be more excited to be bringing the adventures of these beautiful modern pin-ups to the genre.”
Beginning in March, the four monthly issues boast tattoos, breasts and butt-kicking as well as the secret history and adventures of these beautiful pin-up girls, all plotted by Steve Niles, Missy Suicide and Brea Grant. Each issue of SUICIDEGIRLS will feature a cover by Eisner-winner Cameron Stewart (Seaguy), and variant SuicideGirls photo covers!
As editor Mariah Huehner puts it, “I’m sure everyone will have a pre-conceived idea of what this series will be all about. And hey, it WILL have nudity and pretty girls and tattoos. But it also defies conventions, has an irreverent sense of humor, and takes on the cultural idea of what ‘normal’ and ‘sexy’ really mean. Plus, explosions!”
That empowered air is, of course, entirely false.
The most daring and innovative new comic of 2002 — coming your way TODAY!
Snark away guys, is is the Internet after all.
i’m just here to point out that the above is only a temp cover I did in a rush for Previews, and the real one can be seen at http://www.cameron-stewart.com.
I never heard of the suicide girls and goggling hasn’t left me much clearer – can’t geeks who need this sort of material head over to one of the many free pornographic web channels and think about how ’empowered’ the girls are as they knock one off? Why pay for such material?
I smell a Saturday morning cartoon in the works! Zenescope is hiring, guys!
The Suicide Girls website is fun to look at and read, but the idea of a comic book featuring their continuing adventures sounds weak. Books like this never quite make it, when real-life people are featured in books, having adventures that we know they aren’t having … Jerry Lewis, Mr. T., etc.
Unless a Suicide Girls comic is going to be fashioned after Love & Rockets.
Just to make things clear, this isn’t a spank book, fellas. It’s a tongue in cheek, action/adventure, b-movie style romp, featuring fictitious Suicide Girls.
David and Cameron – well handled. After pouring your heart into a project, it’s always so painful to suffer the slings and arrows of snarky posters. For what it’s worth, I’m looking forward to seeing your work.
We ain’t snarkin’ on the art- we are snarkin’ on the sheer ridiculousness of the concept of a SG comic. As someone pointed out, this is about a decade too late.
Well, it’s not a decade too late for the poster above who has never heard of Suicide Girls. So to you, sir, WELCOME ABOARD!
You would think that SG could do better than ending up at a work-for-hire licensed property farm like IDW.
>> Books like this never quite make it, when real-life people are featured in books, having adventures that we know they aren’t having … Jerry Lewis, Mr. T., etc.>>
THE ADVENTURES OF JERRY LEWIS, of course, “never quite made it” to the tune of 124 issues. And if the rights were available, I’d bet someone would be reprinting those and the BOB HOPE comics; they’re full of lots of terrific comics art, and some pretty funny stories.
Mr. T wishes he had it so good.
kdb
I wanna see it so bad. Just show me!
anyone still supporting Suicide Girls in 2011 is woefully out of touch. SG is horribly exploitative even by porn standards, and the worst part is the facade Sean hides behind using a bunch of Stepford Girls as a human shield. this was all exposed 5+ years ago, sad that people still choose to support them. although SG is less hardcore and more “artful” than most porn, they are among the most exploitative pornographers in their treatment of the girls.
Accusations about the male co-owner of the site being a “active misogynist” and verbally abusive to the site’s models have been very well discussed at this point, and are easily findable with even a simple search. Who knows what the “truth” is– every business has disgruntled employees. But it’s worth considering before subscribing to any sales pitch invoking “empowerment”…
Oh, but I’m just being snarky… whoops.
More importantly: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/60db5be2b1/suicide-girls-suicide-hotline.
kneejerk – there are no bad ideas, only bad executions.
As far as it being a “decade too late” – it’s not like it’s an Austin Powers comic or something else that was briefly popular and then faded. The site launched a decade ago this year and is, as far as I know, still in operation, still popular, still has an audience. Why shouldn’t they try to branch out and extend their life?
“David and Cameron – well handled. After pouring your heart into a project, it’s always so painful to suffer the slings and arrows of snarky posters. For what it’s worth, I’m looking forward to seeing your work.”
Well I’m sorry if I came across like that, I’ve never heard of Suicide girls. A google revealed that it’s a pay to view soft-porn site. So I assumed it was for a similar crossover audience (lonely men looking for someone to knock one off to?); instead it’s em.. topless scobby doo adventures?
“Well, it’s not a decade too late for the poster above who has never heard of Suicide Girls. So to you, sir, WELCOME ABOARD!”
Thanks (I think), I can’t say it’s my cup of tea and I guess that shows in my response. Leaving aside the questions of exploitation raised above, the idea of people paying for porn in this day and age is baffling.
A subscription site at $4/month sounds baffling to a comic fan paying $3.99/issue?
“A subscription site at $4/month sounds baffling to a comic fan paying $3.99/issue?”
Is that how much you guys pay for single issues? What a rip-off! :-)
Trade only for me with deep deep amazon discounts or off ebay (some real bargains).
So this is the comics tie-in to SUCKER PUNCH??
Good for Suicide Girls! Kirby knows that there’s that vast, marketable niche of comics fanboys who’ve outgrown hentai… and were born after the Crumb/Corben/Manara and EROS heyday… and haven’t discovered fleshbot yet (somehow)?
THIS shall be the pron for them.
/internet snark
Because comics isn’t already unappealing enough for females and childen, now we get soft porn comics from “premier” comic publishers… great. That will help the industry… not.
Most artists would kill for a final product like that, never mind a rush job for solicits. Damn
Weird, with all their kids licenses I would not expect IDW to get into doing porn comics.
Seems more like it would be a better fit at Zenescope or Broadsword?
Once again, to all who are thinking this is a porn comic, let me say again “Just to make things clear, this isn’t a spank book, fellas. It’s a tongue in cheek, action/adventure, b-movie style romp, featuring fictitious Suicide Girls.”
Thanks
Huh, that’s interesting…
From the Twitter accounts of SG co-author, Zane Grant, and David Hahn, SG artist:
Zane Grant: “back to writing @suicidegirls issue 3. The good thing about naked characters is you need fewer sentences about clothes.”
Zane Grant: “@David_Hahn So they finally sent over my tattie intensive script, huh?”
David Hahn: “@zanegrant Titty intensive is more like it. ;”
Wow… really? And with a wink, to boot?
Hahn professes the book isn’t soft core porn, yet he’s drawing a book featuring a world-reknowned sect of soft core porn queens who are going to be frequently naked in his book of the same name?
“Titty intensive,” I believe he said? Sounds classy. Tell me, David: Can my kid read it? Or does he have to be eighteen to buy it like he would an issue of Playboy?
Then Hahn goes on to Twitter today to moan that we’re all presumably stupid to have arrived at our “porn” deduction:
David Hahn: “Why is it so hard for people to scroll up two or three posts on a message board to get a quote or fact correct? Maybe they just can’t read.”
No, David. We’re not illiterate. We just call a spade a spade when we see one.
The Suicide Girls ARE considered to be soft core porn by definition of the LAW. You have to be eighteen to view their website because it contains “sexually explicit content.” Just like your SG book.
For example, there doesn’t have to be penetration in the content to make it a “spank book,” or for the work to be considered “porn.” Playboy fits that bill very well — and men masturbate to it all the time.
Victoria’s Secret catalogs and SI swimsuit issues are also male masturbation gold — and those girls aren’t even naked. Your book’s a naked breast-fest — by your and Zane’s admissions — featuring representatives (be they fictious or otherwise) from a soft core brand doing their brand name thing in related situations. Which book do you think a bunch of horny fanboys would rather crank one off to?
You can subjectively deny you signed-on to drawn porn all you want to. Just because you’ve convinced yourself, doesn’t make you right.
Oh, yikes. I didn’t realize you were one of THOSE people, you anonymous person you. Cut and paste my quotes all you wish, I sign my real name to them and I stand by them. But what it really comes down to is that what you have done is label something as porn, then execute a semantical argument that you can win. Well fine. Label the ham sandwich I had for lunch as porn, then call me a porn-eater, and you would be right. The fact is, anonymous person, is that in the past I have drawn filthy, disgusting, misogynistic, go-straight-to-hell porn comics (go look it up, though I suspect you probably already have, as it also was drawn under my real name. If you have trouble, try googling my name and ANTHILL COMICS or even Vertigo BITE CLUB). The Suicide Girls comic book issue number one, as I drew it, is not porn. As I flip through the script in front of me, I don’t even see the word “FUCK” anyplace in it. Or “SHIT.” Nor have I drawn even a single nipple at this point. That may change in editorial tweaks before it goes to press, but it ain’t porn, no matter how much you wish it to be so that you can have an axe to grind. The Suicide Girls website? That can be called pornography by many, but I am not drawing the website, I am drawing a comic book. Right here, right now, I am talking about the comic I have just drawn, and you are wrong. I might be drawing bare breasts in issue number two, so If you want to (appropriately) keep that away from your kid, then fine. MY point is there are porn comics (oh no, a breast!) and there are PORN COMICS (penetration, meant to be maturation material) and you are lumping them all into the same category, and I think that is narrow-minded and gross. And feel free to sign your real name to anything you write at anytime.
Anon — okay we get it — you have a super bee in your bonnet about the SUICIDE GIRLS comic and its creators.
Wow…
So you delineate the difference between the SG “porn” comic you ARE drawing (oh no, a breast!) — “titty intensive” by your phraseology — and the “PORN” comic you are NOT drawing (penetration, masturbation material), yet state that I have mislabeled your SG comics as porn, attempting to discredit my argument as “semantical?”
Good grief, man. Review your post. What IS your argument? You just concurred with me that it’s porn by your OWN definition. Hard or softcore: Porn is porn is porn.
But, whatever, man. You win, okay? I’m done here. If you think this stuff is great for the industry, that’s your prerogative.
As far the mods, go: this is my last post; don’t worry. But if you scroll back through 90% of these posts, you’ll notice I’m not the only one that finds this project oppressive and regressive.
To us, we find THAT “gross.”
I see on some other sites people claiming this is a Trojan horse so they can get into Comic con?
Whether or not this particular comic features nudity, sex etc, is besides the point. It can’t be labeled as anything but a “porn comic”.
Suicide Girls as a brand is 100% about porn. They like people to think it is about empowerment or whatever, but that’s all just window dressing. Suicide Girls has always been about getting people to pay money to see naked girls. This comic is simply another way for them to promote their brand, and in the end drive some new customers to their porn website.
It’d be the same as if you saw a comic labelled “Penthouse presents: Superbabe!” Even if there was no porn content, it’s all about promoting the brand, to ultimately get more people to buy the porn.
It’s no different than Transformers comics being about toys, or Street Fighter comics being about video games.
I am not railing against porn, or SG, or this comic, but I think things should be called as they are.
Matt, I see what you mean. So I guess I can conclude that the Suicide Girls Comic I am drawing is considered *porn* by its brand identity, even though the content inside would not be considered *pornography* by any rational person’s standard. (no sarcasm intended in my comment)
edited by dh
Comments are closed.