I like ICv2.com - it has a good mix of comic book and other pop culture news in clear, concise articles.
But you know what I've noticed - every picture of a woman they use is a bit, gratuitous. Take for example the recent picture of Natasha Hentridge I have here, taken from a recent article about an upcoming Stan Lee flick. She's just about naked, well she IS naked, but has a bit of lace to try to hid what we can all pretty much see.
Today there is Scarlet Johansson's cleavage in an article about Iron Man 2.
Story about renewal of Dollhouse has a pretty provocative pic of the series' star.
I'd bet Evan Rachel Wood isn't wearing this when she performs the Broadway version of Spider-Man.
These are just a few examples. In fact, you would be hard pressed to go to ICv2.com's web site any day they update (daily M-F) and not be able to find a picture of a woman that pays particular attention to her breasts.
The question is why these photo choices? At least the Iron Man 2 Johansson picture was from the movie. But the others, they seem unnecessary and gratuitious. I am sure there are pictures of the woman being highlighted that don't have her half naked and/or writhing on a bed. How about a picture taken from the movie or comic book the story is about instead of some sleazy stock photo? Do they think more people will click through to read the article if they use these pictures? Do they have numbers to back it up?
Visit the site - you will notice the pattern as I have. Maybe you'll like it, maybe not. I'm not offended by it, but definately curious as to the choices and what the motivation is for them.
1 comment:
I think this is perfect because I think what sells in this age are women, that's a little it sad but true, because what we want to see is naked women bodies.
Post a Comment