|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 14:20:52 GMT -5
See, there isn't multiple versions of Mickey Mouse. There isn't a kid friendly one where nobody ever gets hurt and then a sexed up adult one where he kills bad guys. That would be irresponsible of Disney. It would be stupid. It doesn't stop fanfiction from happening, but that's where it should remain. Not in corporate funded and approved projects released with the endorsement of Disney. The same, in my opinion, goes for children's super heroes. And that's what we're talking about here. Kids heroes. You want a sexed up violent super hero comic? Fine, that's what Lady Death is for, right? Why does it have to be childhood heroes? I feel like all of Marvel and DC has been fanfic for the past twenty five years now, but it's not. These fanfic authors are actually employed by the companies, and they're releasing this stuff not only with the endorsement of the company, but at the expense of the target audience of the characters. And you can argue all you like that the target audience of Marvel comics isn't kids anymore, the fact remains that the target audience for Spiderman and Iron Man as intellectual property is still nine year old kids. Kids properties should be handled a certain way, and I don't believe current comics is the way they should be handled. Totally agree and felt this way for years. Unfortunately, the biggest thing that pushed "maturing" the flagship characters was a fanbase that wanted "serious" superhero stories and didn't want to be seen reading "stuff for kids." I get that point of view, and it's fine. I just think if Spiderman is kid stuff, and you like superheroes, but don't like kid stuff, create some new superheroes. I don't think superheroes have to be kid stuff by their very nature, I just think when they were created to be kid stuff, have been kid stuff for decades, and continue to be kid stuff in other forms of media, they're kid stuff. I also happen to think kid stuff can be very good, and I enjoy reading Smurfs and Disney comics.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 14:24:23 GMT -5
It's not simply about public domain though. It is, but not the way you think. Love it or hate it, the popular super heroes are controlled by one of two companies. See, there isn't multiple versions of Mickey Mouse. There isn't a kid friendly one where nobody ever gets hurt and then a sexed up adult one where he kills bad guys. That would be irresponsible of Disney. It would be stupid. It doesn't stop fanfiction from happening, but that's where it should remain. Not in corporate funded and approved projects released with the endorsement of Disney. The same, in my opinion, goes for children's super heroes. And that's what we're talking about here. Kids heroes. You want a sexed up violent super hero comic? Fine, that's what Lady Death is for, right? Why does it have to be childhood heroes? I feel like all of Marvel and DC has been fanfic for the past twenty five years now, but it's not. These fanfic authors are actually employed by the companies, and they're releasing this stuff not only with the endorsement of the company, but at the expense of the target audience of the characters. And you can argue all you like that the target audience of Marvel comics isn't kids anymore, the fact remains that the target audience for Spiderman and Iron Man as intellectual property is still nine year old kids. Kids properties should be handled a certain way, and I don't believe current comics is the way they should be handled. And I think we're disagreeing on what qualifies as lore, because Romeo and Juliet certainly do not in my opinion. They are the creation of Shakespeare. There may have been some offbeat interpretations due to it being public domain, but we all know the real story. I think I had to read it in 9th grade. Those other versions I've never read before, and I doubt they are required reading anywhere. When you say "Romeo and Juliet" everyone listening will think Shakespeare. If we are to talk about modern folklore, I'd say the Chupacabra, the Roswell crash, the conspiracy theories revolving around Telsa and Jay Z and whoever else. That is modern folklore. It's organic, not a product created for profit and owned by businessmen. Nope Mickey doesn't kill bad guys he just tries to kill himself.... And somebody created Hercules and Little Red Riding Hood and Snow White and on and on an on they didn't just spontaneously enter our consciousness and culture, but they transcended being a singular person's creation over time. It was quicker when human culture was part of an oral tradition and not a written one, but writing only slows the process of transcendence, it doesn't stop it. We tend to try to ascribe things to a singular creator at times (think the fictional persons like Homer), but ideas/characters/stories really cannot be owned and controlled any more than thoughts can. Corporations can try to assert control and create legal fictions to justify their attempts at control, they can create lawsuits and laws and felonies and misdemeanors in their attempt to control these things, but it doesn't stop them from entering the public culture. Laws do not change behavior, they create criminals. Their control is a matter of criminalizing the behavior, but the process of creations becoming part of the uberculture and transcending their creator happens nonetheless. There is no monomyth, the idea of the monomyth is the fiction. There is a plurality of myths with common themes throughout human cultures and stories/characters/ideas that touch on that/tie into it transcend a singular creator and any attempt to control that idea. -M They didn't transcend being a singular person's creation, for all we know they never were. What came first, the story, the character? Who knows? Certainly not historians. They couldn't even nail down a date of creation within a five hundred year span I don't think. How long has the story been passed on until it was put to paper? Or I guess clay tablet in those days. Did the character's name change? Did his physical description change? Did the details of his heroics change? Was Hercules an adaptation of a hero from another culture or an original concept? No matter how we slice it, Aquaman is not modern folklore. By the way, those two panels are a rare example of maybe six early strips nearly a hundred years old. Over the years society has changed quite a bit. You read those comics you'll see cars with lanterns tied to the radiator as headlights. You'll see people riding horses in town. This was decades before we tossed Asian Americans into internment camps, This strip is so old that at this time I'd imagine most grown black people in America were raised by actual former slaves. And in over the course of eighty years, you'll find a maximum of ten strips comparable to this. Unlike Spiderman comics, which you'll find countless panels from the past twenty five years depicting a level of violence and sexuality I'd say isn't suitable for kids.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jul 14, 2014 14:36:16 GMT -5
Snow White was created,for profit,by the Brothers Grimm in their book of fairy tales they published in the early 1800s.The story has been transcended,for if you mention Snow White now,people will think of the Walt Disney version which is quite different
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 14:42:02 GMT -5
And just because someone's name is attached to it as creator doesn't mean it was their singular creation in the writing era either...see Batman and Bob Kane. And all those plays that Shakespeare wrote (not even getting into the who wrote Shakespeare debate itself), how many of those characters, plots, and ideas were borrowed from the common culture of the time but synthesized into the form we know on paper? How many of those were different characters given new names and "fresh coat of paint" by Will, yet suddenly because it's on paper and has a single name attached as creator that is the way it has to be-the monomyth-the one true way a character has to be depicted for it to be valid.
And yes times have changed and its ok for Mickey to change with the times as long as it sheds the things you don't like about it, but super-heroes cannot change with the times and add things you don't like about them? There has to be a monomythic depiction of super-heroes that adheres to the snapshot of when they were an acceptable vision that cannot change.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 15:03:10 GMT -5
And just because someone's name is attached to it as creator doesn't mean it was their singular creation in the writing era either...see Batman and Bob Kane. And all those plays that Shakespeare wrote (not even getting into the who wrote Shakespeare debate itself), You just mentioned him -- Bob Kane. I mean ... duh!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 15:04:40 GMT -5
And just because someone's name is attached to it as creator doesn't mean it was their singular creation in the writing era either...see Batman and Bob Kane. And all those plays that Shakespeare wrote (not even getting into the who wrote Shakespeare debate itself), You just mentioned him -- Bob Kane. I mean ... duh! It's all so clear now....thank you for the V8 moment Dan.... -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 15:13:36 GMT -5
And just because someone's name is attached to it as creator doesn't mean it was their singular creation in the writing era either...see Batman and Bob Kane. And all those plays that Shakespeare wrote (not even getting into the who wrote Shakespeare debate itself), how many of those characters, plots, and ideas were borrowed from the common culture of the time but synthesized into the form we know on paper? How many of those were different characters given new names and "fresh coat of paint" by Will, yet suddenly because it's on paper and has a single name attached as creator that is the way it has to be-the monomyth-the one true way a character has to be depicted for it to be valid. And yes times have changed and its ok for Mickey to change with the times as long as it sheds the things you don't like about it, but super-heroes cannot change with the times and add things you don't like about them? There has to be a monomythic depiction of super-heroes that adheres to the snapshot of when they were an acceptable vision that cannot change. -M There may have been a ghostwriter, but we have an actual manuscript. We can date it, we know the story. We also know it's fiction, and at no time were commonfolk thinking it was real. Superheroes aren't changing with the times. If you want to make adult super hero stories, quit marketing them toward kids in other media. No more kids books, no more cartoons, no more Halloween costumes, no more Happy Meal toys. They won't do that though. People who think Spiderman is totally for adults remind me of the people who think My Little Pony is totally for adults.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 15:18:30 GMT -5
Snow White was created,for profit,by the Brothers Grimm in their book of fairy tales they published in the early 1800s.The story has been transcended,for if you mention Snow White now,people will think of the Walt Disney version which is quite different I'm not sure the Brothers Grimm "created" anything in their book. They put it to paper, yeah. A lot of their book was a collection of much older fairy tales. That's the thing about folk lore, it's passed on verbally for quite some time. Like the Chupacabra. You can find the first article about it, but by the time an article was written entire communities had been telling the story to one another. According to this article, most experts agree Snow White predates Grimm's Fairy Tales by about two hundred years. www.goodreads.com/story/show/60644-the-true-origins-and-history-of-snow-white-and-the-seven-dwarfs
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 15:40:37 GMT -5
And the idea that super-heroes must be kids fare, despite the fact that the earliest super-hero stories were definitely not aimed at kids (Siegel & Shuster Superman is very adult-themed stuff, and early Batman is wildly violent stuff, not really kids fare) to me seems a vestige of the Wertham era Seduction of the Innocent campaigns that sees things they want to see them, not as they were or are, and is looking for scapegoats so parents don't have to do their jobs as the gatekeepers to what their children are exposed to and using material as teaching moments instead of brandishing torches and pitchforks demanding it shouldn't exist.
How things are marketed has very little to do with what they are in most cases. Corporations make money however they can. That's not good or bad, it's just what their purpose is, they exist to make their shareholders money. And while we're at it, there's way too much sex and violence in the collection of stories called the Bible, so we need to stop marketing that stuff to kids too. They should just create new characters if they want to do kids stuff with those types of stories instead of all that begatting, and polygamy (hi Abraham), and smiting and turning people into salt and demonic possessions, and vandalising respectable merchant tables in the temple and all that stuff, Entirely unsuitable for kids and it cannot exist at multiple levels for multiple audiences because they've marketed it to kids before. And how about those beloved children's classics by Lewis Carroll...or those NFL lunchboxes and NBA lunchboxes and action figures, where these folks are doping and pointing guns at each other in locker rooms and beating the snot out of each other on national TV each week, and owners promoting plantation master style culture, yet there's toys, cartoons, kids clothing, kids programming and even kids programs run by these corporations because they make money. Let's not stop at super-heroes, let's clean all of that up too because we have pee wee football and little league baseball as kids mainstays so adult versions of them should not exist, it would confuse people.
-M
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jul 14, 2014 15:48:02 GMT -5
I simply cannot take a comic seriously when women are depicted like this. Just can't read it. Well that look is gone soon, to be replaced with this.... -M First, let me say I wouldn't know a "hipster" from a "hula hoop". But I don't like this new design for a couple of reasons: 1> the classic, simple design of the original costume (which the new 52 was a variation of) is one of my favorite costume designs ever, and has the added benefit of being one of the few female costumes that wouldn't have to be glued on to keep things from falling out. 2> the new design is described as being cobbled together from vintage clothes, second-hand shops, etc, and it looks like it actually was. "Costume by Goodwill" just doesn't look right to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 16:04:23 GMT -5
You're just peeved because the yellow in the costume reminds you of bananas.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 14, 2014 16:07:58 GMT -5
And all those plays that Shakespeare wrote (not even getting into the who wrote Shakespeare debate itself) -M Good, because there is no debate.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 16:15:00 GMT -5
And the idea that super-heroes must be kids fare, despite the fact that the earliest super-hero stories were definitely not aimed at kids (Siegel & Shuster Superman is very adult-themed stuff, and early Batman is wildly violent stuff, not really kids fare) to me seems a vestige of the Wertham era Seduction of the Innocent campaigns that sees things they want to see them, not as they were or are, and is looking for scapegoats so parents don't have to do their jobs as the gatekeepers to what their children are exposed to and using material as teaching moments instead of brandishing torches and pitchforks demanding it shouldn't exist. How things are marketed has very little to do with what they are in most cases. Corporations make money however they can. That's not good or bad, it's just what their purpose is, they exist to make their shareholders money. And while we're at it, there's way too much sex and violence in the collection of stories called the Bible, so we need to stop marketing that stuff to kids too. They should just create new characters if they want to do kids stuff with those types of stories instead of all that begatting, and polygamy (hi Abraham), and smiting and turning people into salt and demonic possessions, and vandalising respectable merchant tables in the temple and all that stuff, Entirely unsuitable for kids and it cannot exist at multiple levels for multiple audiences because they've marketed it to kids before. And how about those beloved children's classics by Lewis Carroll...or those NFL lunchboxes and NBA lunchboxes and action figures, where these folks are doping and pointing guns at each other in locker rooms and beating the snot out of each other on national TV each week, and owners promoting plantation master style culture, yet there's toys, cartoons, kids clothing, kids programming and even kids programs run by these corporations because they make money. Let's not stop at super-heroes, let's clean all of that up too because we have pee wee football and little league baseball as kids mainstays so adult versions of them should not exist, it would confuse people. -M I didn't say super heroes must be kids fare. I said the exact opposite. I said childrens properties must be kids fare. And yes, Superman and Batman are children's properties, and have been since Action 1 and Tec 27. You can tell the demographic for the publication by looking at the adverts. Action 1 adverts is selling kid shit, not oil filters and cigars. Yeah, I know corporations love profits and will do anything to achieve them. I just think some things shouldn't be done. I'm not proposing a law against it, I'm just saying I don't support it. If Superman and Batman aren't children's properties, then I guess they have no place in children's books or on Saturday Morning cartoons. Choose one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jul 14, 2014 16:16:46 GMT -5
You're just peeved because the yellow in the costume reminds you of bananas. I must say I'm impressed by your ability to make just about anything about bananas. Well done.
|
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Jul 14, 2014 16:20:08 GMT -5
Snow White was created,for profit,by the Brothers Grimm in their book of fairy tales they published in the early 1800s.The story has been transcended,for if you mention Snow White now,people will think of the Walt Disney version which is quite different No it was transcribed by two folklorists not created by them.
|
|