|
|
Post by electricmastro on May 14, 2020 19:54:11 GMT -5
I know many feel the Comics Code Authority was a bad thing but in some ways I miss it. At first it was too strict but I wish modern creators would keep some of the ideas in mind. One of my problems with modern comics is the explicit violence. It's not needed. I remember Hugo Strange getting a beating in the Englehart/Rogers Batman stories and it was done in shadow to imply it. It was more powerful than if it had been shown in full detail. Modern movies and TV are guilty of this too. Charles Murphy’s lunatic response to Judgement Day notwithstanding, I think there definitely was quite a bit to be reasonably concerned about, and perhaps complain against, not just sexualized good girl art, but gory comics getting into the hands of kids who perhaps couldn’t handle it. At that point though, I think that would better justify a rating system rather than outright censorship, because I could totally understand why someone wouldn’t want kids reading this kind of stuff: Crime Does Not Pay #57 (November 1947, Lev Gleason Publications):  Exposed #2 (May 1948, DS Publishing):  Underworld #3 (June 1948, DS Publishing):  Chamber of Chills Magazine #8 (May 1952, Harvey Comics):  Chamber of Chills Magazine #14 (November 1952, Harvey Comics):  Dark Mysteries #13 (August 1953, Master Comics):  Mysterious Adventures #20 (June 1954, Story Comics):  |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on May 14, 2020 20:04:26 GMT -5
I know many feel the Comics Code Authority was a bad thing but in some ways I miss it. At first it was too strict but I wish modern creators would keep some of the ideas in mind. One of my problems with modern comics is the explicit violence. It's not needed. I remember Hugo Strange getting a beating in the Englehart/Rogers Batman stories and it was done in shadow to imply it. It was more powerful than if it had been shown in full detail. Modern movies and TV are guilty of this too. Given how sadistic and sick comics have become since the Code went away, I suspect that a certain number of writers erroneously believe that that little 'Approved by the CCA' box was the only thing preventing classic writers from inserting all sorts of sadistic things into their work. ie. 'Stan Lee would have had The Green Goblin raping and eating people, but the Comics Code wouldn't let him'. I think a certain number of writers actually believe what Wertham wrote - that artists were constantly hiding all sorts of things in their artwork, that writers were always trying to incorporate more and more violence but could only hint at it, etc. - and now feel as if every reference to, say, The Joker cooking a baby and feeding him to his father (in an issue of Action Comics I believe, about ten years ago) is justice for the Bill Fingers and Jerry Robinsons of the past who would have loved to have done that but had their hands tied. I despise the Code and if I still read new comics would never want to see it come back in any form. Rather than preventing the juvenile violence which probably still goes on in the medium, I think its very existence is what planted the idea in the minds of a fair number of writers that comics were meant to be gory and violent when that was never really the point. Sort of like how I suspect that a lot of attacks on Rock n Roll being 'the devil's music' led to later musicians actually embracing that label and producing work that essentially said, "You want devil's music? We'll give you devil's music!" |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 14, 2020 20:08:38 GMT -5
I know many feel the Comics Code Authority was a bad thing but in some ways I miss it. At first it was too strict but I wish modern creators would keep some of the ideas in mind. One of my problems with modern comics is the explicit violence. It's not needed.
Wiki says this about Stan Lee
Former Marvel president and chairman Stan Lee openly criticized the Max imprint. Referring to an incident of strangulation with intestines in the 2001 Fury miniseries, based on the character Nick Fury, whom he co-created, Lee said, "I don't know why they're doing that. I don't think that I would do those kinds of stories.
I liked that MAX Fury mini-series and still have it so I don't agree with Stan one bit and he was free to go write his Just Imagine series instead (which I thought was boring as hell). As long as books are clearly labelled that they're not intended for kids....I don't mind adult themes which include violence.
Bear in mind I like R-Rated action/horror films that push the envelope so when comics go that route, I'm not complaining.
I can understand others not appreciating it, so just stick to mainstream books. Simple as that.
I hated that series with the fire of a thousand suns. Nothing to do with the violence, which I felt was just cheap gratuitous stuff to prop up a weak premise and poor characterization. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2020 20:10:43 GMT -5
I know many feel the Comics Code Authority was a bad thing but in some ways I miss it. At first it was too strict but I wish modern creators would keep some of the ideas in mind. One of my problems with modern comics is the explicit violence. It's not needed. I remember Hugo Strange getting a beating in the Englehart/Rogers Batman stories and it was done in shadow to imply it. It was more powerful than if it had been shown in full detail. Modern movies and TV are guilty of this too. Given how sadistic and sick comics have become since the Code went away, I suspect that a certain number of writers erroneously believe that that little 'Approved by the CCA' box was the only thing preventing classic writers from inserting all sorts of sadistic things into their work. ie. 'Stan Lee would have had The Green Goblin raping and eating people, but the Comics Code wouldn't let him'. I think a certain number of writers actually believe what Wertham wrote - that artists were constantly hiding all sorts of things in their artwork, that writers were always trying to incorporate more and more violence but could only hint at it, etc. - and now feel as if every reference to, say, The Joker cooking a baby and feeding him to his father (in an issue of Action Comics I believe, about ten years ago) is justice for the Bill Fingers and Jerry Robinsons of the past who would have loved to have done that but had their hands tied. I despise the Code and if I still read new comics would never want to see it come back in any form. Rather than preventing the juvenile violence which probably still goes on in the medium, I think its very existence is what planted the idea in the minds of a fair number of writers that comics were meant to be gory and violent when that was never really the point. Sort of like how I suspect that a lot of attacks on Rock n Roll being 'the devil's music' led to later musicians actually embracing that label and producing work that essentially said, "You want devil's music? We'll give you devil's music!" You said it so eloquently. IMO the sadistic violence in entertainment or the vulgar comedy is just laziness on the part of creators. |
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on May 25, 2020 15:06:36 GMT -5
Given how sadistic and sick comics have become since the Code went away, I suspect that a certain number of writers erroneously believe that that little 'Approved by the CCA' box was the only thing preventing classic writers from inserting all sorts of sadistic things into their work. ie. 'Stan Lee would have had The Green Goblin raping and eating people, but the Comics Code wouldn't let him'. I think a certain number of writers actually believe what Wertham wrote - that artists were constantly hiding all sorts of things in their artwork, that writers were always trying to incorporate more and more violence but could only hint at it, etc. - and now feel as if every reference to, say, The Joker cooking a baby and feeding him to his father (in an issue of Action Comics I believe, about ten years ago) is justice for the Bill Fingers and Jerry Robinsons of the past who would have loved to have done that but had their hands tied. I despise the Code and if I still read new comics would never want to see it come back in any form. Rather than preventing the juvenile violence which probably still goes on in the medium, I think its very existence is what planted the idea in the minds of a fair number of writers that comics were meant to be gory and violent when that was never really the point. Sort of like how I suspect that a lot of attacks on Rock n Roll being 'the devil's music' led to later musicians actually embracing that label and producing work that essentially said, "You want devil's music? We'll give you devil's music!" You said it so eloquently. IMO the sadistic violence in entertainment or the vulgar comedy is just laziness on the part of creators. This list here: www.ranker.com/list/insane-moments-marvel-comic-book-history/jeffrichardprobably sums it up. I can definitely understand why there would be concerns from parents and calls for a ratings system considering that material even though superhero comics are otherwise usually seen as a kid’s thing. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 25, 2020 17:23:44 GMT -5
Charles Murphy’s lunatic response to Judgement Day notwithstanding, I think there definitely was quite a bit to be reasonably concerned about, and perhaps complain against, not just sexualized good girl art, but gory comics getting into the hands of kids who perhaps couldn’t handle it. At that point though, I think that would better justify a rating system rather than outright censorship, because I could totally understand why someone wouldn’t want kids reading this kind of stuff: Crime Does Not Pay #57 (November 1947, Lev Gleason Publications): I dunno...I think that kid deserved to get beat. |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on May 25, 2020 17:53:12 GMT -5
I ask if something sensitizes or desensitizes. In a code approved X-Men book I saw some of, there was a woman shoving spikes into her own eyes and supposedly enjoying it under the power of some Claremont "dark" vampiric baddie. There was also a Defenders story, presumably also from the code approved era still, where some characater was making like a serial killer of children to bring out hatred from townsfolk for some more moral reason or something. I didn't think it was graphic but it didn't really work like I think the author intended. The Defenders were more just bystanders in it too.
I think the whole killing characters became a lame joke in super persons comics because they always seem to find some commercial value in them somebody wants to milk again and so they all come back (at least with Phoenix that possibility was inherent to the name). In the march toward serious mature realistic fantasy powered people in costumes with codenames though there have undoubtedly been some embarrassing highlights... and just generally having the baddies become more unspeakably vile so that you want the Bronson death-wish protaganist to crush them like the fascist underground Wonder Warthog would, only with no real laughs involved.
The rape thing in non-code Watchmen was one I saw right on my way out the door from anything mainstream superhero-wise for over two decades; it was ugly and awkward, I guess that's how it should have been. Somehow Dave Gibbons doing it with his clean classic commercial style made it seem even more vile and out of place than if it had been by outre Sienwiekicz or McKean, or murky Miller. There's a level of maturity the form can stand at times, maybe late teen, but there's a level past it where it breaks for me and is just an underground comic for adults in an inappropriate place that is otherwise kid-friendly. A lot of the time some misguided wannabe writer of serious literature is making their mark, breaking barriers, yatta-yatta, in a form not ideally appropriate to that. If they really want to do that why would you not go to a regular fiction publishing house presumably geared toward a definitely all adult readership? So right there they aren't dealing a fair hand from the deck using any characters originally designed for kids with the colorful visuals to match.
I think Denny O'Neil was trying sometimes to honestly connect or be relevant with the times, he wasn't necessarily intentioned in the 'look at how serious and important I am small pond audience'. I think it was also an awkward fit at times and unsustainable (plus they say the sales on a socially relevant Green Lantern-Green Arrow wasn't too encouraging). Gerry Conway perhaps likewise (on Spider-Man). Mostly those and Watchmen, and the 'There Is No Hope In Crime Alley' Batman story are more comments on the limited inherent nature of superheroes as a concept. Too much of it exposes the weaknesses and the necessary tropes, can even cross into parody like all the massive muscles, giant guns and insanely grinning evil exaggerations got to be.
sensitizes versus desensitizes... also sustainable versus unsustainable!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2020 19:11:05 GMT -5
I remember a Wonder Woman cover, either late 80s or early 90s...the likes of which I had never seen...she was chained, beaten up with a black-eye and barefoot....is that the most violent WW cover ever?
|
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on May 25, 2020 19:27:18 GMT -5
Also, it was weird seeing this 1987 series by DC with these covers which include the comics code approval seal on them.   |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 26, 2020 8:17:08 GMT -5
On the subject of the code, most all Marvel/DC had CCA comics when I started reading in the 90's. I remember Carnage really pushing the violence to the almost the point of not being approved. Both in the back story of Cletus Cassidy to the violence that Carnage would perpetrate. Personally I find the actual visuals of violence far more difficult to digest than "off screen" insinuated violence. For example I made it through two HC collections of Preacher before I checked out. While the story was interesting and I could have followed in longer, if not for Dillion's too masterful artist depictions of violence.
All that said, I would be all for a rating system much like the ESRB is for video games. It seems now though with imprints like MAX that some of these comics loaded with graphic violence have been set off in a way that indicates their content is mature. But then I remember a friend telling me about a scene in The Boys that made me sick. But then again, the premise really didn't appeal to me, so I probably never would have read it, so :shrug:
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 26, 2020 9:30:23 GMT -5
I'm re-reading Garth Ennis' Hellblazer run, almost all of which I had read when the issues first came out, and I had forgotten how disturbing and graphic it was. Of course, it's always been marked as a mature readers title.
|
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on May 26, 2020 13:37:54 GMT -5
Both Ennis and Aaron served me well with comic violence in their runs of Punisher MAX. I make no apologies for liking some of my books to be grimy and gritty. And of course, the various Punisher covers with the comics code seal on them.    |
|
|
|
Post by jason on May 27, 2020 8:16:31 GMT -5
"What If the X-Men lost Inferno" which had a demon-possesed Wolverine eating a baby. Sadly, I'm not kidding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on May 27, 2020 8:34:48 GMT -5
"What If the X-Men lost Inferno" which had a demon-possesed Wolverine eating a baby. Sadly, I'm not kidding. And someone will surely post the pages to prove you're not just making this up. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 27, 2020 9:33:21 GMT -5
You misunderstand me. I have read violent comics like Supreme Power or the Authority. Sometimes I read them. However I don't want to read them all the time. As far as mainstream comics it has become commonplace there anymore. The Joker having his face cut off? The Sentry ripping Carnage and Ares in pieces? So you can't just escape it anymore. This reminds me, as I am reading Age of Apocalypse at the moment, at the end of X-Men Omega in the final showdown between Magneto and Apocalypse {Spoiler}Magneto rips Apocalypse in half down the middle horizontally. And the shot is taken as if the viewer is behind Apocalypse, and you see Magneto's "I've had enough of your BS" angry face through the two torn pieces of Apocalypse and that was a coded comic. There's also the infamous girl in the fridge from Green Lantern #54, which I would say, as least the visual violence (the social aspect of it can be debated) was done much more tasteful. At least in that I remember staring at the panel, going back and reading the dialouge between Alexandria and Major Force, and then it finally dawning on me what was trying to be said visually. {Spoiler}  |
|
