|
Post by Zabel Zarock on Jan 23, 2011 12:53:25 GMT -5
Because in the 1950s a guy by the name of Dr. Fredric Wertham published a book called Seduction of the Innocent, that blamed comic books for being the sole inventor and advocate of every form of juvenile delinquency known to man. And though, according to Wertham, Batman was promoting male homosexuality and Wonder Woman was an advocate of lesbianism, the worst crimes being perpetrated by comics was by the EC line of Horror and Crime comics, which were the single cause of every crime commited by minors of the day. And seeing how pretty much EVERY series EC had when the code was made/put into effect violated at least a handful of the code's laws, they couldn't get their stuff approved, and basically, thanks to this dick, an ENTIRE PUBLISHER was killed, as the Comics Code more or less killed EC. He ended up heavily regretting what he did
|
|
El Hijo De Slapnuts
Samurai Cop
Really waiting for Minoru Suzuki to face off with a live gator.....
Posts: 2,256
|
Post by El Hijo De Slapnuts on Jan 23, 2011 12:55:10 GMT -5
ARCHIE AND JUGHEAD AND THEIR "SPECIAL" PROBLEM
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Jan 23, 2011 12:56:33 GMT -5
ARCHIE & JUGHEAD = MORE THAN JUST FRIENDS?
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Jan 23, 2011 14:21:44 GMT -5
Maybe the stuff that Hooper X in Chasing Amy says happens in the Archie world will finally come to pass. "Why do you think Jughead's wearing that funny looking crown thing all the time? He the king of Queen Archie's world." "You're insane! Archie is not f***ing Mr Weatherbee! Look, he's just offering to help him with his f***in' homework!"
|
|
Jay Peas 42
El Dandy
Totally flips out ALL the time.
Is looking forward to a Nation of Domination Kwannza Special.
Posts: 8,329
|
Post by Jay Peas 42 on Jan 23, 2011 14:40:41 GMT -5
I don't get the Comic Code hate. Comics are pretty much dead as a medium today, so who cares what they publish. Back in the 50s, they were very popular with children, and demanding a universal content standred is not unreasonable. Yeah, ratings would have been a better compromise than content restrictions, sure, a nuace that will probably go overlooked by the "This movie is not yet rated" fanboys. But the fact is, the EC Comics were pretty bloody, and were not appropiate for all ages.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 23, 2011 14:58:39 GMT -5
I don't get the Comic Code hate. Comics are pretty much dead as a medium today, so who cares what they publish. Back in the 50s, they were very popular with children, and demanding a universal content standred is not unreasonable. Yeah, ratings would have been a better compromise than content restrictions, sure, a nuace that will probably go overlooked by the "This movie is not yet rated" fanboys. But the fact is, the EC Comics were pretty bloody, and were not appropiate for all ages. Because it's one of the strictest forms of censorship that's affected the entertainment industry in history. If it was a ratings system, it'd be one thing, but the code authority pretty much had the exclusive complete right to prevent a comic book from being distributed by any major means and completely rendering all services by the writers, artists, etc. meaningless. It was a panel that could arbitrarily end livelihoods because they personally objected to something. And it wasn't just graphic gore that they restricted. Under the code, you couldn't depict a cop accepting a bribe. You couldn't have a criminal get away. You couldn't have a comic book adaptation of Dracula or the Wolfman or Frankenstein without it getting pulled. A cop couldn't get killed. Symbols replacing swear words (and, of course, the swears themselves) were not allowed. You couldn't depict a fully clothed woman on the bed if they deemed it suggestive. There were even restrictions on the ability of villains to conceal a weapon. And it's not like they were uniformly enforced either, there were completely baffling decisions made regularly by the CCA. Hell, there was an issue written by a writer named Wolfman that was pulled because the writer was named Wolfman, and they had to get a special exemption to allow it. If the MPAA did what the CCA did, not only would every movie be rated G, the standards for what would make a G-Rated movie would go way up. That's why people disliked it. Besides the fact that it's way over the top, trying to justify a universal standard for everyone is complete bull.
|
|
|
Post by SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts on Jan 23, 2011 15:14:36 GMT -5
Yeah, CCA has a history of inconsistancies and making things appear worse in comics inspite their censorship. The "women in frigerator" scene of Green Lanterns girlfriend was supposed to just be her dead on the floor but that wasn't approved. It was changed to her stuffed in a refrigerator. Now which is more graphic? There was also a Thor where he and Enchantress were supposed to kiss but that wasn't approved. They changed it to them in bed with implication that they just had sex and that was approved.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Jan 23, 2011 16:43:04 GMT -5
There was a series of panels in a Nick Fury comic where he's about to get intimate with some female. The final panel in the series was them kissing, and that was deemed inappropriate. So they replaced it with a close-up of Fury's gun firmly placed inside its holster. Which, given the context, seems very symbolic.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jan 23, 2011 16:48:13 GMT -5
CCA "Kids are stupid they won't get innuendo but they do understand kissing and its evil"
|
|
Jay Peas 42
El Dandy
Totally flips out ALL the time.
Is looking forward to a Nation of Domination Kwannza Special.
Posts: 8,329
|
Post by Jay Peas 42 on Jan 23, 2011 17:20:21 GMT -5
I read "Completely MAD," I know exactly what the comic code was, and what it's effects are, and what it did to EC. Here’s the thing. I was born in 1980. I’m pretty certain both Comics and the Comic Code have been irrelevant for the entireity of my lifetime, so my point is, I find it hard to get mad about these things. Also, "Completely MAD," good read.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 23, 2011 17:35:38 GMT -5
Fair point, but there's a big difference between getting actively upset and accepting that it was justified when it was excessively strict and arbitrary.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jan 23, 2011 18:55:41 GMT -5
I don't get the Comic Code hate. Comics are pretty much dead as a medium today, so who cares what they publish. Back in the 50s, they were very popular with children, and demanding a universal content standred is not unreasonable. Yeah, ratings would have been a better compromise than content restrictions, sure, a nuace that will probably go overlooked by the "This movie is not yet rated" fanboys. But the fact is, the EC Comics were pretty bloody, and were not appropiate for all ages. Because it's one of the strictest forms of censorship that's affected the entertainment industry in history. If it was a ratings system, it'd be one thing, but the code authority pretty much had the exclusive complete right to prevent a comic book from being distributed by any major means and completely rendering all services by the writers, artists, etc. meaningless. It was a panel that could arbitrarily end livelihoods because they personally objected to something. And it wasn't just graphic gore that they restricted. Under the code, you couldn't depict a cop accepting a bribe. You couldn't have a criminal get away. You couldn't have a comic book adaptation of Dracula or the Wolfman or Frankenstein without it getting pulled. A cop couldn't get killed. Symbols replacing swear words (and, of course, the swears themselves) were not allowed. You couldn't depict a fully clothed woman on the bed if they deemed it suggestive. There were even restrictions on the ability of villains to conceal a weapon. And it's not like they were uniformly enforced either, there were completely baffling decisions made regularly by the CCA. Hell, there was an issue written by a writer named Wolfman that was pulled because the writer was named Wolfman, and they had to get a special exemption to allow it. If the MPAA did what the CCA did, not only would every movie be rated G, the standards for what would make a G-Rated movie would go way up. That's why people disliked it. Besides the fact that it's way over the top, trying to justify a universal standard for everyone is complete bull. Under those rules, I'm pretty sure Batman has been outside the code for decades.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 23, 2011 19:07:42 GMT -5
Because it's one of the strictest forms of censorship that's affected the entertainment industry in history. If it was a ratings system, it'd be one thing, but the code authority pretty much had the exclusive complete right to prevent a comic book from being distributed by any major means and completely rendering all services by the writers, artists, etc. meaningless. It was a panel that could arbitrarily end livelihoods because they personally objected to something. And it wasn't just graphic gore that they restricted. Under the code, you couldn't depict a cop accepting a bribe. You couldn't have a criminal get away. You couldn't have a comic book adaptation of Dracula or the Wolfman or Frankenstein without it getting pulled. A cop couldn't get killed. Symbols replacing swear words (and, of course, the swears themselves) were not allowed. You couldn't depict a fully clothed woman on the bed if they deemed it suggestive. There were even restrictions on the ability of villains to conceal a weapon. And it's not like they were uniformly enforced either, there were completely baffling decisions made regularly by the CCA. Hell, there was an issue written by a writer named Wolfman that was pulled because the writer was named Wolfman, and they had to get a special exemption to allow it. If the MPAA did what the CCA did, not only would every movie be rated G, the standards for what would make a G-Rated movie would go way up. That's why people disliked it. Besides the fact that it's way over the top, trying to justify a universal standard for everyone is complete bull. Under those rules, I'm pretty sure Batman has been outside the code for decades. The code changed in the 70's to allow more, pretty much because Marvel eventually decided to say "f*** this" and started to do things that were against it, and then further began to relax the rules. But yeah, a lot of the damage had been done by then.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jan 23, 2011 21:50:30 GMT -5
If the MPAA did what the CCA did, not only would every movie be rated G, the standards for what would make a G-Rated movie would go way up. Not the MPAA but the PCA (Production Code Authority) enforced a similarly stringent (though it sounds like not quite to the extent of the Comics Code) set of guidelines from 1934-1967, in response to gangster (Little Caesar, Scarface: Shame of a Nation, Public Enemy), horror (Frankenstein, Dracula), and sexualized (Footlight Parade, Baby Face) films that became wildly popular in the early 1930s.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 23, 2011 21:56:41 GMT -5
If the MPAA did what the CCA did, not only would every movie be rated G, the standards for what would make a G-Rated movie would go way up. Not the MPAA but the PCA (Production Code Authority) enforced a similarly stringent (though it sounds like not quite to the extent of the Comics Code) set of guidelines from 1934-1967, in response to gangster (Little Caesar, Scarface: Shame of a Nation, Public Enemy), horror (Frankenstein, Dracula), and sexualized (Footlight Parade, Baby Face) films that became wildly popular in the early 1930s. Yeah, the code era of Hollywood. I don't think it was as stringent as the CCA was though.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jan 23, 2011 22:01:23 GMT -5
Not the MPAA but the PCA (Production Code Authority) enforced a similarly stringent (though it sounds like not quite to the extent of the Comics Code) set of guidelines from 1934-1967, in response to gangster (Little Caesar, Scarface: Shame of a Nation, Public Enemy), horror (Frankenstein, Dracula), and sexualized (Footlight Parade, Baby Face) films that became wildly popular in the early 1930s. Yeah, the code era of Hollywood. I don't think it was as stringent as the CCA was though. It didn't completely outlaw horror, and it sounds like filmmakers had a bit more freedom in using metaphor to convey violence/sex implicitly (as wonderfully detailed in Stephen Prince's book Classical Film Violence), but there were many specific rules such as no gangster could be shown with an automatic weapon, and like what you say about the Comics Code it wasn't exactly uniformly enforced.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 23, 2011 22:03:46 GMT -5
Here's exactly what it says/said:
Standards of the Comics Code Authority for editorial matter as originally adopted. Code For Editorial Matter
General Standards Part A:
1) Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.
2) No comics shall explicitly present the unique details and methods of a crime.
3) Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.
4) If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.
5) Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates the desire for emulation.
6) In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.
7) Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gun play, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.
8) No unique or unusual methods of concealing weapons shall be shown.
9) Instances of law enforcement officers dying as a result of a criminal's activities should be discouraged.
10) The crime of kidnapping shall never be portrayed in any detail, nor shall any profit accrue to the abductor or kidnapper. The criminal or the kidnapper must be punished in every case.
11) The letters of the word "crime" on a comics magazine shall never be appreciably greater than the other words contained in the title. The word "crime" shall never appear alone on a cover.
12) Restraint in the use of the word "crime" in titles or subtitles shall be exercised.
General Standards Part B:
1) No comic magazine shall use the word "horror" or "terror" in its title.
2) All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.
3) All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated.
4) Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.
5) Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.
General Standards Part C:
All elements or techniques not specifically mentioned herein, but which are contrary to the spirit and intent of the Code, and are considered violations of good taste or decency, shall be prohibited.
Dialogue: 1) Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.
2) Special precautions to avoid references to physical afflictions or deformities shall be taken.
3) Although slang and colloquialisms are acceptable, excessive use should be discouraged and wherever possible good grammar shall be employed.
Religion: Ridicule or attack on any religious or racial group is never permissible.
Costume: 1) Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.
2) Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.
3) All characters shall be depicted in dress reasonably acceptable to society.
4) Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.
NOTE: It should be recognized that all prohibitions dealing with costume, dialogue, or artwork applies as specifically to the cover of a comic magazine as they do to the contents.
Marriage and Sex: 1) Divorce shall not be treated humorously nor shall be represented as desirable.
2) Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Violent love scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.
3) Respect for parents, the moral code, and for honorable behavior shall be fostered. A sympathetic understanding of the problems of love is not a license for moral distortion.
4) The treatment of love-romance stories shall emphasize the value of the home and the sanctity of marriage.
5) Passion or romantic interest shall never be treated in such a way as to stimulate the lower and baser emotions.
6) Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.
7) Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.
Code For Advertising Matter:
These regulations are applicable to all magazines published by members of the Comics Magazine Association of America, Inc. Good taste shall be the guiding principle in the acceptance of advertising.
1) Liquor and tobacco advertising is not acceptable.
2) Advertisement of sex or sex instructions books are unacceptable.
3) The sale of picture postcards, "pin-ups," "art studies," or any other reproduction of nude or semi-nude figures is prohibited.
4) Advertising for the sale of knives, concealable weapons, or realistic gun facsimiles is prohibited.
5) Advertising for the sale of fireworks is prohibited.
6) Advertising dealing with the sale of gambling equipment or printed matter dealing with gambling shall not be accepted.
7) Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.
8) To the best of his ability, each publisher shall ascertain that all statements made in advertisements conform to the fact and avoid misinterpretation.
9) Advertisement of medical, health, or toiletry products of questionable nature are to be rejected. Advertisements for medical, health or toiletry products endorsed by the American Medical Association, or the American Dental Association, shall be deemed acceptable if they conform with all other conditions of the Advertising Code.
|
|
|
Post by elektro on Jan 23, 2011 23:08:31 GMT -5
Maybe the stuff that Hooper X in Chasing Amy says happens in the Archie world will finally come to pass. "Why do you think Jughead's wearing that funny looking crown thing all the time? He the king of Queen Archie's world." "You're insane! Archie is not f***ing Mr Weatherbee! Look, he's just offering to help him with his f***in' homework!" "Read between the lines, bitch."
|
|
|
Post by mrwednesdaynight on Jan 23, 2011 23:35:22 GMT -5
So does this mean that the Archie books can do more with Kevin, that character whom out ate Jughead in a hot dog eating contest and ended up being gay, or was that character just a gimmick created to get a quick headline and boost sales, then quickly dropped? I thought he was a publicity stunt but now that they have dropped the comic book code, maybe they could actually use him in the books as a relevent character.
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Jan 24, 2011 1:50:30 GMT -5
I read "Completely MAD," I know exactly what the comic code was, and what it's effects are, and what it did to EC. Here’s the thing. I was born in 1980. I’m pretty certain both Comics and the Comic Code have been irrelevant for the entireity of my lifetime, so my point is, I find it hard to get mad about these things. Also, "Completely MAD," good read. First, are you not into comics? If not fine, but you won't truly understand how the business and artform was radically changed. Reading a book about comics doesn't convey the same thing. Second. You're "certainty" is totally off. Comics are as relevant as ever. Look at hollywood. They are churning-out comics/graphic-novel based flicks left and right. There is a larger range of material in terms of subject-matter and age-range for intended audience than ever before. Third, how can you deny the impact(relevance) of the code? Even though it's disappearing the ripple-effect is still felt very much to this day. It changed the whole comics business. Do you say that just because you aren't into comics? That is like me saying defjam wasn't relevant because I'm not into hip-hop.
|
|