Slashdot Mirror


Comics Code Dead

tverbeek writes "After more than half a century of stifling the comic book industry, the Comics Code Authority is effectively dead. Created in response to Fredric Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent, one of the early think-of-the-children censorship campaigns, and Congressional hearings, the Code laid out a checklist of requirements and restrictions for comics to be distributed to newsstand vendors, effectively ensuring that in North America, only simplistic stories for children would be told using the medium of sequential art. It gradually lost many of its teeth, and an increasing number of publishers gave up on newsstand distribution and ignored the Code, but at the turn of the century the US's largest comics publishers still participated. Marvel quit it in 2001, in favor of self-applied ratings styled after the MPAA's and ESRB's. Last year Bongo (publishers of the Simpsons comics) quietly dropped out. Now DC and Archie, the last publishers willingly subjecting their books to approval, have announced that they're discontinuing their use of the CCA, with DC following Marvel's example, and Archie (which recently introduced an openly gay supporting character, something flatly forbidden by the original Code) carrying on under their own standards. The Code's cousins — the MPAA and ESRB ratings, the RIAA parental advisory, and the mishmash of warnings on TV shows — still live on, but at least North American comic publishers are no longer subject to external censorship."

16 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Er, what? by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know about the MPAA or the others, but i know the whole point of the ESRB was that it was a voluntary measure the video game industry took on itself in order to avoid something like the Comic Book Code getting created by an outside group. So it's not external censorship and it's really kind of weird to put it up as an example of the Comic Book Code's "cousin" living on. It's really a good example of the _right_ way to inform consumer about what's in the content they're consuming without being subject to censorship.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Er, what? by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The comics code was harsh, and it was obvious the people implementing it were stupid fools, toadies and jerks, bent on agrandizing themselves and their political viewpoint from very early on.
      For stupidity, the code authors didn't know how to write laws in legal English, so they put in clauses forbidding depicting zombieism and werewolfism (I suppose by analogy with the word 'vampirism'.). One of the biggest reasons many people still believe today that finely ground glass in food is undetectable and will kill the eater is that the code prohibited all realistic depiction of any method of murder that even might actually work, so detective oriented characters such as Batman or the Question had to stop solving realistic crimes and solve impossible ones, where magnets attracted copper and giant magnifying glasses could be rendered invisible yet still focus the sun's rays. Ground glass was a favorite during the 50's, one that became incorporated into urban legends.
      For toadying, the early code prohibited ever showing an elected official or policeman committing any crime, even if they were caught and punished. The code linked the American way of life directly with free market capitalism, and prohibited all mention of drug use, even in an negative light, so one of the first cases of a mainstream comic not receiving the code seal was basically that it mentioned "Heroin is bad for you kids, so don't do it, m-kay?" It proved far easier for the code authorities to say "America doesn't have a drug problem, so don't talk about it in comics, at all", than to allow anti-drug messages.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  2. True in theory by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While schemes like the MPAA and ESRB systems are good in theory (rate the content, allow people to make their own decisions), the market realities of them basically end up resulting in "no adult content allowed". No one will stock or publish an ESRB AO game, just like no theatres ever show NC-17 films. As such there is no money in them, and the end up never being made.

    1. Re:True in theory by cptdondo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      By teh same token, a G or PG rating is the kiss of death. They laced "Back to the Future" movies with profanity just so they could get a PG-13 movie.

      So the ratings really serve to compress all the movies into PG-13 and R, the difference being the amount of tits and blood.

      There are no really good kids movies or really good adult movies made anymore. I don't see anything like Fellini movies made these days. Or movies like Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

      In a lot of ways, the ratings have really killed truly creative movies; they have to fit the mold of PG-13 or R to get screened.

    2. Re:True in theory by mewsenews · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one will stock or publish an ESRB AO game, just like no theatres ever show NC-17 films.

      I was about to make a snide comment about digital distribution eventually making this argument moot. However, I then realized that digital distribution is rapidly coalescing into a handful of retailers like Steam and iTunes app store, and they're just as unlikely to carry boobs than their brick and mortar counterparts.

    3. Re:True in theory by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Blood = G or PG

      Very small amounts of it, and absolutely no gore.

      The MPAA ratings board is a group of old "married" white women (supposedly parents with children living under roof, though most of them have no children in the house, and why is that the standard anyway?), so of of course tits are going to rate far higher than blood. I'm not being hyperbolic there either. It really is a bunch of old white women.

      The ratings really are absolutely ridiculous. Besides being pretty inconsistent from one movie to the next, you can kill a million people rather graphically and still get a PG-13 rating, but show tits for more than about 3 seconds (or more than once) and it's a guaranteed R rating. You can even manage that R rating if you insinuate too much nudity, whether you actually show any tits or not.

      Also, Seduction of the Innocent is a great way to find old smutty comics. Some really great ones in there.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    4. Re:True in theory by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a G or PG rating is the kiss of death.

      This premise, like your "Back to the Future" reference, is over twenty years out of date.

      During that time, Hollywood (re?)discovered kids and families; some of the biggest blockbusters distributed recently have been rated G and PG, while the number of R-Rated movies being produced is a fraction of what it was back in the "Back to the Future" days.

    5. Re:True in theory by arun84h · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All three of the "Back to the Future" movies are rated PG, not PG-13 as you stated.

      If anyone wants to see the clandestine and ridiculous nature of the MPAA ratings board, check out the movie "This Film Is Not Yet Rated". It shows just how messed up the rating process is, and how forcibly they /try/ to control the creativity of film makers. They're often successful, which is very sad. Ratings are largely arbitrary and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. These scum bags need to be disposed of.

    6. Re:True in theory by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The MPAA ratings board is a group of old "married" white women (supposedly parents with children living under roof, though most of them have no children in the house, and why is that the standard anyway?), so of of course tits are going to rate far higher than blood. I'm not being hyperbolic there either. It really is a bunch of old white women.

      The MPAA rating isn't designed to protect children from content, it's designed to protect studios and theater owners from lawsuits and boycotts, and secondarily from state and federal regulation (btw, the first one has more historical precedent than the second and would be much more serious from a commercial standpoint -- it used to be in the 30s that studios might have to produce at least two cuts of a film for the United States, the one that the studio releases everywhere, and the one that releases in Jim Crow south.)

      Children do not file lawsuits, lead boycotts or write letters to congress. Old busybody white women do (arguendo I accept your stereotype), thus they set the standard. Kids sneak into whatever film they want, studios game the edge, etc.

      Recently this brushed up against Tom Hooper and his The King's Speech, which he was shocked got an R rating, when in every other film market on Earth (even and remarkably the government-rated ones) it was a family film with a G or PG equivalent. All for one seen where people swear, in a completely non-sexual context and for humorous effect.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    7. Re:True in theory by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The ratings really are absolutely ridiculous. Besides being pretty inconsistent from one movie to the next, you can kill a million people rather graphically and still get a PG-13 rating, but show tits for more than about 3 seconds (or more than once) and it's a guaranteed R rating.

      I was gobsmacked to discover that The King's Speech actually drew an R rating from the MPAA. (Apparently, they objected to the use of profanity - including the dreaded 'fuck' - even in the context of speech therapy. For the record, it was part of one of the most brilliantly funny scenes in the film.) The Lord of the Rings films, meanwhile, get a PG-13, despite impalements, beheadings, and the deaths of thousands. Casino Royale gets a PG-13, even with all its James Bond violence, and the sadistic clubbing of the protagonist's testicles while he's tied to a chair.

      This Film Is Not Yet Rated is an excellent, biting documentary about the MPAA's secretive, deceptive, politicized ratings system. You should be warned, however, that while the film currently has no MPAA rating, an early version of the film received a provisional NC-17 rating.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    8. Re:True in theory by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Funny

      This premise, like your "Back to the Future" reference, is over twenty years out of date.

      Cut him some slack, he just arrived from 1986.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  3. Good riddance by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 5, Insightful

    *Ding dong the witch is dead*. And good riddance. Censorship has no place in a freedom loving society and its really appalling that Republicans who blather on about freedom are the first to support authoritarian censorship. Censorship and other social conservative ideas generally makes a society by condoning violent behaviour and sanctioning supression and violence against others who have views, expression or opinions some do not like.

    Skin never hurt anyone, the idea that nudity or sex is bad (or psychedelics for that matter) is completely concocted by society, these things are victimless, as a society we should let individuals make up their own minds and decisions, rather than have a authoritarian government and the right wing religious organisations, the private quasi or defacto governmental form of that, watching over our every move.

    I prefer more of a western European model, with a socially liberal atmosphere and little or no censorship, nude beaches etc, and governments that concern themselves with making sure people have food, housing, good jobs, and health care, and education, rather than obsesssing over imposing arbitrary ideologies on people. As a social libertatian, that is what we believe in and leads to a truly safe society.

    The idea that nudity is wrong is, in fact, a lie. It is a lie promulgated by oppressive religious ideologies that are designed to control, enslave and indoctrinate peoples minds. It is opposed to individual liberty and rationality, that people should have individual self determination rights and things which do not deprive others of their own freedom should not be enacted. Nudity is victimless, it takes away no ones right to not or to wear clothes as they prefer. In fact, laws against nudity take away our right to make these choices for themselves. Nudity is truly harmless, and there is much more of it in Europe. Yet Europe is far safer than the US and has much less violent crime, an overall safer society.

    The most socially conservative places in the world, such as Iraq, or Afghanistan are also the most dangerous and violent.

    Ironically the country that Republicans seem to want is one where public school has been replaced by bible school, harmless. natural and innocent things like nude swimming have been banned, and with children dying on the street from starvation and treatable medical conditions, massive military and industrial prison complexs and so on.

    We will all be better off when we evolve past medieval religious ideologies and systems of oppressive social control designed to take away individuals freedom, not preserve them.

  4. The industry is just hurting itself by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I haven't collected since I was a kid...actually I've never collected. I just got them and read them until the covers literally fell off. But, those young readers were the pool from which adult readers sprang. Creating titles that everyone could read is what made the industry so ubiquitous. Now, it's a boutique niche with drastically reduced readership. Maybe that's made it more satisfying to the adult readers, I don't know.

    I had a friend in college who collected and bragged about the value of his collection with the confidence of a basement full of gold bullion. That was before everyone figured out the only readers left were just the collectors, and the valuation formulas were all wrong. Kind of like their own economic bubble.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  5. Well it's about damn time. by ulaanbaatar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now maybe Batman and Robin can be honest about their love.

  6. Women in Refrigerators by Reed+Solomon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Archie Comics spokesman mentioned the whole "we're not going to have any women in refrigerators" just because we're dropping the comics code, which is somewhat ironic, as the woman in that particular refrigerator came to be as a direct result of the comics code authority interference. Originally in the Green Lantern story the incident occurred in, the woman in question was supposed to be brutally murdered, but the comics code didn't want people to see a murdered woman, so instead, they had her put in the refrigerator and alluded to it instead. Nice work, comics code.

  7. Comics Code is NOT dead by digitalhermit · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just wait until the next issue when they realize that Comics Code was *NOT* dead, but instead placed in suspended animation when his arch nemesis switched the translator module causing a brain cascade failure... And in all that time, Comics Code was in an alternate reality, getting stronger, leveling up....

    Next issue.. Comics Code returns!