racketboy.com

Retrodude wrote:

AppleQueso wrote:Tip: Drop the "You only disagree with me because [some bullshit I made up]" shtick. It makes you look like a complete asshole.

Why? Because he's acting elitist and I have the nerve to call him on it? How dare I!

First of all, I don't give a shit what the other person's position is, there's no excuse to use such lazy, underhanded, and outright dishonest arguments. You don't get to decide what motivates other people's opinions.

"Most comics are aimed at adults" is an elitist statement? What?

It's not an elitist statement, it's a matter-of-fact statement.

DC and Marvel both have content rating systems. Why don't you go to a comic shop or something and take a look at the current running popular superhero comics and see what the actual ratings on them are. I guarantee you, the majority of them are going to be aimed at teens or older.

Many online comic shops have specific "young readers" categories. If children are the main audience, why would this even be necessary? Wouldn't a separate "adult readers" category make more sense if the adults are actually the minority?

AppleQueso wrote:DC and Marvel both have content rating systems. Why don't you go to a comic shop or something and take a look at the current running popular superhero comics and see what the actual ratings on them are. I guarantee you, the majority of them are going to be aimed at teens or older.

Many online comic shops have specific "young readers" categories. If children are the main audience, why would this even be necessary? Wouldn't a separate "adult readers" category make more sense if the adults are actually the minority?

Yeah, see, the problem with using that as the crux of your argument is that it misses the entire point of why comics companies do that, namely that it allows them to deflect complaints from any parents who might disapprove of what their kids are reading. I'd be willing to bet money that most comic stores would be perfectly willing to sell Teen rated comics to a seven year old and I'm sure it happens regularly, but that does not automatically mean that the kid is reading something aimed at adults regardless of what it says on the cover. The rating system is a PR mechanism to avoid controversy, nothing more, because to the public at large, comics are still seen primarily as kid stuff and that's still mostly true. Just because comics like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns were released in the past and comics like Punisher Max and Sin City are released now, that doesn't mean that ALL comics are aimed at adults. It's a stupid claim and, quite frankly, the ones defending it both here and elsewhere on the net sound like illogical, immature man-children.

Retrodude, you don't have an argument? You could argue the 60's golden age of comics was for kids, but even then, there was stories that really weren't kid friendly. (Drugs stories for various heroes and a racist green lantern much?)

And comics weren't ever for kids. Where did comics come from? Pulp Magazines were their main starting point. Guess what? Made for adults, with many taboo subjects. What kind of stuff did you see in pulp magazines? Pulp heroes (mostly anti-heroes who use extreme violence), horror, sensual stories (still taboo to break into straight sex), bloody fantasy, fucking Lovecraft. Hell man, kids are lucky to have any comics.

Plus, you can't argue that the most current Detective Comics run, which has Batman, probably DC's most famous character, dealing with a person who cuts peoples faces off. That's not exactly kid friendly.

The argument isn't whether or not children read the comics anyway, the argument is whether or not they are the intended audience.

It doesn't really matter whether the reason for the labels is a "PR mechanism" or not, and it doesn't really matter how well its enforced, because at the end of the day they've slapped a label on that effectively says "THIS IS NOT INTENDED FOR CHILDREN." I'm not sure how much more clear it could possibly get.

If the audience they wanted was mainly children, they'd take steps to ensure that the comics were child appropriate to begin with and avoid the controversies you refer to altogether. They won't do this though. Why? Because the actual primary audience that pays their bills, the adults and teens who are actually buying issues off of the stands every week, don't want that.

One last thing:

Retrodude wrote:Just because comics like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns were released in the past and comics like Punisher Max and Sin City are released now, that doesn't mean that ALL comics are aimed at adults.

Nobody has ever fucking said that.

Forlorn Drifter wrote:Plus, you can't argue that the most current Detective Comics run, which has Batman, probably DC's most famous character, dealing with a person who cuts peoples faces off. That's not exactly kid friendly.

Yeah, yeah, I knew you were gonna say that. Anytime some one tells me "comics are for adults", the only current example they point to is Batman. Seriously, that's their argument in its entirety. One series that is, admittedly, more gruesome than DC's other mainstream books does not mean that everything they do falls into the same category because it doesn't. And the Spider-Man drug storyline? Requested by the government because they wanted to teach children about the dangers of drugs. I would argue that the "racist Green Lantern" was done for the same purpose, to teach kids that racism is bad and also complex. And going back to the forties? The entire reason Robin exists is because they thought kids wouldn't relate to Batman on his own and they wanted kids to be the primary readership. So don't even try to tell me that comics have "always been for adults" because that's patently untrue.

AppleQueso wrote:

Retrodude wrote:Just because comics like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns were released in the past and comics like Punisher Max and Sin City are released now, that doesn't mean that ALL comics are aimed at adults.

Nobody has ever fucking said that.

Forlorn Drifter just implied it and it looks to me like Burning Doom is doing the same. Constantly.

Retrodude wrote:

AppleQueso wrote:

Retrodude wrote:Just because comics like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns were released in the past and comics like Punisher Max and Sin City are released now, that doesn't mean that ALL comics are aimed at adults.

Nobody has ever fucking said that.

Forlorn Drifter just implied it and it looks to me like Burning Doom is doing the same. Constantly.

The post BurningDoom made that prompted you to start this whole argument said:

BurningDoom wrote:most super-hero comics are indeed aimed at adult males.

emphasis mine. He never once claimed that all comics are aimed at adults.

Whatever, man. You can make whatever claim you want to try and make him right and he'll still be wrong. I run into people like him all the time. They claim they don't want to watch or read anything "kiddy" (and I have seen BurningDoom say that before, but he's far from the only one I've encountered), and yet they watch cartoons and read comics and somehow, they don't see the extremely obvious contradiction. The difference between me and him is that, as a reasonably intelligent, thinking adult, I never had any illusions about my choice of entertainment and I never deluded myself into thinking I was the primary audience for something I never was the primary audience of.

I just went out that far to point out the fact they aren't necessarily intended for kids. I used the Batman example because that is DC's biggest character. If a kid knows a super hero, its probably Batman, Superman, or Spiderman. It seems hard to argue that comics, at this point, are intended for kids when a well known character like that is dealing with such things in his stories.

I think there was also a big wave change through the 80's and 90's (maybe even earlier in the underground stuff) bringing comics to a more adult realm. You start to see the rise of comics outside the kiddie realm, and you start to see more adult story lines in more mainstream stuff. Fringe things like The Dark Knight and Sin City helped to push stuff like this, along with the whole 90's Extreme thing that hopped into comics there for a while. I'd also argue its the point where comics started to show women with more emphasized feminine features. (Boobs) Before that, as much as I know, women were shown a bit more realistically, and a bit more conservatively over all.

Then there's the rise of publishers outside the big two, like Dark Horse, which isn't exactly kid friendly.

First of all. I never said ALL comics are for adults, I said MOST MAINSTREAM comics are aimed at adult males. And yeah, I still stand by that.

Second, I have no shame in my hobby. Look at my freaking avatar here, for crying out loud, it's Green Lantern. I have an entire man-cave pretty much dedicated to comics and video games. If I was ashamed, why would I show it, all the time?

I'm not trying to cover up anything, and anyone that's read mainstream comics for the last couple decades can clearly see they're aimed at adult males. The subject matter is often too violent or too complex for a kid to read (The Dark Knight Returns, Sin City, The Walking Dead, The Ultimates, Batman, Kick-Ass, Invincible, etc.), the female figures are more often than not using the "sex sells" idea with model-like poses and male-fantasy body-types, and more than all that the budget needed to keep up with a lot of it most kids simply don't have. Nowadays you have to buy 20+ issues to get a storyline and all the tie-ins.

But more than any of this evidence. I'm an active part of the fandom. I'm a geek, through and through. I frequent the local comic shop every week. I'm an active member (and moderator) on comic message boards. And I've gone to conventions. I see the fans, first-hand. And the majority of us are young, adult males. With some girl cos-players around the same age.

I think it's safe to say that the characters in comics are marketed mainly to kids, but the comic books are marketed to males in their 20s.

Comics for Kids
Some of you may be asking yourself why I would title this week’s post as Comics for Kids. Some of you are thinking, “Aren’t all comics for kids?” This, my friends, is a common misconception. Truth be told, comic books’ target market is made up of males and they are aged 18 to 35. Therefore, most comic book publishers release a children’s line of books." http://popcultureblog.dallasnews.com/2012/01/comics-for-kids.html/


Back in 2011 Graphic Policy conducted a survey using Facebook that looked at the demographic of comic readers based on the total population of Facebook users in the United States who "liked" comics on Facebook. That total number came to around 1.2 million individuals in total. This data was then broken down first by gender and then by age. According to this data (which is really skewed and problematic), 31 to 45 years olds "out-number" the "17 and under" population by a pretty wide margin. Readers ages 18 to 30 that were surveyed came in at around 771,340 while readers "17 and under" tallied at 168,280. Although this information is only taking individuals who use Facebook into account, it is indicative of the fact that the majority surveyed are, very obviously, young adults. http://www.comicvine.com/articles/are-comics-still-for-kids/1100-146707/

"To reassure comic shop retailers concerned about the recent relaunch news, DC is holding a series of meetings around the country. Word has begun to spread that the news includes mention of the new readers they hope to attract to comics, which has been characterized as 18-34-year-old males." http://comicsworthreading.com/2011/06/23/dcs-new-target-audience-is-younger-still-male/

"They are out on their DCnU roadshow and are saying that “new readers" they are targeting are males 18-34. The same readers they have been trying to sell to for the last decade... http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/post/6771445019/notintoyou


Now for my own take:
True story - I use comics to teach science, mainly as wrong examples of laws related to physics. The debate on what killed Gwen Stacey is the first one I use and the most memorable example.
By doing this some of the kids get into comics. I had one parent go the the board of education trying to have me fired because I was talking up comic books, have many comic book posters hanging in my classroom and everyone knew I love comics. This one parent was upset because their kid saw the cover for DC's big blockbuster even in 2004 called Identity Crisis and decided to read it. The story featured almost every character in the DCU and it revolved around a murder and rape. The rape scene was pretty graphic and definitely not appropriate for kids and I understand her concern. Since then I have not put emphasis on "you guys should read these" and just focus on the scientific accuracy or inaccuracy.
The pages mentioned above:

You may see this as one example, but the fact is that this was the main comic that DC was pushing in 2004. It was the comic they wanted everyone to read featuring every character and it is definitely not created for children even though they may have read it. I don't think I can change your mind, but I want you to realize that you (retrodude) are the one who is making a general statement based on your opinion even though the publishers say otherwise. You are more than welcome to have an opinion, but you are not welcome to treat other opinions in a disrespectful manner.

We can continue this debate, but lets all keep it civil.