Random Discussion

Be glad you didn't live in the 50's when you were an comic artist...
Aurora Moon at 11:09AM, Jan. 4, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
The Comics Magazine Association of America Original Code for Editorial Matter
As Published in 1954

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 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 a 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 a desire for emulation.
6.

Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes or brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.
7. No unique or unusual methods of concealing weapons shall be shown.
8. Instances of law enforcement officers dying as a result of a criminal's activities should be discouraged.
9. 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.
10. The letters of the word “crime” on a comics magazine cover shall never be appreciably greater in dimension 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 and subtitles shall be exercised.

General Standards
Part B

1. No comics 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 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 and 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

1. 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 illustrations 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 or any physical qualities.

NOTE: It should be recognized that all prohibitions dealing with costume, dialogue or artwork apply 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 represented as desirable.
2. Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at or 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 morbid 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. Advertising of sex or sex instruction books are unacceptable.
3. The sale of picture postcards, “pin-ups,” “art studies,” or any other reproduction of nude or seminude figures is prohibited.
4. Advertising for the sale of knives, 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 is not acceptable.
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 fact and avoid misrepresentation.
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 a ceptable if they conform with all other conditions of the Advertising Code.

http://www.goldenagebatman.com/ccatest.htm

holy batman… that would mean that if any of us lived in the 50's, and if the internet could had existed back then… our webcomics wouldn't be any fun at all! and if they were… we couldn't publish them publically.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
lothar at 1:04PM, Jan. 4, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
HAHAHAH . its pretty much mandatory that webcomics violate as many of the old rules as possible

my favorite
prehistoric douche bags
4. Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration or any physical qualities.

LOL wut does that even mean ??? burqas ?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
ozoneocean at 1:05PM, Jan. 4, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,969
joined: 1-2-2004
Don't breathe a sigh of relief yet Aurora. Standards can always go backwards. It depends on the prevailing political climate at the time. It can happen again.

In places like Iran and Saudi Arabia they've probably got those same rules now.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
Hawk at 4:14PM, Jan. 4, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
I wouldn't like it, but I think I could deal with that. It would pretty much mean doing children's comics all the time though.

Still, I'm glad we have more freedom now.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
HippieVan at 6:28PM, Jan. 4, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,409
joined: 3-15-2008
I started reading that and I was like okay, okay, a bit harsh but reasonable. Then I read on…some of that is pretty crazy.
But I guess assuming that children are going to be reading any comic, most of those rules make sense. I suppose that's why comics have ratings now instead.
Duchess of Friday Newsposts and the holy Top Ten
Have a comic milestone, a community project or some comic-related news you’d like to see in
a newspost? Send it to me via PQ or at hippievannews(at)gmail.com!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:49PM
SansTalent at 7:49AM, Jan. 5, 2010
(offline)
posts: 225
joined: 10-8-2009
I knew of it, but not the specs. As I read it, there is one thing that particularly catches my attention:

“5) Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism and werewolfism are prohibited.”

It doesn't say “zombies”, because zombies do not exist. I mean, none of these exist, but zombies as we all know it were invented by hollywood, after these rules ended I guess. The zombie spell of voodoo lore is just a kind of mind control that doesn't require your concentration. The victim does your bidding, but you have to go and speak orders, unlike “normal” mind control where you can control everything at a distance, but you have to keep focus constantly.



On the other hand, it would have been kind of fun to have lived then and found ways to circumvent those rules. For example, did you know that spartan body armor was forged to the shape of the soldier, complete with nipples?
He who flames trolls should see to it that he himself does not become a troll. For when you gaze long into the internets, the internets gaze also into you.

Look, a comic! Sorta!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:22PM
ozoneocean at 7:58AM, Jan. 5, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,969
joined: 1-2-2004
SansTalent
For example, did you know that spartan body armor was forged to the shape of the soldier, complete with nipples?
Heh, yep. Those that could afford it. Generally though, Greek armour (bronze) wasn't too detailed, it was pretty stylised and simple (the muscle style WAS a feature though). But nipples were certainly one of the additions most tended to have!
-Very important Roman officers were the ones who really made a feature of the ultra muscle armour, and in their case it probably disguised a rounded tummy. :(

I'm a Geek for that stuff. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
I Am The 1337 Master at 4:47PM, Jan. 5, 2010
(offline)
posts: 3,785
joined: 1-16-2009

but worse…

I guess old pornos don't count in those…
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:53PM
Chernobog at 9:21PM, Jan. 5, 2010
(offline)
posts: 926
joined: 11-3-2007
Interesting to note that a lot of those code standards helped lead to the wide spread existence of super hero comics.
 
 
“You tell yourself to just
enjoy the process,” he added. “That whether you succeed or fail, win or
lose, it will be fine. You pretend to be Zen. You adopt detachment, and
ironic humor, while secretly praying for a miracle.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:41AM
Amelius at 4:38AM, Jan. 6, 2010
(online)
posts: 251
joined: 1-15-2006
SansTalent
I knew of it, but not the specs. As I read it, there is one thing that particularly catches my attention:

“5) Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism and werewolfism are prohibited.”

It doesn't say “zombies”, because zombies do not exist. I mean, none of these exist, but zombies as we all know it were invented by hollywood, after these rules ended I guess. The zombie spell of voodoo lore is just a kind of mind control that doesn't require your concentration. The victim does your bidding, but you have to go and speak orders, unlike “normal” mind control where you can control everything at a distance, but you have to keep focus constantly.

Actually that just seems to be an oversight on their part, because zombies had started getting into the media at least a few years prior (perhaps since the 30's). I think it was just implied with “Ghouls” and “Walking Dead”, even though flesh-eating zombies weren't the norm yet. People were requesting zombie stories when the New Trend line at EC was still thriving. So they definitely were in the comics under that name, I just don't think the old nannies making the rules were aware of them. It wasn't until the 80's that we learned that “zombies” weren't walking dead but people who have been given a toxin, mistaken for dead and buried alive; and after suffering from oxygen deprivation in their coffin- having brain damage when they're dug up by the voodoo master that “killed” them. But the idea behind “zombi” has always been that it is the walking dead. Unfortunately you can't defeat zombies with salt these days! :)

The book “The Ten Cent Plague” covered this thing pretty extensively so I knew all the aggravating history around this situation, it's pretty sad. They made one fellow redraw a panel because it had a woman's breasts in 3/4ths profile, their objection being with the profiled breast; and when he asked if he should just start drawing women with one breast from now on they told him he was being “Lascivious”. They literally had a bunch of grannies judging the content on these things!
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:52AM
SansTalent at 9:28AM, Jan. 7, 2010
(offline)
posts: 225
joined: 10-8-2009
Yeah, but I meant zombies as in the “oh they bit you you'll become a zombie too!” kind of thing. The infectuous zombies that Umbrella Corp. invented didn't even need any magic.

Back then, there WERE stories about zombies, but they all were kind of obscure, and each particular zombie had to be produced by a necromancer or a spirit. Their numbers didn't increase exponentially, so they were also much more capable and resilient, kind of like ninjas.
He who flames trolls should see to it that he himself does not become a troll. For when you gaze long into the internets, the internets gaze also into you.

Look, a comic! Sorta!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:22PM
Amelius at 3:32PM, Jan. 7, 2010
(online)
posts: 251
joined: 1-15-2006
Ah, yes, then that's true! The plague zombie was the invention of George A Romero, and his films didn't come out until the 60s. The non-voodoo zombie credit (a zombie without magic) goes to HP. Lovecraft and his Reanimator books from 1921-1922, which Romero said he was influenced by when I made “Night of the Living Dead” But like Resident Evil, the zombies in Reanimator were made with a serum.

Sorry about that, I think I misinterpreted your initial post!
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:52AM
Inkmonkey at 5:02PM, Jan. 7, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
Amelius
Ah, yes, then that's true! The plague zombie was the invention of George A Romero, and his films didn't come out until the 60s. The non-voodoo zombie credit (a zombie without magic) goes to HP. Lovecraft and his Reanimator books from 1921-1922, which Romero said he was influenced by when I made “Night of the Living Dead” But like Resident Evil, the zombies in Reanimator were made with a serum.

Sorry about that, I think I misinterpreted your initial post!

If we're going that far, would Frankenstein's Monster be considered a form of zombie? As I recall ReAnimator was something of Lovecraft's take on a modern version of that story.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
Amelius at 7:50PM, Jan. 7, 2010
(online)
posts: 251
joined: 1-15-2006
If we go by what Wikipedia says then I suppose so, but I'm not sure if I'd personally count it or not… but yeah I did forget to mention it was Lovecraft's “answer” to Mary Shelly's popular story! I feel that the Creature is more like a revenant or a golem, since his similarities to the zombie both modern and classic end at being a walking corpse.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:52AM
Freegurt at 12:19AM, Jan. 8, 2010
(online)
posts: 331
joined: 11-24-2007
Jeez! I mean, I can agree that I would rather not see a lot of the stuff that was listed, but people have their right to draw whatever the heck they want. No matter how depraved or disturbing it is to anyone (just sell it in the right circles…or 4chan).

On an added note, my comic would never see the light of day (villains that are better than heroes, half-naked men prancing about without any underwear, scantly clad women, GLBT, vampires, the list goes on) . And if I somehow published it on my own, I'd probably be run out of town the good old fashion way as form of a mob.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:31PM
SansTalent at 1:16PM, Jan. 8, 2010
(offline)
posts: 225
joined: 10-8-2009
Frankenstein is in no way a zombie. I mean, of course, Frankenstein is the scientist, but his “monster” is nowhere near a zombie. I say this both having read the book and never having seen ANY movie where the creature appeared that wasn't obviously a parody.
The creature (never gets a name) is a very smart individual with the sorrow of being denied by his creator. And keep in mind this was way before emos were cool - he copes with the sorrow in a very interesting and realistic fashion.
Also he wasn't made of corpse parts. The book does say that Frankenstein stole some corpses from the graveyard during the start of his research, and that he tried to reanimate some, but it is heavily implied that he dropped that behaviour way before he even thought of “making a man”. He made the creature from scratch.

Yeah I guess a golem would be pretty accurate, but you must go for the clasic definition of golem, which, again, has become pretty obscured over time.
He who flames trolls should see to it that he himself does not become a troll. For when you gaze long into the internets, the internets gaze also into you.

Look, a comic! Sorta!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:22PM
Amelius at 2:08PM, Jan. 8, 2010
(online)
posts: 251
joined: 1-15-2006
I'm aware he's not made of corpses, I'm just going by what the popular thought is on him now thanks to years of derailment. And like I said, “If we go by what Wikipedia says…” and, it says: “It is often considered the first fully realised science fiction novel due to its pointed, if gruesome, focus on playing God by creating life from dead flesh.”
Since the process wasn't described in great detail most people assume that he was made in that fashion, rather than the implications that the creature is more like a Homunculus (making Frankenstein more of an alchemist than a scientist.)

Unfortunately as more things have been done with characters like Frankenstein's monster, you have to think in two ways, how it's perceived in its original, unaltered portrayal, or what it has evolved into in pop culture.

Modern day depictions treat him as though he was simply a bumbling, moaning undead patchwork creature. I bet most people would be surprised to see how deep he was.

As for the name, I do believe Mary Shelley referred to him as “Adam”, even though Victor chooses not to name him in the story. The creature also calls himself Adam, though not as a literal “my name is”. I was going to say that the fact that the Creature has complex emotions is enough to separate him from a zombie…“free will” isn't exactly the hallmark of zombies! Though they could feel sorrow, it's not quite the same as having an identity crisis.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:52AM
SansTalent at 8:25AM, Jan. 9, 2010
(offline)
posts: 225
joined: 10-8-2009
Nnnno, the creature never calls himself “Adam”. It does equate his situation to Adam's when he asks Frankenstein to make him a bride, but he doesn't use it as a name. It was more of a “We shall be like Adam and Eve” thing.

Yeah, an homunculus would be pretty accurate. Thanks. I had forgotten about those guys. But the book does state that Frankenstein spent his youth studying the texts of Paracelsus and other medieval alchemists until his professor mocked him for studying “dead miths and fake sciences”.
He who flames trolls should see to it that he himself does not become a troll. For when you gaze long into the internets, the internets gaze also into you.

Look, a comic! Sorta!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:22PM
Amelius at 1:46PM, Jan. 9, 2010
(online)
posts: 251
joined: 1-15-2006
That's why I said
Amy
though not as a literal “my name is”.
However, I was referring to what was in the first paragraph of the article here: Frankenstein's monster. Another entry says that Shelley calls the creature this in a reading. If you think these are incorrect then why not edit the article? I'll admit that it's been so long since I read the book myself that certain minute details are rusty.

My apologies, but I'm just getting frustrated that I can't seem to communicate properly in the forum…is it the way I say things? I've been trying to keep things more succinct but that doesn't seem to be working!
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:52AM
ozoneocean at 12:09AM, Jan. 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,969
joined: 1-2-2004
Amelius
I've been trying to keep things more succinct but that doesn't seem to be working!
It's often hard to be pithy, cogent and brief at the same time when discussing a topic that interests you. I have that trouble often.

———————-
Many zombies in popular culture are fully aware, normal, thinking, functional creatures… apart from various contrived handicaps associated with being dead- limbs falling off, maggots, flies, being nibbled by dogs, etc.

I don't know where that started, but it's being going for a long time. I think to a great extent they may have evolved from the old European lore associated with ghouls?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
Aurora Moon at 3:04AM, Jan. 10, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
You gonna love it when a thread about the rigid rules of the comic authorities evoles into an topic about whenever Frankstien's monster was an zombie or not. :)
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
SansTalent at 7:13AM, Jan. 10, 2010
(offline)
posts: 225
joined: 10-8-2009
Yeah, non-sequiturs are what keeps the internet alive.

Though I owe Amelius an apology. I didn't mean to undermine you or anything. I am fully aware that you didn't literally say so, but it was also evidently what you were thinking behind the words. So, all I tried was to fix that lil' mistake.
So, here you go.

And the main reason not to change Frankenstein's monster entry is that, sooner or later, someone will go and change it back, thinking the movies are accurate. Since there are a lot more movies fans than book readers, and so many “Frankenstein” movies, it's kind of a lost cause.
He who flames trolls should see to it that he himself does not become a troll. For when you gaze long into the internets, the internets gaze also into you.

Look, a comic! Sorta!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:22PM
GracehFaceh at 6:53PM, Jan. 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 433
joined: 10-2-2008
Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration or any physical qualities.

Well this got shot to hell.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:38PM
Aurora Borealis at 2:34AM, Jan. 11, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,289
joined: 3-2-2008
The comics code was started by the major publishers themselves to avoid government regulation. This basically killed the horror and crime genres and sunk a whole bunch of publishers (among them EC Comics known for Tales from the Crypt and other books like that).

But, the code referred ONLY to comic books sold on newssstands. It did not cover comics in magazine format, newspaper strips… and selfpublished publications sold outside of the newstand market.

So, at first you have everyone obeying the rules. Then you have four things happening in the 60s and 70s…

Marvel publishes a story about drugs without it being approved by the code (they were approached by the american government to do a story on drugs being negative, whereas the code people were all “NO DRUGS AT ALL!”.

DC does something similar where they go even further and have a superhero sidekick doing heroin. The guy's name? Speedy, heh. Again, no code.

Both comics sold damn well despite the lack of code, so onwards from that point the code became less and less restrictive to the point where it stopped to matter. Finally some years ago Marvel dropped the code entirely and replaced it with their own age system.

As for the other two things? Well, one is the rise of b&w magazines, mostly by Warren (Eerie, Creepy, Vampirella, and a couple more that were shortlived) but also by other publishers (even Marvel tried to enter that market, thus the Tomb of Dracula and Tales of the Zombie and other shortlived magazines). Not in a comic book format? Code irrelevant!
And finally, also in the 60s, you have the rise of the underground comics which were based on one rule. The rule being BREAK ALL THE RULES OF THE CODE. One day you have Crumb selling his comics on Detroit's street corners, the next day you have a bunch of small publishers and distributors publishing hundreds of titles. I read somewhere that some of these books were actually outselling Marvel and DC, but then the whole hippie revolution thing ended so the interest dropped and new obscenity laws were introduced (basically each state deciding their own obscenity laws from now on) so it messed up the distribution, thus making it more difficult.

The surviving publishers either changed their aim towards more artsy comics (Fantagraphics) or started distributing art instead (Last Gasp… I believe?).

Of course comics are still being attacked from time to time. For example throughout the 90s some Verotik titles got couple of retailers into biiig legal trouble.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:08AM
BffSatan at 1:42AM, Jan. 12, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,478
joined: 3-2-2008
It's be interesting if a current comic creator tried to follow these rules.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:21AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved