|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Aug 6, 2017 12:37:51 GMT -5
I was listening to the recent CC podcast with Prince Hal about Blackhawk, and in te intro part, there was some complaint that got me thinking, about how the mid eighties brought this trend of casual killing that ever since that flourished.
Well, of course one would think about The Punisher and Deadpool (both specifically singled out in the podcast). But... I buy a fair amount of current comics, keep myself very informed on the various releases from main publishers, and it got me thinking :
Within mainstream comics (comics that you quite easily find on the newstands in a direct market comic book shop), are there that many comics constantly showcasing the level of 80ies Punisher violence? Or even the early Image superhero teams?
It seems to me that since and including Garth Ennis's third volume of Punisher, Marvel have taken a much more measured approach of entertaining violence. I can't speak about Deadpool since the only Deadpool titles I've ever read were the Kyle Baker ones, which you could hardly describe as nihilistic... I kind of liked DC's early 90ies John Wagner/Dave Johnson "Chain Gang", but I could see how one could view it as "problematic". That being said, I don't see anything wihtin the current DC publication regime that could grant that kind of criticism, I suspect the same with Marvel and Dark Horse. Image, IDW and Valiant may put a couple of killing heavy comics, but all in all, I would suspect that in the grand scheme of things, that would globally amount to an extremely small percentage of the US comic publishing in 2017.
Worth remembering is that the 70ies were also filled with violent Warren titles, Conan titles, Last gasp titles, etc...
So are we actually currently living in a nihilistic comics hell?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Aug 7, 2017 1:55:37 GMT -5
As always, comics are a wide and varied medium:
If we go back to the Golden Age, we have some very violent titles like Crime Does Not Pay (just an example I've recently read) and the heroes took a pretty callous regard to human life.
Also you have violence and violence: Punisher MAX or Remender's Uncanny X-Force are both violent titles, just like their 90s counterparts were. But the first two clearly show that the violence is not actually solving anything and is actually making things worse. Also people are becoming more aware of disproportional violence in real life; the Punisher walking down the street and shooting a group of drug dealers has some different connotations now then it did in the 80s or 90s. I guess this is also the reason that more and more superheroes hardly deal with actual crime anymore instead focusing on supervillains only.
You still have the hyperviolent fringe titles (Image's Luther Strode for instance), but all in all, I think current mainstream comics are more diverse now than in the 90s (mostly because Image has went in a completely different path) and you have all-ages titles like Squirrel Girl to offset the violence of other titles.
So overall I think comics as a whole are a bit less violent now than they were 20-30 years ago, mostly because mainstream titles are a bit more diverse than they were, but also because the violence itself is put into context more. You can still point at individual titles as more violent than their counterpart of some time ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Aug 7, 2017 2:58:34 GMT -5
if modern comics are defined as 2005-onwards, compared to 1987-1998 comics ,
NO.
And I should know .
having hated to draw violence i myself despised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Aug 7, 2017 6:47:51 GMT -5
if modern comics are defined as 2005-onwards, compared to 1987-1998 comics , NO. And I should know . having hated to draw violence i myself despised. A simple "no" is just an opinion, one that needs to be elaborated to become ana argumentation  I opened the topic because I feel it deserves debate. I also wonder why you chose to start the previous period with 1987. Is it because of the Mike Baron helmed Punisher ongoing? |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 7, 2017 8:00:45 GMT -5
I was listening to the recent CC podcast with Prince Hal about Blackhawk, and in te intro part, there was some complaint that got me thinking, about how the mid eighties brought this trend of casual killing that ever since that flourished. Well, of course one would think about The Punisher and Deadpool (both specifically singled out in the podcast). But... I buy a fair amount of current comics, keep myself very informed on the various releases from main publishers, and it got me thinking : Within mainstream comics (comics that you quite easily find on the newstands in a direct market comic book shop), are there that many comics constantly showcasing the level of 80ies Punisher violence? Or even the early Image superhero teams? It seems to me that since and including Garth Ennis's third volume of Punisher, Marvel have taken a much more measured approach of entertaining violence. I can't speak about Deadpool since the only Deadpool titles I've ever read were the Kyle Baker ones, which you could hardly describe as nihilistic... I kind of liked DC's early 90ies John Wagner/Dave Johnson "Chain Gang", but I could see how one could view it as "problematic". That being said, I don't see anything wihtin the current DC publication regime that could grant that kind of criticism, I suspect the same with Marvel and Dark Horse. Image, IDW and Valiant may put a couple of killing heavy comics, but all in all, I would suspect that in the grand scheme of things, that would globally amount to an extremely small percentage of the US comic publishing in 2017. Worth remembering is that the 70ies were also filled with violent Warren titles, Conan titles, Last gasp titles, etc... So are we actually currently living in a nihilistic comics hell? What changed in the '80s and part of the '90s was not so much an increased level of violence in comics per se, but a change of attitude as to what was acceptable in certain types of comics. There has always been violence in comics, even if a lot of it was cartoony. The violence seen in EC comics was not the same as that seen in, for example, Captain Marvel. But then again, the readership for both lines was not necessarily the same; the kids who enjoyed seeing Mary Marvel swing a miscreant over her head were not the readers supposed to go for ghastly tales of supernatural revenge in Tales from the Crypt. I think it had always been agreed that in certain types of comics, violence was accepted (and even a necessary part of the deal) without being glorified. War comics like Sgt. Rock , Enemy Ace or Sgt. Fury could not exist if they didn't feature soldiers trying to kill each other, and if nobody ever suffered grievous injury or death. Ditto for Prince Valiant, Conan or most historical and fantasy series. Naturally, a comic titled "Dracula" will feature people being killed. What changed in the '80s, I think, is that the principle that more graphic, more brutal violence can be fun even where it had no place before. We started seeing heroes who would not merely only trounce enemies, but brutalize them. At first it was funny because it was unexpected, and our inner adult went "well, yeah, it's true that if a superhero was to punch a normal guy really hard bones would break". Alan Moore deplored how so many readers completely misundertood the character of Rorschach in Watchmen. His very graphic street-level violence in a super-hero comic was not supposed to be cool, it was supposed to be a condemnation. But you can't fight the Zeitgeist. And so many creators (or editors, or both) started playing the "violence and brutality where they shouldn't be found" is popular" card. Accordingly, we got more and more four-colour heroes who handled guns and killed people. Or heroes who used extreme brutality with wanton glee. Ones who would fly into an army of cloned bad guys and just murder, murder and murder them by the millions, but it's all in good fun, right? I honestly think creators got sick of it eventually, and while there are very violent comics today, I think there's a better control over what is suitable where. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Aug 7, 2017 8:23:39 GMT -5
I completely agree with you Ben, but I'm indeed talking about that prejudice older readers got for 80ies comics and forth, and how that prejudice may or may not still be relevant. I would say though, that one of my favorite 90ies comics is The Mask by John Arcudi and a Doug Mahnke who was in his infancy but still growing by miles from issue to issue in the original series and its four sequels by the same team (Returns, Strikes Back, Walter, The Mask/Lobo). In it, the violence is utterly graphic, revolting and sometimes even senseless. Yet, there's a story to justify it, and probably a meta commentary on violence as well : none of the characters who embrace it fare very well in the eye of the reader IIRC. Someone mentioned Luther Strode as an exemple of current rabid violent comics, one of the few still around. I haven't read it despite its striking visual style, so I can't comment. But that's it : I suspect that for a quality ultra violent comic to exist in 2017, it would have to be ultra stylized, since as you hinted, the issue about violence in comics grew in the 80ies when it was the MO of somewhat realistic characters and stories not especially concerned with art in general. So I guess it is in this case better when art imitates art rather than reality   |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Aug 7, 2017 12:26:31 GMT -5
okay, so expanding upon my simple 'no', lol...
i don't feel i need to debate it, as one can look at the violence pre-pander bro's Grendel, and after.
in his first dozen adventures, Batman commited some pretty hairy acts of violence. he staked vampires rather than attempt to contain them, then cure them.
aside from that, comics in the late 80's really wanted to be considered 'movies on paper', as many pro's of the time attempted to describe them to the public at large.
yet the late 80's were the time of Arnold, Aliens, Near Dark, Sly Stallone, Lundgren, Jackie Chan, Freddy Kruger, Jason Voorhees, etc. in film.
and the Jack Nicolson Batman film* in development in the late/mid 80's, released in the late 80's. a very violent film, for its time
comics were merely following the trend of film then.
* I say 'Jack Nicolson Batman film because he was the only thing good about it. i loathes me some Burton, baby, big time!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Aug 7, 2017 12:48:09 GMT -5
So how should we convince the old fans that the disturbingly violent comic books time is over, and that current comics are once again a safe place? Hahaha
We're still getting higly popular ultra violent comics such as I Hate Fairyland after all, by none other than the most kid friendly Marvel artist of the past 15 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Aug 7, 2017 13:40:38 GMT -5
I think it depends entirely on what you are reading modern or classic. Some Golden Age comics were pretty violent like this early issue of Detective Comics.   |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Aug 7, 2017 13:50:15 GMT -5
I don't know that they have become more violent in terms of counting acts of violence, but I certainly think they are willing to display it more graphically, i.e.: Superboy punching Pantha's head off in Infinite Crisis, or Sentry tearing Ares apart (with bones and guts flying out at the reader) in Siege.
Edit: Oh, and Black Adam obliterating Psycho Pirate's head (brains and eyeballs flying out at the reader), also from Infinite Crisis.
|
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Aug 7, 2017 13:56:52 GMT -5
comics are owned by film/tv conglomerates now. it's not comics/their creators problem.
to change comics, you must change the mindset of execs at Diz, WB, Netflix.
after Kingpin made a slushie out of a guys head with a car door on tv, and ratings went up, meaning ancillary went up, there's no going back from the violence for a while. creators have little say in this if the properties are corporately owned.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 17, 2017 22:22:33 GMT -5
I didn't know older fans were complaining about the level of violence in comics. Though I have seen complaints about everything being too "grim and gritty", or whatever the catchphrase was, so maybe the violence was seen as a part of that. As RR said, I thought it was more a complaint about the appropriateness of certain kinds of storylines for the characters or titles involved, like a supporting character in Flash (I think it was? one of the long-running DC character or series) getting raped and murdered a few years ago.
I can only speak for myself, but what keeps me away from most of the Marvel/DC superhero stuff is the new versions of characters like, for example, Doctor Strange don't appeal to me. Besides, I've already read what I think is the definitive Dr. Strange (and FF and Thor, and so on) so there would have to be something a little special to tempt me into reading a new DS book. That "something special" could be the artwork or an or an interesting new take on the character, but none of that has happened with me so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Aug 18, 2017 10:07:08 GMT -5
I can only speak for myself, but what keeps me away from most of the Marvel/DC superhero stuff is the new versions of characters like, for example, Doctor Strange don't appeal to me. Besides, I've already read what I think is the definitive Dr. Strange (and FF and Thor, and so on) so there would have to be something a little special to tempt me into reading a new DS book. That "something special" could be the artwork or an or an interesting new take on the character, but none of that has happened with me so far. Same here, though my interest has been piqued by Chris Bachalo's artwork on the book. I haven't bought the comic yet, but I might get the hardcover when it comes out later this year. |
|
|
|
Post by String on Aug 18, 2017 17:47:31 GMT -5
I don't know that they have become more violent in terms of counting acts of violence, but I certainly think they are willing to display it more graphically, i.e.: Superboy punching Pantha's head off in Infinite Crisis, or Sentry tearing Ares apart (with bones and guts flying out at the reader) in Siege. Edit: Oh, and Black Adam obliterating Psycho Pirate's head (brains and eyeballs flying out at the reader), also from Infinite Crisis. Geoff Johns isn't afraid to show the gore unfortunately. I think it was early into the weekly series 52 that saw a new Terra-Man committing a crime in Khandaq. He got caught by Black Adam who later ripped him in half in front of news reporters as a warning against crime in his nation. For me, the worst offense was in Green Lantern in the prelude to Blackest Night. Black Hand was home on Earth eating supper with his family and all the gripes and tension of his childhood and life crept into the dinner conversation. Finally, he took out his weapon and killed himself, blew a hole in his head. This was the last page of the issue, full page spread of the look on his face and the blood and gore flying out of the side of his head. Did they really need to show that? Really? A full-on display of suicide. I didn't think that level of display was appropriate to that particular story for there's something to be said for hinting at an action (even off-panel) and letting a reader's imagination fill in the blanks. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 18, 2017 20:36:15 GMT -5
I don't know that they have become more violent in terms of counting acts of violence, but I certainly think they are willing to display it more graphically, i.e.: Superboy punching Pantha's head off in Infinite Crisis, or Sentry tearing Ares apart (with bones and guts flying out at the reader) in Siege. Edit: Oh, and Black Adam obliterating Psycho Pirate's head (brains and eyeballs flying out at the reader), also from Infinite Crisis. Geoff Johns isn't afraid to show the gore unfortunately. I think it was early into the weekly series 52 that saw a new Terra-Man committing a crime in Khandaq. He got caught by Black Adam who later ripped him in half in front of news reporters as a warning against crime in his nation. For me, the worst offense was in Green Lantern in the prelude to Blackest Night. Black Hand was home on Earth eating supper with his family and all the gripes and tension of his childhood and life crept into the dinner conversation. Finally, he took out his weapon and killed himself, blew a hole in his head. This was the last page of the issue, full page spread of the look on his face and the blood and gore flying out of the side of his head. Did they really need to show that? Really? A full-on display of suicide. I didn't think that level of display was appropriate to that particular story for there's something to be said for hinting at an action (even off-panel) and letting a reader's imagination fill in the blanks. It sounds like they took some of the superficial aspects of something like Ennis's The Boys - in this case the graphic depictions of violence - and left out the thematic underpinning (Ennis's critique of the whole superhero genre and its history) that gave them meaning and made them appropriate for that series. |
|
