Kirkman gets it.

[Tom Stillwell]

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/08/quote-of-the-day-robert-kirkman-on-darker-elements-in-superhero-comics/

Now if only editorial at Marvel and DC got it...

[Thequeerjock]

I agree with him (especially about the rape) up to a certain point. Certainly, a lot of comic books are written for the creators and the aging fanboy population, but the whole "Kids won't read something that dark!" argument completely ignores the incredibly violent and dark things that many kids already like to begin with.

Look at the number of kids playing Halo or Call of Duty for instance, or how incredibly popular Mortal Kombat was in the 90's.

In that regard, I'm very interested to see how the new Young Justice cartoon (which is supposed to be markedly darker than Teen Titans and the Brave and the Bold) is received when it airs.

[Jason California]

He shoudl have said intra-company instead of inter-company.


I disagree in part though. 616 Marvel is going to have a range of things happen. The Marvel adventures line is what is focused on the kids.

[Dream]

Doesn't he write a Zombie book?

And isn't this the same guy that wrote Nightcrawler turning into an obsessive psycho in Ultimate X-men?

Yeah, he's not hypocritical at all.

[Jason California]

Doesn't he write a Zombie book?

And isn't this the same guy that wrote Nightcrawler turning into an obsessive psycho in Ultimate X-men?

Yeah, he's not hypocritical at all.


Did you read all of it?

He says that his books are adult oriented. His says his books belong to him so that is what he does with them. You go to read his books expecting the gore. If he was doing the mainstream heroes he would not do that.


Nightcrawler in the Ultimate U might have done disturbed things (i quit the book around that time so don't know how it played out), but his words speak directly to gore and violence. I don't think there were any scenes with Kurt gutting people, spraying blood all over the place.

[Dream]

Did you read all of it?

He says that his books are adult oriented. His says his books belong to him so that is what he does with them. You go to read his books expecting the gore. If he was doing the mainstream heroes he would not do that.


Nightcrawler in the Ultimate U might have done disturbed things (i quit the book around that time so don't know how it played out), but his words speak directly to gore and violence. I don't think there were any scenes with Kurt gutting people, spraying blood all over the place.

I think I would have rather read Nightcrawler getting gutted rather than his character assassination. Nightcrawler kidnapped Dazzler and hid her against his will. Kirkman also turned him into a homophobe.

[Thequeerjock]

Did you read all of it?

He says that his books are adult oriented. His says his books belong to him so that is what he does with them. You go to read his books expecting the gore. If he was doing the mainstream heroes he would not do that.


Nightcrawler in the Ultimate U might have done disturbed things (i quit the book around that time so don't know how it played out), but his words speak directly to gore and violence. I don't think there were any scenes with Kurt gutting people, spraying blood all over the place.

Was Kirkman the one who wrote Freedom Ring getting impaled to death?

[Jason California]

I think I would have rather read Nightcrawler getting gutted rather than his character assassination. Nightcrawler kidnapped Dazzler and hid her against his will. Kirkman also turned him into a homophobe.

That is fine, but none of that speaks to what Kirkman was talking about. I can appreciate where you are coming from, but you are wrong about the hypocrisy.

Also, not every hero is going to be perfect and have the same values as you. just like with normal people, some will have huge failings in our eyes.

[Jason California]

Was Kirkman the one who wrote Freedom Ring getting impaled to death?


Yo no se.

[Slewo.O]

Was Kirkman the one who wrote Freedom Ring getting impaled to death?

Kirkman created the character.

[HamsterRage]

I agree with Kirkman.

I like Greg Rucka ALOT... but I hated the Superman comic he did which was two Kryptonians having a bloody knife fight for several pages.

I think if you're character is on a kid's lunchbox and meant for an all ages audience the books should be safe for me to hand to my niece and nephew.

How is it that Hellboy is now safer to show my nephew than Spider-Man?

[AndrewG]

I gotta say I agree with Kirkman on this. Byrne has said similar things but people tend to automatically discount it because it's JB (which is unfortunate).

[Tom Stillwell]

You know the really interesting thing? Nowhere in the article I posted does Kirkman mention the word kids or talk about making comics for children. The only thing close to that is he mentions that reading Superman at 15 and not having it deal with rape or darker themes.

No, he's talking about making comics to appeal to wider audience. Sure, that audience might include younger readers but it also includes a lot of readers that don't really want darker themes in comics.

But you guys all take it as that. Any mention or attempt at lessening some of the dark things in comics becomes "Well, there's a kids line of books for younger readers." or "Kids are interested in dark stuff outside of comics so it doesn't really matter." or "Some parents are just too over-protective."

Really this boils down to catering to an ever shrinking market instead of trying to bring in new readers, young or old.

[Jason California]

I hear you Tom.

[Thequeerjock]

You know the really interesting thing? Nowhere in the article I posted does Kirkman mention the word kids or talk about making comics for children. The only thing close to that is he mentions that reading Superman at 15 and not having it deal with rape or darker themes.

No, he's talking about making comics to appeal to wider audience. Sure, that audience might include younger readers but it also includes a lot of readers that don't really want darker themes in comics.

But you guys all take it as that. Any mention or attempt at lessening some of the dark things in comics becomes "Well, there's a kids line of books for younger readers." or "Kids are interested in dark stuff outside of comics so it doesn't really matter." or "Some parents are just too over-protective."

Really this boils down to catering to an ever shrinking market instead of trying to bring in new readers, young or old.

Didn't say that at all. What I said was that kids (and admittedly, teens and adults) are into somethings that are pretty violent, so I guess I don't specifically see how making them lighter is going to help them appeal to a broader audience.

I've always thought the biggest contributor to the shrinking market was the fact that it's difficult to get comics outside of LCS stores, and of course the ridiculous price point.

[Tom Stillwell]

Didn't say that at all. What I said was that kids (and admittedly, teens and adults) are into somethings that are pretty violent, so I guess I don't specifically see how making them lighter is going to help them appeal to a broader audience.

I've always thought the biggest contributor to the shrinking market was the fact that it's difficult to get comics outside of LCS stores, and of course the ridiculous price point.

I was speaking in generalizations. These are the general type of arguments that pop on this issue.

[Stressfactor]

Didn't say that at all. What I said was that kids (and admittedly, teens and adults) are into somethings that are pretty violent, so I guess I don't specifically see how making them lighter is going to help them appeal to a broader audience.

I've always thought the biggest contributor to the shrinking market was the fact that it's difficult to get comics outside of LCS stores, and of course the ridiculous price point.

"Less dark" doesn't necessarily mean "lighter". One can have some serious drama without a metric crap ton of violence.

Is "Casablanca" a light-hearted, cheery film? Is Hitchcock's "Vertigo"? But neither have a lot of bloody violence.

Heck even "Psycho" is creepy as hell and there is violence to it but the way Hitch crafted that scene you don't actually SEE all that much. The IMPLIED violence is more stomach-gripping than if you HAD seen the knife going into her flesh.

And we're also talking about characters who are supposed to be heroes. We have seen HEROES ripping guts out. And then what is your HERO supposed to DO if your villain is going around ripping guts out? Anything less than the hero eliminating the villain with extreme prejudice is going to seem lame and if the hero rips the villain's guts out, well, then what happens to the hero for one thing and for another you've just written yourself out of a villain.

Videogame characters... well, the operate in a kind of grey area. Is Halo's Master Chief really a 'hero'? I don't know if I would call him that. Mortal Kombat? Well, the game sprites in the original... I don't know if you can even call them characters. There are some little stories around them but considering the game is all pretty much just about the fighting you don't actually get to KNOW these things AS characters. Plus, you can fight as the sprites which are generally classed as "bad guys" so it seems to me that heroism doesn't always factor into things.

[Gail Simone]

I love Robert Kirkman. Image making him a partner was one of the smartest moves anyone has made in this decade and I believe it will change comics.

But if I remember correctly, he simply couldn't move his comics while he was at Marvel.

And now he's at another company with two successful books, and has decided several times to get evangelical about Marvel and DC.

It seems not so much brave, at this point, as very self-interested. I don't remember these speeches when he was at Marvel and his theories weren't working all that well (even he has said so, so I'm not being mean).

At least, with Erik Larsen and his nutty rants, he can point to some MONSTROUSLY successful runs on several comics titles to back up what he says. You can disagree, but he's talking with a hip full of huge hit books to back him up.

This stuff Robert says always seems a little weird to me.

[Thequeerjock]

And we're also talking about characters who are supposed to be heroes. We have seen HEROES ripping guts out. And then what is your HERO supposed to DO if your villain is going around ripping guts out? Anything less than the hero eliminating the villain with extreme prejudice is going to seem lame and if the hero rips the villain's guts out, well, then what happens to the hero for one thing and for another you've just written yourself out of a villain.

Videogame characters... well, the operate in a kind of grey area. Is Halo's Master Chief really a 'hero'? I don't know if I would call him that. Mortal Kombat? Well, the game sprites in the original... I don't know if you can even call them characters. There are some little stories around them but considering the game is all pretty much just about the fighting you don't actually get to KNOW these things AS characters. Plus, you can fight as the sprites which are generally classed as "bad guys" so it seems to me that heroism doesn't always factor into things.

Well, lets use the whole "Kids Lunchboxes" argument. Right now, Iron Man, Batman, and Wolverine are very popular. All three either star or co-star in television shows aimed at a young or all-ages audience (Superhero Squad, Brave and the Bold, ECT).

Now, in the case of Iron Man and Wolverine, neither of them were the icons they are now until they had their own movies. In the opening minutes of Iron Man, we're informed that Tony Stark has had sex with twelve Maxim models, and through the course of the film we see him swear, drink, make dirty jokes, and kill a number of terrorists.

Wolverine guts numerous people throughout the course of the four X-Men movies, drinks and smokes heavily, and has an on-screen sex scene with Jean Grey.

Now obviously, those characters are still popular with kids. You could even make the argument that those violent/sexual/cigar-heaby movies are what made them popular in the first place.

So I guess once again, if kids are okay with violence and sexual themes in their heroes, it must be something more than "comics are too dark" that's driving them away from the comic market.

And for the record, I've never seen Vertigo or Psycho.

[Stressfactor]

Well, lets use the whole "Kids Lunchboxes" argument. Right now, Iron Man, Batman, and Wolverine are very popular. All three either star or co-star in television shows aimed at a young or all-ages audience (Superhero Squad, Brave and the Bold, ECT).

Now, in the case of Iron Man and Wolverine, neither of them were the icons they are now until they had their own movies. In the opening minutes of Iron Man, we're informed that Tony Stark has had sex with twelve Maxim models, and through the course of the film we see him swear, drink, make dirty jokes, and kill a number of terrorists.

Wolverine guts numerous people throughout the course of the four X-Men movies, drinks and smokes heavily, and has an on-screen sex scene with Jean Grey.

Now obviously, those characters are still popular with kids. You could even make the argument that those violent/sexual/cigar-heaby movies are what made them popular in the first place.

So I guess once again, if kids are okay with violence and sexual themes in their heroes, it must be something more than "comics are too dark" that's driving them away from the comic market.

And for the record, I've never seen Vertigo or Psycho.I saw less boobs in the first Iron Man movie than I did in most comic books. We're TOLD Tony selpt with the women, we only SEE him sleep with one woman and at that it's kept heavily shadowed so that we actually SEE less than we think we do. I've seen comic book shots which were borderline Playboy centerfolds. And as someone somewhere pointed out online (and I wish I could remember where) while having a lock of a woman's long hair hide a nipple or public hair is 'cute' it's also horribly unrealistic because, logically, you should still be able to see at least the areoloa and quite a bit of her hoo-ha. And really, you ARE seeing pretty much the whole breast with only the nipple covered. At that rate they might as well just flash the whole boob! And when people die in a PG-13 movie you don't see their guts splattered all over, there's isn't a nice, lingering, full-screen shot of a horribly mangled, bloody body with bits of bone sticking out through the flesh.

I can't say the latter about comic books anymore.

Wasn't even you who mentioned in another thread that the mauling of Wendy by "Wonderdog" seemed unnecessarily cruel and violent?

And see Vertigo or Psycho or both... or The Birds. Hitch was a majorly creepy guy and knew how to film a scene back during the days when there were a lot more limits on movies.

[Teal_Lantern]

I agree with Kirkman to an extant, I do think superheroes would be a bit lighter and brighter, because well, damn it they're superheroes! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my share of darker superheroes, tonnes of Batman comics, Secret Six, a whole bunch of Marvel's current stuff, but man, sometimes, it's like, publishers just cross the line of good taste. Like that whole Marvin eaten by a dog, Black lantern Baby bull.

Doesn't mean all comics need to be lighter to attract an audience, I mean look at the success of the Dark Knight, but it seems lately, most comics seem to be targeting this small, single demographic.

[Thequeerjock]

I saw less boobs in the first Iron Man movie than I did in most comic books and when people die in a PG-13 movie you don't see their guts splattered all over, there's isn't a nice, lingering, full-screen shot of a horribly mangled, bloody body with bits of bone sticking out through the flesh.

I can't say the latter about comic books anymore.

Wasn't even you who mentioned in another thread that the mauling of Wendy by "Wonderdog" seemed unnecessarily cruel and violent?

I certainly did mention that. I'm not trying to defend gratuitous rape or torture or gore, but I'm merely trying to point out that it even if it was a lot more subtle than the way it is in comics, many a kid likely had their introduction to Iron Man or Wolverine by seeing them gun down a terrorist or ram a blade through some soldier's chest.

While I agree that it's almost always done in an immature manner and is done for pure cheap shock value, I'm not convinced that it's actively keeping kids away from comics, especially when stuff like God of War is popular with them.

[malOnine]

And for the record, I've never seen Vertigo or Psycho.

I know you can't tell from my post, but I'm looking at you like you just said you've never breathed air before. Just kidding, I don't know you but I'm sure i'm not the first person to tell you that you have to see those films. :)

I was twelve when I started reading comics, and this was right after the X-Men Inferno crossover. There was quite a bit of blood and cleavage in those books. I remember a demon-possessed viewer on the observation deck of the Empire State Building eating some guys eyes. I don't remember being fazed by that at all. I was a young boy. I thought that was cool. And yeah, that was enough to pull me away from a video game. Cyclops was still a good guy at the time not setting up his own "black-op" X-force team.

(Unfortunately this was right before the EXTREME age of comics in the 90s (ironically Image was the epitome of the era) when creators relied on that sort of stuff, unfortunately.)

So I can see where Kirkman is coming from. But I don't think it's that big of an issue. Kid's comics can be a bit too simple (and kids can tell this but they eat it up anyway) and comics for the regular fanboy audience can be too graphic and dour. But a lot of stuff still falls right in the middle and I think it always will. Just like the Justice League Unlimited cartoon. that was perfect all-ages entertainment.

I've a nephew who is 3 and you bet i'm going to introduce him to comics, but I'm starting him out with some kids titles before we get to the continuity heavy x-men or vertigo titles. Actually, I recall now that by the time I was 17 or so I was still buying my Marvel but I was really into Vertigo. At the time that stuff was just blowing my mind. I was only a kid for so many years after all.

[ShaunN]

I think that Kirkman makes good points - but then I have to qualify that by saying that I'm not entirely sure I agree, at least insofar as I understand what he is driving at.

He is saying that iconic characters such as Superman occupy a role in the comics world that should allow their stories to be accessible to readers of many different ages and backgrounds. Contrary to what Tom has argued, I do think that the "age" issue is implied in Kirkman's comments. Kirkman is not objecting to violence in comics per se, but he is objecting to the "darkening" of the worlds of certain characters.

To really make sense of this, I think we need to clarify what Kirkman means by "dark". His examples (rape and gore) seem to indicate that he is objecting to heavy storylines that veer too close to reality and he wants to avoid the "ultra-realism" (i.e., violence) of much contemporary superherodom. Presumably, these do not go together. It is possible to have a "heavy" topical story that is not gory; it is possible to have a piece of violent crap that is incredibly gory without being topical in any way.

My gut reaction is to agree with some of what Kirkman says. But my intellectual reaction is to say that if I could not read comic stories that were relatively heavy and realistic, I don't think I would read them at all. I also fear that reserving certain characters to certain kinds of stories invites stagnation and irrelevance, over time.

[Thequeerjock]

I love Robert Kirkman. Image making him a partner was one of the smartest moves anyone has made in this decade and I believe it will change comics.

But if I remember correctly, he simply couldn't move his comics while he was at Marvel.

And now he's at another company with two successful books, and has decided several times to get evangelical about Marvel and DC.

It seems not so much brave, at this point, as very self-interested. I don't remember these speeches when he was at Marvel and his theories weren't working all that well (even he has said so, so I'm not being mean).

At least, with Erik Larsen and his nutty rants, he can point to some MONSTROUSLY successful runs on several comics titles to back up what he says. You can disagree, but he's talking with a hip full of huge hit books to back him up.

This stuff Robert says always seems a little weird to me.

I don't exactly share this opinion, but someone over on Bendis' forum compared Kirkman's attitudes toward Marvel and DC as being akin to those of a "bitter ex", in that he didn't have the happiest or most successful time over at Marvel, and now that he's gone he's basically taking every opportunity to say they suck and are ruining comic books.

[Corrina]

I think if you're character is on a kid's lunchbox and meant for an all ages audience the books should be safe for me to hand to my niece and nephew.



This.

If you're going to *market* your characters to the age range of kids who still bring lunchboxes to school, then it would seem to me that you should make sure those characters are in comics suitable for them to read.

ETA: And the point about "less dark" meaning "appealing to a wider audience" not just kids is well-taken, Tom.

[Corrina]

My gut reaction is to agree with some of what Kirkman says. But my intellectual reaction is to say that if I could not read comic stories that were relatively heavy and realistic, I don't think I would read them at all. I also fear that reserving certain characters to certain kinds of stories invites stagnation and irrelevance, over time.

As I said probably so many times on the other board, it's not about the themes being off the table. It's about tone.

How about a story whose parents are murdered before his eyes and he's raised by two horrible foster-parents who make him live under the stairs? And then he continually is attacked and ridiculed as he's growing up by those who resent him and those who continually want him dead. He's only got two good friends and one solid mentor and then the friends have issues with each other, the mentor is killed, and the stable home he's had is taken away.

And....

Well, you see the point.

Harry Potter is a DARK story. It's also a story about heroes.

Or take this guy who used to be a superhero and now he's stuck in a dead end job with a bad boss and a disapproving wife and a couple of annoying kids and then he gets fired, so he hides his new job (complete w/sexy woman to flirt with) and moonlights doing something he knows could get him killed just so he could have the thrill of it back...

And you get the Incredibles. Which is essentially a story about a guy going through a mid-life crisis. Kids won't like that...um, wait, yeah they do. :)

You can tackle any theme you want with kids or all ages. But you can either write horror comics (which is what some superhero comics seems to be) or you can write for a general audience.

[HamsterRage]

Corrina makes a great point. Scaring kids, having horror in your book or challenging themes and allegory is fine... But Superman, Batman and Spider-man shouldn't be teetering on the edge of an EC comic.

The last issue of Spider-man I read had him rip a woman's face off!

That's really not acceptable to me... I also don't get that Wolverine can't smoke cigars anymore but he's able to do all kinds of reprehensible stuff in his comic. I understood it for a while but now it's just lazy.

I think violent superheroes and villains have there place... And some titles should remain edgy... But I wish the line was being pushed in terms of how the stories are told and what's being said over who's being killed or maimed.

[Thequeerjock]

This.

If you're going to *market* your characters to the age range of kids who still bring lunchboxes to school, then it would seem to me that you should make sure those characters are in comics suitable for them to read.

But at the same time as I mentioned, what happens when the kids who end up buying said lunchboxes are first introduced to those characters in their dark and violent films?

I'm not sure how much control Marvel has over what is done with their merchandise and the films not done by them (so Spider-Man and X-Men), but it's not like the alternative to the comics is exactly full of sunshine and rainbows.

I'm probably in a minority (hell, in that I read comics at all), but when I started reading comics, it was because of the awesome movies I had seen, and it didn't bother me much. One of the first Spider-Man stories I ever read was a weird issue told from the POV of a cop who witnessed most of Spidey's heroic feats, and at one point they showed Gwen Stacy's demise. It was morbid and sad, but it didn't turn me off of comics.

[NickT]

I dunno, I agree with Brevoort when he says this is a bit do as I say not as I do. The writer of Invincible, Marvel Zombies, Freedom Ring getting stabbed to death and at least one MAX series for Marvel is complaining about Marvel and DC being dark?

[Dream]

I love Robert Kirkman. Image making him a partner was one of the smartest moves anyone has made in this decade and I believe it will change comics.

But if I remember correctly, he simply couldn't move his comics while he was at Marvel.

And now he's at another company with two successful books, and has decided several times to get evangelical about Marvel and DC.

It seems not so much brave, at this point, as very self-interested. I don't remember these speeches when he was at Marvel and his theories weren't working all that well (even he has said so, so I'm not being mean).

At least, with Erik Larsen and his nutty rants, he can point to some MONSTROUSLY successful runs on several comics titles to back up what he says. You can disagree, but he's talking with a hip full of huge hit books to back him up.

This stuff Robert says always seems a little weird to me.

And his stuff still doesn't sell as well as the op Marvel or DC books anyway.


I don't exactly share this opinion, but someone over on Bendis' forum compared Kirkman's attitudes toward Marvel and DC as being akin to those of a "bitter ex", in that he didn't have the happiest or most successful time over at Marvel, and now that he's gone he's basically taking every opportunity to say they suck and are ruining comic books.

His run on Ultimate X-men was the beginning of the end for that book. Millar, Bendis, and BKV all had successful runs. Kirkman was where that book started to go South.




The last issue of Spider-man I read had him rip a woman's face off!


He didn't really rip her face off, like Moon Knight does. He gave her a mark like Kaine does. And she deserved it, seeing as she organized the deaths of Billy Connors, Madame Web, and Mattie Franklin.

[HamsterRage]

He didn't really rip her face off, like Moon Knight does. He gave her a mark like Kaine does. And she deserved it, seeing as she organized the deaths of Billy Connors, Madame Web, and Mattie Franklin.
He gave her the mark by ripping her face off.

http://i28.tinypic.com/2e5tmvn.jpg

Spider-Man doesn't do that.

[HamsterRage]

I'm probably in a minority (hell, in that I read comics at all), but when I started reading comics, it was because of the awesome movies I had seen, and it didn't bother me much. One of the first Spider-Man stories I ever read was a weird issue told from the POV of a cop who witnessed most of Spidey's heroic feats, and at one point they showed Gwen Stacy's demise. It was morbid and sad, but it didn't turn me off of comics.

I think something is being confused here... sadness, drama, death, violence are not things anyone is advocating removing from superhero comics.

Entrails being torn out, extreme gore, subject matter like rape, incest etc... that's what we're talking about is going too far.

[Teal_Lantern]

I think something is being confused here... sadness, drama, death, violence are not things anyone is advocating removing from superhero comics.

Entrails being torn out, extreme gore, subject matter like rape, incest etc... that's what we're talking about is going too far.

That's my thoughts on it, too. I mean it's fine for something like We3, but Green Lantern?

[Dream]

He gave her the mark by ripping her face off.



Spider-Man doesn't do that.

As we saw later though, it wasn't her entire face. Maybe a bit of skin, but not Moon Knight status. And Peter has killed and is willing to get violent, as he has in the past.

[porkchop]

There was a time where cartoon characters, specifically marketed to kids, smoked cigars, shot guns (pointed at other characters), used explosives, and would set up death traps. The ones that contained some racist depictions have been pulled off the air.

As a kid, aged in the single digits, I liked playing the Mortal Kombat videogames, and felt gypped when someone else thought I was too young and delicate to handle blood or the fatalities. I grew up reading comics in the 90s and loved the Age of Apocalypse crossover in the X-series (which hinged on the murder of Xavier) where there were tons of corpses littered in the opening pages of the series and virtually every major character ends up dead by the end (some by truly violent and horrific means).

Oh and I can't tell you how many cartoons involving stick figures meeting grizzly demises were drawn by childhood friends and myself.

I hardly think violence and gore is really a turn off for kids. It wouldn't have been one for me as a child. Nowadays I can be critical about what I'm paying for and realizing when something is over-the-top for shock value alone and how cheap the returns on it are.

As for the mature theme of rape. It can be dealt with in a smart way and a dumb way. Smart way would be exploring the destructive effect sexual assault has on its victims and loved ones. Dumb would be inserting it in for shock effect or as a cheap way to make someone a bad guy. In the column Kirkman wrote he jumps from this to violence without drawing a line between the two. Honestly it's not a great critique of industry and reeks of hypocrisy.

[Gail Simone]

"And his stuff still doesn't sell as well as the op Marvel or DC books anyway."

Oh, you can't compare the two at all, and even if you did, Walking Dead and Invincible are massive, massive successes, and well-deserved, too, and he deserves all the credit in the world for making those happen. The dedication and vision involved in those books is what I think is so amazing and why I think he could re-purpose IMAGE in a huge way.

[Hate_Prime]

Marvel has an all-ages line. Those books Kirkman's wishing for exists.

The problem with comics is that they're comics. These days where there are so many sources of entertainment, many of which are so readily available, it's going to be tough to convince the uninitiated that they ought to go to this special store to spend 3 bucks on an incomplete story, and they have to go within a certain number of days by the way, or they'll probably miss out, then do the same thing again next month to get a little bit more of the story.

I think most would rather stick with the xbox than get into that hobby regardless of if Sentry ripped Ares in half or not.

[Dream]

From Tom Brevoort's Twitter:



"I see Robert Kirkman has joined the Erik Larsen "Do as I say, not as I do" club when it comes to the content in mainstream super hero comics

Guys, you've got all the freedom in the world to do whatever kinds of comics you want, and so do we. It's unapologetically ironic...

...that the guy publishing INVINCIBLE, probably the bloodiest, goriest super hero comics in years, is the one casting these stones.

And yes, I know he tries to contextualize it, but it's still "Do as I say, not as I do." If you want those kinds of comics, MAKE THEM!


I think it's absurdly hypocritical to publish a violent book that looks like an issue of Teen Titans on the racks, then take this stance.

And just to be clear: I like both Robert's and Erik's work. Never miss an issue of WALKING DEAD or INVINCIBLE."

[HamsterRage]

From Tom Brevoort's Twitter:

"I see Robert Kirkman has joined the Erik Larsen "Do as I say, not as I do" club when it comes to the content in mainstream super hero comics

Guys, you've got all the freedom in the world to do whatever kinds of comics you want, and so do we. It's unapologetically ironic...

...that the guy publishing INVINCIBLE, probably the bloodiest, goriest super hero comics in years, is the one casting these stones.

And yes, I know he tries to contextualize it, but it's still "Do as I say, not as I do." If you want those kinds of comics, MAKE THEM!

I think it's absurdly hypocritical to publish a violent book that looks like an issue of Teen Titans on the racks, then take this stance.

And just to be clear: I like both Robert's and Erik's work. Never miss an issue of WALKING DEAD or INVINCIBLE."

Key difference is that Invincible and Walking Dead aren't marketed to children, they didn't start out marketed to children.

I can't buy bedsheets, lunchboxes and birthday party plates of Invincible.

[BClayMoore]

"And his stuff still doesn't sell as well as the op Marvel or DC books anyway."

Oh, you can't compare the two at all, and even if you did, Walking Dead and Invincible are massive, massive successes, and well-deserved, too, and he deserves all the credit in the world for making those happen. The dedication and vision involved in those books is what I think is so amazing and why I think he could re-purpose IMAGE in a huge way.

Yeah, I'm not sure what I think of Robert's comments, but THE WALKING DEAD has essentially made Robert rich.

In some ways, it's the most successful comic book of the past decade.

-BCM

[Teal_Lantern]

Key difference is that Invincible and Walking Dead aren't marketed to children, they didn't start out marketed to children.

I can't buy bedsheets, lunchboxes and birthday party plates of Invincible.

Yeah, those are my thoughts on it as well, but in all fairness, he did write some pretty dark comics at Marvel. Not saying that his points aren't valid, but I can see why some would see hypocrisy.

[Dream]

Key difference is that Invincible and Walking Dead aren't marketed to children, they didn't start out marketed to children.

I can't buy bedsheets, lunchboxes and birthday party plates of Invincible.

Kirkman is the same guy who created Eric O'Grady, one of the sleaziest characters in comics.

His Ultimate X-men itself is compromised of what he complains about.

And like Brevoort said- he wants to see those comics, he should MAKE them.

[BClayMoore]

By the way, I just wrote an Erik O'Grady/Ant-Man short story for Marvel, and my amigo Tim Seeley is writing and drawing an Ant-Man/Wasp mini.

Be interesting to see where the character sits when all is said and done, because it's hard to work with a character who lacks any redeeming qualities.

When Remender wrote him, he turned him into the self-obsessed jock fratboy type that Rick hates, which I thought was pretty funny.

-BCM

[Slewo.O]

By the way, I just wrote an Erik O'Grady/Ant-Man short story for Marvel, and my amigo Tim Seeley is writing and drawing an Ant-Man/Wasp mini.

Be interesting to see where the character sits when all is said and done, because it's hard to work with a character who lacks any redeeming qualities.

When Remender wrote him, he turned him into the self-obsessed jock fratboy type that Rick hates, which I thought was pretty funny.

-BCM

When did Remender write Eric O'Grady?

[stealthwise]

Yeah, I'm not sure what I think of Robert's comments, but THE WALKING DEAD has essentially made Robert rich.

In some ways, it's the most successful comic book of the past decade.

-BCM

Even more so than Scott Pilgrim? I guess there are more volumes selling at a decent clip...

[BClayMoore]

When did Remender write Eric O'Grady?

He wrote him in THUNDERBOLTS.

-BCM

[Tom Stillwell]

By the way, I just wrote an Erik O'Grady/Ant-Man short story for Marvel, and my amigo Tim Seeley is writing and drawing an Ant-Man/Wasp mini.

Be interesting to see where the character sits when all is said and done, because it's hard to work with a character who lacks any redeeming qualities.

When Remender wrote him, he turned him into the self-obsessed jock fratboy type that Rick hates, which I thought was pretty funny.

-BCM

I saw some of the art for this when visiting Tim the other day. I'm really looking forward to what you guys are cooking up!

[BClayMoore]

Even more so than Scott Pilgrim? I guess there are more volumes selling at a decent clip...

Yeah, Scott Pilgrim is right up there, too.

I remember when the first volume of SCOTT PILGRIM debuted the Oni guys were beside themselves with how low the numbers were.

It's a testament to what quality and word of mouth can do for a book.

I was Image's PR & Marketing guy when THE WALKING DEAD took off, and it was a similar kind of thing. We debuted the seventh issue on the same day as the first trade, and the book just skyrocketed.

I don't take any credit for that, though. Robert has always been the most shrewd marketer of his own books...

-BCM

[Thequeerjock]

By the way, I just wrote an Erik O'Grady/Ant-Man short story for Marvel, and my amigo Tim Seeley is writing and drawing an Ant-Man/Wasp mini.

Be interesting to see where the character sits when all is said and done, because it's hard to work with a character who lacks any redeeming qualities.

When Remender wrote him, he turned him into the self-obsessed jock fratboy type that Rick hates, which I thought was pretty funny.

-BCM

That's awesome about the story.

But yeah, Erik, as cool as he is, was a douch from the beginning, right down to the spying on people in the shower.

[BClayMoore]

I saw some of the art for this when visiting Tim the other day. I'm really looking forward to what you guys are cooking up!

That one is all Tim.

My story is being drawn by one of C.B. Cebulski's discoveries, and will appear in I AM AN AVENGER.

-BCM

[Endy52]

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but I question the source.

[Slewo.O]

He wrote him in THUNDERBOLTS.

-BCM

Ha can't believe I forgot about that.

[Stressfactor]

Marvel has an all-ages line. Those books Kirkman's wishing for exists. Not necessarily. As we've been discussing, Corrina and Hamster Rage (Crowley) have put their fingers on it -- you can have a dark story or a psychologically engaging story or a creepy story or whatever that you would NOT hand to a child without having a full-page spread of someone's guts all over the floor.

People don't mind the complexity or dealing with adult themes. What people mind are writers who PRETEND to deal with "adult themes" but really just throw gore or rape on a page and treat it all in a juvenile manor.

[BClayMoore]

Not necessarily. As we've been discussing, Corrina and Hamster Rage (Crowley) have put their fingers on it -- you can have a dark story or a psychologically engaging story or a creepy story or whatever that you would NOT hand to a child without having a full-page spread of someone's guts all over the floor.

People don't mind the complexity or dealing with adult themes. What people mind are writers who PRETEND to deal with "adult themes" but really just throw gore or rape on a page and treat it all in a juvenile manor.

Try being a professional writer who suspects that he needs to up his rape and gore quantity to appeal to the masses.

-BCM

[Tom Stillwell]

Try being a professional writer who suspects that he needs to up his rape and gore quantity to appeal to the masses.

-BCM

Even worse, try being a writer that purposely labels his books as all ages only to have the masses think they are just kiddie books.

[Evan Waters]

But at the same time as I mentioned, what happens when the kids who end up buying said lunchboxes are first introduced to those characters in their dark and violent films?

But this, to me, is the interesting thing. THE DARK KNIGHT isn't *half* as gruesome as, say, INFINITE CRISIS was. The latter was close to EVIL DEAD in terms of gore- as a film it would be threatened with an NC-17.

There are all-ages comics, but the problem is, they're sort of treated as a ghetto by the big publishers. They're not the main continuity of either line, they don't get the big promotions and big events, they exist only as an alternative to the norm.

[BClayMoore]

But this, to me, is the interesting thing. THE DARK KNIGHT isn't *half* as gruesome as, say, INFINITE CRISIS was. The latter was close to EVIL DEAD in terms of gore- as a film it would be threatened with an NC-17.

There are all-ages comics, but the problem is, they're sort of treated as a ghetto by the big publishers. They're not the main continuity of either line, they don't get the big promotions and big events, they exist only as an alternative to the norm.

My four year-old likes THE DARK KNIGHT movie quite a bit. My nine year-old plays Modern Warfare 2 when he plays anything, and the four year-old loves playing along until his brother "blows him up with bombs" and sends him back upstairs to play with his Star Wars figures and Cars toys.

Neither one has violent tendencies otherwise, or is particularly aggressive. The nine year-old is a phenomenal young athlete, and has yet to knock anyone out on the court or playing field.

The four year-old likes to look at DC's all ages comics. The nine year-old thinks Spider-Man is kind of cool to flip through. Not too long ago my four year-old picked up some of the SUPERMAN issues I wrote and spent a while absorbed with them. That was kind of cool.

It's a new age.

-BCM

[Stressfactor]

Perhaps therein lies part of the problem.

As a woman who's never been into horror movies or excessively gory stuff it all just turns me off.

And rape. Don't even get me started on the fact that comic books love to throw the rape scenario out there but few ever seem to deal with the aftermath.

I like action movies, I like explosions and such but I don't care for excessive blood loss or gore or violence and while I went to see "The Dark Knight" in theatres it did skate close to the edge of what I could tolerate and there's a reason why I don't own a copy of it on DVD.

But there's a reason why just a few years ago I had a pull list of something like 20 titles and the bulk of them were DC and Marvel and why my current pull list is a fraction of that and most of what I have is Image, IDW, Dark Horse and some Indie press.

But for the record Mr. Moore, I loved your "Hawaiian Dick" and I liked "76" as well and threw my support behind those.

[ShaunN]

I think we're all over the board on this one because, in part, it's not clear what Kirkman is condemning. Obviously, he is not crazy about gore. But he also seems to be after other, more adult themes too.

I agree with Corrina's point about "Harry Potter" and "The Incredibles" as examples of adult-themed, dark stories that are still appealing to all ages. But these stories still did not get as dark as they could have become. (Though, sometimes, "Harry Potter" teetered on the edge - as I recall, one of the evil characters cuts off his hand as part of a sacrifice; Hermione is tortured; Ron's brothers are killed and, in one case, mauled. And the child abuse that Potter was subjected to - not just at home, but also by one of the replacement headmistresses - was horrendous and, arguably, badly handled - was it really a good thing to counsel children to stay silent in the face of abuse?)

But I do want some of my stories to be darker than this. I don't object to gore or the narrative use of terrible real-world human happenings such as rape, so long as they feed into a good story that makes me think or creates a genuine sense of horror. My biggest objection to the use of these kind of devices is that they are not taken seriously enough. If you are going to use violence, then show its terrible consequences; if you are going to suggest sexual abuse, then deal with it realistically. Don't make it look pretty or inconsequential, like in a video game. These days, kids are so inured to violence on their computers that the US military actually uses games to recruit, then uses these new recruits to pilot its remote drones.

One of the most stunning and affecting uses of gore, to me, was in Alan Moore's "Miracleman" series, when MM discovers that Jonathan Bates has been running rampant in London for almost two days. The first time we see Bates, he is carrying a human forearm. The book doesn't show too much of what Bates has actually done (though it shows enough) but the intimations of horror and fear are palpable.

I'm not saying that Superman should fight an enemy who tears humans apart for sport. But if he does, then I'd want a story that creates a sense of horror similar to what Moore did with MM. Instead, DC has given us horrible and comparable events (such as Black Adam's genocide against that fictional Arab country - Qurac? Can't recall) but treated it -and the character - in such a way that the horror of what he has done barely registers. DC has destroyed cities full of people, but somehow done it in a way that lacks real impact. (To its credit, I think that Marvel rarely does that kind of thing).

[BClayMoore]

But for the record Mr. Moore, I loved your "Hawaiian Dick" and I liked "76" as well and threw my support behind those.

Thanks much! And rape as a plot device turns me off on so many levels, I don't think I'll ever go there.

Actually, I do have an historical graphic novel plotted that is explicitly about systematic, institutionally approved rape. It was suggested to me years ago by a publisher, and if I could bring myself to sit down and write it, I think it will be a powerful book.

It just needs to be handled correctly on all levels.

-BCM

[porkchop]

I made a reply to the thread that seems to have gone into moderator review limbo.

To sum up what I said:

- There's been a history of violence in many things directly marketed at children (I'm thinking specifically of Looney Tunes shorts where there were guns (fired at characters), explosives, (goofy) death traps, etc). The only ones that seem to go unaired these days are the cartoons with racist depictions (mostly WW2)

-As a child I was attracted to violent/gorey things i.e. Mortal Kombat, The Age of Apocalypse. I felt gypped about having someone else feel like they had to protect my innocence from seeing (fake) blood

-A plot involving rape doesn't soil the story. Only when written in stupidly (for shock value). It can be used wisely to show how destructive sexual assault is and just how too often it happens.

-Kirkman's criticism to me comes off as weak. He jumps from rape to gore without making a connection. It's hardly thorough and reads as hypocritical given what he is writing with his stories (and Invincible has more or less become the mascot for Image, just got to the official site to see him front and center flying around).

[BClayMoore]

-A plot involving rape doesn't soil the story. Only when written in stupidly (for shock value). It can be used wisely to show how destructive sexual assault is and just how too often it happens.



My problem with rape as a plot device in *superhero* comics is that most comic book "worlds" are inhabited by a relatively finite number of recurring characters, and if you decide to have one of your characters raped, you've fundamentally altered a character in a way that can't be fully explored unless you want to completely derail the book.

Also? I've never seen it used for anything other than shock value.

But Kirkman using rape in the Walking Dead makes sense within the context of the universe he's created.

-BCM

[Teal_Lantern]

I really dislike how desensitized DC has gotten towards all of this stuff, I mean half of the superheroes would have gone insane form post traumatic streess disorder at this point. I mean, you might as well show that if your comics are gonna be realistic, right?

I think the worst was when they had Cheshire nuke an entire city, man, that was lame.

[NickT]

Key difference is that Invincible and Walking Dead aren't marketed to children, they didn't start out marketed to children.

I can't buy bedsheets, lunchboxes and birthday party plates of Invincible.
But characters he used in Marvel Zombies do.



Plus, I don't think that excludes him from the point anyway. Kirkman is a popular writer, his creator owned stuff sells better than just about everyone excluding a small handful. He could do a book like he feels Marvel and DC should do, and people would read it, and if they liked it say "I wish Marvel and DC would do books like this" and Marvel and DC would look at it and go "We should do books like this".

I don't think it's that crazy for people to raise an eyebrow when a creator says what Marvel and DC should do and yet not do things like that themselves.

[JKCarrier]

While I wouldn't mind seeing more all-ages superheroes, the current Direct Market is probably the worst possible place to try and sell them. That's not where the kids are at, and the audience that is there has a deep resentment of anything they perceive as too "kiddy".

On the other hand, I think it will be very interesting to see what kinds of comics catch on with iPad/iPhone/other digital readers.

[Ian Boothby]

While I wouldn't mind seeing more all-ages superheroes, the current Direct Market is probably the worst possible place to try and sell them. That's not where the kids are at, and the audience that is there has a deep resentment of anything they perceive as too "kiddy".

On the other hand, I think it will be very interesting to see what kinds of comics catch on with iPad/iPhone/other digital readers.

The Marvel and DC films (Iron Man, Spider-Man, Superman Returns and even Dark Night) would be considered all ages if the storylines were in the comics (which most were). Why should the comics be so much darker, gory and sexually violent than the more popular material they inspire?

Kids and teens and adults are at seeing all those movies and DVDs. That's where the mainstream audience is at. Isn't that the ideal group superhero comics should be aiming for?

[Gail Simone]

I have said many times, rape should be an allowable topic in mainstream comics. But it would have to be done well, and meaningfully, and that is something I haven't seen happen at all yet.

[Ian Boothby]

I have said many times, rape should be an allowable topic in mainstream comics. But it would have to be done well, and meaningfully, and that is something I haven't seen happen at all yet.

Law and Order SVU shows at all hours of the day, multiple times a day. Rape has become as acceptable as murder for shock value in mainstream TV and has about as much impact.

Comics are heading down that road very quickly. It starts as shocking then the impact becomes more and more watered down.

[Stressfactor]

My problem with rape as a plot device in *superhero* comics is that most comic book "worlds" are inhabited by a relatively finite number of recurring characters, and if you decide to have one of your characters raped, you've fundamentally altered a character in a way that can't be fully explored unless you want to completely derail the book.

Also? I've never seen it used for anything other than shock value.

Probably the closest anyone came was Mike Grell in the aftermath of "Green Arrow: The Longbow Hunters".

Now I know Grell has jumped up and down SWEARING that Dinah wasn't raped in Longbow Hunters BUT it was an assault, she was badly beaten, and she was basically stripped naked so there was a certain sexual content to the scene he set and the assault.

Grell actually bothered to show Dinah going to therapy and struggling to deal with what happened to her. And she lost her powers and she lost the ability to have children -- which might also resonate with rape victims.

So Grell, at least, bothered to attempt to show Dinah dealing with a horrific aftermath and breaking through on the other side. It may not have lasted very long but at least he touched on the subject of aftermath of horrific assault.

[Hate_Prime]

Not necessarily. As we've been discussing, Corrina and Hamster Rage (Crowley) have put their fingers on it -- you can have a dark story or a psychologically engaging story or a creepy story or whatever that you would NOT hand to a child without having a full-page spread of someone's guts all over the floor.

People don't mind the complexity or dealing with adult themes. What people mind are writers who PRETEND to deal with "adult themes" but really just throw gore or rape on a page and treat it all in a juvenile manor.

Kirkman is talking about one thing, you're talking about something else. My comment was with regards to what Kirkman said and yes there are Marvel and DC comics for those who don't want the dark elements and the guts (I'm looking forward to one this month, "Avengers & The Infinity Gauntlet"). They won't tear Billy from his Xbox unfortunately.

[malOnine]

While I wouldn't mind seeing more all-ages superheroes, the current Direct Market is probably the worst possible place to try and sell them. That's not where the kids are at, and the audience that is there has a deep resentment of anything they perceive as too "kiddy".

On the other hand, I think it will be very interesting to see what kinds of comics catch on with iPad/iPhone/other digital readers.

I totally agree. I remember being able to buy comics at the little neighborhood grocery store when I was a kid. I still remember getting that Silver Surfer annual that was part 1 of Atlantis Attacks way back in the day. Had no idea what the story was about but it was only $2 and looked interesting.

Maybe digital distribution is the way to go for reconnecting with young kids, or at least give them a focused online area to explore the stories and characters.

I wonder...I miss those little * to fill you in on when something happened. They're not used as ofter anymore. I wonder if in reprints online these can be hyperlinked to the issue in question so that a new reader would be able to quickly leap to a summary of another title and be given the chance to buy it. That'd be kind of cool and be a way to make all the continuity less daunting. I've not read DC or Marvel comics online so maybe they already do this.

[stealthwise]

I don't mean this statement as a judgmental parent, but there is no way my 4 year old daughter could handle something like The Dark Knight. It's just far too dark, gritty, violent, and most of all... intense. She has trouble enough with the violence in things like Brave and the Bold, but maybe she's just a different child (not a girly-girl, very active, but not much inclined to seeing violence, etc). For example, her favourite movies are Baby Mama and Juno.

As to the discussion about showcasing things like gore and rape, per se, I think that, and this has been touched on already by Gail and others, there seems to be an almost gleeful enthusiasm to showcase such things, and then waste the opportunity to follow up on them by highlighting their after-effects and make something significant out of them.

Dealing with the aftermath of extreme examples of violence and violation in storytelling would actually serve to make them powerful, rather than just another cheap storytelling tool at the same level as sub-par mainstream tv or b-movies.

[stealthwise]

I don't mean this statement as a judgmental parent, but there is no way my 4 year old daughter could handle something like The Dark Knight. It's just far too dark, gritty, violent, and most of all... intense. She has trouble enough with the violence in things like Brave and the Bold, but maybe she's just a different child (not a girly-girl, very active, but not much inclined to seeing violence, etc). For example, her favourite movies are Baby Mama and Juno.

As to the discussion about showcasing things like gore and rape, per se, I think that, and this has been touched on already by Gail and others, there seems to be an almost gleeful enthusiasm to showcase such things, and then waste the opportunity to follow up on them by highlighting their after-effects and make something significant out of them.

Dealing with the aftermath of extreme examples of violence and violation in storytelling would actually serve to make them powerful, rather than just another cheap storytelling tool at the same level as sub-par mainstream tv or b-movies.

[Zeu]

I don't mean this statement as a judgmental parent, but there is no way my 4 year old daughter could handle something like The Dark Knight. It's just far too dark, gritty, violent, and most of all... intense. She has trouble enough with the violence in things like Brave and the Bold, but maybe she's just a different child (not a girly-girl, very active, but not much inclined to seeing violence, etc). For example, her favourite movies are Baby Mama and Juno.

As to the discussion about showcasing things like gore and rape, per se, I think that, and this has been touched on already by Gail and others, there seems to be an almost gleeful enthusiasm to showcase such things, and then waste the opportunity to follow up on them by highlighting their after-effects and make something significant out of them.

Dealing with the aftermath of extreme examples of violence and violation in storytelling would actually serve to make them powerful, rather than just another cheap storytelling tool at the same level as sub-par mainstream tv or b-movies.

Thing is, when it comes to entertainment, nobody likes to deal with consequences.

It´s fun blowing someone´s brains on a widescreen/pannel.
Showing what happens, for instances to that person´s family.... nobody wants to deal with that.

[Teal_Lantern]

Thing is, when it comes to entertainment, nobody likes to deal with consequences.

It´s fun blowing someone´s brains on a widescreen/pannel.
Showing what happens, for instances to that person´s family.... nobody wants to deal with that.

So true, I mean, do we ever get to see heroes needing therapy after their friends get chopped to pieces? no.

A good example of actually doing violence with consequences was in the Invisibles. In one issue you get to see the life of one of the guards who was casually killed by one of the heroes.

[Gail Simone]

Law and Order SVU shows at all hours of the day, multiple times a day. Rape has become as acceptable as murder for shock value in mainstream TV and has about as much impact.

Comics are heading down that road very quickly. It starts as shocking then the impact becomes more and more watered down.

Yes, but I don't care about the 'impact,' that implies that you can only tell a rape story for its shock value. But I was a volunteer worker at crisis centers and there's a lot more there than that. It could be inspiring, it could be informative, it could be therapeutic. It doesn't HAVE to just be about impact, you know?

[Ian Boothby]

Yes, but I don't care about the 'impact,' that implies that you can only tell a rape story for its shock value. But I was a volunteer worker at crisis centers and there's a lot more there than that. It could be inspiring, it could be informative, it could be therapeutic. It doesn't HAVE to just be about impact, you know?

You can tell a great story. Law and Order SVU could be an amazing series that shows the impact rape has and do all the things you say. But... it doesn't. The victim is very seldom the focus, it's all about the cool cops smacking around the bad guy and breaking him down. It's the same way mainstream comics seem to treat the subject. They Deathwish it.

The problem with bringing rape into mainstream superhero comics is that world is already based on violence. The superheroes and villains solve their problems with their fists and arrows tearing off noses. In the world of Batman or Wonder Woman reason might show up but the real solution to the problem will almost always be a punch to the face.

And that's fine, it's a superhero story. The audience knows the genre and suspends their disbelief that Batman can jump off a building and a kick a mugger in the face without breaking either of their necks. Add rape to that and it's like getting James Bond to deal with a child being molested by their Uncle. Yes, there's probably a story that could be told but it's not really the time or the place.

Vertigo was created as a place to do this kind of story line. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done at all in the medium but it shouldn't be everywhere. We used to have books like Miracleman and The Authority to show what superheroes would be like if they took a dark turn, now it seems there's no difference.

[BClayMoore]

If SVU dwelt on the long-range impact of rape on its victims, it would be a different show.

I don't think the show has any responsibility to be something it's not trying to be.

-Clay

[shrike]

Kirkman might 'get it' but unless you can DO anything with it, you just have a lost cause.

People can also get herpes, but it doesn't mean it involves it having any practical, useful application.

[Thequeerjock]

Yes, but I don't care about the 'impact,' that implies that you can only tell a rape story for its shock value. But I was a volunteer worker at crisis centers and there's a lot more there than that. It could be inspiring, it could be informative, it could be therapeutic. It doesn't HAVE to just be about impact, you know?

Pretty much. I don't dislike rape as a general plot tool. I think that Bendis did some nice work with Jessica Jones and her rape in Alias. He ultimately built a story around it, and in the finale had Jessica overcome her rapist and kick his shit in.

Now it becomes problematic in cases like Identity Crisis. Pure shock value for the sake of saying "Remember all those campy JLA stories you loved in the 70's? Guess what? Sue got raped and you never knew about it!"

My biggest issue with her rape was that she had no part in any of the story around her. We didn't get to hear how she felt or see her struggle with it. We got the League going in and brainwashing Light and then never discussing it again. Sue never got a moment where she got to stand up and shout that it wasn't going to rule her life. She didn't get to confront her rapist.

[BClayMoore]

I think the Sopranos did an excellent job of working rape into a story that highlighted strengths of frailties of a key character.

-Clay

[Zeu]

Pretty much. I don't dislike rape as a general plot tool. I think that Bendis did some nice work with Jessica Jones and her rape in Alias. He ultimately built a story around it, and in the finale had Jessica overcome her rapist and kick his shit in.

Now it becomes problematic in cases like Identity Crisis. Pure shock value for the sake of saying "Remember all those campy JLA stories you loved in the 70's? Guess what? Sue got raped and you never knew about it!"

My biggest issue with her rape was that she had no part in any of the story around her. We didn't get to hear how she felt or see her struggle with it. We got the League going in and brainwashing Light and then never discussing it again. Sue never got a moment where she got to stand up and shout that it wasn't going to rule her life. She didn't get to confront her rapist.

Wouldn´t it be balls-to-the-wall out there if someone did it, though?

Write a mini-series where we get to see Sue deal with it?
She doesn´t even have to be the center stage character (I doubt the name "Sue Dibny" would attract as many readers as "Batman"), as long as we get to extract something from it all.

[Patrick Gerard]

The problem with bringing rape into mainstream superhero comics is that world is already based on violence. The superheroes and villains solve their problems with their fists and arrows tearing off noses. In the world of Batman or Wonder Woman reason might show up but the real solution to the problem will almost always be a punch to the face.

And that's fine, it's a superhero story. The audience knows the genre and suspends their disbelief that Batman can jump off a building and a kick a mugger in the face without breaking either of their necks. Add rape to that and it's like getting James Bond to deal with a child being molested by their Uncle. Yes, there's probably a story that could be told but it's not really the time or the place.


That brings up an interesting point. I suppose I'm tolerant of violence in action or super-hero stories because I see the whole thing as metaphor. That fist fight is there to make a moral argument more visually compelling or add some cheap drama. But I excuse heroes doing reprehensible things like beating the crap out of people.

But if we step away from the violence as metaphor and ultimately DO treat rape as just another form of violence, how far away are we from the idea of a glamorized super-hero who rapes bank robbers, mobsters and super-villains?

Not an anti-hero. A bright, shiny, amiable guy who rapes criminals and the whole world knows about it and adores him for it.

Yeah, may be a bit far from that at DC. But look at the use of the word "rape" in cyber-culture and nerd culture already. And look how DC shifts the bar in terms of shock value.

How long before a young creative team, hungry for ANY kind of publicity, does a pro-rape super-hero book about a flying guy who rapes bad people publicly and is adored for it?

If violence is metaphor and rape is just another kind of violence, then you can take that suspension that allows us to accept heroes beating people into comas and just twist it a bit so we have super-heroes who rape people. And not even in "The Boys" sense, I think.

But the equivalent of Gordon calling up Batman and saying, "The Joker's on the loose. He's in the arts district. I hope that you can find him and rape him so hard he can't walk for a week, Batman. You're our only hope."

[BClayMoore]

How long before a young creative team, hungry for ANY kind of publicity, does a pro-rape super-hero book about a flying guy who rapes bad people publicly and is adored for it?

Mark Millar hasn't done that yet?

-Clay

[stealthwise]

Mark Millar hasn't done that yet?

-Clay

I thought that was the premise of Nemesis...

[Patrick Gerard]

Mark Millar hasn't done that yet?

-Clay

You know, I'd post more at Millarworld but I get this bad feedback effect off Mark Millar. Like I agree with him and totally grok his work at its best, at its most highminded and high-concept and when it's interesting on multiple levels.

But also whenever he makes a social faux pas, it hits a little too close to home. And whenever I rattle off an example of a bad idea, I find that I get this perverse little thrill out of it and I'm terrified he'll overhear me and run with it.

Kinda like when I suggested Hard Travelling Heroes would have been more interesting if Hal Jordan had pulled a Buzz Aldrin and straight up clocked the guy who said, "Only there's skins you never bothered with...the black skins! I want to know...how come?! Answer me that, Mr. Green Lantern!" And been like, "Those Orange Skins and Purple Skins died saving your planet, you ungrateful old bigot." And then Hal would have to deal with a media shitstorm because he assaulted an elderly black man.

Millar thought that was BRILLIANT. He was really taken with the idea... and I admit, I kinda like the idea of trolling the audience with moments like that.

But I just know I'm going to blurt something out like, "Wouldn't it be cool if Hank Pym built a robot replica of Jan and married her but gave her dominatrix subroutine where she'd routinely beat the crap out of him, out of a sense of self-loathing for what he'd done to Jan?" And Millar would run with it.

I've already got Superboy-Prime on my conscience. No telling what I'd provoke Millar into. :-)

[Slewo.O]

You know, I'd post more at Millarworld but I get this bad feedback effect off Mark Millar. Like I agree with him and totally grok his work at its best, at its most highminded and high-concept and when it's interesting on multiple levels.

But also whenever he makes a social faux pas, it hits a little too close to home. And whenever I rattle off an example of a bad idea, I find that I get this perverse little thrill out of it and I'm terrified he'll overhear me and run with it.

Kinda like when I suggested Hard Travelling Heroes would have been more interesting if Hal Jordan had pulled a Buzz Aldrin and straight up clocked the guy who said, "Only there's skins you never bothered with...the black skins! I want to know...how come?! Answer me that, Mr. Green Lantern!" And been like, "Those Orange Skins and Purple Skins died saving your planet, you ungrateful old bigot." And then Hal would have to deal with a media shitstorm because he assaulted an elderly black man.

Millar thought that was BRILLIANT. He was really taken with the idea... and I admit, I kinda like the idea of trolling the audience with moments like that.

But I just know I'm going to blurt something out like, "Wouldn't it be cool if Hank Pym built a robot replica of Jan and married her but gave her dominatrix subroutine where she'd routinely beat the crap out of him, out of a sense of self-loathing for what he'd done to Jan?" And Millar would run with it.

I've already got Superboy-Prime on my conscience. No telling what I'd provoke Millar into. :-)

Superboy-prime?

[Patrick Gerard]

Superboy-prime?

I kinda spent 1999 through 2005 campaigning to bring back Kal-L, Lois Lane of Earth-2, Alexander Luthor and Superboy-Prime. There's an archived version online of my Earth-2 Superman fan page where I interviewed a bunch of creators back in 1999.

The angle I kept pushing was to have Alex and Superboy-Prime as the bad guys, partly under the rationale that a "real world Superman" might not be as nice as he seemed and might be a bit of a fanboy. And they'd poison Kal-L on the DCU and he'd only see the light at the last minute.

I lobbied for variations on that for years as a fan, in correspondence with professional friends, etc. I was quite public about it just before Identity Crisis came out as what I'd want the next Crisis to be.

I've always suspected I played a role in that since I mentioned it in passing to Johns and Berganza and talked about it in-depth with Loeb, who supposedly suggested the inclusion of the characters to Johns.

Now... The fact that I used to draw Superboy-Prime wearing Anti-Monitor armor as part of my dream pitch as a kid, that's a freaky coincidence because I never shared that as near as I can recall.

But I spent years lobbying for him as a villain and did it within earshot (and sometimes direct correspondence) of enough pros that even if it wasn't an intentional lift, I think I probably influenced that decision.