boyajian@akov68.DEC (Jerry Boyajian) (10/09/84)
> From: fluke!moriarty (Jeff Meyer) > Regardless of how it is being handled, what is JEMM about/like? I, too, > assumed from the ads that this is more of a kid's story. I have yet (I > believe) to see any reviews of the comic itself around here. What say, > folks? Jeff!! You wound me to the quick! **sniff**sniff** You'll make me think that you don't read my reviews. I reviewed the first issue of JEMM (I wasn't all that impressed, but thought I'd stick with it for a few more issues) and #4 (still wasn't impressed, decided to stop here). Though the language of the ads seem to point this comic in the direction of a chidren's market, the Colan/Janson art gives the book a dark, gloomy, and oppressive look, and I can't see younger kids becoming that interested in it. > What about artistic integrity and originality?! What about tradition? > (villains have been doing for near fifty years (longer if you count all of > Doc Savage's foes in the pulps)) Not much longer (maybe one and a half years). The first issue of DOC SAVAGE was March 1933. Now, if you want to talk about Fu Manchu and Sir Denis... > From: hp-dcde!jack (Jack Applin) > Why was that Thing story in FF #274 anyway? It would have ok if the Thing had > somehow communicated or interacted with the rest of the FF, but no, it was > simply part of the story going on in The Thing. > > IF I WAS INTERESTED IN THAT STORY I WOULD HAVE BEEN BUYING THE THING!! > > This was no "crossover", no "team-up", it was a cheap attempt to get > more people to buy The Thing. Which stinks. Though it was nice > to see old Ben with some whiskers. Gee, somehow, I can't imagine someone buying the FF, but not THE THING. Well, no, I can imagine it, but it still seems strange. Anyways, while I hate to risk sounding like a Marvel apologist, I don't think that this was the "cheap attempt to get more people to buy THE THING" that you do. Consider this: John Byrne had been writing THE THING, and was planning to end the "Rocky Grimm -- Space Ranger" storyline after 12 issues, returning Ben to Earth the same month as the SECRET WARS series finishes up. Most likely, he had the whole 12 issues plotted out from the beginning. After a few issues, Mike Carlin took over the scripting, and since those issues didn't carry a "plot by John Byrne" credit, I've assumed that he declined to follow what JB intended for those issues. Now, JB comes back to the script chores and finds that he has n issues to do n+1 issues of what he had left for plot, so he cheats by using an issue of the FF to squeeze a two issue story in without using two issues of THE THING, so that he meets his planned schedule. I'm not maintaining that this *is* the explanation, but I don't think it's an unreas- onable possiblility. Besides, I rather liked it; it was nice seeing Byrne drawing The Thing once more. > From: smu!mcdonald > I recently picked up an issue of Detective out of nostalgia, not having > read any DC for several years now. Quite frankly, I was astonished. > I remembered DC as being mostly designed for the very young. > The latest Detective has > pages and pages of crawling man trailing blood > weird and convoluted sexuality > (not graphic, but bizarrely motivated) > half-page panel of a head being blown off at close range > This carries the CCA stamp. X-Men and New Mutants don't. > > Wasn't the CCA originally instituted to censor excessive gore? (1) [semi-facetious] Maybe the CCA didn't find this to be "excessive gore". (2) The CCA *cannot* censor anything --- they can only make recommendations. DC, Marvel, or whoever does not have to go along with the CCA, though doing so may be in their best interests. There are grave doubts these days that anyone (ie. parents) even notices the CCA symbol, so its not clear that it's even necessary anymore. There have (and are) times when the CCA has not approved a story, and the publisher went ahead and released the comic without the CCA seal. A recent example is DC's SWAMP THING. More notorious past examples are the "Drug Issues" of SPIDER-MAN and DAREDEVIL. (3) DC isn't just for kids anymore. It's true that they once had a somewhat Disney-esque image of being primarily for pre-teens and early-teens, but in the past 6-10 years, they've been slowly "upgrading" their image to better compete with Marvel for the college-and-above market. They've succeeded, too, in my humble opinion. (4) It's *not true* that THE X-MEN and THE NEW MUTANTS are not submitted to the CCA. Marvel simply declines to print the CCA seal on the copies of their comics that are sent to comic specialty shops, because (a) the cover design that they use for their comic-shop copies to differentiate them from the newstand copies doesn't allow room for the seal, and (b) they don't feel that it's particularly necessary to put the seal on those copies. If you go to a local newstand or convenience store and take a look at the Marvels there, you will notice that they *do* carry the Code seal. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Maynard, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA