Must Read!! Modern superheroes called a bad influence on kids.

[samurainoir]

Does DC?

Yes.









These titles were published for the better part of a decade. Who cares if they are tied into an animated series and not the "regular" DC universe? Why does that matter as long as the kids dig 'em?

Why should kids care about continuity as long as they are given a good story?

[Werewolf]

I should clarify.

I don't mean 70s reprints. Those would be culturally dated for kids and I don't mean pre-school stuff like super hero babies (Which are great for pre-school kids!). I mean a separate DC universe just like the current one but with the violence and mature themes toned down.

I am not as familiar with Marvel and if they are already doing something like that on a monthly basis, great!

[samurainoir]

I should clarify.

I don't mean 70s reprints. Those would be culturally dated for kids and I don't mean pre-school stuff like super hero babies (Which are great for pre-school kids!). I mean a separate DC universe just like the current one but with the violence and mature themes toned down.

I am not as familiar with Marvel and if they are already doing something like that on a monthly basis, great!

DC published the "Adventures" animated titles within their own continuity for the better part of a dozen or more years and much of it is still readily available in collected editions, back issues and online.

It's a separate DC universe with the violence and mature themes toned down. What more do you want?

If you need any more info on kids titles I direct you to this website...
Let me google that for you

[Werewolf]

DC published the "Adventures" animated titles within their own continuity for the better part of a dozen or more years and much of it is still readily available in collected editions, back issues and online.

Those are great TV series tie ins. But that's not exactly what I meant.

[samurainoir]

Those are great TV series tie ins. But that's not exactly what I meant.

What do you mean then? Why does the fact that they are TV tie ins matter to you?

Superheroes. Check.
Own continuty. Check.
Toned down violence. Check.
Not Babies. Check.
Not Culturally dated. Check.

Just how Special are these hypothetical kids of yours?

[Sandman9580]

I think the problem is that what was once firmly kiddie fare is now adult fare, and society-at-large still finds it a bit confusing. I remember reading something -- maybe it was a eulogy? -- in which someone was describing how George Reeves had lamented the fact that for all his TV fame, he didn't have one single adult fan. And the author added something like, "not knowing that one day, he'd have many." And I thought snarkily to myself, well, yeah, but that's only because his original kiddie fans grew up!

I think the movie, comics, and toy industries are still trying to square that circle. I suspect that Hasbro, for years, wasn't really sure who to make Star Wars figures for; it seemed like they were always trying to split the difference between kids and adult collectors. "They have to appeal to both demographics -- be collectible and withstand heavy play."

When the claim is made that superheroes are a bad influence on kids, I think you can make the counter claim that popular culture in general is a bad influence on kids. Had superheroes remained stuck in the benign "Superfriends" mold, they'd be much less relevant today -- except to nostalgic adults who remember them fondly. (Think Howdy Doody and Hopalong Cassidy.)

[Werewolf]

Just how Special are these hypothetical kids of yours?

You know, Fine, I am completely wrong and you are totally right. I apologize for bringing it up. I will stay out of comic threads from now on.

[samurainoir]

[Random Axe]

When a twelve year old can watch and understand the lyrics to the Boats and Hoes music video, I think the influence of Wolverine and Punisher are a bit overstated.

Scott

[BlackKnight]

Joker Murdered Jason Todd When I was like 11 yrs Old Reading Comics in 1986 . Roughly 24 Yrs ago. ... Nothing New Here, Move along.

In the Cartoon ... It was written more so Fantasy , with the now introduction of Ras Al Ghul into the Fold, and Jason was brought back to life. But as an Actual Kid reading it ... He was Dead and Gone until a few yrs back, with the Whole Hush stuff, then after that when He truely "Came Back". And in the Book, Not Only Did Joker Murder Jason Todd ..., He Killed His Mother too, and In fact used Her as Bait to Lure Todd to his Death.


I've read comics for about 26to27 yrs...

I've dabbled into some 70's stuff too ... , I think comics are as violent Now, as they were in the 70's..., the only thing that's changed, is the Graphic Nature of the Images, Because well, Comics are drawn with much more detail today, and coloring than the Books of Yester Year.

As Violent as comics are today ... and as Graphic ( see Marvel Comics here,... Sentry ripping apart Ares) I think they are ShowTime Porn Compaired to that Crap on Video Games .... , Which can be so damn Disturbing when you got kids sometimes.

If the Red Hood Cartoon never came out, them 2 kids Woulda never even known that Joker Killed Todd with a Crow Bar, unless they got parents that read comics and have something like that. ... And like I wrote, that story is over 24 yrs old. Instead they would be Talking About Chopping some Dudes head off in a game .

[samurainoir]

You know, Fine, I am completely wrong and you are totally right. I apologize for bringing it up. I will stay out of comic threads from now on.

What exactly are you "wrong" about? You keep narrowing down the parameters and I'm simply supplying you with titles that fit your criteria, but at a certain point we lose the forrest for the trees if all this was about you being "right" rather than Hey! Comics For Kids! Awesome!

I'm suggesting titles that are appropriate for kids here, and given the variety I've tried to present, surely there must be SOMETHING for any given kid. I'm just really not sure why we are so fixated on Superheroes and continuity. I like 'em as much as the next guy, but I always liked a variety of comics as well when I was a young'un.

Give me some Uncle Scrooge and a Mad Magazine, maybe a classics illustrated every now and then. Sprinkle in some Creepy and Star Wars along with my Spiderman. Tintin was cool as well.

[samurainoir]

[ctc]

Snore!

Been there, done that. This argument comes around every ten years or so, with the same loose research. But hey; it gives support for (and gets support FROM) the geezers who lament the good ol’ days.

>I think comics are as violent Now, as they were in the 70's..., the only thing that's changed, is the Graphic Nature of the Images, Because well, Comics are drawn with much more detail today

That’s part of it; but I still maintain it’s cyclical. Marvel and DC in the EARLY 70's were skirting the edge of “for grownups.” Especially Marvel, which is why they put out magazine versions of some of their stuff. It was to distance them from the comics, to denote them as not the usual fare. By the late 70's it was pretty kiddied again, until the mid 80's....

>I think the problem is that what was once firmly kiddie fare is now adult fare, and society-at-large still finds it a bit confusing.

I think THAT’S cyclical too. We’re seeing a move towards “comics is just fer kids” these days; but it wasn’t too long ago the cry was “comics ISN’T just fer kids!” The REAL problem is that N. Americans (ESPECIALLY the fans) see “comics” as a genre, and not a medium. And what a person thinks that genre is comes from personal experience. Folks here feel for the most part comics = 70's/80's superhero. There are groups who feel superheroes are a blight, and REAL comics are more artsy, or deeper, or “slice of life,” or from Japan, or Archie. Everybody wants ONE definition, and that’s not possible. Not for a medium. SOMEONE’S always gonna have a new idea.

So there’s always a back and forth, with folks lamenting the time when their preferred genre isn’t on top. And everyone feeling that how it is now is how it always has to be.

....and for the older fan I still think it’s not the books that changed so much as you. Stuff that would have blown your 14 year old mind doesn’t have any effect nowadays ‘cos you’ve seen it. Many, many times.

>Those would be culturally dated for kids

I don’t think they would. Most kids aren’t gonna worry about it that much. (In the immortal words of Bart Simpson: “I juts like when he punches things.”) I never noticed most of the Archie comics I was reading as a kid were 30 year old reprints.

....besides, most of them 70's references are relevant again.

Don C.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

....but please; NO "Spiderman J."

*shudder*

Don C.

[The Toyroom]

Joker Murdered Jason Todd When I was like 11 yrs Old Reading Comics in 1986 . Roughly 24 Yrs ago. ... Nothing New Here, Move along.

That's part of the problem...a lot of people with opinions on this topic have not followed comics as long as you have (or I have and I've been reading 'em for about 38 years or so) who don't realize that stuff like this has always been there (the Joker and his murderous actions for example). It's all just the way it's presented today.

The "anti-hero" archetype (Wolverine, Punisher, Lobo, etc.) has been around for over 30-35 years, so that ain't new either. Heck, one of the first X-Men comics I read around the age of 10 or 11 had Wolverine sneaking up and killing a guard in the Savage Land, unprovoked I might add. And a few issues later he decimated a whole squadron of Hellfire Club guards.

And we must remember that comics have long been blamed for being a bad influence on children...least we forget Frederic Wertham, EC Comics and the whole Comics Code Authority shebang.