Why have Marvel/DC pretty much excluded kids from reading comics?

[tylenoljones]

My memory is gone, and I don't have my own kids, but I seem to remember that if there was a choice between a "kids" product and the actual product I wanted the real thing. The concept of a "kids" line is offensive to kids, and the stories are offensive to brains. I know people that didn't buy Teen Titans in the 80's because they were teens and would not buy any product that said Teen on it.

Yeah, I was this way too. I remember when we weren't allowed to buy tickets to R rated movies in high school, we'd buy tickets to a disney movie, watch the previews, then sneak out to the lobby, buy some popcorn and walk right into the R movie instead. Very young kids are different, but the people saying that kids don't want the watered down version are right; kids want the real Batman comic, not the "kiddie" one.

[Jim Thompson]

Watch as most English teachers pick up their book and slap you upside the head with it. Many don't see comics the same way we do, unless they grew up reading it. And even then, they'll be hard pressed to get it past the principal, the superintendent and the board of education. That's why comics are only used at the college level, where there is more freedom.

My teachers used Illustrated Classics way back in the day as supplements when we were studying classic literature.

Comics are a pretty versatile format.

[Mat001]

The point is that even comics outside the "Dark" and "Edge" lines are not appropriate for kids. The main Batman books are pretty violent. The first issues of Batgirl and Firestorm were graphicly violent, as was GLC. Wonder Woman is tending to alternate between too sexy and too violent. These are titles featuring DC's big guns. These are the characters kids know and should want to read.

It's not all about comics not being available to kids if people like me, who've been reading comics for over 25 years is saying they can't share their favorite comic characters because of age inappropriate material.

That is entirely up to you to decide, not the companies. That's why the CCA was in effect and why now we have ratings which replaced them. There is plenty of back issue material out there for you to peruse if you so wish, that isn't as violent.

I'm not sure if anyone has addressed this, but there's a difference between "what a kid wants to read" and "what a parent wants a kid to read". I can't think of anything that would appeal to a 12-year-old more than the Joker getting his face ripped off.

But that's not what responsible adults want to give to kids. So how do "normal" book sellers do it? Don't they publish "kids" books, which do OK, and then the kids secretly get ahold of the stuff they really want?

So the goal would be to enable kids to get DC comics without their parents knowing about it.

What? Is that wrong?

No, because it's what history has taught us. Look at how many teenage boys got to see their first naked woman via Playboy, thirty to forty years ago. Today, they can find it online if they wish. Boys back in the day had to sneak their comics past their parents, during the whole Wertham witch hunt of the 50's. In terms of print publication, there are books that are for kids. That is true. But, depending on their reading level, some will wind up reading books aimed at older readers which a parent might not deem suitable. Some boys would go to their friends homes, whose parents don't care what they watch or video games they can own and thus see that which their own parents wouldn't approve of. That's just society.

The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, it is up to the parent to decide. The companies shouldn't be condemned for what they make.

My teachers used Illustrated Classics way back in the day as supplements when we were studying classic literature.

Comics are a pretty versatile format.

You were lucky. Mine weren't so liberal. About as liberal as they got was showing certain film adaptation as a bonus to the original print. Hence I've seen the Marlon Brando version of "Julius Caesar" in my sophomore year. Had the teacher that I had in my freshman year not retired due to health reasons, we would've watched the 1992 version of "Dracula" which he had shown when they were going over that book. His replacement showed the 1969 version of "Romeo And Juliet" to the freshman class that came after our class, when I was a senior. But comics, hell no. About the only comic related material that was tolerated was print novels like "The Death And Life Of Superman" for a book report.

[Ontir]

Kids aren't into comics, that much, anymore. The average reader age has been around 36 for years.
As a kid I LOATHED things that were "age appropriate!"
I plotted to watch MAUDE. I loved ALL IN THE FAMILY, anything Norman Lear was a part of, because it was smart and it told me about things I'd never heard of.
If I were a little kid I'd probably love Animal Man. It's this really weird guy, with this really weird power and his weirder daughter seems to have that same power. I'd have been all over it!

[JimRaynor55]

The comic industry is killing itself. The Big Two of Marvel and DC basically define "mainstream" comics, but most of the books that they're putting out are anything but mainstream. Sadly it's been that way for decades now, which means that entire generations grew up without ever picking up a comic-reading habit.

Kids like these characters. The cartoons have always been popular, and big screen superhero movies are bigger than they've ever been. But comic books themselves are failing because they're written with the thirty year-old fanboy in mind. The current crop of writers out there are a bunch of old fanboys, and what's more, they write fanboy stories without any discipline. Stuff steeped in continuity, without regard for how awkward or convoluted it might be. Big crossovers which ask fanboys to buy thirty issues across five different titles, a proposition that just turns off any casual customer looking for a quick, self-contained read. Decompressed, written-for-trade stories that force someone to buy a dozen issues or more even if they're just sticking to a single title. Gruesome "mature" comics, that would surely be rated R if they were ever put on screen.

Appealing exclusively to the fanboy is a business strategy so stupid that you won't see it in any other industry. Now Marvel and DC shouldn't turn their backs on the fans. But the important thing is to appeal to the fans, on top of appealing to everyone else. The movies get that, which is why they're successful. The cartoons tell fun, self-contained episodic stories that are safe for kids to watch, and which won't bore them. Some of them have been pretty good for adult viewers as well. Now would anyone say that Batman: The Animated Series or Justice League Unlimited were "dumbed down" or "kiddified?" Those shows were faithful to the characters, action-packed, and filled with quality writing. And they didn't have a FRACTION of the gore and sex that you can see in many so-called "mainstream" comic books these days. Even the big screen movies, which are geared more toward adult audiences, are mostly rated PG-13. Hell, The Dark Knight was rated PG-13. If that movie could tell a dark, mature story without any graphic onscreen mutilations, then what excuse do comic books have for including such content?

I've always been a fan of superheroes. I grew up watching the X-Men, Spider-Man and Batman cartoons. But it's only now, in my late twenties, that I'm getting into the comic books by buying digital copies from Comixology. And I have to say, it's kind of tough. I started with well known and highly recommended stories that are either self-contained, or which portray characters in their most basic forms. Stuff like Watchmen, All-Star Superman, Batman: Year One, The Long Halloween, The Dark Knight Returns, and George Perez's Wonder Woman reboot, before branching out from there. I've liked most of what I've bought, since I restrict most of my purchases to critically acclaimed stories. Even then, most of these are very violent and not the sort of thing that I would ever show to a young child. I've looked into buying regular issues from various characters' ongoing titles, but a lot of the issues are a turn off because they either tie in to a huge crossover "event," or are completely dependent on reading numerous other issues from the same series. I'm an adult fan with money to spend and a deep interest in these characters. Imagine how much more inaccessible these comics are to everyone else.

[AdamYJ]

Yeah, I was this way too. I remember when we weren't allowed to buy tickets to R rated movies in high school, we'd buy tickets to a disney movie, watch the previews, then sneak out to the lobby, buy some popcorn and walk right into the R movie instead. Very young kids are different, but the people saying that kids don't want the watered down version are right; kids want the real Batman comic, not the "kiddie" one.

You were bolder than me. I was a chicken of a kid and would never watch an R rated movie.

[Mr. Holmes]

I think it's the distribution. Nobody goes out of their way to go to a comic book store anymore; you pretty much have to be an existing fan.

Prices is the other thing. Since I earn my own money, I can buy whatever comics I want, but I can't imagine parents spending $20+ on what they would consider to be kind of juvenile entertainment.

[tylenoljones]

@JimRaynor

I agree with most of what you said. Most of my comments relating to gore and violence in comics were mostly addressing the fact that these elements have been present in the medium for a long time. If anything's changed, it's the art style. For Batman in particular, a lessening of the more flamboyant, colorful aspects of the character have probably added to this perception that comics are more violent now than they used to be. Picture the Joker in the 40's and 50's, running around killing and maiming, versus the Joker of Batman RIP, who does all these things except that now he actually looks disturbing. Or the Joker in Detective Comics, getting his face cut off.

On second thought, maybe some of it is getting a little out of hand.

Otherwise, i'm in total agreement with pretty much everything you've said. In my opinion following these same characters in other mediums (movies, television, video games) is a much more rewarding experience.

[tylenoljones]

You were bolder than me. I was a chicken of a kid and would never watch an R rated movie.

We were a group of kids, so we relied on each other to psych ourselves up. But the fear of getting kicked out of the theatre, or our parents finding out, was worse than anything we might actually see. Honestly, i've seen PG-13 movies that were more disturbing than a lot of R rated stuff. Sometimes the implied horror is worse than anything people actually show.

[gwangung]

I think it's the distribution. Nobody goes out of their way to go to a comic book store anymore; you pretty much have to be an existing fan.

Prices is the other thing. Since I earn my own money, I can buy whatever comics I want, but I can't imagine parents spending $20+ on what they would consider to be kind of juvenile entertainment.

It's NEVER about the content. It's about form (stories done in one gulp, which is what kids want) and distribution (can't attract kids if they can't go after them on their own).

[JimRaynor55]

Writers seriously need to strike a better balance between standalone stories and story arcs. How many people want to pay $4.00 for a single issue of a comic, which is part three of six and relies heavily on references to things that happened a dozen issues ago? A single story can take up a half year or more. And it's not just the time from beginning to end, but the time in between. How much value will the customer see in a twenty-page issue from a decompressed story arc, with the necessary next issue a whole month away? Comics like this aren't bought on a whim. The customer has to make a multi-month or year-long commitment, with lengthy waiting periods, in order to get the full story.

Comics from the Golden Age were far more juvenile. But they were also self-contained, offering far more bang for their buck. It wasn't unusual for a 1940s comic book to be sixty-four pages in length, with four different stories within. That means that they could preoccupy a kid for far longer. Now the comics industry shouldn't, and probably can't, do things like it did back then. But comics were also far more popular back then, so maybe people should pay attention to some of the things that were done back in the day.

For a more modern example, look at the way that TV shows are structured. There are story arcs, but they're often developed gradually, sometimes as B or C-plots. Episodes are usually driven by a standalone A-plot, if they aren't completely standalone. Maybe one-fourth of the episodes in each season will be heavily devoted to advancing the ongoing story arc. The viewer gets some new entertainment every week. "Previously on" segments recap events so that people aren't lost. New viewers don't have a hard time jumping onboard.

[SteveGus]

Watch as most English teachers pick up their book and slap you upside the head with it. Many don't see comics the same way we do, unless they grew up reading it. And even then, they'll be hard pressed to get it past the principal, the superintendent and the board of education. That's why comics are only used at the college level, where there is more freedom.

Force 'em to read Watchmen; it's supposed to be some kind of classic. That way they'll grow up hating it the same way I was made to hate A Tale of Two Cities and The Grapes of Wrath.

[davidn15]

Writers seriously need to strike a better balance between standalone stories and story arcs. How many people want to pay $4.00 for a single issue of a comic, which is part three of six and relies heavily on references to things that happened a dozen issues ago? A single story can take up a half year or more. And it's not just the time from beginning to end, but the time in between. How much value will the customer see in a twenty-page issue from a decompressed story arc, with the necessary next issue a whole month away? Comics like this aren't bought on a whim. The customer has to make a multi-month or year-long commitment, with lengthy waiting periods, in order to get the full story.

When I hear people complain about "decompression" I just think they're terribly impatient. I was a manga reader before I read American comics. Still am. I pay $10 bucks for half an hour of reading. Don't get a complete story. And have to wait half a year or more for the next chunk. The pacing in American comics by comparison for me just flies by.

For a more modern example, look at the way that TV shows are structured. There are story arcs, but they're often developed gradually, sometimes as B or C-plots. Episodes are usually driven by a standalone A-plot, if they aren't completely standalone. Maybe one-fourth of the episodes in each season will be heavily devoted to advancing the ongoing story arc. The viewer gets some new entertainment every week. "Previously on" segments recap events so that people aren't lost. New viewers don't have a hard time jumping onboard.

I always like my tv on the heavily serialized side.

[Seattle Freeze]

I feel the comics toady are excessively violent and bloody. I understand some titles being adult oriented like the vampire stories or the shoot-em-up anti-heroes but I feel the classics like Superman, Batman, Justice League, etc should be appropriate for pre teens. The writers can tell a story that entertains adults while the artist illuustrates something that children could look at.

I want my kids to enjoy comics the way I did and still do but it will be a long time before I let them look at current Bat titles and I wonder how much worse they will be when my kids are teenagers. Comics need to attract new audiences and they are a force for molding the minds of pre-teens so the mainstream pubishers like Marvel and DC need to keep their flagship titles in a form all ages can enjoy.

[Seattle Freeze]

**double post** deleted