Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1
    Mild-Mannered Reporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    28,908

    Default In Your Face Jam - Apr 10, 2013

    Brett White tackles the latest in a long line of controversies, this time surrounding Apple's decision to ban an issue of "Saga."


    Full article here.

  2. #2
    Jer rocks! thecrimson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CBR News View Post
    Brett White tackles the latest in a long line of controversies, this time surrounding Apple's decision to ban an issue of "Saga."


    Full article here.
    I thought it turned out Apple had not banned it, but that Comixology had assumed they would not allow it? But it ended up being allowed.
    Thank god comic fans are such a tiny little percentage of the audience needed for a successful film because apparently we not only hate fucking everything, we're willing to even pre-hate things...

  3. #3
    CBR Staff Writer Kiel Phegley!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bouncin between Flint, MI and Chicago, IL
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thecrimson View Post
    I thought it turned out Apple had not banned it, but that Comixology had assumed they would not allow it? But it ended up being allowed.
    The column was written and loaded last night before the news had hit. We've added a note to correct the whys and wherefores of the removal, but Brett's overall point about how people respond to controversy is pretty much evergreen, so the column runs as is.

    Thanks for asking!

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    281

    Default

    Good column.

    When did being a comic book fan become exhausting? Is this something that other people think, or am I alone here? It hasn't always been this way, but it seems like every week there's a new controversy to get angry about.
    I think it's important to note how much the media itself plays into this. And by "media" I don't mean actual people who write articles; I mean the actual infrastructure itself. There are simply more outlets now, more coverage, and thus it's understandable that more and more people are going to take the opportunity to canvas for the next upsetting thing that we all have to get upset about.

    On the one hand, I don't think it's fair to take the stereotypical Old Man approach (there's an objectionable characterization right there, which all old men should get upset about!) and just say "People are too thin-skinned now" . . . there's SOME truth to that.

    Or: I don't think we're all necessarily thin-skinned, but the proliferation of media has the effect of jabbing at us so many times that our skin wears away on a weekly basis. People in the past simply weren't so bombarded with media messages. There were fewer chances to come across something offensive, and also fewer chances for something offensive to catch on with multiple media sources.

    I think it's important to note that we're ALL "The Other" now. Maybe we always were, but as we've broken down into increasing numbers of subcultures -- not just by sexuality but also by lifestyle (goth, hipster, etc) and by subdivisions of each ("I love Conan the most!" "No, FALLON!" "No, Jon Stewart!" "NO!") -- we become more and more extreme in our identifications. The targeted media proliferation MAKES goths feel MORE "goth" than Sandman and Death fans felt in 1994. Because of this, everyone is made more and more and more sensitive to a hundred different little aspects of themselves. And we're trapped in a network in which if ONE voice runs afoul of SOMEONE's feelings somewhere... we all get to hear about it.

    I really think the only solution is just to unplug from media to whatever extent we can. I'm not saying "Don't stand up for people who are slandered". I'm not saying "Don't care about what people say". But just unplug, some. The only alternative is just to go with the flow and become exhausted on an ever more frequent basis.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Now, as a big Orson Scott Card fan, I have a good point for Comixology. They simply should have said, as have owner of a few venues that pushed their censorship stance on DC said, they do not carry pornography. The author clearly have not seen the images, or understood what is in them. He should be looking better. Shamefull what passes for comics these days. Shamefull also how the homosexuals use comics, or art in general, to put pressure on organizations and companies, and to effect also customers, by bombarding them now with their pornography. This whole thing was a premeditated provocation and they just vaited to bait someone with it. And I guarantee you if it were an instance of straight sex, and were available for purchase, they would clamour why it wasnt banned, and how is it sold, minors could see it, all the stupidities they tried in Europe few years ago.

  6. #6
    Doesn't Want To See That! coconutphone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    15,941

    Default

    Fantastic article and worth discussing even if the orignal issue has changed.
    Schmitty's Evil Twin.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Opus View Post
    Now, as a big Orson Scott Card fan, I have a good point for Comixology. They simply should have said, as have owner of a few venues that pushed their censorship stance on DC said, they do not carry pornography. The author clearly have not seen the images, or understood what is in them. He should be looking better. Shamefull what passes for comics these days. Shamefull also how the homosexuals use comics, or art in general, to put pressure on organizations and companies, and to effect also customers, by bombarding them now with their pornography. This whole thing was a premeditated provocation and they just vaited to bait someone with it. And I guarantee you if it were an instance of straight sex, and were available for purchase, they would clamour why it wasnt banned, and how is it sold, minors could see it, all the stupidities they tried in Europe few years ago.
    I'm a regular buyer and reader of "Saga" and when I went into my LCS to pick up the current issue, I thumbed through the book and didn't see the problem. Another customer in the store had to point it out and I thought, "This is what all the whole hubbub was about?" It was hardly an instance of "pornography," Opus. And I'll reiterate: Vaughan and Staples had a recent issue where a giant wang (that would make Dr Manhattan envious) was on full display for page after page and no one seemed to have a problem with it.

    This kerfluffle actually reminds me of the controversy over "Miracleman" #9. For those who don't recall the problem, there were a number of panels that actually depicted childbirth. Not just showing the woman's face, grimacing during delivery--as we so often see on TV shows--but rather the actual delivery, with the baby coming out of the woman's vagina, complete with the blood and excretions that accompany delivery. Artist Rick Veitch used actual medical journal illustrations for reference material but "certain groups" were outraged at the very idea that a "funny book" would show such "pornography."

    Pornography is in the eye of the beholder. When certain artists trace Playboy models and then give them "costumes," the fanboys don't seem to have a problem with it. When Alex Ross gives a tight-fitting costume-wearing male superhero a certain "below the equator" bulge, the fanboys freak out.

  8. #8
    The Magnificent Bastard sberg1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Opus View Post
    Now, as a big Orson Scott Card fan, I have a good point for Comixology. They simply should have said, as have owner of a few venues that pushed their censorship stance on DC said, they do not carry pornography. The author clearly have not seen the images, or understood what is in them. He should be looking better. Shamefull what passes for comics these days. Shamefull also how the homosexuals use comics, or art in general, to put pressure on organizations and companies, and to effect also customers, by bombarding them now with their pornography. This whole thing was a premeditated provocation and they just vaited to bait someone with it. And I guarantee you if it were an instance of straight sex, and were available for purchase, they would clamour why it wasnt banned, and how is it sold, minors could see it, all the stupidities they tried in Europe few years ago.
    Is this a legitimate response or are you trolling because the latter can be seen as fun satire, the former just makes you an ignorant bigot.
    Top DC: Wonder Woman
    Top Marvel: X-Men, Hawkeye, All New X-Factor, Ms. Marvel


    RIP I, Vampire

    Twitter!

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sberg1 View Post
    Is this a legitimate response or are you trolling because the latter can be seen as fun satire, the former just makes you an ignorant bigot.
    Yes, homophobe, racist and technophobe, so please use the term bigot as you see fit, but it tells more of you. Ignorant, no. As I am entitled to have own opinion, I call things as I see them, upon a deliberation. And, though I may not know to define pornography, I sure recognise one when I see it. Thats a sort of quote there, and true. Just calling out the homosexual community on its double standards and hypocrisy.

  10. #10
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Opus View Post
    Yes, homophobe, racist and technophobe, so please use the term bigot as you see fit, but it tells more of you. Ignorant, no. As I am entitled to have own opinion, I call things as I see them, upon a deliberation. And, though I may not know to define pornography, I sure recognise one when I see it. Thats a sort of quote there, and true. Just calling out the homosexual community on its double standards and hypocrisy.
    So, pointing out the various ways that heterosexual sex is marketed and sold to the public (willingly and eagerly!) while lamenting how homosexual sex is treated as a bad thing and/or marginalized makes the homosexual community hypocrites somehow?

    Really?

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Thank God Apple didn't ban it. After Apple's idiotic reasoning regarding the censorship of video games, I am honestly surprised.

  12. #12

    Default

    DON'T FEED THE TROLL PEOPLE!

    Let's just talk about the article. I thought it made some very important points about the acceptance of violence versus censorship of sex. That is a topic that has quite a lot of merit (Hot Coffee anyone?). For an industrialized country with one of the highest rates of violence (some studies show us to be THE highest) coupled with some of the broadest acceptance of that subject matter, it's a lesson we might do well to ponder.
    PULL: Chew, Walking Dead, Saga, Batman, Lil' Gotham, Bedlam, Hellboy in Hell, Jupiter's Legacy, East of West, The Wake, Sex, Trillium, Miracleman, Sandman Overture, Rocket Girl, Sex Criminals

  13. #13
    Veteran Member Leocomix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,606

    Default

    So is Brett really tired or actually happy that he can bring up these controversies every time?

  14. #14
    doctoraquaman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    61

    Default

    I notice that many of these controversies tend to be caused not by people, but corporations. Corporations tend to think, 'Oh, well SOMEONE may complain so we better be careful...' From how this all turned out, it ended up being Apple that ended up with egg on its face, because they made a big deal about something that the rest of us went 'eh' about. The funny thing is it's often caused by corporations trying desperately to be politically correct, and often comes off the opposite way.
    It seems to me that most people have evolved farther than corporate thinking. I got this feeling a while back, when I saw 'Hairspray' the musical at the movies. When I was a child, my parents took me to see the original John Waters directed 'Hairspray' (and, yes, I get that this gives away what an old man I am), and I could not forget the responses that happened in the background. First, when a black man kissed a pretty blonde girl, there were definitely teenage girls yelling 'Ew'. When an overweight woman constantly made out with a good looking hunky guy, similar sounds of disgust emitted from the theater. Then, many years later, I go to see 'Hairspray' the musical. When the main black man appeared on the screen, it struck me that they got an actor who looked very similar to the original actor in John Water's movie, and, in the background, I heard teenage girls whispering, 'Oh, he's cute.' As the movie progressed, the blonde girl kissing the black man caused no response from the audience. At the same time, the overweight girl getting together with the hunky guy kept being delayed but the inevitable was obvious. At the very end of the movie, the girl and guy look into each other's eyes and I could hear teenage girls in the background yelling, "Kiss him!" When it happened, there was definitely cheering. I get, all of this has very little to do with homosexual relationships, but, for me, it showed a shift in actual human beings' reactions to reality, something corporations really need to catch up with.
    Also, I do agree with Brett White's opinion that there is a weird attitude of what is controversial and what is not. I recall seeing 'Dead Girl' on the Chiller channel recently. To just give you a hint of why this is a big deal, the movie's very idea is pretty disturbing and gross. Yet, much of the movie was left uncensored with only two things edited out: Some swearing and, whenever the Dead Girl was shown (she was naked through the entire movie), her breasts were fuzzied out. its like the corporate thinking was, 'The gross idea was fine, the violence is fine, but better edit out that swearing and fuzzy up the breasts.' It makes you wonder what it will take to get these corporations out of the dark ages.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thecrimson View Post
    I thought it turned out Apple had not banned it, but that Comixology had assumed they would not allow it? But it ended up being allowed.
    And you believe that? Please tell me you're not so naive. Apple banned it, the public freaked out, and then Apple back peddled.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •