Chastity in Adaptations of Comic Strips or Comic Books-no, not a joke, I honestly wondered about the limits of the PG or PG-13 rating in '80s and '90s Horror and Sci-Fi Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Chastity in Adaptations of Comic Strips or Comic Books-no, not a joke, I honestly wondered about the limits of the PG or PG-13 rating

Author	Comment
Scathach80		#21	[-]
Apr 7 12 12:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	hermanthegerm wrote: Scathach80 wrote: I found in intriguing to note that the backlash against Adam West that Max Allan Collins detects spread into other media, other than comic books. I got news for you: Adam West was never in comics, he was in 'other' media. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Actually, he has a comic book coming from Blue Water; not sure if he will write it. http://www.bluewaterprod.com/comics/adam_west.php I meant that comic book writers had started a backlash against Adam West in how they wrote comic books, and now filmmakers such as Michael Uslan have joined this movement in their adaptations of these properties from comic books. Last Edited By: Scathach80 Apr 7 12 12:39 PM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad
Gojira		#22	[-]
Apr 7 12 12:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think its fair to say the 60s Batman series did leave Batman with a bad legacy for a while, as least as far as potential film adaptations were concerned, though by the time the Tim Burton film was made, this legacy was moot - only for Joel Schumacher to revive it. And there is the case of George Pal's Doc Savage having camp elements forced on it.
hermanthegerm		#23	[-]
Apr 7 12 1:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Scathach80 wrote: hermanthegerm wrote: Scathach80 wrote: I found in intriguing to note that the backlash against Adam West that Max Allan Collins detects spread into other media, other than comic books. I got news for you: Adam West was never in comics, he was in 'other' media. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Actually, he has a comic book coming from Blue Water; not sure if he will write it. http://www.bluewaterprod.com/comics/adam_west.php I meant that comic book writers had started a backlash against Adam West in how they wrote comic books, and now filmmakers such as Michael Uslan have joined this movement in their adaptations of these properties from comic books. I still don't know what the hell you mean, my comment still stands, Adam West was never in comics. He is an actor, and if you are feeling generous, an author (he has 'written' Back To The Batcave.) A 'possible' future comic does not exist, thus cannot have a backlash. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
hermanthegerm		#24	[-]
Apr 8 12 10:14 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Gojira wrote: I think its fair to say the 60s Batman series did leave Batman with a bad legacy for a while, as least as far as potential film adaptations were concerned... Don't know about that. It may be considered a matter of taste (thus discussion is moot), but the series is clearly well loved by many. The fact that the same series actors, writers and producers involved in the TV series themselves made a theatrical movie renders your comment quite ridiculous. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING Last Edited By: hermanthegerm Apr 9 12 12:22 PM. Edited 1 times.
Gojira		#25	[-]
Apr 8 12 11:42 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That's why I limited my comment to "potential film adaptations". It seemed that until Sam Hamm's script and the Frank Miller Dark Knight Returns, the studios were trying to get a comedy version set up, and they kept failing to reach a decision on who to cast or what to do.
Scathach80		#26	[-]
Apr 8 12 12:24 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	hermanthegerm wrote: But where does the MPAA play into any of this? If a comic-like movie like Rat Pfink a Boo-Boo is presented to the MPAA what do they care whether it's an adaptation of a comic or an original screenplay? They care about what's shown on the screen, and nothing else. Implying that there is a connection is misleading and false. Also, the Superman II story was originally conceived as a part of Superman (I), not as a sequel. We've all heard of the Salkinds' legal problems regarding the one/two movie controversy. So, why differentiate it as having a different origin? The MPAA sure as hell did not care, the studio heads did not & the audience did not as well. As I noted earlier: Regarding original properties such as Hancock, they do not represent supposedly beloved children's icons who have appeared on toys, lunchboxes, ice cream covers, peanut butter jar covers, greeting cards, etc. for decades, but have a more limited purpose and extent. I will also add that properties such as Star Wars (Luke Skywalker owes more to Flash Gordon than Joe Friday) and Robocop (who owes as much to Iron Man-who had yet to have a feature film at the time-and Judge Dredd as Harry Callahan) have comic book and comic strip roots/homages in them, so where does one draw the line?
Scathach80		#27	[-]
Apr 8 12 12:37 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	hermanthegerm wrote: Scathach80 wrote: hermanthegerm wrote: Scathach80 wrote: I found in intriguing to note that the backlash against Adam West that Max Allan Collins detects spread into other media, other than comic books. I got news for you: Adam West was never in comics, he was in 'other' media. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Actually, he has a comic book coming from Blue Water; not sure if he will write it. http://www.bluewaterprod.com/comics/adam_west.php I meant that comic book writers had started a backlash against Adam West in how they wrote comic books, and now filmmakers such as Michael Uslan have joined this movement in their adaptations of these properties from comic books. I still don't know what the hell you mean, my comment still stands, Adam West was never in comics. He is an actor, and if you are feeling generous, an author (he has 'written' Back To The Batcave.) A 'possible' future comic does not exist, thus cannot have a backlash. In Amazing Heroes#119 in 1987 (two years before the Michael Keaton film), Max Allan Collins had an interview. He said the following: “I’m afraid what I’m running smack up into is the old Batman TV show controversy: the old business about, Gee that was a TV show that made fun of Batman and made fun of comic books, so we have to show people that Batman and comic books are serious and they’re adult and accordingly all the fun goes out of it. There was a reason why that TV show was played for laughs and that is when you put actual human beings in those costumes and act out those stories, it looks stupid. They betray their juvenile roots. It can’t be done straight. I defy them to do the movie straight”.
gene phillips		#28	[-]
Apr 8 12 2:08 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	hermanthegerm wrote: Scathach80 wrote: Victor Frankenstein wrote: ...it seems he's wondering about comics that have been brought to film... Quite accurate... Scathach80 wrote: To prevent confusion, I will note that Collins had the recent Catwoman#1 in mind, not any live action Catwoman film. Then, HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY RELATE TO THE TOPIC AT HAND which is PG PG-13 ratings (something that does not relate to comics)? I agree with your earlier statement that comics characters are essentially myths and therefore can't be confined as being purely "children's entertainment." However, there's one way Collins' remarks are relevant, and that's as a general indicator to the way different people react against the "adultification" of all-ages material. I don't agree with anything Collins says, but there have been a lot of parallel reactions to adult treatments of, say, Batman in a film like BATMAN RETURNS. I still remember a joke from some episode from MURPHY BROWN in which one uptight newscaster complains about how the biggest movie out involves "a woman dressed like a cat tongue-licking a man dressed like a bat." NATURALISTIC! UNCANNY! MARVELOUS! Last Edited By: gene phillips Apr 8 12 2:13 PM. Edited 1 times.
gene phillips		#29	[-]
Apr 8 12 2:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Also, to address the original topic, an episode of SMALLVILLE strongly implies pre-marital sex between teen Clark Kent and a temporarily-super-powered Lana Lang. NATURALISTIC! UNCANNY! MARVELOUS!
Scathach80		#30	[-]
Apr 8 12 6:34 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	gene phillips wrote: hermanthegerm wrote: Scathach80 wrote: Victor Frankenstein wrote: ...it seems he's wondering about comics that have been brought to film... Quite accurate... Scathach80 wrote: To prevent confusion, I will note that Collins had the recent Catwoman#1 in mind, not any live action Catwoman film. Then, HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY RELATE TO THE TOPIC AT HAND which is PG PG-13 ratings (something that does not relate to comics)? I agree with your earlier statement that comics characters are essentially myths and therefore can't be confined as being purely "children's entertainment." However, there's one way Collins' remarks are relevant, and that's as a general indicator to the way different people react against the "adultification" of all-ages material. I don't agree with anything Collins says, but there have been a lot of parallel reactions to adult treatments of, say, Batman in a film like BATMAN RETURNS. I still remember a joke from some episode from MURPHY BROWN in which one uptight newscaster complains about how the biggest movie out involves "a woman dressed like a cat tongue-licking a man dressed like a bat." Have to check 1992 episodes of that show. Did that person refer also to the commando penguins and cat administered CPR in that film? Time notes in a 1988 article: http://www.time.com/time/...le/0,9171,148856,00.html There is in this a deplorable element that might be called adultification, in which a figure created for children is subjected to adult concerns, much as though Tom Sawyer or Alice in Wonderland were updated by being made to confront sexual problems. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,148856,00.html#ixzz1rUiTHFiq In a similar vein, Alvin Schwartz in a 1993 interview objected to a 1992 published Superman story involving a neighbor beating his spouse. (Of course, Siegel and Shuster had done spouse beating in the 1930′s.) Quick question; near as I can tell, the pulp series such as the Shadow, Doc Savage, the Spider, etc. did not have nudity on their covers, right? They generally kept the heroes chaste, right? The early Shadow novels did not feature major female roles. What of John Carter and Zorro? Kind of ironic that these properties that started as more overtly childish versions of these properties have grown far more vulgar than the antecedent properties (Doc Savage stayed chaste in his G rated 1975 film, spurning female companionship; Superman films since 1978 have received PG ratings and PG-13 ratings and featured his illegitimate progeny.) (Incidentally, regarding Conan, many of the original Margaret Brundage covers featured nudity, so no objection can occur for nudity in Conan.) Last Edited By: Scathach80 Apr 8 12 6:38 PM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad
hermanthegerm		#31	[-]
Apr 9 12 11:32 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tarzan, John Carter and Dejah Thoris were all naked in the original books. Clothing them in the movies is actually a form of bowlderization. "...save for her highly wrought ornaments she was entirely naked..." "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING Last Edited By: hermanthegerm Apr 30 12 8:48 AM. Edited 1 times.
hermanthegerm		#32	[-]
Apr 9 12 11:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Scathach80 wrote: There is in this a deplorable element that might be called adultification, in which a figure created for children is subjected to adult concerns, much as though Tom Sawyer or Alice in Wonderland were updated by being made to confront sexual problems. Maybe you find it deplorable. Not everyone else does. Even Mark Twain had adult version of Tom Sawyer. People grow up, fictional characters should be allowed to do the same. Most, if not all, versions of Alice have featured adult actresses or at least much older than the character as featured in the Alice books. The latest VW devotes the issue not only to the Burton Alice (adult actress) but to Through The Looking Glass (X-rated) a movie that deals with mature/adult themes which is openly based on Alice. Why should this be seen as something deplorable? Cinema and art would be much the poorer if artists had to worry about offending puritanical attitudes such the one you present. Even a classic such as The Wizard of Oz, would not exist in the form we know if that were the case. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING Last Edited By: hermanthegerm Apr 9 12 11:45 AM. Edited 2 times.
hermanthegerm		#33	[-]
Apr 9 12 12:27 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Scathach80 wrote: hermanthegerm wrote: But where does the MPAA play into any of this? If a comic-like movie like Rat Pfink a Boo-Boo is presented to the MPAA what do they care whether it's an adaptation of a comic or an original screenplay? They care about what's shown on the screen, and nothing else. Implying that there is a connection is misleading and false. Also, the Superman II story was originally conceived as a part of Superman (I), not as a sequel. We've all heard of the Salkinds' legal problems regarding the one/two movie controversy. So, why differentiate it as having a different origin? The MPAA sure as hell did not care, the studio heads did not & the audience did not as well. As I noted earlier: Regarding original properties such as Hancock, they do not represent supposedly beloved children's icons who have appeared on toys, lunchboxes, ice cream covers, peanut butter jar covers, greeting cards, etc. for decades, but have a more limited purpose and extent. I will also add that properties such as Star Wars (Luke Skywalker owes more to Flash Gordon than Joe Friday) and Robocop (who owes as much to Iron Man-who had yet to have a feature film at the time-and Judge Dredd as Harry Callahan) have comic book and comic strip roots/homages in them, so where does one draw the line? Between your backpedaling and you changing directions from one response to the next... I did not address any of those products (Hancock, Robocop or Star Wars...) I specifically mentioned Superman. And you did not answer my question, why would the MPAA care about origin or any of that when assigning a rating? "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING Last Edited By: hermanthegerm Apr 9 12 12:34 PM. Edited 1 times.
gene phillips		#34	[-]
Apr 9 12 4:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Scathach said: "Quick question; near as I can tell, the pulp series such as the Shadow, Doc Savage, the Spider, etc. did not have nudity on their covers, right? They generally kept the heroes chaste, right? The early Shadow novels did not feature major female roles. What of John Carter and Zorro? Kind of ironic that these properties that started as more overtly childish versions of these properties have grown far more vulgar than the antecedent properties (Doc Savage stayed chaste in his G rated 1975 film, spurning female companionship; Superman films since 1978 have received PG ratings and PG-13 ratings and featured his illegitimate progeny.) (Incidentally, regarding Conan, many of the original Margaret Brundage covers featured nudity, so no objection can occur for nudity in Conan.) " I recently read the first ZORRO novel and it's chaste, as are most of the mainstream film adaptations, with the possible exception of the comedy ZORRO THE GAY BLADE. John Carter only has sex after marriage but like Tarzan a fair number of women throw themselves at him. The Street and Smith pulps didn't tolerate much if any sexy stuff, but some pulps were more adventurous. THE SPIDER could be fairly racy at times, particularly a fiendish little gem called THE RED DEATH RAIN (one of the few novels published in a pbk edition some years back). And of course Conan is probably the best-known pulp hero with whom it's quite evident that he sleeps around with women, even if little racy stuff is up front. As if to make up for the loss elements of sadism not infrequently crop up. The Jules de Grandin stories in WEIRD TALES-- which don't seem to have ever been adapted in other media-- strongly emphasized sexual subject matter as well as sadism. NATURALISTIC! UNCANNY! MARVELOUS!
hermanthegerm		#35	[-]
Apr 9 12 4:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Many Weird Tales had nude women in the cover, but they predate the Wertham attacks and the Comic Code (1954). It is actually pretty ridiculous to address the issue of adult subject matter in comics and ignore both of these elements. Comics did not become fully sanitized for children till after then. Asserting that comics where always for children is rather uninformed and misguided. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
Scathach80		#36	[-]
Apr 9 12 6:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	hermanthegerm wrote: Scathach80 wrote: hermanthegerm wrote: But where does the MPAA play into any of this? If a comic-like movie like Rat Pfink a Boo-Boo is presented to the MPAA what do they care whether it's an adaptation of a comic or an original screenplay? They care about what's shown on the screen, and nothing else. Implying that there is a connection is misleading and false. Also, the Superman II story was originally conceived as a part of Superman (I), not as a sequel. We've all heard of the Salkinds' legal problems regarding the one/two movie controversy. So, why differentiate it as having a different origin? The MPAA sure as hell did not care, the studio heads did not & the audience did not as well. As I noted earlier: Regarding original properties such as Hancock, they do not represent supposedly beloved children's icons who have appeared on toys, lunchboxes, ice cream covers, peanut butter jar covers, greeting cards, etc. for decades, but have a more limited purpose and extent. I will also add that properties such as Star Wars (Luke Skywalker owes more to Flash Gordon than Joe Friday) and Robocop (who owes as much to Iron Man-who had yet to have a feature film at the time-and Judge Dredd as Harry Callahan) have comic book and comic strip roots/homages in them, so where does one draw the line? Between your backpedaling and you changing directions from one response to the next... I did not address any of those products (Hancock, Robocop or Star Wars...) I specifically mentioned Superman. And you did not answer my question, why would the MPAA care about origin or any of that when assigning a rating? Well, as I intimated, the rating would make it clear that this film just represents a specifically focused pastiche in contrast to another adaptation of a property that children have followed for decades. The MPAA might want to clue in parents "Hey, this version plays a bit saucier than the version from those public domain cartoons, radio shows, comic strips, Saturday morning cartoons, etc., you might not want to bring your children to it". Also, peculiar to have properties who sell Legos, Mattel, Fisher Price, and all that other merchandise fornicating. Superman III rather annoyed parents for this reason. If they had done it as a pastiche property, instead of an official adaptation of the actual property, they might have had such flack. Last Edited By: Scathach80 Apr 9 12 6:25 PM. Edited 1 times.
hermanthegerm		#37	[-]
Apr 9 12 7:13 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Scathach80 wrote: ...the rating would make it clear that this film just represents a specifically focused pastiche in contrast to another adaptation of a property that children have followed for decades. The MPAA might want to clue in parents "Hey, this version plays a bit saucier than the version from those public domain cartoons, radio shows, comic strips, Saturday morning cartoons, etc., you might not want to bring your children to it". ... The MPAA already does that. What part of PG (Parental Guidance) don't you understand? Is this what all of this is about? The fact that you don't grasp this simple definition? PG — Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children. A PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger children attend. The PG rating indicates, in the view of the Rating Board, that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that decision. The more mature themes in some PG-rated motion pictures may call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated motion picture. We've already gone beyond the Hays Code. You wanna go back? If you don't agree with this definition, why not pester them instead of us? Be advised that the MPAA is a self regulatory agency, not an outsider to the industry, and that the people who rate the movies actually are parents: "...an independent ratings body, comprised of parents, would give advance cautionary warnings to parents, so that they can make informed decisions about which films their children see..." "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING Last Edited By: hermanthegerm Apr 9 12 7:28 PM. Edited 5 times.
Scathach80		#38	[-]
Apr 9 12 7:29 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, most comic book adaptations of traditional heroes such as Iron Man have rarely gone over PG-13 anyway. I guess they want to distance themselves from 1975's Doc Savage film (rated G). Kind of odd that prose hero Doc Savage received a G rating when his more overtly juvenile imitators from comic books have received PG and PG-13 ratings. Last Edited By: Scathach80 Apr 9 12 7:31 PM. Edited 1 times.
hermanthegerm		#39	[-]
Apr 9 12 7:32 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm sure that the makers of Iron Man were concerned about distancing themselves from Doc Savage. Probably priority #1. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
Victor Frankenstein		#40	[-]
Apr 9 12 7:39 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Jeepers, Herm. Why are you so frustrated? If you disagree, you disagree, but my interpretation of your writing is that you are pissed.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Chastity in Adaptations of Comic Strips or Comic Books-no, not a joke, I honestly wondered about the limits of the PG or PG-13 rating