Which one of these comic-book eras was the most wholesome overall?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
On the contrary, the defining thing today in media is authentic schlock. Family friendly is like a dirty word.
 
There are definite standards. To say otherwise invites thoughts of relativeness, which is the poison of our time. I know the history of the EC horror titles. They were sick and depraved. I did see the original covers before they were ‘toned down.’ This means Mr. Gaines understood certain limits. The artists were directed. To say they did whatever they wanted is not accurate. Story ideas were discussed beforehand, along with presentation.
 
One must also make sure not to go too far the other way into overly rigid thinking. And some of the horror and other titles in the EC line presented concepts that were considered radical for the era but which are now recognized as obviously positive, especially racial equality. So not absolutely 100% sick and depraved.
 
EC had been stupid. They knew it. Had Mr. Gaines been a smart man, he would not have been called to testify here: “At one of the Senate Subcommittee Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency led by Senator Kefauver in 1954, William “Bill” Gaines testifies for comic books.” His comic books.
 
Try to stay on topic. I have seen the stories in question. There were scenes of graphic dismemberment and human entrails used to define a line in a baseball game.
 
Just don’t call it ‘Curmudgeons’
(and especially: Not ‘Mudgies’ 🤮 )
.

Now get off my lawn. 👴
 
To be precise: Get off my grass! Even when the person involved is not on your grass.
 
What was not on topic, officer? Racial equality doesn’t qualify as wholesome?
 
Standards exist. Hypocrites in Hollywood and other media companies know this.
 
Your attempt to deflect. Do you understand that? Radial equality is separate from graphic scenes of killing and dismemberment. Do you get that? Or were you just trying to distract people?
 
Well, do you want to make your point clear? Or just be snarky. I don’t see any reason to be antagonistic.
 
Last edited:
Do you get that I was responding directly to your claim that they were sick and depraved, and providing a counterexample? Or do you just want all the little people to fall into line and accept whatever edicts you choose to issue?
 
The old divide and conquer. You still want to ignore what I was pointing out? Graphic scenes of killing and dismemberment? You want to add to that discussion - at all?
 
And eyeballs and axes and needles and heads.

I’ve seen them too. Got a few, in HB.
 
Last edited:
Would have made a better impression if he hadn’t been on a cold medicine.
 
I think one of us needs a nap. Did you actually read the posts? My first one was to your description as needlessly graphic, and the first sentence of my post started with a statement that they were quite graphic for the time. So who is ignoring in this case?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top