Wertham lied

[Robert Maxwell]

RandyS wrote:

---

No, it doesn't, and that's exactly the point. Everything HAS become grim and gritty, and anything that isn't is automatically (and incorrectly) written off as "campy".

And that's just sad.

Well, that's a nice false dichotomy you've got there, but I'm having none of it.

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

I think his point is that attempts at realism have been interpreted as grim and gritty.

Yes, that is part of it. I get the impression guys like beaker really do see anything with shades of moral ambiguity or complex characterization as "cynical" and stereotypically "grim and gritty," when that's not the case. There's nothing cynical about acknowledging that real people are flawed and make mistakes.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'll be interested to see how Man Of Steel does. I do think that the current "dark" treatment of much skiffy material which has it's basis in less jaded times has become tedious, but it's also true that wandering very far afield from that stance these days is often the kiss of death for any production that requires a huge audience in order to generate a profit.

I like a lot of that so-called "realism" (which is actually just as escapist as the old stuff, rendered in a different palette) but it has, for the moment, crowded every alternative out of popular movie fantasy as effectively as McDonalds and other fast food have come to dominate the big food service industry. The exception? Animated movies putatively targeted at children.

Myself, I'm looking forward to the upcoming Oz movie but I fully expect it to be a box office bomb. It's visually bright, colorful and clearly a whimsical take on the material - too pretty and too happy by half to amuse the young adults who must be persuaded to consume it en masse. Burton would have found his way to whatever sickliness could be found in the story and visual design and the thing might have had a shot. Raimi, peculiarly enough, is too much in love with the native tone of his source material for this to succeed.

[Awesome Possum]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/bo...k-studies.html

The irony is that we've regressed societally, to the point where people really are interpreting every line in the seediest possible light. e.g., http://superdickery.com/index.php?op...d=32&Itemid=50

The last time I was at that site it was clear to anyone with eyes that it was a humor site and not a serious examination of old comics. Taking things out of context is the point of the site, it started by pointing that Superman is a dick using old comic covers where he is constantly killing Lois Lane or Jimmy Olsen. They aren't saying that he is a murderer.

Also we're never going back to the simple days of comics where good is good and bad is bad. The audience needs something a little more complex and engaging.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The idea of "societal regression" is a non-starter, sorry. Just because something about the world makes someone unhappy doesn't make it anyone's problem but theirs.

[Trekker4747]

All agreed, Superdickery firmly has its tongue planted in its cheek, but the humor in that old Batman panel predates the site (same with the Joker/Boner panels from Batman #66.) Needless to say, though, the humor in that panel is pretty evident because it's seriously a major WTF moment in its context. The other heroes mention women they're romantically involved with (romance having a high level of kissing and physical interaction) and along with that contextual setup Batman thinks of... Robin!?!

It's just odd.

About the... "topic." Seduction of the Innocent being full of crap I'm sure a lot of people have known for a very long time, comics having been growing out of the CCA for a couple of decades now. And, yeah, it gave us a LOT of crap in the Silver Age but because of that it's now a lot of fun looking back at this stuff.

I think comics are better off now with more dynamic and interesting characters that are living in shades of gray rather than strictly being "good."

[theenglish]

Superdickery is a humor sight playing on the naivite of old comics panels when taken out of context. It is funny.

Regarding Wertham's book, non-fiction works are still plagued with poor research and opinions masquerading as fact. Take anything from the FOX news line of best selling conspiracy theories and reinterpretations of history. Bill O'Reilly has been on the NYtimes list for ages. Naomi Wolf's recent book has been criticized for doing much the same thing. What about Three Cups of Tea? or any of the amazing diet books or health books based on pseudo-science? What about the books criticizing D&D, articles against Harry Potter, or putting the blame for school massacre's on Marilyn Manson or, more recently, Batman? (The recent Detective Comics story was an interesting reference to this, BTW.) How about the vaccination causes autism myth?

Seduction of the Innocent maybe came from a different era where the public was more gullible, perhaps, but it is only one of many, many examples of fraudulent portrayal of research to prove a point.

[Trekker4747]

[theenglish]

^^^ LOL--I don't even know what the word means in this context. Anyone?

[Praetor_Shinzon]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

For that reason I'll make the following prediction: Man of Steel will bomb. Superman is a creature of light and fancy. Any attempt to weigh him down is doomed to failure.

i hope you don't make predictions often, because i think you are going to be highly disappointed in a few months.

[Mr. Adventure]

Did anyone ever think Seduction of the Innocent wasn't likely riddled with error?

theenglish wrote:

---

^^^ LOL--I don't even know what the word means in this context. Anyone?

A boner is an old euphemism for a blunder.

And The Flintstones had a gay old time and so on...

[Sindatur]

theenglish wrote:

---

^^^ LOL--I don't even know what the word means in this context. Anyone?

Only other meaning I can derive is A BooBoo, A Mistake, A Faux Pas...(That'll Be enough Mistuh Data)

[theenglish]

Mr. Adventure wrote:

---

Did anyone ever think Seduction of the Innocent wasn't likely riddled with error?

A boner is an old euphemism for a blunder.

And The Flintstones had a gay old time and so on...

The Gay Divorcee?

[Trekker4747]

theenglish wrote:

---

^^^ LOL--I don't even know what the word means in this context. Anyone?

God, are you that young?!

As pointed out it's a word that was used for a big error or blunder, arguably it can still be used for that but it being used as a euphemism for an erection is certainly more popular.

The erection angle was certainly around in the 60s when this comic came out but the error meaning was still a bit more popular. This site:

LINK

...outlines the story ("boner" is used around 40 times in the story.) The webmaster theorizes that the story was written with this many uses of the word (which was absurdly over used for a short story in an multiple story book) as sort of a "thumbing of the nose" to the CCA.

[theenglish]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

God, are you that young?!

As pointed out it's a word that was used for a big error or blunder, arguably it can still be used for that but it being used as a euphemism for an erection is certainly more popular.

The erection angle was certainly around in the 60s when this comic came out but the error meaning was still a bit more popular. This site:

LINK

...outlines the story ("boner" is used around 40 times in the story.) The webmaster theorizes that the story was written with this many uses of the word (which was absurdly over used for a short story in an multiple story book) as sort of a "thumbing of the nose" to the CCA.

No, I'm in my forties. Too old to think about just Googling the term I guess.

[JarodRussell]

theenglish wrote:

---

Superdickery is a humor sight playing on the naivite of old comics panels when taken out of context. It is funny.

It's not only out of context dickery.
http://superdickery.com/images/stori...1027_4_030.jpg