Submitted by Willie_G on May 9, 2004 - 22:22
I think Ghastly is gonna cry because you didn't give him a Buck Cake cover this month.
by Xaviar Xerexes - 05/12/2004 - 21:06
People went into Psycho expecting a horror movie. They got that. People come to Comixpedia expecting a news site. It would be like walking into Bambi and getting the Psycho shower scene spliced into the middle of it for no reason.
I run this place! Tip the piano player on the way out.
by Xaviar Xerexes - 05/13/2004 - 12:50
What's more, it's utterly pointless. "Welcome to Sex in Comics. Here's a softcore pic of a woman having sex with an iMac." Um... I don't get it. At all. Even slightly.
by Xaviar Xerexes - 05/14/2004 - 16:01
[quote:9bdc0b5a48="eldritchmonkey"]See now if the artist had drawn a PC instead of a Mac, this whole thing could've been avoided.
Now that's funny! :)
by Xaviar Xerexes - 05/18/2004 - 22:26
I'm glad you laughed Caleb!
by Ronson - 05/18/2004 - 12:09
Well, here I am coming late to the party...
The problems/complaints here are indemic to the entire comic industry. There are those who shout "freedom of speech" and "we're all grownups, what's the problem?" and then there are the others who cry "But parents will discourage or forbid their children from entering the comic world if this is what they see."
The comic industry IS dying a slow death because it lost the kids a long time ago. Video Games are the biggest reason we lost them, but the rise of adult comics and titallating pictures in even marvel and DC can't be helping much.
The solution? Ha! I got none. Live with it.
by Ronson - 05/19/2004 - 10:57
And Bill didn't inhale, and Janet had a wardrobe malfunction.
It is a sexually suggestive, adult image. If we really can't agree on that, then there's no use in talking about it.
I agree with you, Steve, that we need more kid friendly comics. I liked the Harvey comics, myself.
by Ronson - 05/19/2004 - 14:53
Willie: We need comics that appeal to kids. I don't like the Teletubbies, but I can't deny they make an impression on young children.
Right now, the comics field seems to aim itself at adults (Vertigo line, for example) and adolecents (Ultimate Spider Man).
That's too late! When a kid learns to read "See Jane Run", they should start getting their first comics because then they'll make the association.
Of course, that sort of writing would drive me bonkers as well...
by Ronson - 05/20/2004 - 08:44
I think the old Disney and Harvey comics are EXACTLY what I'm talking about. And they do talk down to the kids at least a little - no big words, no complex plots and short storylines.
That doesn't mean they're dull and uninteresting, just that they're a series of straight line simple stories with funny pictures.
by Xaviar Xerexes - 05/13/2004 - 20:23
I think one of the big mistakes Comixpedia makes is too damn many Today some comic you never heard of turns 2 years old! articles. Now don't get me wrong, there is news worthiness in anniversaries. But all we get here is a wee announcement that some guy's comic just turned 2 years old, like that's supposed to mean something to us. If an influencial, inovating, popular, or even over-looked webcomic celebrates an important anniversary (and I think anniversary celebrations should be done in groups of 5 years) then a little blurb announcing that anniversary isn't the way to go. Anniversary articles should be done as a retrospectical on the comic. It should examine how the comic evolved. It should examine key points in the comic's history. It should show the comic's highs and show the comics lows. It should cover its accolades and it should address its scandals. It should cover what influence the comic has had on the genre and the industry as a whole. That's how you do an anniversary article. Don't just post "today, schmuck-face turns 2". That doesn't tell me anything. That doesn't inspire me to check out the comic. I think that's part of the problem. It doesn't feel like I'm reading a magazine. It feels like I'm watching the Community Calander on the public access cable channel.
by Xaviar Xerexes - 05/21/2004 - 00:21
I cannot believe this thread has turned into a discusson of kids comics!!!
the mind boggles :)
by Richard Stone - 05/12/2004 - 16:45
Ghastly I don't think people have a problem with the picture itself so please don't turn this conversation into something it's not. The issue as described by the people who have objected is quite simple...they thought the content of the site was work safe. That image is not work safe by any means and if one was to look at that content say at a bank, a corporate office or what have you they'd be fired instantly. I for example work at Wells Fargo and if my supervisor saw that picture, I would be terminated on the spot. Everyone expects this site to be safe for viewing anywhere and at minimum I think the feeling is there should have been some sort of disclosure warning people it might not be safe in certain environments. You may disagree, and of course that's your right, but at least respect the other idea that there are people who do not wish to see pictures of that nature (not that it is bad) and it is their right to not have to see it unexpectedly.
by Alexander Danner - 05/20/2004 - 02:05
Wow -- Ghastly and Miguel in agreement, and I completely agree with both of you. That's a sweet little turnaround from how this thread started, isn't it?
PictureStoryTheater.com:Fables & Fairy Tales
by gwalla - 05/13/2004 - 03:58
I find it really funny that Ghastly's accusing the guy who does Something Positive of being a prude. Cognitive dissonance is great.
It is actually possible to surf from work without being cheating scum. Some employers will let you surf the web on your break time (like during lunch) as long as you don't clog up the net connection and don't look at something that they find offensive.
But if you are cheating scum, surreptitious surfing is what GhostZilla is for. Hide your browser in a Word document, or Outlook, or whatever! Slack like a motherfucker with little fear of reprisal! Get blacklisted from all employment for life if you do get your lazy ass caught!
by gwalla - 05/15/2004 - 03:18
[quote:bb30d7f728="Willie_G"]I think everyone is just afraid that us guys will be replaced by the IMac's new penis attachment.
by dunk - 05/14/2004 - 07:35
While it may be true that sex sells, that was not the intention behind this month's cover choice. The intention was to present people with an image of NC-17 comics, and I think Caleb did a formidable job of coming up with something to spark discussion and debate, and get everyone thinking about appropriate content.
One of the things that this magazine should be doing is encouraging people to discuss these topics, and to form opinions. It's the reason why I wanted to be involved in Comixpedia in the first place. Without these kinds of discussions webcomics cannot grow and mature as a medium.
I'm very disappointed by the reactions of some readers who seem prepared to abandon ship, and with-hold every stitch of their support or collaboration. I am disappointed because they missed the point. Comixpedia is, and ought to be, more than just a place to post webcomic anniversaries, or reviews and recommendations. It's somewhere we can reflect on what it is we're doing, and on our developing community.
I think that if you read this issue thoroughly you will find that our staff writers and contributors have presented a relatively balanced treatment of the issue (perhaps even a little on the conservative side - I suspect Ghastly has us better pegged). Of course you would have to continue reading the site in order to find out for yourself.
by Bryan Prindiville - 05/13/2004 - 20:53
Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick!
Come on people, show some love.
Oops, or is that the problem in the first place?
The cover is excellent. Caleb, bravo. If not just for the excellence of the piece but for the foresight not to use the guy on the toilet and the audacity to follow through.
What right do we really have to tell comixpedia what to run as their cover? Do you follow every suggestion you are sent by a reader? I run my site as I choose, what is the difference here?
Heck, just by reading the forums I never considered this site "safe." You never know when Willy_G or Ghastly's gonna poke their heads in.
This prude's got your back.
by Justinpie - 05/15/2004 - 16:29
I guess she doesn't do Windows!
The Non-Adventures of Wonderella
by Justinpie - 05/17/2004 - 11:19
See, cause it's a Mac!
by gwalla - 05/15/2004 - 03:20
[quote:26c0d96caa="m_estrugo"](1) + (2) + (3) = (4)
Umm...yeah. Okay. This must be that "new math" thing.
by Dedos - 05/17/2004 - 14:23
Mac and .... I was going to groan, but that's actually a very good pun.
Caleb, as ever, you are the MAN. I loved the cover (and the original concept, too). Like... it's tacky, but it's supposed to be.
by Dedos - 05/18/2004 - 13:49
[quote:b9dd5b97a7="Willie_G"]I think you misunderstand his post, Guest.
Doh, I forgot to log in when I posted that. :roll:
I think I just flipped out when I saw "that was lame" followed by no justification whatsoever. In any event, I think this topic is played out. No more beating (:snicker:) the dead horse (isn't this a perfect setup for a SL strip?).
by Meaghan Quinn - 05/10/2004 - 23:53
Then I wouldn't reccommend reading Newsweek or Time at work when they do a women's health related cover story. They put up more pictures of cleverly-nothing-showing-yet-sexy-but-not-so-sexy-we-get-sued than any other magazine I know, even Cosmopolitan!
Let's face it, chances are if someone is reading something with a sexy picture on it these days, it's probably the news.
by Meaghan Quinn - 05/12/2004 - 22:11
Yeah, well my husband makes the best omlettes in the world! Neener!
I mentioned Time magazine before, and while I don't keep old copies on hand or feel like looking up the particular covers I refer to, you can check out what kind of images they run with "sex" themed issues. Some shows a lot more skin than the comixpedia cover and would normally be considered more explicit on account of it being real live models rather than a drawing.
by Meaghan Quinn - 05/12/2004 - 22:30
I am a BBS loser.
And alas, no. All he does is speak in French from time to time without adapting any traditional costumes! No maid uniforms, no berets, nothing!
by Justinpie - 05/18/2004 - 15:36
That banner ad is genius, Caleb.
by Justinpie - 05/19/2004 - 13:28
By the way, Caleb -- my Mom thought the cover was hysterical. In her words, "it was too ridiculous to be offensive." So, she gets it, even if some of the rest of us didn't. =)
by Justinpie - 05/20/2004 - 13:20
That's like the opposite of a superhero crossover!
by Justinpie - 05/20/2004 - 14:20
I think that to bridge the gap effectively, you need to start with the kids' mindsets and work your way up to the parents -- Adults handle simple concepts easier kids do complex ones. Thus, if you try to dumb down something complex, kids will get bored and adults will feel insulted.
Looney Tunes, to me, is the best example of a media designed primarily for kids, but with mature references and asides for adults to enjoy and kids to ignore. Adults love same kinetic style and vivid colors as the kids do, but the those mature references are what keep it from being a waste of adults' time.
by Meaghan Quinn - 05/12/2004 - 22:48
Thankfully, no. He bathes often in retribution for an entire nation!
Oh, and no wine, either! It's all beer for him! The Canadian influence has overtaken the French!
-Meaghan, successfully hijacking yet another thread from angst to silliness.
I mean, um, SEX!
by Meaghan Quinn - 05/13/2004 - 17:37
You know what some of this reminds me of? Those people who cancel their newspaper subscriptions and write letters to the editor that they're cancelling and telling all their friends to cancel because someone had the gall to put Doonsbury or the Boondocks in the comics section, which should only be for mindless funnies.
Anyone saying that ONE image is going to reverse a year of comixpedia and is going to stop reading and won't ever contribute (which gives you some power over the content, you know).... Feh, I can't say how far you have gone down in my estimation.
And Ghastly, don't give up hope. This is only week ONE of a four week issue on the topic.
by Meaghan Quinn - 05/17/2004 - 12:11
No you're not! :wink:
by rkm0001 - 05/12/2004 - 17:45
Isn't that how the Psycho murder scene in the shower came off as powerful? It was just something that was hinted at, but never shown? -JoshM
by ledgermain - 05/19/2004 - 01:08
To be perfectly honset, I was more offended by seeing a Mac, than seeing the woman having sex with a computer. :p
by eldritchmonkey - 05/13/2004 - 20:04
It's a travesty of justice is what it is! Why the day we complain about skantily clad women is.... *sniff* a sad day for us all.
I think it's just a reminder of what webcomics have to offer. There's a genre and style for everyone out there and almost no one is going to like them all. Doesn't mean they aren't valid in their own way. Doesn't mean we should or need to be sheltered from them. Just means one has to keep an open mind everytime they log on to the internet.
by Alexander Danner - 05/15/2004 - 06:44
I just wrote up some thoughts of my own on the this whole business. I was going to post them here, but it turned out ridiculously long, so I figured I'd just point those of you who are interested toward my blog.
by Alexander Danner - 05/19/2004 - 11:14
As to kids comics -- I fully agree (in fact, it's a topic I've written about more than once). One person who's doing some really good work right now is Adrian Ramos, who does "Count Your Sheep" and "The Wisdom of Moo." (The former is on Keenspot, and the latter on Girlamatic.)
Also, my forthcoming collaboration with Bill Duncan, which will be launching on Modern Tales at the end of this month, is an all-ages story anthology. Some of the stories may be a bit on the dark side for some parents, but I don't think any more so recent Bone issues or Grimm's Fairy Tales (the latter of which inspired several of our stories).
by Alexander Danner - 05/19/2004 - 16:06
Justin, I was actually referring more to myself than to anyone else. It just struck me as funny that my Mom was less bothered by the cover than I was.
Willie: yes, most kids comics are junk. But that's what happens when so much kids work is produced by corporations catering to parents who like to treat their kids like three-year-olds until (and frequently beyond) puberty.
Personally, I like to give kids more credit, and my own stories are aboslutely meant to challenge young minds, not coddle them. But there's definitely still a need for more intelligent comics for young readers.
by Alexander Danner - 05/21/2004 - 09:51
I actually didn't read comics much at all as a kid. I remember picking up an issue of Uncanny X-Men -- it was this "in her head battle" between Rogue and Carol Danvers (not sure why I remember that). I had no idea who these people were or what was going on, since it was all mid-continuity. Didn't pick up another comic until I started reading Transformers, which I liked because I already knew all the characters and they were willing to kill off characters. I didn't get into any other comics until high school, when a friend lent me his entire collection and forced me to read them until I liked them.
Well, okay, I did have one other comic I read as a kid -- it was Kool Aid Man vs The Thirsties.
As far as current kids comics go, I really love "Amelia Rules."
by eldritchmonkey - 05/14/2004 - 12:45
See now if the artist had drawn a PC instead of a Mac, this whole thing could've been avoided.
by eldritchmonkey - 05/19/2004 - 02:28
Just keep in mind that there was no sex drawn. Whatever people were offended by, it was all in their minds. Methinks someone's a bit more kinky then they want to admit to.
by eldritchmonkey - 05/20/2004 - 18:58
Comics are great for learning to read because the kids can make better guesses about what the words are based on the action.
by Erik Melander - 05/15/2004 - 09:27
Indeed, well written
by Erik Melander - 05/21/2004 - 10:25
I was just thinking earlier today that it's strange the WCCA doesn't have a category for outstanding webcomic aimed at children, but perhaps that's because there aren't very many.
by m_estrugo - 05/14/2004 - 11:30
by m_estrugo - 05/14/2004 - 15:21
by Alexander Danner - 05/21/2004 - 13:13
Technically, "Kids" and "Adult" aren't discrete genres. Of course, that's true of "Gaming" and "Anthropomorphic" too.
Wouldn't it be a laugh to see Count Your Sheep and Sexy Losers both up for Best Gag Strip in the same year?
by gwalla - 05/14/2004 - 03:28
I think one of the big mistakes Comixpedia makes is too damn many Today some comic you never heard of turns 2 years old! articles. Now don't get me wrong, there is news worthiness in anniversaries. But all we get here is a wee announcement that some guy's comic just turned 2 years old, like that's supposed to mean something to us.
If an influencial, inovating, popular, or even over-looked webcomic celebrates an important anniversary (and I think anniversary celebrations should be done in groups of 5 years) then a little blurb announcing that anniversary isn't the way to go.
Anniversary articles should be done as a retrospectical on the comic. It should examine how the comic evolved. It should examine key points in the comic's history. It should show the comic's highs and show the comics lows. It should cover its accolades and it should address its scandels. It should cover what influence the comic has had on the genre and the industry as a whole. That's how you do an anniversary article. Don't just post "today, schmuck-face turns 2". That doesn't tell me anything. That doesn't inspire me to check out the comic.
I think that's part of the problem. It doesn't feel like I'm reading a magazine. It feels like I'm watching the Community Calander on the public access cable channel.
Much as I hate to admit it, I agree with Ghastly completely on this. A little less glad-handing spam and a little more content would be nice.
by Meaghan Quinn - 05/12/2004 - 21:22
About the worksafe issue- Ghastly makes a wonderful point that you shouldn't discard just because he likes to press his own agenda- if your boss is going to fire you for this image popping up on your screen on a news site, then you shouldn't be doing recreational websurfing at work!
Sure, you go to Sexy Losers and expect naked people having sex or whatever. Sure you go see Bambi and don't expect blood and guts. But the thing is, the Bambi thing works because there are movie ratings you can see before going to the movie and SL works because it has a cover page telling you what you're getting into. Except one point- some SL strips DON'T have sex in them! Or even naked people!
If I draw a comic that regularily has fully dressed people in it and you read it at work and then I, for purposes of story, draw a character naked in a "going to school without clothes on" kind of dream... and you get fired for looking at a nudie drawing... I'm guessing most of you would think I'm at fault. And if you DO, you're probably a product of the american legal system. Take some responsibilty, folks.
Now *I'm* being tangental. Anyway, lovely cover, Caleb. It's a simply awesome image and I expected some controverys, but not so many people totally missing the part, especially a couple of smart people here thinking it's just a woman boinking an I-mac.
This has seriously been rag on Comixpedia month. It's either too critical, too accepting of news items, too slow on news, or too sexy for an indie publishing mag.
*sigh* I dunno. Like I said, most people here I'm dissapointed in are intelligent and not crusaders or prudes. Very open-minded, I would have thought. I guess that's why I'm so dissapointed.
by Meaghan Quinn - 05/14/2004 - 10:16
Yeah, that guest was SERIOUSLY confused, but I have come across a lot of people who think comixpedia is run by one guy who has total control over the whole shebang. You've got several editors here and lots of contributions all towards a theme. It would be nice if they had the resources to get everything in ahead of time to make everything flow better and be better balanced, but hey, they do this in their spare time.
The thing is, everyone who complains could be doing something to change it rather than complain. Something isn't addressed in the news? Submit it yourself. This issue not covering what you think should be covered? Write something- they've got a "soapbox" for people who don't want monthly columns but have something to say.
I mean, that's what *I* did. And the last week of the month THIS little prude goes on about how much I love sex in comics when it's done well. So it will balance itself out, don't worry.
by m_estrugo - 05/20/2004 - 10:24
The purpose of any serious discussion is finding a consensus where all parts agree. Here we've got the living proof of that. :)
ComixTalk is not responsible for comments, blog and forum posts. ComixTalk stories and articles are copyright by their respective authors.