snap judgments

For the past two weeks, Joe Quesada has been trying to answer a particular reader question and … well, bless his heart, he’s failing every time. Now, as a conscientious retail monkey, I humbly admit that, well, I’m a little more in the trenches than the ol’ EIC. I have parents coming in and wringing their hands in worry about what kind of pictures and words their children are reading (or not reading as the case may be). At Metro, we bag for content and have clear labels on the books that have graphic violence or sexual content. So when the subject of what’s appropriate for the viewing public comes up, I try to have an answer.

Last week, Joe Q got asked this question:

Q: Jimski 04-27-2007 12:09 PM

I have a question that has driven me bug-nutty for a year now. Whenever a question is asked about the possibility of Wolverine or Spider-Man appearing in a MAX book, the answer is always the same: the “name” characters are “like crack for kids” and we don’t want to put them in a story that would be inappropriate or damaging to young minds. If Jessica Jones wants to meet Spidey, Alias has to become The Pulse.

What, then, is the deal with Marvel Zombies – page after page of “name” heroes’ animated corpses with flesh rotting off of their exposed bones, tearing into people with their teeth? Did I really see a statue of Spider-Zombie holding the body of his wife with a huge gash in her neck?? I’m a grown man, and that’s profoundly disturbing. What’s the official explanation for this apparent contradiction?

Okay, let’s look at the question honestly for a moment: what Jimski is saying is that Marvel has a double standard for using its characters in ‘mature’ situations. That in order to get a Spider-Man appearance in a MAX book, the book in question has to be taken down from a mature audiences level to at least a T+ rating I’m assuming. It’s why the Punisher has two titles right now, one for Garth Ennis-ness and one for more ‘mainstream’ audiences.

Taken at face value, this isn’t anything new. Movies are rated as R on almost a purely commercial basis as there is little to no promotion or advertizing for NC-17 rated films. If Marvel wants to use Spider-Man as a marketing juggernaut that he is, he’s got to be strictly for “All Ages” as much as an R rated film. Sadly, there’s no real ’standard’ for rating films and with no Comic Code Authority (as outdated as it was), comics are given the task of rating themselves. Let’s take a look at how they tell us they’re doing this:

:

Now, the flip side of this and the second part of Jimski’s question is how Marvel can have this standard and yet print a book with all their selling point characer logos as detailed rotting corpses that are slaughtering innocents and eating human flesh. Spider-Man won’t swear or be seen next to someone who swears, but having him holding the dead body of his wife that he’s eaten part of is okay. Well, that’s also very true of the movie industry and popular culture as a whole. The difference between a R rating and an NC-17 rating and the people who make that decision was the subject of an entire movie, This Film is Not Yet Rated; the film talked a little about how there frankly is no real standard as to how movies are rated and that a lot of it is conjecture based on more variables that what’s actually shown on the screen.

With all of this in mind all of the very violent and gory Marvel Zombies books are a rated ‘PARENTAL ADVISORY’, about an ‘R’ rating. In comparison, the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead (a movie that scared the crap out of me) was rated R for ‘pervasive strong horror violence and gore, language and sexuality’. These two seem to even out.

Is it fair? No. Is it the way things are? Pretty much, until someone takes a stand and makes a decent rating system or enough letters come in that Marvel is forced to take action on consumer’s wants and whims. While the sight of an undead half eaten bride is pretty freaky, it can still fall under ‘cartoon violence’ as it is a stylized drawing and not an actual person. And while Peter Parker is perfectly within his rights to cuss from time to time, he still has to be accessible to all audiences, even the linguistically uptight ones. It’s not ‘for the children’, it’s for the cash.

Now, Joe Quesada cannot possibly say everything I just said, even if I’m Righty McRighterson here and not just a highly opinionated fan. There’s just something about coming out and admitting you’re in it for the money. But there’s that and then there’s not even trying. Joe Quesada’s first attempt at the question was this:

JQ: Jimski, in my world, there’s a big difference between a monster movie and a movie in which characters get to say #@$% and $#!@ and we get to see lots naughty, naked bits and stuff.

Same thing in a comic book.

Okay, now I’ll give the guy a break considering that week’s Joe Fridays started with him overworked and running low. But come on. That isn’t even an answer! That’s just a very general comparison. Some monster movies have partial nudity and swearing and are still <a href=”http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120877/” target=”_blank”>rated R</a> (sorry, first example that came to mind; think of your own here!). Apparently, things are just that simple in Joe Quesada’s world.

This last Joe Friday, someone stepped up again, hoping for a more detailed answer:

Q: KingMattress 05-07-2007 01:47 AM

Joe, I’m confused by something. Last week, a reader asked about why big name heroes like Spidey can’t appear in MAX books, but Marvel Zombies, with all its carnage, is fine. Your response was fair, in that a monster movie is different than one with curses and “naughty bits.” But isn’t an R-Rated movie an R-Rated movie, no matter the content? Do you feel that violence in comics isn’t as big of an issue as sex and language? I know comics have always incorporated violence to some degree, but far different than a hero eating a civilian’s head.

Along those lines, how is Marvel Zombies not MAX to begin with?

Again, clearly stated, passive in it’s accusation and very reasonable. Why isn’t Marvel Zombies a MAX title?

The short answer is because is Spidey’s going to be in this book, it better be on the newsstands. Also, this is still in the realm of cartoon violence and that the Parental Advisory ranks the book within R rating guidelines, and MAX titles have two extra points (swearing and nudity) to knock them into the MAX category.

Let’s see what a more rested and clear headed Joe Quesada has to say:

JQ: Okay, one more time, with extra clarification.

KingMattress , first let me say that here in America, violence is much more acceptable than sexual issues. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but that is the world we live in whereas in places like Europe, the exact opposite is true.

Now let’s look at modern comics and content, if we can. When we look at our old Marvels from the 60s, the content may seem sweet and wholesome and in some cases quaint to us today, but in its time it was considered very edgy and perhaps even a bit much for little kids. That really hasn’t changed much forty-plus years later, but lets be honest – what was considered edgy forty years ago certainly isn’t what edgy is today.

Where there has been a diametrically important shift is that today parents are much more involved in what their kids are reading and watching and doing. I never had to wear a bicycle helmet and there weren’t little plastic covers on electrical sockets in my house when I was growing up. It was Darwinism pure and simple. Shift today’s parental attitudes and concerns to the 60s and a lot fewer kids would have been reading Marvel Comics because they were just way too edgy. That’s why we have a Marvel Adventures line, because we don’t want to fool ourselves into thinking that our books are suitable for 8 year-olds. Sure, some sophisticated 8 years-olds will dig them, but the Adventures line is created as much for the parents as it is for the kids.

So, if we begin from that point of view, there’s already a certain degree of gore and bloodshed in our regular Universe, much more than there was forty years ago and with respect to that, Marvel Zombies isn’t all that much different than our regular books.

Also, Marvel Zombies was rated Parental Advisory, Age 15 and up. This is the highest rating we give our books before heading into MAX world. It’s the same rating given to intense books like Moon Knight and Wolverine.

So, keeping all of that in mind, to me, it’s not a MAX title.

Did he even read the question? Or did he cut to the last sentence? The difference between Europe’s and America’s cultural differences has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANSWERING THE QUESTION. How things were in the ’60s shows how moral values change with the passing of each generation, but unless he’s willing to say that in another generation or two, there might be something worse in the MAX books and the Pulse will be considered tame, it doesn’t have much bearing on why brain eating is all audiences and standing next to a person who says ’shit’ is not. The Marvel Adventures line? Great idea! NOT AT ALL INVOLVED IN THIS QUESTION.

It’s rather swell of Mr. Quesada to answer reader questions, but maybe they need to limit the questions or try an FAQ or just… get the man a calming cup of tea before hand. Because I’m not sure if this is working for public relations.