Main Menu

1325 Slaine - A Case for the Defence

Started by Cyber-Matt, 30 January, 2003, 11:20:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

petemaskreplica

by loads i mean over seven. excuse my exaggerations, for i am but a palm tree...

Art

Like the whole "vicar pooping" storm in a tea cup I'm slightly bemused by this. 2000ad consists of horrifically violent giga-death week-in and week-out, and yet every so often we have to consider the children? Eh? Whats with that?

ukdane

My point exactly Art.
And there's worse on tv (and unfortunately, sometimes the news too).
Cheers

-Daney



petemaskreplica

Well, he's getting a tatoo , yes, he's getting it done. He asked for a thirteen, but they did a thirty-one. But, as the Simpsons so rightly says:

"Think of the children! Oh, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!"

I conclude.

Link: My point exactly.


paulvonscott

It's not really aimed at kids any more and I bet they make up a tiny percentage of the readers.  I'd like to think it was accessable to them today, and the comic has thankfully dropped much of the swearing and vulgar content, largely I think though because it wasn't really neccesary.

Whether parents think this weeks Slaine is suitable for their kids is up to them and whether they think their kids would understand what was happening and if so, how it would affect them.

I assume most parents vet the comic for material (whether that's swearing, sex or violence) they don't deam to be suitable for their kids, because it isn't a kids comic any more and probably isn't going to be again.

I'm thinking of The Radlander in particular which was a cracking story though with some horrific moments and I thought aimed largely at an adult audience.

paulvonscott

(..the comic for material (whether that's swearing, sex or violence...)

Oh, thanks art!

the comic for material (whether that's swearing, sex, violence or unnecesary vulgarity)

ukdane

Ah, but then Radlander was in the Meg, which probably hasn't regained much of a kids audience since it lost its mature readers tag.

I think 2000 is probably aimed at an audience old enough to handle the scenes in this weeks Slaine (and the defecating priest in Asylum).

Certainly I get the impression that the style of artwork adopted by many artists is more "adult orientated".

At the end of the day, it's only a comic, and comics are gratuitous and over the top.
Cheers

-Daney



Queen Firey-Bou

tuppenth worth;

I am not narking about the levels of violence or rape etc... as yes the tabloids are horrific & explicit on a daily basis, regardless of your age.
My 16year old lad read it & said eww how nasty, etc. I'm not gonni run it past the 10 year old & 14 year old gal, as my drawing attention to it makes an issue etc, but they'd probly skim it, being more likely to notice the burst eyeball scenes etc, that 2 level thing. Tho i suspect that it might lodge into their sunconsious to pop out in future..."oh yuk thats what the demon was doing!"
What i object to is the graduitous portrayal of women as sexual objects to be taken or violated  according to the whim of the hero or anti-hero. women are not just plot devices you know. Imagine this, Slains wondering along & a whopping great slathering monster 3 times his size comes along & rapes him? "wha ha youre mine pretty boy !"  explaining Slains subsequent rage & nihilism, i f i wrote somthing like that i'd be accused of being a complete sicko. yet with niamh....?

cauldren stirring Bou'

mongor2003

Actually, come to think of it, there was a woman being raped by a demon in Slaine about two progs back, How come that went by unnoticed whereas this is causing a low-level controversy ?

Proudhuff

If there was to be a motovator for Slaine, why didn't one ring-eye rape Slaine? would that be too offensive? It could be portrayed much the same static way. What is acceptable sexual violence? and why is it only shown happening to to wimmin?

Middenpus.
DDT did a job on me

Jared Katooie

Couldn't reply to Bou's message directly...

Ah, but Bou that wouldn't be normal sex (with two opposing genders) so it'd have to be sick and vulgar now wouldn't it?

I too feel there is a lack of balance in stories and unrealistic portrayal of serious events is risky business.

The real question is this: if laine was buggered by a hideous demon could readers ever look at him the same way again?

Why cant it just be violence...? (sigh)

JK.

paulvonscott

I think it depends on who the character is in the story.  

If something bad or outrageous violation happens to the main character (whether male or female) people would be genuinely upset and possibly quite angry.  These are people they feel they know very well and they've been hurt, something they didn't think could happen.

If it happens to a major yet secondary character, one who you only relate to through the main character in the story (Like Naimh) then you would be likely to feel sympathy and horror for the victim and empathise with the main character and their emotions.

Or if it's someone you've never seen before you merely take it as a sign of the horrible things that are going on in the world, and although it makes an impression, and you know it's an awful thing to happen, it doesn't personally effect you much.

That may seem harsh, but I think it's just the way people work, in real life and when relating to characters.  

Art

The real question is this: if Slaine was buggered by a hideous demon could readers ever look at him the same way again?

Yeah! C'mon Pat, lets see that!

Queen Firey-Bou

hmmm, good point there pvs, damn scuppered, hang on I'll find that high horse shortly..

JK opposing gender..."normal ? " , rather blinkered view n'est pas? mind you there was that text story in the christmas meg with devlin waugh, what a horrible man he is !


Tex Hex


It still shouldnt have been in tooth. No matter how much it reflected the brutalities of life. Or whatever. No matter how highly you might value such a thing in any art form for its confrontational and discussion-provoking effect, it STILL shouldnt have been in tooth.

Boarders have often voiced objections to the occasional swearing in tooth. Why should swearing not be acceptable and yet this is? Has it more "artistic" merit?  

Im not for censorship in anyway or any "sweep under the carpet" philosophy, but I think the context is all wrong. Sorry.