9 ms·

Superheroes a 'cultural catastrophe', says comics guru Alan Moore (2014)

116 points by chippy 11y ago

ryanmk 11y ago
Dude sounds like he's stuck in his own head.
- Ygg2 11y ago
  He seems lucid enough. His points about rape are on mark. It seems to tie in into general pattern of squeamishness when it comes to sex. His point about superheroes being detractors from reality is an interesting one. Not sure if it's as bad as he claims, but it makes sense.
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  Dude has a large, popular and critically acclaimed body of work behind him. I'm interested to hear from him.
- chippy 11y ago
  his head is quite well regarded by many people.
Lewton 11y ago
(2014)
jgorn 11y ago
Simon Pegg expressed a similar sentiment in May of this year http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-05-19/simon-pegg-criticises-science-fiction-and-genre-films-for-dumbing-down-cinema http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-05-19/simon-pegg-critici... "part of me looks at society as it is now and just thinks we’ve been infantilised by our own taste... Now we’re essentially all consuming very childish things – comic books, superheroes... Adults are watching this stuff, and taking it seriously!”
- mhurron 11y ago
  “Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” - C.S. Lewis People who go on about others not growing up perhaps need to look at themselves. Positioning themselves as better because they're 'adults' because everyone else is acting like 'children', they may find they never actually left high school and are trying desperatly to be the cool kids.
  - walshemj 11y ago
    well said not sure why you got a dv
    - notacoward 11y ago
      I haven't downvoted, but I could see how others might have. The CSL quote is a good one. It's important to maintain a certain child-like wonder in the face of encroaching adult jadedness. Unfortunately, non-quote part of the comment is pure spite. Nobody here is "going on" about how being more adult makes them better, but just in case someone did our commenter stands ready to psychoanalyze them as being stuck in high school and thus dismiss them in the exact same say s/he apparently resents superhero-comic fans being dismissed. "I'm rubber, you're glue" is just childish, which is not the same as child-like, and only drags the conversation downward.
      - mhurron 11y ago
        > our commenter stands ready to psychoanalyze No, I'm just saying shut the fuck up.
walterbell 11y ago
A counter-example to the following point is that the recent "Avengers: Age of Ultron" movie included debate on contemporary transhumanism, although that could be Joss Whedon's writing influence: "..a significant section of the public, having given up on attempting to understand the reality they are actually living in, have instead reasoned that they might at least be able to comprehend the sprawling, meaningless, but at-least-still-finite 'universes' presented by DC or Marvel Comics.." Another reason for shorter copyright terms: "..it is, potentially, culturally catastrophic to have the ephemera of a previous century squatting possessively on the cultural stage and refusing to allow this surely unprecedented era to develop a culture of its own, relevant and sufficient to its times.."
codingdave 11y ago
I've noticed a similar trend - I am now in my 40s, and we played games, read comic books, watched TV and movies growing up... but we never made them part of our self-identity. But recently, people's media consumption is part of their identity. From Whovians to Bronies, people are starting to treat their entertainment as core pieces of who they are. I find it odd. But maybe that is just part of getting old... that you don't quite understand the youth of today.
- ObviousScience 11y ago
  I actually think that marketers have simply gotten better.
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  Same as it ever was. Trekkies. Yankees fans. Smiths fans. Goths. Deadheads. Beatlemania. Hippies. The Beats. Greasers. Flappers. Oscar Wilde fans. We didn't invent popular culture this generation.
  - _asummers 11y ago
    The difference is, we have the Internet to actually create large communities centered around these interests. This makes it look like more people are involved, when in fact all the separate islands of fans have simply been bridged together.
    - joezydeco 11y ago
      And the internet has enabled those fans to be continuously engaged in their interests. Where trekkies/ham operators/beatlemaniacs might have assembled once in a while or yearly at a convention, now they can stay with their tribe all the time. What's the cultural impact when that happens?
      - hodwik 11y ago
        My knee-jerk reaction is to say the people become more insular, but perhaps the opposite is true. If trekkies come from all over the country, from different age groups, backgrounds, perhaps interacting with your internet trekkie tribe all day will give you a broader picture of things. In that sense it may be an exchange of intellectual depth for breadth. In a time of a broad globalism that may be just the sort of population you want. What's more, generally the shared interest is used as a social glue, not as a sole topic of discussion. Case in point, the fact that on Hacker News we are discussing this.
jameshart 11y ago
For centuries the cultural touchstones were all retellings of classical Greek or Roman myths, or Bible stories. Modern media's exploration of Marvel's canon or the expansion of the Star Wars mythos is no different than Shakespeare rebooting Cleopatra and updating her with analogs to contemporary politics.
- noblethrasher 11y ago
  Human thinking and reasoning gets short-circuited by too much vividness. The difference between those previous eras and now is that our fiction may have become dangerously vivid.
  - walterbell 11y ago
    How will we handle Oculus, Magic Leap, HoloLens, etc?
    - noblethrasher 11y ago
      Same way that we handled other new technologies before (e.g. the alphabet, the printing press, perspective art, the Internet, etc.) We’ll stumble along for a few decades making more entertaining toys (along with a few interesting tools) before we end up realizing a new and powerful epistemology that launches us into the next great age civilization. Or, we could end up with Huxely.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    Nonsense. Media vividness isn't a quality of the media -- it's attributed by the viewers. People will perceive the media of their day at the same level of vividness that they would have, in the past, perceived the media of the past. It's self-adjusting.
    - noblethrasher 11y ago
      By vividness, I’m talking about the relative powers of various kinds media to impress us; e.g. that television is more vivid than radio, which is more vivid than writing. I wasn’t talking about the impressiveness of special effects specific to visual media. The idea is that since live-action media is more vivid than cartoons and comic books, it might be the case that either it is displacing better media for dealing with complex topics (e.g. books), or monopolizing a particular media that could be put to “better” uses (i.e. more art films and historical dramas)[1]. But, this isn’t a new argument, Neil Postman devoted an entire book to it 30 years ago [2]. Also, the word “nonsense” really wasn’t an appropriate rejoinder because I wasn’t making a deductive argument in the first place. Rather I was suggesting that there might be evidence that using increasingly more vivid media for ever more trivial things is a net harm to society. [1] I say this as someone who is guilty of watching superhero movies almost exclusively (I even paid to see Iron Man 2 in the theater five times). [2] https://www.google.com/?q=amusing%20ourselves%20to%20death#search_plus_one=form https://www.google.com/?q=amusing%20ourselves%20to%20death#s...
hellbanTHIS 11y ago
Alan Moore pops up every so often just to bum everybody out. Superheroes are a fun, stupid and occasionally brilliant genre. They're the Westerns of the 21st century. Lighten up Al.
- calibraxis 11y ago
  You might like to read deeper on why mainstream superhero plots follow such a peculiar formula... Are they trying to teach adolescent boys something? > "These “heroes” are purely reactionary, in the literal sense. They have no projects of their own, at least not in their role as heroes: as Clark Kent, Superman may be constantly trying, and failing, to get into Lois Lane’s pants, but as Superman, he is purely reactive. In fact, superheroes seem almost utterly lacking in imagination: like Bruce Wayne, who with all the money in the world can’t seem to think of anything to do with it other than to indulge in the occasional act of charity; it never seems to occur to Superman that he could easily carve free magic cities out of mountains. > "Almost never do superheroes make, create, or build anything. The villains, in contrast, are endlessly creative. They are full of plans and projects and ideas. Clearly, we are supposed to first, without consciously realizing it, identify with the villains. After all, they’re having all the fun. Then of course we feel guilty for it, re-identify with the hero, and have even more fun watching the superego clubbing the errant Id back into submission." > "It’s in this sense that the logic of the superhero plot is profoundly, deeply conservative." (http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/super-position/ http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/super-position/)
  - notacoward 11y ago
    The point about making and building is one that has always seemed odd to me. For the most part, superheroes can't help what they are - they became that way through genetics or accident. (Counterexample: Iron Man) On the other hand, many of the supervillains demonstrate very high levels of ingenuity and determination. Many of them have had to overcome even greater adversity or tragedy than the heroes. I'm not fond of seeing distinctions between entrepreneurship and criminality blurred like that, while the hereditary aristocracy get a moral pass. Things have gotten more nuanced since the so-called golden era, but these themes/memes need to die faster.
DocSavage 11y ago
I think he's dead on about the relative proportion of violence/murder versus rape in popular media, particularly the US. Part of it might be the puritanical history of the US. Why is it more acceptable (gauged by PG-13 rating systems) to show killing and violence than even show a breast or two people making love? You'd almost think the latter was a crime instead of the former. The general squeamishness of media on these issues completely distorts the real-world statistics of murder versus domestic violence and rape. So calling Moore out on it is more a statement of current US norms and is very different than other cultures like Japan.
- greggman 11y ago
  This is just an idea but, does depiction of sex lead to horny people who end up accidentally making babies which leads to abortions or often unwanted kids which often leads to dropping out of school and poverty? On other hand depiction of murder and other violence appears to lead to nothing. In fact as is often pointed out even though apparently media is more violent than ever violent crime rates are down. I don't know. I know I've seen articles about studies that claim violent movies make people more violent in the short term, and I've also seen studies that show the crime rates are down while apparently violent entertainment is up. I have no idea if similar studies have been done for sexualized entertainment, influence on sexual behavior and unintended consequences. Maybe you could look at various cultures, the amount of easily accessible sexualized entertainment, and sex related consequences those cultures have. I suspect it might be similar to violence where countries with more accessible sexual entertainment have less sexual consequences? But of course those same countries also have many other cultural differences as well.
- kryptiskt 11y ago
  I don't know why you contrast violence and rape, as rape implies violence. And the squemishness about rape doesn't have to say anything about the viewers attitude to sex on the screen. I don't mind movie sex at all, and I abhor 99% of all movie rape or threat thereof. It seems like it's the singular way that hack writers know how to put women in peril, and it's nearly always played for cheap drama and thrills. As for why violence goes down easier. The violence that is done in blockbuster movies has little to do with real violence, it is extremely stylized, it is about as far from reality as romantic movie sex is from real sex. And it is even more so in superhero movies.
maus42 11y ago
Moore has been preaching this since forever. I think his position could be divided to two, slightly different points. I am not sure if he agrees, but this is my take on what Moore is saying: >1. (Superhero) comics were originally children's entertainment, almost a century ago. It is an unhealthy sign that not only we're still stuck with them, they are now deemed acceptable for adult consumption. Interesting thing is that this isn't limited to capestories. The whole genre of YA fiction seems to be focused on this kind of "entertainment literature", with similar (on meta level) formulaic characters and stories. And maybe he has a point; even the "realistic takes" on the genre, "grown-up post-modern deconstructions of inherent sillyness of common assumptions and tropes of caped vigilantes" and that kind of stuff ...it was already done decades ago (people like Moore himself). Yet still Marvel and DC go on and on with the same old stuff, maybe with some "adult" twist or to (like a debate on transhumanism, or making a the protagonist troubled anti-hero, or something), while re-hashing the same 'kiddie' storylines and action. Maybe we are just more self-conscious about this (TVtropes is a thing). However, I think Moore is making a mistake assuming that in the "golden olden days" any more significant majority of people 'graduated' to a more serious (whatever that means) forms of fiction. Even if it's "unhealthy" (I don't agree), it's not like this kind of fiction is anything fundamentally new. As soon as there was the physical possibility of pulp fiction, pulp fiction appeared, and most of that stuff was utter rubbish. (And even before 1920's pulp, there was 1800s cheap literature; most of it was similar melodramatic rubbish, too.) And best of them remain in public consciousness even today. Is popularity of Sherlock Holmes that different thing, on a fundamental level, than popularity of Batman or Superman? Good grief, Moore himself did Extraordinary Gentlemen! 2. (Superhero) comics are not original form for entertainment of our time; we should come up with something new of our own that reflects our time, not just repeat the same and old and tired. For example, instead of trying to come up with a totally new idea, movie industry just makes yet another superhero movie for their next blockbluster candidate. Or DC/Marvel makes yet another 'new' superhero (exactly like the old ones, just different powers and costume which is just 'make-up'), or comes up another variation of old plots for old ones. The Spider Man or Batman aren't going anywhere on any fundamental level, and there isn't new and innovative replacements. Well, I think this is a more valid point, but it has more to do with the current (unhealthy) economical logic of Western mass entertainment industry than with something 'deeper' in our culture.
leoc 11y ago
I love Watchmen, but I went straight to /r/nottheonion with this https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/3du90o/superheroes_a_cultural_catastrophe_says_comics/ https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/3du90o/superhe... .
lesingerouge 11y ago
slightly off-topic: if you didn't watch it yet, you should rush to see this documentary about Alan Moore. They mind of this guy is a fascinating universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mindscape_of_Alan_Moore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mindscape_of_Alan_Moore
stcredzero 11y ago
I am annoyed by people who claim to be "geeks" and "nerds" because they read comics and watch Marvel movies, but who are amazingly ignorant about science. Just the other day, I met one: Thought the solar system was around 10 million years old, and that the prediction of the Sun going red giant in 4.5 billion years was some kind of BS guess. He was ready to render judgement on the entire discipline of astronomy but had basically no idea about the findings and methods of astronomers, other than vague notions that there are stars and planets up there.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  I'm sure there are people who are annoyed by folks who claim to be "geeks" and "nerds" because they read science articles and memorize scientific facts, but who are amazingly ignorant about culture.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    I'm sure there are people who are annoyed by folks who claim to be "geeks" and "nerds" because they read science articles and memorize scientific facts, but who are amazingly ignorant about culture. Summary: "Geek" used to mean "has real knowledge." Not so much anymore. It used to be that the appellation of "geek" would indicate a good working knowledge of science, and a healthy attitude towards knowledge of all kinds. It's more a workable epistemology that I miss in today's "geek" set than science. Really, the guy I describe above is hardly better than a young earth creationist -- his ignorance of highly relevant science is just as large. The chief difference is only that his preferred mythology get a better movie directors and bigger box office returns. I love Marvel movies and read comics myself, but I know enough real-world knowledge to place them into the realm of "sheer awesome/entertaining nonsense." A world full of people who lack the pieces of their high-school education to do just that is kinda a scary place. The "geeks" have taken over the world, but huge swathes of them are now effectively the "Idiocracy" with different cultural trappings.
  - ris 11y ago
    Those people would be imbeciles.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

116 points by chippy 11y ago

ryanmk 11y ago

Dude sounds like he's stuck in his own head.

Ygg2 11y ago
He seems lucid enough. His points about rape are on mark. It seems to tie in into general pattern of squeamishness when it comes to sex. His point about superheroes being detractors from reality is an interesting one. Not sure if it's as bad as he claims, but it makes sense.
robotresearcher 11y ago
Dude has a large, popular and critically acclaimed body of work behind him. I'm interested to hear from him.
chippy 11y ago
his head is quite well regarded by many people.

Lewton 11y ago

(2014)

jgorn 11y ago

Simon Pegg expressed a similar sentiment in May of this year http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-05-19/simon-pegg-criticises-science-fiction-and-genre-films-for-dumbing-down-cinema http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-05-19/simon-pegg-critici... "part of me looks at society as it is now and just thinks we’ve been infantilised by our own taste... Now we’re essentially all consuming very childish things – comic books, superheroes... Adults are watching this stuff, and taking it seriously!”

mhurron 11y ago
“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” - C.S. Lewis People who go on about others not growing up perhaps need to look at themselves. Positioning themselves as better because they're 'adults' because everyone else is acting like 'children', they may find they never actually left high school and are trying desperatly to be the cool kids.
- walshemj 11y ago
  well said not sure why you got a dv
  - notacoward 11y ago
    I haven't downvoted, but I could see how others might have. The CSL quote is a good one. It's important to maintain a certain child-like wonder in the face of encroaching adult jadedness. Unfortunately, non-quote part of the comment is pure spite. Nobody here is "going on" about how being more adult makes them better, but just in case someone did our commenter stands ready to psychoanalyze them as being stuck in high school and thus dismiss them in the exact same say s/he apparently resents superhero-comic fans being dismissed. "I'm rubber, you're glue" is just childish, which is not the same as child-like, and only drags the conversation downward.
    - mhurron 11y ago
      > our commenter stands ready to psychoanalyze No, I'm just saying shut the fuck up.

walterbell 11y ago

A counter-example to the following point is that the recent "Avengers: Age of Ultron" movie included debate on contemporary transhumanism, although that could be Joss Whedon's writing influence: "..a significant section of the public, having given up on attempting to understand the reality they are actually living in, have instead reasoned that they might at least be able to comprehend the sprawling, meaningless, but at-least-still-finite 'universes' presented by DC or Marvel Comics.." Another reason for shorter copyright terms: "..it is, potentially, culturally catastrophic to have the ephemera of a previous century squatting possessively on the cultural stage and refusing to allow this surely unprecedented era to develop a culture of its own, relevant and sufficient to its times.."

codingdave 11y ago

I've noticed a similar trend - I am now in my 40s, and we played games, read comic books, watched TV and movies growing up... but we never made them part of our self-identity. But recently, people's media consumption is part of their identity. From Whovians to Bronies, people are starting to treat their entertainment as core pieces of who they are. I find it odd. But maybe that is just part of getting old... that you don't quite understand the youth of today.

ObviousScience 11y ago
I actually think that marketers have simply gotten better.
robotresearcher 11y ago
Same as it ever was. Trekkies. Yankees fans. Smiths fans. Goths. Deadheads. Beatlemania. Hippies. The Beats. Greasers. Flappers. Oscar Wilde fans. We didn't invent popular culture this generation.
- _asummers 11y ago
  The difference is, we have the Internet to actually create large communities centered around these interests. This makes it look like more people are involved, when in fact all the separate islands of fans have simply been bridged together.
  - joezydeco 11y ago
    And the internet has enabled those fans to be continuously engaged in their interests. Where trekkies/ham operators/beatlemaniacs might have assembled once in a while or yearly at a convention, now they can stay with their tribe all the time. What's the cultural impact when that happens?
    - hodwik 11y ago
      My knee-jerk reaction is to say the people become more insular, but perhaps the opposite is true. If trekkies come from all over the country, from different age groups, backgrounds, perhaps interacting with your internet trekkie tribe all day will give you a broader picture of things. In that sense it may be an exchange of intellectual depth for breadth. In a time of a broad globalism that may be just the sort of population you want. What's more, generally the shared interest is used as a social glue, not as a sole topic of discussion. Case in point, the fact that on Hacker News we are discussing this.

jameshart 11y ago

For centuries the cultural touchstones were all retellings of classical Greek or Roman myths, or Bible stories. Modern media's exploration of Marvel's canon or the expansion of the Star Wars mythos is no different than Shakespeare rebooting Cleopatra and updating her with analogs to contemporary politics.

noblethrasher 11y ago
Human thinking and reasoning gets short-circuited by too much vividness. The difference between those previous eras and now is that our fiction may have become dangerously vivid.
- walterbell 11y ago
  How will we handle Oculus, Magic Leap, HoloLens, etc?
  - noblethrasher 11y ago
    Same way that we handled other new technologies before (e.g. the alphabet, the printing press, perspective art, the Internet, etc.) We’ll stumble along for a few decades making more entertaining toys (along with a few interesting tools) before we end up realizing a new and powerful epistemology that launches us into the next great age civilization. Or, we could end up with Huxely.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  Nonsense. Media vividness isn't a quality of the media -- it's attributed by the viewers. People will perceive the media of their day at the same level of vividness that they would have, in the past, perceived the media of the past. It's self-adjusting.
  - noblethrasher 11y ago
    By vividness, I’m talking about the relative powers of various kinds media to impress us; e.g. that television is more vivid than radio, which is more vivid than writing. I wasn’t talking about the impressiveness of special effects specific to visual media. The idea is that since live-action media is more vivid than cartoons and comic books, it might be the case that either it is displacing better media for dealing with complex topics (e.g. books), or monopolizing a particular media that could be put to “better” uses (i.e. more art films and historical dramas)[1]. But, this isn’t a new argument, Neil Postman devoted an entire book to it 30 years ago [2]. Also, the word “nonsense” really wasn’t an appropriate rejoinder because I wasn’t making a deductive argument in the first place. Rather I was suggesting that there might be evidence that using increasingly more vivid media for ever more trivial things is a net harm to society. [1] I say this as someone who is guilty of watching superhero movies almost exclusively (I even paid to see Iron Man 2 in the theater five times). [2] https://www.google.com/?q=amusing%20ourselves%20to%20death#search_plus_one=form https://www.google.com/?q=amusing%20ourselves%20to%20death#s...

hellbanTHIS 11y ago

Alan Moore pops up every so often just to bum everybody out. Superheroes are a fun, stupid and occasionally brilliant genre. They're the Westerns of the 21st century. Lighten up Al.

calibraxis 11y ago
You might like to read deeper on why mainstream superhero plots follow such a peculiar formula... Are they trying to teach adolescent boys something? > "These “heroes” are purely reactionary, in the literal sense. They have no projects of their own, at least not in their role as heroes: as Clark Kent, Superman may be constantly trying, and failing, to get into Lois Lane’s pants, but as Superman, he is purely reactive. In fact, superheroes seem almost utterly lacking in imagination: like Bruce Wayne, who with all the money in the world can’t seem to think of anything to do with it other than to indulge in the occasional act of charity; it never seems to occur to Superman that he could easily carve free magic cities out of mountains. > "Almost never do superheroes make, create, or build anything. The villains, in contrast, are endlessly creative. They are full of plans and projects and ideas. Clearly, we are supposed to first, without consciously realizing it, identify with the villains. After all, they’re having all the fun. Then of course we feel guilty for it, re-identify with the hero, and have even more fun watching the superego clubbing the errant Id back into submission." > "It’s in this sense that the logic of the superhero plot is profoundly, deeply conservative." (http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/super-position/ http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/super-position/)
- notacoward 11y ago
  The point about making and building is one that has always seemed odd to me. For the most part, superheroes can't help what they are - they became that way through genetics or accident. (Counterexample: Iron Man) On the other hand, many of the supervillains demonstrate very high levels of ingenuity and determination. Many of them have had to overcome even greater adversity or tragedy than the heroes. I'm not fond of seeing distinctions between entrepreneurship and criminality blurred like that, while the hereditary aristocracy get a moral pass. Things have gotten more nuanced since the so-called golden era, but these themes/memes need to die faster.

DocSavage 11y ago

I think he's dead on about the relative proportion of violence/murder versus rape in popular media, particularly the US. Part of it might be the puritanical history of the US. Why is it more acceptable (gauged by PG-13 rating systems) to show killing and violence than even show a breast or two people making love? You'd almost think the latter was a crime instead of the former. The general squeamishness of media on these issues completely distorts the real-world statistics of murder versus domestic violence and rape. So calling Moore out on it is more a statement of current US norms and is very different than other cultures like Japan.

greggman 11y ago
This is just an idea but, does depiction of sex lead to horny people who end up accidentally making babies which leads to abortions or often unwanted kids which often leads to dropping out of school and poverty? On other hand depiction of murder and other violence appears to lead to nothing. In fact as is often pointed out even though apparently media is more violent than ever violent crime rates are down. I don't know. I know I've seen articles about studies that claim violent movies make people more violent in the short term, and I've also seen studies that show the crime rates are down while apparently violent entertainment is up. I have no idea if similar studies have been done for sexualized entertainment, influence on sexual behavior and unintended consequences. Maybe you could look at various cultures, the amount of easily accessible sexualized entertainment, and sex related consequences those cultures have. I suspect it might be similar to violence where countries with more accessible sexual entertainment have less sexual consequences? But of course those same countries also have many other cultural differences as well.
kryptiskt 11y ago
I don't know why you contrast violence and rape, as rape implies violence. And the squemishness about rape doesn't have to say anything about the viewers attitude to sex on the screen. I don't mind movie sex at all, and I abhor 99% of all movie rape or threat thereof. It seems like it's the singular way that hack writers know how to put women in peril, and it's nearly always played for cheap drama and thrills. As for why violence goes down easier. The violence that is done in blockbuster movies has little to do with real violence, it is extremely stylized, it is about as far from reality as romantic movie sex is from real sex. And it is even more so in superhero movies.

maus42 11y ago

Moore has been preaching this since forever. I think his position could be divided to two, slightly different points. I am not sure if he agrees, but this is my take on what Moore is saying: >1. (Superhero) comics were originally children's entertainment, almost a century ago. It is an unhealthy sign that not only we're still stuck with them, they are now deemed acceptable for adult consumption. Interesting thing is that this isn't limited to capestories. The whole genre of YA fiction seems to be focused on this kind of "entertainment literature", with similar (on meta level) formulaic characters and stories. And maybe he has a point; even the "realistic takes" on the genre, "grown-up post-modern deconstructions of inherent sillyness of common assumptions and tropes of caped vigilantes" and that kind of stuff ...it was already done decades ago (people like Moore himself). Yet still Marvel and DC go on and on with the same old stuff, maybe with some "adult" twist or to (like a debate on transhumanism, or making a the protagonist troubled anti-hero, or something), while re-hashing the same 'kiddie' storylines and action. Maybe we are just more self-conscious about this (TVtropes is a thing). However, I think Moore is making a mistake assuming that in the "golden olden days" any more significant majority of people 'graduated' to a more serious (whatever that means) forms of fiction. Even if it's "unhealthy" (I don't agree), it's not like this kind of fiction is anything fundamentally new. As soon as there was the physical possibility of pulp fiction, pulp fiction appeared, and most of that stuff was utter rubbish. (And even before 1920's pulp, there was 1800s cheap literature; most of it was similar melodramatic rubbish, too.) And best of them remain in public consciousness even today. Is popularity of Sherlock Holmes that different thing, on a fundamental level, than popularity of Batman or Superman? Good grief, Moore himself did Extraordinary Gentlemen! 2. (Superhero) comics are not original form for entertainment of our time; we should come up with something new of our own that reflects our time, not just repeat the same and old and tired. For example, instead of trying to come up with a totally new idea, movie industry just makes yet another superhero movie for their next blockbluster candidate. Or DC/Marvel makes yet another 'new' superhero (exactly like the old ones, just different powers and costume which is just 'make-up'), or comes up another variation of old plots for old ones. The Spider Man or Batman aren't going anywhere on any fundamental level, and there isn't new and innovative replacements. Well, I think this is a more valid point, but it has more to do with the current (unhealthy) economical logic of Western mass entertainment industry than with something 'deeper' in our culture.

leoc 11y ago

I love Watchmen, but I went straight to /r/nottheonion with this https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/3du90o/superheroes_a_cultural_catastrophe_says_comics/ https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/3du90o/superhe... .

lesingerouge 11y ago

slightly off-topic: if you didn't watch it yet, you should rush to see this documentary about Alan Moore. They mind of this guy is a fascinating universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mindscape_of_Alan_Moore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mindscape_of_Alan_Moore

stcredzero 11y ago

I am annoyed by people who claim to be "geeks" and "nerds" because they read comics and watch Marvel movies, but who are amazingly ignorant about science. Just the other day, I met one: Thought the solar system was around 10 million years old, and that the prediction of the Sun going red giant in 4.5 billion years was some kind of BS guess. He was ready to render judgement on the entire discipline of astronomy but had basically no idea about the findings and methods of astronomers, other than vague notions that there are stars and planets up there.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
I'm sure there are people who are annoyed by folks who claim to be "geeks" and "nerds" because they read science articles and memorize scientific facts, but who are amazingly ignorant about culture.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  I'm sure there are people who are annoyed by folks who claim to be "geeks" and "nerds" because they read science articles and memorize scientific facts, but who are amazingly ignorant about culture. Summary: "Geek" used to mean "has real knowledge." Not so much anymore. It used to be that the appellation of "geek" would indicate a good working knowledge of science, and a healthy attitude towards knowledge of all kinds. It's more a workable epistemology that I miss in today's "geek" set than science. Really, the guy I describe above is hardly better than a young earth creationist -- his ignorance of highly relevant science is just as large. The chief difference is only that his preferred mythology get a better movie directors and bigger box office returns. I love Marvel movies and read comics myself, but I know enough real-world knowledge to place them into the realm of "sheer awesome/entertaining nonsense." A world full of people who lack the pieces of their high-school education to do just that is kinda a scary place. The "geeks" have taken over the world, but huge swathes of them are now effectively the "Idiocracy" with different cultural trappings.
- ris 11y ago
  Those people would be imbeciles.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]