Cockrum on Stan Lee and Ms. Marvel's Costume
George F. Grattan
post in light of the discussions lately:
"CBA: Was that your one collaboration with Stan?
Dave: No. We went round and round about Ms. Marvel's costume, too. Remember
she started with a female version of Captain Marvel's costume only with an
open belly, and we all bitched about that because none of us could figure a
rationale for it. So they closed the belly opening, but we said, 'No, she
needs another costume.' We hassled Stan about it for so long that he said,
'All right! If you think you're so smart, design a new one.' And I must have
gone through 50 designs! Some of 'em I would xerox and try out in different
colors, and Stan would go, 'No, no, no, no! Get that out of here." Finally I
did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I like:
Shiny leather and tits & ass!"
(From the Fall 1999 "Comic Book Artist," No. 6, page 31)
George F. Grattan
grat...@bc.edu
"...in the end they just ask you those crappy little questions."
Robert Penn Warren, All the King's Men
Matt Adler
news:B7A699E6.E641%grat...@bc.edu...
> Just came across this story from Dave Cockrum and thought it appropriate
to
> post in light of the discussions lately:
>
> "CBA: Was that your one collaboration with Stan?
>
> Dave: No. We went round and round about Ms. Marvel's costume, too.
Remember
> she started with a female version of Captain Marvel's costume only with an
> open belly, and we all bitched about that because none of us could figure
a
> rationale for it. So they closed the belly opening, but we said, 'No, she
> needs another costume.' We hassled Stan about it for so long that he said,
> 'All right! If you think you're so smart, design a new one.' And I must
have
> gone through 50 designs! Some of 'em I would xerox and try out in
different
> colors, and Stan would go, 'No, no, no, no! Get that out of here." Finally
I
> did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
> said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I
like:
> Shiny leather and tits & ass!"
Wow! Stan really was ahead of his time!
--
"Hmm, Mr. Immortal has the makings of an interesting concept, but c'mon,
Flatman is kind of dopey."
"Dopey? Where's your SENSE OF WONDER? Your vacant eyes betray the DEADNESS
OF YOUR VERY SOUL!"
-- As told by Adam Cadre
Shawn Hill
: gone through 50 designs! Some of 'em I would xerox and try out in different
: colors, and Stan would go, 'No, no, no, no! Get that out of here." Finally I
: did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
: said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I like:
: Shiny leather and tits & ass!"
: (From the Fall 1999 "Comic Book Artist," No. 6, page 31)
Well, sorta undoes our whole "what a tasteful costume" concept, huh? :)
Shawn
George F. Grattan
Somewhat. I mean, Cockrum doesn't quote Lee saying- "Butt floss or you're
fired!" or "Fine, but make sure everyone draws her from the back." :-)
George F. Grattan
>> Finally
> I
>> did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
>> said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I
>> like:
>> Shiny leather and tits & ass!"
>
> Wow! Stan really was ahead of his time!
In being behind it, yes. :-) But I think even Stan would draw the line at
many of the portrayals of Marvel's female characters today.
Matt Adler
> on 8/20/01 11:58 AM, Matt Adler at mad...@ic.sunysb.edu wrote:
>
> >> Finally
> > I
> >> did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
> >> said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I
> >> like:
> >> Shiny leather and tits & ass!"
> >
> > Wow! Stan really was ahead of his time!
>
> In being behind it, yes. :-) But I think even Stan would draw the line at
> many of the portrayals of Marvel's female characters today.
Well, we all want to have this grandfatherly image, but the truth is, sexism
was an accepted norm of that generation. If not for the censors, I'm sure
the pop-culture of their time would've far outdone ours in terms of
gratuitous nudity and sexual exploitation.
Shawn Hill
: "George F. Grattan" <grat...@bc.edu> wrote in message
:> In being behind it, yes. :-) But I think even Stan would draw the line at
:> many of the portrayals of Marvel's female characters today.
: Well, we all want to have this grandfatherly image, but the truth is, sexism
: was an accepted norm of that generation. If not for the censors, I'm sure
: the pop-culture of their time would've far outdone ours in terms of
: gratuitous nudity and sexual exploitation.
Just look at the Calendar girls, or Jane Russell and Marilyn Monroe
in any context. It's not that different today, in some ways.
Shawn
Andrew Krepela
George F. Grattan <grat...@bc.edu> wrote:
>on 8/20/01 11:58 AM, Matt Adler at mad...@ic.sunysb.edu wrote:
>
>>> Finally
>> I
>>> did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
>>> said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I
>>> like:
>>> Shiny leather and tits & ass!"
--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |\ zZZZ ,,,---,,_ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@ Andrew /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ www.eskimo.com/~icebrkr @@
@@ Krepela |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Enjoy Your Shoes! @@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ /---''(_/--' `-'\_) @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Matt Deres
George F. Grattan wrote in message ...
>Just came across this story from Dave Cockrum and thought it appropriate to
>post in light of the discussions lately:
>
>"CBA: Was that your one collaboration with Stan?
>
>Dave: No. We went round and round about Ms. Marvel's costume, too. Remember
>she started with a female version of Captain Marvel's costume only with an
>open belly, and we all bitched about that because none of us could figure a
>rationale for it. So they closed the belly opening, but we said, 'No, she
>needs another costume.' We hassled Stan about it for so long that he said,
>'All right! If you think you're so smart, design a new one.' And I must
have
>gone through 50 designs! Some of 'em I would xerox and try out in different
>colors, and Stan would go, 'No, no, no, no! Get that out of here." Finally
I
>did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
>said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I like:
>Shiny leather and tits & ass!"
Of course, he *did* do that one from the start; he just called her
Phoenix... and Oracle. I've always liked those costumes (Phoenix and Ms
Marvel that is), but saying he 'finally' came up with it is like saying NBC
is going in an all new direction this fall with a show about a bar in New
York called Beers.
Matt
George F. Grattan
I'm not sure of the chronology here- does Cockrum's re-design of the Ms.
Marvel costume pre-date Phoenix? (It certainly pre-dates Oracle, if so.)
Menshevik
>> Phoenix... and Oracle. I've always liked those costumes (Phoenix and Ms
>> Marvel that is), but saying he 'finally' came up with it is like saying NBC
>> is going in an all new direction this fall with a show about a bar in New
>> York called Beers.
>
>I'm not sure of the chronology here- does Cockrum's re-design of the Ms.
>Marvel costume pre-date Phoenix? (It certainly pre-dates Oracle, if so.)
The new costume first showed up in 1978, in Ms. Marvel #20
(cover dated October 1978) and Marvel Team-Up #76 (December).
Phoenix (green costume) first appeared in UXM #101 (October 1976)
and Oracle of the Imperial Guard in UXM #107 (October 1977).
And yes, I really am surprised Cockrum went through 50 designs,
as the Ms. Marvel costume really is a fairly standard Dave Cockrum
design of the era
Tilman
.
"Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die
Flipperwaldt gersput."
coondawg
Grant Enfield
"Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:9lrbcl$vac$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> Well, sorta undoes our whole "what a tasteful costume" concept, huh? :)
I'd been assuming there was a "by comparison" in that claim there somewhere.
. . . :)
grant
George F. Grattan
Exactly.
Shawn Hill
: Of course, he *did* do that one from the start; he just called her
: Phoenix... and Oracle. I've always liked those costumes (Phoenix and Ms
: Marvel that is), but saying he 'finally' came up with it is like saying NBC
: is going in an all new direction this fall with a show about a bar in New
: York called Beers.
Well, think of some of his other base model costumes. There's the
Shrinking Violet/Polaris one; the one with long sleeves but bathing suit
shorts like Projectra and her Imperial Gaurd analog; the Shadow
Lass/Saturn Girl/Storm one; the big Phantom Girl ponytails and bell
bottoms; and all the variations he came up with for the Futurians, etc. He
had more than one trick in his bag, and many of them wouldn't have worked
any better for Carol than her original, belly-exposing one.
Shawn
Jack Bohn
>Well, think of some of his other base model costumes. There's the
>Shrinking Violet/Polaris one; the one with long sleeves but bathing suit
>shorts like Projectra and her Imperial Gaurd analog; the Shadow
>Lass/Saturn Girl/Storm one; the big Phantom Girl ponytails and bell
>bottoms; and all the variations he came up with for the Futurians, etc. He
>had more than one trick in his bag, and many of them wouldn't have worked
>any better for Carol than her original, belly-exposing one.
Hmm... I wonder if those are the variations he went through that Stan
Lee sent back.
--
-Jack
CleV
>Matt Deres <mde...@mybodyhairhome.com> wrote:
The Phantom Girl/Princess Projectra hole-cut-into-sleeves one, which
either Cockrum or Byrne once gave Misty Knight.
I don't think though that there was Legion precursor for the
Colossus/Nightcrawler shoulder ... things ...
CleV
wrote:
>Shawn Hill wrote:
The thing was that the exposed belly was gotten rid of quite early
anyway.
KurtBusiek
Colossus/Nightcrawler shoulder ... things ...>>
McCloud and I called 'em "shoulder-crescents."
And Chameleon Boy had 'em.
kdb
Steven Horton
> was an accepted norm of that generation. If not for the censors, I'm sure
> the pop-culture of their time would've far outdone ours in terms of
> gratuitous nudity and sexual exploitation.
Agreed. George Bush Sr. wanted America to be more like the Waltons and
less like the Simpsons. What he apparently didn't remember was that
America was never like the Waltons. Pop culture is a much more accurate
depiction of our time than that of the 60's.
People think television has degenerated, for example, but look at All in
the Family. You'd never get a show like that on the air today!
-Steve
Shawn Hill
: On 22 Aug 2001 03:14:30 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
:>Matt Deres <mde...@mybodyhairhome.com> wrote:
: The Phantom Girl/Princess Projectra hole-cut-into-sleeves one, which
: either Cockrum or Byrne once gave Misty Knight.
: I don't think though that there was Legion precursor for the
: Colossus/Nightcrawler shoulder ... things ...
Yep, the character who became Leviathan. Colossal Boy?
He also had a goofy head/mask/thing for awhile.
Shawn
BritReid
: Colossus/Nightcrawler shoulder ... things ...
Yep, the character who became Leviathan. Colossal Boy? >>
Dave Cockrum's Futurians featured several designs that didn't make it into
Legion or X-Men (and at least one character, Silkie, I think.)
And, his redesign of Menthor as a woman for Wally Wood's T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents
also had the shoulder "pads"
-B
Ivan
> Colossus/Nightcrawler shoulder ... things ...
Epaulets, dude.
Ivan
George F. Grattan
>>
>
> People think television has degenerated, for example, but look at All in
> the Family. You'd never get a show like that on the air today!
>
Agreed- it's far too intelligent.
George F. Grattan
Nope. Those are what Captain Nazi has on his shoulders, I believe. The
Colossal Boy/Chameleon Boy/Nightcrawler/Colossus design isn't an ornamental
(military) attachment on top of the shoulder pad area, it's an extension of
the tunic up to a pointed end over and off the shoulder entirely.
Steven Horton
> > the Family. You'd never get a show like that on the air today!
> >
> Agreed- it's far too intelligent.
I was thinking more along the lines of "racist" "shrill" and "irritating."
A whole hour of a family that hates one another arguing at the top of
their lungs while insulting anyone and everyone who wasn't them. How did
this show become popular again?
Only in the 70s, I guess...
-Stev
George F. Grattan
When people understood social satire, yes, apparently. When 3/4 of the
social critiques in even _The Simpsons_ go over people's heads, when
otherwise intelligent people honestly think "Married With Children" was the
90s version of "All in the Family," and when, it seems, we like to like
everyone we see in popular art and don't want much commentary with it, it's
no surprise a show like "All in the Family" wouldn't find a place on today's
network airwaves. Here's a hint: Archie is *supposed* to be detestable, and
the other characters are supposed to have their foibles, too.
In other words, I think you're seriously off the mark, but we're both way
off topic, too. :-)
Grant Enfield
Just call me "Hypercorrection Man."
> Here's a hint: Archie is *supposed* to be detestable, and
> the other characters are supposed to have their foibles, too.
Archie's *views* and expressions of those views are supposed to be
detestable. All in the Family works so well because Archie has redeeming
qualities and values that viewers can identify with. He's not a cartoon. ;)
grant
Menshevik
>>
>Nope. Those are what Captain Nazi has on his shoulders, I believe. The
>Colossal Boy/Chameleon Boy/Nightcrawler/Colossus design isn't an ornamental
>(military) attachment on top of the shoulder pad area, it's an extension of
>the tunic up to a pointed end over and off the shoulder entirely.
Maybe there's a Japanese word for it? It does seem to be
a feature of some Kabuki costumes.
BTW, it should
count as "masculinity-enhancing " as it does make the wearer's
shoulders appear more broad...
Tilman
George F. Grattan
Point taken. You're right, of course: if Archie had no redeeming qualities
whatsoever, the viewer could utterly dismiss him and not see his/her own
worst tendencies reflected in the character.
Menshevik
once remarked that one of the problems with Ms. Marvel's original
costume was that, as a direct take from Captain Marvel's it was really
inappropriate to her body (the black area flaring out
towards the top emphasised the width of the shoulders and
the narrowness of the hips).
Also the changes made to the costume in adapting it to
Ms. Marvel were a bit self-contradictory, as the bare belly
was appropriate to warm weather, while the scarf-thingies,
besides providing a convenient hand-hold for foes, seemed
to indicate cold weather.
Grant Enfield
"Menshevik" <mens...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010824105517...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
> Also the changes made to the costume in adapting it to
> Ms. Marvel were a bit self-contradictory, as the bare belly
> was appropriate to warm weather, while the scarf-thingies,
> besides providing a convenient hand-hold for foes, seemed
> to indicate cold weather.
I don't think they're *scarves*--they're *sashes*.
And I can't see anything "cold-weather" about a sash. :)
grant
Menshevik
>> was appropriate to warm weather, while the scarf-thingies,
>> besides providing a convenient hand-hold for foes, seemed
>> to indicate cold weather.
>
>I don't think they're *scarves*--they're *sashes*.
>
>And I can't see anything "cold-weather" about a sash. :)
They looked as if they were meant to keep her neck warm.
Steven Horton
> social critiques in even _The Simpsons_ go over people's heads, when
> otherwise intelligent people honestly think "Married With Children" was the
> 90s version of "All in the Family," and when, it seems, we like to like
> everyone we see in popular art and don't want much commentary with it, it's
> no surprise a show like "All in the Family" wouldn't find a place on today's
> network airwaves. Here's a hint: Archie is *supposed* to be detestable, and
> the other characters are supposed to have their foibles, too.
>
> In other words, I think you're seriously off the mark, but we're both way
> off topic, too. :-)
All in the Family was social satire? I think you lost me. People liked the
show because it was shocking and true-to-life, something many other shows
of the day (such as the Brady Bunch) couldn't pull off. I doubt people
tuned in because of the biting social criticism. I think you're vastly
overestimating the show's target audience at the time.
It's telling when the show got a name change and moved to a different
network (becoming Archie Bunker's Family) in the early 80s, the racist
jokes and insults were toned down considerably.
-Steve (I remember Mad Magazine making fun of this fact)
R. Tang
Steven Horton <sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> When people understood social satire, yes, apparently. When 3/4 of the
>> social critiques in even _The Simpsons_ go over people's heads, when
>> otherwise intelligent people honestly think "Married With Children" was the
>> 90s version of "All in the Family," and when, it seems, we like to like
>> everyone we see in popular art and don't want much commentary with it, it's
>> no surprise a show like "All in the Family" wouldn't find a place on today's
>> network airwaves. Here's a hint: Archie is *supposed* to be detestable, and
>> the other characters are supposed to have their foibles, too.
>>
>> In other words, I think you're seriously off the mark, but we're both way
>> off topic, too. :-)
>
>All in the Family was social satire?
Yup. Pretty evident.
And all the more evident, if you read the statements by the show's
creator.
I think you lost me. People liked the
>show because it was shocking and true-to-life, something many other shows
>of the day (such as the Brady Bunch) couldn't pull off. I doubt people
>tuned in because of the biting social criticism. I think you're vastly
>overestimating the show's target audience at the time.
>
>It's telling when the show got a name change and moved to a different
>network (becoming Archie Bunker's Family) in the early 80s, the racist
>jokes and insults were toned down considerably.
>
>-Steve (I remember Mad Magazine making fun of this fact)
>
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Steven Horton
>
> Yup. Pretty evident.
>
> And all the more evident, if you read the statements by the show's
> creator.
Granted.
Again, though, I doubt it was popular because of this - people watched it
because it shocked them, or because they liked the off-color humor.
-Steve (who thinks racism-as-social-commentary is reprehensible, but
that's just my opinion)
CleV
In the original costume, it was a scarf ... which is still used to
this day as the sash she wears now ...
Jason Michael
"Steven Horton" <sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.101082...@expert.cc.purdue.edu...
I think you are wrong about this perception-I was 12 years old when the
show started,and I remember even then it was touted as satire.And
remember,Norman Lear also produced Bea Arthur in "Maude" which was an
attempt to show the follies of the other side of the political spectrum
(wasn't she supposed to be Edith's cousin? All these shows were connected-it
was the Leariverse! :) )
And I don't know why "racism-as-social-commentary" is a bad thing.
Shouldn't someone be able to do commentary on racism? Do you feel Swift's "A
Modest Proposal" is reprehensible? Is it wrong to expose intolerance?
Jason Michael
R. Tang
Steven Horton <sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
Oh, I think a lot of people DID watch it because the intent was to
show how foolish Archie's attitudes were.
It's just that a lot of people watched it because they thought it
validated them.
[And no, I do not think it makes racism-as-social-commentary
reprehensible; that's PCism taken to the illogical extreme]
Consul de Designers
> And I don't know why "racism-as-social-commentary" is a bad thing.
> Shouldn't someone be able to do commentary on racism? Do you feel Swift's "A
> Modest Proposal" is reprehensible? Is it wrong to expose intolerance?
Too true. Likewise, Blazing Saddles was brilliant and funny ... and this
generation has Bamboozled
--
till next time,
Jameson Stalanthas Yu, 'mutatis mutandis, strive to be humane, not human'
Shade and Sweet Water, mes amis and Edgerunners
Link at: http://www.dolphins-cove.com
Matt Deres
Menshevik wrote in message <20010824105517...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...
>I forgot to add that someone (could have been Chris Claremont)
>once remarked that one of the problems with Ms. Marvel's original
>costume was that, as a direct take from Captain Marvel's it was really
>inappropriate to her body (the black area flaring out
>towards the top emphasised the width of the shoulders and
>the narrowness of the hips).
>
>Also the changes made to the costume in adapting it to
>Ms. Marvel were a bit self-contradictory, as the bare belly
>was appropriate to warm weather, while the scarf-thingies,
>besides providing a convenient hand-hold for foes, seemed
>to indicate cold weather.
I'm going to set myself up for some flames by admiting that I actually liked
her original costume. It's totally inappropriate of course (the bare belly
was so needlessly effeminate), but that was just part of its charm :-).
Matt
Consul de Designers
> BTW, it should count as "masculinity-enhancing " as it does make the wearer's
> shoulders appear more broad...
So then what was the rationalization in the fashion industry to have women's
clothes have them as well?
CleV
The bare belly was closed up pretty early on in her series though.
Grant Enfield
"Steven Horton" <sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.101082...@expert.cc.purdue.edu...
> -Steve (who thinks racism-as-social-commentary is reprehensible, but
> that's just my opinion)
No thought for holding the mirror up to nature, as 't were?
grant
Steven Horton
> show started,and I remember even then it was touted as satire.And
> remember,Norman Lear also produced Bea Arthur in "Maude" which was an
> attempt to show the follies of the other side of the political spectrum
> (wasn't she supposed to be Edith's cousin? All these shows were connected-it
> was the Leariverse! :) )
Perhaps it's today's generation that sees the show this way. I didn't
watch the show when it first aired (I was only a couple of years old) and
have only seen it today through reruns on TV Land.
> And I don't know why "racism-as-social-commentary"
> is a bad thing.
> Shouldn't someone be able to do commentary on racism? Do you feel Swift's "A
> Modest Proposal" is reprehensible? Is it wrong to expose intolerance?
If a writer is going to expose intolerance through a TV show, then show
that intolerance is wrong. "All in the Family" showed that intolerance was
funny. People laughed at Archie Bunker's behind-the-back comments about
his fellow Blacks and Jews, not because they satirized bigots, but because
they thought the jokes were funny.
-Stev
Steven Horton
> generation has Bamboozled
> --
To quote Roger Ebert's review of "Bamboozled":
That's the danger with satire: To ridicule something, you have to show
it, and if what you're attacking is a potent enough image, the image
retains its negative power no matter what you want to say about it.
My argument is that this very phenomenon took place with "All in the
Family."
-Stev (shutting up now)
Steven Horton
> show how foolish Archie's attitudes were.
>
> It's just that a lot of people watched it because they thought it
> validated them.
This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Thank you.
> [And no, I do not think it makes racism-as-social-commentary
> reprehensible; that's PCism taken to the illogical extreme]
Understood; I could be wrong about this. I have yet to see an example of
satirical racism that I enjoyed.
Except for Blazing Saddles. And that's only 'cause I think the best jokes
revolve around how stupid, rather than how racist, the Common Clay of the
New West (You know -- morons) were.
-Stev
Steven Horton
> > that's just my opinion)
>
> No thought for holding the mirror up to nature, as 't were?
Holding up the mirror to nature is one thing, but when an example of
America's worst is allowed to repeat racist remarks, week after week, then
the writers of the show succeed in glorifying the very thing they are
attempting to satirize.
-Stev
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Menshevik wrote:
>> BTW, it should count as "masculinity-enhancing " as it does make the wearer's
>> shoulders appear more broad...
>
> So then what was the rationalization in the fashion industry to have women's
> clothes have them as well?
The same thing, that it made the shoulders broader ... but for women, that
means that the hips look smaller, which many women consider a plus.
Also, shoulder pads for women were most popular in the 1940s and 80s, both
times when women were dealing with entering the workplace in large numbers
and the resulting conflicts.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: The Revival
R. Tang
Steven Horton <sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
No, it just shows that a lot of American viewers are as dumb as a
rock, and DIDN'T GET THE JOKE.
Not that we should be surprised. We have people still thinking
that anything that features blacks or non-whites "automatically" means an
anti-white, divisive agenda.
xy
>
>-Stev
Grant Enfield
"Steven Horton" <sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.101082...@expert.cc.purdue.edu...
> Holding up the mirror to nature is one thing, but when an example of
> America's worst is allowed to repeat racist remarks, week after week, then
> the writers of the show succeed in glorifying the very thing they are
> attempting to satirize.
I think you're misremembering the show.
Archie's view is by no means the only one that the show represents. Edith,
Meathead, Sally Struthers's character, and a boatload of guest stars all
made their remarks too. Also, I don't understand why repetition necessarily
glorifies: on Friends, Joey says idiot things and Phoebe says non sequitors
every week--is the repetition of those things glorifying idiocy and
whatever-the-hell-it-is-that-characterizes-Phoebe?
grant
Steven Horton
> rock, and DIDN'T GET THE JOKE.
Well, this is a presupposition, right? To paraphrase George Carlin, people
are stupid. Why attempt social commentary when the vast majority of the
television-viewing population won't get it and will instead laugh at the
jokes?
> Not that we should be surprised. We have people still thinking
> that anything that features blacks or non-whites "automatically" means an
> anti-white, divisive agenda.
I agree with that. I also agree with Spike Lee when he wonders why there
aren't any dramas featuring blacks in major roles. I, for one, would be
interested in such a show.
-Stev
Matt Deres
Steven Horton wrote in message ...
>> Not that we should be surprised. We have people still thinking
>> that anything that features blacks or non-whites "automatically" means an
>> anti-white, divisive agenda.
>
>I agree with that. I also agree with Spike Lee when he wonders why there
>aren't any dramas featuring blacks in major roles. I, for one, would be
>interested in such a show.
Boston Public?
Matt
Elayne Riggs
<sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu>:
>To paraphrase George Carlin, people
>are stupid. Why attempt social commentary when the vast majority of the
>television-viewing population won't get it and will instead laugh at the
>jokes?
Because it's the right thing to do? :)
- Elayne
--
www.soulmateproductions.com
remove "OSPAM" from e-mail address to reply
Steven Horton
> >aren't any dramas featuring blacks in major roles. I, for one, would be
> >interested in such a show.
>
> Boston Public?
Actually the one that came to mind was "Gideon's Crossing," but I'm not
even sure that's on the air. I liked the couple episodes I caught.
Boston Public? It's pretty diverse, I guess, at least among the teachers.
The students, less so.
-Stev
Steven Horton
>
> Archie's view is by no means the only one that the show represents. Edith,
> Meathead, Sally Struthers's character, and a boatload of guest stars all
> made their remarks too. Also, I don't understand why repetition necessarily
> glorifies: on Friends, Joey says idiot things and Phoebe says non sequitors
> every week--is the repetition of those things glorifying idiocy and
> whatever-the-hell-it-is-that-characterizes-Phoebe?
Idiocy isn't all that potent of an image, though. I don't think you can
compare the two.
It's like the movie Fight Club - the whole thing was satirizing America's
materialism and their love of violence - but critics railed against it
because the message was lost; all people saw was people punching each
other in the face.
And sure, other views were represented on All in the Family - but it's not
Meathead's chair that's in the Smithsonian.
-Stev
Steven Horton
> >are stupid. Why attempt social commentary when the vast majority of the
> >television-viewing population won't get it and will instead laugh at the
> >jokes?
>
> Because it's the right thing to do? :)
Is it? When only a small percentage of people will recognize it for what
it is?
Better to move to a different medium where the average consumer is smart
enough to get it, such as books, comics, editorials, etc.
This brings up another question, although I hate to stay off topic (this
is really interesting discussion!) Were television viewers smarter in the
'70s then they are now?
-Stev
Menshevik
>'70s then they are now?
Well, the current TV-watching population has gone through two
more decades of brain-addling television, what do you expect? ;-)
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Matt Adler
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.101082...@expert.cc.purdue.edu...
> > rock, and DIDN'T GET THE JOKE.
>
> Well, this is a presupposition, right? To paraphrase George Carlin, people
> are stupid. Why attempt social commentary when the vast majority of the
> television-viewing population won't get it and will instead laugh at the
> jokes?
In other words, we should target all programming towards the lowest common
denominator. Well, the networks certainly agree with you...
--
"Hmm, Mr. Immortal has the makings of an interesting concept, but c'mon,
Flatman is kind of dopey."
"Dopey? Where's your SENSE OF WONDER? Your vacant eyes betray the DEADNESS
OF YOUR VERY SOUL!"
-- As told by Adam Cadre
Matt Adler
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.101082...@expert.cc.purdue.edu...
> > >are stupid. Why attempt social commentary when the vast majority of the
> > >television-viewing population won't get it and will instead laugh at
the
> > >jokes?
> >
> > Because it's the right thing to do? :)
>
> Is it? When only a small percentage of people will recognize it for what
> it is?
> Better to move to a different medium where the average consumer is smart
> enough to get it, such as books, comics, editorials, etc.
Appeasement never works. If you surrender television to idiocy, it will soon
begin to take over other media. Better to keep the battle on that front, so
it cannot advance any further.
Emanuel Jacobowitz
<sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>It's like the movie Fight Club - the whole thing was satirizing America's
>materialism and their love of violence - but critics railed against it
>because the message was lost; all people saw was people punching each
>other in the face.
>
Fight Club, however, was badly written and acted, whereas AITF was
neither, so it's not surprising that most people didn't get the
satire.
What I don't understand is where you get the idea that most people
didn't get that Archie's viewpoint was being run down on that show.
I have never in my entire life heard a single human being say "I liked
AITF because that guy Archie was so dead-on right about blacks and
Jews." Has anyone?
IIRC, the studio audience cracked up a lot more when Archie said
something amazingly lamebrained, e.g "How was I supposed to know youse
people don't like the woid 'Mammy'? Al Jolson called his mother
'Mammy' for yeahs," than when he pathetically attempted to zing
minorities.
And when they did laugh at his remarks, it always seemed to me that it
was because of his air of pop-eyed idiocy, which made his attitudes
seem pathetic. The camera would often hold during a long laugh on
O'Connor milking a particularly moronic facial expression.
In short, they, and everybody else, were laughing at Archie, not with
him.
Archie pretty much never got the last word in any of the debates, and
he was very often shown to be factually wrong in his racist
assumptions. In television semiotics, that's the show's way of saying
"This Guy Is Wrong" in big neon letters. And viewers absorbed that.
What seems to get people upset these days about AITF (other than the
sort of idiot who is upset that Mark Twain used the word "nigger") is
that Archie ended up being the lovable character. This was largely
because he mellowed tremendously over time - taking in a Jewish foster
daughter, respecting his Hispanic housekeeper, helping Irene fit in on
the all-male loading dock, threatening the local KKK branch with mob
violence, etc. The Archie of the first few years would never have
done these things.
Also, even at the beginning, Carol O'Connor brought a depth to the
role that made the viewer understand why Archie thought in the
disturbing way that he did. His bigotry was hateful - and was clearly
portrayed as such - but the man was not. Some people seem to find this
objectionable - apparently, they are afraid that the average viewer is
too stupid or insensitve to make that distinction. Loving Archie,
they fear, the viewer will love his attitudes. I simply see no
evidence that viewers made that mistake.
>And sure, other views were represented on All in the Family - but it's not
>Meathead's chair that's in the Smithsonian.
Meathead, when you come right down to it, was often a moral coward,
and a bad husband. He was never as lovable as Archie. But his views
prevailed, even if his chair did not.
I wish there were a show on TV now that was half as morally courageous
as AITF. The neocon viewpoint is crying out for satire, but except
for a few episodes of Family Ties, it's never been touched.
MannyJ
Grant Enfield
"Steven Horton" <sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.101082...@expert.cc.purdue.edu...
> Were television viewers smarter in the '70s then they are now?
No. Advertisers were less shrewd.
grant
Doug Tonks
>On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 20:38:13 -0500, Steven Horton
><sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>>It's like the movie Fight Club - the whole thing was satirizing America's
>>materialism and their love of violence - but critics railed against it
>>because the message was lost; all people saw was people punching each
>>other in the face.
>>
>Fight Club, however, was badly written and acted, whereas AITF was
>neither, so it's not surprising that most people didn't get the
>satire.
>
> What I don't understand is where you get the idea that most people
>didn't get that Archie's viewpoint was being run down on that show.
>
>I have never in my entire life heard a single human being say "I liked
>AITF because that guy Archie was so dead-on right about blacks and
>Jews." Has anyone?
Unfortunately, I think Archie Bunker was ahead of his time in anticipating the
neoconservative movement that came above ground in 1980. It goes without saying
that Archie would strongly have supported Ronald Reagan (in fact, Archie
Bunker's Place ran until 1983, though I'd stopped watching it--anyone remember
Archie's reaction to President Reagan?). California's Proposition 187, which
denied medical, educational, and other state support to illegal aliens
(primarily affecting Hispanics), was straight from the Bunker handbook. And one
of Archie's most harebrained ideas, proposed as a guest editorial on a TV news
show, was to stop airplane hijacking by handing out guns to all passengers when
they get on the plane. No one in real life has gone quite that far, but
Charlton Heston and others have come out for concealed carry on airplanes.(Of
course, some gun owners are often out there on the fringe--gun owners in Utah
were upset this week when they weren't allowed to bring concealed loaded
weapons into a rally with Dick Cheney.)
--Doug Tonks
_____
Teaching AIDS--a book for parents and teachers
AIDS Prevention Education
http://www.mtsu.edu/~hytonks/aidsbook.html
Christopher Griffen
> Finally I
> did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
> said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I like:
> Shiny leather and tits & ass!"
That's hilarious! I don't have CBA #6. I started buying it from #7.
I wonder if Cockrum's quote is 100% accurate. I wouldn't be surprised,
but we've never heard such graphic language from Stan before. Then
again, it's not as if they would print such comments in Bullpen
Bulletins!
GrapeApe
>I have never in my entire life heard a single human being say "I liked
>AITF because that guy Archie was so dead-on right about blacks and
>Jews." Has anyone?
I think some people thought that by putting Archies behavior in the spotlight,
it made it more acceptable. That is, I think some people understood the satire
and intent, but thought that it made all people less dignified in the process,
both bigots and their targets. It also may have helped split a universal
american culture, into pocketed sub cultures.
What I think AITF did that was bad, was lead to shows with a rather cloying and
overbearing social conscious, shows where the last fifteen minutes were Nell
Carter giving a hug and a lecture on ethics to someone. A rise in political
correctness, a heightened OVER-sensitivity to the way people were different,
rather than the ways they are all similar.
Belascoamo
>>>> Not that we should be surprised. We have people still thinking
>>>> that anything that features blacks or non-whites "automatically" means an
>>>> anti-white, divisive agenda.
>>>
>>>I agree with that. I also agree with Spike Lee when he wonders why there
>>>aren't any dramas featuring blacks in major roles. I, for one, would be
>>>interested in such a show.
>>
>>Boston Public?
Definetely amongst the teachers. Not so much amongst the students.
>ER.
I don't watch this, so I can't comment.
> Ally McBeill.
??????????
Robert Carnegie
> post in light of the discussions lately:
>
> "CBA: Was that your one collaboration with Stan?
>
> Dave: No. We went round and round about Ms. Marvel's costume, too. Remember
> she started with a female version of Captain Marvel's costume only with an
> open belly, and we all bitched about that because none of us could figure a
> rationale for it. So they closed the belly opening, but we said, 'No, she
> needs another costume.' We hassled Stan about it for so long that he said,
> 'All right! If you think you're so smart, design a new one.' And I must have
> gone through 50 designs! Some of 'em I would xerox and try out in different
> colors, and Stan would go, 'No, no, no, no! Get that out of here." Finally I
> did the one with the lightning bolt and sash, and I took it to Stan who
> said, 'That's what you should have done from the start! That's what I like:
> Shiny leather and tits & ass!"
>
>
>
> George F. Grattan
> grat...@bc.edu
At this degree of removal from the source it's hard to tell, but I'll
strive to believe that Stan The Man was being ironic, back in the day.
I must admit that I personally have no objection at all, either, to
shiny leather and tits and ass (puny Busiek: more She-Hulk in _Avengers_!)
and nor do many of us, but I hope that if I was running a comicbook
company then we'd cater for other tastes as well. Of course, if
you can have equality and empowerment _and shiny leather etcetera,
isn't everybody going to be happy? Perhaps not.
George F. Grattan
>> I think you're misremembering the show.
>>
>> Archie's view is by no means the only one that the show represents. Edith,
>> Meathead, Sally Struthers's character, and a boatload of guest stars all
>> made their remarks too. Also, I don't understand why repetition necessarily
>> glorifies: on Friends, Joey says idiot things and Phoebe says non sequitors
>> every week--is the repetition of those things glorifying idiocy and
>> whatever-the-hell-it-is-that-characterizes-Phoebe?
>
> Idiocy isn't all that potent of an image, though. I don't think you can
> compare the two.
> It's like the movie Fight Club - the whole thing was satirizing America's
> materialism and their love of violence - but critics railed against it
> because the message was lost; all people saw was people punching each
> other in the face.
And all many people saw in Swift's "A Modest Proposal" was cannibalism and
barbarity, too.
>
> And sure, other views were represented on All in the Family - but it's not
> Meathead's chair that's in the Smithsonian.
Right. It's Edith's, too, right next to Archie's, which says that at least
the curators of the Smithsonian understood how the various elements of the
show played off each other.
>
George F. Grattan
grat...@bc.edu
"...in the end they just ask you those crappy little questions."
Robert Penn Warren, All the King's Men
Grant Enfield
"GrapeApe" <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote in message
news:20010826222942...@mb-fo.aol.com...
> What I think AITF did that was bad, was lead to shows with a rather
cloying and
> overbearing social conscious, shows where the last fifteen minutes were
Nell
> Carter giving a hug and a lecture on ethics to someone. A rise in
political
> correctness, a heightened OVER-sensitivity to the way people were
different,
> rather than the ways they are all similar.
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble holding All in the Family directly
responsible for these things. Could you explain whatever intermediate steps
or other reasoning supports this?
grant
GrapeApe
>cloying and
>> overbearing social conscious, shows where the last fifteen minutes were
>Nell
>> Carter giving a hug and a lecture on ethics to someone. A rise in
>political
>> correctness, a heightened OVER-sensitivity to the way people were
>different,
>> rather than the ways they are all similar.
>
>I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble holding All in the Family directly
>responsible for these things. Could you explain whatever intermediate steps
>or other reasoning supports this?
One would have to trace the spin-offs (also the production style was
responsible too, video tape made it easier to produce a badly written sitcom
and still make profit)
And I don't know if I would even want to go that far into her career, I guess
the shoe I might be thinking of is Gimme a Break, where she is a housekeeper
helping raise someones kids.
But here is a try.
All in the Family> Maude> show for Conrad Bain "Diff'rent Strokes"> Shows with
non-parents giving ethical lessons (well you could probably place Hazel in
there too, but the feel is different) such as those with Nell Carter.
another try-
All in the Family, Meathead makes a lot of morality speeches to Archie> Archie
Bunkers Place (archie takes in Abandoned Niece, Hires maid, makes alot of
morality speeches to Danielle Brisebois
Somewhere along the line, the gags took a back seat to social moralizing
without the benefit of laughs. One reason "Married with Children did so well
at the time because they every line was a put down, rather than some placating
homily. TV viewers were tired of the preaching.
Also by singling out a social group as "special", it kept the characters from
merely being seen as just another person like you or me.
When Bill Cosby was in "I Spy", I don't think they did any shows about Bill not
being able to get a motel room as a Tennis Pro on tour with Robert Culp, but
perhaps I wasn't watching closely enough. What I saw of this show in the days
before All in the Family, were two equals, two buddies, not possible
adversaries with a lot of social baggage keeping them from interacting.
Menshevik
>merely being seen as just another person like you or me.
Which one could see as a very convenient fantasy for white viewers.
>When Bill Cosby was in "I Spy", I don't think they did any shows about Bill
>not
>being able to get a motel room as a Tennis Pro on tour with Robert Culp, but
>perhaps I wasn't watching closely enough. What I saw of this show in the days
>before All in the Family, were two equals, two buddies, not possible
>adversaries with a lot of social baggage keeping them from interacting.
But how realistic was that? And why would Bill Cosby falling
victim to discrimination (e.g. cab-drivers ignoring him) keep
him from interacting with his buddy? Sounds more like a desire
to exorcise the real world from entertainment...
Consul de Designers
> > No, it just shows that a lot of American viewers are as dumb as a
> > rock, and DIDN'T GET THE JOKE.
> Well, this is a presupposition, right? To paraphrase George Carlin, people are stupid. Why
> attempt social commentary when the vast majority of the television-viewing population won't
> get it and will instead laugh at the jokes?
There is that problem, which I think that a few of the liberal intellectuals
folks like to get smug about "what the show was really about". But it wasn't
that hard to spot if you watched it awhile.
--
till next time,
Jameson Stalanthas Yu, 'mutatis mutandis, strive to be humane, not human'
Shade and Sweet Water, mes amis and Edgerunners
Link at: http://www.dolphins-cove.com
Consul de Designers
> I wish there were a show on TV now that was half as morally courageous as AITF. The neocon
> viewpoint is crying out for satire, but except for a few episodes of Family Ties, it's never
> been touched.
The only thing that comes close, IMO, is Family Guy. And it's pretty well
written too. Simpsons sometimes does it ... not always well, often times with a
heavy handed Lisa sermon, but the episode with Homer and the gay shop keep was
good.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> The only thing that comes close, IMO, is Family Guy.
You think a show that stole its character designs from other people is
morally courageous? I can't agree, although the Simpsons is a good
suggestion.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
GrapeApe
>Bill
>>not
>>being able to get a motel room as a Tennis Pro on tour with Robert Culp,
> but
>>perhaps I wasn't watching closely enough. What I saw of this show in the
>days
>>before All in the Family, were two equals, two buddies, not possible
>>adversaries with a lot of social baggage keeping them from interacting.
>
>But how realistic was that? And why would Bill Cosby falling
>victim to discrimination (e.g. cab-drivers ignoring him) keep
>him from interacting with his buddy? Sounds more like a desire
>to exorcise the real world from entertainment...
How realistic is it hearing a blue collar worker say Wop or Kike or Spic to the
laughter of a studio audience and perhaps a little canned audio sweetening?
Menshevik
>the
>laughter of a studio audience and perhaps a little canned audio sweetening?
Oh, so what really was wrong with All in the Family was the
studio audience. Oooookay....
Consul de Designers
> Consul de Designers at dedes...@dolphins-cove.com wrote:
> > The only thing that comes close, IMO, is Family Guy.
> You think a show that stole its character designs from other people is morally courageous? I
> can't agree, although the Simpsons is a good suggestion.
Is the problem that it completely stole it's concept from AITF, or the content
of the show itself? I fully acknowledge that it's from AITF. Everyone who has
seen/knows of both shows knows that. I was saying that there is not another show
whose full intent is to ridicule snap judgments and inappropriate caricatures.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
>> Consul de Designers at dedes...@dolphins-cove.com wrote:
>>> The only thing that comes close, IMO, is Family Guy.
>> You think a show that stole its character designs from other people is
>> morally courageous?
>
> of the show itself?
I'm talking about character designs. For example: the smart baby looks
exactly like young Jimmy Corrigan (a fact that Entertainment Weekly even
noticed and ran an article on). The father's design is taken from a cartoon
that ran as part of Love American Style.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: September Previews, Hopeless Savages, Slow News Day,
Private Beach, Scary Godmother, Review Capsules
Vanityman
>that ran as part of Love American Style.
>
>Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
i believe that was "wait 'til your father gets home"....
much like the simpsons started on tracy ullman, "wait..." started on love
american style then was spun off into its own show...
and now that you mention it, i believe the wives look the same as well...
gary
Kevin J. Maroney
>I'm talking about character designs. For example: the smart baby looks
>exactly like young Jimmy Corrigan (a fact that Entertainment Weekly even
>noticed and ran an article on). The father's design is taken from a cartoon
>that ran as part of Love American Style.
Actually, they're not that similar. There's a group shot of the _Wait
'Til Your Father Gets Home_ characters at
<http://members.tripod.com/blackcatter/TV/wait.htm>. I wouldn't be
surprised to learn there was some influence, but they're both
parodying the same things--family sitcoms of the 1950s and 1960s.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Unplugged Games | kmar...@ungames.com
"Thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Maroney. You are free
to leave."--Hyperion, _Squadron Supreme_ (by Mark Gruenwald)