Is Marvel retroactively re-rating all their books?

[anarky]

Marvel hasn't had any connection to the Comics Code Authority for some time, and applies its own ratings. Essentially, there are comics for teens and adults, there are comics for retarded first-graders, and there are Spider-Man comics, which seem to be the only true "all ages" comics they make anymore. (Don't bring up Marvel Age. It's so dumbed-down, it falls firmly in the "retarded first-grader" camp.)

So, I'm at Barnes and Noble, and I see a hardcover of the Iron Man "Demon in a Bottle" on display. The thing that's weird is that Marvel has rated this T+. Meaning, it's for teens and older.

This seems a bit weird to me. Every issue of Iron Man published up until Marvel broke with the Authority was approved under the Comics Code. Most of what's going on in a lot of Marvel comics now, Iron Man included, would never have flown under the old Code. So why re-label something that's all ages, even if it deals with a more mature-audience subject, as a book for teens and up?

Are they trying to make it seem edgier, to sell collections about an alkie superhero? Are they just going for consistency on all Iron Man collections?

The rating wasn't as odd as the decision to go back and give it what's essentially a harsher rating.

[jjreason]

I can't answer for them, but I'd expect it's the subject matter. Looking back, I'm a bit surprised the CCA didn't go offside and refuse to support this story much like they balked at the drug stories in Spideys 97-99. Another example of how alcohol isn't a drug I suppose.

[Rollo Tomassi]

I bet it's the Marvel machine just slapping a "rating" on it and not really even paying attention and/or discussing whether the content merits said rating.

[vynsane]

i'd have to say it's probably a reaction to the more knee-jerk reactions to things now-a-days and trying to cover their own asses in case of some irate retarded mother claiming comics made their child a degenerate alcoholic gay. the cry of "family values" is a lot more prevalent these days than it was back when this story was originally printed.

[JON]

I was under the impression that "Demon in a Bottle" was the first Marvel story to fail to get CC approval.

[vynsane]

I was under the impression that "Demon in a Bottle" was the first Marvel story to fail to get CC approval.

well, the spidey drug use issues were published without the CC seal because they didn't think they'd get approval, and they were published long before demon in a bottle. not sure if DiaB was actually negged by the CCA, though...

[anarky]

I think it was okay. Non-CCA issues are hellaciously expensive for some reason; I think it may be because some outlets refused to carry them until recently.

I just looked up the issues, and they have the seal of approval.

IIRC, the Spidey two-parter sorta made them change policy. Any reference to drug use was prohibited until that point, and that story made them revise it to any story showing drug use in a positive light was prohibited. It pre-dated the Green Lantern/Green Arrow issues where Speedy was a heroin addict, but not by much, and that story got approval.

[vynsane]

IIRC, the Spidey two-parter sorta made them change policy. Any reference to drug use was prohibited until that point, and that story made them revise it to any story showing drug use in a positive light was prohibited.

which was actually surprisingly progressive. usually those content-governing bodies are so watch-dog-y and insane that they won't back down even in the light of pure reason. they also tend to have their heads so far up their asses as to spur on worse content that just goes right over their heads. case in point: the south park movie was originally going to be called "south park: all hell breaks loose" but since the mpaa didn't like the use of the word "hell" (despite hellraiser, hellboy, from hell... you get the point, they just hated parker and stone...) so they instead changed it to a euphemism for an uncircumcised penis that totally passed the mpaa by. that's just freakin' fantastic.