AVENGERS #71 - NOW RATED MATURE READERS

**MattBrady** · 10-03-2003, 05:26 PM

This morning, Marvel notified retailers that the the next issue of Avengers, #71, originally due to be in stores next Wednesday will be delayed until October 15th, and its normal “PSR” rating changed to “MR” or Mature Readers due to adult content.

Marvel’s notification to retailers reads:

At this time, Marvel has decided to delay the ship date of Avengers #71 by one week. The book will now ship on October 15, and will be returnable. Please treat this issue of Avengers as a Mature Readers issue.

While a PSR rated title, this issue of Avengers contains mature content in the story (specifically a sexual situation, and domestic violence) which warrants an even stronger warning. The book was inadvertently not labeled as containing mature content.

Marvel Comics respectfully requests that all Marvel First Look retailers use discretion when deciding to display First Look copies of Avengers #71 (JUL031474D4).

Marvel apologizes for any inconvenience or difficulties that this situation may have caused.

The sexually suggestive scene in question relates to a scene with Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne in bed, with the strong suggestion made, as a moist Pym is miniaturized and crawling up Janet’s body from under the covers that he used his shrinking powers in a manner that was most certainly not related to crime fighting.

The issue also contains a scene where it is revealed that long-time Avengers enemy Whirlwind beats up a prostitute dressed as the Wasp (Van Dyne’s alter ego), confesses that he has always been sexually attracted to her, and then licks her face while she’s unconscious.

This is the first time a mainstream Marvel Universe title has been rated for mature readers, prompting some retailers to voice concerns that, if they are to be conscientious in the retail community, they cannot sell the issue to buyers who are under age, even if it means leaving a gap in their collection.

As one retailer expressed to Newsarama, Marvel assured retailers that when they abandoned the Comics Code they would maintain a consistency within their in-house ratings on a given title, ensuring that there would be no variation in ratings between issues.

The pages of the first scene are below. Click on the thumbnails for larger versions.

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3

benhameen · 10-03-2003, 05:35 PM

I havent read avengers in a loooooooooooong time. why do they look like the ultimates version?

gwangung · 10-03-2003, 05:38 PM

Yeck.

Tackily done.

Scooby2099 · 10-03-2003, 05:38 PM

Oy! One can only wonder what Mr Fantastic will be up to in the upcoming issues of the Fantastic Four!

Garth Rockett · 10-03-2003, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by benhameen
I havent read avengers in a loooooooooooong time. why do they look like the ultimates version?

Well, they look like they've always looked to me, with the exception that Jan seems a bit bustier than normal.

I don't have a problem with this type of content per se, but I am bothered that Marvel is not keeping a title's rating consistent from month to month. Once a rating is established, they shouldn't deviate from it.

Ivan Isaacs · 10-03-2003, 05:43 PM

Avengers a mature readers only book?

I guess that's another one chalked up to the long list of stupid things Marvel do.

OMAR · 10-03-2003, 05:46 PM

Words fail me.

tralfaz · 10-03-2003, 05:46 PM

I thought the whole idea for the Ultimate line (specifically the Ultimates) was so they could do the mature content.... but then again, wasnt the ultimate line supposed to bring in new, younger readers?

I dont mind this at all but NUMarvel has to make up its mind of what it wants to be...

feisto · 10-03-2003, 05:48 PM

This is not surpising for a company looking for quick and easy headlines. This will be on CNN in no time.

ajrobles51 · 10-03-2003, 05:51 PM

All jokes aside, I think that what’s intimated here, as currently depicted has no place in a mainstream Marvel title such as the Avengers. I’ve been collecting the adventures of earth’s Mightiest Heroes for close to 17 years now (I’m 27), and I’ve never seen something like this before in an Avengers title. This isn’t something that’s appropriate for this type of book. I understand that the argument can be made that hank and Janet were formerly married, and have been having a reconciliation of sorts, but to depict an intimate session of theirs in this manner is in poor taste. There are many other ways that a lovemaking session could have been portrayed, but Marvel chose instead to titillate, rather than be prudent.

I sure wouldn’t want a 10-year-old picking up this issue. Hell I wouldn’t feel comfortable with anyone under 16 reading this issue because of his scene.

That being said, I don’t find anything wrong with what was written regarding Whirlwind’s involvement in the story. His actions are abominable, but it’s in keeping with his characterization as a villain. I know that he will be paying for actions at some point later tin the story, and this is exactly the type of behavior that heroes despise.

And by the way…. what do you mean my handle is well deserved, Matt...

......?

MikeHuffman · 10-03-2003, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Garth Rockett

I don't have a problem with this type of content per se, but I am bothered that Marvel is not keeping a title's rating consistent from month to month. Once a rating is established, they shouldn't deviate from it.

I agree — if an 11-year-old has an Avengers subscription by mail (does Marvel still do that?) or picks up a copy regularly at the grocery store, this could be a shock for Mom or Dad. Worse, it's fodder for a "Naughty Comics" segment on Bill O'Reilly or something.

It's probably best to leave the hot sex action to the MAX titles.

Mike

Barry · 10-03-2003, 05:53 PM

Why was this scene necessary? I expect this of the Mighty Moron Marvel Marching Society, but not Geoff Johns. Unless he had no choice/involvment in this particular scene...

Cartoon Jay · 10-03-2003, 05:56 PM

I haven't the words...

RDuarte · 10-03-2003, 06:05 PM

Sex in a comic is not new. I remember reading Spider-Man years ago and thinking, "This is very sexual." Off the top of my head anytime Mary Jane was drawn by Eric Larsen (and I'm not knocking Larsen; I love Savage Dragon) she was usually in lingerie. Also, I remember an issue (around the time of Maximum Carnage) when Peter came home and they had sex on the kitchen floor. It was all off panel (of course), but the word balloons clearly implied MJ's satisfaction.

This, however, is a more than a little racy in a mainstream book. I agree that once a book has been targeted at an audience, it needs to stay in that audience. What I don't understand is how this got from writer, to artist, to editor to (assuming someone other than the editor rates these things and for lack of a better word) censor without raising any red flags. And why, once the red flags were raised, was the problem not fixed? Since the book is being delayed anyway, they could have re-drawn the pages in question (the second and third) to meet their PSR standards.

I hope there is more information regarding this story.

CrazyFool · 10-03-2003, 06:06 PM

The scene doesn't bother me at all, though I can understand that it may have no place in Avengers. What interests me, though, is the thought that Geoff Johns writing this/Editorial allowing it. Maybe Johns had no control and Marvel wanted to go risque, who knows. It's even possible that this scene serves some other purpose in the story, who knows. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

RobSchamberger · 10-03-2003, 06:06 PM

I see your point. Having a black man chained up in a White House cabinet member's office is way more appropriate for children. Or having a terrorist action kill thousands at Mount Rushmore.

Or just plain violence.

Yeah, violence is good for kids. Sex? Sex is bad. We should outlaw sex. Who likes it anyway? Let's go kill another five thousand people in the Middle East instead.

feisto · 10-03-2003, 06:09 PM

That is our society. Sex bad violence good.

Taltos · 10-03-2003, 06:10 PM

This is truely a sad day in comics history.

Barry · 10-03-2003, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RobSchamberger
I see your point. Having a black man chained up in a White House cabinet member's office is way more appropriate for children. Or having a terrorist action kill thousands at Mount Rushmore.

Or just plain violence.

Yeah, violence is good for kids. Sex? Sex is bad. We should outlaw sex. Who likes it anyway? Let's go kill another five thousand people in the Middle East instead.

Last time I checked, Avengers was a superhero/action comic, not a porn comic.

mpg · 10-03-2003, 06:13 PM

Kids dont read comics, so whats the difference?

it gets reaaal old hearing about "what about the children, the children?" more often than not, it is an adult that is protesting to content on his/her adult level, but uses the whole appropriateness for children rountine. frankly, who cares?

what is more important, is that this same thread, started in Talk@Newsarama before this was a news thread, embarrassed Matt Brady! Now that is news!

O.J. Flow · 10-03-2003, 06:29 PM

A bigger fan of porn than me you will not meet, but there's a time and a place for it. There is certainly no place for it in the pages of Avengers. This was tacky, tacky, tacky, and I'd expect nothing less from Marvel. No shi# that the orginal concept behind the Ultimate line was to bring in young readers, and we all know what a crock that was. This scene should've been in The Ultimates, and "ultimately" the blame for this garbage lays with the editors at Marvel. Other than making JLA/Avengers a reality, I haven't been impressed with one f***ing thing that Marvel has been done under Joe Q's watch.

And to Geoff Johns: if this Avengers story was your baby from the get-go, I must say Shame on You. I expect better from you, but I suppose if you want to keep these ideas on the Marvel side of the fence, knock yourself out. Otherwise, please keep it out of the likes of Teen Titans, JSA, and Hawkman. I gave Kevin Smith a free pass a couple of years ago whith his infamous scene in Green Arrow with Oliver Queen and Dinah Lance, but I expect that from him. Not everyone in the business should take those liberties with these long-standing characters.

Christopher · 10-03-2003, 06:34 PM

I predict one of two things will happen. Either they'll sell fewer issues of this particular issue or they'll sell more.

10-03-2003, 06:35 PM

All jokes from the other thread aside, I have no problem with this scene and do wish sex became a bigger part of super hero comics.

Sex, when presented in the proper context, is supposed to be the ultimate expression of love between two people, right?

So this sex scene is presented in that context, while the sex scene in Alias #1, for example, was presented in another context.

I for one wouldn't compare the two, the only thing they have in commun is that they are both sex scenes. How is that different from two conversation scenes or two fight scenes in two different comics?

I'll tell you how: it's all in the execution and the context...

LIEFELDISGOD · 10-03-2003, 06:43 PM

If a books rating the same every month what's the point of rating them in the first place. I don't think it was that tacky, and it was fairly humorous. Younger readers will a.) not get the joke or b.) have been discussing or participating (without the use of shrinking powers) in such acts themselves. Kids aren't that stupid. Not that I'm saying a book with such a scene should be given to an eight year old, but I've seen a lot worse. Mountiain out of mole hill.

MichaelCoughlin · 10-03-2003, 06:43 PM

Often times when a writer can't think of anything truly creative, they just go for shock and try to fool people into thinking it's boundery pushing, when in reality it's just tacky.

I wonder what's next? Marvel finally tells the world if "The Things dork is made of rock" by showing us all!!!!

However, despite the fact that i think this is just kind of gratuitous and stupid, I want to publicly say that at least Marvel had the stones to pull the book back for a week and release it with a MR label. As stupid as I think this story sounds (what ever happened to letting a reader use their imagination?) I'd have thought it downright irresponsible if they'd published this without a MR label on it.

To the people with the same old cliched complaint of "Oh, we kill a thousand people, but don't show sex." Please. For starters, there are a lot of people who complain about the over the top gratuitous violence that is shown in comics. (Authority coming to mind) Just because one dumb thing is allowed doesn't mean we should allow ALL the dumbs things there are.

Second, most of the time those doing the killing are THE BAD GUYS. Assuming that killing as bad and that out of wedlock sex is bad (this is for arguments sake, I'm not taking a position on either, well, ok, i'll say that killing is bad flat out. nor am i equating the two as being moral equals) it's different if the red skull kills a bunch of people, because he's the bad guy. at the end of the day the good guy, cap. america for instance, actually makes it a point to never kill anyone for any reason. However, this issue apparently has the GOOD guys engaging in the "bad" behavior. It's not just showing things that is bad in and of itself, it's the context in which their shown.