Was the comics code kino in the 50s?

Not to mention DC and Archie were the ones calling the shots so they were able to navigate the new rules ahead of time and stamp out the competition

No. The whole point of the code was to kill off the interesting publishers and their genres.
The code is directly why superheroes dominate American comics.

Restrictive trash that stifled creativity.

It's just the SJW shit we have today but codified. There's nothing based about moral puritans

The code authority was a thinly veiled excuse to axe comics that weren't made by the biggest, richest companies at the time who coincidentally made all of the rules. Basically Remember everyone, removing the things you find objectionable is always, always, always the same precedent for removing the things you deem acceptable. Never give an inch, because they will always take a mile. The Comics Code Authority is the perfect example of how this mentality works and how it is always turned against the things that people deemed acceptable at the time by simply hammering how it would deal with the unacceptable. We have the same thing happening today, as it has always been since the beginning of time.

Attached: consume_products.jpg (1916x945, 340.5K)

why do the limitations foster more creativity

There will come a day where a bait thread like this will pop up and the vast majority of posters will be contrarian authoritarians trying to timewalk back to the 50s, but today is not that day. Good job anons.

Maybe if you're Chuck Dixon
>In the 1950s, the great publishers, including DC and what later become Marvel, created the Comics Code Authority, a guild regulator that issued rules such as: "Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal." The idea behind the CCA, which had a stamp of approval on the cover of all comics, was to protect the industry's main audience—kids—from story lines that might glorify violent crime, drug use or other illicit behavior.

>In the 1970s, our first years in the trade, nobody really altered the superhero formula. The CCA did change its code to allow for "sympathetic depiction of criminal behavior . . . [and] corruption among public officials" but only "as long as it is portrayed as exceptional and the culprit is punished." In other words, there were still good guys and bad guys. Nobody cared what an artist's politics were if you could draw or write and hand work in on schedule. Comics were a brotherhood beyond politics.

>The 1990s brought a change. The industry weakened and eventually threw out the CCA, and editors began to resist hiring conservative artists. One of us, Chuck, expressed the opinion that a frank story line about AIDS was not right for comics marketed to children. His editors rejected the idea and asked him to apologize to colleagues for even expressing it. Soon enough, Chuck got less work.

>The superheroes also changed. Batman became dark and ambiguous, a kind of brooding monster. Superman became less patriotic, culminating in his decision to renounce his citizenship so he wouldn't be seen as an extension of U.S. foreign policy. A new code, less explicit but far stronger, replaced the old: a code of political correctness and moral ambiguity. If you disagreed with mostly left-leaning editors, you stayed silent.

>>The superheroes also changed. Batman became dark and ambiguous, a kind of brooding monster. Superman became less patriotic, culminating in his decision to renounce his citizenship so he wouldn't be seen as an extension of U.S. foreign policy. A new code, less explicit but far stronger, replaced the old: a code of political correctness and moral ambiguity. If you disagreed with mostly left-leaning editors, you stayed silent.
I don't understand why he thinks that liberals are to blame for grim and gritty violent comics and "moral ambiguity" (whatever Dixon thinks that means).

Absolutely based and unironically red pilled.

Poor sales did this. People who imagine romance comics sold conveniently ignore that Kirby - who helped create the entire genre in American comics - moved on for greener pastures.

This is absolutely untrue and shilled by people who to this day think the death of DC and Marvel would mean their shitty indie/small press book would sell better rather than the same or worse.

They are. Liberals are the party of cynicism.

Chuck is based

can you recommend who wrote the most patriotic Superman

Whoever it was who wrote all those WWII propaganda comics where he told readers to buy war bonds and stamps.

user doesn't care he's looking for any name out of a hat to then google them and explain why they're a raging liberal thus proving user and Dixon wrong while ignoring the fact that people like Biden and even Kamala are seen as too far center by liberals these days .

The name he's really hoping some fool mentions is Maggin and I suspect he'll samefag if I took too long typing this.

>limitations often foster creativity
Budgetary limitations maybe, but strict content limitations and an obligation to preach whatever the government wants like the ones from the code sure as fuck don't. Just look at China, everything there is censored as fuck and they can't produce any good movies or TV shows worth a shit.

No i wanted to read those books...

>Just look at China, everything there is censored as fuck and they can't produce any good movies or TV shows worth a shit.
I mean, culture shock and a general lack of translated media anyone gives a shit about probably has more to do with it, i don't doubt that there's probably already some proto chinese-weaboo communities out there, and inevitably they'll blunt any edge they have to sell it to a global market, just like anime.

>obligation to preach whatever the government wants like the ones from the code
Pushing trans acceptance and liberal propaganda is no better. The code also didn't require messaging it simply prohibited some.

litteral sjw garbage.