This is very old news. Essential Tomb of Dracula came out back in March of 2005 and this was discussed on the internet then. At least, I remember discussions of it then, although apparently I'm not Google-proficient enough to find them.

Anyway, while I'd like to see the original, unretouched art, given the political climate in which we live, the fact that Marvel sells Essentials through mainstream bookstores, and the fact that Tomb of Dracula was one of Marvel's big "crossover" Essentials successes (i.e. one of the titles that got the most sales to people who don't ordinarily read comics), it neither surprises me nor outrages me that Marvel decided to play it safe.

Aside from the unavailability of boobies, er, that is, the original artist's intention, what disturbs me is that ToD was a mainstream magazine-stand magazine, and so Marvel has made the decision that what was acceptable to the mainstream twenty years ago is not acceptable now.

That's the wrong direction.

Betcha they didn't censor the violence, too.

[Odd. The strike tag doesn't seem to work in comments.]

It's actually closer to 30 years ago than 20 -- Tomb of Dracula magazine ran in 1979 and 1980.

While I agree that it's the wrong direction, given the times in which we live, I can't fault Marvel. Our society has gotten far more conservative when it comes to sex and nudity over the past 20-30 years. Or, more accurately, our society has gotten far more liberal with respect to sex and nudity while at the same time becoming far more willing to impose arbitrary and draconian punishments at the behest of a fringe conservative minority.

If Marvel had released the art unaltered, I think there's a large chance nothing would have happened, but a small but non-trivial chance that some organization with the words "Family" or "Christian" in its name would have made the talk show circuits calling for a boycott, demanding prosecution, and otherwise generating lots of bad press for Marvel. So I can see why they did what they did.

Meanwhile, none of those fringe groups is likely to complain about the gore showers.

Sometimes, those groups even celebrate gore -- see their reaction to Mel Gibson's extremely gory "Passion of the Christ."

I don't know. A company that censor's its own property is censorship with a small "c" to be sure. They aren't under any obligation to reprint anything as it originally appeared.

I doubt it had less to do with satisfying fringe groups as much as it did with making what was originally published as a rack magazine (no pun intended!) suitable for what's expected in a regular comic book.

Our society has a wierd disconnect between levels of sex and violence but that hardly means that the sex dial should get turned up just because junior's reading something gorey.

They aren't under any obligation to reprint anything as it originally appeared.

I would say that they have artistic obligations both to the intent of the original creators and to the artistic impulse itself, to create the best art possible. Those obligations may have lesser or greater force, and may even contradict each other, but they exist.

You also sort of appear to be making the argument that comics are for kids.

[BTW: I like your portfolio--expressive, abstract, with an old-school flavor that appeals to me.]

The 1970s and early '80s were a weird time. Any teenager could buy the uncovered breasts in these Marvel magazines (and sometimes even racier material in the Warren magazines or Heavy Metal) with complete openness. And it wasn't just comics. I was talking just the other night about Ragtime from 1981. It was rated PG, yet it somehow included a delightful (if you like this sort of thing) extended topless scene, with instances of full-frontal nudity, featuring Elizabeth McGovern. There's no way you'd get anything less than an R with that these days, but Ragtime continues to hold its PG.

I can understand if Marvel doesn't want to release their more adult material in the same form they published it in the past, especially since they seem to be trying to pretend that its just a continuation of the original Tomb of Dracula color comic. I'd be much happier of they'd admit to it upfront, though.

These groups remind me of the old temperance movement. If Jesus had some problem with alcohol, it's obscure in the New testament. The first thing Jesus does in the New Testament is turn water into the wine. The last thing he does on the cross is ask for a drink. And then these bozos act like there's some problem with alcohol.

Anyway, if the religious right has some sort of problem with the human body, I suggest they take it up with the manufacturer in church on Sunday.

This is about money pure and simple. By eliminating the nudity they ensure that the shops likely to carry the product don't have to segregate it from the other Essential titles. They avoid potential legal problems and make sure that all Essential titles have an all ages (or at least M13)
rating.

Anyway, if the stories are worth reading, the presence (or absence) of nudity should not be the draw. If the only thing attracting you to the stories in question was the nudity, there are certainly plenty of resources available these days for that, many of them free.

Lewis, that argument seems somewhat specious to me. You're saying that the work has the same mood, conveys the same concepts, and reads exactly the same way whether or not there's nudity? See, I really hate this idea that nudity is only about porn and isn't a valid storytelling element.

I don't think this is such a big deal. Some titillation in the Hammer Films tradition would be nice, but none of it is essential. Lamenting some supposed artistic betrayal is a bit over the top. There is always editorial control in work for hire material. Marvel simply choose not to do so in 1970's for the originals, but did so in 2000's for the reprints.

If the Tomb Essentials are expanding the market, this can only be a good thing. I think fear of litigation, boycott, or bad press has less to do with it than realities of distribution. There are some chain stores that simply do not carry items if they contain nudity or other "offensive material."

As for the changing tastes of the mainstream, well, tastes change. If we were talking about certain cartoons from the '40s and '50s that kids saw as late as the '80s, we'd talk about certain racially offensive steroetypes. Those cartoons are also bowdlerized today on TV and DVD. Except its from other "fringe groups" than these.

I don't think Chary's comments are particularly relevant. The temperance movement appeared because there was severe problems with alcoholism in the country back then. It wasn't just a few blokes having a few. It had to do with lots of abuse - physical, emotional, and financial. Compare the US today to Russia's current problem with alcoholism for some idea. We don't have anywhere near those types of problems now precisely because of the temperance movement. Prohibition ended up bad, but overall the movement was good. I think that is outside any debate about nudity.

I was shocked to hear kids swearing on The Goonies. That'd never happen these days, but it makes The Goonies a lot more down-to-earth. I think that's an artistic good.

In the case of the black and white issues of Dracula it added almost nothing to the story and was there strictly for titillation. No, not all nudity = porn but not all nudity is making some kind of important artistic statement or furthering a story. Some of it is just gratuitous.

Can you honestly say any of the 4 of 5 panels altered is changed significantly by the presence or absence of nudity?
The only thing the nudity would do in the case of these reprints is limit the audience that could buy it.

Considering the amount of time and money having to be spent over some kid seeing nudity in a comic about a French painter in Georgia I'd say this is just proper prudence on Marvel's part.