How could Superman have been so popular in the 1950's?

[MR.COMICBOOK]

I suppose this is where we need to point out that Green Arrow was published continously throughout as well.

 

I wanted to make the same comment about Plastic-Man who outlasted GL and other assorted Flash.

 

I find the question surprisingly hard to convincedly answer. I believe that the market came to a point where the demand / interest could only sustain a few titles and that the powers that be at DC decided to continue the core characters of the company.

 

The same can be said of Westerns who were so prominent (I can't say dominant) for so long and yet were by and large almost gone by the later '70's and certainly by the '80's. That didn't preclude the better titles to continue longer.

 

To wit, DC ran:

 

All-American Western, All-Star Western, Dale Evans, Jimmy Wakely, Tomahawk and Western Comics in 1952

 

but by 1962, only Tomahawk was still published of this group and Tomahawk lasted until 1972.

 

Some titles can withstand fads and changing fashions unlike others.

 

Scrooge - you touch on something I've long thought. Westerns - and by extension Western Heroes were extremely popular throughout the 1950s in all narrative forms of entertainment, not just comics. I imagine that to many youngsters during that decade, the adventures of their favorite westen characters filed the heroic comic niche at the expense of costumed heroes - who outside of Superman, the Ur-superhero - might have felt largely like holdovers from another era (especially as their decline in popularity started immediately after WW2).

exactly characters like Davey Crockett,Daniel Boone, Zorro and Lone Ranger were huge back then, even more popular than Batman! somehow ever since the 1960`s, it`s 99 percent been about the superheroes as the western,war and to an extent horror comics have been pushed aside.

[dekeuk]

Great thread.

 

Shame I'm late to the show because all the points I wanted to make have been made.

 

I started the thread

 

It's still not too late to put in your

 

 

[Scrooge]

 

Additionally, I believe that DC developed a near-monopoly on the publishing industry (or was able to exert significant influence over what other companies could publish). I know that this was the reason for shared titles like Tales of Suspense and Tales to Astonish where various characters had to share one title over having their own because of some form of regulation that limited Marvel Comics on the number of titles they were allowed to publish. Strangely, I don't recall DC being under such constraints.

 

I might be a little off here, but I do recall talking about this with some older collector friends of mine. Anyone else able to provide further clarification on this?

 

As I recall, in the 1960s, DC/ National Periodical Publications was either owned by or else had the same parent company as the largest magazine distributor. Part of what kept Marvel/Atlas afloat in the pre-FF #1 days was a deal they made with that same distributor, and that deal did indeed limit Marvel's monthly publication output. That deal apparently expired in 1968, or was successfully renegotiated due to Marvel's growing clout, with the result being an explosion of new Marvel titles in '68. As far as I know, no other comics publishers were similarly limited during that period.

 

IIRC, there's one more twist to this. Goodman wanted to quit being distributed out by ANC and thus switched to another distributor at exactly the wrong time since less than 8 months later, the new distributor closed shop and Goodman was left scrambling for distribution; he had to take his lumps and agree to the limitation terms to get any distribution. Goodman and Atlas / Marvel would have continued to be a force to recon with if not for that unfortunate timing.

 

In other words, the Implosion didn't lead to the lower output, the limitation in books out was the cause of the Implosion. (thumbs u

[the blob]

the TV show. the serials and cartoons before that. were there any flash or green lantern serials or cartoons in the 40's? (I know there were CM serials)

 

end of story.

 

and no, i doubt CM would have put superman out of business.

 

there were enough kids in the market for two characters like that.

 

i know there were also batman serials, but I dunno how into the 50's those went.

 

surprising how wonder woman survived (though was it even monthly in the 50's?) and not flash, GL, any of the Timely titles, etc., but heck, 51% of children are girls, and these were the baby boom years, so there were a whole lot of potential girl comic readers then.

[joe_collector]

Let's face it, there was no interest in superheroes from 1950 to 1955 .......... except for huge interest in Superman

 

I hear that repeated a lot, but DC seemed to be pumping out the super-hero books during that era, in fact, this was the most popular genre at DC. Sure, they weren't as popular as before, but they hardly "totally disappeared' as some SA fans continue to state.

 

Atlas/Marvel (self-admittedly) chased the "newest fads" so when super-heroes faded a bit, and sci-fi/monsters/horror started to take off, they jumped ship. DC apparently could still make a buck selling super-hero books, and did so until they again took over the market in the 60's-on.

[Sqeggs]

It was the George Reeves show ,back then there was only 3 networks, so if you were popular you were popular on a astronomic level, not like now when there is over 200 channels and everybody and his mother have a reality show. back then a superstar was a superstar! ala I Love Lucy/Elvis and the Superman tv show was at that level. people unfortunately have forgotten how big the show was basically for 3 reasons, Reeve`s tragic death, the Superman movie of 1978 was much superior to the show in many ways and third reason is time, a lot of the people who watched the show are either very old or deceased.

 

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that the George Reeves Superman TV show was syndicated and not on one of the three networks. Although it was popular, I think it would be an overstatement to put it in the category of I Love Lucy or Elvis. On the larger point, I do think it probably helped to sell the comics.

[Sqeggs]

I don't know if it's "unprecedented heights" for Superman, sales-wise. Michelle Nolan once wrote in CBG that it's easier to find Actions from the first hundred than the second hundred.

 

I would agree. I don't know if anyone has reliable sales figures for the 1950s, but my impression is that the circulation numbers on the Superman and Batman books took a significant hit when the code came in. I've never been a serious Superman or Batman collector, but aren't the 1954-1956 issues relatively tough to find in grade?

[MR.COMICBOOK]

It was the George Reeves show ,back then there was only 3 networks, so if you were popular you were popular on a astronomic level, not like now when there is over 200 channels and everybody and his mother have a reality show. back then a superstar was a superstar! ala I Love Lucy/Elvis and the Superman tv show was at that level. people unfortunately have forgotten how big the show was basically for 3 reasons, Reeve`s tragic death, the Superman movie of 1978 was much superior to the show in many ways and third reason is time, a lot of the people who watched the show are either very old or deceased.

 

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that the George Reeves Superman TV show was syndicated and not on one of the three networks. Although it was popular, I think it would be an overstatement to put it in the category of I Love Lucy or Elvis. On the larger point, I do think it probably helped to sell the comics.

Try to look at it from this angle. I Love Lucy for the adults, Elvis for the teens and Superman George Reeves TV show for the kids.all 3 were icons of the 1950`s era

[rodan57]

The show was a big hit and by 1957 was in repeats on ABC.

[dekeuk]

The guy was being published in 8 different comics by 1960. Has any other character EVER been featured in 8 comic titles simultaneously?

 

Archie:

 

Archie Comics

Archie Giant Series Magazine

Archie's Girls, Betty and Veronica

Archie's Joke Book Magazine

Archie's Madhouse

Archie's Pal, Jughead

Archie's Pals'N'Gals

Laugh Comics

Life with Archie

Little Archie

Pep Comics

 

all in one month!

 

And you can bet that at some point Richie Rich was in 8 comics the same month.

 

 

 

I know ARCHIE was popular but didn't realize he was in all of those titles at the same time. So why have no Archie movies ever been made in this era when every comic book is adapted to the big screen

 

 

[HouseofComics.Com]

I hear that repeated a lot, but DC seemed to be pumping out the super-hero books during that era, in fact, this was the most popular genre at DC.

 

I agree with your post but there may have been some months where DC did have more humor books than superhero books. Maybe Scrooge will chime in here. But I'm not saying they outsold the superhero books.

[short_box-migration]

The guy was being published in 8 different comics by 1960. Has any other character EVER been featured in 8 comic titles simultaneously?

 

Archie:

 

Archie Comics

Archie Giant Series Magazine

Archie's Girls, Betty and Veronica

Archie's Joke Book Magazine

Archie's Madhouse

Archie's Pal, Jughead

Archie's Pals'N'Gals

Laugh Comics

Life with Archie

Little Archie

Pep Comics

 

all in one month!

 

And you can bet that at some point Richie Rich was in 8 comics the same month.

 

 

 

I know ARCHIE was popular but didn't realize he was in all of those titles at the same time. So why have no Archie movies ever been made in this era when every comic book is adapted to the big screen

 

 

Because Archie is lame.

[rednalsram]

I believe Richie Rich had Supes beat.

 

Richie Rich

Richie Rich Cash

Richie Rich & Casper

Richie Rich & Little Dot

Richie Rich Big Bucks

Richie Rich & Jackie Jokers

Richie Rich Billions

Richie Rich Big Bucks

Richie Rich Dollars & Cents

Richie Rich Gems

Richie Rich Fortunes

Richie Rich Diamonds

Richie Rich Gold & Silver

Richie Rich Riches

Richie Rich Profits

Richie Rich Jackpot

Super Richie Rich

 

huff-huff-huff... I have Blisters, on my Fingerssssssss.

 

There were more, but that is all my sister has in

one of her collections, and they all came out in the same

calender year.

 

 

I have often wondered how Superman could have been so popular during the 1950's when all other superhero titles other than Batman and Wonder Woman had been cancelled by the early 1950's. How could there have been no interest in superheroes from 1950 to 1955, and yet Superman's popularity continued to grow throughout that same time frame?

 

Superman was going strong throughout the early 1950's, long before Flash showed up in Showcase #4 in 1956, which began the revival of the superhero genre

 

By 1958 Superman (or Superboy) were appearing in 7 titles regularly including

 

1. Superman

2. Action

3. World's Finest

4. Superboy

5. Lois Lane

6. Jimmy Olsen

7. Adventure (as Superboy)

 

 

And by 1960 he had a leading role in an 8th title Justice League of America

 

Was it the fact there was a Superman TV show that made the difference?

 

And how can there be such intense interest in Superman but no interest in all the other superheroes after about 1950?

 

 

 

 

[HouseofComics.Com]

Same year! That's amazing.

[dekeuk]

I believe Richie Rich had Supes beat.

 

 

 

I could never understand why anyone read Richie Rich but I guess kids liked him way back when ...........

 

I wonder what the circulation was on all those Richie titles? Were they printing 200,000+ copies of each issue? Or were they just trying to flood the market with titles to push out competitors?

 

 

[rednalsram]

My Sister was a big fan. It was a way that we shared our love of visual storytelling.

 

Not sure of the print runs. Looking to grab big market shares is my guess. In Minnesota

I saw many Richie Rich comics with Marvel, and DC comics. On the spinner racks, Harvey

comics almost had a 2 to 1 over DC, and Marvel.

 

 

I believe Richie Rich had Supes beat.

 

 

 

I could never understand why anyone read Richie Rich but I guess kids liked him way back when ...........

 

I wonder what the circulation was on all those Richie titles? Were they printing 200,000+ copies of each issue? Or were they just trying to flood the market with titles to push out competitors?

 

[adamstrange]

Same year! That's amazing.

At one point RR appeared in 12 different titles every month.

[HouseofComics.Com]

I'm guessing that comics.org doesn't have a lot of Richie Rich's indexed, because by "story" Batman appears almost six times as much. I don't know if there's a way to sort by comic.

 

 

[HouseofComics.Com]

Looks to me like Richie has about 1600 eponymous issues of the various sorts and maybe what, 200 appearances in Harvey anthologies or other titles? Call it under 2000 appearances. So I feel pretty good about my statement that Batman has now appeared in more comics. Six or eight years ago the CBM writer was probably right about Richie being ahead.

[rjpb]

I was a big Sad Sack fan in the mid-60s, but the rest of the Harvey line-up didn't do much for me (Spooky was okay) - I never understood the appeal of Richie Rich back then - and when I got a stack of BA kiddie books for my kids to read a couple years back - they loved the Barks reprints - but never even finished the Harvey books. Amazing that they were so popular for so long and then - pffft - they pretty much disappeared from the stands.