Action #1 -- the book that stole history!

[Bookery]

 

Actually, my of Mitch aside, the "Superman saved comics" mantra is simply untrue. It's an invention of comic book collectors who grew up in the 60s loving Marvel's new wave of super-heroes, and have since re-written history to elevate their favorite heroes to a status beyond anything they ever really had.

 

There are certainly more definitive sources out there than Wikipedia, but even they say, that even among super-heroes "Fawcett Comics' Captain Marvel, whose approximately 1.4 million copies per issue made it the [claimed] most widely circulated comic book in America. Captain Marvel's sales soundly trounced Superman's self-titled series and Action Comics alike."

 

Even if Superman started the trend, he didn't stay on top very long.

 

But more importantly, even without super-heroes...

 

"The Steranko History of Comics 2 notes that it was the non-superhero characters of Dell Comics — most notably the licensed Walt Disney animated character comics — that outsold all the supermen of the day."

 

Comic book publishers would have gone on their merry way just fine even without Superman. Remember, even as late as 1970, Overstreet valued WDC&S #1 the same as Action #1.

 

In fact, if it weren't for Superman, can anyone deny that today's hottest character collectible and movie franchise wouldn't be Major Hoople? I think not!

 

[matter-migration]

If the Icon of American comic culture hadn't become Superman, but instead more adult-themed characters such as Pogo, Li'l Abner, The Spirit, or if the media had latched onto the all-ages adventure of Barks' ducks.... might everything be different now?

 

Yeah, it'd be much worse.

[Bookery]

It's my very first "Friday thread"

 

 

 

I'm a baaa-aaad boy!

 

[Mr. Indicia-migration]

Action #1... the comic that destroyed everything!!!!

But the medium was already established as dismissible low brow 'working class' and 'children's' fare.

 

The vast majority of US comic books published over the years are low brow working class and children's' fare. Same for "B" movies, cliffhanger serials, the western films they used to crank out by the hundred. Nothing wrong with that at all. That's why I like them!

 

There were always some adults that were part of the audience, but the Archie & Harvey comics, funny animal comics etc were directed primarily towards the youngest ages. I thought of the superheoes as directed a bit older audience. The horror and sci-fi comics were written so they could be enjoyed by a bit older audience yet.

 

Although I read comics from all those groups from the age of 5 on, my interest focus over the next 9 years progressed further away from Archie & Harvey type comics towards the super heroes. By the time I was about 13, I thought of Batman and Spider-Man as ver cool and obviously "serious" stuff not for little kids. I had no interest whatsoever in Archie or Harvey comics.

 

It seems obvious to me that part of the success of Marvel comics of the 1960's was that they were superhero comics, for audience a few years older than DC's titles were. It wasn't till 1969 or 1970 that some changes were to DC titles(Batman for instance) to break away somewhat from the kidde type of material that late 50's and early 60's issue were.

 

There are comics now that are clearly directed towards those much older than 13, but thats a relatively recent development.

 

[Bookery]

There are certainly more definitive sources out there than Wikipedia, but even they say, that even among super-heroes "Fawcett Comics' Captain Marvel, whose approximately 1.4 million copies per issue made it the [claimed] most widely circulated comic book in America. Captain Marvel's sales soundly trounced Superman's self-titled series and Action Comics alike."

 

In fact, the proof of this is obvious. "Take a Superman". What does that mean? Nothing.

 

But Fawcett's comics were so popular and so many people were pulling them off the shelves and buying them, that the phrase "take a Whiz" is used in virtually every household in America still today!

 

 

[batman_fan]

There are certainly more definitive sources out there than Wikipedia, but even they say, that even among super-heroes "Fawcett Comics' Captain Marvel, whose approximately 1.4 million copies per issue made it the [claimed] most widely circulated comic book in America. Captain Marvel's sales soundly trounced Superman's self-titled series and Action Comics alike."

 

In fact, the proof of this is obvious. "Take a Superman". What does that mean? Nothing.

 

But Fawcett's comics were so popular and so many people were pulling them off the shelves and buying them, that the phrase "take a Whiz" is used in virtually every household in America still today!

 

 

[Cat-Man_America]

Comics bridged the gap between pulps and newspaper comics. In essence, the best of both worlds, ...or worst from the critic's POV at the time.

 

Superman was a coincidence. My feeling is that comic books would've evolved in spite of Superman, and I suspect they would've gravitated toward costumed heroes with powers of one kind or another with varying degrees of success. The formula was already in place and costumed characters were already starting to come to the forefront inspired by pulps and movies. The time was ripe for Superman, but no one could've predicted how phenomenally successful that character would become in such a short time.

 

What Superman did was touch a very exposed nerve that was just below the surface during the waning years of the Great Depression. Superman was a euphemism for righting wrongs, helping the poor and oppressed, providing a simple moral compass for complex issues such as the European war, class warfare and political corruption.

 

The truth is that Superman, as crudely drawn as the character was at the time, symbolized empowerment. In fact, there was far more symbolism in it's appeal when first published than the character would have later on when more artistically rendered and set on a course of fighting maniacal villains, performing feats of strength, saving Darwin Award winners in distress and indulging in more juvenile escapades. In that regard, early Superman stories grappled with more complex issues and simplified them for mass consumption in a manner reminiscent of the newspaper comics to which S&S aspired.

 

Comic books have always been marketed to kids first, at least in this country, because the illustrated stories make for quick reading and the initial 10 cent price fit in nicely kid's allowances at the time. Sunday newspaper comics were targeted to kids as well, while editorial cartoons were aimed at adult readers, but those lines got muddied over the years as illustrators tried to elevate their stories so that they could be read from multiple perspectives, offering a subtext often missed by younger readers but not lost on adults.

 

My

[fantastic_four]

In fact, the proof of this is obvious. "Take a Superman". What does that mean? Nothing.

 

But Fawcett's comics were so popular and so many people were pulling them off the shelves and buying them, that the phrase "take a Whiz" is used in virtually every household in America still today!

 

I've always used the phrase "take a Superman" because it seems more appropriate to my endowment.

[Bookery]

In fact, the proof of this is obvious. "Take a Superman". What does that mean? Nothing.

 

But Fawcett's comics were so popular and so many people were pulling them off the shelves and buying them, that the phrase "take a Whiz" is used in virtually every household in America still today!

 

I've always used the phrase "take a Superman" because it seems more appropriate to my endowment.

 

 

[Moondog]

Comics had a second chance to permeate a wider market in the early '90s, but comics didn't make very good decisions for themselves.

 

Thats not very fair or even accurate. Comics were doing fine until non-comics person Ron Perlman came along and decided to reinvent the distribution methods and sqeeze every nickel out of the readership. I'd argue comics were undergoing a second Golden Age until he bought Marvel and Heroes World. There were more books on the stands than anytime singe the mid-1940s and books were selling at levels not seen in decades. Then Ron and his beancounters figured out a way to try and squeeze an extra nickel out(four cents, actually) of every sale and destroyed a foundation that had been growing for twenty plus years.

 

This is correct. Well said, Shad.

 

The only caveat is the speculation bubble that developed during this time period and eventually burst. In fact speculation may have led Marvel to think there were easy profits in distribution and their buying Heroes World was the result...

[jdjunker]

Comics had a second chance to permeate a wider market in the early '90s, but comics didn't make very good decisions for themselves.

 

Thats not very fair or even accurate. Comics were doing fine until non-comics person Ron Perlman came along and decided to reinvent the distribution methods and sqeeze every nickel out of the readership. I'd argue comics were undergoing a second Golden Age until he bought Marvel and Heroes World. There were more books on the stands than anytime singe the mid-1940s and books were selling at levels not seen in decades. Then Ron and his beancounters figured out a way to try and squeeze an extra nickel out(four cents, actually) of every sale and destroyed a foundation that had been growing for twenty plus years.

 

This is correct. Well said, Shad.

 

The only caveat is the speculation bubble that developed during this time period and eventually burst. In fact speculation may have led Marvel to think there were easy profits in distribution and their buying Heroes World was the result...

 

 

The only problem is the timing doesn't quite work right. Marvel bought Heroes World in late 94. The market peaked in Aug 93 and snowballed down hill pretty fast. I don't think it can be overstated that it was the speculator boom and bust that destroyed the markets. Of course the publishers certainly were culpable in their own demise, exploiting the market for everything they could.

 

Had the market never never busted, it's likely Marvel never would have tried self distribution, but as a corporate owned entity they couldn't just resign themselves to weathering the storm and selling 30% less for a couple years. They needed to show some type of plan to their shareholders.

 

 

[DeliBebek]

Comics had a second chance to permeate a wider market in the early '90s, but comics didn't make very good decisions for themselves.

 

Thats not very fair or even accurate. Comics were doing fine until non-comics person Ron Perlman came along and decided to reinvent the distribution methods and sqeeze every nickel out of the readership. I'd argue comics were undergoing a second Golden Age until he bought Marvel and Heroes World. There were more books on the stands than anytime singe the mid-1940s and books were selling at levels not seen in decades. Then Ron and his beancounters figured out a way to try and squeeze an extra nickel out(four cents, actually) of every sale and destroyed a foundation that had been growing for twenty plus years.

 

This is correct. Well said, Shad.

 

The only caveat is the speculation bubble that developed during this time period and eventually burst. In fact speculation may have led Marvel to think there were easy profits in distribution and their buying Heroes World was the result...

 

 

The only problem is the timing doesn't quite work right. Marvel bought Heroes World in late 94. The market peaked in Aug 93 and snowballed down hill pretty fast. I don't think it can be overstated that it was the speculator boom and bust that destroyed the markets. Of course the publishers certainly were culpable in their own demise, exploiting the market for everything they could.

 

Had the market never never busted, it's likely Marvel never would have tried self distribution, but as a corporate owned entity they couldn't just resign themselves to weathering the storm and selling 30% less for a couple years. They needed to show some type of plan to their shareholders.

 

 

There were a variety of business decisions that compounded during those years, most of which must have looked good at the time, but in retrospect seem to have taken the industry on a downward path.