Finally: The book that started the Bronze age...

[wolveroach-migration]

Well, i do agree on the use of the Ánti-hero' on the marvel horror characters such as ghost rider, werewolf by night, etc...

but conan, nah, definitely not a anti-character by any standards, a hero, even if called a barbarian, unlike the most famous anti-hero , namor, if one is really immersed in the stories , and not look at the title.

 

 

[Zonker]

May have missed your point, and am not sure if you were really addressing me or not. In any case, I'm not trying to argue that Conan single-handedly set the style for Marvel in the 1970s. In fact, I was pointing out that lots of the 1970s Marvel experimentation was launched before Conan became the big sales hit it later did.

 

Others are making the case for Conan's influence on what followed, including I believe yourself when you said

 

Definitely conan 1, for sure, coz

((5) (and according to one post) concept of gritty heroes took root from the hard-edged hero themes of conan (Isn't wolverine a mini-conan with super claws.)

 

Maybe we're using "anti-hero" and "gritty hero" to mean the same thing here?

 

And I love the Barry Smith Conan issues! Nevertheless, compared to what came before in the squeaky-clean Silver Age, the Thomas/Smith Conan qualifies as an anti-hero: a thief, a mercenary, and a killer. A noble barbarian perhaps, but still a barbarian. I haven't read many of the later Buscema issues, but my impression is this was at least as true later in the run as it was earlier. Am I wrong?

 

Cheers,

Z.

[wolveroach-migration]

"And I love the Barry Smith Conan issues! Nevertheless, compared to what came before in the squeaky-clean Silver Age, the Thomas/Smith Conan qualifies as an anti-hero: a thief, a mercenary, and a killer."

 

conan a Killer??? ( now he's not even an assassin, mercenary yes, there is still a distinction here), when we talk about who gets slayed, monsters and villains, esp. in an uncivilized age even if fictional, the context in which those happen in no way makes the character less than a hero in modern tales.

what about wolverine?Robin hood? Spiderman who killed the Goblin, any battles could result in death/ Superman who killed the 3 kryptonians in the phantom zone, etc...

 

Conan is not an anti-hero, if you really read the original weird tales, he was as much tarzan as he was perseus, hercules, etc... and in the stories, the hero who is the bane of evil sorcerers, demons, monsters, and to the commoners, a great warrior king who liberates, champion of the weak & oppressed villagers , the ultimate swashbuckling S&S pulp hero.

 

The best example of what we would call an anti-hero is Namor the submariner, esp. in the 30s & 60s, his vengeance and bitterness towards surface dwellers qualifies him as one, likewise for dracula, werewolf, ghost rider, etc...

 

 

" A noble barbarian perhaps, but still a barbarian."

 

In no way, is a barbarian less a hero than a caped supehero!!!( however childish an REH fan like me would make it a point to argue)

Regards

 

 

 

[Zonker]

however childish an REH fan like me would make it a point to argue)

Hey, no prob. That's what these boards are for, eh?

 

Likewise, I'm not really personally invested in this debate, but it's fun (right?), a momentary diversion from real-world issues , and an indulgence of our fanboy side. So what the hey...

 

My "anti-hero" comment about Conan was solely within the context of the mainstream comics that came before and those that followed immediately after. I'm not qualified to venture an opinion on the original Howard vision having not read any of the original REH books. And I certainly wasn't considering Conan in comparison with all literature across all time (Macbeth, now there was an anti-hero!)

 

So in that context, I do feel the Thomas/Smith Conan looked to comics fans of 1970-1971 like an anti-hero, compared to what came before. The Silver Age Superman did not kill. Ever. (We have John Bryne to thank for that little innovation of the latter 1980s.) The Amazing Spider-Man demonstrated that "with great power comes great responsibility." (I'd argue the deaths of Gwen Stacey and the Goblin would never have played out the way they did with Stan Lee in the more innocent Silver Age).

 

The four-color Conan was different, and that's why I agree with you and CI and others that those first Thomas/Smith stories formed a big part ( but only part; see also O'Neil/Adams, Kirby 4th World ) of the creative ferment we think of as the Bronze Age, that led to the "darker" (arguably more "realistic") themes that have followed (ToD, Swamp Thing, Ploog's books, Miller's books, Punisher, Spider-Man death books, etc. etc.)

 

Just my opinions,

Z.

 

 

[Mister_Comics]

Were CHARSTON COMICS coming to an end around then? Wasn't there some new comic companies just starting around then also? Some independant companies. Anyone know for sure.

 

BTW; I once heard that the Fantastic Four was also based on the elements EARTH, WIND, FIRE, & WATER. I believe Stan Lee mentioned that.

[vic6string]

Kev says :

"just because something isn't initially successful doesn't mean that the book is not influential. "

 

the same can be said in reverse. Don't use sales at all in figuring something like which book started the bronze age because it goes beyond sales. If we used sales as a benchmark for importance, then the modern age might have started with ROM because for a few years nothing came close to the popularity of that now-forgotten action figure hero. When defining an age or era, it is the historical significance that matters.

[wolveroach-migration]

Yes, couldn't agree more, but then again sales can start off a particular direction comics is heading. Just look at those () mangas styled american comics.

 

Yeah, possible Rom set the trends for the action figure comics as part of the so-called modern age, or was it micronauts, whichever came first, but wasn't it stars wars and its toy merchandise popularity that made marvel capitalise on rom or micronauts in 1979?

Actually, i am quite hazy on who came first.

 

[Guest]

The Silver Age officially ended December 1970 (the last Weisinger-edited SUPERMAN), but of course lots of comics had dropped out of their Silver Age-mode well before then -- check out SUPERBOY # 145 or LOIS LANE # 80, for example.

 

However, the Bronze Age did not immediately follow upon the end of the Silver Age. Think about it for a minute -- there's a definite interregnum period in between the end of the Golden Age and the start of the Silver Age (a period most notable for lots of crime, romance, funny animal and most of all, horror comics dominated the marketplace). Nobody points to ALL-STAR WESTERN # 58 as the first Silver Age book, after all.

 

Similarly, after the Silver Age ended in 1970, there was a period of time when superheroes were not the predominant genre in comic books (although many superhero comics continued to be published, of course). This is when CONAN and SWAMP THING and WEIRD WAR TALES and GHOSTS had their day in the sun. Certainly you can go backwards into the 1960s to find precedents for all of these comics -- Nightmaster in SHOWCASE could be considered the first time sword & sorcery appeared in comics, preceding CONAN by a year or two... assuming you ignore series like the Viking Prince that appeared in the 1950s; similarly, starting in the mid-1960s Warren's CREEPY and EERIE had successfully revived the spirit if not always the energy of the EC horror comics, but you can point to even earlier, 4-color examples like Dell's TALES FROM THE TOMB as examples of pure horror comics on the spinracks.

 

"Golden Age" and "Silver Age" are terms coined by superhero enthusiasts to describe periods when superhero comics were the dominant genre, and are based on the old Greek ages. Hence, Bronze and then Iron would be appropriate terms to describe the next great periods of superhero comics.

 

What single comic book -- more than any other published since 1970 -- has had the greatest impact on reenergizing the superhero genre? That's easy: GIANT-SIZE X-MEN # 1 (summer 1975).

 

So the Bronze Age starts in 1975.

 

At least, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

Dave Blanchard

[Zonker]

"Golden Age" and "Silver Age" are terms coined by superhero enthusiasts to describe periods when superhero comics were the dominant genre, and are based on the old Greek ages. Hence, Bronze and then Iron would be appropriate terms to describe the next great periods of superhero comics.

 

What single comic book -- more than any other published since 1970 -- has had the greatest impact on reenergizing the superhero genre? That's easy: GIANT-SIZE X-MEN # 1 (summer 1975).

 

So the Bronze Age starts in 1975.

 

At least, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

 

Mr. Silver Age Lives!

 

Hi Dave, welcome to the boards! Your summary above is exactly the argument "Mr. Silver Age" Craig Shutt used in his CBG column, and which led me to these very boards 5 months ago!

 

Unfortunately, I and many others cannot support this argument. If you have some time, grab a cup of coffee and read through the other thread "What book started the Bronze Age?" Oh, and if you do, don't worry about ComicInvestor, he's retired.

 

But the fact remains, CI, myself and many others will never buy 1975 as the start of the Bronze Age. (maybe it was in fact the END!). The short form of the argument is: Who says the Bronze Age must be about super-heroes? The Atomic Age was the period between Golden and Silver Ages when EC comics flourished, sans spandex. Mr. Silver Age believes a "metal" age (Gold/Silver/Bronze) is different and must be about super-heroes. But to that I say: What about the Platinum Age (pre-hero, pre-1938 comics)? That "Metal" Age is, by definition, non-super-hero oriented.

 

No, by custom and popular usage, the Bronze Age has come to be known as that great period of experimentation of the early 70's, when Giants walked the earth: Neal Adams, Barry Smith, Mike Kaluta, Mike Ploog, Berni Wrightson, not to mention the last truly great work by Jack Kirby, and the beginnings of the careers of Walt Simonson, Howard Chaykin, Steve Englehart, Steve Gerber, Jim Starlin, Dave Cockrum, etc.

 

1975 brought the beginnings of something new: Marvel's utter dominance in sales, the rise of the comics shops, the X-Men as fan favorites, which led the way towards John Bryne's arrival, Frank Miller's work, the direct-only market, and eventually the New Teen Titans me-too fan-favorite, Alan Moore pre-Vertigo books, Watchmen, Secret Wars, Crisis, manufactured collectibles, Dark Knight, comics-aren't-for-kids-anymore... in essence, all the things we love and hate about the Modern Age.

 

 

Cheers,

Z.

[FlComicFan]

star wars was the first Lucas used the licensing $ from the toys and comics to create his empire even before the success of the film (toys and comics were out before the film) Micronauts, Shogun Warriors also preceded ROM After that Marvel paid for licensing for all sorts of tie ins of course if you go even further back in the 60's DC had Captain Action Hot Wheels etc

[dblanchard-migration]

Zonker wrote:

 

>> Hi Dave, welcome to the boards! Your summary above is exactly the argument "Mr. Silver Age" Craig Shutt used in his CBG column, and which led me to these very boards 5 months ago! <<

 

Mr. Age and I are good pals, actually, and we've discussed the various ages and interregnums for years now. However, I like to tweak Mr. Age because his "when did the Bronze Age start?" article actually appeared after my own ran last fall in COMIC BOOK MARKETPLACE. At any rate, while we disagree on some minor details, we both are rock-solid set on GSX-M # 1 being the comic that launched the Bronze Age (if you accept the premise that there WAS a Bronze Age in the first place).

 

>> Unfortunately, I and many others cannot support this argument. If you have some time, grab a cup of coffee and read through the other thread "What book started the Bronze Age?" <<

 

I did that very thing, after I finally figured out how to post under my own name, rather than as "anonymous." Fascinating exchange of opinions, and of course I heartily agree with all those who go along with my theories .

 

>> But the fact remains, CI, myself and many others will never buy 1975 as the start of the Bronze Age. (maybe it was in fact the END!). The short form of the argument is: Who says the Bronze Age must be about super-heroes? The Atomic Age was the period between Golden and Silver Ages when EC comics flourished, sans spandex. Mr. Silver Age believes a "metal" age (Gold/Silver/Bronze) is different and must be about super-heroes. But to that I say: What about the Platinum Age (pre-hero, pre-1938 comics)? That "Metal" Age is, by definition, non-super-hero oriented. <<

 

There's a lot there that I question: The Atomic Age, for instance, wasn't even an "age" until very recently; it was simply the post-Golden Age period of the early to mid 1950s. There's no "age" to speak of -- it was simply an interregnum between the end of the first heroic age and the second heroic age (which we commonly call the Golden Age and the Silver Age).

 

Since the Golden Age and the Silver Age are both superhero centric, and in fact are the only "ages" that have been accepted as legitimate ages by the comics community en masse, I would flip the question right back at you: Is there a difference between "comics of the 1970s" and "the Bronze Age"? I submit that there is, just as I submit there's a difference between "comics of the 1950s" and "the Silver Age."

 

There's actually a nice synchronicity there, in that the Silver Age and the Bronze Age both occurred in the second half of their respective decades, following a fallow period for the superhero genre that lasted between 5-10 years (depending on how you define "fallow").

 

As for the so-called "Platinum Age," I think it's a joke. Again, there's no "age" there to speak of, and we're not even talking about comic books at all (at least, not the pamphlets that we commonly have referred to as comic books since the mid-1930s).

 

>> by custom and popular usage, the Bronze Age has come to be known as that great period of experimentation of the early 70's, when Giants walked the earth: Neal Adams, Barry Smith, Mike Kaluta, Mike Ploog, Berni Wrightson, not to mention the last truly great work by Jack Kirby, and the beginnings of the careers of Walt Simonson, Howard Chaykin, Steve Englehart, Steve Gerber, Jim Starlin, Dave Cockrum, etc. <<

 

I guess that's the central point of the discussion: Has custom and popular usage defined the Bronze Age at all? Obviously, given the wide disparity of opinions on these boards, and the subsequent reaction to articles such as Craig Shutt's, my own and others trying to pinpoint that era, there's no commonly agreed-upon parameters for the Bronze Age. Overstreet, for instance, continues to NOT endorse the period as anything other than a concept. That's what makes these sorts of discussions so stimulating -- we're all contributing to a discussion that may ultimately lead to a consensus, but we're certainly not there yet.

 

Comic books have *always* had periods when Giants walked the earth. I think that's exactly why somebody concocted the "Atomic Age" moniker to raise the status of a period when Carl Barks, Walt Kelly, Charles Biro, Bob Montana, Harvey Kurtzman, Al Feldstein, Wally Wood, Reed Crandall, Al Williamson, Graham Ingels, Jack Davis, Johnny Craig and George Evans walked the earth. But the fact remains -- those guys did some of their best work during a period when superheroes weren't the dominant genre, so they're neither Golden Age nor Silver Age creators -- they're just Giants. Same deal for Smith, Kaluta, Wrightson and some of the others you mentioned -- their seminal contributions were not to Silver Age or to Bronze Age comics, but that doesn't by any means diminish their status as Giants.

 

Dave Blanchard

[Ron_Nasty]

>>Mr. Age and I are good pals<<

 

I was kinda surprised at someone calling Mr. Age "Mr. Age" besides me. Then I saw your name.

 

 

[PovertyRow]

The Atomic Age, for instance, wasn't even an "age" until very recently; it was simply the post-Golden Age period of the early to mid 1950s. There's no "age" to speak of -- it was simply an interregnum between the end of the first heroic age and the second heroic age (which we commonly call the Golden Age and the Silver Age).

 

I think I am going to stop even attempting a reply to this until I calm down. I cannot even begin to describe the...no...I will wait and calm down. Arch's new Folder up above....must remember.

[Illiterati-migration]

 

Woooooooooooooooooo. :::a hush falls over the forum:::

[Bugaboo-migration]

Shall I break the silence?

[Zonker]

I guess that's the central point of the discussion: Has custom and popular usage defined the Bronze Age at all?

...and Dave asserts the answer is "no" based on a lack of consensus on these boards. Well, it depends on how you ask the question. If you let people argue between Conan #1, GL #76 or GSXM #1 or some other choice (like mine), it may look like a lack of consensus. But if you polled people along the lines of

 

Did the Bronze Age begin:

a) within 2.5 years of GSXM #1 (1973-1977); or

b) 1972; or

c) 1971; or

d) 1970; or

e) anytime prior to 1970; or

f) anytime after 1977?

 

I suspect you'd find a remarkable consensus emerge.

 

In fact if no one beats me to it, I'll start just such a poll later today.

 

And, if you're going to allow for a Bronze Age at all, it is hard to see how one could unilaterally refuse to accept an Atomic Age or a Platinum Age. People will employ the language they find useful.

 

As mentioned on the earlier thread, I'm sympathetic to

- First Heroic Age = post-Action #1

- Second Heroic Age = post-Showcase #4

- Third Heroic Age = post-GSXM #1

 

But to say that the Bronze Age must be identical to this "third heroic age" is merely a personal preferance, and one that flies in the face of (IMHO) years of popular usage. But let's get some data soon through a poll.

 

Cheers,

Z.

[Zonker]

Since the Golden Age and the Silver Age are both superhero centric, and in fact are the only "ages" that have been accepted as legitimate ages by the comics community en masse, I would flip the question right back at you: Is there a difference between "comics of the 1970s" and "the Bronze Age"? I submit that there is, just as I submit there's a difference between "comics of the 1950s" and "the Silver Age."

Sorry, failed to answer the question in previous post. Yes, there is a difference.

Comics of the 1950s are divided into:

1. Atomic Age (first New Trend EC up until the last comic-sized MAD); and

2. Silver Age (Showcase #4 on up)

 

Comics of the 1970s are divided into:

1. Bronze Age (1970-1974); and

2. Third Heroic Age (or "Modern Age" if T.H.A. is too much a mouthful) (GSXM #1 on up)

 

Simple, eh?

Z.

[Zonker]

OK here we go.

This is intentionally biased to give Giant Size X-Men the benefit of the doubt. All this will prove is the degree to which there is a consensus or not around the timeframe for the start of the Bronze Age. Then we can go back to arguing which individual book started it. And of course, forum members are not a representative, random sample, etc. etc.

 

Oh, and for the purposes of this poll, we are talking cover dates, not true calendar time.

 

 

 

Simple enough.

Z.

 

[dblanchard-migration]

Zonker wrote:

 

>> if you're going to allow for a Bronze Age at all, it is hard to see how one could unilaterally refuse to accept an Atomic Age or a Platinum Age. People will employ the language they find useful. <<

 

Perhaps we're coming at this from completely different points of view.

 

What makes the Golden Age and the Silver Age readily identifiable and understandable to comics-oriented people (no doubt, people who don't care about comics would probably think the whole discussion is a waste of time to begin with; in fact, I know many hard-core comics collectors who ALSO think these "age" discussions are a waste of time. For the purposes of our discussion here, though, let's assume this stuff is, at the very least, a lot of fun to think about, and ultimately, has some relevance to the hobby, to say nothing of the marketplace). --

 

anyway, the GA and the SA are centered on the superhero genre, so their beginning and end-points can be discerned by identifying when the most significant comics relevant to that genre appeared. For instance, ACTION COMICS # 1 and ALL-STAR COMICS # 57 are often cited as the start and close of the Golden Age; similarly, SHOWCASE # 4 and (my own personal preference) SUPERMAN # 232 (last Weisinger)-- or GREEN LANTERN # 75 (last Broome & Kane), or FANTASTIC FOUR # 102 (last Kirby)-- are generally agreed-upon standard bearers for the start and end of the Silver Age.

 

You asked if I accept a Platinum Age or an Atomic Age -- I think the terms as used are meaningless, since they're attempts to shoehorn in "ages" where none existed before. I say this based on my study of literature's ages, which is where I think much of this "age-ism" stuff comes from (yes, I confess to having earned a degree in English, where this stuff comes trippingly off the tongue). The Atomic Age is a popular term already in use to describe the post-World War Two era, and my problem with its use is that the timeline is all wrong when applied to comics. The Atomic Age roughly coincides with the baby-boom generation in that the common timeline for both is 1945-1962 (although the 1962 date seems a bit elastic; I've seen as early as 1959, and as late as 1964 used, too).

 

The comic book Atomic Age, then, asks us to accept a dilution of the actual Atomic Age; that, in fact, the debut of the Flash in 1956 was the sublimely most important event of the 1950s. Now, to superhero comic book fans, yeah, we can make a case for that, and we can even do it with a straight face. To the world at large, though, that already has a preconceived notion of what and when the Atomic Age was, cutting it off at 1956 seems just plain nutty.

 

I have separate issues with the Platinum Age which I won't bore you with (right now, anyway).

 

I don't have a problem with folks saying "a new age" began in 1970 or 1971 (I go with 1971 myself), or that GL # 76 or CONAN # 1 or NIGHT NURSE # 1 or the Nightmaster SHOWCASE issues or anything else began that age. In fact, I *agree* with that thinking.

 

My only problem -- and it's one of consistency -- is that an age called "Bronze" should properly coincide with the ascension of the superhero genre, because that's the same yardstick we've used to chart the Golden and Silver Ages, which like Bronze are based on Greek mythology.

 

Anyway, take my ramblings for what they're worth, but if nothing else, I hope you can see that I've thought this stuff out pretty thoroughly.

 

Best,

Dave "am I the only one here who uses his actual name?" Blanchard

[PovertyRow]

The comic book Atomic Age, then, asks us to accept a dilution of the actual Atomic Age; that, in fact, the debut of the Flash in 1956 was the sublimely most important event of the 1950s.

 

To my mind the most important event of the 50's as it relates to comics is, without question, the 1955 Senate Subcommittee Hearing on the Impact of Comic Books on Juvenile Deliquency. The hearing that resulted in the Comics Code...which resulted in almost every major horror and crime title falling by the wayside. Now an interesting side note is the pre-hero Marvel concept, which, to my mind, certainly qualifies for an Atom Age brand, with all the Kirby monster books, the Ditko work, the communist conspiracies etc etc. But since the superhero collectors have dubbed the period just after the fall of the horror/crime kingdom the beginning of the Silver Age, then the entire pre-hero Marvel run must be SA as well, even though Marvel superheroes basically didn't exist until FF #1.

 

So if you are going to talk about a dilution of the actual Atom Age by the citation of a DC superhero, you must also take into account the dilution of the Silver Age (for 5 years) with no Marvel heroes.