Most important book of the 80s?

[awe4one]

The WHO'S WHO OF THE DC UNIVERSE

 

and

 

The OFFICIAL HANDBOOK OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE

 

Now this is an inspired choice!

 

I hadn't even thought of these before due to teir publicatio so early in the 80s. I would put these as "the" most important books of the 80s but they crack the Top 5. At least OHOTMU due to it being the first.

 

Another I'd throw out there as being in the top echelon is Batman #357. Forget it being the 1st Jason Todd appearance (though it helps). It's the first appearance of Killer Croc. The only new villain, outside of Venom, that was introduced in the 80s with any staying power. As well as the the first significant villain to be introduced into the Batman stable since Ras al Gul in the early 70s...

 

Jim

[Stark This-migration]

Overstreet says 1984 is the start date with Secret Wars over at Marvel and Crisis on Infinite Earths over at DC (a year later).

 

Suggested end year is 1992, with the birth of Image Comics.

 

Where is this mentioned in OS? I must be overlooking it. Thanks

[Kevin Boyd]

Another I'd throw out there as being in the top echelon is Batman #357. Forget it being the 1st Jason Todd appearance (though it helps). It's the first appearance of Killer Croc. The only new villain, outside of Venom, that was introduced in the 80s with any staying power. As well as the the first significant villain to be introduced into the Batman stable since Ras al Gul in the early 70s...

 

Scarface and the Ventriloquist (Detective Comics #583 - 1988)

 

Bane (Vengeance of Bane - 1989)

[Kevin Boyd]

Where is this mentioned in OS? I must be overlooking it. Thanks

 

My OSPG is not available to check. Presuming you have the regular version of the 2004 guide (shazam or donald duck cover)... look in the section of articles that follows the central pricing section (towards the back of the book).

[awe4one]

Another I'd throw out there as being in the top echelon is Batman #357. Forget it being the 1st Jason Todd appearance (though it helps). It's the first appearance of Killer Croc. The only new villain, outside of Venom, that was introduced in the 80s with any staying power. As well as the the first significant villain to be introduced into the Batman stable since Ras al Gul in the early 70s...

 

Scarface and the Ventriloquist (Detective Comics #583 - 1988)

 

Bane (Vengeance of Bane - 1989)

 

I thought of these two but the first seems a bit too derivative and Bane is essentially a one-note character...

 

Jim

[Kevin Boyd]

Derivative and one-note characters that seem to have staying power. What makes Croc any less derivative or any more complex?

[rob_react]

Derivative and one-note characters that seem to have staying power. What makes Croc any less derivative or any more complex?

 

 

I will agree that Croc is cool though.

 

Except for the bad skin Azzarello croc. That guy was lame as [!@#%^&^].

[awe4one]

What makes Croc any less derivative or any more complex?

 

Well...essentially the character has developed enough of a following to appear in Batman and associated titles multiple times. In fact more than double the appearance of either of your two examples. And as for Bane, take out Knightfall and his appearances are quite few.

 

Croc was popular enough to be included in the recent high-vis Batman villain fest Hush storyline. Also, he has been featured in the cartoon numerous times (at least three episodes off the top of my head). A number of appearances that's on par with the majority of Batman's established Rogues Gallery after Joker, Penguin, and Catwoman.

 

Hell..there have been multiple figurines of the character. How many figurines have V and Bane had?

 

There's no comparison...

 

Jim

[Kevin Boyd]

Boy you just love to debate.

 

Well...essentially the character has developed enough of a following to appear in Batman and associated titles multiple times. In fact more than double the appearance of either of your two examples. And as for Bane, take out Knightfall and his appearances are quite few.

 

Almost impossible to prove or disprove as I don't have a resource available that can track the comic book appearances of each character.

 

Needless to say, when Croc has appeared it was very one-note. While he was initially an interesting character (in the Jason Todd story, particularly in Detective) he quickly devolved into a big, ugly, strong monster for Batman to fight from time to time.

 

He was basically a joke in "Broken City" and a big monster for Batman to fight at the start of "Hush". The Ventriloquist also appeared in "Broken City".

 

Bane has had at least three "starring" one-shots. Killer Croc? Ventriloquist? None.

 

Also, he has been featured in the cartoon numerous times (at least three episodes off the top of my head). A number of appearances that's on par with the majority of Batman's established Rogues Gallery after Joker, Penguin, and Catwoman.

 

Batman Cartoon appearances:

 

Killer Croc - 7 "Vendetta", "Almost Got 'Em", "The Trial", "Sideshow", "Bane", "Love is a Croc", "Judgment Day"

 

Ventriloquist - 6 "Read My Lips", "The Trial", "Catwalk", "Lock Up", "Double Talk", "Over the Edge"

 

Bane - 3 (1 was a Superman episode) "Bane" "Over the Edge", "Knight Time"

 

Bane has it over on the other two by actually making it to the movies. He appeared in the god-awful Batman and Robin.

 

Hell..there have been multiple figurines of the character. How many figurines have V and Bane had?

 

Bane has had more at 4. Not too much demand for a figure of an old guy with a puppet.

 

Killer Croc - 2 (one is basically Spider-Man's foe the Lizard)

Ventriloquist - 0

Bane - 4

 

 

The point is not that one is better than the other, all three have become integral parts of Batman's Rogues Gallery. So to say that Croc is the only villain from the 1980's with any staying power other than Venom is false as there are at least two other Batman villains that still have staying power.

[PedigreeMan]

The WHO'S WHO OF THE DC UNIVERSE

 

and

 

The OFFICIAL HANDBOOK OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE

 

During the 80's when both companies started these type of books. At the time they were popular. They covered just about every character, place, & thing in DC & MARVEL comics. There was a wealth of information in these books. Seemed like everyone was buying them.

 

I would have to say these books were very important at the time.

 

And they were the start of this type of book.

 

Another one along similar lines would be MARVEL SAGA. That series came out right as I was getting into the whole weekly collecting thing, and I learned a heckuva lot about Marvel Universe history from it.

 

Alan

[FFB]

ASM 300

 

At least it should be in the top 10

 

Another vote here for ASM 300.

Surely the most important (or at least desirable) Spider-man issue of the 1980s!

 

My vote would go for ASM#238, but that's just me. I always thought that Venom was the most overrated Spider-Man villain in history.

 

By the way -- I re-read ASM#238 the other night. It is just a great read. Just as much fun now as it was when I pulled it out of a Marvel Multi-Mags three-pack back when it came out.

[PedigreeMan]

Can someone please explain all the votes for TMNT #1? The only thing that parody spawned was an infinite number of Blackbelt Hamsters, Kung Fu Kangaroos, Miami Mice (and Hamster Vices), Fish Police, ad nauseum. It also gave us all a nice preview of the early '90s crash due to an overabundance of junk. It was a blip, an aberration.

 

Remember, the cartoon didn't begin until the end of the '80s (late 1988?), long after the comic book hype had died down.

 

Like I said, I don't get it.

 

Alan

[tth2]

Can someone please explain all the votes for TMNT #1? The only thing that parody spawned was an infinite number of Blackbelt Hamsters, Kung Fu Kangaroos, Miami Mice (and Hamster Vices), Fish Police, ad nauseum. It also gave us all a nice preview of the early '90s crash due to an overabundance of junk. It was a blip, an aberration.

 

Remember, the cartoon didn't begin until the end of the '80s (late 1988?), long after the comic book hype had died down.

 

Like I said, I don't get it.

 

Alan

 

To me, it's what TMNT represents, more than what it actually was. In my opinion, it was the first real break-through hit amongst the independents and the first massive home run for a creator-owned book. This did two things.

 

First, it proved that the Marvel/DC oligopoly could be successfully challenged, for the first time in how many decades? Sure, there was Pacific, Eclipse, First and other indies, later followed more successfully by Dark Horse and ultimately Image, who I guess are important enough that their emergence marks the end of the Copper Era and the beginning of the Modern Era. But it was the most enduring of all the characters that emerged from the indy/B&W explosion, and by far the most successful non-DC/Marvel character until (arguably) Spawn came along. As a comic itself, it did not actually last all that long, but it paved the way for other more long-lasting comic companies.

 

Second, it showed that if you owned the rights to your creation, you could make a ton of money. And what was the predominant theme of the comic industry in the late 80s and early 90s? That's right, the transfer of power from the companies to the creators. Would MacFarlane and Lee have been willing to break away from Marvel and create Image without Eastman & Laird? Would Marvel and DC have been willing to give more creative ownership to artists and writers if there was not the threat that they could walk away and create a mega-franchise on their own, not a dime of which would go to Marvel and DC? Hard to say, it could have all turned out this way anyway, but my opinion is that things DID turn out this way and a large part was directly or indirectly attributable to TMNT (which was a fabulous book when it was a B&W).

[heartened]

The Turtles are as recognizable as Batman and Superman in mainstream America and the world. 'nuff said.

[Tango 'n Cash]

My vote is a tie between:

 

Secret Wars 1 and ASM 300

[PedigreeMan]

Can someone please explain all the votes for TMNT #1? The only thing that parody spawned was an infinite number of Blackbelt Hamsters, Kung Fu Kangaroos, Miami Mice (and Hamster Vices), Fish Police, ad nauseum. It also gave us all a nice preview of the early '90s crash due to an overabundance of junk. It was a blip, an aberration.

 

Remember, the cartoon didn't begin until the end of the '80s (late 1988?), long after the comic book hype had died down.

 

Like I said, I don't get it.

 

Alan

 

To me, it's what TMNT represents, more than what it actually was. In my opinion, it was the first real break-through hit amongst the independents and the first massive home run for a creator-owned book. This did two things.

 

First, it proved that the Marvel/DC oligopoly could be successfully challenged, for the first time in how many decades? Sure, there was Pacific, Eclipse, First and other indies, later followed more successfully by Dark Horse and ultimately Image, who I guess are important enough that their emergence marks the end of the Copper Era and the beginning of the Modern Era. But it was the most enduring of all the characters that emerged from the indy/B&W explosion, and by far the most successful non-DC/Marvel character until (arguably) Spawn came along. As a comic itself, it did not actually last all that long, but it paved the way for other more long-lasting comic companies.

 

Second, it showed that if you owned the rights to your creation, you could make a ton of money. And what was the predominant theme of the comic industry in the late 80s and early 90s? That's right, the transfer of power from the companies to the creators. Would MacFarlane and Lee have been willing to break away from Marvel and create Image without Eastman & Laird? Would Marvel and DC have been willing to give more creative ownership to artists and writers if there was not the threat that they could walk away and create a mega-franchise on their own, not a dime of which would go to Marvel and DC? Hard to say, it could have all turned out this way anyway, but my opinion is that things DID turn out this way and a large part was directly or indirectly attributable to TMNT (which was a fabulous book when it was a B&W).

 

Some very thought provoking points ... but I'm still not convinced.

 

First, I wouldn't call Mirage a "successful challenge" to Marvel/DC, especially once the B&W crash happened in the mid '80s. They had the Turtles (pre-cartoon, no less) and ...? Most one hit wonders are big sellers, but that usually doesn't make them the foundation for something much larger and more diverse.

 

The "independent" comic market had been brewing since the early '70s with the advent of undergrounds. Most independent companies had a "hit" of some form or another throughout the '70s '80s, and I would simply lump TMNT in with Zap or American Flagg or Whisper or Nexus or ever Shatter.

 

Of course, the company as a whole took off once the cartoons and toys hit in 1988/89, but by then the "experiment" of publishing outside of the Big Two had already been worked on for almost two decades. The fact that this outsider publisher with a quirky band of mutant amphibians managed to make millions from ancilliary products had little impact on the core comic market, independent or otherwise. Most of the problems and issues had already been figured out. I mean, heck, ten year earlier George Lucas showed that owning the rights to your own creation could garner you a fortune. The Turtle empire brought nothing new to the table.

 

I would also argue that creator's rights had long been an issue of discontent amongst comic professionals long before TMNT hit the mainstream in 1989. Like independent publishing in general, by the time the Turtles hit, most of the issues between the Big Two and creators had been worked on and many solutions attempted. I would argue that the creation of Image was more an outgrowth of this decades-long dialectic rather than from one product gaining monster popularity two years prior.

 

Now, did TMNT provide further evidence that a little guy could make it big? Certainly, but it had already been done before. Like I said, the Turtles brought nothing new to the game.

 

Just my two cents,

Alan

[Kevin Boyd]

I would simply lump TMNT in with Zap or American Flagg or Whisper or Nexus or ever Shatter.

 

Aside from Zap, please don't. All of those other books were well-crafted books by professionals.

 

TMNT was the comics equivalent of a garage band, a couple of guys who didn't really know what they were doing imitating a superstar writer/artist (Miller) and injecting some humor into it. If TMNT is important it is because it opened comics up to everyone who could pick up a pencil and draw. It's why we had a deluge of similar books shortly afterwards... another analogy is that TMNT was the "Easy Rider" of comics in the 1980's...

 

I recall TMNT #1 being an extremely hot book when it came out, but that was largely due to it being under-ordered and going thru multiple printings.

 

But it's actually quite simple Alan, the kids (3-12 years olds) that went crazy for the TMNT cartoons, toys and movies in the 1980's are now 18-28 year olds. They are the same group that worships Thundercats and Transformers as those cartoons used to be on after school ever day.

[shadroch]

While the TNMTs made their owners a ton of money,most of it came from other sources than the direct market.Most of the first printing wasn't even sold in comic shops.E&L didn't solict the issue at all.They sold it at conventions and then sold the leftover copies to Bud Plant.Almost all of the copies ended up on the west coast

and when word of mouth about the project hit,collectors and dealers ended up scrambling for it.

I may be misremembering here but I don't think the books were carried by most of the major distributors until issue 3 or 4.It was never a huge seller in my stores,several independants outsold it.In fact,due to the prices that the rare first printings were getting,many of the inferior copycat books that came out outsold it as collectors tried to catch the proverbial lightning in a bottle.It wasn't all that long before Archie signed the creators up and the book went mainstream,in color.

[Fabfrank]

I remember picking up my copy of TMNT #1 off the shelf at the LCS I used at the time. Dragon's Den at their original Yonkers (off Tuckahoe RD) location.

[shadroch]

Sure. But was it a second or third print? Bud Plant convinced them to reprint the book almost immediately.The Koch brothers owned that store at the time and were one of my distributors.It is possible that they got some first prints from Plant.I got my single first print fom him when I ordered the second prints.But,if I remember correctly,Plant was charging cover price to the stores by the time I found out he had copies.Does Joe still own that shop?

 

 

 

Edited