Unpopular Golden Age Opinions Thread! 9 9

[ft88]

On the cartoony comics its a general mess with most books basically pumped out with nary a thought to art or story.

 

Which makes quality cover art a real nice nugget

Even better - a nice cover and story.

 

I'll present this heresy. Other than the top 20 or so (which is a lot) Carl Barks is over rated. Just kind of get tired of the Geppi, Overstreet line that he's 6 stars out of 5. He and Kelly are the best of the cartoony books, no doubt, but did they really change the industry the way other writers artist/writers did in the 1980s?

 

Apples to Oranges maybe.

 

Barks seemed to be mailing it in at times. Still better than most cartoony books but not earthshattering.

 

 

[sagii]

Mind blowing how 'civil' this all has been so far...I'll jump in then

 

I think the Simon covers for Harvey's 'Speed' and 'Green Hornet' are tops! I've seen credit given to them as 'collaboration' efforts but most are designated as Simon, from my findings.

 

I don't 'get' War comics, though I own two or three, just a genre I can't get into.

 

Not a fan of MOST pre Action 1 books either, but a few are gems to me.

 

Point Five this is like a therapy session.....

 

 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Sagii

[Ken Aldred]

I can’t stand Basil Wolverton’s artwork, especially those ugly covers he seemed to specialise in.

 

[fifties]

I'll be glad to throw in a few unpopular opinions, eh eh, given that I have already experienced that on this board. :wink:

 

AFA S&K, the illustrators of Prize Comics' Black Magic, Headline Comics, etc., I would give their artistry a three point five out of ten, only because I'm feeling generous today. I never did care for their style.

 

Re EC; I don't think there's any question about their superlative artwork and for the most part superior stories, but truth be told, they used formula methods for many stories, and frankly had the code not erased them, I often wonder how much longer their books might have been a salable item. I mean, how many times can you have the protagonist ground up/chopped up/mutilated, and then come back from the grave to exact vengeance on the heavies?

 

Stanley Morse, Stanmore, etc. (Weird Mysteries, Mr. Mystery, Weird Chills); some terrific covers, hiding what had to be damn near the worst story artwork ever, and just barely decent story matter.

 

Standard Comics, speaking of lousy artwork, had decent covers but in large part awful interior artwork. At least some of the story fare was worth the silver dime.

 

I think AFA terrifying covers, Atlas outdid them all. I don't mean gore, but rather shock, with a supernatural creature of some sort grabbing a terrified on-looker. Now they did have their stable of mediocre artists, but they also employed some prime talent as well. It's really no wonder that there are so many existing examples today, as compared to other publishers, given that they must have sold a helluva lot more, by comparison.

 

On prices; I too am somewhat astounded by the asking -and getting- prices on what have become key or grail issues. FAC 20 is really no big deal, and AFA shock value goes, not nearly as disturbing as issue 19. I wonder why Weird Mysteries 6, showing a decapitated head with entrails coming out the bottom, certainly a far more unsanitary picture, isn't in the same league?

 

Speaking of Story Comics, they had to be the most prolific imitator of EC's fare, but their stories and artwork, while not bad at all, simply didn't reach the level of whom they were trying to mimic.

 

Apologies for the long winded rant.

 

 

[piper]

I would rather have a restored GA book than a 1.5 book with a total spine split, detached centrefold and tape stains.

[Silver Surfer]

short of early bat 'tecs, spectre and sandman covers, and a very few random multi-title covers, d.c. gold does not a thing for me.

 

i think the famous red-bucket joker 'tec cover is stoopid.

 

The majority of DC covers are stoopid.

[rjpb]

I would rather have a restored GA book than a 1.5 book with a total spine split, detached centrefold and tape stains.

 

I understand the resistance towards restoration in mid to high grade books, where collectors are paying a premium for quality. It's not unreasonable to ask for a steeper discount the higher the "apparent" grade. But, with low grade books, especially 2.0 and under, minor restoration is pretty meaningless. Are color touch and glue really more offensive than tape, tears and soiling? Is trimming really less appealing than pieces out of the cover? Admittedly, prices for low grade restored books aren't much different than unrestored, especially raw and untainted by the PLOD, but I still do an eye roll when I see collectors looking for 1.0-2.0 copies of books, but only if unrestored.

[Silver Surfer]

Maybe this will fly, maybe not. Let's give it a whirl:

 

-- I don't enjoy looking at Jack Kirby's GA artwork. I respect that he's a founding father of the industry, but I just don't dig it at all.

 

 

S&K work for the most part is hard to enjoy as far as I'm concerned, not a big fan at all.

 

Now you've gone too far!

 

Actually, the hobby is clearly with you given the failure of S&K books to command any kind of premium so far as I can tell. I sometimes think that the popularity of early Caps comes despite S&K's work on them.

 

I have to say, though, that I still love S&K. Granted, some of it might be nostalgia because those were some of the first GA books I collected, and when I first started collecting they were by far the most popular GA artists.

 

But I recently reread the Newsboy Legion stories and I think they hold up pretty well. As, I think, do the S&K Caps. To me, S&K's books capture the GA, not just in the approach to art and stories, but also in how they reflect early 1940s America. Granted, there is a heavy dose of Kirby's Lower East Side outlook in many of the stories, so their America is only a slice of the country.

 

But I would still say that the GA doesn't get any more GA than S&K.

 

I cringe when I see the spindlely arms and muscle definition of S&K art such as those Adventure Comics covers.

[Silver Surfer]

For the record I have zero interest in Action #1. There I feel much better.

[rjpb]

 

Once DC gets beyond 1944 I stop being interested.

 

 

No love for Kubert, Infantino, Toth and Sprang?

[rjpb]

I think Schomburg is kind of overrated.

 

10% or so of his covers are legit classics and are amazing, but the remainder all kind of run together for me. Overly detailed and jumbled with a similar color palette and theme.

 

Yeah, but individually even many of the generic ones are a joy to look at, especially the war ones. What I find comparatively overrated are many of the "classic" Schomburg covers that go for multiples of those around them. I guess scarcity is a factor as well, and of course Hitler covers get a premium across the board, but I don't find books like Suspense #3 and Terrific #5 to be more compelling than a number of Marvel Mystery covers that have never really broken out.

[Ken Aldred]

For the record I have zero interest in Action #1. There I feel much better.

 

Action 1 and Detective 27 are anthologies with a lot of crappy, unreadable, coma-inducing filler material and a few pages of significance, otherwise incredibly boring.

 

No wonder so many copies were binned, back then.

[Ken Aldred]

Yeah, that was gruesome ... but shouldn't there be more to it? With some ECs there was, but with a lot there really wasn't. And the "trick" endings were often telegraphed way in advance.

 

 

Very true with many of Jack Davis’ horror stories, where at times there’s obvious ‘completion backward’ ; a certain gory ending imagined first, and then a 6-page scenario leading up to that.

 

[Ken Aldred]

I remember reading some ACG titles a couple of years ago; generally terrible stories and art, having to trudge through reams of complete dross to find a short interlude with some decent illustration.

[Point Five]

Point Five this is like a therapy session.....

 

It's true! This is our safe space.

 

 

[Point Five]

 

Once DC gets beyond 1944 I stop being interested.

 

 

No love for Kubert, Infantino, Toth and Sprang?

Respect certainly, but limited love and limited interest.

 

 

Unpopular opinion?

 

 

[Sqeggs]

On the cartoony comics its a general mess with most books basically pumped out with nary a thought to art or story.

 

Which makes quality cover art a real nice nugget

Even better - a nice cover and story.

 

I'll present this heresy. Other than the top 20 or so (which is a lot) Carl Barks is over rated. Just kind of get tired of the Geppi, Overstreet line that he's 6 stars out of 5. He and Kelly are the best of the cartoony books, no doubt, but did they really change the industry the way other writers artist/writers did in the 1980s?

 

Apples to Oranges maybe.

 

Barks seemed to be mailing it in at times. Still better than most cartoony books but not earthshattering.

 

 

It may not be too much of a stretch to say that Barks may have saved the industry during the Wertham/Comic Code crisis. I wonder how many sales outlets began to wonder whether comics were worth the trouble and controversy? But with WDC&S selling in the millions per month and Uncle Scrooge probably approaching those numbers, I imagine at least some outlets decided to stick with comics just to sell Dells.

 

Some of Barks's work was formulaic, but a large number of the 10-page WDC&S from the 1950s are really very good and hold up well today. Barks was also usually painstaking with his art, including lots of little jokes and asides that I'm sure he could have skipped without any criticism from his editors, who, from my understanding, largely left him alone to do whatever he wanted. Some of the Four Color stories are absolutely first rate and have some of the most innovative story telling in the history of comics.

 

Towards the end, I think he was running out of gas and the mid-1960s Scrooge stories became kind of tiresome. But I would definitely put him on my comic book Mount Rushmore.

[fifties]

I remember reading some ACG titles a couple of years ago; generally terrible stories and art, having to trudge through reams of complete dross to find a short interlude with some decent illustration.

ACG "horror" books always seemed to have one decent non-happy-ending story, and occasionally two. Harry Lazarus and Kenny Landau's artwork was somewhat mediocre, I would say mid range between the best and worst story-illustrated books on the news stands at the time.

[Bronty]

I can’t stand Basil Wolverton’s artwork, especially those ugly covers he seemed to specialise in.

 

I'd burn you at the stake except for the fact he drew almost ZERO covers!

[fifties]

I can’t stand Basil Wolverton’s artwork, especially those ugly covers he seemed to specialise in.

 

I'd burn you at the stake except for the fact he drew almost ZERO covers!

No, I LOVE him! Now if only EVERYONE thought the way he did, we'd have NP getting books with Wolverton illustrated stories on the cheap, relatively. :wink: