When do books go from being Bronze age to being modern?

[Zonker]

 

May 1979: Daredevil 158- First Miller art

Sep 1980: X-Men 137- Death of Dark Phoenix

Oct 1980: DC Presents 26- first New Teen Titans

Nov 1980: New Teen Titans 1

"1980" : Superboy Spectacular- Direct Sales only 1-shot (anyone know which month?)

Jan 1981: Daredevil 168- First Miller -script; Intro Elektra

Jan 1981: X-Men 141- Days of Future Past launches alternate time line that would form the basis for lots of X-continuity over the next several years

Mar 1981: X-Men 143- Final Claremont/Byrne

Mar 1981: Dazzler 1- First direct-sales-only for an ongoing series

Nov 1981: Captain Victory 1- First Pacific Comics issue, direct-only publisher

[THE_BEYONDER]

There are a few months of transition , and the Copper Age officially begins in July of the same year.

[divad]

 

May 1979: Daredevil 158- First Miller art

Sep 1980: X-Men 137- Death of Dark Phoenix

Oct 1980: DC Presents 26- first New Teen Titans

Nov 1980: New Teen Titans 1

"1980" : Superboy Spectacular- Direct Sales only 1-shot (anyone know which month?)

Jan 1981: Daredevil 168- First Miller -script; Intro Elektra

Jan 1981: X-Men 141- Days of Future Past launches alternate time line that would form the basis for lots of X-continuity over the next several years

Mar 1981: X-Men 143- Final Claremont/Byrne

Mar 1981: Dazzler 1- First direct-sales-only for an ongoing series

Nov 1981: Captain Victory 1- First Pacific Comics issue, direct-only publisher

 

Zonk,

 

I think that pretty much sums up the debate

[lou_fine]

Arnold;

 

Since you are inviting opinions, I guess I may as well add in my two cents.

 

Even though I am primarily a GA collector when it comes to back issues, even I can state with no uncertainty that NTT #1 and the Miller DD books are definitely NOT BA books. All of these books represented the beginning of the Copper Age since they are clearly different from the BA period books. They were definitely different when I was buying them off the newsstand and they are even more clearly different looking back 20+ years ago.

 

Maybe somebody should throw in a poll here to give Arnold some more definitive stats on this issue.

[drbanner]

May 1979: Daredevil 158- First Miller art

Sep 1980: X-Men 137- Death of Dark Phoenix

Oct 1980: DC Presents 26- first New Teen Titans

Nov 1980: New Teen Titans 1

"1980" : Superboy Spectacular- Direct Sales only 1-shot (anyone know which month?)

Jan 1981: Daredevil 168- First Miller -script; Intro Elektra

Jan 1981: X-Men 141- Days of Future Past launches alternate time line that would form the basis for lots of X-continuity over the next several years

Mar 1981: X-Men 143- Final Claremont/Byrne

Mar 1981: Dazzler 1- First direct-sales-only for an ongoing series

Nov 1981: Captain Victory 1- First Pacific Comics issue, direct-only publisher

 

Good stuff James - the Origin of the Copper Age revealed at long last!!

[Aman619]

Arnold---- face it bubby! Yopu guys blew it. You took a shot, and missed by a few years.

Copper Age exists, yes. Good work in establishing it.

But get the start year correct , please!!

[shadroch]

Star Reach was the first direct only comic,and it came out and was published on a regular basis from 1974 on.

[awe4one]

Star Reach was the first direct only comic,and it came out and was published on a regular basis from 1974 on.

 

Shad...was this nationally distributed at first or just regionally? I don't remember ever seeing the comic in the two South Florida LCSs I frequented in the mid/late 70s.

 

Jim

[Zonker]

Star Reach was the first direct only comic,and it came out and was published on a regular basis from 1974 on.

 

Star*Reach called itself 'ground-level' or something like that to acknowledge that it was halfway between the Undergrounds and mainstream comics, including taking advantage of the non-returnable distribution method the Undergrounds used for selling through head shops, etc.

 

But it's a good point-- from a 2005 vantage point, why would we single out Pacific Comics as a pioneer rather than Star*Reach? I guess I'd have to say it is the Leif Ericcson / Christopher Columbus thing: Star*Reach may have been first, but it didn't really lead to anything-- whereas shortly after Pacific hit, you had First Comics, Capitol Comics, Eclipse Comics, and the rest.

[bronze johnny]

Well that's how I approach it anyway, and I always thought it was fun to keep the old Age labels going and figure out a logical structure for expanding the range and justifying the choices. It's ultimately all arbitrary anyway - history doesn't stop and start in compartmentalized sections. That's why I really liked Doug's "shift" idea, that an Age can be defined as having an easing-in period so that it's not just turning on a dime and one Age stops dead while another immediately begins. But it's just all an exercise, there are lots of other ways of looking at it out there on websites and message boards and in other books. Ours admittedly carries a bit more weight sometimes due to the Guide's position in the marketplace, but I always say - disagree if you want to, offer your own opinions. This is just one approach.

 

Arnold, while I agree with Overstreet's attempt to provide a historical account of the development of the American Comic Book, and, I don't take issue with the "shift" idea, I wonder if the Guide is attempting to create new ages for the sake of merely labeling a period of time with an attractive name. Let's face it, if Overstreet continues to name time periods at the current "pace," this is how it could look by 2070:

 

1938-1945: Golden Age

1946-1955: Atomic Age

1956-1969: Silver Age

1970-1985: Bronze Age

1986-1992: Copper Age

1993-2010: Nickel Age?

2011-2021: Aluminum Age?

2022-2035: Alloy Age?

2036-2049: Tin Age?

2050-2058: Die-Cast Metal Age?

2059-2070: Plastic Age?

 

 

and so on, and so on...

 

We might be a bit too hasty to name these ages. Let's give it some time.

 

Perhaps, later generations will look back and call the 20th Century, the Golden Age of Comic Books, with later ages defined by periods of time that in some might be in some cases, centuries long. Remember that some changes in the future might also cause us to change some of our views of the past.

 

BronzeJohnny

[jbud73]

May 1979: Daredevil 158- First Miller art

Sep 1980: X-Men 137- Death of Dark Phoenix

Oct 1980: DC Presents 26- first New Teen Titans

Nov 1980: New Teen Titans 1

"1980" : Superboy Spectacular- Direct Sales only 1-shot (anyone know which month?)

Jan 1981: Daredevil 168- First Miller -script; Intro Elektra

Jan 1981: X-Men 141- Days of Future Past launches alternate time line that would form the basis for lots of X-continuity over the next several years

Mar 1981: X-Men 143- Final Claremont/Byrne

Mar 1981: Dazzler 1- First direct-sales-only for an ongoing series

Nov 1981: Captain Victory 1- First Pacific Comics issue, direct-only publisher

 

Good stuff James - the Origin of the Copper Age revealed at long last!!

 

Exactly, this may sound undemocratic and it most certainly is - BUT a majority of opinion is not necessarily a guarantee of anything. For clarification do a lot of people like the designation of the Copper Age? Hey me too. However, I disagree with the timeline. I think the above quote illustrates a true change in the genre and the mobility of forces towards a new end.

 

The Key difference with Copper from the other ages, is that it does not hit its stride at the beginning of the age the is a HUGE idea and key to understanding the line of thinking that permeates the boards. The late 1981 books are different than their predecessors, I THINK ALMOST EVERYONE AGREES YOU CANNOT CALL THEM BRONZE. But the defining characteristics of the age are not cemented until a few years later. The ground work is laid in 1981, 1982 and then perfected in 1984, 1985.

[PovertyRow]

Hey Arnold. Replying to you because of the OS definitions of age and also to everyone else.

 

Now this may be rejected out of hand but...after having been here some years and having had certain topics (like this one) really make me think...well...I have to say the criteria for the ages seems a bit weird to me.

 

More than anything else, what is a comic book? It is a reflection of the times. This is apparant in the art (with clothes, house interiors, etc.), the verbage (often replete with slang), the sociological (with various ideas and philosophies), the morals etc.

 

Take GA. It is considered to be starting with Action 1 in 1938. But what WAS Superman before WW2? A crime fighter. So Superman WAS a superhero, and the paramount super-hero, but how much of the GA books were WW2 covers and stories? How do they relate to the pre-WW2 (at least as far as the United States involvement)? Not a whole lot. Basically most of the pre-WW2 superheros were simply transferred into war stories. When the war was over what happened? Gradually, the superhero decilined. We still call them GA but the Atom Age books, starting slowly with Eerie 1(1947), then accelerating until about 1949-1950 when the superhero was a truly dying breed and horror reallly came into its own. This is a reflection of society at work. Why did the superheroes die out? Simply because, while they began in the pre-WW2 years, it was not too long before Pearl Harbor and the introduction of the US into the war. And once the war was over? Well, not a whole lot to do except return to crime fighting (with the exception of the "adventure" type books, some of which existed IN the war years.)

 

As far as Silver goes? Well, while Showcase 4 is generally considered the start of the SA what did it offer? A revamped superhero from the GA. What social relevance did it have?

 

Then consider Atlas. Considerable social relevance in back stories of the Atlas pre-hero type books where we have Kirby BIG MONSTER (love them) but often a Ditko sci-fi type story with allusions to another "power" (basically veiled or not so veiled communism). Now this was the time when I was growing up in the 50's. I remember reading page after page time and time again pampholets we got in the mail to build bomb shelters. And also remember watching Twilight Zone and Outer Limits tv that hearkened to the communist threat and actually WORRYING ABOUT IT, even though I was a pre-teen. That, too is sociology at work and also nicely reflected in the Atlas of the day.

 

Now consider Marvel and Silver Age. What happened here? Take any early title. Hulk. ASM. FF. Theese three shared a continuing uniqueness. Plain old humans transformed by some sci-fi concept into a superhero - but retaining their human side in the midst of it. (Ben did it best in FF. Banner and Parker made it a real theme.) So how does Marvel and ASM, FF, Hulk, Daredevil (also a regular human instilled), X-Men (maybe the most blatant expression of the idea - regular folk imbued without their consent to super powers) etc etc etc.

 

Marvel DID catch onto something here that, in my opinion, is sufficiently important to warrant an age. And why? This was the 60's. I was a teen in '63. Things were different than when I was a pre-teen in the 50's. Politics were beginning to be examined without the historical almost-religious awe.. Unmentionables were starting to be mentioned. Values were being questioned. "Right" was no longer seen as an absolute but suddenly shades of grey were introduced.

 

Will stop here. WAY too long but would appreciate your thoughts, Arnold and everyone else.

 

Bottom line? What I am saying is that there are sociological things going on since 1939 that should have an impact on ages. And things like artists and writers do not really fall into that.

 

I thank you.

[SteveLRoberts5]

So Green Lantern 76 is still in the Silver Age? I thought that was considered a Bronze Age book.

[FFB]

Good post, Mike. I have always believed that the ages should be defined more by changes to the industry itself (the coming of the CCA in the 1950s, Marvel's breaking loose from DC's distribution agreement in 1968, the beginning of the direct market in 1972, Seuling's loss of relative exclusivity in the direct market in 1979, the rise of the miniseries in the early 1980s, the departure of the superstars for independent publishing in the early 1990s, etc.) than by the happenings of any one title or the movings of any one creative team or artist. It would be almost impossible to put the genie back in the bottle at this point, but I think that these industry-wide changes in the way comics were made and distributed had a lot more to do with defining an era than individual happenings on a given title or with a given creative team.

[tth2]

Good post, Mike. I have always believed that the ages should be defined more by changes to the industry itself (the coming of the CCA in the 1950s, Marvel's breaking loose from DC's distribution agreement in 1968, the beginning of the direct market in 1972, Seuling's loss of relative exclusivity in the direct market in 1979, the rise of the miniseries in the early 1980s, the departure of the superstars for independent publishing in the early 1990s, etc.) than by the happenings of any one title or the movings of any one creative team or artist. It would be almost impossible to put the genie back in the bottle at this point, but I think that these industry-wide changes in the way comics were made and distributed had a lot more to do with defining an era than individual happenings on a given title or with a given creative team.

While I think those are important factors, they underweight the substantive changes in comics themselves. The main exception in the examples you list above is the intro of CCA, which had a huge impact on the stories and art of comics. The change in eras has to reflect the zeitgeist of each era too. Saga of Swamp Thing 21 introduces an era of the writer as star, and a darker, grittier style of writing. Obviously it's closer to Vertigo than anything else from the BA, but it's also closer to "Marvels" and other books that came out in the Copper/Modern era. In all fairness, I would give Frank Miller, between DD and DKR, equal credit with Alan Moore in bringing about this mood change in comics. The point is that somewhere during that period is when BA ended.

[FFB]

Good post, Mike. I have always believed that the ages should be defined more by changes to the industry itself (the coming of the CCA in the 1950s, Marvel's breaking loose from DC's distribution agreement in 1968, the beginning of the direct market in 1972, Seuling's loss of relative exclusivity in the direct market in 1979, the rise of the miniseries in the early 1980s, the departure of the superstars for independent publishing in the early 1990s, etc.) than by the happenings of any one title or the movings of any one creative team or artist. It would be almost impossible to put the genie back in the bottle at this point, but I think that these industry-wide changes in the way comics were made and distributed had a lot more to do with defining an era than individual happenings on a given title or with a given creative team.

While I think those are important factors, they underweight the substantive changes in comics themselves. The main exception in the examples you list above is the intro of CCA, which had a huge impact on the stories and art of comics. The change in eras has to reflect the zeitgeist of each era too. Saga of Swamp Thing 21 introduces an era of the writer as star, and a darker, grittier style of writing. Obviously it's closer to Vertigo than anything else from the BA, but it's also closer to "Marvels" and other books that came out in the Copper/Modern era. In all fairness, I would give Frank Miller, between DD and DKR, equal credit with Alan Moore in bringing about this mood change in comics. The point is that somewhere during that period is when BA ended.

 

Did Miller DD, Miller DKR, and Moore Swamp Thing really change the other comics though? I didn't notice any dramatic change in Spider-Man or FF or any of the other big series after these milestones. That's the point I am making.

 

These guys changed the titles they worked on and perhaps had a bit of a trickle effect onto other titles, but the industry as a whole did not change because of Miller DD, DKR, or Moore Swamp Thing. Stan Lee had already created the "writer as star" element to the industry while Moore was in grade school. Moore on Swamp Thing was a drop in the bucket -- I can tell you that I did not notice any difference in the comic industry following Moore's early work on Swamp Thing. SOME comics might have had a darker tone after Miller/Moore's early work, but the comic industry as a whole did not.

 

The same cannot be said about the CCA, Marvel's break with DC distribution, the creation of and revolutionary changes to the direct market, or the Image defection in the early 1990s. Those things all changed the industry as a whole.

[tth2]

Did Miller DD, Miller DKR, and Moore Swamp Thing really change the other comics though? I didn't notice any dramatic change in Spider-Man or FF or any of the other big series after these milestones. That's the point I am making.

Not everything will change immediately or dramatically, particularly long-standing titles that had a solid readership already. Did Superman or Batman change noticeably after Showcase 4 came out? No. Are you disputing that therefore the SA did not begin with Showcase 4?

 

These guys changed the titles they worked on and perhaps had a bit of a trickle effect onto other titles, but the industry as a whole did not change because of Miller DD, DKR, or Moore Swamp Thing. Stan Lee had already created the "writer as star" element to the industry while Moore was in grade school. Moore on Swamp Thing was a drop in the bucket -- I can tell you that I did not notice any difference in the comic industry following Moore's early work on Swamp Thing. SOME comics might have had a darker tone after Miller/Moore's early work, but the comic industry as a whole did not.

Stan Lee had NOT created the writer as star element to the industry. Yes, he was a star, in that he was well known and a household name, because the man was good at self-promotion and for a while there didn't seem to be any other writers at Marvel (and for the record, I'm not a Stan Lee hater, in fact I give him more credit for creating Marvel than Jack Kirby). Look at some price guides from before Swamp Thing and show me how many comics had prices broken out because of the writer (including Stan Lee). None (with possible exception of Carl Barks, but he wrote and drew). When Moore's work started getting broken out, it was the first time the work of a non-artist had been broken out. It was the first time collectors were looking for back-issues because they had been WRITTEN by someone.

 

Batman certainly started taking on a darker tone after DKR. And query whether Batman, the movie, which helped to relaunch comics into the mainstream, would have been as dark and whether Tim Burton would have been given the project in the first place without the reintroduction of the darker Batman.

 

The same cannot be said about the CCA, Marvel's break with DC distribution, the creation of and revolutionary changes to the direct market, or the Image defection in the early 1990s. Those things all changed the industry as a whole.

How did characters, stories, art, etc. change as a result of Marvel's break with DC in 1968? I can't detect ANY difference in the post-68 Marvel comics from the pre-68 comics, except that there are more titles.

[FFB]

Did Miller DD, Miller DKR, and Moore Swamp Thing really change the other comics though? I didn't notice any dramatic change in Spider-Man or FF or any of the other big series after these milestones. That's the point I am making.

Not everything will change immediately or dramatically, particularly long-standing titles that had a solid readership already. Did Superman or Batman change noticeably after Showcase 4 came out? No. Are you disputing that therefore the SA did not begin with Showcase 4?

 

You're going to kill me for this, but yes. I don't think the silver age began with Showcase #4. I think the silver age began with FF#1. FF#1 marked a dramatic difference in the very nature of comic book superheroes and in the way that superhero tales were told. I'll likely convince no one but myself with this argument, but it's what I believe.

 

These guys changed the titles they worked on and perhaps had a bit of a trickle effect onto other titles, but the industry as a whole did not change because of Miller DD, DKR, or Moore Swamp Thing. Stan Lee had already created the "writer as star" element to the industry while Moore was in grade school. Moore on Swamp Thing was a drop in the bucket -- I can tell you that I did not notice any difference in the comic industry following Moore's early work on Swamp Thing. SOME comics might have had a darker tone after Miller/Moore's early work, but the comic industry as a whole did not.

Stan Lee had NOT created the writer as star element to the industry. Yes, he was a star, in that he was well known and a household name, because the man was good at self-promotion and for a while there didn't seem to be any other writers at Marvel (and for the record, I'm not a Stan Lee hater, in fact I give him more credit for creating Marvel than Jack Kirby). Look at some price guides from before Swamp Thing and show me how many comics had prices broken out because of the writer (including Stan Lee). None (with possible exception of Carl Barks, but he wrote and drew). When Moore's work started getting broken out, it was the first time the work of a non-artist had been broken out. It was the first time collectors were looking for back-issues because they had been WRITTEN by someone.

 

Batman certainly started taking on a darker tone after DKR. And query whether Batman, the movie, which helped to relaunch comics into the mainstream, would have been as dark and whether Tim Burton would have been given the project in the first place without the reintroduction of the darker Batman.

 

I think that Daredevil #168 (first Miller scripts) was broken out before SOTST#20, but one could argue that DD#168 is a key because of the first appearance of Elektra too. Whatever the reason though, it isn't like writers still enjoy that kind of response, do they? It is rare for any issue to be broken out because a writer takes over and this has not changed since SOTST#20. Again, what did it change outside of the title itself?

 

As for Batman taking a darker tone, I think you need to reread the Batman stories from the late 1960s and early 1970s with O'Neill and Adams and the stories that followed after that. Batman was as dark then as he ever was and it had nothing to do with Alan Moore or Frank Miller.

 

The same cannot be said about the CCA, Marvel's break with DC distribution, the creation of and revolutionary changes to the direct market, or the Image defection in the early 1990s. Those things all changed the industry as a whole.

How did characters, stories, art, etc. change as a result of Marvel's break with DC in 1968? I can't detect ANY difference in the post-68 Marvel comics from the pre-68 comics, except that there are more titles.

 

More titles, a rapid expansion of the Marvel universe, a branching out into horror, team-up concepts, pre-hero reprint titles, and many, many more creators who wouldn't have had books to work on in the first place if Marvel had been limited to the same eight titles that it had before the break. Take a look at Marvel's output in the early 1970s (Conan, Tomb of Dracula, Frankenstein, Savage Tales, Savage Sword of Conan, and Iron Man, Submariner, Captain America, and Hulk in their own dedicated titles) and then ask the question again.

[tth2]

Did Miller DD, Miller DKR, and Moore Swamp Thing really change the other comics though? I didn't notice any dramatic change in Spider-Man or FF or any of the other big series after these milestones. That's the point I am making.

Not everything will change immediately or dramatically, particularly long-standing titles that had a solid readership already. Did Superman or Batman change noticeably after Showcase 4 came out? No. Are you disputing that therefore the SA did not begin with Showcase 4?

 

You're going to kill me for this, but yes. I don't think the silver age began with Showcase #4. I think the silver age began with FF#1. FF#1 marked a dramatic difference in the very nature of comic book superheroes and in the way that superhero tales were told. I'll likely convince no one but myself with this argument, but it's what I believe.

Okay, but even assuming your very tenuous argument is correct , it seems to me that you're buying into my argument: it was the new zeitgeist (via a change in the stories, art, attitude, etc.) that signified the new era, not some infrastructural change such as a new distribution system. Unless you're saying that FF 1 and the Marvel style of story-telling was somehow the result of an infrastructural change other than Marty Goodman telling Stan Lee, "Those guys at DC are killing us with all those new superheroes, go and make us some too!"

 

I think that Daredevil #168 (first Miller scripts) was broken out before SOTST#20, but one could argue that DD#168 is a key because of the first appearance of Elektra too. Whatever the reason though, it isn't like writers still enjoy that kind of response, do they? It is rare for any issue to be broken out because a writer takes over and this has not changed since SOTST#20. Again, what did it change outside of the title itself?

Miller is another one that's hard to separate out, because it's hard to say whether collectors were going after his back-issues because of his stories or art. I would say 99% of the time it was for his art. And as you say, the first appearance of Elektra helps to muddy the waters.

 

I have to admit I don't know much about the contemporary market. But in the mid-80s, a lot of fans bought Miracle Man, Watchmen, etc. solely because of the author. In the early 90s, Grant Morrison and Neil Gaiman were getting premiums for their back-issues, and Garth Ennis generated the same kind of attention once he came on the scene. It was a big deal when they moved on to a new project, with a core audience following them, in the same way that fans used to follow Adams or Kirby to a new book. I think a lot of people buy books written by Kurt Busiek regardless of who the artist is, because it's a book written by Busiek. Growing up in the 70s and early 80s, I don't EVER recall people caring whether Steve Englehart or Roy Thomas or Marv Wolfman were going to start writing a new title. Perhaps they did flee a title when they heard Kirby was going to write it.

 

As for Batman taking a darker tone, I think you need to reread the Batman stories from the late 1960s and early 1970s with O'Neill and Adams and the stories that followed after that. Batman was as dark then as he ever was and it had nothing to do with Alan Moore or Frank Miller.

You're correct, there was a return to a darker Batman following the campy TV-show-inspired Batman of the mid-60s. But I know by the time DKR came around that Batman had lost his way again, and while not quite camp, he was still much lighter and cleaner than the post-Miller Batman. There was a LOT of commentary at the time of DKR applauding the fact that Batman was returning to his roots, etc. etc. In fairness, perhaps this can't all be attributed to Miller and Moore. They were undoubtedly influenced by the greater creative freedom being exercised by the folks working at the indies, such as Howard Chaykin.

 

More titles, a rapid expansion of the Marvel universe, a branching out into horror, team-up concepts, pre-hero reprint titles, and many, many more creators who wouldn't have had books to work on in the first place if Marvel had been limited to the same eight titles that it had before the break. Take a look at Marvel's output in the early 1970s (Conan, Tomb of Dracula, Frankenstein, Savage Tales, Savage Sword of Conan, and Iron Man, Submariner, Captain America, and Hulk in their own dedicated titles) and then ask the question again.

Okay, it's an interesting point. I'm certainly not arguing with you that BA Marvel was different from SA Marvel. I had always thought it was just part of the general ossification of American culture in the 1970s after the explosion of creativity in the 1960s. I had never thought about an infrastructural reason for this change, but I will now certainly include Marvel's new freedom in 1968 as a contributing factor.

[awe4one]

Did Miller DD, Miller DKR, and Moore Swamp Thing really change the other comics though? I didn't notice any dramatic change in Spider-Man or FF or any of the other big series after these milestones. That's the point I am making.

 

I disagree...the grim and gritty style made in into most all titles in the late 80s/early 90s. The tone of the reguilar titles shifted. Extremely violent villains were mostly the norm. Joker crippling Batgirl. Venom and Carnage being two examples from the Spidey titles. Punisher became much more bitter and violent than depicted in the past. In fact, many anti-heroes surfaced during this time. Established heroes' ethics were more loose. All as a result, primarily, of DKR in my opinion.

 

Jim