Golden Age decline 1 1

[Cat-Man_America]

On 5/12/2023 at 12:07 AM, rjpb said:

I expressed in my opening post that "arguably the overall quality of art and perhaps even storytelling actually improved towards the later years", but there is little argument that more than a few titles, principally Superhero ones, became less interesting as the decade progressed, particularly the covers. The end of WW2 played a role in this, as the genre seemed to flounder a bit after the Axis Powers no longer provided an obvious foil, and the violence in many titles got toned down a bit, returning in force in the crime and horror books in the late forties and early fifties. Of course DC began toning things down early, as I recall The Joker stopped murdering people after only a few appearances.

 

I somehow overlooked this thread when originally posted and find myself agreeing with some conclusions and disagreeing with others reached in regards to the rationale for declining quality.

First, we're in agreement as to why things shifted so dramatically after the war. There are many factors for declining interest, heroes directly involved in the war effort fighting armies of the Axis were now relegated to fighting more mundane common criminals unless they'd been provided multiple "super-nemesis's" with interesting back stories (DC characters like Superman and Batman in particular had villains like Lex Luther, the Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Solomon Grundy, et al; Captain Marvel had the Sivana family, Mr, Mind, et al., and a younger demographic target audience). DC is a tough nut to crack, because the publisher often vacillated between action and humor ...and got away with it.

For most other heroes, post war was (sadly) very anti-climactic.  Publishers like Lev Gleason, Hillman and Fox were pulled toward more prurient adult interests ...like GGA or true crime... dropping heroes altogether and trying to reinvent lines focusing on heroes with special "attributes" (like Phantom Lady), teen humor (Archie) or develop new genres for younger readers like romance (teen girl demographic), horror or science fiction lines. Violence wasn't necessarily toned down, but without the propaganda element there was a tendency to shift toward sex.

Another factor was that page count as well as dimensions of comics had dropped during the war years and continued to drop into the 1950's (although some titles managed to hover at around 52 pages for awhile. Most publishers of comics hesitated messing with the 10 cent price tag without noticeably boosting the page count. IOW, a kid's dime didn't go as far.  Art was another matter.  Artist's had more choices after the war and page rates for comics weren't as attractive as more "respectable" fields of endeavor like advertising, newspapers and magazine cartooning. Granted, there was more competition for publishing jobs after the war from returning soldier artists and scribes, but as war restrictions ended, the number of newsstand magazines increased and ...I'd imagine... pay rates increased with the "slicks" accordingly.

We aren't really saying different things, but some elaboration was needed. There were many outstanding comics turned out in the years following the war; some spectacular art and story content from cover to cover, the point being that there were occasions of weak cover art during the war years and awesome examples of drop-dead magnificent art following the war. Random eyes'd examples (June '42 &  Oct. '49) 

 

[jimbo_7071]

On 5/12/2023 at 1:07 AM, rjpb said:

I expressed in my opening post that "arguably the overall quality of art and perhaps even storytelling actually improved towards the later years", but there is little argument that more than a few titles, principally Superhero ones, became less interesting as the decade progressed, particularly the covers. The end of WW2 played a role in this, as the genre seemed to flounder a bit after the Axis Powers no longer provided an obvious foil, and the violence in many titles got toned down a bit, returning in force in the crime and horror books in the late forties and early fifties. Of course DC began toning things down early, as I recall The Joker stopped murdering people after only a few appearances.

I don't like much of the DC GA artwork from any later than about '41. I like some of the early Batman, Spectre, Dr. Fate, and Sandman-original-costume covers, and that's about it. It's difficult to articulate a reason why because the artwork isn't necessarily bad—the bodily proportions seem correct, the perspective seems correct, etc., but it seems sterile and uninteresting. It seems too bright in terms of the color palette and the lack of shading and texturing. It's too neat and clean. It's boring.

I'm sure I could find plenty of exceptions if I looked (a few come to mind right away), but my overall impression of DC art from about '42—'69 is negative. I don't start to like DC artwork again until the Neal Adams and Bernie Wrightson covers of the early 70s—and then there isn't much of anything that I like after that.

Edited May 12, 2023 by jimbo_7071

[sfcityduck]

On 5/12/2023 at 3:14 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

I don't like much of the DC GA artwork from any later than about '41. I like some of the early Batman, Spectre, Dr. Fate, and Sandman-original-costume covers, and that's about it. It's difficult to articulate a reason why because the artwork isn't necessarily bad—the bodily proportions seem correct, the perspective seems correct, etc., but it seems sterile and uninteresting. It seems too bright in terms of the color palette and the lack of shading and texturing. It's too neat and clean. It's boring.

I'm sure I could find plenty of exceptions if I looked (a few come to mind right away), but my overall impression of DC art from about '42—'69 is negative. I don't start to like DC artwork again until the Neal Adams and Bernie Wrightson covers of the early 70s—and then there isn't much of anything that I like after that.

You are a tough audience.  LoL!

 

 

 

[adamstrange]

On 5/12/2023 at 6:14 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

but my overall impression of DC art from about '42—'69 is negative.

My collecting life would be much easier if more shared your attitude.

[Bronty]

On 1/25/2020 at 2:05 PM, Electricmastro said:

Yeah, I think that by 1950, it was only really DC (Superman), Fawcett (Captain Marvel), and Quality (Plastic Man), who were still fully committed to regularly publishing superheroes, though even then, they had all taken an arguably more comedic direction to fit in better with the general popularity of comedy comics at the time, among other popular genres.

I think it has to be pointed out that this decline in superheroes and rise in comedy  is coming right when a tidal wave of GI’s is coming back from the war and starting massive amounts of young families .   We can’t be too surprised that an army of parents of toddlers are buying wholesome books for the kids; new parents are naturally more protective of their children and what their kids are allowed to consume.    In a way I think you could argue that both the rise and fall of certain genres and the creation of the comics code has its roots in the demographic shift caused by the war.    ECs get a lot of attention due to the content but what book sold best?    Walt Disney’s Comics and Stories.    Wholesome fun.  

Edited May 12, 2023 by Bronty

[rjpb]

On 5/11/2023 at 11:35 PM, Cat-Man_America said:

There were many outstanding comics turned out in the years following the war; some spectacular art and story content from cover to cover, the point being that there were occasions of weak cover art during the war years and awesome examples of drop-dead magnificent art following the war.

 

The final 1940s appearances of Cap and Subby have not only two of Timely's best covers in the post war era, but for the entire run of their respective titles. If the covers had been that effective for the last few years, the Timely superhero books might have sold well enough to last longer. 

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

On 5/12/2023 at 10:19 AM, rjpb said:

The final 1940s appearances of Cap and Subby have not only two of Timely's best covers in the post war era, but for the entire run of their respective titles. If the covers had been that effective for the last few years, the Timely superhero books might have sold well enough to last longer. 

Now that’s a bold statement 

[Robot Man]

On 5/12/2023 at 3:14 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

I don't like much of the DC GA artwork from any later than about '41. I like some of the early Batman, Spectre, Dr. Fate, and Sandman-original-costume covers, and that's about it. It's difficult to articulate a reason why because the artwork isn't necessarily bad—the bodily proportions seem correct, the perspective seems correct, etc., but it seems sterile and uninteresting. It seems too bright in terms of the color palette and the lack of shading and texturing. It's too neat and clean. It's boring.

I'm sure I could find plenty of exceptions if I looked (a few come to mind right away), but my overall impression of DC art from about '42—'69 is negative. I don't start to like DC artwork again until the Neal Adams and Bernie Wrightson covers of the early 70s—and then there isn't much of anything that I like after that.

I concur. Not only were the 1939-1941 covers better on Batman, Spectre, Dr Fate and Sandman better but so was the interior stories. Grittier and dark. My favorite DC titles. Unfortunately, pretty much out of my collecting budget anymore…

[Robot Man]

An example of one of my favorite artists and publishers. WWII era, just after the war ended and a new upswing several years later. 

[sfcityduck]

The cover art for DC genre books of the late 1940s and early 1950s was nothing to sneeze at:

 

 

 

 

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

On 5/12/2023 at 1:35 AM, Cat-Man_America said:

 

 

That’s a nicely cut Cap 74, Cat

[sfcityduck]

On 5/12/2023 at 10:06 AM, Robot Man said:

I concur. Not only were the 1939-1941 covers better on Batman, Spectre, Dr Fate and Sandman better but so was the interior stories. Grittier and dark. My favorite DC titles. Unfortunately, pretty much out of my collecting budget anymore…

Some of the lighter DC back-ups of the 1950s that I've always found enjoyable.  "Grittier and dark" just wears me down after a while:

 

[Bronty]

On 5/12/2023 at 1:06 PM, Robot Man said:

I concur. Not only were the 1939-1941 covers better on Batman, Spectre, Dr Fate and Sandman better but so was the interior stories. Grittier and dark. My favorite DC titles. Unfortunately, pretty much out of my collecting budget anymore…

If we divorce art from story, the artwork on a lot of those DCs is clean, inviting, professionally and competently illustrated.    The trouble is, by and large its a bit too clean and inviting - you could also say whitewashed, safe or flaccid - and so it served the purpose at the time had little lasting impact.    

Exceptions of course - Kubert on war titles, etc.

[sfcityduck]

On 5/12/2023 at 11:46 AM, Bronty said:

If we divorce art from story, the artwork on a lot of those DCs is clean, inviting, professionally and competently illustrated.    The trouble is, by and large its a bit too clean and inviting - you could also say whitewashed, safe or flaccid - and so it served the purpose at the time had little lasting impact.    

 

I would never call Toth, Barry, Thompson, Frazetta, Krigstein, etc. "too clean."  I wouldn't call Foster, Raymond, or Adams that either, but they are all "very clean" illustrators. Those DC back-ups just had some great art in support of stories with a tone that some comic fan, maybe most, find uncool today.

As I understand it, DC made an intentional decision, that Timely did not, to stop running WWII stories or covers in its superhero titles before the war ended.  The reason it did so was because it thought kids were suffering war fatigue, didn't want constant war reminders, and its superhero comics would sell better if they turned away from the war.  The strategy worked for DC (and other publishers) so its sales sustained the core titles, unlike what happened with Timely's superheros. DC consequently focused on crime and costumed criminals, science fiction, and imaginary themes to keep reader interest.  That also worked. So DC's heroes (and some others) had a staying power that Timely/Marvel could not emulate.

The end result are comics in the 1950s that are NOT "cool" in the dark and gritty sense of the 1980s. Instead, the DC superhero comics of the 1950s are entertaining, funny, diverting, and very enjoyable so long as you are not looking for any profound meaning or graphic violence. Like Barks' Duck books, they are lighthearted adventures intended to entertain.  And they did. 

Most folks my age first encountered these comics in the Superman, Batman, and Captain Marvel 1930s/1940s to the 1970s books.  And reading the Batman and Superman books certainly helped me appreciate how the characters' portrayals changed and the various merits of the different versions. My guess is that DC evolved the characters away from being a gun wielding vigilante and a New Deal liberal crusader against fascism in the US and abroad, and into role models for kids, for good commercial reasons.  The fact that the "cool" dark and gritty portrayal of the 1980s helped propel comics into a much smaller and more adult audience than anything seen in the GA when comics were at there distribution heyday may retrospectively vindicate DC's decision back then or it may not.  It does not really matter, those 1950s stories were popular and they certainly had a lasting impact on me and others. I still prefer the happy Batman family of the early SA to the hellish Batman dysfunctional family of the modern world. Color me a Ted Lasso and Marvel movie fan, but a little humor, joy, and overall happy endings fall within the spectrum of comic stories I enjoy and appreciate (of course I also loved Miller's Dark Knight and appreciate the dozen or so pre-Robin stories).

Edited May 12, 2023 by sfcityduck

[L'Angelo Misterioso]

Where can I find these well-drawn early DC stories? I have read early (1938-1942) issues of All-Star, Adventure, Batman, and Superman and the art is very, well, of its time.

[Bronty]

On 5/12/2023 at 4:26 PM, sfcityduck said:

I would never call Toth, Barry, Thompson, Frazetta, Krigstein, etc. "too clean."  I wouldn't call Foster, Raymond, or Adams that either, but they are all "very clean" illustrators. Those DC back-ups just had some great art in support of stories with a tone that some comic fan, maybe most, find uncool today.

As I understand it, DC made an intentional decision, that Timely did not, to stop running WWII stories or covers in its superhero titles before the war ended.  The reason it did so was because it thought kids were suffering war fatigue, didn't want constant war reminders, and its superhero comics would sell better if they turned away from the war.  The strategy worked for DC (and other publishers) so its sales sustained the core titles, unlike what happened with Timely's superheros. DC consequently focused on crime and costumed criminals, science fiction, and imaginary themes to keep reader interest.  That also worked. So DC's heroes (and some others) had a staying power that Timely/Marvel could not emulate.

The end result are comics in the 1950s that are NOT "cool" in the dark and gritty sense of the 1980s. Instead, the DC superhero comics of the 1950s are entertaining, funny, diverting, and very enjoyable so long as you are not looking for any profound meaning or graphic violence. Like Barks' Duck books, they are lighthearted adventures intended to entertain.  And they did. 

Most folks my age first encountered these comics in the Superman, Batman, and Captain Marvel 1930s/1940s to the 1970s books.  And reading the Batman and Superman books certainly helped me appreciate how the characters' portrayals changed and the various merits of the different versions. My guess is that DC evolved the characters away from being a gun wielding vigilante and a New Deal liberal crusader against fascism in the US and abroad, and into role models for kids, for good commercial reasons.  The fact that the "cool" dark and gritty portrayal of the 1980s helped propel comics into a much smaller and more adult audience than anything seen in the GA when comics were at there distribution heyday may retrospectively vindicate DC's decision back then or it may not.  It does not really matter, those 1950s stories were popular and they certainly had a lasting impact on me and others. I still prefer the happy Batman family of the early SA to the hellish Batman dysfunctional family of the modern world. Color me a Ted Lasso and Marvel movie fan, but a little humor, joy, and overall happy endings fall within the spectrum of comic stories I enjoy and appreciate (of course I also loved Miller's Dark Knight and appreciate the dozen or so pre-Robin stories).

Its about the tone of the stories being uncool today; I agree.   The trouble as I see it is that the tone couldn’t help but be reflected in the art too.    In the subject matter ( Hey supermans dog wears a cape too!), the plots being illustrated  (Lana and Lois choose between Superman and Batman !), in the graphical approach to illustrating the story (no unusual page layouts , few splashes, etc).    They kept it safe but safe let Marvel get ahead of them.    The edginess didn’t come back to DC until they were looking at second place.    
 

So I can say “if we divorce the art from the story” but the truth is it’s difficult to do that completely, because the approach to storytelling impacts the art. 
 

Safe is never that interesting .   Which is why big 2 superhero books haven’t been interesting, by and large, for a long time. 

[rjpb]

On 5/12/2023 at 10:06 AM, Robot Man said:

I concur. Not only were the 1939-1941 covers better on Batman, Spectre, Dr Fate and Sandman better but so was the interior stories. Grittier and dark. My favorite DC titles. Unfortunately, pretty much out of my collecting budget anymore…

Flash and Green Lantern related titles for me get better towards the ends of their runs, with Kubert, Infantino, Toth, and Kinstler all doing nice work. Also the introduction of great characters like Black Canary and Harlequin make these titles enjoyable. JSA stories also seemed to get better towards the end. 

While I love the grittier feel of early Batman stories (even after Robin showed up), the stories that don't feature compelling villains tend to feel redundant. While still fairly simple the Batman stories of the early 50s did at least have a fair amount of colorful villains, and odd situations.