POLL: When did the Bronze Age begin?

[joe_collector]

>>So what DO you call all comics periods after Silver?

 

Bronze Age: 1970-mid-80's

 

Themes: Amoral heroes, villains that kill, nothing is sacred, no one is safe.

 

X-Men 137, Daredevil 181, Dark Knight and Secret Wars are all important books that sourround the end/start date.

 

Modern: 1986-Now

 

Themes: Deconstruction, revamps, comics for adults, speculation pays.

 

Dark Knight Returns started this IMHO, and made people look at comics differently, causing the big 'adult rush" we have today, Watchmen is also important.

[Aman619]

well those 4 ages correspond to the accepted dates and events we have all been agreeing to for years now. What can I say, when I read that piece it rang a bell for me for the reasons I've stated. But whats this about conflicts of interest? And those books you list he would like to reclassify are what they are. If they were suddenly Silver not Bronze do you think their values would change dramatically?

 

Between 1970 and GS X-Men #1, Marvel started on an unprecedented flood of new ideas and characters. Things that would never have been done before, like a guy with claws who killed, a psycho with a high-powered rifle kacking villains with abandon, major character deaths, Devil-spawned heroes, villains gleefully killing heroes and bystanders with abandon, heroes that rode the line between good guy and bad, etc.

 

I dont want to nitpick...because examples are hard to single out in this debate. Lots of grey fog. But I assume you were there, too, right? All these ideas were either desperation, or better, the result of the next generation of comics creators who grew up on the Silver Age getting their shot at stuff. Actually THAT alone may be the best argument for Bronze starting in 1970!! Chaykin, Simonson, JJones, Wrightson, Thomas taking over, Kirby leaving Marvel etc.

 

Back to nitpickin'---punisher showed up but came back at best yearly in the beginning and only as a Spidey villain (as I recall). Wolverine came before GSXMen, but it was GSXMen that made 181 and Wolverine a star. Devil-spawned heroes like Son of Satan and Ghost Rider are to me monsters like Dracula and Werewolf by Night, and the reprint titles of 50s Atlas horror and Monsters that Marvel was churning out. More arguments for the parallels to the 50s comics flameout 'tween years than a burst of creativity!

[Zonker]

Joe Collector and aman619 wrote:

 

Between 1970 and GS X-Men #1, Marvel started on an unprecedented flood of new ideas and characters. Things that would never have been done before, like a guy with claws who killed, a psycho with a high-powered rifle kacking villains with abandon, major character deaths, Devil-spawned heroes, villains gleefully killing heroes and bystanders with abandon, heroes that rode the line between good guy and bad, etc.

I dont want to nitpick...because examples are hard to single out in this debate. Lots of grey fog. But I assume you were there, too, right? All these ideas were either desperation, or better, the result of the next generation of comics creators who grew up on the Silver Age getting their shot at stuff. Actually THAT alone may be the best argument for Bronze starting in 1970!! Chaykin, Simonson, JJones, Wrightson, Thomas taking over, Kirby leaving Marvel etc.

==========================================================

In addition to the genre diversity and new artistic blood, something also changed in the pre-existing super-hero comics between the Silver Age and the early 1970s.

 

Silver Age....................................................Post Silver Age

Spidey written only by Stan Lee............Spidey by Goodwin, Thomas, Conway, etc.

FF by Kirby..................................................FF not by Kirby

Batman & Robin:Day-Glo Detectives.....Batman as creature of the night

Last Weisinger-era Superman...............Schwartz era: Swan/Anderson art

Green Arrow minor non-entity.................Robin Hood G.A. (new costume, attitude)

Green Lantern galactic cop....................."Relevant" GL questions authority

super-heroic Spectre...............................gruesome executioner Spectre

 

I'd argue that the changes between Silver & Bronze Ages Batman, Green Arrow, Superman, Green Lantern were as great as the changes between many of the Golden Age and Silver Age heroes! Indeed, no one has ever been able to identify when the Golden Age Superman ended and the Silver Age Superman began, or when the Golden Age Batman ended and the Silver Age Batman began (unless ya want to delay the S.A. Batman until the yellow-circle chest emblem arrived in 1964)

 

It especially makes sense to speak of the Bronze Age Batman, Superman or Green Arrow as something very different from what went before (in a good way). On the other hand, speaking of the Bronze Age Fantastic Four generally implies speaking of a series whose best days were behind it. And tastes will vary over whether the Bronze Age Green Lantern, Spectre, Spider-Man were improvements or not.

 

Cheers,

Z

 

[joe_collector]

>>Back to nitpickin'---punisher showed up but came back at best yearly in the beginning and only as a Spidey villain (as I recall). Wolverine came before GSXMen, but it was GSXMen that made 181 and Wolverine a star.

 

You see, this is where you're going off on a tangent. I could care less on what "made the character a star", as these concepts were introduced pre-GS X-Men 1, and the characters appeared for a reason. You need a time machine to dispute this, and try and push the "New X-Men created Wolverine, Punisher, Ghost Rider, Thanos, Bullseye, etc., etc., etc."

 

The New X-Men created NOTHING, it simply revamped an existing Silver Age title, using a headlining Bronze Age creation (and a few Silver) and then ran with it. Great idea, important Bronze Age comic, but it started nada, zilch.

 

Wolverine was there for the taking, and if you read the letter's pages, the reader response was phenomenal. Same with Punisher, and the readers asked for his return on a monthly basis. Marvel moved a bit slower back then, but only a insufficiently_thoughtful_person wouldn't understand their inherent appeal these characters had IMMEDIATELY upon release.

 

I could also nitpick and say that without the influence of Conan #1, Wolverine, Punisher et al would never have been attempted, and the New X-Men would likely have failed, and not allowed Marvel to make big-bucks on these amoral characters in the 90's like Punisher, Thanos, Ghost Rider, Luke Cage, etc.

 

But I won't stoop so low, since all that matters is the exact time and place, and what trends were occuring between 1970 and 1980, the established timeline for the Bronze Age. What might, could, would, did happen after that is a discussion for another Age.

 

You're trying to bend the past to a set future that you have in your mind, which is a tough job when there is no evidence supporting it. Other than X-Men was the big fad in the 90's and it's satisfying for some to pigeon-hole important books like this, thereby retroactively creating a history that never existed in the 1970's.

 

And although there is debate among the actual comic that started the Bronze Age, the vast majority of collectors, dealers and comic historian agree with the time period, and very, very, very few would think the timeline for GS X-Men 1 reflects the start of anything.

[joe_collector]

>>But whats this about conflicts of interest? And those books you list he would like to reclassify are what they are. If they were suddenly Silver not Bronze do you think their values would change dramatically?

 

I'll state for the record that there is absolutely no evidence that GS X-Men started anything. Comics that emerged after its debut include Ms. Marvel, Nova, ROM, Devil Dinosaur, Machine Man, Dazzler, etc.

 

Not exactly the cream of the crop, and most died out after 10-20 issues. GS X-Men 1 helped keep the Bronze movement going, and pushed it into the Modern.

 

So given that I see absolutely no reason for this debate (similar to a "Earth is flat/spherical" argument), and the writer's name is Mr. SilverAge, it's kind of logical to think that maybe he'd feel pretty good about having two of the hottest keys in the Universe (Hulk 181 and ASM 129) part of "his era".

 

Ego, greed, self-satisfaction, dislike of some post-1975 Marvel [!@#%^&^], who knows, but it makes a lot more sense to me than the stupidity of portraying a Bronze Age that geared up starting in 1976.

[Zonker]

joe collector wrote...

 

The launch of the X-Men had absolutely nothing to do with the debuts of the popular characters that came before, so I have no idea why anyone would see it as the start of that age. If post-GS X-Men books like Devil Dinosaur, Ms. Marvel, Nova and Rom are your idea of the key Bronze Age comics, then you're alone in that regard.

 

So I'm with ya in the 1970 start of the Bronze Age, but are you saying that GS X-Men #1 started nothing? Because Dave Blanchard's earlier analysis of what was happening at DC in the 1970s is pretty persuasive:

Before 1975 Carmine Infantino was I believe chasing the new success of Conan, throwing all kinds of barbarian/horror/monster/jungle books against the wall to see if anything stuck (nothing did, except oddly-enough Mike Grell's very late entry Warlord).

After 1975 Jennette Kahn hired Gerry Conway to throw all kinds of super-hero revivals against the wall to see if anything stuck (little did, apart from the Green Lantern revival, which was a non-Conway production). What new success were they chasing if not the All-New All-Different X-Men?

 

Was it simply a coincidental changing of the guard at DC, or were they trying to respond to something they saw in the summer of 1975? I'm really curious about this one, as I wasn't paying attention to Marvel comics of the time, as I suspect you were not paying attention to DCs of the time. Anybody else have an informed opinion?

 

Z.

 

PS: Oops, J.C. just catching up on the thread... your latest post makes very clear your position on GSXM #1 starting nada, zilch, etc. But still interested in your opinion on what was going on across the street at DC at the time, and if the mid-1970s Marvel launches might be a similarly-failed attempt to ride on a perceived super-hero resurgence? And if there was such a perception, what was fueling it if not the New X-Men?

 

[joe_collector]

That had nothing to do with the New X-Men, as their depressed sales and bi-monthly schedule is not exactly something that would cause imitation.

 

Where the New X-Men influence was felt was in the 1980-85 period, when sales spiked and DC launched the New Teen Titans as competition. That's another key event that helped the Modern Age on its way, as DC was responding directly to the 1980's emergence of the New X-Men.

 

You'll get no disagreement from me that the 1980's were a big time for the New X-Men, but I'd like everyone to keep in mind we're talking about the 1970's. Let's all concentrate.

[Zonker]

keep in mind we're talking about the 1970's. Let's all concentrate.

 

HaHa.

 

From what I can tell, X-Men jumped to monthly with #112 (August 1978) and #113 (September 1978). Anybody have access to a Standard (Krause) price guide with the X-Men circulation figures from the Statements of Ownership?

 

In an earlier post, you mentioned Marvel being slow on the uptake when it came to translating fan response into new appearances for Wolverine & Punisher. Might this also be the case with X-Men? What was the fandom buzz around GSXM #1 at the time? I don't know the answer and am genuinely curious.

 

Z.

[joe_collector]

I've checked out a few comparisons, and the early numbers are bad, and it wasn't until Byrne came on that the mag even warranted a monthly schedule. Readership buil tup from there, and I believe that right when Byrne left and Cockrum came back, the book might have outsold ASM or at least close.

 

Later on in the 1980's, it took off.

 

Here's some annual averages:

 

X-Men 104 (April 1977): 116K sold, 250K printed

 

X-Men 110 (April 1978): 125K sold, 260K printed

 

X-Men 120 (April 1979): 113K sold, 260K printed

 

Now these did grow into the 1980's, but we're in 1979 and X-Men (even with Byrne) aren't exactly heating up the charts, and could easily be catalogued as a "poor seller" at Marvel.

 

Let me know when I've made my point...

[joe_collector]

And just for a comparison, Amazing Spider-man was pushing 320-350K or higher paid circulation during that period (and that's not including MTU, Peter Parker or Marvel Tales), and X-Men was being outsold by tons of Marvel comics.

[Zonker]

Let me know when I've made my point...

 

That would be... now.

 

Well done & thanks!

Z.

[Kevin Boyd]

So I'm with ya in the 1970 start of the Bronze Age, but are you saying that GS X-Men #1 started nothing? Because Dave Blanchard's earlier analysis of what was happening at DC in the 1970s is pretty persuasive: Before 1975 Carmine Infantino was I believe chasing the new success of Conan, throwing all kinds of barbarian/horror/monster/jungle books against the wall to see if anything stuck (nothing did, except oddly-enough Mike Grell's very late entry Warlord). After 1975 Jennette Kahn hired Gerry Conway to throw all kinds of super-hero revivals against the wall to see if anything stuck (little did, apart from the Green Lantern revival, which was a non-Conway production). What new success were they chasing if not the All-New All-Different X-Men? Was it simply a coincidental changing of the guard at DC, or were they trying to respond to something they saw in the summer of 1975? I'm really curious about this one, as I wasn't paying attention to Marvel comics of the time, as I suspect you were not paying attention to DCs of the time. Anybody else have an informed opinion?

 

Hogwash. When Marvel's distribution deal with DC ended in 1968 so did the cap on the number of titles that it was allowed to publish. At the same time the success of the Warren horror mags led to DC and Marvel pushing the Comics Code to reduce it's restrictions on horror comics.

 

Without the restrictions in place Marvel went all out and published a ton of new comics titles between 1968-1977, as did DC. DC's new titles were not very successful competing against Marvel's successful line (although it too, had many failures).

 

The companies were not looking for new concepts to replace dwindling sales on the super-hero titles. Super-heroes continued to dominate the sales charts, while the publishers wanted to pursue what it believed to be popular genres in other media of the 70's - horror, sci-fi, fantasy & war.

 

When DC's first wave of gothic horror books floundered, they had more reasonable successes with super-hero hybrids (like Swamp Thing - at least for a while) and the Spectre. These were short-lived and the publisher even flirted with the idea of competing with Marvel on a different level by trying new formats - like 100page giants. The general feeling was that comics were too expensive (prices hiked quickly to 15 cents and then 20 cents during the first few years) so they came up with a format which gave the reader more content (mostly golden age reprints) and at one point considered ending the new comics line entirely in favor of a line of thick reprint comics, famous first editions and books such as Superman from the 30's to the 70's, (followed by Batman, WW, Shazam) and the Secret Origins book. Perhaps, some surmised, with the decline of existing outlets for comics they should readjust to the bookstore market (sound familiar?).

 

Common sense prevailed and DC went back to doing more superheroes and science fiction comics around 1975. Because of X-Men? Not likely. X-Men was a marginal seller at best but Marvel Super-Heroes still dominated the sales charts, and DC's best sellers were, as always, Superman and Batman, JLA and Legion. DC's bad luck streak continued as none of the new super-hero concepts were very successful. A more Legion-like revival of the New Gods and Mister Miracle did Ok, but I don't recall any sales successes during those years. A second attempt at thick dollar comics had the same response as the 100 page giants and, finally, a paper shortage in 1977/78 caused DC to implode the line and cancelled half of its line in favor of a streamlined superhero line and direct distribution.

 

Kev

 

 

 

 

 

[joe_collector]

>>That would be... now

 

Thanks, and I'm gonna break it off for now. If anyone thinks that DC was chasing the "success" of a book that barely broke 100K in monthly sales throughout the 1970's, well... let's just say I don't want to get too near that guy.

 

In fact, all the other team books outsold X-Men too, along with some really sad-sack comics like Daredevil (that didn't go back to monthly until Miller), and I'm wondering if comics like Werewolf, Dracula, Power-man/IF and (Devil Dinosaur?) outsold the X-Folks as well.

 

Once you see DD churning out 140-160K a month paid, it becomes pretty clear how low 100K is in Marvel-terms in the 1970's.

[dblanchard-migration]

Joe Collector wrote:

 

>> Bronze Age X-Men is the same as Silver Age Spider-man.

 

Spider-man followed the big DC Silver Age wave and fell in the middle of Marvel's Silver rush, and Fantastic Four was the big early-Silver title in terms of sales. We know this because Overstreet and others have banged it into our heads, but using the Mr. Silverage logic, AF 15 would be the start of the Silver Age. <<

 

 

Actually, Bronze Age X-Men is the same as Silver Age SHOWCASE # 4.

 

And I believe that Mr. Silver Age has stated several times that he dates the beginning of the Silver Age with SHOWCASE # 4.

 

Dave Blanchard

 

[dblanchard-migration]

Joe Collector wrote:

 

>> You do realize that many on here have propositioned that Mr. SilverAge may actually have alterior motives, such as getting a ton of hyper-valuable and popular books (Hulk 181, ASM 121, 122 & 129, TOD 1, MS 2 & 5, Iron Man 55, Conan 1, etc.) declared as Silver Age books? <<

 

Mr. Silver Age actually is a professional journalist whose only motives in writing for CBG are to make a little bit of money off his hobby, and have fun doing it. Believe me, I know the man and I've actually seen his collection -- he doesn't have a single slab anywhere. All of his early Silver Age stuff is in what I'd charitably call beat-to-hell condition, since he acquired them off the spinner racks.

 

He's also stated emphatically any number of times that the Silver Age ends circa 1970.

 

Dave Blanchard

 

[drbanner]

Thanks for the input guys, I see lots of firm/unwavering positions here, but as suspected, the majority of the community (myself included) feels that the Bronze Age was ushered in around 1970.

 

whose only motives in writing for CBG are to make a little bit of money off his hobby, and have fun doing it.

 

Dave, you haven't been here long enough to realize that with CI...ooppsss, I mean Joe Collector, there's a conspiracy theory and "ulterior" (not "alterior" Joe, wrong again!) motive behind every corner.

[dblanchard-migration]

Joe Collector wrote:

 

>> Between 1970 and GS X-Men #1, Marvel started on an unprecedented flood of new ideas and characters. Things that would never have been done before, like a guy with claws who killed, a psycho with a high-powered rifle kacking villains with abandon, major character deaths, Devil-spawned heroes, villains gleefully killing heroes and bystanders with abandon, heroes that rode the line between good guy and bad, etc.

 

That's what the Bronze Age means to me, and I don't intend to just wipe out a full decade of new and decidedly different comics just for the sake of revisionist history. It happened, it changed comics forever, and many of the Conan-induced 1970-75 amoral characters remain extremely popular today. <<

 

 

Ahhhh, now it all makes sense -- that's what the Bronze Age means to Joe Collector. You love that stuff, so you want it to be a part of an "age" rather than those just being cool comics.

 

The thing is, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT. Who has *ever* suggested that we "wipe out" all those early 1970s comics? What does that mean, anyways -- how could somebody wipe out those comics?

 

The history already exists -- why aren't EC Comics, or any other crime and horror comics from the early to mid-1950s, considered part of the Golden Age or the Silver Age? Because those two metallic-named ages (so named as part of a tradition dating back to the days of Greek mythology) are focused on the emergence of superheroes, following a period of time when comics *weren't* as heavily focused on superheroes.

 

The parallels between Bronze and Silver are about the same as the parallels between Silver and Golden. Nobody suggests that the Flash was ever as popular as Superman; the chronology merely points out that much of the great popularity of superhero comics in the 1960s can be traced back to that single SHOWCASE issue in 1956.

 

>> The launch of the X-Men had absolutely nothing to do with the debuts of the popular characters that came before, so I have no idea why anyone would see it as the start of that age. <<

 

Your logic is upside-down. We're looking at what the industry itself looked like *several years after* GSX-M # 1, not immediately following. Take a look at the comic book industry in spring 1957, and tell me how many superhero comic books had been published in response to SHOWCASE # 4. It took DC several years before it had enough faith in just giving THE FLASH his own comic. But *eventually* DC came up with GREEN LANTERN and JLA and all the rest, and Marvel came up with FANTASTIC FOUR, et. al., and by the time all the excitement started to die down, it became possible to look back at SHOWCASE # 4 and say, "Yep, all those cool superhero comics of the 1960s seem to have blossomed from that one seed planted in 1956."

 

And of course, it's also necessary to acknowledge that the Flash was a recycled idea to begin with, so everything tends to cycle back to ACTION COMICS # 1.

 

>> post-GS X-Men books like Devil Dinosaur, Ms. Marvel, Nova and Rom are your idea of the key Bronze Age comics, then you're alone in that regard. <<

 

Ahhhh, no. My idea of key Bronze Age comics would be NEW TEEN TITANS, AMERICAN FLAGG, MIRACLEMAN, Moore's SWAMP THING, WATCHMEN, Miller's DAREDEVIL, etc. In other words, cool comics of the 1980s.

 

What's the connection, you wonder, between WATCHMEN and GIANT-SIZE X-MEN? On the surface, there doesn't seem to be much, does there? Then again, on the surface, what's the connection between, say, SILVER SURFER # 1 and SHOWCASE # 4?

 

Dave Blanchard

[joe_collector]

It's pretty obivous you haven't got an iota of direct experience in buying comics from 1970-1979, so I'll just leave it at that and let you have your X-fantasies. Now that you';ve brought Love and Rockets up as a book that the New X-Men helped usher in, I'm about ready to upchuck.

 

There's a guy over in the coin forums who says the Earth is flat, and since he's got far more compelling arguments than you (and more direct evidence), I'll probably be debating with him a bit.

 

See ya Mr. Modern. Go Gambit Go!!!

[joe_collector]

I just thought I'd reprint this one more time:

 

"Ahhhh, no. My idea of key Bronze Age comics would be NEW TEEN TITANS, AMERICAN FLAGG, MIRACLEMAN, Moore's SWAMP THING, WATCHMEN, Miller's DAREDEVIL, etc. In other words, cool comics of the 1980s."

 

I honestly don't know of anyone, even Modern-ite Darth, who would agree with this statement.

 

My Bronze Keys would include Hulk 181, ASM 121, 122 and 129, Marvel Spotlight 2 and 5, Iron Man 55, Green Lantern/Green Arrow 76, and some others, and then ending off with GS X-Men 1 and X-Men 94.

 

Anyone want to stand up with Dave and be counted?

[vic6string]

Okay, if anything, the Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen started the modern age... which I believe is the birth of comics written primarily for older audiences. The bronze age started to bring reality and darkness into comics, but they were still aimed mainly at 12-15 yr olds. Dark Knight and Watchmen were aimed at college students and up, and led to stuff like DCs Vertigo line. To say that the modern age starts with Kevin Smith's DD#1 (as expressed earlier in this thread) is insane. That is WAY too late as it doesn't cover the rise of the independents, the boom (and crash) of the early 90s, the crossover explosion, etc...

 

As for GSX1, it was bronze at its best, but not the start of it. They took an up-and-coming bronze character, and built a new team around him. Then they killed a major character (something that never happened before the start of the bronze age) to add reality to the book. Then came the Phoenix story, again with the Bronze age blurring of the good guy/ bad guy line. Then they used the book to experiment with new possible book ideas (much like Spotlight and Premiere and other books of the early bronze age did) with Starjammers and Alpha flight. There was nothing new about the book, or the series, it just took all the elements of the bronze age and put them together well. You can look at 1970 and say "man, comics really changed after this" with the death of Gwen Stacy, the Green Lantern drug stuff, the anti-heroes, the experimentation, etc. You can't look at 1975 and say the same thing. If anything, you can go to about 1980 or 82 and say that with the DK and Watchmen and Wolvie mini-series, but that was not due to GSX1. Byrne took what was done in GSX1 and what was the beginning of adult storylines (like Miller's DD run) and melded the two. He did it so well, that the book exploded, leading to copy-cats. But nothing was changed by the book or the series.