POLL: When did the Bronze Age begin?

[dblanchard-migration]

The dyspeptic Joe Collector wrote:

 

>> It's pretty obivous you haven't got an iota of direct experience in buying comics from 1970-1979, <<

 

Only thing obvious is you don't really react to what I've been writing, but instead throw out these little rejoinders that don't seem to be in the best spirit of having some sort of meaningful dialogue.

 

>> so I'll just leave it at that and let you have your X-fantasies. <<

 

I have no X-fantasies. In fact, I don't really care for the X-Men much.

 

>> 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. <<

 

You might want to try some Pepcid.

 

Anyway, I'll try this one more time, on the theory that even if you don't have any interest in what I'm saying, maybe somebody else will.

 

The Bronze Age, as I see it, *begins* with GIANT-SIZE X-MEN # 1, since from hindsight it can be clearly seen as the most influential superhero comic of the past 25 years or so. Furthermore, with the Bronze Age beginning in 1975, I see that Third Great Age of Superheroes lasting up until the late 1980s or thereabouts (around the time of Byrne's MAN OF STEEL reboot of Superman).

 

There is *no* obvious connection between X-MEN and LOVE AND ROCKETS, just as there is *no* obvious connection between SHOWCASE # 4 and SABRINA THE TEENAGE WITCH or CAPT. STORM -- except that X-MEN and SHOWCASE were the first comics of their respective ages, and all the comics that followed in that age, even those that aren't superhero comics, are dubbed "Bronze Age" or "Silver Age."

 

If you want to roll your eyes and say, "This insufficiently_thoughtful_person Blanchard thinks the Bronze Age goes from 1975-1989, when everybody *knows* it lasted from 1970-79" or whatever timeframe you choose, then that's fine. However, there clearly is disconnect preventing you from seeing the analogies I've been trying to draw between the Golden, Silver and Bronze Ages, in an attempt to emphasize their similarities rather than their differences, and have each age stand as an age dominated by superheroes.

 

So I'll throw this question out to everybody: Other than "because that's how we've thought of it for the past umpteen years," why do some people call the age immediately following the Silver Age "the Bronze Age"? And if you begin dating the Bronze Age at 1970 with CONAN # 1 or some similar title, do you reject outright the premise that because the Golden and Silver Ages are defined by superhero comics, the Bronze Age should also be characterized as such?

 

Dave Blanchard

[joe_collector]

>>If you want to roll your eyes and say, "This insufficiently_thoughtful_person Blanchard thinks the Bronze Age goes from 1975-1989, when everybody *knows* it lasted from 1970-79" or whatever timeframe you choose, then that's fine.

 

Thanks, I'll do that.

 

You can continue looking at 1970-79 using your "20-20 hindsight" goggles all you want, but it won't make it historically correct. You can't change the past, no matter how popular the X-Men were in the mid-to-late-Modern Age.

[Zonker]

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

 

Don't agree. Stan the Man Lee was touring college campuses in the late Silver Age. Marvel Age comics were at least partially marketed to older, college-aged audiences. But I do agree the irrelevence of the comics code after the arrival of direct (comics shops) distribution kicked up the adult content and adult readership of mainstream comics.

 

Then they killed a major character (something that never happened before the start of the bronze age)

 

If you're talking about the American Indian X-Man (Thunderbird?), I would say the death of Ferro Lad from the 1960s Legion of Super-Heroes was at least as "major" a character.

 

You can look at 1970 and say "man, comics really changed after this"

 

This I agree with, which is why I'm firmly in the Bronze Age started in 1970 camp, although for perhaps different reasons than others here. But I do believe Dave B. has a point that GSXM #1 started something , although what it was was not immediately recognized at the time.

 

Here's an analogy: The first few Conans did not exactly set sales records(speculation/manipulation aside on #1 & #3). Indeed, the book was almost cancelled during the Barry Smith run, and I remember Roy Thomas writing in the letter columns that only around the time of the Gil Kane fill-in issues did sales start to climb upward. While Roy may have been putting the best face possible on the departure of Barry Smith, I do believe it is true Conan's best sales days were well into the John Buscema run in the middle 1970s. Likewise, Joe Collector has shown that the New X-Men were not an immediate Action #1 kind of sales monster, but the seeds planted in GSXM #1 did bloom later on, just as Conan #1 set lots of things in motion later on.

 

Finally some pure speculation on my part: What if in the 1970s the comics editors and publishers began losing faith in the corrupt newstand distribution numbers and began responding more to word-of-mouth, fan response, industry one-upsmanship etc.? Marvel & DC were eyeing the attention each other received in the mainstream press, listening to Phil Seuling's ideas for harnessing the fan/direct market, competing with each other for the ACBA "Shazam" awards of the time, and luring away each other's creative staffs at an unprecedented rate (Kirby, Archie Goodwin, Adams, Cockrum, and later Wein, Conway, Englehart). In such an environment, perhaps both Conan #1 and GSXM #1 were more creatively influential than their actual sales numbers would merit. And if I'm right that the powers-that-be at DC (and to a lesser extent at Marvel) were 'winging it' by the mid-1970s, it is no surprise that the money-men at Warners shut them down in the DC Implosion of 1978-79.

 

Just some thoughts,

Z.

[Zonker]

Other than "because that's how we've thought of it for the past umpteen years," why do some people call the age immediately following the Silver Age "the Bronze Age"? And if you begin dating the Bronze Age at 1970 with CONAN # 1 or some similar title, do you reject outright the premise that because the Golden and Silver Ages are defined by superhero comics, the Bronze Age should also be characterized as such?

 

 

Well, what about my comments in this post.

 

...where I argue that we can speak of the Bronze Age Batman or Green Arrow as distinct improvements over the Silver Age Batman or GA, and speak of the Bronze Age (1970 & beyond) Fantastic Four as the faint echo of the great Silver Age (Kirby) FF (though some Byrne partisans may disagree).

 

Here's another one you may particularly respond to: the Bronze Age Legion of Super-Heroes by Bates & Cockrum beginning in Superboy 184, as a completely different look & feel from the Silver Age Legion by Shooter & Swan.

 

Cheers,

Z.

[Kevin Boyd]

Oh god, we're back to this again.

 

Superheroes were not "reborn" with GSXM1 so your entire case is based on a weak point.

 

If one were to argue that the metallic designations really define "heroic" ages as you seem to believe:

 

DC and Marvel's Golden Ages were 1939/40 - until the supeheroes faded away (except for Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and crew). But they were definitely lower on the sales tier as the Dell Four Colors, Disney comics, etc.

 

In 1956 DC's silver age began with the creation of a new Flash, in a new continuity that was clearly not the same one as the Golden Age. Superhero revivals continued well into the remainder of the decade but was further enhanced in 1961 with Marvel's forays into the super-hero market. Again, the "Marvel Universe" of the 1960's was very loosely tied to their golden age counterparts. The silver age is clearly definable as a new superhero revival with clearly identifiable beginnings.

 

The DC and Marvel heroes have continued to dominate sales ever since with no real end to the heroic ages initiated in the late 1950s/early 1960s. There was no fading away of superheroic concepts as there was in the early fifties only to be revived by a new generation.

 

So when did the SIlver Age end for these characters and the next age begin? One would have to look at a period where superheroes no longer dominated and then came back. At no point in the 1970s was this ever the case. Yes, in the early 1970s new horror, war and adventure comics started and did ok, but at no point were the superheroes really challenged.

 

For DC, the Silver Age really ended with Crisis. For Marvel, the Silver Age never really did end, as the Marvel Universe continues to this day.

 

So if we were to go MERELY by the superheroic revivals then I would have to say that the first BRONZE age book was Man of Steel #1 in 1986. The Marvel counterpart - who the heck knows.

 

I don't buy that. Does any one else?

 

I've already argued the point to death along with everyone else that the bronze age shift (around 1970) was more about ATTITUDE and TONE rather than new superheroes. Ditto for the age that follows that used to be called MODERN (that starts around 1986) but I'm of the opinion that that age ended a couple of years ago. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but I respect your opinion - I just can't agree with it.

 

Kev

 

[joe_collector]

What I find amusing about this whole conversation is that there is not one iota of evidence supporting GS X-Men as the start of anything.

 

1) Can you draw a direct line to reams of new characters and comics like you can with Conan? Nope.

 

Who couldn't see the Conan-based emergence of anti-heroes like Wolverine, Punisher, Ghost Rider, Luke Cage, Deathlok, Bullseye, etc., which is something not seen in the Marvel "Boy Scout" Silver Age. These intros all occured within a 1-5 year time frame, which is consistent with the Marvel Silver Age (1961-65). Do the same with GS X-Men from 75-79 and you'll see some real doozies like Devil Dinosaur and Nova.

 

2) Did the New X-Men set the sales charts afire? Nope, and it was easily one of Marvel's lowest sellers, even up to 1979.

 

I don't particularly adhere to sales=importance, but this is another of the horrible inaccurancies Blanchard has tossed out, then summarily forgotten once I proved it toally incorrect. Also, Conan may not have become one of Marvel's best-seller's until 1973-75 or so, but I'll compare it's initial 5-year sales record against the horrible-selling New X-Men anyday.

 

3) Did comics concepts and trends change drastically after GS X-Men 1? Nope.

 

Now compare that to either Conan 1 or GL/GA 76 and even a blind man could see the quantum shift. Comic stories from 1975-Modern did not shift post-GS X-Men 1 in the least, If anyone has examples of how a poor-selling, new X-Men concept directly influenced new Bronze Age comics and characters, then please add this to the discussion. No generics like the usual "lotsa new stuff", but specific examples.

 

So why is this even being discussed?

 

1) Modern-ites with no idea on what comics sold from 1970-79, who was popular, what sort of changes took place between 1961-69 and 1970-79, or even why these happened.

 

2) Hindsight'ers who see that X-Men is a popular concept right now, has a hot movie franchise, and then transfer that popularity and influence back almost 30 years. The old "it's popular now, so it must have been back then too" mentality.

 

3) Silver Age Popularity: Due to grey-beard collectors lapping up the reconstituted Silver Age, new concepts usually have a very short shelf life. Many forget that the X-Men is a Silver Age idea, and New X-Men is just a new set of members within the same premise. Mutants have been around since the 1960's and every super team shifts members at certain times.

 

Using this illogical "if it ain't printed now, it's not important" mentality, and then retroactively trying to re-do history based on this. No post-Silver Age "new concept title" has lasted for long, and that includes top-selling books that may have remained on top for years. What comics are popular now does not change the top-sellers back then. Times change, people change, comics change; that's just the way things work.

 

The Silver Age does seem to have had a lasting impact, and keeps churning along in its vaious revamps and Ultimate incarnations, leading to this "Bronze Age never existed" illusion. Instead of falling into this trap, why not make a list of 1980's brand-new, never-before-seen title characters that stood the test of time and are still best-sellers. I can't think of any, but I may have missed one or two.

[Zonker]

Part of why we sometimes appear to be talking past each other is I admittedly was not paying attention to Marvel in the 70s. And the information Dave B posted a few pages ago was a striking compare/contrast of new DC series before and after 1975.

 

So we're left with a puzzling paradox: Was GSXM #1 more influential upon DC than it was on Marvel? You've proven it should not have been more influential based upon its sales. So we're left with several possiblities:

 

1- as I speculated previously, DC was winging it, ignoring sales figures and gambling upon super-heroes (and particularly super-teams) being more popular in the late 1970s. This gamble blew up in the DC Implosion of 78-79.

 

2- Or instead, maybe DC was eyeing the true sales champs at Marvel (Spider-Man?) and re-focused its attention on expanding its line of super-heroes. But why 1975 as the dividing line?

 

3- Maybe the New X-Men arrival is simply coincidental with the changing of the guard at DC: Infantino is sacked at DC-- Jennette Kahn arrives. Not sure when Paul Levitz became Kahn's #1, but he's an old-time super-hero fan.

 

4- Or maybe, as an earlier poster speculated, DC was responding to its own success in the mid-70s with the Legion (itself a product of Dave Cockrum's design skill and hence a New X-Men precursor). Gotta pick up a Standard Guide so I can have ready access to reported sales figures.

 

5- Or maybe it is as simple as with the failure of the non-Conan non-Warlord new genre experiments after 1974, DC (and Marvel?) just decided to stick to what it new best, which was super-heroes.

 

In any case, this is all just idle speculation around a somewhat-puzzling paradox. But isn't that what the 'net is for?

Z.

[joe_collector]

>>Or maybe, as an earlier poster speculated, DC was responding to its own success in the mid-70s with the Legion (itself a product of Dave Cockrum's design skill and hence a New X-Men precursor).

 

That's the one I'd go for personally, since New X-Men wasn't even a blip on the chart during the 1970's. DC's changing of the guard, and re-focus on super-heroes is a big influece as well.

 

And the most damning testimony of all:

 

It wasn't until the 1980's that DC brought out their actual response to new X-Men: New Teen Titans. If GS X-Men represented a quantum shift in 1975, you'd think that book would have made it out ahead of ALL the rest.

[PovertyRow]

do you reject outright the premise that because the Golden and Silver Ages are defined by superhero comics, the Bronze Age should also be characterized as such?

 

I certainly do. The Platinum Age was not superhero defined. Indeed, there is no "Age Committee" that lays down rules for determining age and specifying what is and is not allowed in the definition of an age.

[Aman619]

I certainly do. The Platinum Age was not superhero defined.

 

wait a second...the Platinum age was coined way after fans named the Gold and Silver periods. And it pre-dates super-heroes. Actually, since it refers to ALL comic-like publications that were published before Action#1, the "first" super-hero comic, it would be an impossibility for it to be defined by super-heroes as you stated.

 

Even though it actually is---but only in the 'negative' sense...it's everything BEFORE super-heroes.

 

[PovertyRow]

wait a second...the Platinum age was coined way after fans named the Gold and Silver periods.

 

OK - tell me what fans names the Gold and Silver and then tell me who named the Platinum.

[FlyingDonut]

If I remember correctly, the term "Golden Age" was being used in the early fandom period - the Xero, Alter Ego period in 1961-1963, that time frame. Don and Maggie Thompson, those people. It was DEFINTELY being used by 1966, as there are references to the "Golden Age" all over Marvel Comics book. I think the Silver Age term came into vogue in the early 70s(?).

 

The first I can remember "Bronze Age" being called that was in the mid-80s. And, by the way, THEN there was no question that the Bronze Age started in 1970 or so. In fact, THEN, we didn't think X-Men were Bronze Age books AT ALL, we thought they were "current" books.

 

The first I can remember the term "Platinum Age" was a few years ago when Overstreet decided to waste 100 pages on books that nobody buys.

[dblanchard-migration]

Joe Collector wrote:

 

>> the most damning testimony of all:

 

It wasn't until the 1980's that DC brought out their actual response to new X-Men: New Teen Titans. If GS X-Men represented a quantum shift in 1975, you'd think that book would have made it out ahead of ALL the rest. <<

 

 

NEW TEEN TITANS debuted in 1980, 5 years after GIANT-SIZE X-MEN # 1.

 

FANTASTIC FOUR debuted in 1961, 5 years after SHOWCASE # 4.

 

As you would say, damn!

 

Dave Blanchard

[drbanner]

The first I can remember the term "Platinum Age" was a few years ago when Overstreet decided to waste 100 pages on books that nobody buys.

 

Not true! There are at least five - the two guys that wrote the intro, the guy that read it and...uh...well, maybe only 3... I've heard it through the grapevine that one of the 3 is in a position (of influence) with OS, Gemstone, CBM, etc.,. and that's why we've seen all those dumb articles on old comic strips, platinum comics, etc.,. in CBM recently. (Although I will say that in the latest issue they had a somewhat interesting piece on early/variant Marvel Silver Age covers - like the Kirby Amazing Fantasy 15 which we all know about, but there was one for Hulk 1 as well!)

[joe_collector]

Yo Dave, you're an interesting fellow, and your stone-headed determination to prove the unproveable should be an inspiration to dolts everywhere.

 

Keep up the work on that time machine, and maybe you can someday change the past.

 

Go Gambit Go!!!

[joe_collector]

Dave I loved how you demonstrated your incredible comic knowledge with that last post. As anyone knows, and Stan has related many, many times, The Fantastic Four was a direct result of the success of Justice League and had absolutely nothing to do with Flash.

 

It's even on Stan's Mutants and Monsters DVD if you want to get a copy and bone up on some comic history.

 

So to use the accepted rules of time and space:

 

Brave & Bold #28: December 1960

 

Fantastic Four #1: November 1961

 

A difference of ELEVEN MONTHS, not even a FULL YEAR, only ELEVEN MONTHS for Marvel to recognize a hot trend and respond.

 

And that was with old-style 1960 marketing data and longer lead-times. Today, Stan would probably cut that in half or more and hit the 4-6 month lead-time. I guess the guys at DC were in suspended animation for 5 years and only then discovered the low-selling, 100K a month new X-Men and tried to duplicate their "success"?.

 

Whatever world you live in, I hope I never have to visit.

[drbanner]

stone-headed determination to prove the unproveable should be an inspiration to dolts everywhere.

 

C'mon CI, while your name change certainly makes your market crash and doomsday prophecies less hypocritical, your name-calling is, and has always been, unwarranted, counter-productive, and serves only to promote a confrontational and negative atmosphere on the board...

[dblanchard-migration]

Zonker wrote:

 

>> 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. <<

 

I pretty much agree with your assessment of the differences between the Silver Age and, let's call it for now, post-Silver Age Batman, Green Arrow, Superman, GL, etc. You're exactly right, and in fact I have an article appearing in an upcoming issue of COMIC BOOK MARKETPLACE that comes to the same conclusion -- not just for those heroes mentioned, but for ALL of DC's superheroes and adventure-oriented comics of the late 1960s/early 1970s.

 

My question centers merely on the use of the term "Bronze Age" to define those characters, since what we actually ended up seeing in the early 1970s was a very short-lived infusion of energy into some DC superheroes, but inevitably resulted in numerous cancellations of long-running titles. ATOM, AQUAMAN, DOOM PATROL, GREEN LANTERN, HAWKMAN, TEEN TITANS, even the venerable SHOWCASE itself were the best-known Silver Age mainstays to go down for the count, but just as daunting to DC's superhero proficiency was the failure of virtually every superhero comic launched in the mid to late 1960s to achieve any success at all in the marketplace -- BEWARE THE CREEPER, HAWK & DOVE, SPECTRE, CAPTAIN ACTION, PLASTIC MAN, METAMORPHO, the "new" BLACKHAWK, etc.

 

You're absolutely right -- the O'Neil/Adams Batman was a whole 'nother take on the character from the Silver Age Batman, but how long did that Adams Batman really last on the spinner racks? Look at all those ho-hum David V. Reed/Ernie Chua Batman comics that defined the character by the mid-1970s.

 

Similarly, the O'Neil/Adams GREEN LANTERN/GREEN ARROW was a complete sea change from the Broome/Kane version -- but by 1972, the title was gone, and though it was revived a few years later (during a period which I refer to as the beginning, not the middle, of the Bronze Age), it was as a science fiction series, not the relevance-heavy stuff of the early '70s.

 

Look at how abruptly DC abandoned that great 1971 storyline in SUPERMAN where, supposedly, Superman lost one-third of his powers because of the sandman and would become more Earth-bound ; the minute O'Neil was off the book, Cary Bates came onboard and Superman was off juggling planets again.

 

My take is that if 1970 really *was* the start of a Bronze Age, then DC should've had a whole lot more success with its superhero comics than it did; in fact, the opposite was true.

 

While Marvel had much better success in the early 1970s with their superheroes, clearly a seismic shift had occurred to the extent that the likes of X-MEN, DR STRANGE, CAPTAIN MARVEL, SUB-MARINER and NICK FURY all went down for the count -- not that any of these were major sellers during the Silver Age, and of course all of these would eventually be revived, but clearly the Marvel expansion saw reprints selling better (or at least being more economical) in many cases than all-new superheroes. Stan Lee stopped writing, and Jack Kirby left the company completely, and for the next several years Marvel would be characterized by a round-robin of chief editors, most of whom stayed for a year or two at most (or even just for a few weeks). I'd argue that Marvel didn't have a clearly defined focus until Jim Shooter came on board circa 1978, with his rise being coincident with the rise of the X-Men as a franchise.

 

>> Here's another one you may particularly respond to: the Bronze Age Legion of Super-Heroes by Bates & Cockrum beginning in Superboy 184, as a completely different look & feel from the Silver Age Legion by Shooter & Swan. <<

 

In my recent letter to Mr. Silver Age in COMICS BUYER'S GUIDE, I offered up SUPERBOY # 197 as an alternative to GIANT-SIZE X-MEN # 1 as the first Bronze Age comic book, as it illustrates DC's first successful revival of a superhero team. Given that it was his success with the Legion that led to Cockrum's getting the X-Men assignment, you can certainly make a case that G-SXM # 1 was at least tangentially inspired by the Legion.

 

The biggest problem I have with that theory, though, is that the Legion never really went away; they just got downgraded to a back-up feature. But you're right, there's certainly a difference between the Silver Age Legion and the 1970s edition.

 

Dave Blanchard

[joe_collector]

I personally think you all invented this Blanchard character to irritate the heck out of me, as it's pretty hard to believe a person like this really exists.

[drbanner]

Well, his name/address/commentary on this whole subject were printed in black and white in the latest CBG, so he's legit!