World's Finest - Where's the love?
2 2

40 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, lou_fine said:

 

I believe there's not much love for this run along with other DC books due mostly to the shall we say "silly" covers which are seen as the complete opposite of a classic cover which seems to be so critical nowadays in this cover centric marketplace that we now have

Pretty much my take on it as well, I think 65-67 are the only covers that could be called serious. I also don't think, with the possible exception of issue #9, there's a single cover on the giants with any sort of villain.  And by and large, there's not a lot of major stories, or artists, or character appearances in the title.

I still think the book is underrated; everything else aside you get both Superman and Batman in one book!  But I'll still take a Comic Cavalcade over a World's Finest if I ever had to choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MusterMark said:

The problem (if we can call it that) is deeper than that.

Here, we are looking at “silliness” within the superhero genre (for both WF and Fawcett) as the cause of lesser value/demand/etc.

But what about outside the superhero genre? The issue is even more pronounced there, as Funny Animals, cartoon characters, Disney, etc. don’t hold a candle to just about anything in the superhero genre (generally speaking, with just a few exceptions here and there).

There are so many people who forget (or don’t care about) the original concept of a comic book.  A funny book.  A comical book.  A humorous book.  One that is supposed to bring a smile to one’s face. Bring forth a chuckle to be vocalized.

Imo, collectors who disdain or neglect the comical origins of comic books and its continued legacy are not truly appreciative of the medium.  If you ask me (I know you’re not), that is a travesty.

Don't look at me; I've got vastly more GA funny animal and humor books than superheroes.  I think the oldest DC title I've got the complete run of is Scribbly. and I'm 15 issues short of a complete run of the Looney Tunes from Dell..  But even as somebody who dearly loves and collects funny comics, I have to admit the World's Finest covers are underwhelming.  I think you may be confusing "silly" with "funny", while the two can overlap they're not the same... and the World's Finest are frequently silly without actually having the benefit of being amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OtherEric said:

Don't look at me; I've got vastly more GA funny animal and humor books than superheroes.  I think the oldest DC title I've got the complete run of is Scribbly. and I'm 15 issues short of a complete run of the Looney Tunes from Dell..  But even as somebody who dearly loves and collects funny comics, I have to admit the World's Finest covers are underwhelming.  I think you may be confusing "silly" with "funny", while the two can overlap they're not the same... and the World's Finest are frequently silly without actually having the benefit of being amusing.

Haha, that is funny, because I find them amusing.  (The WF covers, that is.)

I think if you're going to try to stick with the idea of making a distinction between silly and funny, there'll be endless trouble.  What is silly to one is funny to another.  What is funny to one is silly to another.  And so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's because of the sillier covers. And it's not a title that had a lasting run, like Batman, Superman, Action or Detective, so there isn't even that extra incentive to buy them to complete a run. It does feel like fluff, something extra not overly integral to the characters' publication history, and thus not overly integral to a collection of said characters. 

The first appearance of the Scarecrow doesn't have as much as a demand as his second appearance in Detective because in this world of CGC, all you see is the cover and this ain't the cover you have in mind for a key Scarecrow book:

image.thumb.png.185324dbb0a887f1b0aa9d3438e3e175.png

 

Edited by William-James88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great replies, thanks.  I think you all hit it on the nail - it's the lack of "serious" covers that are keeping the prices and interest down (although many of the stories inside are just as serious as those in other Superman/Batman books of the time.)

I guess we have to remember that these comics were originally marketed to children, but now the only people buying and reading them are adults - and we want to feel "serious" about our comics!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, OtherEric said:

Pretty much my take on it as well, I think 65-67 are the only covers that could be called serious. I also don't think, with the possible exception of issue #9, there's a single cover on the giants with any sort of villain.  And by and large, there's not a lot of major stories, or artists, or character appearances in the title.

I still think the book is underrated; everything else aside you get both Superman and Batman in one book!  But I'll still take a Comic Cavalcade over a World's Finest if I ever had to choose.

When you think of the structure of the book, it makes absolute sense that none of the early issues had a major villain on the cover.  

Batman/Robin and Superman were in separate stories until issue #71, so to have a cover such as the mock up to issue #3 as an actual cover would have only served to confuse and or disappoint the buyer who not doubt would have been expecting all three superheroes to be fighting the Scarecrow.

Edited by pemart1966
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2