The essential difference between SA DC and Marvel in a nutshell. 1 1

[kav]

5 hours ago, Bookery said:

Precisely.  We lived miles from any newsstands or drugstores.  In the '60s I purchased something from just about every company EXCEPT Marvel.  The few Marvels I owned were bought for me as gifts... I never could figure out what was going on in them since it was smack in the middle of some extended story-line.  Also, it is unfair to claim that the Marvel comics were "better".  DC and Marvel were aimed at totally different audiences.  The Comic Code essentially forced American comics to be geared to younger children, when previously there were titles for all ages.  DC was able to thrive under these conditions.  In the '60s cracks began to ever-so-slowly form in the Code, and Marvel began to veer to more of a teen audience.  But it's tricky to make a qualitative judgment on companies who catered to different clienteles.  Is Wolverine a better comic than Richie Rich?  How so?  And for whom?  Probably not if you're 6 years old.

Marvel didn't work for me at all in the '60s.  By the time I was an early teen (12-14), the audience sought by Marvel, I had moved beyond comics altogether and into the realm of novels.  Why wait to read an epic story that was released over 12 months (no omnibus editions back then), when I could have a 300-page book in front of me all at once?

So who was the smarter company?  Probably Archie, who maintained a massive market throughout that era.

Bingo.  Also DC stories had to be clever.  They were absurd but you cannot say a lot of imagination wasnt involved.  They used established science fiction writers like edmond hamilton and otto binder.  Marvel never did this.  

[Ken Aldred]

3 hours ago, kav said:

They used established science fiction writers like edmond hamilton and otto binder.  Marvel never did this.  

But Marvel had transistors everywhere, and that compensated enough.

[kav]

15 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

But Marvel had transistors everywhere, and that compensated enough.

Once again-an answer!!!!! 

[musicmeta]

On 11/28/2020 at 2:24 AM, ttfitz said:

And yet, for most of that time, DC sales on those books were higher than anything Marvel was putting out. That Superman pictured came out in 1962, and according to the figures at comicron.com, Superman was selling nearly 750k a month. Even Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane were selling nearly half a million. Highest listed Marvel that year on that site was ... Modelling with Millie!!!! (a note - the site has 1966 being the first year that Marvel gave figures for Amazing Spider-Man and Fantastic Four). 

Jumping to 1966, Superman is still selling at around 720k, with Amazing Spider-Man coming in at 340k - getting beat by titles like Betty and Veronica, Archie, Metal Men. All the Batman and Superman titles sold well above Spider-Man and Fantastic Four (330k).

As the years went by, Spider-Man increased sales, and the DC titles decreased, but by the end (near the end?) of the SA in 1969, Spider-Man was still being outsold by Action Comics (barely), Lois Lane, Superboy, and Superman from DC - and Betty and Veronica, and Archie, from Archie Comics.

Very interesting sales info.  I had no idea Marvel sales trailed DC and Archie Comics by that much during those times. 

[tvindy]

On 11/29/2020 at 12:12 PM, Bookery said:

Is Wolverine a better comic than Richie Rich?  How so?  And for whom?  Probably not if you're 6 years old.

They way to settle this would be through a crossover event in which the two battle to the death.

[Bookery]

"Is Wolverine a better comic than Richie Rich?  How so?  And for whom?  Probably not if you're 6 years old."

32 minutes ago, tvindy said:

They way to settle this would be through a crossover event in which the two battle to the death.

It wouldn't be a fair fight.  I've heard that Richie's father buys off the judges.

[thehumantorch]

On 11/28/2020 at 3:59 PM, Ken Aldred said:

Yup.

He tried to make his glue gun appear more intimidating by renaming himself The Trapster.

 

If you've ever crazy glued your fingers together you'll know just how dangerous that glue gun is.........

[tvindy]

12 minutes ago, Bookery said:

"Is Wolverine a better comic than Richie Rich?  How so?  And for whom?  Probably not if you're 6 years old."

It wouldn't be a fair fight.  I've heard that Richie's father buys off the judges.

Well, maybe, but death is pretty definitive. I mean, I guess the judges could claim that Richie's death doesn't count due to a technicality, but he's still dead. 

Edited November 30, 2020 by tvindy

[steveinthecity]

I’d buy it.

[ADAMANTIUM]

4 minutes ago, steveinthecity said:

I’d buy it.

add greggy as the "judge" and you've got it made!  and maybe VS instead of "and"  

Edited November 30, 2020 by ADAMANTIUM

[Phicks]

We should obviously point out the difference in the dynamic nature of the artwork, as discussed in How To Draw Comics The Marvel Way.   Most DC artwork in the 60s was horribly bland with major titles being churned out by Curt Swan, Wayne Boring, Mike Sekowsky, Dillin, etc.  Meanwhile. Marvel’s headline artists were Jack Kirby, John Buscema, John Romita, Steve Ditko, etc.   The best example I have heard of was imagine a villain had an antigravity device and lifted a bank and flew it away.   In Superman, there would be blank spot where the bank had been, totally smooth, as if the artist just forgot to draw something there.   But in Fantastic Four, there would be a smoking crater, and gushing water lines that were snapped off when the bank flew away.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Phicks

[tvindy]

43 minutes ago, Phicks said:

Most DC artwork in the 60s was horribly bland with major titles being churned out by Curt Swan, Wayne Boring…

Really? Wayne Boring made horribly bland art? 

[kav]

51 minutes ago, Phicks said:

We should obviously point out the difference in the dynamic nature of the artwork, as discussed in How To Draw Comics The Marvel Way.   Most DC artwork in the 60s was horribly bland with major titles being churned out by Curt Swan, Wayne Boring, Mike Sekowsky, Dillin, etc.  Meanwhile. Marvel’s headline artists were Jack Kirby, John Buscema, John Romita, Steve Ditko, etc.   The best example I have heard of was imagine of a villain had an antigravity device and lifted a bank and flew it away.   In Superman, there would be blank spot where the bank had been, totally smooth, as if the artist just forgot to draw something there.   But in Fantastic Four, there would be a smoking crater, and gushing water lines that were snapped off when the bank flew away.

Curt Swan was the master at drawing naturally posed people.  Kirby couldnt draw a natural relaxed pose if his life depended on it.  I love both dont get me wrong.  But Swan was the opposite of boring.  He could draw anything.  Kirby had to invent.  Ask him to draw something real like the laocoon and he'd be lost.

[Phicks]

2 hours ago, kav said:

Curt Swan was the master at drawing naturally posed people.  Kirby couldnt draw a natural relaxed pose if his life depended on it.  I love both dont get me wrong.  But Swan was the opposite of boring.  He could draw anything.  Kirby had to invent.  Ask him to draw something real like the laocoon and he'd be lost.

Wow!  Look at the dynamic action when the guy jumps on the truck in that last panel!  You can FEEL his weight hit the truck, and the speed of the moving vehicle NOT!!!

[Phicks]

I admit some of the DC guys could properly render ordinary things.  But super heroes should look extraordinary.  There is just no comparison.

 

[kav]

3 minutes ago, Phicks said:

Wow!  Look at the dynamic action when the guy jumps on the truck in that last panel!  You can FEEL his weight hit the truck, and the speed of the moving vehicle NOT!!!

Not dynamic.  But neither isRenaissance art.  That doent mean it's inferior, just different.  Frank Robbins was also 'dynamic'.

[kav]

Curt Swan could not draw dynamic.  Kirby couldnt draw natural poses or accurate anatomy.  One was a realist, the other an expressionist.

[tvindy]

3 hours ago, Hamdingers said:

If we're judging artists by their name, I'm staying far away from D ick Sprang 

Well, judging by that name, there's no way his art is horribly bland. 

[Sweet Lou 14]

4 hours ago, kav said:

Curt Swan could not draw dynamic.  Kirby couldnt draw natural poses or accurate anatomy.  One was a realist, the other an expressionist.

I know people love Curt Swan but I think his art is really mediocre and lifeless.  I can instantly tell when it's one of his by looking at Superman's midsection -- he's the guy who for some reason thinks the area from a man's waist up to the bottom of his pectoral muscles forms a nearly perfect square.

[kav]

Just now, Sweet Lou 14 said:

I know people love Curt Swan but I think his art is really mediocre and lifeless.  I can instantly tell when it's one of his by looking at Superman's midsection -- he's the guy who for some reason thinks the area from a man's waist up to the bottom of his pectoral muscles forms a nearly perfect square.

far from lifeless-he could draw the most natural poses in the business.  What actual people look like when they move.  That is far more difficult than inventing anatomy.