Why are cartoon comics not as popular with collectors as superhero comics are? 3 3

[Tri-Color Brian]

On 11/22/2023 at 9:42 AM, stormflora said:

What are the Comic Book Ages? | The Nerd Hoard

I personally feel that the Modern Age should really be broken up. There has just been so much that's happened over the last 40 years compared to the last 100 that it cannot simply be condensed into a single period of time. Comics post-2000 and possibly even post-2010 are nothing like post-1985. Comics nowadays are designed with higher artistic quality bars to be met, and there are a lot more indie/independent series introduced to the scene instead of solely superheroes.

Maybe we could call 2020 on "the Covid Age". 

[adamstrange]

On 11/22/2023 at 11:52 AM, Bronty said:

1938 and even 1939 are pointless years to use because there was almost no superheroes being published yet.  

Your point about 1941 is fair, but what's that look like in 1951?  I think the point he's making is that after the initial boom during the war years, superheroes weren't that popular - again - until the 60s/70s.

Without superheros, it is not entirely clear that the American comic book market would ever have looked like what it did. 

Below is an idea of the newsstand of 1938.  Comics were initially a tiny part of the periodical marketplace; whereas, in 1941, entirely due to superheros, they were a big presence.  Once established, the comic book market was able to diversify, but would that have happened as quickly and effectively if superheros hadn't paved the way for the general infrastructure and proof that original material would sell?

[adamstrange]

Actual newsstand at time of Action 2. 

[MrBedrock]

I am pretty amused by the idea that funny animal comics based on characters from animation are somehow artistically less important than their cartoon versions. Almost all of the artists who worked on the comics were also animators. Most of the Dell artists were working simultaneously in comics and film. Art Bartsch of Mighty Mouse fame was an animator. Paul Terry worked directly on the comics with his name on them. Heck, even third tier funny animal titles like Giggle and HaHa from ACG were completely illustrated by known animation artists.

[adamstrange]

On 11/22/2023 at 12:13 PM, MrBedrock said:

I am pretty amused by the idea that funny animal comics based on characters from animation are somehow artistically less important than their cartoon versions. Almost all of the artists who worked on the comics were also animators. Most of the Dell artists were working simultaneously in comics and film. Art Bartsch of Mighty Mouse fame was an animator. Paul Terry worked directly on the comics with his name on them. Heck, even third tier funny animal titles like Giggle and HaHa from ACG were completely illustrated by known animation artists.

Two of the brightest comic artists and storytellers, Carl Barks and Walt Kelly, worked for Disney before shifting full time to comics.  Their comic book achievements easily equaled the best results of their former studio.

[adamstrange]

I appear to be defending against two opposite extreme views.  To summarize my position:

• It's inappropriate to discuss the Golden Age without emphasizing the importance of superheros.
• It's inappropriate to discuss Comic Book history solely through the lens of superheros.

My longer thoughts on comic ages:

All comic "ages" were designated after the fact and represent reasonable attempts to categorize noticeable changes in publishing trends. There will typically be some preliminary examples that occur prior to the start of an age and some examples that occur after the official end date.  The debate around ages almost always revolves around which of the early adopters and the stragglers signal the start and end of the age in question.

As such it can be helpful to look at the predecessor and successor ages in order to provide a context for the discussion of any particular age.  

Golden Age represents the golden age of superheroes when they went from being 13% share of a very small market in 1938 to a 54% share of a much larger market in 1941.  In June 1941, there are 57 comics, 42 of which are arguably mostly super-hero based.  

It's not far from the truth to say that the GA was superhero comics for kids.  The end of WWII, however, resulted in such a significant reduction in the interest of superheroes that by 1950 supers were down to just a 4% share of of an extremely large comics market.

The Atomic Age was the first time period when the industry published comics in every genre targeting every age group from young kids to adults.  Comics became just as diverse a medium for telling stories for all ages as books, movies, plays, music etc.  Many of the themes, images, and dialog were of an adult nature, as there were no restrictions from the Comics Code.

While there were crime (Crime Does Not Pay) and teen (Archie) titles starting during the war, they ramped up considerably after the war. Romance (Young Love 1947), Good Girl Art (Phantom Lady 1947) and horror (Adventures into the Unknown 1948) started after the war. While sci-fi had been around since the early days of the GA, it had died down during the war until a noticeable expansion started in 1951.

The Atomic Age was also the time of the greatest number of titles and the greatest number of printed comics. In 1952, for example, there were 643 titles compared to 115 in 1940 or 289 in 1945. Explicit acts of violence, "good girl" art and inclusion of horror story elements were incorporated into many titles/genres that had been relatively tame. These also were the primary thematic elements that were to cause the backlash against comics in general and that were eventually stifled by the comics code.  

I personally think the Atomic Age is best described as starting with the dropping of the Atomic Bomb and ending with the advent of the Code. These end points are not only historically significant and easy to remember but also happen to correspond with very dramatic publishing shifts.

The Silver Age was about the re-introduction of superheros with a science-fiction twist as a way to take advantage of Sputnik/space race era and because of the youthful interests of many of the main creators (Schwartz, Weisinger, Kirby, Lee, Kane etc were all part of the early fandom of sci-fi).  The sci-fi aspects were critical to innovating a commercially successful approach within the restrictions imposed by Comics Code.

Marvel evolved the DC approach to heros by adding realistic incidents and problems to their stories.  For example, they show the difficulty Peter Parker has in trying to cash a check made out to "Spiderman."  With a greater emphasis on the personal life and by extending storylines across multiple issues, Marvels are synthesis of superhoics and soap opera.

Note:  All stats were sourced from the indispensable Gerber Photojournal.

[sfcityduck]

On 11/22/2023 at 8:58 AM, adamstrange said:

You were doing fine until you knocked the Atomic Age.  I was restricting my comments to avoid straying to far from the original topic, but, as much as I am a fan of super-hero comics, there is an overemphasis on them when discussing the general history of comic books and comic art.

The greatest quantity of published comics, widest variety of comic art, and deepest readership among the population occurred when superheros were at their lowest point.  It is entirely inappropriate to have a set of ages, therefore, that only aligned with when superheros were, relatively speaking, the most popular genre.

Agree to disagree.  There's a lot of history in those "ages" labels, but it makes more sense to use decades. Adding "ages" just confuses things, especially when they correllate to non-comic events like the Atomic Bomb which did not have that big an influence on comics. Dave Wigransky had the GA from 1938-1942 because that's when comics were born and when the dark content that appealed to him most was put out. He was a pre-Robin Detective type of guy.  In contrast, when Lupoff first used the term in modern comic fandon, in the fanzine Comic-Art 1 (Spring 1961), he correlated it to the 1940s. I think Lupoff was right to focus on decades instead of arbitrary age demarcations. For those who haven't read his article "Re-Birth" in Comic-Art, it shows why his writing caused him to be regarded as one of the fathers of modern comic collecting:

 

[sfcityduck]

On 11/22/2023 at 8:42 AM, stormflora said:

For someone who is an amateur to the comic scene, what exactly is the Comics Code and how did it influence the entire scene?

 

See this article: http://www.lostsoti.org/TheAntiComicsCrusade.htm

On this site: http://www.lostsoti.org/NewsArchive.htm  

[stormflora]

On 11/22/2023 at 12:03 PM, Tri-ColorBrian said:

Maybe we could call 2020 on "the Covid Age". 

"The resurgence and return of a dying art form as a viable entertainment medium, precipitated by forced home arrest, unemployment and boredom, which led to a surge in demand and value and the seeking of a means to... relieve one's tension in more ways than one."

On 11/22/2023 at 12:05 PM, adamstrange said:

Without superheros, it is not entirely clear that the American comic book market would ever have looked like what it did. 

Below is an idea of the newsstand of 1938.  Comics were initially a tiny part of the periodical marketplace; whereas, in 1941, entirely due to superheros, they were a big presence.  Once established, the comic book market was able to diversify, but would that have happened as quickly and effectively if superheros hadn't paved the way for the general infrastructure and proof that original material would sell?

Yeah, superhero comics definitely helped popularize comics books. Credit does need to be given to them for that. Otherwise, comics and TPBs would just be glorified newspaper strip compilations. Unless Japanese manga takes the world by storm instead of fully coloured comics, anyway.

On 11/22/2023 at 12:13 PM, MrBedrock said:

I am pretty amused by the idea that funny animal comics based on characters from animation are somehow artistically less important than their cartoon versions. Almost all of the artists who worked on the comics were also animators. Most of the Dell artists were working simultaneously in comics and film. Art Bartsch of Mighty Mouse fame was an animator. Paul Terry worked directly on the comics with his name on them. Heck, even third tier funny animal titles like Giggle and HaHa from ACG were completely illustrated by known animation artists.

On 11/22/2023 at 12:19 PM, adamstrange said:

Two of the brightest comic artists and storytellers, Carl Barks and Walt Kelly, worked for Disney before shifting full time to comics.  Their comic book achievements easily equaled the best results of their former studio.

Definitely was not aware about this, but not surprised to find out, either. The skill of comic illustrators is very easily overlooked due to the comic scene itself not being seen as highly valuable by ordinary people. Considering that they are all full-colour, it's equivalent to painting 30+ pages of art per issue, per month. Anyone who is an artist or dabbles in art would know how daunting of a task that is.

Edited November 22, 2023 by stormflora

[adamstrange]

On 11/22/2023 at 12:25 PM, sfcityduck said:

Agree to disagree.  There's a lot of history in those "ages" labels, but it makes more sense to use decades. Adding "ages" just confuses things, especially when they correllate to non-comic events like the Atomic Bomb which did not have that big an influence on comics. Dave Wigransky had the GA from 1938-1942 because that's when comics were born and when the dark content that appealed to him most was put out. He was a pre-Robin Detective type of guy.  In contrast, when Lupoff first used the term in modern comic fandon, in the fanzine Comic-Art 1 (Spring 1961), he correlated it to the 1940s. I think Lupoff was right to focus on decades instead of arbitrary age demarcations. For those who haven't read his article "Re-Birth" in Comic-Art, it shows why his writing caused him to be regarded as one of the fathers of modern comic collecting:

When it comes to describing broad trends of history, the early version should be viewed as useful, but is seldom definitive as time grants perspective unavailable to the participants.

[sfcityduck]

On 11/22/2023 at 9:36 AM, stormflora said:

.

Yeah, superhero comics definitely helped popularize comics books. Credit does need to be given to them for that. Otherwise, comics and TPBs would just be glorified newspaper strip compilations.

I think you need to delve deeper into comic history.  Comics were far from just newspaper strip compilations. While it is true that some comics were published by or licensed from the newspaper cartoon syndicates, other comic publishers were putting out original material - most notably DC (National Periodical Publications and All-American Publications) which started putting out comics of all-original comic material in 1934. (Earlier, the first comic page format (six panels and word balloons) all original material graphic novel (hardbound book) came out in 1930). DC went along at a decent pace with a large share of the comic market with non-superhero material for three or four years before Action 1.  In addition, other publishers were also putting out original non-superhero material prior to Action 1 and all major publishers continued to do so after Action 1 even as they jumped on the superhero trend in earnest starting months to over a year after Superman debuted.  

Edited November 22, 2023 by sfcityduck

[aardvark88]

On 11/22/2023 at 6:54 AM, Bookery said:

 but also led to their demise because of the Comics Code, which they couldn't have foreseen coming.  Super-heroes, of course,  didn't really flourish again until DCs silver-age re-boot, aimed at a bit older audience, and then Marvel, aimed at an even older audience still.

Some early 1960's Marvel 'sell-through' figures via newsstands. Pic courtesy of Bob Beerbohm's fb page:

[sfcityduck]

On 11/22/2023 at 9:47 AM, adamstrange said:

When it comes to describing broad trends of history, the early version should be viewed as useful, but is seldom definitive as time grants perspective unavailable to the participants.

True. And one of the mistakes we should not repeat is the unhelpful "ages" concept, especially when that entails abandoning the shared concepts of the last 50 years by adoption of new end and start points. If you want to tie comic history to real world events, I find the terms "pre-war", "post-war," "pre-code," "direct market" etc. very helpful. Atomic Age as you use it just doesn't work because 1946 is not the year of the detonation of the Atomic Bomb and 1954, the date of the implementation of the CCA, is not the start of the DC superhero revival, let alone in earnest, and has nothing to do with the A-Bomb (culturally the Atomic Age kept going well after 1954). 

Edited November 22, 2023 by sfcityduck

[MrBedrock]

I'm team Ages!

[sfcityduck]

On 11/22/2023 at 10:11 AM, MrBedrock said:

I'm team Ages!

"Golden Age" and "Silver Age" do add a certain shine when dealing comics.

[MrBedrock]

On 11/22/2023 at 12:21 PM, sfcityduck said:

"Golden Age" and "Silver Age" do add a certain shine when dealing comics.

As do "Platinum", "Atomic", "Bronze" and "Modern".

[adamstrange]

On 11/22/2023 at 12:55 PM, sfcityduck said:

I think you need to delve deeper into comic history.  Comics were far from just newspaper strip compilations. While it is true that some comics were published by or licensed from the newspaper cartoon syndicates, other comic publishers were putting out original material - most notably DC (National Periodical Publications and All-American Publications) which started putting out comics of all-original comic material in 1934. (Earlier first comic page format (six panels and word balloons) all original material graphic novel (hardbound book) came out in 1930). DC went along at a decent pace with a large share of the comic market with non-superhero material for three or four years before Action 1.  In addition, other publishers were also putting out original non-superhero material prior to Action 1 and all major publishers continued to do so after Action 1 even as they jumped on the superhero trend in earnest starting months to over a year after Superman debuted.  

Original comic material prior to the superhero boom was a nothing burger, delivering very little in the way of either quantity or quality. 

By the end of 1937, they had published approximately 126 newsstand comics of entirely new material.  That was less than a month's production in 1952.

[adamstrange]

On 11/22/2023 at 1:23 PM, MrBedrock said:

On 11/22/2023 at 1:21 PM, sfcityduck said:

"Golden Age" and "Silver Age" do add a certain shine when dealing comics.

As do "Platinum", "Atomic", "Bronze" and "Modern".

I like all of these and have found them useful in orienting non-comic book people or comic newbie's to the broader swathe of comic book history.

[adamstrange]

On 11/22/2023 at 12:59 PM, aardvark88 said:

Some early 1960's Marvel 'sell-through' figures via newsstands. Pic courtesy of Bob Beerbohm's fb page:

Thanks for sharing! 

I have only seen very limited sales for these years and always wondered about the growth.

The introduction of superheros didn't make a big impact for Marvel until 1963, and the real explosion was in 1964.

[sfcityduck]

On 11/22/2023 at 10:23 AM, adamstrange said:

Original comic material prior to the superhero boom was a nothing burger, delivering very little in the way of either quantity or quality. 

By the end of 1937, they had published approximately 126 newsstand comics of entirely new material.  That was less than a month's production in 1952.

There was high quality DC material prior to Action 1.  The quantity was small because the comic industry was young, there were few publishers, and they were undoubtedly figuring out format, printing, distribution, marketing, and how to scale up a business dependent upon artists and writers. It was a new industry in area where the potential participants were risk adverse and were trend followers. 

Looking just at DC, they went from 1 title in 1/35, to 4 titles (1 w/ superhero story) in 1/39, to 5 titles in 1/40 (all w/ a superhero story), to 10 titles in 1943 (all with superheroes). But in 1/44 DC again had a title with no superheroes, 2 non-superhero titles in 1/45, 5 non-superhero titles as of 1/46, and by 1/47 of 19 titles there were no superhero stories in 7. The thing is though, 1/47 was the highpoint of DC superhero titles for the 1935-1950 era with 12 titles with superhero stories. January 1948 held steady with 7 titles with non-superheroes but only 10 titles with superheroes. January 1949 featured 18 titles 9 without superhero stories and 9 with. January 1950 featured 20 titles with 12 non-superhero titles and 8 with superheroes. In 1/56, after the CCA was adopted but before Showcase 4, DC had 32 titles of which 8 still had superhero stories.

Don't think these numbers match up with your Atomic Age concept.

Edited November 22, 2023 by sfcityduck