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

[Pantodude]

Late to this party.  Boy this thread took a couple of detours to this point!  Interesting stuff.  But going back to the OP's topic, just wanted to chime in regarding Bugs Bunny and the original Looney Tunes in general (i'm referring to the 1940s/1950s fare) as an exception.  I generally moved on to superheros as I became a teenager, like most, but Bugs Bunny never took a back seat to anyone, even as I got older.  As a young'n, I spent my Saturday mornings watching Bugs, Elmer, Daffy, etc., and it was very good fun.  I (and thankfully, my mom) was oblivious to the fact that it was meant for more mature (or just mature!|) audiences.  It's like the PCH and war comics that should never have been accessible to children (but thank goodness they were!).  Hard to believe that Elmer Fudd used a gun for soooo long (only removed relatively recently), unless you appreciate that the intended audience was actually adults from day one.  I came across this interesting article:     https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2020/6/12/21287067/hbo-max-looney-tunes-elmer-fudd-gun-violence#:~:text=The original 'Looney Tunes',were absolutely made for adults.”

Here's an excerpt:   

The book ”Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation,” by Kevin S. Sandler, explains that creator Tex Avery said he “leaned more toward the adult audience.” And animator Chuck Jones said the cartoons “were absolutely made for adults.” So those 1940s “Looney Tunes” shorts that aired? They “were absolutely not for children,” said Kyra Hunting, an assistant professor of media and arts studies at the University of Kentucky.   

Mature or not, those cartoons were also very clever and often accompanied by great music.  Rossini's Barber of Seville overture, Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, the list goes on and on.  Perhaps not surprising because I was so young, but I honestly don't recall listening to classical music before Bugs Bunny!  Watching those cartoons, especially as a child, was a loaded (excuse the pun) experience.  Unavoidably memorable, in a good way.    

Many collectors gravitate toward comic book versions of things they like (Star Trek #1 (Gold Key 1967) and Scooby Doo #1 (Gold Key, 3/1970) have been gaining traction for years now).  So I'm not surprised at the pretty penny commanded by Bugs Bunny's first comic book appearance in Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies Comics #1 (Dell Publishing, 1941) due to nostalgia and/or the enduring appeal of the high-quality, mature enterainment.  Bugs remains popular is the point.  A cartoon character need not have many dimensions to have the staying power of superheroes or human characters among a maturing audience, just the right dimensions (however few, yeah, here's looking at you Scooby Doo!) done well.  But, in the Looney Tunes family, that might apply more to Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck than to Bugs.  Arguably, Bugs was at least as sophisticated as any cartoon portrayal of a superhero or human character, with all the seemingly endless role-playing and cross-dressing we saw with Bugs!  One thing's for sure:  however many dimensions Bugs did have in those classic shorts, they were done exquisitely well.

All that said, Peanuts #1 (United Features Syndicate, 1953) is another cartoon comic book that has done just fine (i.e., it's a pricey book), but this time without mature content.  And I mentioned Scooby Doo #1.  So for the good stuff, nostalgia alone and/or appreciation of historical significance could maintain a book's popularity across generations without being superhero-related.  

Edited December 14, 2023 by Pantodude
dang typos

[stormflora]

On 12/11/2023 at 8:21 PM, Pantodude said:

Late to this party.  Boy this thread took a couple of detours to this point!  Interesting stuff.  But going back to the OP's topic, just wanted to chime in regarding Bugs Bunny and the original Looney Tunes in general (i'm referring to the 1940s/1950s fare) as an exception.  I generally moved on to superheros as I became a teenager, like most, but Bugs Bunny never took a back seat to anyone, even as I got older.  As a young'n, I spent my Saturday mornings watching Bugs, Elmer, Daffy, etc., and it was very good fun.  I (and thankfully, my mom) was oblivious to the fact that it was meant for more mature (or just mature!|) audiences.  It's like the PCH and war comics that should never have been accessible to children (but thank goodness they were!).  Hard to believe that Elmer Fudd used a gun for soooo long (only removed relatively recently), unless you appreciate that the intended audience was actually adults from day one.  I came across this interesting article:     https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2020/6/12/21287067/hbo-max-looney-tunes-elmer-fudd-gun-violence#:~:text=The original 'Looney Tunes',were absolutely made for adults.”

Here's an excerpt:   

The book ”Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation,” by Kevin S. Sandler, explains that creator Tex Avery said he “leaned more toward the adult audience.” And animator Chuck Jones said the cartoons “were absolutely made for adults.” So those 1940s “Looney Tunes” shorts that aired? They “were absolutely not for children,” said Kyra Hunting, an assistant professor of media and arts studies at the University of Kentucky.   

Mature or not, those cartoons were also very clever and often accompanied by great music.  Rossini's Barber of Seville overture, Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, the list goes on and on.  Perhaps not surprising because I was so young, but I honestly don't recall listening to classical music before Bugs Bunny!  Watching those cartoons, especially as a child, was a loaded (excuse the pun) experience.  Unavoidably memorable, in a good way.    

Many collectors gravitate toward comic book versions of things they like (Star Trek #1 (Gold Key 1967) and Scooby Doo #1 (Gold Key, 3/1970) have been gaining traction for years now).  So I'm not surprised at the pretty penny commanded by Bugs Bunny's first comic book appearance in Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies Comics #1 (Dell Publishing, 1941) due to nostalgia and/or the enduring appeal of the high-quality, mature enterainment.  Bugs remains popular is the point.  A cartoon character need not have many dimensions to have the staying power of superheroes or human characters among a maturing audience, just the right dimensions (however few, yeah, here's looking at you Scooby Doo!) done well.  But, in the Looney Tunes family, that might apply more to Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck than to Bugs.  Arguably, Bugs was at least as sophisticated as any cartoon portrayal of a superhero or human character, with all the seemingly endless role-playing and cross-dressing we saw with Bugs!  One thing's for sure:  however many dimensions Bugs did have in those classic shorts, they were done equisitely well.

All that said, Peanuts #1 (United Features Syndicate, 1953) is another cartoon comic book that has done just fine (i.e., it's a pricey book), but this time without mature content.  And I mentioned Scooby Doo #1.  So for the good stuff, notalgia alone and/or appreciation of historical significance could maintain a book's popularity across generations without being superhero-related.  

Thank you for your thorough insight and personal experience. It was fascinating reading through your story.

It does seem that the cartoon characters that were catered to teenagers/adults had longer lasting power than the ones strictly catered to children. I guess that makes sense--you can still watch/read the cartoons and get a good laugh out of them as you grow older.

I imagine that by the 80's or so, trends had changed and people started to move onto different things. New readers can feel daunted and pressured by the feeling that they needed to start the series from the very first issue instead of picking it up in the middle, as TPBs/compilations were not yet common (if any, for the cartoon spectrum). This would've deterred a lot of new readers who likely adopted superhero comics instead because their friends and peers had done so.

So I guess subject matter was the key factor, and most of those Dell/Gold Key cartoon characters simply could not provide enough for the older audience to keep them subscribed. With televisions and movies becoming much more prevalent in peoples' daily lives, there was no lack of alternative entertainment mediums either, which was an issue during the Golden/Silver Age as not everyone could afford those.

As a millennial, I can only imagine what life must have been like going through those times, and the way trends changed.

[VintageComics]

On 12/11/2023 at 9:05 PM, stormflora said:

As a millennial, I can only imagine what life must have been like going through those times, and the way trends changed.

I'm not that much older than you, but can I say how much I enjoy your insightful replies and questions (so far, anyway )? They're like a breath of fresh air on the internet. 

[stormflora]

On 12/11/2023 at 10:06 PM, VintageComics said:

I'm not that much older than you, but can I say how much I enjoy your insightful replies and questions (so far, anyway )? They're like a breath of fresh air on the internet. 

Is that sarcasm, or genuine praise? I can't tell behind a computer screen      If it's the latter, then thanks a bunch man, I appreciate it  

I guess I'm bringing some life into what is a gradually dying hobby. Or well, becoming primarily confined to the elderly audience.

[KCOComics]

On 12/10/2023 at 8:23 PM, stormflora said:

Oh wow, thanks for the clarification! That definitely sounds interesting. It's kind of like the first Tom & Jerry cartoons which showed them living in then-luxurious conditions that were clearly out of reach to the common folk, except taken further up a notch.

Why did it die in popularity after the 70's? Kids grew up and moved onto superhero comics?

I was born in 82 and while I never read the comic book,  Richie Rich was still popular during my childhood. There was a cartoon that I remember watching as a kid and a few movies that were rebooted. 

While he wasn't a huge part of my childhood, he was still fairly popular in the 80s and 90s. 

[VintageComics]

On 12/11/2023 at 10:25 PM, stormflora said:

Is that sarcasm, or genuine praise? I can't tell behind a computer screen      If it's the latter, then thanks a bunch man, I appreciate it  

I guess I'm bringing some life into what is a gradually dying hobby. Or well, becoming primarily confined to the elderly audience.

It was genuine. You're thoughtful, insightful, inquisitive and patient. All longtime, well respected qualities that seem to counter a lot of energy that seems to pour into here these days. 

I put the laughing emoji because I'm not sure what you have up your sleeve 

But so far, great stuff! 

[stormflora]

On 12/11/2023 at 10:38 PM, VintageComics said:

It was genuine. You're thoughtful, insightful, inquisitive and patient. All longtime, well respected qualities that seem to counter a lot of energy that seems to pour into here these days. 

I put the laughing emoji because I'm not sure what you have up your sleeve 

But so far, great stuff! 

Why, thank you very much,  You made my night.

[Telegan]

On 12/11/2023 at 9:37 PM, KCOComics said:

I was born in 82 and while I never read the comic book,  Richie Rich was still popular during my childhood. There was a cartoon that I remember watching as a kid and a few movies that were rebooted. 

While he wasn't a huge part of my childhood, he was still fairly popular in the 80s and 90s. 

Actually, in the 80's I think a lot of the old cartoon characters were still hugely popular, like Looney Tunes (Bugs, Elmer Fudd, Daffy Duck, etc.), DuckTales (Scrooge McDuck), but I don't know how many kids ran out and bought comic books about them.  Other cartoons also were hugely popular around that time that had newer characters like TMNT, Voltron, He-Man, Thunder Cats, Transformers, Smurfs, etc., but again, I don't know if that translated to comic book popularity.  I know I didn't collect any of the comic books of those characters even though I loved watching some of those shows.

[KCOComics]

On 12/12/2023 at 4:32 AM, Telegan said:

Actually, in the 80's I think a lot of the old cartoon characters were still hugely popular, like Looney Tunes (Bugs, Elmer Fudd, Daffy Duck, etc.), DuckTales (Scrooge McDuck), but I don't know how many kids ran out and bought comic books about them.  Other cartoons also were hugely popular around that time that had newer characters like TMNT, Voltron, He-Man, Thunder Cats, Transformers, Smurfs, etc., but again, I don't know if that translated to comic book popularity.  I know I didn't collect any of the comic books of those characters even though I loved watching some of those shows.

I agree.  I watched all of those cartoons and never bought any of those comics. 

My comic interests started with spiderman and X-Men in the late 80s. 

[dikran]

G.I. Joe and Transformers were probably the hottest selling toys and comics of my youth eclipsing all that stood in their way. The cartoons and comics were essentially the driving force to sell the toys, it was a brilliant strategy. Multi media cross promotion. 

[Robot Man]

On 12/11/2023 at 7:25 PM, stormflora said:

Is that sarcasm, or genuine praise? I can't tell behind a computer screen      If it's the latter, then thanks a bunch man, I appreciate it  

I guess I'm bringing some life into what is a gradually dying hobby. Or well, becoming primarily confined to the elderly audience.

I haven’t noticed this hobby dying yet. Nor in the near future. As long as they keep making movies and money is flowing.

I do see people leaving the hobby or drastically curtailing purchases. Prices although sometimes good for flippers are not good for the long term.

The current down turn (or correction as I call it), is a natural and a needed phenomenon. This will keep folks in the game.

I just wish this were the case on the GA I collect…

[waaaghboss]

On 11/23/2023 at 11:47 AM, Cat-Man_America said:

WARNING: Bodacious philosophical nonsense follows (no kiddin')... 

There's something to the idea of comic book ages being moot, but this would probably manifest as "The Tangible Age" verses "The Intangible Age" and collectors require the tangible in order to thrive and multiply! Memories can be relished, but they're fleeting, momentary things without evidence of persistent longing, pursuit, engagement, conquest and pride of achievement.

The digital age ends in "Dōmo arigatō, Mr. Roboto" analogous to Styx after Dennis DeYoung was canned.

It would give new meaning to precode and post code 😀

[ChillMan]

On 11/20/2023 at 1:26 AM, IngelsFan said:

I’m a big fan of some of the cartoon comics, and one reason I feel that they don’t have the same popularity is that there are few “first appearances” in the comics. So you have to settle for “first comic book appearance” which does not carry the same weight. For example, Action Comics 1 is the first appearance of Superman, anywhere. I struggle to think of a cartoon character parallel from the GA. Combine that with the fact that even a lot of the first comic book appearances aren’t well-documented, and it makes for a hard jumping on point for traditional collectors, even those familiar with the cartoons.

More Fun Comics #31 pre-dates Action Comics #1.

Cover date May, 1936.  Registry date May 10, 1936.  '4-1' written in pencil on the Church copy (by the newsstand).

The Action #1 cover is in the interior pages.