Email Alertscheckbox YTcheckbox Manage Email Alerts

When is the next comic era and who decides?2491

Pages:

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DarthLego This Penny? Looks like Penny could use a brah.
	8 years ago	Post 76 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 20.52K	20.52K DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	@DocBrown she's wearing a push up brah in that dress, cause her girls aren't that big.
	8 years ago	Post 77 • IP flag post

Collector 1.48K	1.48K OrbitCityComics private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by Themaxx35 Quote: Originally Posted by Oxbladder Quote: Originally Posted by I_AM_IRON_MAN The drek age That is a play on dark age Considering you could probably apply the term drek to 90% or more of what comes out every decade that name would not work. When I started collecting most of the 70's books and almost all of the 80's and 90's was considered drek and not worth the paper they were printed on. It seems to take awhile for people to appreciate the good things that did actually come out of each era. I don't really believe the '90s to be as horrible as people seem to think. There were some good books in that era, but most came from everyone EXCEPT Marvel. DC had Batman Year One, Dark Knight Returns and handful of other books. Most good stories came from independent companies, or DCs Helix and Vertigo lines. I do give DC this much credit, they let people like Frank Miller play around with one of their biggest icons, and it paid dividends for them.
	8 years ago	Post 78 • IP flag post

Collector 4.14K	4.14K Rafel private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by OrbitCityComics Quote: Originally Posted by Themaxx35 Quote: Originally Posted by Oxbladder Quote: Originally Posted by I_AM_IRON_MAN The drek age That is a play on dark age Considering you could probably apply the term drek to 90% or more of what comes out every decade that name would not work. When I started collecting most of the 70's books and almost all of the 80's and 90's was considered drek and not worth the paper they were printed on. It seems to take awhile for people to appreciate the good things that did actually come out of each era. I don't really believe the '90s to be as horrible as people seem to think. There were some good books in that era, but most came from everyone EXCEPT Marvel. DC had Batman Year One, Dark Knight Returns and handful of other books. Most good stories came from independent companies, or DCs Helix and Vertigo lines. I do give DC this much credit, they let people like Frank Miller play around with one of their biggest icons, and it paid dividends for them. I started collecting comic books in 1967 and quite in 1982. I quite because the art work was going down hill and since then I haven't seen any improvement. Now, I only collect and replace MARVELS's from 1982 on back.
	8 years ago	Post 79 • IP flag post

Collector 2.54K	2.54K Themaxx35 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by Rafel I started collecting comic books in 1967 and quite in 1982. I quite because the art work was going down hill and since then I haven't seen any improvement. Now, I only collect and replace MARVELS's from 1982 on back. This is an aspect of the hobby that fascinates me: the individual perspective on everything. For me, I quit in the early 90s and came back about a year ago. I think the quality of the art is vastly improved and the styles are much more varied. For me comics from the 60s and 70s had great covers (Adams and Swan for example), but I can't say that I loved the interior pages. To each their own. The hobby and its history has something for everyone.
	8 years ago	Post 80 • IP flag post

Collector 4.14K	4.14K Rafel private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	Quote: Originally Posted by Themaxx35 Quote: Originally Posted by Rafel I started collecting comic books in 1967 and quite in 1982. I quite because the art work was going down hill and since then I haven't seen any improvement. Now, I only collect and replace MARVELS's from 1982 on back. This is an aspect of the hobby that fascinates me: the individual perspective on everything. For me, I quit in the early 90s and came back about a year ago. I think the quality of the art is vastly improved and the styles are much more varied. For me comics from the 60s and 70s had great covers (Adams and Swan for example), but I can't say that I loved the interior pages. To each their own. The hobby and its history has something for everyone. I know what you mean. For me it was Ploog, Adams, Steranko, Starlin and Frazetta. Now those are artists!!
	8 years ago	Post 81 • IP flag post

Collector 2.02K	2.02K QuaBrot private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	True - I started collecting in the Early 80's and quit late 80's. I loved the X-Men, loved John Byrne on that title, but as I got more into collecting I discovered the original X-Men, and the Neal Adams issues, which blew me away. Neal Adams brought me to his work on Green Lantern. And so on . . . Looking back one could make an argument that there was some incredible art during the Golden Age (Will Eisner, Schomberg, Wood, Davis, Toth, etc.) and that the comics of the 60's (Ditko and Kirby) were a reversion to a more primitive, cartoonish version of comic book art. It took Adams, , Smith, Ploog, Kaluta and Wrightson, etc. to bring back more advanced art, detailed, stylized, and dynamic (I know I will get blowback for not worshiping Ditko and Kirby, but thats how I see it). We've seen incredible artists come through the medium and more will surely come to the fore. And there will be artists who appeal to some, and artists who appeal to others. We aint dealing with an absolute medium.
	8 years ago	Post 82 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by OrbitCityComics Quote: Originally Posted by Themaxx35 Quote: Originally Posted by Oxbladder Quote: Originally Posted by I_AM_IRON_MAN The drek age That is a play on dark age Considering you could probably apply the term drek to 90% or more of what comes out every decade that name would not work. When I started collecting most of the 70's books and almost all of the 80's and 90's was considered drek and not worth the paper they were printed on. It seems to take awhile for people to appreciate the good things that did actually come out of each era. I don't really believe the '90s to be as horrible as people seem to think. There were some good books in that era, but most came from everyone EXCEPT Marvel. DC had Batman Year One, Dark Knight Returns and handful of other books. Most good stories came from independent companies, or DCs Helix and Vertigo lines. I do give DC this much credit, they let people like Frank Miller play around with one of their biggest icons, and it paid dividends for them. Year One and Dark Knight came out in the 90's...? By the by...Batman was a tattered ghost of a character when Miller was allowed to "play with him." Batman sales were atrocious, and the character was going nowhere, and had been for quite some time. Both Batman and Detective were...yes, literally now...hovering around cancellation numbers by the mid-80's. You ever want to see frightening numbers, check out the SOOs for Batman from 1983-1986 at Comichron. Miller made significant inroads into turning that around, but it was mostly under the watchful direction of O'Neil that Batman came back from the grave. ...and then the movie came out.
	8 years ago	Post 83 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	Quote: Originally Posted by QuaBrot True - I started collecting in the Early 80's and quit late 80's. I loved the X-Men, loved John Byrne on that title, but as I got more into collecting I discovered the original X-Men, and the Neal Adams issues, which blew me away. Neal Adams brought me to his work on Green Lantern. And so on . . . Looking back one could make an argument that there was some incredible art during the Golden Age (Will Eisner, Schomberg, Wood, Davis, Toth, etc.) and that the comics of the 60's (Ditko and Kirby) were a reversion to a more primitive, cartoonish version of comic book art. It took Adams, , Smith, Ploog, Kaluta and Wrightson, etc. to bring back more advanced art, detailed, stylized, and dynamic (I know I will get blowback for not worshiping Ditko and Kirby, but thats how I see it). We've seen incredible artists come through the medium and more will surely come to the fore. And there will be artists who appeal to some, and artists who appeal to others. We aint dealing with an absolute medium. And it all starts with Alex Raymond. (swoon)
	8 years ago	Post 84 • IP flag post

Collector 2.42K	2.42K Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by OrbitCityComics Quote: Originally Posted by Themaxx35 Quote: Originally Posted by Oxbladder Quote: Originally Posted by I_AM_IRON_MAN The drek age That is a play on dark age Considering you could probably apply the term drek to 90% or more of what comes out every decade that name would not work. When I started collecting most of the 70's books and almost all of the 80's and 90's was considered drek and not worth the paper they were printed on. It seems to take awhile for people to appreciate the good things that did actually come out of each era. I don't really believe the '90s to be as horrible as people seem to think. There were some good books in that era, but most came from everyone EXCEPT Marvel. DC had Batman Year One, Dark Knight Returns and handful of other books. Most good stories came from independent companies, or DCs Helix and Vertigo lines. I do give DC this much credit, they let people like Frank Miller play around with one of their biggest icons, and it paid dividends for them. Year One and Dark Knight came out in the 90's...? By the by...Batman was a tattered ghost of a character when Miller was allowed to "play with him." Batman sales were atrocious, and the character was going nowhere, and had been for quite some time. Both Batman and Detective were...yes, literally now...hovering around cancellation numbers by the mid-80's. You ever want to see frightening numbers, check out the SOOs for Batman from 1983-1986 at Comichron. Miller made significant inroads into turning that around, but it was mostly under the watchful direction of O'Neil that Batman came back from the grave. ...and then the movie came out. It's interesting that you mention that about Batman sales. They were so bad that a house mag like Marvel Age was actually outselling Batman at the time. Craziness.
	8 years ago	Post 85 • IP flag post

Collector 2.02K	2.02K QuaBrot private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown And it all starts with Alex Raymond. (swoon) Alex Raymond, Hal Foster . . . Frank Frazetta, Al Williamson - the Fleagle Gang . . (swoon!)
	8 years ago	Post 86 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by QuaBrot Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown And it all starts with Alex Raymond. (swoon) Alex Raymond, Hal Foster . . . Frank Frazetta, Al Williamson - the Fleagle Gang . . (swoon!) Indeed. Foster and Raymond were phenomenal artists, as good, or better, than ANYone else comics has ever produced, ever. Look at this...this was drawn in NINETEEN THIRTY EIGHT: Look at the detail in that. Pull it up, click the full size picture. It's jaw dropping. Look at the detail, here. Look at the perspective, the anatomy...it's a master class. Yes, comic art CERTAINLY got more primitive in the 50's and 60's.
	8 years ago	Post 87 • IP flag post

Collector 1.01K	1.01K Homer private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Yep the Batman movie had a big ripple impact with the Bat sales going up in the late 80's. The Bat TV show from the 60's boosted sales, the Hulk TV show boosted Hulk sales from the late 70's. Todays version of movie TV hype "Invincible" is nothing more than a repeat of history.
	8 years ago	Post 88 • IP flag post

Collector 2.02K	2.02K QuaBrot private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Look at this...this was drawn in NINETEEN THIRTY EIGHT: Yes, comic art CERTAINLY got more primitive in the 50's and 60's. 1938? Try 1907! But, in truth, great art has been around for centuries, its just that we are now able to mass reproduce it and it can be distributed everywhere. What do you think of Michelangelo as a comic book artist, or Da Vinci as a magazine cover illustrator - maybe they would have gone that way if the market was there? But you are right, those drawings are just amazing. 50 years later, 80 years later, hundreds of years later, they will always be fine art and hold their own.
	8 years ago	Post 89 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	True....but....there's a difference between "fine" art, and "commercial/entertainment" art, such as comics are and have been viewed. It's been a bit of an accepted premise that comic strip and especially comic book art was not legitimate. Foster, Raymond, Frazetta, Toth...they ignored that and produced masterpieces.
	8 years ago	Post 90 • IP flag post

Collector 2.13K	2.13K ZosoRocks private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by Rafel Quote: Originally Posted by Themaxx35 Quote: Originally Posted by Rafel I started collecting comic books in 1967 and quite in 1982. I quite because the art work was going down hill and since then I haven't seen any improvement. Now, I only collect and replace MARVELS's from 1982 on back. This is an aspect of the hobby that fascinates me: the individual perspective on everything. For me, I quit in the early 90s and came back about a year ago. I think the quality of the art is vastly improved and the styles are much more varied. For me comics from the 60s and 70s had great covers (Adams and Swan for example), but I can't say that I loved the interior pages. To each their own. The hobby and its history has something for everyone. I know what you mean. For me it was Ploog, Adams, Steranko, Starlin and Frazetta. Now those are artists!! i love what Bisley did with the Death Dealer mini. Wish I had Frazetta's sig on it....sighs
	8 years ago	Post 91 • IP flag post

Collector 2.13K	2.13K ZosoRocks private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by QuaBrot True - I started collecting in the Early 80's and quit late 80's. I loved the X-Men, loved John Byrne on that title, but as I got more into collecting I discovered the original X-Men, and the Neal Adams issues, which blew me away. Neal Adams brought me to his work on Green Lantern. And so on . . . Looking back one could make an argument that there was some incredible art during the Golden Age (Will Eisner, Schomberg, Wood, Davis, Toth, etc.) and that the comics of the 60's (Ditko and Kirby) were a reversion to a more primitive, cartoonish version of comic book art. It took Adams, , Smith, Ploog, Kaluta and Wrightson, etc. to bring back more advanced art, detailed, stylized, and dynamic (I know I will get blowback for not worshiping Ditko and Kirby, but thats how I see it). We've seen incredible artists come through the medium and more will surely come to the fore. And there will be artists who appeal to some, and artists who appeal to others. We aint dealing with an absolute medium. One could probably argue Kelley redefined what Batman truly looks like.....
	8 years ago	Post 92 • IP flag post

Collector 2.02K	2.02K QuaBrot private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown True....but....there's a difference between "fine" art, and "commercial/entertainment" art, such as comics are and have been viewed. It's been a bit of an accepted premise that comic strip and especially comic book art was not legitimate. Foster, Raymond, Frazetta, Toth...they ignored that and produced masterpieces. Yes, there is. I don't know enough about art history to know if what we now consider "Fine Arts" was always held at a higher standard, or if that is a more recent distinction that comes from the need to distinguish between Art for Arts sake or Commercial art. I agree that in these cases there is no difference - they are incredible artists and they produced incredible art.
	8 years ago	Post 93 • IP flag post

Collector 2.13K	2.13K ZosoRocks private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by QuaBrot Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Look at this...this was drawn in NINETEEN THIRTY EIGHT: Yes, comic art CERTAINLY got more primitive in the 50's and 60's. 1938? Try 1907! But, in truth, great art has been around for centuries, its just that we are now able to mass reproduce it and it can be distributed everywhere. What do you think of Michelangelo as a comic book artist, or Da Vinci as a magazine cover illustrator - maybe they would have gone that way if the market was there? But you are right, those drawings are just amazing. 50 years later, 80 years later, hundreds of years later, they will always be fine art and hold their own. I love all medias of art....I collect oils, animation, watercolors, priints, etc...etc...etc....my favorite is animation. My budget doesn't allow for OA like the PV above or even newer pieces, but one day, when you least expect it, I'm coming!! LOL :o)
	8 years ago	Post 94 • IP flag post

Collector 1.48K	1.48K OrbitCityComics private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by OrbitCityComics Quote: Originally Posted by Themaxx35 Quote: Originally Posted by Oxbladder Quote: Originally Posted by I_AM_IRON_MAN The drek age That is a play on dark age Considering you could probably apply the term drek to 90% or more of what comes out every decade that name would not work. When I started collecting most of the 70's books and almost all of the 80's and 90's was considered drek and not worth the paper they were printed on. It seems to take awhile for people to appreciate the good things that did actually come out of each era. I don't really believe the '90s to be as horrible as people seem to think. There were some good books in that era, but most came from everyone EXCEPT Marvel. DC had Batman Year One, Dark Knight Returns and handful of other books. Most good stories came from independent companies, or DCs Helix and Vertigo lines. I do give DC this much credit, they let people like Frank Miller play around with one of their biggest icons, and it paid dividends for them. Year One and Dark Knight came out in the 90's...? By the by...Batman was a tattered ghost of a character when Miller was allowed to "play with him." Batman sales were atrocious, and the character was going nowhere, and had been for quite some time. Both Batman and Detective were...yes, literally now...hovering around cancellation numbers by the mid-80's. You ever want to see frightening numbers, check out the SOOs for Batman from 1983-1986 at Comichron. Miller made significant inroads into turning that around, but it was mostly under the watchful direction of O'Neil that Batman came back from the grave. ...and then the movie came out. I include those books in that era. They were after the Copper Age, depending on when you believe the Copper Age ended. YOU view Batman as a (and this is a very subjective term) tattered character, but it was still a cash cow for DC.
	8 years ago	Post 95 • IP flag post

Collector 2.42K	2.42K Logan510 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown True....but....there's a difference between "fine" art, and "commercial/entertainment" art, such as comics are and have been viewed. It's been a bit of an accepted premise that comic strip and especially comic book art was not legitimate. Foster, Raymond, Frazetta, Toth...they ignored that and produced masterpieces. Comic books were considered a ghetto, bottom of the barrel. Comic strip artists were held in MUCH higher regard, were well known and compensated much better. Not really an accurate comparison.
	8 years ago	Post 96 • IP flag post

Collector

16.89K

DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user

plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrbitCityComics
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrbitCityComics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themaxx35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxbladder
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_AM_IRON_MAN
The drek age

That is a play on dark age

Considering you could probably apply the term drek to 90% or more of what comes out every decade that name would not work.

When I started collecting most of the 70's books and almost all of the 80's and 90's was considered drek and not worth the paper they were printed on.

It seems to take awhile for people to appreciate the good things that did actually come out of each era.

I don't really believe the '90s to be as horrible as people seem to think. There were some good books in that era, but most came from everyone EXCEPT Marvel. DC had Batman Year One, Dark Knight Returns and handful of other books. Most good stories came from independent companies, or DCs Helix and Vertigo lines.

I do give DC this much credit, they let people like Frank Miller play around with one of their biggest icons, and it paid dividends for them.

Year One and Dark Knight came out in the 90's...?

By the by...Batman was a tattered ghost of a character when Miller was allowed to "play with him." Batman sales were atrocious, and the character was going nowhere, and had been for quite some time. Both Batman and Detective were...yes, literally now...hovering around cancellation numbers by the mid-80's.

You ever want to see frightening numbers, check out the SOOs for Batman from 1983-1986 at Comichron.

Miller made significant inroads into turning that around, but it was mostly under the watchful direction of O'Neil that Batman came back from the grave.

...and then the movie came out.

I include those books in that era. They were after the Copper Age, depending on when you believe the Copper Age ended.

Dark Knight came out in 1986. Year One came out in 1986-1987. They are the very definition of Copper Age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCC
YOU view Batman as a (and this is a very subjective term) tattered character, but it was still a cash cow for DC.

You are quite incorrect.

Like I said...check out the PAID CIRCULATION numbers for Batman from the years of 1983-1986.

Go here:

http://www.comichron.com/titlespotlights/batman.html

This was at a time when sales of less than 100,000 was cancellation territory. SUPERMAN was outselling Batman during these years, and this was BEFORE Byrne's run.

Cash cow...? Sure, maybe for licensing, like underoos, lunch boxes, etc.

But no, Batman was headed to oblivion in the comics until O'Neil turned it around.

8 years ago

COLLECTOR 20.52K	20.52K DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Underoos
	8 years ago	Post 98 • IP flag post

Forum Crier 53.04K	53.04K OGJackster private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Squirrel! ...focus now.
	8 years ago	Post 99 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 20.52K	20.52K DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0

	8 years ago	Post 100 • IP flag post

626799 100 25

« Forum Home

Pages:

1 2 3 4

This topic is archived. Start new topic?