|
|
Post by MDG on Jul 9, 2015 8:18:27 GMT -5
1. Fantagraphics
2. EC
3. Dell
4. Eclipse
5: Warren
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 9, 2015 8:24:19 GMT -5
5. Classics illustrated: (who published these ?) That would be Gilberton, coincidentally the very publisher whose '40s ouevre I'm cataloging today. Cei-U! I summon the adaptation kings! |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 9, 2015 8:50:37 GMT -5
Ditto. Well said, Confessor, and I am heartened to hear that MAD had the same effect internationally as it did here in the USA. Mate, Mad was almost a religious experience for me as a youngster, library period at school was an all in brawl for Mad and Look and Learn(for the Trigan Empire strip). We used to read them out loud, singing the song lyrics in the movie parodies! My first real dose of wariness and cynicism, and I'll always be grateful. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 9:56:34 GMT -5
Shax asked me to explain my vote, so here goes..part of it is that I feel you can't be a non-big 2 publisher until there was a big 2 publishers, and many of the publishing houses listed were bigger and sold better than Timely/Atlas during their prime and would have to be considered "big 2" publishers of their time. It wasn't until Marvel blossomed that you had even a notion of a big 2, and that would have been mid-late 60s at the earliest, so anything before them was ruled out on my eligibility list. Don't expect anyone else to agree or do the same, but the whole notion of non-big 2 as a concept is that of underdogs putting out product against the dominant paradigm of publishing era that serve as an alternative to the mainstream and alternative to the dominant houses, and since many of those publishers were the dominant publishers and the mainstream of their time, I don't see them as "non-big 2" in terms of what that soubriquet has come to mean in the industry.
Of those that remain, I have trouble citing something as the best that I only know by reputation and not personal experience, so I only considered publishers I had sampled widely. Of those I had, I looked at things like innovation of format (a big reason why Eclipse made the list, they were among the first to adopt the OGN format [Sabre comes to mind as an early example], they experimented with the 50 cent biweekly books like Airboy and New Wave, and other format innovations in the 80s), quality of content and creators, impact on the industry, diversity of genre, etc. etc.
So of my picks, I thought First and Dark Horse were neck and neck in overall quality of output and creative contributors, and were both fairly innovative (First for example taking a chance on Shatter the first comic with computer generated art, Dark Horse on a few different levels) but I thought overall had a better ratio of hits to misses in their output for me than DH did. Eclipse was the most innovative in format, had strong creators, but had a lot of misses for me as well, pushing them back into the second tier of vote getters. Warren and Humanoids both had outstanding output, but the breadth of their offerings was a step behind the others, so rounded out the top 5 for me.
So not taking away anything from the earlier publishing houses, but for me they were pre-big 2 not non-big 2, and I am less personally acquainted with their output, so I didn't vote for them.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 9, 2015 11:51:16 GMT -5
I'm guessing because it's been technically published by DC for 45+ years due to company mergers, but the perception has been that Mad is own thing, so we don't necessarily associate it with DC. Mad was sold to the Kinney corporation in the mid 1960s. By that time it was fully developed and was an American cultural icon. So all of its best years (its first 13 or more) was when it was an EC publication. Under Kinney/Warners it never deviated from its formula and slowly its circulation began to diminish.
Its most important and influential years was under the EC banner
As best I can find, it appears that Mad's circulation peaked in 1974. Which feels right. Issues from anywhere in the 70s are incredibly plentiful. users.ipfw.edu/slaubau/madcirc.htmI believe that Kinney actually bought Mad from Gaines before they bought DC/National. The National purchase was in 1967. The Mad purchase was in the early 60s. Kinney placed Gaines on its Board of Directors and he was given almost complete autonomy over Mad. It wasn't until Gaines' death in 1992 that Mad started to become integrated into the Time/Warner structure and it was turned over to DC management. As to the controversy I seem to have started...I'm not asking Shax to change anything. I participated in the earlier thread at least somewhat. I don't recall either Mad/EC or All-American being discussed...but it's very probable I just wasn't paying attention. I'm just throwing in my two-bits for whatever it's worth. Now I have to chase some kids off my lawn. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 9, 2015 11:54:49 GMT -5
Shax asked me to explain my vote, so here goes..part of it is that I feel you can't be a non-big 2 publisher until there was a big 2 publishers, and many of the publishing houses listed were bigger and sold better than Timely/Atlas during their prime and would have to be considered "big 2" publishers of their time. It wasn't until Marvel blossomed that you had even a notion of a big 2, and that would have been mid-late 60s at the earliest, so anything before them was ruled out on my eligibility list. Don't expect anyone else to agree or do the same, but the whole notion of non-big 2 as a concept is that of underdogs putting out product against the dominant paradigm of publishing era that serve as an alternative to the mainstream and alternative to the dominant houses, and since many of those publishers were the dominant publishers and the mainstream of their time, I don't see them as "non-big 2" in terms of what that soubriquet has come to mean in the industry. This actually makes a huge amount of sense. And had I thought of it in that way I might have changed my votes. Clearly Dell, Archie and Fawcett and probably Quality outsold Timely/Atlas/Goodman Publications in their day. And probably a number of other companies as well. I'm guessing that Dell and Gold Key probably were close in the 60s as well. Shame on you for making me think. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jul 9, 2015 12:24:18 GMT -5
Shax asked me to explain my vote, so here goes..part of it is that I feel you can't be a non-big 2 publisher until there was a big 2 publishers, and many of the publishing houses listed were bigger and sold better than Timely/Atlas during their prime and would have to be considered "big 2" publishers of their time. It wasn't until Marvel blossomed that you had even a notion of a big 2, and that would have been mid-late 60s at the earliest, so anything before them was ruled out on my eligibility list. I think the idea of "the big 2" is a function of the direct market and comic shops. Most newsstands/variety stores/toy stores usually had a variety of publishers on their stands/racks, but often the only current "mass market" comics in comic shops were DCs and Marvels. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 9, 2015 12:54:40 GMT -5
So if we didn't participate (or, in my case, even know about) some earlier thread, we should just sit down and shut up? Fine. I won't be responding to any more polls then. So, if you didn't participate (or, in your case, even know about) some earlier thread, I should invalidate the votes of all those who have already participated by changing the options after the fact because you don't like one or more of the choices? I should point out that the Classic Comics Christmas works in much the same way. Do you change the criteria when you're already partway through the event? No, you have an Advance Warning thread where you invite feedback and the opportunity to change things before the event has commenced. This isn't about my trying to throw my authority around or something, Kurt. You know me better than that, and I'm frankly insulted by this response. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 9, 2015 13:21:15 GMT -5
Shax asked me to explain my vote, so here goes..part of it is that I feel you can't be a non-big 2 publisher until there was a big 2 publishers, and many of the publishing houses listed were bigger and sold better than Timely/Atlas during their prime and would have to be considered "big 2" publishers of their time. It wasn't until Marvel blossomed that you had even a notion of a big 2, and that would have been mid-late 60s at the earliest, so anything before them was ruled out on my eligibility list. I think the idea of "the big 2" is a function of the direct market and comic shops. Most newsstands/variety stores/toy stores usually had a variety of publishers on their stands/racks, but often the only current "mass market" comics in comic shops were DCs and Marvels. It's my understanding that Dell was pretty much king of the post-Wertham 1950s. Assuming that's correct, does their being bigger than DC at the time make them less eligible for this poll because they weren't a little guy, or more eligible since they had a massive impact? You can really approach it either way. |
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on Jul 9, 2015 13:41:05 GMT -5
Woah, tough choice on numbers 2 through 5, I will have to come back later and come up with those. But my number one choice is quite easy, Dark Horse.
In fact, as much as I love DC and Marvel, and own tens of thousands of their books, Dark Horse is probably my favorite publisher of comics, period. Their quality to quantity ratio is so far closer to 100% than any other publisher that it isn't even a fair contest.
Concrete
Hellboy and the rest
Nexus
Conan
Star Wars
Aliens
300
Sin City
Grendel
etc etc
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 9, 2015 14:38:42 GMT -5
So if we didn't participate (or, in my case, even know about) some earlier thread, we should just sit down and shut up? Fine. I won't be responding to any more polls then. So, if you didn't participate (or, in your case, even know about) some earlier thread, I should invalidate the votes of all those who have already participated by changing the options after the fact because you don't like one or more of the choices? I should point out that the Classic Comics Christmas works in much the same way. Do you change the criteria when you're already partway through the event? No, you have an Advance Warning thread where you invite feedback and the opportunity to change things before the event has commenced. This isn't about my trying to throw my authority around or something, Kurt. You know me better than that, and I'm frankly insulted by this response. I responded in kind because I thought your reply to Slam was rude and dismissive. But two wrongs never have made a right so I apologise. Cei-U! I summon the olive branch! |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 9, 2015 15:06:23 GMT -5
So, if you didn't participate (or, in your case, even know about) some earlier thread, I should invalidate the votes of all those who have already participated by changing the options after the fact because you don't like one or more of the choices? I should point out that the Classic Comics Christmas works in much the same way. Do you change the criteria when you're already partway through the event? No, you have an Advance Warning thread where you invite feedback and the opportunity to change things before the event has commenced. This isn't about my trying to throw my authority around or something, Kurt. You know me better than that, and I'm frankly insulted by this response. I responded in kind because I thought your reply to Slam was rude and dismissive. But two wrongs never have made a right so I apologise. Cei-U! I summon the olive branch! It was not my intention to be either. I apologize to Slam if that's how it came off. Thanks. |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Jul 9, 2015 15:48:44 GMT -5
Best. Hm. Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (etc.)
1. Archie - consistently fun and approachable, with regular moments of genius thanks to a fantastic group of artists like Harey Lucey, Bob Monatan, Dan DeCarlo, Samm Schwartz, and others. They've also put out a lot of interesting and innovative stuff over the past 75 years, not even counting what they are doing now (which doesn't count since it's too new).
2. EC - I'm not personally a big EC fan. But they elevated the whole industry. Bill Gaines knew how to bring in the top talent and keep them around.
3. First - Speaking of top talent, First is where all the top creators went when the first wave of ownership disputes started in the early 80's. They were basically Image a decade before Image, only with way better comics.
4. Lev Gleason - C'mon!
5. Fiction House - Over a decade worth of the best covers in comics. I don't know if any of the stories were worth reading, but boy, they knew how to market their books!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 16:50:22 GMT -5
I think the idea of "the big 2" is a function of the direct market and comic shops. Most newsstands/variety stores/toy stores usually had a variety of publishers on their stands/racks, but often the only current "mass market" comics in comic shops were DCs and Marvels. It's my understanding that Dell was pretty much king of the post-Wertham 1950s. Assuming that's correct, does their being bigger than DC at the time make them less eligible for this poll because they weren't a little guy, or more eligible since they had a massive impact? You can really approach it either way. Comics in general were bigger though. Did Dell command 45% of the marketshare at the time? That's the big question. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Jul 9, 2015 20:36:38 GMT -5
I'm guessing because it's been technically published by DC for 45+ years due to company mergers, but the perception has been that Mad is own thing, so we don't necessarily associate it with DC. Mad was sold to the Kinney corporation in the mid 1960s. By that time it was fully developed and was an American cultural icon. So all of its best years (its first 13 or more) was when it was an EC publication. Under Kinney/Warners it never deviated from its formula and slowly its circulation began to diminish.
Its most important and influential years was under the EC banner
Like I said, I was just making a guess as to why Mad was being kept separate from EC (or DC, for that matter). Obviously, DC didn't really start claiming Mad under its wing until the '90s, and there was a separate office and mostly separate talent in that period. Still, technically, it was part of DC since 1969, even though most of us don't really regard it as such (including myself). |
|
