shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,866
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 20, 2016 10:35:24 GMT -5
The Golden Age, and The Decline (October thru December of 1966)
I actually don't know the story of how Tower fell into decline, but the evidence certainly looks different from what you'd expect. I wouldn't be surprised to see a slow dwindling of titles, of page numbers, and of original material, or maybe even an abrupt stop, but what's unusual about Tower's decline is that it IMMEDIATELY follows the apex of their success...and I mean "immediately."
Tower and Wood spend most of 1965 and 1966 slowly getting the Action Series off the ground, and November of 1966 should have been where it all culminated with the launch of a third ongoing title (NoMan), with T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents and Dynamo in full swing, and a new hero (Merman) set to launch in the pages of UNDERSEA Agent while the letter columns were already asking if Lightning should be getting his own title next.
For the cover date of October 1966, we see the following titles on sale:
T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents #9
Dynamo #2
UNDERSEA Agent #5
NoMan then launches as a bi-monthly magazine to work opposite the bi-monthly Dynamo and UNDERSEA Agent titles, providing Tower with at least two action titles every month. Thus, for the cover date of November 1966, we have:
T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents #10
NoMan #1
...and then nothing.
Without any previous sign of trouble, Tower's rapid expansion over the past year is now followed by three months of zero output. Nothing. I suppose it's possible they just stretched their cover dates by three months in order to keep them on spinner racks longer (??).
Then, suddenly, in March of 1967, all four Tower action titles see publication (this will be the only time EVER that all four titles see publication concurrently), the letter columns offering no hint that there has just been a lag.
Titles published with a March 1967 cover date include:
T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents #11
Dynamo #3
NoMan #2
UNDERSEA Agents #6
immediately after which UNDERSEA Agents and NoMan are discontinued, Dynamo getting one more issue as the core T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents title falls into a more irregular publishing schedule, even as subscription offers are still printed within the mag. Ultimately, we end up with a near full year hiatus, followed by mostly reprint content before the publisher is finally put out of its misery.
But, what I still don't understand is what happened at the end of 1966. How did a publisher go from believing they were doing well enough to be doubling their line, to a three month hiatus before slowly spiraling into the abyss soon after?
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Nov 20, 2016 11:44:35 GMT -5
I think back then, it took about six months to start getting accurate sales statements from distributors. If they weren't trending up by this time, whoever was financing the line might've decided to pull the plug.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 20, 2016 16:52:51 GMT -5
Tower had major distribution problems, which sunk them. Low distribution means low sales, which means cash flow problems. It's been the saga for most small publishers since the beginning. Same thing killed Atlas/Seaboard (plus talent jumping ship after promises were broken) and killed Eclipse. You also have to consider that their books cost twice as much as the rest of the market. They delivered twice as much story, with some of the best art in the business; but, when you consider the average allowance of a child in the 60s, a quarter is a heck of a lot. A loaf of bread cost about 21 cents. You could get a DC or Marvel and a lot of candy for the price of a Tower Comic.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,866
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 20, 2016 17:09:59 GMT -5
Tower had major distribution problems, which sunk them. Low distribution means low sales, which means cash flow problems. It's been the saga for most small publishers since the beginning. Same thing killed Atlas/Seaboard (plus talent jumping ship after promises were broken) and killed Eclipse. You also have to consider that their books cost twice as much as the rest of the market. They delivered twice as much story, with some of the best art in the business; but, when you consider the average allowance of a child in the 60s, a quarter is a heck of a lot. A loaf of bread cost about 21 cents. You could get a DC or Marvel and a lot of candy for the price of a Tower Comic. True, and I was aware of some of this (especially the prohibitive price point), but it doesn't explain how they went from their boldest expansion to total hiatus within a 60 day window. What could have happened on the distribution side to cause this? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 17:33:43 GMT -5
Tower had major distribution problems, which sunk them. Low distribution means low sales, which means cash flow problems. It's been the saga for most small publishers since the beginning. Same thing killed Atlas/Seaboard (plus talent jumping ship after promises were broken) and killed Eclipse. You also have to consider that their books cost twice as much as the rest of the market. They delivered twice as much story, with some of the best art in the business; but, when you consider the average allowance of a child in the 60s, a quarter is a heck of a lot. A loaf of bread cost about 21 cents. You could get a DC or Marvel and a lot of candy for the price of a Tower Comic. True, and I was aware of some of this (especially the prohibitive price point), but it doesn't explain how they went from their boldest expansion to total hiatus within a 60 day window. What could have happened on the distribution side to cause this? One theory was DC was putting pressure on the distributor to stop distributing Tower & Charlton's superhero titles. Don't know if it was true... |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,866
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 21, 2016 11:07:30 GMT -5
True, and I was aware of some of this (especially the prohibitive price point), but it doesn't explain how they went from their boldest expansion to total hiatus within a 60 day window. What could have happened on the distribution side to cause this? One theory was DC was putting pressure on the distributor to stop distributing Tower & Charlton's superhero titles. Don't know if it was true... Wasn't DC owned by the company that ran distribution for most comics, or am I remembering it wrong? Still, MDG's explanation seems to be the most plausible here, in that Tower may have been trying to show growth in those final moments before they knew the cord might be cut. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 13:10:21 GMT -5
One theory was DC was putting pressure on the distributor to stop distributing Tower & Charlton's superhero titles. Don't know if it was true... Wasn't DC owned by the company that ran distribution for most comics, or am I remembering it wrong? Still, MDG 's explanation seems to be the most plausible here, in that Tower may have been trying to show growth in those final moments before they knew the cord might be cut.
Found it. Scroll down to pages 22-23.
link
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,866
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 21, 2016 14:24:34 GMT -5
Wasn't DC owned by the company that ran distribution for most comics, or am I remembering it wrong? Still, MDG 's explanation seems to be the most plausible here, in that Tower may have been trying to show growth in those final moments before they knew the cord might be cut.
Found it. Scroll down to pages 22-23.
link
Can't seem to find the pages in question. Any chance you can provide a screenshot or quote? I love John Cooke, so I can't wait to see what info he has to offer. Thanks for this! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 14:38:03 GMT -5
Found it. Scroll down to pages 22-23.
link
Can't seem to find the pages in question. Any chance you can provide a screenshot or quote? I love John Cooke, so I can't wait to see what info he has to offer. Thanks for this! Click on the cover of the book, that will give you more pages... |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 21, 2016 15:52:46 GMT -5
One theory was DC was putting pressure on the distributor to stop distributing Tower & Charlton's superhero titles. Don't know if it was true... Wasn't DC owned by the company that ran distribution for most comics, or am I remembering it wrong? Still, MDG 's explanation seems to be the most plausible here, in that Tower may have been trying to show growth in those final moments before they knew the cord might be cut. DC and Independent News were both owned by Donenfeld and Liebowitz under the umbrella of National Periodicals Publications until they were sold to Kinney International in 1967. Tower was not distributed by Independent, but by another company that also distributed Harvey. Legend has it that the powers that be at Independent put pressure on wholesalers to not carry other superhero comics. Allegedly this effected Tower and the Charlton Action Hero line (Charlton was self distributed). It didn't effect Harvey, because Harvey and DC weren't in direct competition for the same audience. I don't think there's any smoking gun regarding this, it's more a long-standing industry rumor. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,866
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 21, 2016 20:50:57 GMT -5
Can't seem to find the pages in question. Any chance you can provide a screenshot or quote? I love John Cooke, so I can't wait to see what info he has to offer. Thanks for this! Click on the cover of the book, that will give you more pages... Got it. Thanks! So maybe PDC stopped carrying them at the request of DC in response to the big line expansion. Someone finally said "enough is enough" when Tower had four books on the shelves for cover date October 1966. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 21:25:16 GMT -5
Click on the cover of the book, that will give you more pages... Got it. Thanks! So maybe PDC stopped carrying them at the request of DC in response to the big line expansion. Someone finally said "enough is enough" when Tower had four books on the shelves for cover date October 1966. Who knows? It would make sense. DC was getting some serious competition with Marvel becoming more popular. Then Batman hit TV in 1966 & suddenly superheroes were everywhere: Charlton, Archie, etc.
DC had been successful back in 1953 shutting down Capt Marvel - Fawcett's answer to Superman. It would be easier for DC to push out publishers like Tower, Charlton than try & slow down Marvel & Archie.
Ironically once Batman ended in 1968 superheroes declined in popularity which led to DC & Marvel trying different stuff again in the 70's like horror (Dracula), martial arts (Master of Kung Fu), sword & sorcery (Conan), war comics (Sgt Rock)....
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 22, 2016 8:49:20 GMT -5
Nice review thread, Shax. I wonder what which comic companies would still be here if everyone had an equal chance, instead of the distribution manipulation that was going on during that period?
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Nov 22, 2016 9:17:00 GMT -5
I wonder what which comic companies would still be here if everyone had an equal chance, instead of the distribution manipulation that was going on during that period? I don't think companies like Fass or Tower that tried to cash in on the superhero craze brought on by TV Batman and Marvel would've lasted, distribution or no. Even companies that had strong established distribution (Dell, Gold Key, Archie, Harvey) dropped their superhero lines pretty quickly to focus on what they'd been doing. But with just Marvel and DC, the hero market was pretty well saturated; they also had cartoons and TV shows in perpetual reruns to keep those characters in front of potential new readers. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,866
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 1, 2016 9:13:38 GMT -5
UNDERSEA Agent #5 (October 1966)  Both the fun and the frustration of this title is how many random and abrupt turns it takes in its brief six issue run, constantly seeking out new characters, premises, and scopes. It's been clear from nearly the beginning that there is no editor watching over any aspect of the Tower Action Series beyond basic spelling and grammar. T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents at least has Wally Wood keeping some sort of watch over consistency and continuity, but he never touched UNDERSEA Agent, and so, amid a steady turnover of writers and pencilers each issue, no one is at the helm. As of the final story in this issue, a series that was originally about a covert team of underwater military agents dedicated to exploration of the deep is now about two super-powered heroes fighting to free Venus from Communist rule. It's frustrating, but it's also wild and fun. You just never know what you're going to get from this title. And, apparently, neither did Tower. Take, for example, the introduction of Merman in this issue. This guy:  Not this guy:  Had this debut appearance been anticipated earlier, it likely would have gotten the cover, and Merman would have appeared in more than just the last story of this issue, but Merman's introduction feels every bit as rushed as The Raven's in the pages of T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents (both by Manny Stallman. Interesting) Also, we're still seeing subscription ads for UNDERSEA Agent as of this issue:  Tower appears to have no idea yet that it will be cancelling the title as of next issue. As for the stories themselves... "Born Is A Warrior" Script: Gardner Fox Pencils: Gil Kane Inks: Gil Kane Colors: ? Letters: ? grade: C- A generally forgettable two parter that is also the cover story. Though the GCD does not distinguish between parts 1 and 2, it truly feels like part 2 had a different writer and artist, as Fox's prosaic narration drops out entirely, and Kane's art downshifts from serviceable and sometimes dramatic to downright BAD:  However, part 2 does offer us this one imaginative and Kirby-like glimpse of alien technology:  The general idea of this story is that Skooby feels like he'll never be a hero but manages to prove himself through self-sacrifice at the end. Not a bad idea, except that D.J. Arneson and Ray Bailey told the exact same story back in UNDERSEA Agent #1. Also, at one point, Gardner Fox refers to Lt. Davy Jones as "Mike". Clearly, this was a rushed work. "Death Darts From The Ocean Floor" Script: Don Segall Pencils: Ray Bailey Inks: Ray Bailey Colors: ? Letters: ? grade: C- Ray Bailey is back on UNDERSEA Agent! The man who utterly made this series what it was in the first two issues comes home, but none of that is evident in this 10 pager. The art is brilliantly kinetic but offers none of the expansive sense of unknown sci-fi worlds, nor throwback Milt Caniff style with which Bailey previously made his mark. It actually feels more like Manny Stallman (I wonder if the GCD credits could be misattributed?):  but the story is rushed and nonsensical, the characters badly mischaracterized. Since when is Skooby the snarky sidekick who takes jabs at Davy Jones every other panel?? "Merman / The Showdown of Venus!" Script: ? Pencils: Manny Stallman Inks: Manny Stallman Colors: ? Letters: ? grade: C- The introduction of yet another lead character in this title. Whatever happened to Renatta Del Mar (issues #1 and 2), Olaf (#2), Kort (#1 and #3), Dolph (#4), or even Skooby's monster alter ego (#4)? All forgotten, as this book continues to move towards superheroes and, thus, begins to feel more like a B roster for T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents than a title with its own scope and premise. Here's what we're told about Merman:  Name: William Fields Abilities: Expert swimmer, underwent experimental surgery to make him amphibious and (apparently) super strong He and Davy Jones are then rocketed off to Venus to fight the Red Star there, along with help from the native Venusians. So not only is this title not about covert sci-fi agents without super powers anymore; it's also not about adventures undersea. At the end, Jones and Merman even remark that they can't wait to get back to "some firm Terra Firma"...except that they don't live on firm Terra Firma. Jones has resided undersea for well over a year now, and Merman has been there for several months as well. I guess we forgot that part. I love what Manny Stallman is doing with The Raven over at T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents, and this adventure was similarly visually exciting, but the story itself was generic superhero fare with absolutely no understanding of, nor regard for, what had come before in this title. One other thing that occurred to me in this issue is that, while the colors are vibrant as ever, I'm less sure than I used to be that it's due to the colorist his/herself. There's nothing particularly interesting about most of the color decisions made in this issue. I think it just might be that Tower's printing process produces more vibrant colors than its competitors. Color on newsprint just never looked as good as it does in many of the Tower books. |
|
