|
Post by wildfire2099 on Aug 7, 2022 9:43:28 GMT -5
I know you, and perhaps Zaku as well, are joking, but I find this idea interesting: I don't have any detailed memories of the Richie Rich comics, but I would have said that he was a symbol of the joys of capitalism, if anything, but perhaps not even that - maybe if he represents anything at all, it's nothing more than just what his name says, the joys of richness and wealth, regardless of where it comes from.
This is a touchy subject so I hesitate to keep it going, but I do see Superman in the way Zaku, perhaps jokingly, stated - apologies to fans of the character and especially to any American members who find the idea offensive. I recognise that this is an American message board where we mostly talk about American comics, wherever we're from as individuals, so this kind of comment could legitimately be criticised as trolling. But to state it as briefly and simply as I can, I see Superman's physical powers as at one level a symbol of US military might, and I see his moral uprightness as an expression of America's vision of itself as the only morally correct superpower: all its wars, all its military interventions around the world, are always made in the cause of freedom, as opposed to all other countries, who often act only in their own interests
But this is getting away from the thread question, which is how Superman was viewed in general, not what I think of the character personally.
I had no idea Richie Rich was a comic until later, I totally watched the cartoon in the 80s though. I remember when Duck Tales first came out, I thought it was a rip off, then I realized Uncle Scrooge came first, it was probably the opposite. Now I realize they're really just tropes.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Aug 7, 2022 9:47:31 GMT -5
I gree up in the '80s and, thus, was turning into a dark adolescent at pretty much the same time that Batman was. However, even as a kid (and before DKR or the '89 Batman film), I valued Batman over Superman. Superman was very cool, but whereas his films showed up on television once per year, the 1960s Batman television show was on reruns every day, and the two heroes seemed to share equal presence in the Superfriends cartoon and in licensed merchandise. So I was always a Batman fan first. Heck, with the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman show on daily reruns as well, I was probably a WW fan second. I'm not sure I even understood that Superman was supposed to be DC's #1 hero. In fact, I recall being confused when I first came across those old DC Comics that have Superman in the company logo. Had I grown up half a decade earlier, I would have understood the enormity of those first two Superman films, but (growing up in the '80s) they were just great movies that showed up in TV once a year. They didn't have the same presence in my life that Adam West, Burt Ward, and Lynda Carter did. And, of course, had I grown up in the 1950s or 1940s, I would have understood Superman's importance even more than that. All that being said, when the '89 Batman movie hit (and once my own fanboyism wore off), even I noticed the sea change. Not only was Superman suddenly not cool, but neither was Robin, and neither was a Batman who in any way resembled the goody-goody detective I'd grown up with. Had I been old enough to have read the comics prior to this point, I would have understood that Batman's evolution had been far more slow and nuanced than most comic historians make it out to be (Frank Miller only took what other writers had already done and then pushed it all to a more extreme level), but from a mainstream culture perspective, it seems to me that EVERYTHING changed in the Summer of 1989, when the Tim Burton Batman film first informed mainstream popular culture that Batman was supposed to be dark. Three and a half decades later, filmmakers aren't done outdoing each other to make each iteration of Batman somehow darker than the one before it to the point that the '89 film looks like a joke by today's standards. And yet, its impact remains clear. Dark heroes sell. Thank God Marvel figured out how to make Captain America cool while also telling Tony Stark not to curse. In light of that, I'm more than a little disappointed that DC hasn't figured out how to bring back a goody-goody Superman and finally rescue the franchise from being comicdom's greatest hasbeen. I actually think they're doing that right now. The Warworld stuff is great, and focuses on Superman as an inspiration and a leader, not just a guy that can juggle planets (in fact, his powers have faded some). I just hope they don't ruin it with the next arc as he gets sucked into the various company crossovers I don't care about.
|
|
|
Post by earl on Aug 7, 2022 11:08:17 GMT -5
I think the look of the Superman titles had not changed really since the 60s, they seemed pretty old fogey by the mid to late 80s.
By that time, I think readers expected the story line to go issue to issue and have follow ups but the Superman comics were still mostly one and done tales.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 7, 2022 11:53:49 GMT -5
Growing up in the 60s as a comics lover, especially of DC comics, Superman was never my favorite character. (That designation went to Batman.) I never bought Superman or Action for long stretches at a time, the way I did Batman or Justice League or various othe titles. However, I loved Adventure and Superboy, perhaps because I was closer to the character's age in those books and I did buy Superman whenever there was an imaginary story and Action if it contained a compelling serial. I think it may have been that I was only interested in Superman if the story contained the possibilty or the illusion of change. And though there was no change in Batman, either, his inability to call on more than his training, strength and intelligence to solve problems or save himself made for better stories. Superman's writers seemed to come up with just the perfect formerly unknown super-power for him to call upon. The sometimes disparaged imaginary stories at least gave both the creators and the readers a chance to see Superman screw up or be humbled that just didn't happen in the regular stories, and they made Superman more approachable. The same was true for the Legion stories and the Superboy stories; Superboywas vulnerable; he made mistakes, showed weakness, and wasn't always the godlike hero he became later on. With the Legion, Superboy was just one of the crowd surrounded by characters as strong and powerful. In the JLA stories, Superman was often just that as well; otherwise he would have simply defeated each issue's menace handily by himself. I don't recall much about the JLA-Avengers series now, but something that has stayed with me since it when it came out is thta it is clear that Marvel has no single character who is even a rough equivalent to Superman. He was a patriotic icon in the 40s, like Captain America but who among the comic book crowd wasn't? Once the war ended, he was back to being a symbol that transcended national interest. It's not his fault that the writers came up with the "and the American way" addendum when Superman went multi-media. But those first two values, truth and honor are ones he always embodied. And yes, he is godlike and even had a weak-kneed secret identity, but Thor was never presented as a protector of Earth. So even Marvel had to admit that when it comes to the hero whom you most want to pitch the seventh game, run the team with only seconds left in the Super Bowl trailing by four, or lead you from foxhole to foxhole against incalculable odds, Superman is the one. And this is how you know they knew that:
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Aug 8, 2022 14:25:32 GMT -5
I think the look of the Superman titles had not changed really since the 60s, they seemed pretty old fogey by the mid to late 80s.
By that time, I think readers expected the story line to go issue to issue and have follow ups but the Superman comics were still mostly one and done tales.
As a property, Superman was probably the most important asset DC owned well into the 70s, and maybe still. Maybe not in terms of comics moved per month, but licensing, public familiarity, etc. The whole industry had to change before they'd do anything drastic w/ the character. (Think "new Coke")
Y'know, I think one of the reasons the Superman ('78) and Superman 2 still hold up is no one involved thought about "how the fans will react."
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 10, 2022 11:48:57 GMT -5
I think the look of the Superman titles had not changed really since the 60s, they seemed pretty old fogey by the mid to late 80s.
By that time, I think readers expected the story line to go issue to issue and have follow ups but the Superman comics were still mostly one and done tales.
Virtually every Superman story between the Sand Superman Saga and the very last one one before the reboot is interchangeable (except for some minor continuity details). And it makes sense, because the same editor, same writers and same artists worked on it for all this period.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 10, 2022 12:41:16 GMT -5
I think the look of the Superman titles had not changed really since the 60s, they seemed pretty old fogey by the mid to late 80s.
By that time, I think readers expected the story line to go issue to issue and have follow ups but the Superman comics were still mostly one and done tales.
As a property, Superman was probably the most important asset DC owned well into the 70s, and maybe still. Maybe not in terms of comics moved per month, but licensing, public familiarity, etc. The whole industry had to change before they'd do anything drastic w/ the character. (Think "new Coke")
After the impact of "Batmania," Batman's licensing presence and public awareness surpassed that of Superman lasting beyond the short-lived popularity of the 1966-68 TV series.
For just a couple of examples, Aurora Plastics produced several model kits based on DC characters, but who took the lion's share of released kits is telling:
Superman: Superman kit & Superboy/Krypto kit (2).
Batman: Batman kit, Robin kit (the batman kit was developed & released before the 1966 TV series' debut), Batmobile, Batcyle, Batplane and the Penguin (6).
Then, there's Mego's World's Greatest Super-Heroes 8-inch action figure / playsets:
Superman: Superman, Supergirl & Mr. Mxyzptlk figure, along with Montgomery Ward exclusive Clark Kent figure. Batman: Batman (removable cowl, later sculpted cowl) figure, Robin (removable mask, later sculpted to head mold) figure, Batgirl, Joker, Riddler, Penguin, Catwoman & Montgomery Ward exclusive Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson figures.
Vehicles: Superman - none. Batman - Batmobile, Batcopter, Batcyle, Mobile Bat-Lab (van), Joker-Mobile (van) and Empire Toys' Mego-scaled Batcopter. Playsets: Superman - none. Batman - The Batcave and The Wayne Foundation.
Mego Bend 'n' Flex figures:
Superman: Superman, Supergirl and Mr. Mxyzptlk. Batman: Batman, Robin, Batgirl, Catwoman, Joker, Riddler and Penguin.
Aurora and Mego were two of the biggest, most visible licensees covering the 60s (Aurora) into the 70s (Mego), and it was clear Batman and Bat-related characters were the merchandising darlings, speaking to the character's stronger hold in the popular culture. Superman had a resurgence with merchandising based on 1978's Superman the Movie, yet even that paled in comparison to Batmania 2.0's merchandising boom based on the 1989 movie.
Superman was the corporate face of DC for some time, yet he was not its most popular character (in terms of licensing) in the decades in question.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 12, 2022 4:41:42 GMT -5
As a property, Superman was probably the most important asset DC owned well into the 70s, and maybe still. Maybe not in terms of comics moved per month, but licensing, public familiarity, etc. The whole industry had to change before they'd do anything drastic w/ the character. (Think "new Coke") I never really got this reasoning. While I can understand why they didn't change things like his costume or general appearance, I really don't know why in his comics he had to live in an eternal status quo. I mean, why whoever bought, say, a mug or a T-shirt with his logo or a kid who wanted his toy would care what was going on in the comics like if he worked for the Daily Planet, for another newspaper, if it was unemployed, single, in a relationship or what ? Really, If I had compared a issue right after the Sand Superman saga with the very latest one before the reboot 15 years later, I would have had a hard time finding any significative difference (I mean, even the artist was the same). Probably the biggest thing in that period was that Kandor had returned to its original size and I'm sure sure the buyer of the t-shirts couldn't care less of that.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Aug 12, 2022 8:05:20 GMT -5
As a property, Superman was probably the most important asset DC owned well into the 70s, and maybe still. Maybe not in terms of comics moved per month, but licensing, public familiarity, etc. The whole industry had to change before they'd do anything drastic w/ the character. (Think "new Coke") I never really got this reasoning. While I can understand why they didn't change things like his costume or general appearance, I really don't know why in his comics he had to live in an eternal status quo. I mean, why whoever bought, say, a mug or a T-shirt with his logo or a kid who wanted his toy would care what was going on in the comics like if he worked for the Daily Planet, for another newspaper, if it was unemployed, single, in a relationship or what ? Really, If I had compared a issue right after the Sand Superman saga with the very latest one before the reboot 15 years later, I would have had a hard time finding any significative difference (I mean, even the artist was the same). Probably the biggest thing in that period was that Kandor had returned to its original size and I'm sure sure the buyer of the t-shirts couldn't care less of that. Well, there is a lot to be said for maintaining the status quo.... If you were to pick up a Superman comic off the stands from 1938-1985, you would be able to dive right in and understand what was going on. Clark is a reporter, he's Superman, he loves Lois, etc. That's all you really needed to know. Continuity THEN was keeping track of all of the things that had happened in the comic over the years... Continuity NOW is keeping track of all of the things that happened in the comic that affected and changed the characters and the world around them... it's more realistic, but much more confusing to a new reader. The old version gets stagnant and stale, but the new version stays fresh, but with a lot of baggage. It's really a trade-off. The old way was great for 12 year olds to jump in on any given issue. The new way is great for the older readers who have stuck with the title. It's a real catch-22.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 12, 2022 8:29:27 GMT -5
I never really got this reasoning. While I can understand why they didn't change things like his costume or general appearance, I really don't know why in his comics he had to live in an eternal status quo. I mean, why whoever bought, say, a mug or a T-shirt with his logo or a kid who wanted his toy would care what was going on in the comics like if he worked for the Daily Planet, for another newspaper, if it was unemployed, single, in a relationship or what ? Really, If I had compared a issue right after the Sand Superman saga with the very latest one before the reboot 15 years later, I would have had a hard time finding any significative difference (I mean, even the artist was the same). Probably the biggest thing in that period was that Kandor had returned to its original size and I'm sure sure the buyer of the t-shirts couldn't care less of that. Well, there is a lot to be said for maintaining the status quo.... If you were to pick up a Superman comic off the stands from 1938-1985, you would be able to dive right in and understand what was going on. Clark is a reporter, he's Superman, he loves Lois, etc. That's all you really needed to know. Continuity THEN was keeping track of all of the things that had happened in the comic over the years... Continuity NOW is keeping track of all of the things that happened in the comic that affected and changed the characters and the world around them... it's more realistic, but much more confusing to a new reader. The old version gets stagnant and stale, but the new version stays fresh, but with a lot of baggage. It's really a trade-off. The old way was great for 12 year olds to jump in on any given issue. The new way is great for the older readers who have stuck with the title. It's a real catch-22. Ok, let's compare to another famous character in the same period (roughly 1972-1986?), Spider-Man. A LOT of things happened to him during those years. His girlfriend died, he had a new job, heck, he even changed his costume! And all these things ever influenced is some way the sales of his merchandise? "Oh no, now Peter Parker has a job as assistant at the ESU university, I will never buy a Spider-Man t-shirt again!" But for some reason at DC they were convinced that the slightest change to the Man Of Steel would immediately crash all sales of his mugs, t-shirts, toys and so on. I would really like to know if there was some foundation behind this reasoning or was it more some kind of baseless assumption.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 12, 2022 8:58:17 GMT -5
Well, there is a lot to be said for maintaining the status quo.... If you were to pick up a Superman comic off the stands from 1938-1985, you would be able to dive right in and understand what was going on. Clark is a reporter, he's Superman, he loves Lois, etc. That's all you really needed to know. Continuity THEN was keeping track of all of the things that had happened in the comic over the years... Continuity NOW is keeping track of all of the things that happened in the comic that affected and changed the characters and the world around them... it's more realistic, but much more confusing to a new reader. The old version gets stagnant and stale, but the new version stays fresh, but with a lot of baggage. It's really a trade-off. The old way was great for 12 year olds to jump in on any given issue. The new way is great for the older readers who have stuck with the title. It's a real catch-22. Ok, let's compare to another famous character in the same period (roughly 1972-1986?), Spider-Man. A LOT of things happened to him during those years. His girlfriend died, he had a new job, heck, he even changed his costume! And all these things ever influenced is some way the sales of his merchandise? "Oh no, now Peter Parker has a job as assistant at the ESU university, I will never buy a Spider-Man t-shirt again!" But for some reason at DC they were convinced that the slightest change to the Man Of Steel would immediately crash all sales of his mugs, t-shirts, toys and so on. I would really like to know if there was some foundation behind this reasoning or was it more some kind of baseless assumption. Well, Superman was changing to a degree after the horrid Weisinger period, but as the 1960s/70s merchandise list (a few posts above) confirms, Batman and his supporting players were produced more than Superman which speaks to which character was truly the face of DC, or rather, more appealing to comic book readers and the general population with even a passing awareness of the bigger superheroes.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Aug 12, 2022 9:56:30 GMT -5
Well, there is a lot to be said for maintaining the status quo.... If you were to pick up a Superman comic off the stands from 1938-1985, you would be able to dive right in and understand what was going on. Clark is a reporter, he's Superman, he loves Lois, etc. That's all you really needed to know. Continuity THEN was keeping track of all of the things that had happened in the comic over the years... Continuity NOW is keeping track of all of the things that happened in the comic that affected and changed the characters and the world around them... it's more realistic, but much more confusing to a new reader. The old version gets stagnant and stale, but the new version stays fresh, but with a lot of baggage. It's really a trade-off. The old way was great for 12 year olds to jump in on any given issue. The new way is great for the older readers who have stuck with the title. It's a real catch-22. Ok, let's compare to another famous character in the same period (roughly 1972-1986?), Spider-Man. A LOT of things happened to him during those years. His girlfriend died, he had a new job, heck, he even changed his costume! And all these things ever influenced is some way the sales of his merchandise? "Oh no, now Peter Parker has a job as assistant at the ESU university, I will never buy a Spider-Man t-shirt again!" But for some reason at DC they were convinced that the slightest change to the Man Of Steel would immediately crash all sales of his mugs, t-shirts, toys and so on. I would really like to know if there was some foundation behind this reasoning or was it more some kind of baseless assumption. I think it was an assumption. Marketing at the time was really a crapshoot, and DC marketing was really the opinions of middle aged men in suits. What I wrote above was really the assumption of this middle aged man, also.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Aug 12, 2022 10:21:23 GMT -5
Ok, let's compare to another famous character in the same period (roughly 1972-1986?), Spider-Man. A LOT of things happened to him during those years. His girlfriend died, he had a new job, heck, he even changed his costume! And all these things ever influenced is some way the sales of his merchandise? "Oh no, now Peter Parker has a job as assistant at the ESU university, I will never buy a Spider-Man t-shirt again!" But for some reason at DC they were convinced that the slightest change to the Man Of Steel would immediately crash all sales of his mugs, t-shirts, toys and so on. I would really like to know if there was some foundation behind this reasoning or was it more some kind of baseless assumption. Well, Superman was changing to a degree after the horrid Weisinger period, but as the 1960s/70s merchandise list (a few posts above) confirms, Batman and his supporting players were produced more than Superman which speaks to which character was truly the face of DC, or rather, more appealing to comic book readers and the general population with even a passing awareness of the bigger superheroes. Well, to be fair, pre-Batmania in 66, Batman and Co. had really become B- or C-list characters at DC. His books were in danger of cancellation before the show hit. So, Superman really was the A-lister before that.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 12, 2022 11:06:56 GMT -5
Ok, let's compare to another famous character in the same period (roughly 1972-1986?), Spider-Man. A LOT of things happened to him during those years. His girlfriend died, he had a new job, heck, he even changed his costume! And all these things ever influenced is some way the sales of his merchandise? "Oh no, now Peter Parker has a job as assistant at the ESU university, I will never buy a Spider-Man t-shirt again!" But for some reason at DC they were convinced that the slightest change to the Man Of Steel would immediately crash all sales of his mugs, t-shirts, toys and so on. I would really like to know if there was some foundation behind this reasoning or was it more some kind of baseless assumption. I think it was an assumption. Marketing at the time was really a crapshoot, and DC marketing was really the opinions of middle aged men in suits. What I wrote above was really the assumption of this middle aged man, also. Fair enough! Who is it that said comics readers want only the illusion of change?
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 12, 2022 12:31:23 GMT -5
Well, Superman was changing to a degree after the horrid Weisinger period, but as the 1960s/70s merchandise list (a few posts above) confirms, Batman and his supporting players were produced more than Superman which speaks to which character was truly the face of DC, or rather, more appealing to comic book readers and the general population with even a passing awareness of the bigger superheroes. Well, to be fair, pre-Batmania in 66, Batman and Co. had really become B- or C-list characters at DC. His books were in danger of cancellation before the show hit. So, Superman really was the A-lister before that. That's why my comparison started with the Batmania period, where from that point forward, Batman as a licensed character outproduced & had wider cultural awareness than Superman well into the 70s.
|
|