|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 21:07:27 GMT -5
40,50's DC 60-80's Marvel 90's DC. 2000's until now Marvel Just look at the sales figures. I wanted to know what everyone here enjoyed. I can look up sales figures anytime. Plus sales don't always translate to your own favorites. For example a lot of readers loved Bendis' Daredevil. I did not. I like a lighter version like Kesel's run. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Sept 8, 2015 9:29:23 GMT -5
You said it yourself. They're at their peak right now in terms of market share, yet, the general consensus here is that most of what they've been producing lately is either drivel or just won't matter in the future except from within fandom. Many Eisner award winners sell close to nothing compared to Marvel charts, yet... There are people who eat at McDonalds almost everyday and would state it's the best food there is. And lastly, tey're not called Marvel Zombies for nothing...  I'm not referring to the recycled plots of the comics of today. But Marvel was producing great books from the 60's to the 80's. Their sales figures reflected that, and rightly so. Again, Marvel may have had better sales, but their best books were not necessarily their best sellers. To look at the early '80s, Marvel's best books were Miller's Daredevil, Simonson's Thor, and Claremont's X-Men. Daredevil and Thor were never among the best sellers, and Uncanny X-Men would not become a best-seller until years after the seminal Claremont/Byrne era. |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Sept 8, 2015 10:05:15 GMT -5
It's hard for me to be impartial: being a Supes fanboy I naturally have more DC stuff from any decade. I will say DC definitely gets the 80's. Marvel had cool stuff, but DC had Crisis, Eisner graphic novels, Ostrander Suicide Squad, JLI, Man of Steel, Batman Year One, Perez Wonder Woman, Wolfman/Perez Titans, Levitz Legion of Super Heroes, Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Ronin, Camelot 3000, Moore Swamp Thing, Morrison Animal Man, Gaiman Sandman, the rest of the British invasion under Berger that gave rise to Vertigo...
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Sept 8, 2015 11:46:30 GMT -5
My preferences:
40's - DC because of the birth and dominance of iconic characters (Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Flash, Hawkman, etc) and the 1st super-team, the JSA.
50's - DC survived the long drought with their sci-fi & western series & a few superheroes, then introduced the start of the Silver Age.
60's - Marvel took the Silver Age and ran with it. Such a flood of creative energy that jump started the industry.
70's - Marvel ruled with great series in their heydays, like Avengers, Defenders, Howard the Duck, the hero-monster characters, etc, and off the wall favorites like Omega the Unknown. DC was too stuck in their bland vanilla version of the Silver Age for my tastes.
80's - DC ruled the 2nd half after the Crisis and the 1st half had the New Teen Titans. Marvel seemed to flounder with things like Secret Wars.
90's - DC took the 90's (even discounting Vertigo) with the Spectre, triangle-era Superman, Kingdom Come, and more.
00's - My comics buying decreased, so I can't give a full accounting of each company, but the late 00's gave me Nova and Guardians of the Galaxy, so that counts as a Marvel win for me.
10's - Not enough time has passed to judge in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Sept 8, 2015 17:21:14 GMT -5
40,50's DC 60-80's Marvel 90's DC. 2000's until now Marvel Just look at the sales figures. Then the 1960s belonged to DC and by a considerable margin. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 9, 2015 3:10:05 GMT -5
The 80's are an interesting decade because it really is all about Crisis -- before and after. The first half Marvel was firing on all cylinders, creatively and commercially, while DC exploded with creativity in 1986. In retrospect, Marvel from 1977 to 1983 was very strong, but I agree that Secret Wars was the beginning of the end for an era of otherwise creative resurgence. The fact that it was the first Marvel event was bad enough, but it being created solely to sell toys was crass, particularly given the fact that it intruded on so many creators stories and carefully laid plans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 9, 2015 3:12:16 GMT -5
40,50's DC 60-80's Marvel 90's DC. 2000's until now Marvel Just look at the sales figures. Then the 1960s belonged to DC and by a considerable margin. As far as sales go, I believe Marvel first eclipsed DC around 1972. Apparently Stan called a meeting where he announced to the creators and editors that they needed to slow down on innovation and that it was more or less time to stay the course. I first learned about this from a Steve Englehart anecdote, who was at that meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 9, 2015 6:27:47 GMT -5
Then the 1960s belonged to DC and by a considerable margin. As far as sales go, I believe Marvel first eclipsed DC around 1972. Apparently Stan called a meeting where he announced to the creators and editors that they needed to slow down on innovation and that it was more or less time to stay the course. I first learned about this from a Steve Englehart anecdote, who was at that meeting. It is my understanding that in the 60's Marvel was only allowed to published a limited amount of titles per month. I think Dc controlled the newsstand distribution , that's why they had titles that doubled up characters like Tales of Suspense and Tales to astonish, etc. In that time period, Marvel was never going to eclipse Dc. The game was "rigged" so to speak. mrp would probably know more about this. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Sept 9, 2015 9:56:08 GMT -5
The 80's are an interesting decade because it really is all about Crisis -- before and after. The first half Marvel was firing on all cylinders, creatively and commercially, while DC exploded with creativity in 1986. In retrospect, Marvel from 1977 to 1983 was very strong, but I agree that Secret Wars was the beginning of the end for an era of otherwise creative resurgence. The fact that it was the first Marvel event was bad enough, but it being created solely to sell toys was crass, particularly given the fact that it intruded on so many creators stories and carefully laid plans. You can almost make a parallel to the New Hollywood of the late-60s--mid-70s giving way to the blockbuster/sequel mentality after Jaws and Star Wars. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2015 13:38:04 GMT -5
As far as sales go, I believe Marvel first eclipsed DC around 1972. Apparently Stan called a meeting where he announced to the creators and editors that they needed to slow down on innovation and that it was more or less time to stay the course. I first learned about this from a Steve Englehart anecdote, who was at that meeting. It is my understanding that in the 60's Marvel was only allowed to published a limited amount of titles per month. I think Dc controlled the newsstand distribution , that's why they had titles that doubled up characters like Tales of Suspense and Tales to astonish, etc. In that time period, Marvel was never going to eclipse Dc. The game was "rigged" so to speak. mrp would probably know more about this. And Cei-U and others would know a whole lot more than me. Yes, Marvel did distribute through DC, but DC books on average still sold better than Marvel books because more people were buying DC books than Marvel books. In '72 as a whole Marvel had a larger market share, but that's irrelevant to the argument that better books sell more. DC books sold better than Marvel books on an individual basis in the 60s so therefore they must be better books by the standards you set forth. Trying to change the standard by adding caveats to fit your personal preference simply negates the validity of your standard (which many he disagreed with anyways). -M |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Sept 9, 2015 14:33:55 GMT -5
As far as sales go, I believe Marvel first eclipsed DC around 1972. Apparently Stan called a meeting where he announced to the creators and editors that they needed to slow down on innovation and that it was more or less time to stay the course. I first learned about this from a Steve Englehart anecdote, who was at that meeting. It is my understanding that in the 60's Marvel was only allowed to published a limited amount of titles per month. I think Dc controlled the newsstand distribution , that's why they had titles that doubled up characters like Tales of Suspense and Tales to astonish, etc. In that time period, Marvel was never going to eclipse Dc. The game was "rigged" so to speak. mrp would probably know more about this. That limited their total sales, but Marvel did not have a comic hit the top 10 on a yearly chart until Amazing Spider-Man in 1969. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Sept 11, 2015 19:41:26 GMT -5
They matter to shareholders. They matter to bean-counters. They don't mean diddly when it comes to quality or importance. It is a source of approval, and an indication that good solid entertainment is being produced. Marvel produced many books of Quality and Importance in those years in question. I generally agree with this, sorta. The best selling popular art tends to be solidly produced - They can afford to put high caliber artists on X-men, and hire high-caliber beat-makers for Justin Beiber tracks. Still, the thing about really high sales products is that they have to appeal to a wide percentage of the potential audience. Including total morons. So the best selling pop-art works are going to be "solid" but not that bright, that challenging, or that good. I do think there is a little bit of truth that better art tends to maintain it's audience longer. So Watchmen, Sandman, and Maus tend to sell well today while Rob Liefeld's X-Force (which I've never actually read, so it COULD be spectacularly great) doesn't. (Although I don't think that this is always true, either.) |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 11, 2015 20:25:45 GMT -5
It is a source of approval, and an indication that good solid entertainment is being produced. Marvel produced many books of Quality and Importance in those years in question. I generally agree with this, sorta. The best selling popular art tends to be solidly produced - They can afford to put high caliber artists on X-men, and hire high-caliber beat-makers for Justin Beiber tracks. Still, the thing about really high sales products is that they have to appeal to a wide percentage of the potential audience. Including total morons. So the best selling pop-art works are going to be "solid" but not that bright, that challenging, or that good. I do think there is a little bit of truth that better art tends to maintain it's audience longer. So Watchmen, Sandman, and Maus tend to sell well today while Rob Liefeld's X-Force (which I've never actually read, so it COULD be spectacularly great) doesn't. (Although I don't think that this is always true, either.) Thanks for understanding my point. I picked Marvel those years because they were as good or better than the DC output in the same years. Not all of Marvels books were by Liefeld, They were from top Talent like Miller, Simonson and Bryne. My opinion was that in the 80's marvel and Dc were close in talent and great material, but Marvel outsold them in that period. And it's not just about sales, it's about top notch books that were coming out of Marvel at the time. |
|
