|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 28, 2016 0:55:24 GMT -5
You also have to look at management. DC was tightly controlled by people like Carmine Infantino and Julie Schwartz, who didn't exactly foster experimentation, after the Silver Age. Marvel went through a revolving door of editors-in-chief, after Roy Thomas and the editors and artists were often left to do as they pleased on their titles, unless they got too out of hand. That led to an environment that encouraged experimentation. However,a lot of those experiments failed miserably. Conan was a huge success at Marvel; but, Kull and Solomon Kane were tougher sells, and Red Sonja didn't set the world on fire, despite Frank Thorne and chain-mail bikinis. Tomb of Dracula was a huge success; but, the rest were fair (Werewolf by Night) to midling, to outright flops. Only Tomb was touching what Warren was doing, in Creepy and Eerie. DC's mystery titles had steady sales, if not spectacular, and ran right up to Crisis, or thereabouts. Swamp Thing was a critical darling. DC had better success with Tarzan and other Burroughs titles, though that was the early 70s. DC tried sword and sorcery again and again; but without the quality of writing that Roy Thomas was doing on Conan. Warlord was the first bonafide hit, with Grell channeling Burroughs, Moorcock, Kirk Douglas, and Mack Bolan-meets-Errol Flynn. To say Warlord was selling at lower Marvel levels sounds like Shooter finessing things, though he may be right. Until someone produces verifiable figures, it's speculation.
Marvel never touched DC in the war comic genre, which was still strong through the 70s. Sgt Fury's best days were in the 60s, with a lot of reprints in the 70s. All of Marvel's other war books died in less than a year. Atlas had been strong with westerns; but, not modern Marvel; certainly not in the 70s. DC found the right formula in Jonah Hex and Weird Western.
It's really more a matter of taste as to whether one was better than another. Certainly, Marvel was outselling DC; but, the industry was declining and Marvel was declining right with it. Star Wars carried them for several years. X-Men was a cult book, at best, until the Dark Phoenix set things on fire. Personally, I enjoy more of Marvel at the fringes (Master of Kung Fu, Deathlok, Killraven, Invaders) than most of their mainstream titles. The same is often true with DC, though Batman was generally quite good throughout the 70s, JLA kept me interested, and DC books had quite a bit of fun going on. The war books were favorites and Jonah Hex had great tales. Some camps in DC, like Joe Kubert and Joe Orlando, were willing to experiment. Ex-patriot Marvel writers brought some new ideas to DC, with Gerry Conway shining on JLA, Engelhart (also on JLA) on Batman and Mister Miracle, and Marv Wolfman and George Perez, by the end of the Bronze Age, giving us New Teen Titans (which sold a heck of a lot more than just lower level Marvel). Roy Thomas also defected, when his writer/editor gig was up and launched the excellent All-Star Squadron.
Marvel was on fire in the early to mid-70s; both were hurting in the mid-to late 70s, and DC started clawing back at the end of the decade. Marvel solidified their lead; but, started focusing on the direct market and a steady plateau of sales, without rocking the boat too much. DC, under Jenette Kahn, Paul Levitz, Joe Orlando, and Dick Giordano had decided that they had nowhere to go and took the gloves off and experimentation flourished and DC's fortunes rose, with the ultimate payoff coming by the mid-80s. The 70s may have been won by Marvel; but, DC ruled the 80s; at least creatively and critically, and challenged well financially.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 28, 2016 1:39:46 GMT -5
Are we talking creative or commercial success? I don't know and don't care anything about the latter, but the question of whether or not Marvel had the edge creatively during the 70s and 60s is more interesting. I think they did, though I admit this is a totally subjective feeling, and I think the reason they enjoyed that edge is the same reason it didn't and perhaps couldn't last more than a few years: the inmates were running the asylum. Or, to be less sensationalistic, the creative talent had a lot more freedom than their peers at DC.
The best DC books of the time could stand with the best of Marvel but there were fewer of them, IMO. Several of those best were not only written and drawn, but also edited by Jack Kirby - IOW, they were free from the kind of stultifying editorial control that has become the norm, as far as I can see, in for many years now at Marvel. Others were just happy coincidences, lucky conjunctions of talent, character, and concept like Len Wein and Bernie Wrightson on Swamp Thing (from this POV, I think the closer Marvel equivalent to SW might be Roy Thomas and Barry (Windsor-)Smith on Conan the Barbarian rather than Gerber & Ploog on Man-Thing).
There was a difference in the house styles for awhile and I'd argue that where Marvel's edge was also evident in their more average fare, grade-B, C, & D superhero comics, for example. Things like Supervillain Team-Up were more engrossing than the JLA to me at the time.
But eventually Marvel had to get their business in order and that was the end of their creative ascendency. Shooter did a good job from the business perspective and made the trains run on time but right from the start there weren't many I wanted to catch. Pretty soon there weren't any at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 28, 2016 4:54:27 GMT -5
Are we talking creative or commercial success? I don't know and don't care anything about the latter, but the question of whether or not Marvel had the edge creatively during the 70s and 60s is more interesting. I think they did, though I admit this is a totally subjective feeling, and I think the reason they enjoyed that edge is the same reason it didn't and perhaps couldn't last more than a few years: the inmates were running the asylum. Or, to be less sensationalistic, the creative talent had a lot more freedom than their peers at DC. The best DC books of the time could stand with the best of Marvel but there were fewer of them, IMO. Several of those best were not only written and drawn, but also edited by Jack Kirby - IOW, they were free from the kind of stultifying editorial control that has become the norm, as far as I can see, in for many years now at Marvel. Others were just happy coincidences, lucky conjunctions of talent, character, and concept like Len Wein and Bernie Wrightson on Swamp Thing (from this POV, I think the closer Marvel equivalent to SW might be Roy Thomas and Barry (Windsor-)Smith on Conan the Barbarian rather than Gerber & Ploog on Man-Thing). There was a difference in the house styles for awhile and I'd argue that where Marvel's edge was also evident in their more average fare, grade-B, C, & D superhero comics, for example. Things like Supervillain Team-Up were more engrossing than the JLA to me at the time. But eventually Marvel had to get their business in order and that was the end of their creative ascendency. Shooter did a good job from the business perspective and made the trains run on time but right from the start there weren't many I wanted to catch. Pretty soon there weren't any at all. The way I saw it, Kirby was hired away from Marvel and it helped "Marvelfy" the stagnant DC line. But even that DC messed up by canceling the Fourth World stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 28, 2016 9:01:26 GMT -5
This may be a half-baked question and perhaps I have not thought it thru. It seemed to me, during the 70s that Marvel cornered the comic book market with Sword and Sorcery titles like Conan/Kull and martial arts titles like Master of Kung Fu. I remember DC trying to compete with titles like Claw and a martial arts book by Denny O'Neil called Richard something. I think DC's Warlord would be the closest they came to competing with Conan. And that's a stretch. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think DC ever competed in these two markets. Come to think of it they never had an answer for Marvel's Tomb of Dracula. My question is; what was the reason for this? Was there a huge difference in creators between DC and Marvel. Were the writers and editors at DC just totally clueless when it came to creating stuff like Marvel? Or was it something in the water coolers at DC? DC title - Richard Dragon.
Marvel had Conan. Other than Red Sonja I don't remember any other sword & sorcery titles being that great. During the 70's DC had Tarzan & related titles instead. DC also dominated the War Comics genre. I felt they did them better than Marvel IMO.
DC had House of Mystery & House of Secrets. Definitely not as good as Dracula.
I think DC tapped into their Golden Age better than Marvel with All Star Squadron & the JSA titles. Marvel had the Invaders.
The two companies were different at that time. They were successful in different genres. After Crisis in 1985 I felt they became more alike.
Marvel also had a Tarzan title in the 70s, which I personally liked better than the DC version. They also had Kull and John Carter, Warlord of Mars, both of which I enjoyed, as well as the black & white mags which had a lot of great horror and sword & sorcery content. DC' All-Star Squadron wasn't a 70s title, it began in '81; as far as I know, DC had no titles actually set in the Golden Age in the 70s, the JSA series was set in the present day. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 9:17:36 GMT -5
Marvel also had a Tarzan title in the 70s, which I personally liked better than the DC version. They also had Kull and John Carter, Warlord of Mars, both of which I enjoyed, as well as the black & white mags which had a lot of great horror and sword & sorcery content. DC' All-Star Squadron wasn't a 70s title, it began in '81; as far as I know, DC had no titles actually set in the Golden Age in the 70s, the JSA series was set in the present day. I read & liked both DC & Marvel's Tarzan books. DC also had Korak which later became Tarzan Family with other ERB creations. As far as the All Star Squadron...you are right. I was just remembering that DC had both the JSA & Freedom Fighters in the 70's. But both were set in the present. I guess I could say DC used their GA characters more than Marvel (outside of Capt America & Namor)...even in present day adventures! |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 28, 2016 9:45:02 GMT -5
as far as I know, DC had no titles actually set in the Golden Age in the 70s, the JSA series was set in the present day. Wonder Woman, concurrent with the first TV season, was set in the 1940s |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 28, 2016 9:53:18 GMT -5
Marvel also had a Tarzan title in the 70s, which I personally liked better than the DC version. They also had Kull and John Carter, Warlord of Mars, both of which I enjoyed, as well as the black & white mags which had a lot of great horror and sword & sorcery content. DC' All-Star Squadron wasn't a 70s title, it began in '81; as far as I know, DC had no titles actually set in the Golden Age in the 70s, the JSA series was set in the present day. I read & liked both DC & Marvel's Tarzan books. DC also had Korak which later became Tarzan Family with other ERB creations. As far as the All Star Squadron...you are right. I was just remembering that DC had both the JSA & Freedom Fighters in the 70's. But both were set in the present. I guess I could say DC used their GA characters more than Marvel (outside of Capt America & Namor)...even in present day adventures! Ah, but The Invaders ran to 41 issues, which is actually more than both the Freedom Fighters and the revived JSA series in All-Star and Adventure managed between them! Marvel also gave the Liberty Legion a two issue tryout in Marvel Premiere, and for a time made the Whizzer a kind of unofficial member of the Avengers! |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 28, 2016 9:54:18 GMT -5
as far as I know, DC had no titles actually set in the Golden Age in the 70s, the JSA series was set in the present day. Wonder Woman, concurrent with the first TV season, was set in the 1940s I'd forgotten that-and I quite liked that run, too... |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 28, 2016 10:12:27 GMT -5
I read & liked both DC & Marvel's Tarzan books. DC also had Korak which later became Tarzan Family with other ERB creations. As far as the All Star Squadron...you are right. I was just remembering that DC had both the JSA & Freedom Fighters in the 70's. But both were set in the present. I guess I could say DC used their GA characters more than Marvel (outside of Capt America & Namor)...even in present day adventures! Ah, but The Invaders ran to 41 issues, which is actually more than both the Freedom Fighters and the revived JSA series in All-Star and Adventure managed between them! Marvel also gave the Liberty Legion a two issue tryout in Marvel Premiere, and for a time made the Whizzer a kind of unofficial member of the Avengers! Invaders was clearly superior to Freedom Fighters and more coherent than All-Star; until Paul Levitz took over the writing and was paired up with Joe Staton. I'll put those issues up with the best of Invaders. That best, though, came in the first two years. Invaders screams along up through about issue 19/20, where the team is captured in Berlin, is rescued by the new Union Jack, fight Master Man and Warrior Woman, then escape. After that, Roy seemed to struggle with a destination for the series. He kind of overly front-loaded the title and spent a lot of time trying to find a threat for the team. He finally brought back Warrior Woman, Master Man, U-Man, and Baron Blood (despite the stake) for a big battle at the end. There's not a lot of greatness, in between. DC had more fully realized characters from the Golden Age, which gave them an advantage. Timely had three hot GA characters, Cap, Subby, and Torch; almost no second string, with the possible exception of Miss America and the Whizzer, and a lot of third stringers without many stories under their belt. DC was the top dog of the Golden Age, challenged by Fawcett, not Timely. DC's strength has always rested in their depth of characters, while Marvel's has been in their more modern characters and building themselves as the attraction, rather than the creative people or even the characters DC never built that kind of brand loyalty; several of their characters did; but, not the company , as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 28, 2016 10:25:03 GMT -5
Ah, but The Invaders ran to 41 issues, which is actually more than both the Freedom Fighters and the revived JSA series in All-Star and Adventure managed between them! Marvel also gave the Liberty Legion a two issue tryout in Marvel Premiere, and for a time made the Whizzer a kind of unofficial member of the Avengers! Invaders was clearly superior to Freedom Fighters and more coherent than All-Star; until Paul Levitz took over the writing and was paired up with Joe Staton. I'll put those issues up with the best of Invaders. That best, though, came in the first two years. Invaders screams along up through about issue 19/20, where the team is captured in Berlin, is rescued by the new Union Jack, fight Master Man and Warrior Woman, then escape. After that, Roy seemed to struggle with a destination for the series. He kind of overly front-loaded the title and spent a lot of time trying to find a threat for the team. He finally brought back Warrior Woman, Master Man, U-Man, and Baron Blood (despite the stake) for a big battle at the end. There's not a lot of greatness, in between. DC had more fully realized characters from the Golden Age, which gave them an advantage. Timely had three hot GA characters, Cap, Subby, and Torch; almost no second string, with the possible exception of Miss America and the Whizzer, and a lot of third stringers without many stories under their belt. DC was the top dog of the Golden Age, challenged by Fawcett, not Timely. DC's strength has always rested in their depth of characters, while Marvel's has been in their more modern characters and building themselves as the attraction, rather than the creative people or even the characters DC never built that kind of brand loyalty; several of their characters did; but, not the company , as a whole. Evderybody always forgets Marvel/Timely's longest running Golden Age characters, who lasted in their own titles from the late forties right through to the Silver Age, or in one case the Bronze Age; Millie the Model and Patsy Walker! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 10:30:51 GMT -5
DC had some awesome horror comic books, Unexpected, Haunted House, Ghosts...I couldn't get that fix from bronze-age Marvel books.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Oct 28, 2016 10:33:25 GMT -5
Actually I think Marvel's oldest character is Ka-Zar as he was in the pulps that Martin Goodman published before getting into comics.  This first issue came out 3 years before the first Marvel / Timely comic, Marvel Comics # 1. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 28, 2016 11:33:35 GMT -5
Actually I think Marvel's oldest character is Ka-Zar as he was in the pulps that Martin Goodman published before getting into comics. This first issue came out 3 years before the first Marvel / Timely comic, Marvel Comics # 1. Not the same character as the Silver Age version, though. The 1930s/1940s version was David Rand, who lived in west Africa, not the later, Savage Land dwelling Lord Kevin Plunder, who debuted in X-Men #10 in 1965. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 28, 2016 11:37:08 GMT -5
DC had some awesome horror comic books, Unexpected, Haunted House, Ghosts...I couldn't get that fix from bronze-age Marvel books. What about Man-Thing, Tomb of Dracula, Satana, Son of Satan, Tales of the Zombie, Vampire Tales... |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Oct 28, 2016 12:04:27 GMT -5
DC had some awesome horror comic books, Unexpected, Haunted House, Ghosts...I couldn't get that fix from bronze-age Marvel books. What about Man-Thing, Tomb of Dracula, Satana, Son of Satan, Tales of the Zombie, Vampire Tales...Marvel was big on horror characters, but DC had the edge on anthology books (plus they used their hosts to good effect). |
|
