|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 30, 2018 18:51:39 GMT -5
Huh. It seems strange though. How much was Harvey competing with Marvel and DC in the late '70s/early '80s? It seems like different markets. Although looking at Mike's Amazing World, Archie had *A* *Lot* of titles, too - even just spinner rack titles, ignoring the digests. Looking at December 1979 (to pick a month at random) Richie starred in 10 comics while Archie was in 8 - as well as being cover featured on Betty and Veronica and Jughead. AND there were 3 Archie digests. It might be that Harvey and Archie were really fighting it out for rack space? Not as much as they were 10 or 20 years before that, but certainly still some. 7-10 year olds were still buying comics at the time and still watching Saturday Morning Cartoons. So the crossover was there. And even if Richie Rich wasn't directly competing against, say, Master of Kung Fu for a given buyer, they were still competing for rack space. Every space on a spinner rack taken up by a Richie Rich comic was one less space for something else from a rival company. You mean Richie Rich KOed Shang Chi ? |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jan 30, 2018 19:52:22 GMT -5
Huh. It seems strange though. How much was Harvey competing with Marvel and DC in the late '70s/early '80s? It seems like different markets. Looking back to that period, its not that Harvey was in direct competition with DC & Marvel, since they were--as you point out--different markets, but it appeared it was more about shelf space at healthy (meaning comic-friendly) retailers such as bookstores, corner markets, liquor/convenience stores and chains such as 7-Eleven (I bought comics from all four), where I remember seeing plenty of Harvey titles. I'm wondering if the business assumption was that if an area, or its stores have a strong comic-buying culture, then they would find their readers, since everyone was not all about DC & Marvel. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 30, 2018 22:15:42 GMT -5
Huh. It seems strange though. How much was Harvey competing with Marvel and DC in the late '70s/early '80s? It seems like different markets. Looking back to that period, its not that Harvey was in direct competition with DC & Marvel, since they were--as you point out--different markets, but it appeared it was more about shelf space at healthy (meaning comic-friendly) retailers such as bookstores, corner markets, liquor/convenience stores and chains such as 7-Eleven (I bought comics from all four), where I remember seeing plenty of Harvey titles. I'm wondering if the business assumption was that if an area, or its stores have a strong comic-buying culture, then they would find their readers, since everyone was not all about DC & Marvel. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that an eight or nine year old wouldn't be buying both Batman and Richie Rich as the whim hit them. There probably wasn't crossover between Casper and Master of Kung Fu, but Sad Sack and Spider-man, maybe. I certainly bought the odd Donald Duck comic along with JLA. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 31, 2018 0:38:45 GMT -5
Would Marvel have done better in the '70s if they cancelled half their line and replaced it with 17 new Spider-Man and Conan titles? I think of Spider-Man as a perennial Marvel hit for obvious reasons. Was Conan big for them as well, before X-Men took off? I was too young to know about Conan or his appeal. Conan was very big in the 70s, from introduction up through the end of the decade. By contrast, X-Men didn't really start to take off until John byrne came on the title, with the real watershed year being 1979 (might be off a year or two), The Dark Phoenix Saga turned it into something big. Prior to that, it was more of a cult title. Conan came in at thee right time, as it compared favorably with stuff like Warren and some of the experimentation going on (His Name is Savage, Witzend, etc...) and Barry Windsor-Smith grew by leaps and bounds as it progressed. It was also a hit with urban audiences, far more so than the superhero titles. Conan had a nice mix of fantasy and horror, which was big in the early 70s, and the take no doo-doo attitude fit right in with the 70s action movies. It was one of Marvel's biggest sellers across the 70s, only really dropping off in the 80s, after the Arnold movies (and the plethora of alternate material). Everyone was trying sword & sorcery, because of it. DC tried it desperately, until Mike Grell's Warlord proved to be a hit and one of their better selling titles of the mid-late 70s. It's also responsible for inspiring Cerebus, which was total parody at the start, before expanding into larger satire. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 31, 2018 2:26:39 GMT -5
The question I'd like to ask is, why did we need even ONE Richie Rich title?
Seriously, why on earth make a hero of a character whose sole distinguishing feature is that he's a rich brat? What was the thinking behind that? And what was the reason for its popularity? I suppose the answers are obvious, but they bear thinking about, IMO - and maybe even talkng about.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 31, 2018 3:10:32 GMT -5
I think of Spider-Man as a perennial Marvel hit for obvious reasons. Was Conan big for them as well, before X-Men took off? I was too young to know about Conan or his appeal. Conan was very big in the 70s, from introduction up through the end of the decade. By contrast, X-Men didn't really start to take off until John byrne came on the title, with the real watershed year being 1979 (might be off a year or two), The Dark Phoenix Saga turned it into something big. Prior to that, it was more of a cult title. Conan came in at thee right time, as it compared favorably with stuff like Warren and some of the experimentation going on (His Name is Savage, Witzend, etc...) and Barry Windsor-Smith grew by leaps and bounds as it progressed. It was also a hit with urban audiences, far more so than the superhero titles. Conan had a nice mix of fantasy and horror, which was big in the early 70s, and the take no doo-doo attitude fit right in with the 70s action movies. It was one of Marvel's biggest sellers across the 70s, only really dropping off in the 80s, after the Arnold movies (and the plethora of alternate material). Everyone was trying sword & sorcery, because of it. DC tried it desperately, until Mike Grell's Warlord proved to be a hit and one of their better selling titles of the mid-late 70s. It's also responsible for inspiring Cerebus, which was total parody at the start, before expanding into larger satire. Never knew that about the Conan series being especially popular with urban audiences. Ironic when you think how Howard's conception of the character was so tied up with his idea that civilisation was evil and that Conan was the hero precisely because he was a "barbarian". I had stopped following Marvel in general, including the various Conan books, by the time the movies came out so I didn't now that their popularity dropped off around the same time - kind of the opposite of what you would have expected, since the moves were pretty successful. I wonder what was going on there. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 3:19:45 GMT -5
Conan was very big in the 70s, from introduction up through the end of the decade. By contrast, X-Men didn't really start to take off until John byrne came on the title, with the real watershed year being 1979 (might be off a year or two), The Dark Phoenix Saga turned it into something big. Prior to that, it was more of a cult title. Conan came in at thee right time, as it compared favorably with stuff like Warren and some of the experimentation going on (His Name is Savage, Witzend, etc...) and Barry Windsor-Smith grew by leaps and bounds as it progressed. It was also a hit with urban audiences, far more so than the superhero titles. Conan had a nice mix of fantasy and horror, which was big in the early 70s, and the take no doo-doo attitude fit right in with the 70s action movies. It was one of Marvel's biggest sellers across the 70s, only really dropping off in the 80s, after the Arnold movies (and the plethora of alternate material). Everyone was trying sword & sorcery, because of it. DC tried it desperately, until Mike Grell's Warlord proved to be a hit and one of their better selling titles of the mid-late 70s. It's also responsible for inspiring Cerebus, which was total parody at the start, before expanding into larger satire. Never knew that about the Conan series being especially popular with urban audiences. Ironic when you think how Howard's conception of the character was so tied up with his idea that civilisation was evil and that Conan was the hero precisely because he was a "barbarian". I had stopped following Marvel in general, including the various Conan books, by the time the movies came out so I didn't now that their popularity dropped off around the same time - kind of the opposite of what you would have expected, since the moves were pretty successful. I wonder what was going on there. I would guess because the book lost its way with the departure of Roy Thomas in late 1980 and John Buscema at the end of 1981 just before the movie was released in May of '82 and some of the regular readers left with them. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 31, 2018 3:31:37 GMT -5
The question I'd like to ask is, why did we need even ONE Richie Rich title? Seriously, why on earth make a hero of a character whose sole distinguishing feature is that he's a rich brat? What was the thinking behind that? And what was the reason for its popularity? I suppose the answers are obvious, but they bear thinking about, IMO - and maybe even talkng about. Warren Kremer's amazing design is part of it - He's generally considered one of the greatest of all time comic artists by people who don't dismiss kid's comics out of hand. (Supposedly Marie Severin called him "The greatest artist who ever walked through these doors" at Marvel when he did work for the Star Comics line after Harvey temporarily folded.) Side note - Was there any effort to differentiate the Richie Rich titles at all? Like Amazing and Spectacular Spider-man had a different focus. And the Archie books were a little different, sometimes. (See the Life With Archie thread.) I assume that Richie Rich and Irona had more... Irona focused storytelling, but was their any difference between GEMS and BILLIONS? Side Note 2 - I'm trying for a full set of team-up books and 1987s "Richie Rich And..." and "Casper And..." are BY FAR the most difficult to find. I've never found a single issue in the wild. (IE, without internet help.) H |
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jan 31, 2018 6:55:09 GMT -5
I wonder if market research showed that their target audience tended to buy several issues in a single shopping trip, but didn't follow the comics regularly, month to month. It would make sense to have multiple series on the stands for when their target wanted to buy 8 comic books to last them until their next comic spree, a month or two away. If they all had the same title, all but the current issue would have been stripped from the stands, as was the practice of the likely uninterested employee whose job was to restock the racks.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jan 31, 2018 9:05:38 GMT -5
The question I'd like to ask is, why did we need even ONE Richie Rich title? Seriously, why on earth make a hero of a character whose sole distinguishing feature is that he's a rich brat? What was the thinking behind that? And what was the reason for its popularity? I suppose the answers are obvious, but they bear thinking about, IMO - and maybe even talkng about. Warren Kremer's amazing design is part of it - He's generally considered one of the greatest of all time comic artists by people who don't dismiss kid's comics out of hand. (Supposedly Marie Severin called him "The greatest artist who ever walked through these doors" at Marvel when he did work for the Star Comics line after Harvey temporarily folded.) And Kremer could do a lot more than kid's comics.    |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 31, 2018 9:15:13 GMT -5
Drawing on my own dim memories of reading the occasional Richie as a kid, I've always assumed the appeal had less to do with any financial fantasy and more with his being a child that adults listened to. God knows I wanted them to take *me* seriously so...
Cei-U!
I summon the educated guess!
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 31, 2018 11:34:17 GMT -5
The question I'd like to ask is, why did we need even ONE Richie Rich title? Seriously, why on earth make a hero of a character whose sole distinguishing feature is that he's a rich brat? What was the thinking behind that? And what was the reason for its popularity? I suppose the answers are obvious, but they bear thinking about, IMO - and maybe even talkng about. Because that's the American Dream. To be super-rich and have a diamond encrusted yacht. It's played off as a joke by some, but I have literally had conversations with people who are convinced that in Heaven they'll get a big mansion and gold-plated cars, etc.. One of the reasons that so many desperately poor Americans vote consistently against their economic self-interest is that they've been convince they're 'one good idea' or 'one lucky break' away from being the next Bill Gates. No reason not to try to sell the same horse-hocky to kids. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 31, 2018 11:39:32 GMT -5
Well, there is a multi-level appeal. Richie goes on wild adventures, with inventive visuals. There was genuine humor and also genuine warmth. The supporting characters had personality. Gloria was the level-headed girlfriend who didn't want expensive presents; but, would join in on an adventure. Pee Wee and Freckles were of humble means; but, Richie treated them with respect and generosity, without ever making a big deal of it. Prof Keebean was the goofy scientist, creating amazing things. Cadbury was the always resourceful butler (obviously modeled on PG Wodehouse's Jeeves), Irona the robot with deep emotion. It was a family environment that kids could identify with, while also being an imaginative fantasy.
Getting back to Conan, Roy and John Buscema leaving the title was the main element. Also, by that point, you had a decade's worth of stories and they were pretty much repeating themselves. You'd have thunk the movie would have been huge; but, other than their standard adaptation, it was kind of quiet. I also think Shooter's homogenization of the Marvel line kind of removed the special nature of it. It pretty much became just another Marvel title. It never really came back, and lasted on momentum until the license went to Dark Horse, much like Star Wars.
I've heard stories of the love of Conan among urban audiences, including Pres. Obama, who cited it as one of his favorites, as a kid. It did far better with black readers than Luke Cage ever did.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 31, 2018 11:58:57 GMT -5
I was just a kid in the late 70s and early 80s, so I knew Roy Thomas only from All-Star Squadron and Captain Carrot. Conan wasn't on my radar, but I did go back and get Volume 1 of it recently. It obviously catered to an older crowd of readers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 31, 2018 12:35:11 GMT -5
Huh. It seems strange though. How much was Harvey competing with Marvel and DC in the late '70s/early '80s? It seems like different markets. Although looking at Mike's Amazing World, Archie had *A* *Lot* of titles, too - even just spinner rack titles, ignoring the digests. Looking at December 1979 (to pick a month at random) Richie starred in 10 comics while Archie was in 8 - as well as being cover featured on Betty and Veronica and Jughead. AND there were 3 Archie digests. It might be that Harvey and Archie were really fighting it out for rack space? Not as much as they were 10 or 20 years before that, but certainly still some. 7-10 year olds were still buying comics at the time and still watching Saturday Morning Cartoons. So the crossover was there. And even if Richie Rich wasn't directly competing against, say, Master of Kung Fu for a given buyer, they were still competing for rack space. Every space on a spinner rack taken up by a Richie Rich comic was one less space for something else from a rival company. Ok, that makes sense. Although as we see by Marvel's current people-are-buying-Black Panther-or-Dr. Strange-let's-launch-three-new-titles publishing strategy it tends not to be a successful way of selling product over the long run. Although I guess Archie did alright. |
|
