|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 31, 2018 12:35:58 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. Fun side-note: About the time of peak Richie, the biggest sellers from DC were Superman.... and Warlord!
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jan 31, 2018 13:44:14 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. Fun side-note: About the time of peak Richie, the biggest sellers from DC were Superman.... and Warlord! I'm glad something paid off--I always think of this house add DC highlighted their barbarian/pulp characters and nothing gained any traction except Warlord. (I think DC's Hercules was also around at the same time and did a little better than most.)
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 31, 2018 13:57:42 GMT -5
Fun side-note: About the time of peak Richie, the biggest sellers from DC were Superman.... and Warlord! I'm glad something paid off--I always think of this house add DC highlighted their barbarian/pulp characters and nothing gained any traction except Warlord. (I think DC's Hercules was also around at the same time and did a little better than most.) See, I had a notion as a reader that DC in the early 80s was kinda dullsville. At Marvel I had X-Men, FF, Micronauts, ROM, Alpha Flight, Avengers, and Star Wars. From DC I just read JLA and LSH, and some Firestorm and All-Star Squadron. (I don't know why I never read New Teen Titans, which got very hot.) I had zero interest in Superman or Batman even though I had read a bunch of early 70s material from them in my older cousin's collection.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 14:25:13 GMT -5
I'm glad something paid off--I always think of this house add DC highlighted their barbarian/pulp characters and nothing gained any traction except Warlord. (I think DC's Hercules was also around at the same time and did a little better than most.) See, I had a notion as a reader that DC in the early 80s was kinda dullsville. At Marvel I had X-Men, FF, Micronauts, ROM, Alpha Flight, Avengers, and Star Wars. From DC I just read JLA and LSH, and some Firestorm and All-Star Squadron. (I don't know why I never read New Teen Titans, which got very hot.) I had zero interest in Superman or Batman even though I had read a bunch of early 70s material from them in my older cousin's collection. In the early 80s you had the second wave of adventure titles, Warlord was still going, then you had Arion which started as a back up in Warlord, Arak, Son of Thunder Roy's S&S entry at DC, Amethyst, and others. You still ha some mystery titles going, some war books, some sci-fi titles, etc. I found DC (until the current editorial regime) was always more willing to publish titles outside their shared universe concept than Marvel. All that's changed now ans the big 2 only focus on selling universes now, not individual titles, but there always seemed more variety to the DC line than the Marvel line through up through the 80s and into the 90s. Those days are gone (and missed), but I always saw the opposite of you, that Marvel was the more homogenous in their offerings with only handful of licensed titles offering any variety and those were often assimilated into shared universe (except for Star Wars which had oversight by Lucasfilm). -M
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 31, 2018 14:32:34 GMT -5
In the early 80s you had the second wave of adventure titles, Warlord was still going, then you had Arion which started as a back up in Warlord, Arak, Son of Thunder Roy's S&S entry at DC, Amethyst, and others. You still ha some mystery titles going, some war books, some sci-fi titles, etc. I found DC (until the current editorial regime) was always more willing to publish titles outside their shared universe concept than Marvel. All that's changed now ans the big 2 only focus on selling universes now, not individual titles, but there always seemed more variety to the DC line than the Marvel line through up through the 80s and into the 90s. Those days are gone (and missed), but I always saw the opposite of you, that Marvel was the more homogenous in their offerings with only handful of licensed titles offering any variety and those were often assimilated into shared universe (except for Star Wars which had oversight by Lucasfilm). Now that you mention it, I did collect Amethyst, though in retrospect I have a feeling that was an unsuccessful attempt to get girls to read comic books. The art was great, though. I agree that Marvel's titles that I collected were shared universe, which sometimes seemed forced (Micronauts fighting Hydra!). At the time the crossover potential delighted me, but that was before all the BIG EVENTS started happening, disrupting all the stories the indiviual authors were trying to tell in their books. Back to the thread topic: Charlton and Gold Key never held any interest for me either.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 31, 2018 20:58:37 GMT -5
Fun side-note: About the time of peak Richie, the biggest sellers from DC were Superman.... and Warlord! I'm glad something paid off--I always think of this house add DC highlighted their barbarian/pulp characters and nothing gained any traction except Warlord. (I think DC's Hercules was also around at the same time and did a little better than most.) At the time, if I had to make bets on what were going to be the best titles, from that ad, I would have probably pointed to Claw and Stalker. They are right up front and Claw looks like Conan (with a gimmick swiped from Elric) and Stalker looks provocative. Warlord doesn't really convey how cool that book was. How wrong I would have been.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 31, 2018 21:18:12 GMT -5
In the early 80s you had the second wave of adventure titles, Warlord was still going, then you had Arion which started as a back up in Warlord, Arak, Son of Thunder Roy's S&S entry at DC, Amethyst, and others. You still ha some mystery titles going, some war books, some sci-fi titles, etc. I found DC (until the current editorial regime) was always more willing to publish titles outside their shared universe concept than Marvel. All that's changed now ans the big 2 only focus on selling universes now, not individual titles, but there always seemed more variety to the DC line than the Marvel line through up through the 80s and into the 90s. Those days are gone (and missed), but I always saw the opposite of you, that Marvel was the more homogenous in their offerings with only handful of licensed titles offering any variety and those were often assimilated into shared universe (except for Star Wars which had oversight by Lucasfilm). Now that you mention it, I did collect Amethyst, though in retrospect I have a feeling that was an unsuccessful attempt to get girls to read comic books. The art was great, though. I agree that Marvel's titles that I collected were shared universe, which sometimes seemed forced (Micronauts fighting Hydra!). At the time the crossover potential delighted me, but that was before all the BIG EVENTS started happening, disrupting all the stories the indiviual authors were trying to tell in their books. Back to the thread topic: Charlton and Gold Key never held any interest for me either. By that time frame, Charlton and Gold Key are all but dead. Charlton is almost entirely reprints and Gold Key (or Whitman, as it was now using, was selling only via the bagged sets. Kind of hard to grab attention when you can't look at the comics inside. Both of those companies, though, had great material if you were willing to look through the books. Gold Key used to get you with the painted covers, that were usually better than the interior; but, some books rose to the challenge, like Dagar or Magnus: Robot Fighter. Same with the Phantom, at Charlton, or E-Man, or the horror comics from both. If you were a superhero purist, you were going to have a hard time finding things to want to read at Gold Key and Charlton. If you liked horror, fantasy and/or adventure, you would be rewarded. Getting back to Richie Rich, a lot of the stories were the same, when read in succession; but, there were some really good ones that stuck with you, especially from the 60s. I still recall one where Richie, Pee Wee and Freckles are all quarantined in Richie's mansion, because he has the measles. Freckles and Pee Wee get to spend a night or two in the place, living a dream life, with swimming pool bath tubs and kid-sized trains. Their parents worry about them staying there and then coming home to more humble surroundings. However, when the time comes, they come rushing in to mom and dad, showing how much they missed them and how the real value was in family. It was a sweet little ending to a fun tale and was later reprinted in the Harvey Classics, Vol 2 (Richie Rich) book, that Dark Horse published, in 2007. I believe it was one of the early ones, when Richie was in Little Dot, or just after getting his own title. When we got that book in at B&N, I flipped through it to see what was there; and, low and behold, there was that story I remembered so vividly, at least 30 years after I read it (in either an old comic or, more likely, a reprint).
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,219
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 1, 2018 0:30:50 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? Errr...comedy? I don't mean to sound factious, but it's a pretty good set up, in terms of comic potential. Plus, all of us knew that one "rich kid" at school who got all the toys that we wanted and was spoiled rotten. Richie Rich is that character exaggerated to comic proportions, either as satire or as kid's wish fulfilment. So there's an element of the central character being relatable to the kids who bought the comics.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 1, 2018 11:05:36 GMT -5
Also, Richie wasn't a brat. He was a good friend to everyone. The wealth allowed for a lot of sight gags and set up mechanisms for the characters to go on adventures, with fantastic inventions from Prof. Keenbean, or while visiting one of the Rich holdings, or just trying out one of Richie's new toys. It was no different than Uncle Scrooge's Money Vault, or his treasure hunting travels with his nephews.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 1, 2018 11:12:14 GMT -5
It was no different than Uncle Scrooge's Money Vault, or his treasure hunting travels with his nephews. Going with the Uncle Scrooge analogy, much of what made Scrooge's addition to the Duck family notable was that he provided them with resources and missions that the average everyday hero could never stumble upon. It was hard to find a reason for Donald to travel to uncharted lands, climb into giant robots, or blast off into space every other month and harder still to provide him with the means of doing so until Scrooge arrived. I LOVE the classic Scrooge adventures less for Scrooge (at least until Don Rosa got a hold of him) and more for what his money and his business prospects brought to the adventures. I've never read Richie Rich, so I have no idea if the same holds true in his stories, but it would make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 1, 2018 11:50:36 GMT -5
Also, Richie wasn't a brat. He was a good friend to everyone. The wealth allowed for a lot of sight gags and set up mechanisms for the characters to go on adventures, with fantastic inventions from Prof. Keenbean, or while visiting one of the Rich holdings, or just trying out one of Richie's new toys. It was no different than Uncle Scrooge's Money Vault, or his treasure hunting travels with his nephews. This is an important point. Richie was very much not a brat. He had a lot of friends, not because of his money, but because he was a good friend. You never got the feeling he was using Freckles and Pee Wee or buying their friendship. They enjoyed each others company and had fun together.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,219
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 1, 2018 12:12:18 GMT -5
I've never read a Richie Rich comic in my life, and we only got him over here in the UK as an '80s cartoon to the best of my knowledge. Instead we had the similar, but infinitely superior, Lord Snooty (a.k.a. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton) in the Beano. This was a quite similar character to Richie Rich, but Lord Snooty actually predates his American cousin by 20 years or so.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Feb 1, 2018 12:39:38 GMT -5
I've never read a Richie Rich comic in my life, and we only got him over here in the UK as an '80s cartoon to the best of my knowledge. Instead we had the similar, but infinitely superior, Lord Snooty (a.k.a. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton) in the Beano. This was a quite similar character to Richie Rich, but Lord Snooty actually predates his American cousin by 20 years or so. To be honest, this is how most Americans picture all English kids.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 1, 2018 13:56:46 GMT -5
I've never read a Richie Rich comic in my life, and we only got him over here in the UK as an '80s cartoon to the best of my knowledge. Instead we had the similar, but infinitely superior, Lord Snooty (a.k.a. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton) in the Beano. This was a quite similar character to Richie Rich, but Lord Snooty actually predates his American cousin by 20 years or so. To be honest, this is how most Americans picture all English kids. I thought all the lads looked this way
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Feb 1, 2018 15:13:38 GMT -5
You could probably say that for a lot of books. Does Batman need five or six seperate books that are almost exactly the same except for minor variations?
And yes, Batman sells because it's Batman, Richie Rich is a different story entirely
|
|