|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 7:46:28 GMT -5
Also shaxper, please do not take any of my comments as disregarding that people can have different experiences along the way. I've just lived now for a long time where I see so many perceptions of the 80's that, intended or not, minimize perhaps the weight of what was really going on. And I'm old and tired of it, we were NOT less caring, less realistic, or somehow superficial in our values. I think it's rather the opposite and I wish people would just stop finding reasons to keep finding fault with it. That's not directed at you specifically by any means. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 28, 2023 7:49:22 GMT -5
I was there too, but I experienced a somewhat different 1980s. In hindsight, I feel like Rocky IV best captured the tone of the era I knew: simplistic, egotistic, mildly concerned with both the Cold War and racial tensions and yet naively convinced it had a grasp on both. The future was so bright, we had to wear shades, and while the "coming of age" films and MTV videos played to a generation in rebellion, what they were rebelling against wasn't injustice or even a political machine; they were rebelling agains the clean-cut wholesomeness that America was attempting to embrace again, failing to note the irony that it was being brought about by Jerry Falwells and Jim Bakkers. They were fighting for the right to party and little else. I think you may have been on the younger side during that decade, it was not Rocky IV even though the movie was loosely symbolic of the still present nuclear threat and tension with Russia. We were not rebelling against clean-cut wholesomeness, this was not really a thing back then (Jerry Falwell and Jim Bakker did not remotely seem like a "serious threat" any of us were talking about). We were FULLY educated on the civil rights movement, we were the Sesame Street generation in the 70's when Jesse Jackson was telling ALL of us we could be anything, and forgive our naivete but many of us believed that. No, the 80's wasn't a "mildly concerned", we were trying to build on the progess we thought had been made and trying to move it forward. We saw the idealism of a Cosby Show and a Different World, and while we knew the "real world" was far from that advanced, it inspired us to try to make that idealism more of a reality. Don't mistake our lack of headbands, bell bottoms, and protest signs, for a lack of "fighting for rights", the fight had evolved and forgive us for thinking positivity also had power to make the world better. Also remember, there were many adults during that time that had been significantly touched by the Vietnam war. My dad was one of them, they did not come back to a society as wartime heroes ready to raise their family in a 50's style idyllic setting. There were not just physical scars but signficant mental ones as well, and made their relationships with their country not such a simple matter after that. It impacted us as a generation growing up, in some ways our "rebellion" was an underlying aftershock from those raising us who were not as universally preaching how great America was. Our seeming "party" attitude was not quite as superficial as you may think, trust me. As we were both there, neither of us is in a place to say that the other perspective is incorrect. I don't think there is much debating that popular culture aligned pretty closely with what I've said, but your personal experiences were of a different America, and that is valid too. Thus I stand by my original point that, pop-culture wise, visions of wholesomeness and stability were already present and that folks weren't clamoring for more of it beyond their primetime TGIF viewing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 8:21:36 GMT -5
I think you may have been on the younger side during that decade, it was not Rocky IV even though the movie was loosely symbolic of the still present nuclear threat and tension with Russia. We were not rebelling against clean-cut wholesomeness, this was not really a thing back then (Jerry Falwell and Jim Bakker did not remotely seem like a "serious threat" any of us were talking about). We were FULLY educated on the civil rights movement, we were the Sesame Street generation in the 70's when Jesse Jackson was telling ALL of us we could be anything, and forgive our naivete but many of us believed that. No, the 80's wasn't a "mildly concerned", we were trying to build on the progess we thought had been made and trying to move it forward. We saw the idealism of a Cosby Show and a Different World, and while we knew the "real world" was far from that advanced, it inspired us to try to make that idealism more of a reality. Don't mistake our lack of headbands, bell bottoms, and protest signs, for a lack of "fighting for rights", the fight had evolved and forgive us for thinking positivity also had power to make the world better. Also remember, there were many adults during that time that had been significantly touched by the Vietnam war. My dad was one of them, they did not come back to a society as wartime heroes ready to raise their family in a 50's style idyllic setting. There were not just physical scars but signficant mental ones as well, and made their relationships with their country not such a simple matter after that. It impacted us as a generation growing up, in some ways our "rebellion" was an underlying aftershock from those raising us who were not as universally preaching how great America was. Our seeming "party" attitude was not quite as superficial as you may think, trust me. As we were both there, neither of us is in a place to say that the other perspective is incorrect. I don't think there is much debating that popular culture aligned pretty closely with what I've said, but your personal experiences were of a different America, and that is valid too. Thus I stand by my original point that, pop-culture wise, visions of wholesomeness and stability were already present and that folks weren't clamoring for more of it beyond their primetime TGIF viewing. Diverse viewpoints happen, it's all cool. I think you have a different lens on the pop culture, and it makes me a little sad you view the era as "folks weren't clamoring". It was so much more. It really was. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 28, 2023 8:29:08 GMT -5
As we were both there, neither of us is in a place to say that the other perspective is incorrect. I don't think there is much debating that popular culture aligned pretty closely with what I've said, but your personal experiences were of a different America, and that is valid too. Thus I stand by my original point that, pop-culture wise, visions of wholesomeness and stability were already present and that folks weren't clamoring for more of it beyond their primetime TGIF viewing. Diverse viewpoints happen, it's all cool. I think you have a different lens on the pop culture, and it makes me a little sad you view the era as "folks weren't clamoring". It was so much more. It really was. I think you assume I'm judging the era. If anything, I long for the naivete popular culture was trying to sell us again. It was blissful growing up after the informed struggles of the 1960s and 1970s into an era that was more idealistic, whether or not it had a right to be. You sound like you and those you knew were products of the 1970s, a very different era where caring and belief in a better future were front and center. I know enough now that I feel a burden to care about the plights of those less fortunate, as well as to fear for my own family's well-being, whether economically, politically, or even in terms of world policy. '80s pop culture, however, had me trained to believe everything was going to be fine once Apartheid was ended and the Berlin Wall came down. I truly miss an era in which I could count on one hand the number of things popular culture was telling me to worry about. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 8:57:17 GMT -5
Diverse viewpoints happen, it's all cool. I think you have a different lens on the pop culture, and it makes me a little sad you view the era as "folks weren't clamoring". It was so much more. It really was. I think you assume I'm judging the era. If anything, I long for the naivete popular culture was trying to sell us again. It was blissful growing up after the informed struggles of the 1960s and 1970s into an era that was more idealistic, whether or not it had a right to be. You sound like you and those you knew were products of the 1970s, a very different era where caring and belief in a better future were front and center. I know enough now that I feel a burden to care about the plights of those less fortunate, as well as to fear for my own family's well-being, whether economically, politically, or even in terms of world policy. '80s pop culture, however, had me trained to believe everything was going to be fine once Apartheid was ended and the Berlin Wall came down. I truly miss an era in which I could count on one hand the number of things popular culture was telling me to worry about. Not judging per se, just again we're coming at this from different places. But yes, I was born in the 70's and spent my earliest years during that time before "coming of age" in the 80's, again why I was thinking there may be some age factor here as well. We did not quite believe "everything was going to be fine" after Apartheid ended or the Berlin Wall came down (heck, for most of the 80's we did not see that last one coming or the dissolution of the Soviet Union). As I mentioned before, it was a heightened tone of optimism, but far from complacency. Also remember, this was an era where we had a lot of environmental issues on our mind, substance abuse (D.A.R.E. program and things like that), solving world hunger (we started a council at my school on this that I sat on), etc. Granted I was in a very progressive environment where I lived, the parents I had, the teachers I had, etc. (you might have picked up on my orientation a bit). And a lot of those issues started with the prior generation and they were bringing that awareness into our lives as well. My Earth Science teacher was an environmental activist on the weekend, heck even my guitar private instructor showed up on the local news one day because he helped discover some illegal toxic dumping and was front and center leading a protest. A lot of mistrust of large corporations overall. The pop culture of the era certainly had a notable fun factor, but I never felt like it was telling me "everything's fine". I wish it had, that's probably why during that time I fell in love with all the Silver Age reprints I could fine. I dreamt a bit of that imaginary world that was so different from what it was like going to school and living in my modern world that seemed to have such a mess of issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 28, 2023 9:41:34 GMT -5
I think you assume I'm judging the era. If anything, I long for the naivete popular culture was trying to sell us again. It was blissful growing up after the informed struggles of the 1960s and 1970s into an era that was more idealistic, whether or not it had a right to be. You sound like you and those you knew were products of the 1970s, a very different era where caring and belief in a better future were front and center. I know enough now that I feel a burden to care about the plights of those less fortunate, as well as to fear for my own family's well-being, whether economically, politically, or even in terms of world policy. '80s pop culture, however, had me trained to believe everything was going to be fine once Apartheid was ended and the Berlin Wall came down. I truly miss an era in which I could count on one hand the number of things popular culture was telling me to worry about. Not judging per se, just again we're coming at this from different places. But yes, I was born in the 70's and spent my earliest years during that time before "coming of age" in the 80's, again why I was thinking there may be some age factor here as well. We did not quite believe "everything was going to be fine" after Apartheid ended or the Berlin Wall came down (heck, for most of the 80's we did not see that last one coming or the dissolution of the Soviet Union). As I mentioned before, it was a heightened tone of optimism, but far from complacency. Also remember, this was an era where we had a lot of environmental issues on our mind, substance abuse (D.A.R.E. program and things like that), solving world hunger (we started a council at my school on this that I sat on), etc. Granted I was in a very progressive environment where I lived, the parents I had, the teachers I had, etc. (you might have picked up on my orientation a bit). And a lot of those issues started with the prior generation and they were bringing that awareness into our lives as well. My Earth Science teacher was an environmental activist on the weekend, heck even my guitar private instructor showed up on the local news one day because he helped discover some illegal toxic dumping and was front and center leading a protest. A lot of mistrust of large corporations overall. The pop culture of the era certainly had a notable fun factor, but I never felt like it was telling me "everything's fine". I wish it had, that's probably why during that time I fell in love with all the Silver Age reprints I could fine. I dreamt a bit of that imaginary world that was so different from what it was like going to school and living in my modern world that seemed to have such a mess of issues. I was born in 1967, so I grew up full blown in the 80s. And my recollections are much closer to those of Shaxper than those of Supercat. Now part of that may have to do with growing up in small-town Idaho as opposed to a city or suburb, but I grew up in an entirely different 80s than the one you did. Nobody I knew was worried about nuclear war. The Russians knew better and wouldn't dare because we'd bury them. St. Ronnie said so and if he said it, it was gospel. We never had DARE...I never heard of it until my kids were in school. Nobody cared about the environment. It was put here to serve and be tamed by us. Where I grew up...and I was 12 when 1980 started and 22 on December 31 1989, the 80s were an almost complete rejection of everything that happened in the late 60s and the 70s and a desperate attempt to get back to the 50s and early 60s with zero cognizance of what made that time actually happen. Rocky IV is a perfect distillation of this. Add in a bit of Rambo while you're at it. Not First Blood though...he was too whiny in that. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 28, 2023 9:53:10 GMT -5
or the Berlin Wall came down (heck, for most of the 80's we did not see that last one coming or the dissolution of the Soviet Union). A generational difference, I suppose, as the need for the Berlin Wall to come down was articulated repeatedly in the media I was exposed to. An episode of Alvin in The Chipmunks distinctly comes to mind in which Alvin dreams of a German family being reunited after the fall of Communism. I guess we were invited to care about issues in other people's backyards, but not so much our own. Even the Cosby Show you mentioned earlier could be seen as a vision of hope, but for my generation it was a signal for complacency. Previous generations could watch Sanford and Son or Good Times and see how the other half lived, so to speak. Beginning with Different Strokes and continuing with the Cosby Show, we were shown Black Americans doing just fine, nothing to be concerned about. Anyway, I think we've de-railed this thread enough. I've enjoyed discussing this with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 10:01:10 GMT -5
or the Berlin Wall came down (heck, for most of the 80's we did not see that last one coming or the dissolution of the Soviet Union). A generational difference, I suppose, as the need for the Berlin Wall to come down was articulated repeatedly in the media I was exposed to. An episode of Alvin in The Chipmunks distinctly comes to mind in which Alvin dreams of a German family being reunited after the fall of Communism. I guess we were invited to care about issues in other people's backyards, but not so much our own. Even the Cosby Show you mentioned earlier could be seen as a vision of hope, but for my generation it was a signal for complacency. Previous generations could watch Sanford and Son or Good Times and see how the other half lived, so to speak. Beginning with Different Strokes and continuing with the Cosby Show, we were shown Black Americans doing just fine, nothing to be concerned about. Anyway, I think we've de-railed this thread enough. I've enjoyed discussing this with you. Same here, thanks Shax! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 10:17:58 GMT -5
I enjoyed reading both of your posts, although you neglecting to mention the 80s wrestling boom has disappointed me immensely. Oh well. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 10:39:26 GMT -5
I enjoyed reading both of your posts, although you neglecting to mention the 80s wrestling boom has disappointed me immensely. Oh well. ;-) Wrestling was the schniz in the 80's! I still remember seeing Rocky III which started it for me, I loved a lot of things about that movie but it was totally my introduction to Hulk and he was so cool in it. That led to WWF discovery, and I remember I think it was 1984 when we finally got proper cable (we were living in a rural area at that point) and next year I think was our first PPV event with WrestleMania I (Hulk AND Mr. T). I watched the Rock 'n Wrestling cartoon as well, it felt like wrestling was everywhere. Roddy Piper early on become my favorite, and while I was already a fan by that point, his "performance" in They Live further cemented that for me. Ah, such good memories  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 10:41:48 GMT -5
And my recollections are much closer to those of Shaxper than those of Supercat. Now part of that may have to do with growing up in small-town Idaho as opposed to a city or suburb, but I grew up in an entirely different 80s than the one you did. Yes, but we've previously established we're from mirror universes  |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Apr 28, 2023 11:05:02 GMT -5
Do you remember what kind of comics were successful in the 80s?  |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Apr 28, 2023 12:17:19 GMT -5
When folks refer to "Byrne's Superman reboot" or discuss whether Byrne's reboot made the right choices, I feel compelled to point out that Byrne deserves little of the blame and/or credit. By the time he came aboard the Superman titles, the reboot was already almost completely planned out. Credit/blame goes to Frank Miller, Steve Gerber, Andy Helfer, and Marv Wolfman. If anything, Byrne seemed to resist their choices and worked hard to bring back all the ridiculous Silver Age shenanigans the reboot had sought to remove. As for whether or not Superboy should have been included, I happen to love classic Superboy, but what I love most about it is its wholesomeness and sense of stability. In a world of fear and chaos, wholesomeness and stability are pure escapist fantasy. In the 1980s, though, America had a strong illusion/delusion of both wholesomeness and stability. Thus, the escapist fantasies of the period ran in the opposite direction, involving dark anti-heroes and grim deconstruction. Superboy was wrong for the 1980s, but man could we use him now! Without wishing to derail this thread, I have to ask what it is that Miller, et al brought to the table. Obviously, you can run circles around my knowledge of this period and I'm sure you've addressed this on your Superman thread, but I'm really curious about this. Wolfman, of course, gave us businessman Luthor and a much more rounded one than what Byrne provided; Miller clearly influenced Byrne's take on Superman's relationship with Batman; but other than knowing that Gerber and Miller pitched an idea for Superman, I don't know what they contributed to the reboot. A quick check online suggests that their Superman was going to be "a continuation of Siegel and Shuster's original vision with a hard edged Superman, more concerned with social justice", but that doesn't sound like Byrne at all. i.redd.it/other-the-story-of-the-steve-gerber-frank-miller-1980s-dc-v0-fv9rp8aqn0491.jpg?s=69b1c19c6c170f7a5794304f4af40ff0800767efThough I'm not a fan of Byrne's, I've always accepted that the changes - Clark Kent now the real guy/Superman just a disguise; living Kents; Superman as an everyday Joe but with powers; Krypton cold and sterile; no other survivors; etc. - came from him. Am I wrong or are you referring to something else? |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 28, 2023 13:37:48 GMT -5
When folks refer to "Byrne's Superman reboot" or discuss whether Byrne's reboot made the right choices, I feel compelled to point out that Byrne deserves little of the blame and/or credit. By the time he came aboard the Superman titles, the reboot was already almost completely planned out. Credit/blame goes to Frank Miller, Steve Gerber, Andy Helfer, and Marv Wolfman. If anything, Byrne seemed to resist their choices and worked hard to bring back all the ridiculous Silver Age shenanigans the reboot had sought to remove. As for whether or not Superboy should have been included, I happen to love classic Superboy, but what I love most about it is its wholesomeness and sense of stability. In a world of fear and chaos, wholesomeness and stability are pure escapist fantasy. In the 1980s, though, America had a strong illusion/delusion of both wholesomeness and stability. Thus, the escapist fantasies of the period ran in the opposite direction, involving dark anti-heroes and grim deconstruction. Superboy was wrong for the 1980s, but man could we use him now! Without wishing to derail this thread, I have to ask what it is that Miller, et al brought to the table. Obviously, you can run circles around my knowledge of this period and I'm sure you've addressed this on your Superman thread, but I'm really curious about this. Wolfman, of course, gave us businessman Luthor and a much more rounded one than what Byrne provided; Miller clearly influenced Byrne's take on Superman's relationship with Batman; but other than knowing that Gerber and Miller pitched an idea for Superman, I don't know what they contributed to the reboot. A quick check online suggests that their Superman was going to be "a continuation of Siegel and Shuster's original vision with a hard edged Superman, more concerned with social justice", but that doesn't sound like Byrne at all. i.redd.it/other-the-story-of-the-steve-gerber-frank-miller-1980s-dc-v0-fv9rp8aqn0491.jpg?s=69b1c19c6c170f7a5794304f4af40ff0800767efThough I'm not a fan of Byrne's, I've always accepted that the changes - Clark Kent now the real guy/Superman just a disguise; living Kents; Superman as an everyday Joe but with powers; Krypton cold and sterile; no other survivors; etc. - came from him. Am I wrong or are you referring to something else? It's been a long time since I did my original research, and I did a poor job of crediting my sources back then, so all I can say is that I firmly recall reading that the vast majority of the Superman reboot came from Miller and Gerber's pitch; at the very least, the idea of a hard reboot with the more fantastical elements of the mythos removed. I also vaguely recall an interview with Wolfman (I think in Amazing Heroes) where he implies that everything was already in place before Byrne, but they wanted a high profile name at the center of the reboot. And my own experience reading/reviewing these stories shows Byrne constantly pushing to bring back the Atom-age elements of the mythos from Mxyzptlk to Titano to Jimmy Olsen's signal watch, and eventually Superboy and Supergirl. |
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on May 1, 2023 11:12:35 GMT -5
The DC war books were said to be Earth-1, so the Nazis were getting their butts kicked by Sgt Rock, the Haunted Tank, M'lle Marie, the Losers, Gravedigger, Unknown Soldier, Creature Commandos, etc. So, the few mystery men who were retroactively assigned to Earth-1 weren't needed. For the most part, they kept the war characters in their own world, except for team-up books, like Brave & The Bold and DC Comics Presents. My personal feeling is that superheroes should only fight super-Nazis, because regular soldiers can handle a regular battlefield. I agree in general, but the totality of the Earth-1 WW2-era superheroes (aside from the besuited magicians like Sargon and Zatara) were fairly low- to moderate-powered, and not characters who could have likely won the war on their own anyway. |
|
