60s characters

[phydaux]

Seeing as we're talking about Golden Age vs. Silver Age and Wonder Woman, when the HELL did she start FLYING?

[winterhawk]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae

Silver Age heroines almost always had feminine powers like shrinking, invisibility, intangibility, telepathy and the like. Strength, toughness, energy blasts were for men only. Supergirl is the only exception I can think of.

 

Your forgetting Marvel's attempt at Wonder Woman, Ms. Marvel now Warbird. They really played up the Women's Lib angle with her.

 

I think Wonder Woman gained flight Post-Crisis with George Perez's redux, but don't quote me.

[Fuzzy Gnome]

Wonder Woman had wire fu wind riding in the 70's at least; maybe she always had it. I'll do some research.

[Uncle Shecky]

Originally posted by winterhawk

Your forgetting Marvel's attempt at Wonder Woman, Ms. Marvel now Warbird. They really played up the Women's Lib angle with her.

...

 

Yeah, but is Ms. Marvel Bronze Age or Silver Age? I don't recall when she first appeared, but I never saw her until after the death of Gwen Stacy. (I might be totally wrong on the dates.) I think Marvel's tougher heroines came later: She-Hulk, Phoenix, Storm, Dazzler (well, she's not all that tough), even Red Sonja.

 

Sif might is the only exception from 60s Marvel that I can think of, but she was never a lead character and couldn't compare to Thor. (She seemed to be almost as tough as Baldur though.)

[Lightray]

Originally posted by Mutant for Hire

Don't forget the women of the Silver Age tended to wear much more modest costumes than some of the Golden Age characters as well.

Since you've replied to Doug, who was using the Legion as his Silver Age examples, I'm guessing you weren't a reader of the Legion.

 

Almost all the Legion ladies at a certain point in time had revealing costumes.

 

Dawnstar: plunging neckline. and fringe.

 

Princess Projectra, Phantom Girl: oval cutaways down sides of arms and legs (Projectra had a few more areas cut away, too).

 

Saturn Girl, Dream Girl: bikinis and go-go boots.

 

Even those with more covered up - Shrinking Violet, Light Lass, etc. - basically had one-piece bathing suits. and go-go boots. maybe a little skirt.

 

Of course, the men didn't always get off that much better. Anyone remember Cosmic Boy's male bustier? Or Tyroc's pantless outfit with the wide collar and the neckline that plunged down to there?

[Theron]

Another point of order. The revealing LSH costumes were a product of the 70s, not the 60s. Largely designed by Dave Cockrum (except for those designed by Mike Grell). Regardless, that was all well past the end of the Silver Age.

 

- Old School Legion Junkie TB

[Dr. Anomaly]

Quite right! (I'm an old Legion fan myself.)

 

As for female 'powerhouse' characters...don't forget that Light Lass went back to being Lightning Lass at the end of the LSV-Orando story arc. And pre-Crisis, what about Supergirl? Granted they're the exception rather than the rule.

 

Oh...and as much as I loathe post-Boot, there's also Thunder.

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by Blue

Real Science is the enemy of a really good superhero story. From the red sun v. yellow sun effects on kryptonian physiognomy to the super-power inducing effects of cosmic rays (which strangely has not been simulated by any group since the FF).

 

 

Heey, what about the Red Ghost and his super apes, or, many decades later, the U-Foes?

[phydaux]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Gnome

Wonder Woman had wire fu wind riding in the 70's at least; maybe she always had it. I'll do some research.

 

"Oh zepher winds that blow on high, lift me now so I may fly!"

 

"Oh Mighty Isis..."

[Fuzzy Gnome]

OK, in the one reprint I have from the early 40s Wonder Woman didn't fly. But I remember her Isifying all over the place in a back issue from the late 50s or early 60s (the Wonder Girl/Wonder Tot era)

[Vigil]

60's characters

 

Hey Guys,

 

I agree with the comment that said that the problem isn't the advance of scientific knowledge, it's the retreat of imagination. Anyone remember Alan Moore's brilliant Marvel parody, 1963?

 

The problem with comics today, and it's something that started in the early 1980's with another Alan Moore title, Swamp Thing, is that now there's a generally prevalent feeling that comics have to be "realistic", that there can't be any suspension of disbelief. I cite any number of self-indulgent and crappy Vertigo titles, in fact virtually anything they ever produced, as examples. There seems to be an increasing need in comics to become "relevant" and to address real world problems. You ask me the real world is the problem, which is why I read comics and when I'm reading them the last thing I want to be reminded of is the real world. Give me Hulk smash over Hulk agonize anyday.

 

Cheers,

 

Vigil

[zornwil]

I wouldn't question there's a lot of dross on the Vertigo label, but particularly when it started it represented an intelligence in writing that was lacking in comics. Although realism has been a part of it, the original impetus of Vertico and much of the 90s and 00s has been a striving for stories that make sense and are mature. Titles, even more recent ones, like Nevada, have done a great job in creating believable characters but losing none of comic's magic. That these titles are rare rather than the rule is no surprise for ANY media.

 

Along with it we've gotten a ton of crap, particularly stuff influenced by Ennis (although I'm not throwing in his own work, while a few things have been clunkers and self-indulgent and/or exploitive, other things, like Preacher, have been well-done and interesting), where the order of the day is sex and violence. But comics have always suffered through the attitude of being viewed as disposable entertainment, and this was true certainly before the so-called mature titles took over. It was simply a different kind of schlock prior.

[Vigil]

True there was a lot of schlock in comics in the silver age, especially in titles like Superman and Batman. The end result however, lead to the bronze ae, which I think was the richest, most fertile, imaginative and well written period in comics history. Titles like Warlock, The X-Men and Captain America spring to mind (anything that Steve Englehart was involved in, lol). I think, however, the problem isn't schlock or dross...it's cynicism and mean spiritedness, which are rampant in comics today and practically absent previously. In fact, more often than not, "mature" means either or both of those two things, which to my mind is anything but a mature way to write a comic. Rather I think those titles and, again, Vertigo is the worst offender should be labelled "Juvenille and self-indulgent". Just because characters swear way too much, treat each other badly are nauseatingly angst-ridden and get drunk or stoned on an alarmingly regular basis doesn't make a title any more meaningful or realistic or relevant than anything I've mentioned. In fact, because of it's mawkishness, I think those titles are less relevant. In my eyes,it's just a case of writers doing their job poorly ina a desperate and ill-fated attempt to be found intellectual and credible with the end result being that they turnout to be neither. In fact, I'd go so far to say that mature reader title have done little but dmaage the industry and drive readers away.

 

Vigil

[zornwil]

I don't disagree Vertigo's gone downhill, but I don't think you can name a comic burst of energy that hasn't done the same over some period of time, whether quicker or slower.

 

I'll have to check Engelhart. From my way of thinking very little super-hero stuff, as usual, was worth reading throughout the so-called Bronze or subsequent period, aside from some (not all) of Miller, the Moore stuff, some Dini, a few others (I can't recall the writer who is doing Alias, that's a quite good one in the Max line currently).

[zornwil]

Eh, I should qualify something - it's not like superhero stuff is bad as a genre, I didn't mean that, I just meant only a small portion is decent. But saying that doesn't invalidate it, most things are that way. Vertigo still has a decent but small portion fo their line.

[Vigil]

It's true there has been some good stuff published by Vertigo. Moore's Swamp Thind run (which gave rise to Vertigo) and Morrison's Egypt pop to mind. What I'm talking about, even moreso than individual books is the tone of the line. I don't think the generally pessimistic, even nihilistic, tone of those books or of books like The Hulk do anything to advance the artfulness of the medium. I think they just turn people off. It may not be the entire cause and there are other factors (computer games etc) but I think it's a good portion of the reason why readership is 10% of what it was 20 years ago. Think about it, there must be some reason why 9 out of 10 people walked away.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Vigil

What I'm talking about, even moreso than individual books is the tone of the line. I don't think the generally pessimistic, even nihilistic, tone of those books or of books like The Hulk do anything to advance the artfulness of the medium. I think they just turn people off. It may not be the entire cause and there are other factors (computer games etc) but I think it's a good portion of the reason why readership is 10% of what it was 20 years ago. Think about it, there must be some reason why 9 out of 10 people walked away.

 

I sympathize with your position, up to a point. I also have a special affection for the Bronze Age. And the current nihilistic tone (and it was MUCH WORSE some few years ago, I think it's getting better now) also gets on my nerves sometimes. Still...

 

I don't think any moral philosophy necessarily results in bad stories. I've read plenty of good pessimistic stories and plenty of hideous optimistic ones. It's just that most comic book writers follow the current trends, and the current zeitgeist is post-modern moral relativism. So they all do it.

 

I also don't think this philosophy is the reason for decreasing sales. Kids today are pretty darn nasty and nihilistic. They'd feel right at home reading today's comics. It's just that today kids have lots of other cheaper options of entertainment. But yes, the old fans have walked away. Maybe that was unavoidable. Things change.

 

You said yourself that you don't want to be reminded of the real world when reading comics. That is a personal position. Different people look for different things in their comics. Both "escapist" and "relevant" comics have their place, IMO.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Vigil

It's true there has been some good stuff published by Vertigo. Moore's Swamp Thind run (which gave rise to Vertigo) and Morrison's Egypt pop to mind. What I'm talking about, even moreso than individual books is the tone of the line. I don't think the generally pessimistic, even nihilistic, tone of those books or of books like The Hulk do anything to advance the artfulness of the medium. I think they just turn people off. It may not be the entire cause and there are other factors (computer games etc) but I think it's a good portion of the reason why readership is 10% of what it was 20 years ago. Think about it, there must be some reason why 9 out of 10 people walked away.

 

They walked away, generally, from an industry with some 30-50 years (depending on when we're talking about) of consistently poor story-telling, despite some great achievements here and there. When the comics code was put into place that sealed the fate of non-growth until the 1970s/late 1960s. The industry, I believe, has still yet to fully recover. Of course it's not just the code, it's the prevailing attitude that "these are for kids".

 

I don't think that comics changed enough substantively, through the 1980s and 1990s even though there were some very bright lights such as Sandman and Watchmen. The current crop of "realistic" comics, you're right, are more negative, but they haven't changed the fundamentally juvenile nature of comics.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil

I'll have to check Engelhart. From my way of thinking very little super-hero stuff, as usual, was worth reading throughout the so-called Bronze or subsequent period, aside from some (not all) of Miller, the Moore stuff, some Dini, a few others (I can't recall the writer who is doing Alias, that's a quite good one in the Max line currently).

 

What do you consider the "Bronze Age"? There is a lot of different definitions. I think it's mostly the late-70s, early-80s stuff (and at DC it lasted longer than in Marvel).

 

Dini isn't a Bronze Age writer, neither is Bendis (the guy from Alias). Good Bronze Age writers? I'd add Byrne, Claremont, Micheline, Stern, Simonson, and Pérez to your list.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene

What do you consider the "Bronze Age"? There is a lot of different definitions. I think it's mostly the late-70s, early-80s stuff (and at DC it lasted longer than in Marvel).

 

Dini isn't a Bronze Age writer, neither is Bendis (the guy from Alias). Good Bronze Age writers? I'd add Byrne, Claremont, Micheline, Stern, Simonson, and Pérez to your list.

 

I don't know when the Bronze Age precisely runs, so said "Bronze or subsequent period," for that reason. I was thinking roughly the same period as you, just 5 years off, more like early-mid 80s.

 

I know Dini isn't a bronze era writer, he's of the "subsequent" part. I can't recall what Stern wrote? I don't think i've read Micheline, in any case don't know that person. The others I've seen here or there, I know they've done good stuff (well, most of them anyway) but I personally haven't seen much in the super-hero line they've done that would get much interest from me. I did like a little of what i saw Byrne do but it still struck me as standard fare. I have to go back and place Perez better but generally as far as I know it's the non-super stuff that's been best. Claremont seemed like me to be just doing standard super-hero stuff, just barely updated to appear "hip" or "relevant" with X-Men, though I admit I haven't read much Claremont.

[Vigil]

As far as I know the bronze age started with Weird War Tales which I believe appeared in March 1972. That's kinda where most critics place the beginning. The end, well I think it came with the Crisis, I would say. So that gives about 13 years of up and down storytelling but also many revolutionary moments...first appearance of Wolverine...Warlock...Captain Mar-Vell...The Secret Cociety of Supervillains...The Fourth World...The New X-Men to name a few.

 

It was a time of unparalleled creativity and I think it struck a beautiful balance between maturity and imagination. One can't credibly argue that Starlin's Warlock and Dreadstar weren't mature and edgy and insightful in the best, most fully rounded sense. And they did it without being nihilistic or cynical or self-indulgent.

 

I agree with the commment that maybe today's dark, non-imaginitive tone is a lemming-like response. It worked for one writer so maybe it'll work for me, too, kinda thing until everyone is doing it. And there are exceptions that I think manage to stay positive. Stuff like Supreme Powers (by one of the best writers, in any medium, ever J Michael Straczynski of Babylon 5 fame), Thanos, The Outsiders, Noble Causes, The Avengers (hell I'll even allow Morrison's run on X-Men) are all excellent examples of smart, funny, well crafted stories that don't rely on shock value for edginess or cynicism for insight.

 

Getting back to the 1970's, and I wish we'd never left for that matter, some other great writers: Gruenwald, Levitz, Goodwin, Micheline (whose brilliant work on Iron Man is still resonating to this day) even Claremont did some dynamite writing...quite unlike the warmed over pap he's shovelling now. And that's just a few off the top.

 

What I'm saying, and this is an analogy that I first heard applied to music of the era but I think the metaphor holds, is that comics in the 1970's may have, at points, been viewed as being a river that's only an inch deep...but it was a mile wide and filled with fish of every sort. Now it's an inch deep and a foor wide and all the fish talk the same. And that's the shame of it all.

 

Vigil

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Vigil

As far as I know the bronze age started with Weird War Tales which I believe appeared in March 1972. That's kinda where most critics place the beginning. The end, well I think it came with the Crisis, I would say. So that gives about 13 years of up and down storytelling but also many revolutionary moments...first appearance of Wolverine...Warlock...Captain Mar-Vell...The Secret Cociety of Supervillains...The Fourth World...The New X-Men to name a few.

 

It was a time of unparalleled creativity and I think it struck a beautiful balance between maturity and imagination. One can't credibly argue that Starlin's Warlock and Dreadstar weren't mature and edgy and insightful in the best, most fully rounded sense. And they did it without being nihilistic or cynical or self-indulgent.

, well crafted stories that don't rely on shock value for edginess or cynicism for insight.

 

Getting back to the 1970's, and I wish we'd never left for that matter, some other great writers: Gruenwald, Levitz, Goodwin, Micheline (whose brilliant work on Iron Man is still resonating to this day) even Claremont did some dynamite writing...quite unlike the warmed over pap he's shovelling now. And that's just a few off the top.

 

What I'm saying, and this is an analogy that I first heard applied to music of the era but I think the metaphor holds, is that comics in the 1970's may have, at points, been viewed as being a river that's only an inch deep...but it was a mile wide and filled with fish of every sort. Now it's an inch deep and a foor wide and all the fish talk the same. And that's the shame of it all.

 

Vigil

 

Wow, I think the comics of the 70s pretty much stank. Dreadstar and some titles certainly stood above the norm, sure, and the form did mature a little throughout that period, but mostly it was still stilted dialogue and cheesy morality plays (as it has remained with incremental improvement, as far as I can tell since). I think a reason why some things seemed so good was that the average was still so low. Try reading Dreadstar now and see if it still seems to have so much "depth". I glanced back at mine (which I'm finally getting rid of or perhaps I just did get rid of, along with a bunch of other stuff), and was disappointed to see how a lot of the action dialogue was corny and the characterizations, while good, still didn't step out of that heroic fiction cookie-cutter very far.

 

Kind of like Gaiman's stuff from the 90s, in retrospect I think some of the reason it seemed so good was simply that it compared to a field that was so troubled. Going back now, some of Gaiman's stuff is still superb, but others of it is simply "good" writing, not great.

 

I think one key problem comics continue to face is the serial nature of the form. There has been a considerable positive improvement over the last 20 years with the migration towards limited runs and short form comics, but still the "normal" title has no end and worse yet obeys a clumsy, ill-constructed continuity of anywhere from 10-60 years. Television shares part of that problem, with the serialization creating the same challenges, but does not share super-hero comics' absurd dogmatic continuation of certain characters/titles. So in comics we see a lot more instance of a title with 2 or 3 great writers and 20 or 30 poor writers, and the title, as such, is nonsense while those issues done by a great writer stand out.

 

And of course super-hero comics necessarily face a challenge of dealing with a fantasy format prescribed by some of the community as having many necessarily cheesy conventions.

 

Re comics of any time, though, including today, there's LOTS of choices. I think there's plenty of titles today that are great, probably as many as at any other time. Of course I'm so far behind in reading I'm stumped for titles, but thinking of Stray Bullets, Dini's big books, Alias, and Atlas off-hand.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil

I know Dini isn't a bronze era writer, he's of the "subsequent" part. I can't recall what Stern wrote? I don't think i've read Micheline, in any case don't know that person. The others I've seen here or there, I know they've done good stuff (well, most of them anyway) but I personally haven't seen much in the super-hero line they've done that would get much interest from me. I did like a little of what i saw Byrne do but it still struck me as standard fare. I have to go back and place Perez better but generally as far as I know it's the non-super stuff that's been best. Claremont seemed like me to be just doing standard super-hero stuff, just barely updated to appear "hip" or "relevant" with X-Men, though I admit I haven't read much Claremont.

 

Hmm... from this and other posts it seems to me like you don't care much for the superhero genre. You're entitled to your oppinions, of course. But maybe this is coloring your views? Not trying to imply that your views are necessarily "wrong" ( I don't believe in such thing).

 

I don't quite see "standard superhero stuff" as necessarily bad. You can have good characterization, storylines, plotting, and art without making it "non-standard" superhero stuff, IMO. Though I'll fully admit that so much stuff is written in the superhero genre that is easy to understand how some people may become burned out and jaded to it. I'm a little burned out myself.

 

I think sometimes I feel the need to go out of my way and find "non-standard" superhero titles, because the standard stuff no longer works for me as well as it did before. I realize that most of the titles I read today is in the fringe of the genre and are either deconstruction or nostalgic homage/parody (Supreme Power, Astro City, Planetary, Powers, the Ultimates, all come to mind).

 

But I don't blame the genre for it. I blame myself. I've read too much. And I'm still VERY fond of the "standard" superhero when it's done right. I just don't feel the need to return to it.

 

Bearing in mind that it's all a matter of personal oppinion, I think John Byrne did wonderful work with the Fantastic Four. He got the characters very right, and he brought a delicious sense of wonder and a science-fiction sensibility back to the title. His FF is, to me, at the heart of the Marvel Bronze Age.

 

Claremont was kinda good in the X-Men until about 1986-88, IMO. Standard superhero stuff, for sure, but the man had a real talent for entertaining soap opera. He made you identify with the characters as no other superhero writer. His initial runs in New Mutants and Excalibur were good too. Later he started to repeat himself, sad.

 

Walt Simonson wrote Thor, and he brought it closer to it's mythological origins and he gave the title a... a "edge" (not in the current cynical sense, but in the sense that things seemed to matter in the title when he wrote) and he managed to make Thor into a not-goofy character for me. That alone is a herculean task and he should be lauded for it.

 

David Micheline and Roger Stern... now I'll admit they weren't as good as the other three, but they managed to get close in their better moments. David Micheline in "Iron Man", for instance, became the quintessential Iron Man writer for me. I think he managed to present Tony Stark sympatheticaly despite all his flaws. Roger Stern I liked for his Spider-Man stories.

 

And all that not mentioning DC Comics Bronze Age stuff. I enjoyed very much the following titles and I'm not ashamed of it:

Byrne's Superman (it worked almost as good as his Fantastic Four, as long as you were NOT a Silver Age fan pissed off because Byrne erased stuff), Pérez's Wonder Woman, Stern's Starman, Kesel's Hawk and Dove, Truman's Hawkman, there was Captain Atom, there was the Suicide Squad, there was Messner-Loebs's Flash... Marvel's New Warriors came about at this time too and seemed to belong more to this school of writing than the faux-Image Comics style that was starting to destroy Marvel stories in the rest of the Marvel Universe.

 

Lots and lots of stuff that, though "standard" superhero fare, was pretty darn readable and well-craft. Some days I get back to it and read some of my old collection, and it stays readable to me. I dunno. I just don't have this antagonistic attitude to superhero stories. I can enjoy Watchmen and Miracleman with the best of them (read them about 6-10 times), but I don't have any bitterness or anger toward the genre. It's just a genre like any other.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene

Hmm... from this and other posts it seems to me like you don't care much for the superhero genre. You're entitled to your oppinions, of course. But maybe this is coloring your views? Not trying to imply that your views are necessarily "wrong" ( I don't believe in such thing).

(stuff snipped for space)

 

Depends what you mean. I like the genre a lot in certain respects, that's why I play Champions. In fact I play the game to get what I can't get out of the comics often enough, characters that aren't predictable in their actions, plots that aren't predictable in their outcomes. Of course it's a bit unfair to compare gaming as the wild card is built into that, I understand that.

 

What I don't care for, and I'm sure does color my view, is the kind of simplicity that comics "demand", according to some, for younger readers. I just don't think that works beyond shorter stories/runs and one-offs, or, if it does work, it only works in highly skilled hands (as in how I view children's stories in general).

 

I'm not a huge genre fan though, no, and never really have been other than a brief period as a child, and even then the first thing i did was make up new stories with characters, changing the characters as desired.

 

So that means my bar is pretty high, higher than what a genre fan would set it at since I don't have an interesting in just "any" superhero story (not to say you do, either, but you are more interested in the genre for its own sake I believe). I don't really find that interesting that something is good "for the genre"; I want something that should be good, period, regardless of the genre. I find the genre conventions, at least as the industry holds them, get mostly in the way of that. I'm not referring to costumes or super-battles, I'm referring much moreso to the simplicity I mentioned above and also, in general, the extreme plot-focus that is all about some form of good-vs-evil (even if cloudy-good versus not-much-different evil), that we just don't see what these guys do day-to-day in any real interesting way as a typical part of the genre. It's too much like typical Hollywood "action blockbuster" films, or cliche martial arts films, too much of the time.

 

But the notion of super-people who wear costumes and do whatever they do, yes I'm quite interested in that and that's why I still check out super comics on occasssion.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil

I'm not referring to costumes or super-battles, I'm referring much moreso to the simplicity I mentioned above and also, in general, the extreme plot-focus that is all about some form of good-vs-evil (even if cloudy-good versus not-much-different evil), that we just don't see what these guys do day-to-day in any real interesting way as a typical part of the genre. It's too much like typical Hollywood "action blockbuster" films, or cliche martial arts films, too much of the time.

 

I respect your oppinions, but let's disagree about one point. I don't quite see these "restraints" as originated from a supposed attempt to write for younger readers. I still think much of the standard superhero stories from my time were best appreciated by teenagers and young men, not children.

 

Instead, I see the restraints as coming from the format and the industry. The kind of innovations you seem to long for are easier to do when you have one very personal writer working in a single isolated title in his own corner and with a ending in sight. But Marvel and DC are huge, interconnected, never-ending franchises. A bit of standardization is to be expected.

 

I hope you'll not get offended, but I'm curious to know your age. Not to pass judgement, no! Just to know what year you started reading comics. I'm a firm believer that the shift to action-adventure MTV big-action stuff came in the late-80s. Before that we had more in the way of character stuff in the so-called "standard superhero stories".