What was the Best Decade Overall for Comics in the Last Century?

Basically, what it says in the title: which particular decade of the 20th Century do you think provided the most important, the most entertaining, the most memorable work? I'm basically limiting this to the 20th Century because, while comics arguably originated in the 19th, it was the 20th in which they really took off (and there's been far too little of the 21st yet to judge) but apart from that, this poll can apply to American, British, European, Japanese or any other kind of comics, so don't feel you have to limit your analysis to one area.

Personally, while I realize I'm biased as it was effectively 'my' era, I think I'd have to nominate the eighties, as there was so much groundbreaking work done in that decade in both the USA (Swamp Thing, Dark Knight, Watchmen, Miller's Daredevil, the rise of the independent market and books like American Flagg, Grimjack and DNAgents)  and the UK (Warrior, the golden age of 2000AD, Marvel UK, and the breakout of new talent they all inspired) that I think it was the last really great time for comics. Thoughts?

tony ingram wrote:Personally, while I realize I'm biased as it was effectively 'my' era, I think I'd have to nominate the eighties, as there was so much groundbreaking work done in that decade in both the USA (Swamp Thing, Dark Knight, Watchmen, Miller's Daredevil, the rise of the independent market and books like American Flagg, Grimjack and DNAgents) and the UK (Warrior, the golden age of 2000AD, Marvel UK, and the breakout of new talent they all inspired) that I think it was the last really great time for comics. Thoughts?

I agree, to some (a large) extent. I think you can make a case for the 1930s, in that superheroes took off, the 1950's for their revival, the 1960's for the expansion (Marvel, especially), the 1980s, and now for the sheer amount of material available. I hate limiting myself to American superhero comics, but that's what I really know, and while I'm checking out more I can't judge what I don't really know.

I would have said that superheroes really took off in the 1940s. They might have been created in the late 30s, but only a handful appeared before 1940, and the early Superman was the closest to what we've come to think of as a superhero: the Sandman, the Crimson Avenger, even Batman in his earliest days were still more influenced by the heroes of the pulps, gun toting masked vigilantes. I have always felt that Batman didn't really become an actual 'superhero' until the introduction of Robin!

tony ingram wrote: I have always felt that Batman didn't really become an actual 'superhero' until the introduction of Robin!

Yeah, that makes sense, it just sort of blurred together for me. Late 30s through mid 40s.

Mbast1 wrote:it just sort of blurred together for me. Late 30s through mid 40s.

Yes, my late 30s are a bit of a blur, too. As are my early 30s, late 20s and indeed early 20s.

I can remember 1984 like it was yesterday, though...

tony ingram wrote:Yes, my late 30s are a bit of a blur, too. As are my early 30s, late 20s and indeed early 20s.

I was talking to someone not too long ago, and I referred to something that had happened as having been "a few years ago". It was 20 years ago.
THAT is how you know you're old.

I don't think anyone decade has more to recommend it than the others, though some are noticeably weaker, but arguments could be made for the 30's, 40's, 60's, 80's, 90's and Noughties. I challenge anyone to put much forward for the 50's and 70's but even then I have to stop and say Brunner's Dr Strange, Starlin and Warlock/Captain Marvel, Kaluta on the Shadow and of course Wein and Wrightson on Swamp Thing and Kirby at DC so even the 70's aren't all that bad.

Maybe it's because I don't really think decades fit neatly into the chronological dates they are given. For example 'the 60's' to me don't start until the Beatles appeared on Johnny Carson and didn't end until the splashdown of Apollo 17. The '70's' start with The Miners strike and end with the first performance of Public Image Limited.

I know, I'll get my hat.

Surely the point about superheroes in the 30's is that they were still very much in the thrall of their immediate inspiration, The Pulps.

Bats might as well have been The Shadow until the 40's.

BluesShark wrote:I challenge anyone to put much forward for the 50's and 70's but even then I have to stop and say Brunner's Dr Strange, Starlin and Warlock/Captain Marvel, Kaluta on the Shadow and of course Wein and Wrightson on Swamp Thing and Kirby at DC so even the 70's aren't all that bad.

You forgot Colan and Wolfman's Tomb of Dracula, Steve Gerber's Man-Thing, Defenders and Howard The Duck (and, in fact, pretty much anything else he wrote; even Omega the Unknown was pretty good), Bill Mantlo and Michael Golden's Micronauts, Steve Englehart's Avengers, and over at DC Cockrum's LSH, Star Hunters, Time Warp...

I'd take Mantlo's Two-in One run over Micronauts.

Interestingly, on that evidence I'd have to say that the 70's is my decade, if only because I read all of that stuff in UK reprints in the 70's or my brothers copies of the actual titles.

I'd argue you left out Thomas and Windsor/Buscema on Conan as well.

Ok, there's an argument for the 70's. Now make one for the 50's, smartey-pants! 

Umm...

Sorry. All I've got is the Eagle.  

BluesShark wrote:Ok, there's an argument for the 70's.   

You know, I think the 70's were vital to the changes in the (mainly superhero) market in the U.S. I think it's when companies started to move towards longer, more involved stories due (I think) to the beginnings of a direct market.
When I was a kid, I bought comics from a local convenience store. Mostly they got the comics regularly, but when they didn't there was nothing to do.
(When I first found a store devoted to comics, I thought I'd stumbled into nirvana).
I think companies began to let writers do (slightly) more adult stories, with more depth and begin to treat the characters as a bit more human.
For me, I'm thinking of Superman with Elliot S! Maggin and Cary Bates, especially Who took the Super out of Superman, but others where they started to focus on other characters and the more human aspects of the series. I think they saw that they had a somewhat older audience who would stick around longer and began to reward them for that. (Ok, they played to where the money was...)
At least I think this is the case.

And I think you're dead right.
I could meander off into a long, nostalgiac ramble about the day I discovered my first comics speciality shop on a trip to Lewisham with my Nan, but I won't... 

Although my best era was 1960 to 1970, I think for comics (at least here in the "colonies" - boy, get over it, willya!), 1940 to 1950 was the best because of the introduction of so many super heroes building off of Superman and Batman initially - so many of which allowed for other characters and concepts to be created in following years.

I went with the 1960s. That's when I first began reading comic books.

I still say the Lee/Kirby issues of Fantastic Four (#1-102) were among the best of any comic books I have ever read and still  influence my comic book reading habits to this day.

That was a great run. A shame Jack left when he did.

Kirby was getting ready for these:




[quote="tony ingram"]

I preferred Kamandi, to be honest.

tony ingram wrote:I preferred Kamandi, to be honest.

I never liked Kamandi. The only issues that I ever bought, after trying it out initially, were any featuring Superman as a guest in some manner.

Kamandi at Earth's End?

no, back still with Kirby


or in B and B with Batman (Haney messing up again but it was a fun story)

I liked Haney's stuff. I was definitely an Earth B fan.

tony ingram wrote:I liked Haney's stuff. I was definitely an Earth B fan.

Once one accepted that he was just wrong about stuff, then you could enjoy his stories. Plus, he obviously contributed a great deal to the DCUs over the long haul.

DC did eventually say that there was an Earth One Wildcat, though. Bob Rozakis stated it in his Answer Man column at one point. Not that he ever reappeared after those few 70s stories (Wildcat, I mean, not Rozakis).

I know Rozakis said that but the only one that ever wrote Wildcat seemingly on Earth 1 was Haney as far as I know. I also think it was Rozakis who came up with the term "Earth B" so I think he knew Haney's errors were just that: errors. Good storytelling yes but errors just the same.

As I recall, Earth B didn't just refer to Haney's stories, though, but also to some by Murray Boltinoff and E. Nelson Bridwell. Or am I misremembering?

tony ingram wrote:Or am I misremembering?

Check my signature

It would seem that only stories involving Batman were on Earth "B". Honestly, there was no Earth B in DC canon. It was just a throwaway idea/explanation by Rozakis for what Haney did in B&B.

[b]From Wikipedia (so take it for what it's worth) [/b]This Earth was never specifically depicted, but was suggested to exist in a letters column by DC editor/writer Bob Rozakis as a possible explanation for certain non-continuity stories or character traits (for example, stories that showed Catwoman committing murder with no qualms, despite being established that she did not engage in that kind of activity); tongue-in-cheek, Rozakis designated it "Earth-B" in "honor" of writer Bob Haney, whose Brave and the Bold stories were then-notorious examples of such continuity errors. ICG's Official Crisis Crossover Index theorized that DC Challenge took place on this Earth which given the involvement of Oan Guardians would make it an alternate Earth-One timeline.

[b]From "Comments on a Finite Number of Earths" by Lou Mougin and Mark Waid[/b]:  (I think only Mougin and Waid included writers besides Haney)

"This Earth can be the most elusive of all for which to pin
down any identifying traits. Indeed, it has never been shown
by DC as a distinct Earth; it is only posited to exist because
of inconsistencies created in comics edited by Murray Boltinoff,
or written by Bob Haney or E. Nelson Bridwell. Mostly, these
inconsistencies are found in issues of Brave and the Bold and
World's Finest Comics."

"In fact, it is difficult to say which stories in those series
did occur on Earth-B, since most issues can be recognised as
canonical tales of Earth-One. Here are some possible identifying
traits:"

"The Batman of Earth-B began his career in World War II, at least
shortly before D Day He teamed with Sgt. Rock in a crucial point of
the conflict. Bruce Wayne had a brother named Thomas, whose existence
was hidden from him until the 1970s, Batman continued his career
without letup all the way through the Seventies, without marrying or
seeming to age. His Catwoman, unlike that of Earth One, has no
compunction against murdering and has done so at least once. Green
Arrow I, after losing his fortune to John Deleon (as on Earth One),
apparently regained it to a large degree."

"These stories are but the tip of the iceberg, and any tale which conflicts
irreconcilably with canonical "fact" in other stories can be assigned to
Earth-B. It is probable that Earth-B did not survive the Crisis; it may be
the Earth on which DC Challenge takes place."

I've been wracking my brains trying to think where I had heard the above quoted before, or someting very like it, andI've finally got it. It was in Eclipse's Crisis on Infinite Earths Index!

tony ingram wrote:It was in Eclipse's Crisis on Infinite Earths Index!

I own both of those (including the Crossover Index), and they are really well done.

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:It was in Eclipse's Crisis on Infinite Earths Index!

I own both of those (including the Crossover Index), and they are really well done.

They are. I still miss Eclipse, they published some great stuff. Shame it all ended in such a train wreck.

tony ingram wrote: . . . Personally, while I realize I'm biased as it was effectively 'my' era, I think I'd have to nominate the eighties, as there was so much groundbreaking work done in that decade in both the USA (Swamp Thing, Dark Knight, Watchmen, Miller's Daredevil, the rise of the independent market and books like American Flagg, Grimjack and DNAgents)  and the UK (Warrior, the golden age of 2000AD, Marvel UK, and the breakout of new talent they all inspired) that I think it was the last really great time for comics. Thoughts?

I'm not sure about "last really great time", but even though my formative years of collecting were in the 1970s, I think the 1980s were really important in term of both the rise of many independent comic books / publishers as well as many attempts to re-invent mainstream comic books. Crisis on Infinite Earths and some of the changes that resulted from it were, for better or worse, truly game-changing.

Oddly, I've never really considered COIE to be one of the more significant events of the eighties. It shuffled around the internal continuity of one company but it wasn't the first maxi-series or a new way of telling stories or even a new type of story. It was important if you were a DC fan, but not hugely significant otherwise.

Oddly, I've never really considered COIE to be one of the more significant events of the eighties. It shuffled around the internal continuity of one company but it wasn't the first maxi-series or a new way of telling stories or even a new type of story. It was important if you were a DC fan, but not hugely significant otherwise. wrote:

Emphasis on "Oddly?" I think you may be the only one. Certainly, it was bigger for a DC fan but it was the first time, I believe, that a major comic book publisher re-booted/re-defined/what-have-you its entire line of books in many different way.

Silogramsam wrote:
Emphasis on "Oddly?"  I think you may be the only one.  Certainly, it was bigger for a DC fan but it was the first time, I believe, that a major comic book publisher re-booted/re-defined/what-have-you its entire line of books in many different way.  

Sure, but that's only really important within the boundaries of a shared universe, something that not all (or indeed most) comics publishers tend to bother with.

tony ingram wrote:

Silogramsam wrote:
Emphasis on "Oddly?"  I think you may be the only one.  Certainly, it was bigger for a DC fan but it was the first time, I believe, that a major comic book publisher re-booted/re-defined/what-have-you its entire line of books in many different way.  

Sure, but that's only really important within the boundaries of a shared universe, something that not all (or indeed most) comics publishers tend to bother with.

It was a relatively successful publisher who had been in business for quite a long time having a major event where returning to the status quo at the very end was NOT a given fact. They killed off some major characters and didn't just bring them back right away with some explanation that they didn't really die as it appeared, and they rebooted a major figure or two in ways nobody would have expected back then.

MajorHoy wrote:

tony ingram wrote:

Silogramsam wrote:
Emphasis on "Oddly?"  I think you may be the only one.  Certainly, it was bigger for a DC fan but it was the first time, I believe, that a major comic book publisher re-booted/re-defined/what-have-you its entire line of books in many different way.  

Sure, but that's only really important within the boundaries of a shared universe, something that not all (or indeed most) comics publishers tend to bother with.

It was a relatively successful publisher who had been in business for quite a long time having a major event where returning to the status quo at the very end was NOT a given fact. They killed off some major characters and didn't just bring them back right away with some explanation that they didn't really die as it appeared, and they rebooted a major figure or two in ways nobody would have expected back then.

Yes, I know, but...I think I'm not explaining myself clearly, here...what you're talking about are all fictional events within a fictional shared universe. Important to the fans of the characters, but anyone who wasn't a regular DC reader wouldn't have a clue what had supposedly happened or why it was important outside of "12 part series to celebrate 50 years of publishing", which is admittedly impressive in itself but doesn't really change the way people view comics. Whereas works like Watchmen, Arkham Asylum, Miller's Dark Knight, or over here, Pat Mills's Crisis (no relation) and Alan Moore's pretty much everything, all attracted attention because they were doing new things, breaking new ground. Comics began to be seen (admittedly by a minority, but it was a start) as an emerging form of literature, something to watch because people were doing interesting things with the medium. Those people were responsible for Watchmen winning major awards not normally given to comics, and articles about comics in the broadsheets. But they wouldn't know or care who was the Flash this week or what Earth Batman lived on.

Yes, I get you.

But Tony, it was important . . . it got major recognition even outside of DC readers just because it was a big-name company making major changes. And that, combined with everything else previously mentioned with independents, the b&w explosion here in the US, and other areas where DC branched out beyond the traditional superhero comfort zones is why the decade of the 1980s was such an overall game-changer in terms of modern day comic books.

MajorHoy wrote:But Tony, it was important . . . it got major recognition even outside of DC readers just because it was a big-name company making major changes. And that, combined with everything else previously mentioned with independents, the b&w explosion here in the US, and other areas where DC branched out beyond the traditional superhero comfort zones is why the decade of the 1980s was such an overall game-changer in terms of modern day comic books.

I'm still not convinced that in-universe changes at DC were really a big deal outside DC readers. I'd have said DC's most significant move in the eighties was hiring in all the British talent, mostly former 2000 AD creators, who changed the tone of a lot of the stuff being put out and led to the creation of Vertigo. And of course, a lot of those creators wouldn't have entered the field in the first place if not for 2000 AD (and Warrior, and to a lesser extent Marvel UK).

Pretty certain my parents have never heard of Crisis on Infinite Earths (but you can ask them tomorrow).

Lucy McGough wrote:Pretty certain my parents have never heard of Crisis on Infinite Earths (but you can ask them tomorrow).

It may not have gotten as much coverage across the pond. However, I had temporarily stopped following comic books but had read about CoIE in a newspaper or magazine article. (Granted, it wasn't front page news, but it was in a non-comic book publication.)

MajorHoy wrote:

Lucy McGough wrote:Pretty certain my parents have never heard of Crisis on Infinite Earths (but you can ask them tomorrow).

It may not have gotten as much coverage across the pond. However, I had temporarily stopped following comic books but had read about CoIE in a newspaper or magazine article. (Granted, it wasn't front page news, but it was in a non-comic book publication.)

I think you can safely assume that would not have made a British newspaper.

Well, I don't know if making a British newspaper is the standard for whether something is newsworthy or, specifically, whether COIE was newsworthy. Considering it was 1985 and there were not very many mainstream news outlets commenting on anything to do with comic books, the fact that COIE did make it into the mainstream news was newsworthy in and of itself. I'm also not sure whether Lucy's parents are the standard either. My parents probably didn't hear of COIE either and they lived deep in the heart of America then. I wouldn't consider them the bell weather for that sort of thing though. I also don't know if the influx of British writers and artists to DC (and Marvel) was such a phenomenon considering it was a gradual, not a sudden, thing. If it was, then the earlier influx of artists from south of the US and from the middle of the Pacific Ocean should have also been something newsworthy as well.

Silogramsam wrote:Well, I don't know if making a British newspaper is the standard for whether something is newsworthy or, specifically, whether COIE was newsworthy.  Considering it was 1985 and there were not very many mainstream news outlets commenting on anything to do with comic books, the fact that COIE did make it into the mainstream news was newsworthy in and of itself.  I'm also not sure whether Lucy's parents are the standard either.  My parents probably didn't hear of COIE either and they lived deep in the heart of America then.  I wouldn't consider them the bell weather for that sort of thing though.  I also don't know if the influx of British writers and artists to DC (and Marvel) was such a phenomenon considering it was a gradual, not a sudden, thing.  If it was, then the earlier influx of artists from south of the US and from the middle of the Pacific Ocean should have also been something newsworthy as well.  

In fact, the first wave of the so-called British invasion took place over the course of just a couple of years, and there were a lot of them. I wrote an article on it a few years back, I'll have to find it.

I wonder why they all came here? Hmmmmm.....

Silogramsam wrote:I wonder why they all came here?  Hmmmmm.....

Because they were offered more money than IPC or DC Thomson were paying. However, most of them continued to work in the domestic market too, and several basically tried working in the US market, didn't much like it, and elected not to continue. Pat Mills, for one.

tony ingram wrote:I'm still not convinced that in-universe changes at DC were really a big deal outside DC readers.

I'm a big DC fan (until recently) and COIE brought me back into comics after a short lull. I'd love to one day do a website about it, with all the history and material presented to people. I even listen to Podcasts, LONG ones, where they dissect COIE.
That said, I see your point, and I agree. It was a big deal to the American superhero audience, and that's probably about it. There were a few articles and news stories, but that was all PR. "Hey, look we're killing off Supergirl". Big news for about 5 minutes, and then back to the only people who care being hardcore superhero fans. Like me at the time.
But, I don't see much of an interest in it for courses on comics as it's just not a big deal overall. A mention here and there, sure, but that's about it. It's all about a niche market, and that's about it.

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:I'm still not convinced that in-universe changes at DC were really a big deal outside DC readers.

I'm a big DC fan (until recently) and COIE brought me back into comics after a short lull. I'd love to one day do a website about it, with all the history and material presented to people. I even listen to Podcasts, LONG ones, where they dissect COIE.
That said, I see your point, and I agree. It was a big deal to the American superhero audience, and that's probably about it. There were a few articles and news stories, but that was all PR. "Hey, look we're killing off Supergirl". Big news for about 5 minutes, and then back to the only people who care being hardcore superhero fans. Like me at the time.
But, I don't see much of an interest in it for courses on comics as it's just not a big deal overall. A mention here and there, sure, but that's about it. It's all about a niche market, and that's about it.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say. I suppose it's a matter of perspective, since that superhero market was nowhere near as dominant over here.

BluesShark wrote: . . . Ok, there's an argument for the 70's.  Now make one for the 50's, smartey-pants! 

tony ingram wrote:Umm...

Sorry. All I've got is the Eagle.

The start of the Silver Age in comic books doesn't count for something?