I'm told it happens to a lot of men.
Anyway, less of what she said. Distraction of leaking water pipes and plumber and the bathroom flooding after said plumber fitted a new tap.
See? Never noticed I just went for an hour, did you? Just the water people trying to find the external stop tap and failing for 45 minutes because, you know, what do I know?
Oh. They found it where I said. Shock.
Now, what else was there? THANKS to Mt Northall for the birthday card/present!
It's odd but I was explaining this whole "comparing with DC and Marvel" when it came to the UKs former "Big Two" -D. C. Thomson (DCT) and Fleetway/Amalgamated Press- to Mr Northall, which he agreed made sense. That's not the "odd" bit -my sentence was just getting too long (oo-er!). I had a sample issue of Buster (a weekly UK comic) and Hotspur, both from 1972 and that's when I realised that the DC-Marvel comics comparison was better than I thought.
Before I start let me make something very clear. Despite what some people at Thomson may think of me, I really don't care: I still love my old DCT characters -whether Billy Whizz, Black Sapper, Nick Jolly, King Cobra or whichever. I've been asked more than once if it was not hypocritical of me, with what I have written about DCT in the last 20 years and its editorial policy, to keep saying how much I still love the old characters?
That makes no sense. What people have done to DCT comics -is only the Beano published now? Yeah, looks like it.
But look at it this way. Marvel and DC comics are run by money-men who DO NOT care about fans and they even mock continuity. However, am I now supposed to hate and not want to read the 1960s-1989 Marvel comics or even those of Timely from the 1940s? No. It makes no sense.
The Beano of today, if you compare it to copies from 1961, 1971 and 1981 is far better production quality but contents -no. Not funny and no cross-genre selection so it caters for one specific group.
Yes, DCT brought us Fister Flint and The Return Of The Fisters (did someone just faint at the back again?) and the classics that I loved as a kid, though never liked sport -Wilson and The Tough Of The Track,
Oddly, I was about to write that Fleetway sport comics left me cold but I just remembered loving the wrestling adventures of Johnny Cougar!
Roy Of The Rovers....the mere thought of the strip makes me fall asleep. The genre, I mean -see, this is why I write it isn't all "black and white". Hate football (was there ever a UK rugby comic strip?) but I love looking at the artwork -whether 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s there was a lot of good art in the sports comics and Roy Of The Rovers in particular.
Whereas DCT did pull in work from a few European artists in later years there was an "in-house" style that tended to stifle anything that looked too different. The company did have some great artists but not many seemed to be pushing the artistic side of things. It was "very up-tight" as one artist told me. Try to add a flourish and you got frowned at!
But look at the covers. DCT seemed happy with just the typical colour strip on the cover and on the back cover. Certainly Fleetway did this because it was traditional -look at the Tiger and Jag cover above for instance. However, they began to develop more on this so that covers tended to look more like splash pages
This eventually turned into full blown cover art. But there was a big difference away from the art.
Yes, companies had their in-house styles but Fleetway let their artists stretch the boundaries more -whether breaking down the panel borders, being more graphic in content or style. Whereas DCT went to the European book shows to sell strips as Dundee Editions, Gil Page and Fleetway did this but also went to meet artists and their representatives and began employing people like Balardinelli, Vanyo and Romero.
This drawing in of fresh new blood meant that Fleetway titles always attracted the eye more than DCT. And the look was completely different.
But here is the biggest difference and it is where the DC and Marvel comparison really shows.
I am a big fan of the Silver Age Justice League of America and a huge fan of the annual JLA-Justice Society of America team ups.
I have the DC Showcase Presents run of black and white books covering JLA. I also have the Marvel Essentials run of The Mighty Avengers. You can immediately tell the difference based on issue covers -DC were often trying to chop and change things because they kept thinking they had found out "why" Marvel Comics were selling better. You then go into the comics themselves.
I love Mike Sekowsky -more than a decade after he drew JLA he was working on Seabord Periodicals Atlas Comics and The Brute #1 and I still loved his art. He had to conform to the style DC wanted. I could go on for ages about why people who keep bad-mouthing his work are jerks but I wont.
Now go across to Marvel and The Mighty Avengers. Where Kirby, Chic Stone, etc., were delivering more detailed figure art, backgrounds and incredible covers. Because Stan Lee had his way of working and letting the artists use their imaginations which meant they were far more free to develop. It worked. No matter what you say because history and the records show Marvel was beating DC hands down. Yes, my older brother was a DC fan so you can imagine the, uh, "discussions"!
But the other major difference that meant Marvel beat DC at every point were the writers. You look at a 1960s JLA comic and a 1960s Avengers comic and you KNEW the difference. DC bosses knew comics were for kids or dummies who could not read properly. Marvel realised people from all walks of life read comics -many having picked up the habit while in the forces. They were not dumbing down. Here is a made up sample of dialogue that shows the difference:
DC: "He tricked us by using magic"
Marvel: "By using the gem of cyttorak he was able to warp our perception of reality and that left us wide open to his scheming!"
Just read the books and you'll see what I mean. Later DC had writers like Denny O'Neill but their stories and scripts were so heavily preachy and trying to be "right on" that, despite being considered "classics", some of the stories stink. I recently re-read some of these comics and ended up looking at the art. I get it: Pollution is BAD. War is BAD (unless its against the Nazi/communists or America's enemies). Do you know, heroin and drugs are bad? No, really, Denny O'Neill wrote a script that proved it (after Lee and Romita did their Norman Osborne anti-drug story that was NOT preachy).
But I digress. The point is that DCT were also constraining artists with an in house style but also some very bad writing. The Iron Teacher -a "super" intelligent robot that ends up teaching kids at a school in the US West. Three pages of the Iron Teacher carrying part of a rebuilt school that had burnt down, taking kids on a school trip to a mine where he was lured into a trap but walks into town and the school that was being closed because it (Iron Teacher) had been thought "killed"....it seemed all very slap-dash. No real imagination and the dialogue where it exists is awful.
A Buster comic from the same year had strips with great characterisation, plot twists and snappy dialogue.
But that was the difference I had not fully realised. DCT was very much like DC comics in that the idea seemed to be "comics are for kids" and both failed to realise just how comics were for all ages and groups and were becoming part of popular culture.
Amalgamated Press/Fleetway (but mainly after the change to Fleetway) were like Marvel in that they realised different ages were reading comics -teenagers would NEVER have admitted to reading comics in the 1950s to early 1960s just "so un-cool!" But, fer crying out loud -Ringo from The Beatles was photographed reading an Alan Class Comic! Other stars were seen reading comics. It was now cool.
You had the impression that DCT editors went to dinner parties and probably talked one-up-manship. The Fleetway editors may well have gone to dinner parties but probably talked new movies, TV and other relevant popular topics.
But the question has always been "What happened?" Why did the UKs Big Two fail? Well, with Thomson I think the rot set in during the late 1970s. The DCT boss on BBC TVs The Money Programme stated quite clearly that in 5-10 years "comics will be a thing of the past". Yet, had they called in someone with a knowledge of comics, the industry and trends, they could have gone on and on publishing. They could still make an impact with comics. However, if the bosses -the money men- don't have the intestinal fortitude to back comics....it's over.
For Fleetway, well, the Maxwell but out that a killing blow but there is little doubt that, as at Marvel Comics, things nose dived when the fan boys got into the industry. That topic would take several posts to cover but as one boss told me over lunch: "Getting comic fans in to edit seemed a great idea -they would know what comic buyers want. Instead they did comics THEY wanted."
And when Egmont bought Fleetway there were promises of new titles and investment but the big warning should have been that Egmont were buying up comic companies (such as Bastei in Germany) and stopping all comic production. The merchandise magazine and toy with, perhaps, a comic strip of sorts "accidentally included" was the plan.
I recall one editor who had supported the Egmont buy out stating: "It was like you pulled someone drowning out of the river and they then stabbed you through the heart" -he would not say exactly what had happened as far as he was concerned he felt betrayed. I really think he thought Fleetway-Egmont was going to launch a new era in British comics.
The main thing we can see from the old UK industry, though, is that, yes, DCT =DC Comics and Fleetway =Marvel Comics.
See, I get long winded at times!
Before you ask, no, never seen Strip nor read it so this is just a bit of "comic glamour" at the end of the post!
Anyway, less of what she said. Distraction of leaking water pipes and plumber and the bathroom flooding after said plumber fitted a new tap.
See? Never noticed I just went for an hour, did you? Just the water people trying to find the external stop tap and failing for 45 minutes because, you know, what do I know?
Oh. They found it where I said. Shock.
Now, what else was there? THANKS to Mt Northall for the birthday card/present!
It's odd but I was explaining this whole "comparing with DC and Marvel" when it came to the UKs former "Big Two" -D. C. Thomson (DCT) and Fleetway/Amalgamated Press- to Mr Northall, which he agreed made sense. That's not the "odd" bit -my sentence was just getting too long (oo-er!). I had a sample issue of Buster (a weekly UK comic) and Hotspur, both from 1972 and that's when I realised that the DC-Marvel comics comparison was better than I thought.
Before I start let me make something very clear. Despite what some people at Thomson may think of me, I really don't care: I still love my old DCT characters -whether Billy Whizz, Black Sapper, Nick Jolly, King Cobra or whichever. I've been asked more than once if it was not hypocritical of me, with what I have written about DCT in the last 20 years and its editorial policy, to keep saying how much I still love the old characters?
That makes no sense. What people have done to DCT comics -is only the Beano published now? Yeah, looks like it.
But look at it this way. Marvel and DC comics are run by money-men who DO NOT care about fans and they even mock continuity. However, am I now supposed to hate and not want to read the 1960s-1989 Marvel comics or even those of Timely from the 1940s? No. It makes no sense.
The Beano of today, if you compare it to copies from 1961, 1971 and 1981 is far better production quality but contents -no. Not funny and no cross-genre selection so it caters for one specific group.
Yes, DCT brought us Fister Flint and The Return Of The Fisters (did someone just faint at the back again?) and the classics that I loved as a kid, though never liked sport -Wilson and The Tough Of The Track,
Oddly, I was about to write that Fleetway sport comics left me cold but I just remembered loving the wrestling adventures of Johnny Cougar!
Roy Of The Rovers....the mere thought of the strip makes me fall asleep. The genre, I mean -see, this is why I write it isn't all "black and white". Hate football (was there ever a UK rugby comic strip?) but I love looking at the artwork -whether 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s there was a lot of good art in the sports comics and Roy Of The Rovers in particular.
Whereas DCT did pull in work from a few European artists in later years there was an "in-house" style that tended to stifle anything that looked too different. The company did have some great artists but not many seemed to be pushing the artistic side of things. It was "very up-tight" as one artist told me. Try to add a flourish and you got frowned at!
But look at the covers. DCT seemed happy with just the typical colour strip on the cover and on the back cover. Certainly Fleetway did this because it was traditional -look at the Tiger and Jag cover above for instance. However, they began to develop more on this so that covers tended to look more like splash pages
This eventually turned into full blown cover art. But there was a big difference away from the art.
Yes, companies had their in-house styles but Fleetway let their artists stretch the boundaries more -whether breaking down the panel borders, being more graphic in content or style. Whereas DCT went to the European book shows to sell strips as Dundee Editions, Gil Page and Fleetway did this but also went to meet artists and their representatives and began employing people like Balardinelli, Vanyo and Romero.
This drawing in of fresh new blood meant that Fleetway titles always attracted the eye more than DCT. And the look was completely different.
But here is the biggest difference and it is where the DC and Marvel comparison really shows.
I am a big fan of the Silver Age Justice League of America and a huge fan of the annual JLA-Justice Society of America team ups.
I have the DC Showcase Presents run of black and white books covering JLA. I also have the Marvel Essentials run of The Mighty Avengers. You can immediately tell the difference based on issue covers -DC were often trying to chop and change things because they kept thinking they had found out "why" Marvel Comics were selling better. You then go into the comics themselves.
I love Mike Sekowsky -more than a decade after he drew JLA he was working on Seabord Periodicals Atlas Comics and The Brute #1 and I still loved his art. He had to conform to the style DC wanted. I could go on for ages about why people who keep bad-mouthing his work are jerks but I wont.
Now go across to Marvel and The Mighty Avengers. Where Kirby, Chic Stone, etc., were delivering more detailed figure art, backgrounds and incredible covers. Because Stan Lee had his way of working and letting the artists use their imaginations which meant they were far more free to develop. It worked. No matter what you say because history and the records show Marvel was beating DC hands down. Yes, my older brother was a DC fan so you can imagine the, uh, "discussions"!
But the other major difference that meant Marvel beat DC at every point were the writers. You look at a 1960s JLA comic and a 1960s Avengers comic and you KNEW the difference. DC bosses knew comics were for kids or dummies who could not read properly. Marvel realised people from all walks of life read comics -many having picked up the habit while in the forces. They were not dumbing down. Here is a made up sample of dialogue that shows the difference:
DC: "He tricked us by using magic"
Marvel: "By using the gem of cyttorak he was able to warp our perception of reality and that left us wide open to his scheming!"
Just read the books and you'll see what I mean. Later DC had writers like Denny O'Neill but their stories and scripts were so heavily preachy and trying to be "right on" that, despite being considered "classics", some of the stories stink. I recently re-read some of these comics and ended up looking at the art. I get it: Pollution is BAD. War is BAD (unless its against the Nazi/communists or America's enemies). Do you know, heroin and drugs are bad? No, really, Denny O'Neill wrote a script that proved it (after Lee and Romita did their Norman Osborne anti-drug story that was NOT preachy).
But I digress. The point is that DCT were also constraining artists with an in house style but also some very bad writing. The Iron Teacher -a "super" intelligent robot that ends up teaching kids at a school in the US West. Three pages of the Iron Teacher carrying part of a rebuilt school that had burnt down, taking kids on a school trip to a mine where he was lured into a trap but walks into town and the school that was being closed because it (Iron Teacher) had been thought "killed"....it seemed all very slap-dash. No real imagination and the dialogue where it exists is awful.
A Buster comic from the same year had strips with great characterisation, plot twists and snappy dialogue.
But that was the difference I had not fully realised. DCT was very much like DC comics in that the idea seemed to be "comics are for kids" and both failed to realise just how comics were for all ages and groups and were becoming part of popular culture.
Amalgamated Press/Fleetway (but mainly after the change to Fleetway) were like Marvel in that they realised different ages were reading comics -teenagers would NEVER have admitted to reading comics in the 1950s to early 1960s just "so un-cool!" But, fer crying out loud -Ringo from The Beatles was photographed reading an Alan Class Comic! Other stars were seen reading comics. It was now cool.
You had the impression that DCT editors went to dinner parties and probably talked one-up-manship. The Fleetway editors may well have gone to dinner parties but probably talked new movies, TV and other relevant popular topics.
But the question has always been "What happened?" Why did the UKs Big Two fail? Well, with Thomson I think the rot set in during the late 1970s. The DCT boss on BBC TVs The Money Programme stated quite clearly that in 5-10 years "comics will be a thing of the past". Yet, had they called in someone with a knowledge of comics, the industry and trends, they could have gone on and on publishing. They could still make an impact with comics. However, if the bosses -the money men- don't have the intestinal fortitude to back comics....it's over.
For Fleetway, well, the Maxwell but out that a killing blow but there is little doubt that, as at Marvel Comics, things nose dived when the fan boys got into the industry. That topic would take several posts to cover but as one boss told me over lunch: "Getting comic fans in to edit seemed a great idea -they would know what comic buyers want. Instead they did comics THEY wanted."
And when Egmont bought Fleetway there were promises of new titles and investment but the big warning should have been that Egmont were buying up comic companies (such as Bastei in Germany) and stopping all comic production. The merchandise magazine and toy with, perhaps, a comic strip of sorts "accidentally included" was the plan.
I recall one editor who had supported the Egmont buy out stating: "It was like you pulled someone drowning out of the river and they then stabbed you through the heart" -he would not say exactly what had happened as far as he was concerned he felt betrayed. I really think he thought Fleetway-Egmont was going to launch a new era in British comics.
The main thing we can see from the old UK industry, though, is that, yes, DCT =DC Comics and Fleetway =Marvel Comics.
See, I get long winded at times!
Before you ask, no, never seen Strip nor read it so this is just a bit of "comic glamour" at the end of the post!
No comments:
Post a Comment