Death of Superman: End of Copper?

[bronze johnny]

Hello Fellow Forumites!!

 

"Thus the Copper Age came unto us from the gods on Mt. Overstreet. It is said in the most recent version (35th Edition) of the good book that there is now a Copper Age. We go from Gold to Silver to Bronze and now to Copper. A descending order in the scheme of things. So much for progress. Anyway, the one constant throughout all these ages, along with the great Batman, is none other than the Man of Steel himself. Yet, there is that one moment in the history of ComicBookDom where Superman is not with us- his death in Superman #75. The icon of comics who carried us through the Dark Ages of those Seduced by the Innocent could not survive (for a very short period of course!) the Age of Copper!"

 

The gods on Mt. Overstreet tell us that Copper comes to an end with the rise of Spawn, Youngblood, and WildCats. Should we accept this?

 

Does not the Death of Superman change the comic book world to a greater extent? Do we see comic books in the same way after Superman dies? Remember how big an event it was not only to those in ComicBookDom, but to all Americans who grew up loving the ultimate symbol of truth, justice, and the American Way.

 

I would like to open a discussion about whether Copper either ends with the rise of Image or the death of Superman?

 

Let's see if we can get a consensus concerning this matter...

 

Let's also have some fun...

[bullseye]

totally agree that should be the cutoff, it is what eventually started the 1990's books to drop in value seemingly overnight, and it was quite a huge deal, seems like the perfect place to begin the modern era.

[lw99dds-migration]

I agree as well and love the idea that his death sparked the dark period where speculators ruled

[Tango 'n Cash]

Copper ended with the debut of Spider-man #1, X-Men #1, and X-Force #1.

[Aman619]

you know, the more I read about opinions as to the begining and ending of ages, its becoming clear to me that we're really talking about Decades.

40s Golden

50s Atom

60s Silver

70s Bronze

80s Copper

90s Whatever we will call it. right now its still "Modern"

00s Modern

 

...and in ten years we will have a name for the 90s and the inklings of what sets the 00s apart from the 90s and eventually give it a name. So maybe we can relax in our conflicting efforts to specify the exact issue an dmonth the "changes" occurred. They happen every ten years or so. Thats close enough for me.

[awe4one]

Copper ended with the debut of Spider-man #1, X-Men #1, and X-Force #1.

 

Though I don't totally disagree, I'd move it forward a bit to the start of Image...

 

Jim

[Kevin Boyd]

Personally, I think Copper ends when the next major age of comics arrives, and I disagree with the arrival of Image and Valiant as the start of the next major age - I think that their arrival was part of the natural evolution of what was going in the Copper Age right from the start and that the arrival of Image is the peak of Copper, not the start of something new.

 

I think that the Copper age peters out in the mid-1990's when the industry was dying on the vine and officially ends in 1998-99 when the next legitimate age of comics (currently Modern) began with Morrison's JLA at DC and Marvel Knights Daredevil #1, both books sparked a rejuvination at both companies that continues to this day.

 

Plus, if you step back and luck at the cyclical nature of the industry you see that the average length of each age is about 14 years - Gold (1938-1952) Silver (1956-1970) Bronze (1970-1984) which would naturally define Copper as being approximately from 1984-1998.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[Zonker]

I like it!

 

Perhaps the end of the "post-Bronze Age" (call it Copper if we must) coincides with the Valiant implosion? And I know pegging these ages to creators is currently controversial, but this would nicely match the arc of Jim Shooter's editorial career:

 

-Shooter's rejuvenation of Marvel in the late 1970s,

-reaction at DC to Marvel's success, finally pulling DC out of its death-spiral by the early 1980s,

-star artists break away from editorial control at Marvel, culminating with Shooter's dismissal and then the Image defection

-Shooter riding the early 90s boom at Valiant, with his departure there signalling the bust.

 

Works for me.

[whetteon]

Personally, I think Copper ends when the next major age of comics arrives, and I disagree with the arrival of Image and Valiant as the start of the next major age - I think that their arrival was part of the natural evolution of what was going in the Copper Age right from the start and that the arrival of Image is the peak of Copper, not the start of something new.

 

I think that the Copper age peters out in the mid-1990's when the industry was dying on the vine and officially ends in 1998-99 when the next legitimate age of comics (currently Modern) began with Morrison's JLA at DC and Marvel Knights Daredevil #1, both books sparked a rejuvination at both companies that continues to this day.

 

Plus, if you step back and luck at the cyclical nature of the industry you see that the average length of each age is about 14 years - Gold (1938-1952) Silver (1956-1970) Bronze (1970-1984) which would naturally define Copper as being approximately from 1984-1998.

 

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Tango 'n Cash]

Are you guys serious? Image and Valiant as Copper, and something as late as 1999 as the Age "turning point"? If I were a Copper Age collector I'd let out a huge laugh right about now.

 

When Image and Valiant were hot, they were viewed as a "legitimate age" due to the power they gave Independents in the marketplace, and heralded the era of the "hot artist and writer" over the old school characters themselves. Now suddenly, with ONLY a 5+ year history, you're stating the last few years as a "legitimate age" unto itself?

 

Spawn #1 probably sold as many copies as combined monthly sales circa 2005 and movies like Blade, X-men and Spider-man had more to do with a resurgence of comic and TPB sales than anything Marvel or DC did internally to the publication line.

 

Plus, like Image and Valiant, all that can change when we look back on this 1999-Now time period, 10-15 years from now. Trying to discern a Comic Book Age after only 5 years is virtually impossible from my POV.

[Zonker]

Trying to discern a Comic Book Age after only 5 years is virtually impossible from my POV.

 

True enough. And since there's no consensus yet on when Bronze Age ended, there's no reason to expect anything about a later age could be nailed down. In fact, that's the only real reason I started thinking about the Copper Age-- it came from trying to decide why OS extending Bronze to 1984/85 didn't feel right. I think it's because I look at the 1980s to early 1990s books as being defined by a) more creative freedom and ownership rights, driven by b) new viable publishing alternatives to the Big 2, but culminating in c) the dominance of the super-hero genre as it turned out that's all the Direct Market was good for: serving the super-hero fan base.

 

So... seems like what got started along about 1980 with Pacific Comics (and then First, Eclipse, Capitol, etc.) and the Direct Market success of books like X-Men and New Teen Titans burned through the 1980s and hit super-nova status with the new 'adjective-less' Marvel #1's, Valiant, Image, and the Death of Superman speculation binge.

 

Here are a few cover dates of interest:

Spidey #1 August 1990

X-Men #1 October 1991

Spawn #1 May 1992

Unity #0 August 1992

Superman #75 January 1993

Turok #1 June 1993

[Kevin Boyd]

Are you guys serious? Image and Valiant as Copper, and something as late as 1999 as the Age "turning point"? If I were a Copper Age collector I'd let out a huge laugh right about now. When Image and Valiant were hot, they were viewed as a "legitimate age" due to the power they gave Independents in the marketplace, and heralded the era of the "hot artist and writer" over the old school characters themselves. Now suddenly, with ONLY a 5+ year history, you're stating the last few years as a "legitimate age" unto itself? Spawn #1 probably sold as many copies as combined monthly sales circa 2005 and movies like Blade, X-men and Spider-man had more to do with a resurgence of comic and TPB sales than anything Marvel or DC did internally to the publication line. Plus, like Image and Valiant, all that can change when we look back on this 1999-Now time period, 10-15 years from now. Trying to discern a Comic Book Age after only 5 years is virtually impossible from my POV.

 

Time will tell... but the rise of the independants, the stratospheric rise of the superstar artist, the prevalence of emphasis on the "superhero universe", a glut of new titles choking the modern market, mini-series, endless crossovers, gimmick covers - these were all the predominant features of COPPER - a movement that began in the mid-1980's and CAME TO A HEAD in 1990-1993 and the walls caved in around them by 1995-96.

 

Take Todd McFarlane for example, his rise and fall takes place entirely in Copper IMHO... he starts at Eclipse (Coyote) and DC (Infinity, Inc. & Invasion) then moves to Marvel (Hulk, Amazing, Spider-Man), then Image (Spawn), launches a successful toy line... all within the 1985-1992 time period. By 1997-98 Spawn is a marginal selling title and Todd isn't doing much more than plotting and doing covers for his comics. Ditto for Liefeld, Lee, Silvestri....

 

To call the last 5+ years a new age may be premature, but what we have now is what was culled from the ashes of the most devastating hit the industry took from what I think of as the LATTER part of the Copper Age. If we start subdividing these things into short 5-7 year blips then I don't see the point of calling them such as well have an age every frickin week. Last week was the OMAC age... the ALL STAR age is around the corner, or is it the HOUSE OF M age?

 

So yeah, laugh all you want, but Marvel Knights, Ultimate books, the return of the Big 7 JLA, Jim Lee selling Wildstorm to DC ... I think those are all stepping stones to rebuilding what little is left of the MODERN back issue market. If in years to come someone decides to name this era the TIN age (or whatever metal qualifies) then I don't think they would be off-base in doing so.

[Aman619]

course not. The last 5 years will bwe their own Age someday: the Resurrection Age or the Phoenix (from the ashes) Age. Maybe the Lazarus Pit Age! or the Last Gasp Age. But its clearly been an upsurge in interest fueled by the renewed quality of the comics themselves

[Tango 'n Cash]

It may be but all I was saying is that with only 5 years in the can it is impossible to adequately judge Comic Ages. Anything looks important if viewed from today, and I remember that both Image and Valiant were quite the hot items upon release.

[Aman619]

well, using my "decade" rule I posted earlier, the Image and Valiant Era will have started the 90s age, whatever and whatever it gets called. And by the end of the 90s, comics were once again on their last legs (like the 50s) marking the end of the 90s era, only to be ressurrected in the oughts with the revitalization of Marvel, Marvel Knights, Ultimate line etc, This newest Modern Age is also different in that the Indies that sprouted and died in Copper (80s) and burned bright but flew too close to the sun in the 90s (Image. Valiant) just are no longer a factor anymore. Its all DC and Marvel again.

 

but if Overstreets Bronze/Copper handoff takes hold as they now have it placed in the mid 80s, then one can assume they will at some time argue that the 90s are ALL going to be Copper.

 

Only time and hindsight can tell.

 

 

here's how I marked the decades, so you dont have to look it up:

 

40s = Golden

50s = Atom

60s = Silver

70s = Bronze

80s = Copper

90s = ?? (but still considered Modern)

00s = Modern

 

It may be a coincidence, but there does seem to have been an identifying trend/Age for every decade since 1939, no?

[Zonker]

Only time and hindsight can tell.

 

 

here's how I marked the decades, so you dont have to look it up:

 

40s = Golden

50s = Atom

60s = Silver

70s = Bronze

80s = Copper

90s = ?? (but still considered Modern)

00s = Modern

 

It may be a coincidence, but there does seem to have been an identifying trend/Age for every decade since 1939, no?

 

It is interesting, but I think you'd have to split the 50s to account for pre-code and post-code.

 

And then, lifting your analogy between the 50s and the 90s, I'd think you would likewise need to make a distinction between the boom-time Image & Valiant books and the bust that followed.

[valiantman]

I'd think you would likewise need to make a distinction between the boom-time Image & Valiant books and the bust that followed.

1995 appears to be a natural division between boom & bust.

Books prior to 1995 were generally high-quantity,

while 1995-1999 saw sales plummet.

 

It's easy to lump Image and Valiant together in general terms for the 1990s,

but it might be important to remember Valiant started before Image did,

and started with print runs near 50,000 (pre-Boom), while Image started above 500,000 (Boom).

(This is the key for the collector separation of the "pre-Unity" Valiant books.)

[Aman619]

Only time and hindsight can tell.

 

 

here's how I marked the decades, so you dont have to look it up:

 

40s = Golden

50s = Atom

60s = Silver

70s = Bronze

80s = Copper

90s = ?? (but still considered Modern)

00s = Modern

 

It may be a coincidence, but there does seem to have been an identifying trend/Age for every decade since 1939, no?

 

It is interesting, but I think you'd have to split the 50s to account for pre-code and post-code.

 

And then, lifting your analogy between the 50s and the 90s, I'd think you would likewise need to make a distinction between the boom-time Image & Valiant books and the bust that followed.

 

 

the 90s and 50s WERE similar... but I dont really see a need to split the decades as you suggest. I mean, sure, its a rough outline and the Ages didnt really start and stop every 10 years on the nose. But we always have long discussions trying to agree to specific issues or dates for the demarcation of ages, and its a neverending debate. At least by generalizing the Ages into the decades they "owned" avoids the pitfalls of having to agree to starting points.

 

But back to the 50s and 90s: it seems to me that both decades saw their momentum stop in the middle, and both ended in a multi-year long slide in sales and hence industry health. The difference was that in th 50s, the next Age had gotten started already (Showcase 4) while the last half of the 90s was a slide straight to the bottom. And it wasnt until the next decades (60s and 00s) that we fouund ourselves in a "new world" or comics.

 

Every boom age was followed by a bust, so it seems "fair" that the boom and bust be in the same Age. In this way an Age continues as it fades out; rather than it "ending" and the next taking years to gestate. If I had to choose thats how Id apportion the bust periods: with the early half of the decade..

[Kevin Boyd]

But back to the 50s and 90s: it seems to me that both decades saw their momentum stop in the middle, and both ended in a multi-year long slide in sales and hence industry health. The difference was that in th 50s, the next Age had gotten started already (Showcase 4) while the last half of the 90s was a slide straight to the bottom. And it wasnt until the next decades (60s and 00s) that we fouund ourselves in a "new world" or comics.

 

To be fair though, that's a qualified argument based on sales of superhero comics.

 

The sales of other genres were very strong in the mid-1950's when the superheroes went into retreat, particularly on Western, Crime, movie, romance, teen, funny animal/cartoons, monster, and later, science fiction and the infamous horror comics. (However the Batman and Superman families of titles were still doing very well).

 

The 1956-61 (pre-Marvel) DC superhero renaissance was a "new world" of comics - kids lapped up titles like Flash, Green Lantern, Justice League of America (and later Atom, Hawkman, Teen Titans). If DC hadn't already created a new audience for superheroes in 1956-61 and captured the eye of a new generation, would Stan Lee and Jack Kirby have had as much success with the new Marvel line in 1962-65? Hard to say, after the fact.

 

Meanwhile, nothing was selling too strongly in the mid-1990's (except marginally the X-Men at Marvel and Kingdom Come at DC), but superhero comics were still the predominant genre, there were no other genres there to fall back to as they did in the 1950's.

[Aman619]

But back to the 50s and 90s: it seems to me that both decades saw their momentum stop in the middle, and both ended in a multi-year long slide in sales and hence industry health. The difference was that in th 50s, the next Age had gotten started already (Showcase 4) while the last half of the 90s was a slide straight to the bottom. And it wasnt until the next decades (60s and 00s) that we fouund ourselves in a "new world" or comics.

 

To be fair though, that's a qualified argument based on sales of superhero comics.

 

The sales of other genres were very strong in the mid-1950's when the superheroes went into retreat, particularly on Western, Crime, movie, romance, teen, funny animal/cartoons, monster, and later, science fiction and the infamous horror comics. (However the Batman and Superman families of titles were still doing very well).

 

The 1956-61 (pre-Marvel) DC superhero renaissance was a "new world" of comics - kids lapped up titles like Flash, Green Lantern, Justice League of America (and later Atom, Hawkman, Teen Titans). If DC hadn't already created a new audience for superheroes in 1956-61 and captured the eye of a new generation, would Stan Lee and Jack Kirby have had as much success with the new Marvel line in 1962-65? Hard to say, after the fact.

 

Meanwhile, nothing was selling too strongly in the mid-1990's (except marginally the X-Men at Marvel and Kingdom Come at DC), but superhero comics were still the predominant genre, there were no other genres there to fall back to as they did in the 1950's.

 

the dropoff on superheroes happened in the 40s when the War ended. no?

and the dropoff in the 50s affected all the horror and mystery stuff, and trickled to the rest. I agree I am speaking from a superhero-centriv view, but dont Gerbers sales charts show a continuous decline of ALL comics from 1954 - 1960? Aside from comics for little kids, I dont think ANYTHING was selling too well at that time as many artists and writers were starving and bailing on comics for advertising, etc.