Why did the Copper Age last such a short time? 0

[DavidTheDavid]

8 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I am curious as to why the modern age has lasted such a long time? Besting golden age, silver age, bronze age and copper age for longevity. It's like most comic historians quit telling the story of the history of comics sometime between 1990s over printed dreck and Marvel's bankruptcy.

Modern Age is over 20 years old going on 30.

 

Maybe the breaks in continuity by both DC and Marvel, the two cinematic universes, various series reboots, the number of high quality independent publications, and digital comics are shifting to a new age now?

[Dick O.]

22 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I am curious as to why the modern age has lasted such a long time? Besting golden age, silver age, bronze age and copper age for longevity. It's like most comic historians quit telling the story of the history of comics sometime between 1990s over printed dreck and Marvel's bankruptcy.

Modern Age is over 20 years old going on 30.

 

Here's my  from this article 

The 25-year Modern Age seems too broad; I think there should be a delineation somewhere in the late-'90s/early-'00s. Perhaps the Marvel turnaround starting with Marvel Knights' Daredevil #1 (1998), Joe Quesada becoming Marvel EIC (2000), or the new breed of Image creator-owned titles starting with Walking Dead #1 (2003). If so, then the new Ages could look like this:

• Modern Age: 1992 (Youngblood #1) to 2002
• Digital Age: 2003 (Walking Dead #1) to present day

‘Digital’ Age seems apt due to digital production and consumption becoming increasingly prevalent during this period.

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Dick O.

[ComicConnoisseur]

2 hours ago, O. said:

2003 (Walking Dead #1) to present day

Wow. Walking Dead debuted 15 years ago. Time flies.

[Prince Namor]

8 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I am curious as to why the modern age has lasted such a long time? Besting golden age, silver age, bronze age and copper age for longevity. It's like most comic historians quit telling the story of the history of comics sometime between 1990s over printed dreck and Marvel's bankruptcy.

Modern Age is over 20 years old going on 30.

 

The creativity that defines a period is all gone from the Big Two and has been for almost 30 years.

[Prince Namor]

RMA's point about the Copper Age is really important and CC's fits into it....

The Copper Age was like a last hurrah for any sort of regurgitated creativity of existing characters. It's like the second copy of a copy, which was still able to retain it's clarity - since that time, the characters and who they were has become a blur, as the idea continues to be diluted, polluted, and perverted.

Most of the unique ideas and interesting comics almost HAVE to come from outside the big two now, because they can't truly change anything in the Big Two.

When Gwen Stacey died, and Stan said to find a way to bring her back (because of all the backlash he received).. THAT event truly was the start of the modern age of comics, where they went from being an idea factory to a 'property' owned by a corporation. It's no surprise that this occurred as he was transitioning into his Hollywood salesman persona of trying to sell those ideas to the movie industry.

The Copper Age as a last hurrah has it's limits too... Moore didn't revamp Superman or Batman in a radical way. He took Swamp Thing and the Charlton characters (and in Morrison's case Doom Patrol and Animal Man); and Miller took Daredevil, a failing character with no direction - and when he did do Batman it was either in an alternate world (DKR) or not that radical (Year One). The Robin who was killed wasn't Grayson, it was Jason Todd. And even Jason Todd didn't really die...

Not discounting the Copper Age at all. I think it's good as way to separate the periods. But there may come a time when we separate those age periods not by what the Big Two is doing (the same old thing), but by what independent publisher's are doing.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

RMA's point about the Copper Age is really important and CC's fits into it....

The Copper Age was like a last hurrah for any sort of regurgitated creativity of existing characters. It's like the second copy of a copy, which was still able to retain it's clarity - since that time, the characters and who they were has become a blur, as the idea continues to be diluted, polluted, and perverted.

Most of the unique ideas and interesting comics almost HAVE to come from outside the big two now, because they can't truly change anything in the Big Two.

When Gwen Stacey died, and Stan said to find a way to bring her back (because of all the backlash he received).. THAT event truly was the start of the modern age of comics, where they went from being an idea factory to a 'property' owned by a corporation. It's no surprise that this occurred as he was transitioning into his Hollywood salesman persona of trying to sell those ideas to the movie industry.

The Copper Age as a last hurrah has it's limits too... Moore didn't revamp Superman or Batman in a radical way. He took Swamp Thing and the Charlton characters (and in Morrison's case Doom Patrol and Animal Man); and Miller took Daredevil, a failing character with no direction - and when he did do Batman it was either in an alternate world (DKR) or not that radical (Year One). The Robin who was killed wasn't Grayson, it was Jason Todd. And even Jason Todd didn't really die...

Not discounting the Copper Age at all. I think it's good as way to separate the periods. But there may come a time when we separate those age periods not by what the Big Two is doing (the same old thing), but by what independent publisher's are doing.

 

Yes, this is all very important to keep in mind.

Name the stories that have come out from Marvel or DC in the last 20 years that have been original, and made an impact on comics history.

What...?

None, you say?

Ok, name the characters that have been created in the last 20 years that have been original, and made an impact on comics history?

What....?

There aren't any, except maybe, possibly, a Wolverine clone....?

"But...but...but...what about Hush in Batman!?" you may protest. Ok. Tell me 1. what happened in Hush, and 2. how it impacted Batman in any way.

I can tell you what happened in Swamp Thing #21. Hell, I can practically recite it from memory. I can tell you what happened in Batman #426-429, cheesy as that story is. I can tell you what happened in Batman #436-442. I can tell you what happened in Amazing Spiderman #300. I can tell you what happened in X-Men #266....sorta. Claremont was clearly high on something when he wrote the last 5 years of X-Men. 

I can definitely tell you what happened in Watchmen, and Killing Joke, and Miracleman, and Animal Man and Sandman.

The last 20-25 years should be called "The Derivative Age." Consider one of the most popular titles from the 00s: Ultimate Spiderman. What is Ultimate Spiderman? A "re-imagining" of the previous 40 year history of the character's stories! Bendis spins a great yarn....don't get me wrong...but one of the most popular comics of the entire decade was a DERIVATION of characters and stories that had already been told.

Why?

Because no one wants to give Marvel or DC anything new and exciting...or just different.

You go to Image, and you find Ellis' brilliant Stormwatch/Authority masterpiece, and Astro City (still derivative!!), and Planetary, and Walking Dead, and other stuff that is fun, or interesting, or creative...lots that didn't work, but some that did.

DC and Marvel? Forget it. Why create something that is only going to make money for other people? 

DD was a couple of seconds from being cancelled...no, really. Mainline characters don't go to bi-monthly publication because sales are UP. Claremont and Cockrum were given X-Men because it was already a dead title. Batman, when Miller took on the character, was selling less than 100,000 copies a month, and was limping along (yes, Virginia, there was a time when Batman was in the dumps, and nobody wanted it.) Wonder Woman was CANCELLED ALREADY when Perez was given the character, reducing the number of characters in continuous publication since WWII to 2: Batman and Superman. Justice League was no hot shakes in the sales dept, which is why Giffen & DeMatteis were given a shot. Pasko's Swamp Thing was dying on the vine. Animal Man had a grand total of 15 or so appearances in his first 20 years of existence.

So what made the "Copper Age" so great is that creators took existing concepts and turned them on their heads. Whether it was Gaiman's Sandman, or Moore's Swamp Thing...very little was created in the Copper Age that was wholly new, but what was done was that the artform was perfected, from a "almost entirely for kids" medium in the late 70s, to a "holy , this stuff is really, really good!" by the early 90s.

Now, you see endless derivation, endless repetition of old ideas, endless recycling...and it's part of the larger Arc of Culture that the West is going through in its dying phase. Look at what's popular on TV. Do you see groundbreaking shows, like Lost (which, due to the ineptitude of its creators, Damon and Lindelof, was squandered)? Do you see groundbreaking cultural shows, despite what you may think of their premises, like Will & Grace, or Roseanne, or Murphy Brown..?

No. 

You see Will & Grace, Roseanne, and Murphy Brown...and Magnum PI, and Twin Peaks, and....well, you get the idea. 2017-2018 reboots of these 80s and 90s originals! 

And, as an example of how taking an idea and building on it can work, that quintessential sequel, Star Trek: The Next Generation, was a "Copper Age" (1987) production. Then....Paramount took that idea and ran it smack dab into the ground until...it...couldn't....get....back....up....again.

So.

There you have it.

You want to know why new comics struggle to sell 100,000 copies, or 50,000, or 2,000...?

It's not...AT ALL...because "people are moving away from print to digital."

No. It's because very few companies are publishing anything that connects with the public.

If someone came up with an X-Men, like Claremont, Cockrum, and Byrne did...or a DD like Miller did....or a Sandman like Gaiman did...or Swamp Thing like Moore did...but NONE of those things, something totally original....the public would eat it up.

The superhero movies are proof of that...and the Star Wars movies are going down the tubes because they're just rehashing the same stories. 

Tell a good story, and the people will flock to you, regardless of the format. They really will. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

And, by the way...as groundbreaking as Sandman was, let's not be fooled for a minute into thinking that Gaiman wasn't doing heavy recycling of stories that were, in some cases, thousands of years old.

[Not A Clone]

4 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yes, this is all very important to keep in mind.

Name the stories that have come out from Marvel or DC in the last 20 years that have been original, and made an impact on comics history.

What...?

None, you say?

Ok, name the characters that have been created in the last 20 years that have been original, and made an impact on comics history?

What....?

There aren't any, except maybe, possibly, a Wolverine clone....?

"But...but...but...what about Hush in Batman!?" you may protest. Ok. Tell me 1. what happened in Hush, and 2. how it impacted Batman in any way.

I can tell you what happened in Swamp Thing #21. Hell, I can practically recite it from memory. I can tell you what happened in Batman #426-429, cheesy as that story is. I can tell you what happened in Batman #436-442. I can tell you what happened in Amazing Spiderman #300. I can tell you what happened in X-Men #266....sorta. Claremont was clearly high on something when he wrote the last 5 years of X-Men. 

I can definitely tell you what happened in Watchmen, and Killing Joke, and Miracleman, and Animal Man and Sandman.

The last 20-25 years should be called "The Derivative Age." Consider one of the most popular titles from the 00s: Ultimate Spiderman. What is Ultimate Spiderman? A "re-imagining" of the previous 40 year history of the character's stories! Bendis spins a great yarn....don't get me wrong...but one of the most popular comics of the entire decade was a DERIVATION of characters and stories that had already been told.

Why?

Because no one wants to give Marvel or DC anything new and exciting...or just different.

You go to Image, and you find Ellis' brilliant Stormwatch/Authority masterpiece, and Astro City (still derivative!!), and Planetary, and Walking Dead, and other stuff that is fun, or interesting, or creative...lots that didn't work, but some that did.

DC and Marvel? Forget it. Why create something that is only going to make money for other people? 

DD was a couple of seconds from being cancelled...no, really. Mainline characters don't go to bi-monthly publication because sales are UP. Claremont and Cockrum were given X-Men because it was already a dead title. Batman, when Miller took on the character, was selling less than 100,000 copies a month, and was limping along (yes, Virginia, there was a time when Batman was in the dumps, and nobody wanted it.) Wonder Woman was CANCELLED ALREADY when Perez was given the character, reducing the number of characters in continuous publication since WWII to 2: Batman and Superman. Justice League was no hot shakes in the sales dept, which is why Giffen & DeMatteis were given a shot. Pasko's Swamp Thing was dying on the vine. Animal Man had a grand total of 15 or so appearances in his first 20 years of existence.

So what made the "Copper Age" so great is that creators took existing concepts and turned them on their heads. Whether it was Gaiman's Sandman, or Moore's Swamp Thing...very little was created in the Copper Age that was wholly new, but what was done was that the artform was perfected, from a "almost entirely for kids" medium in the late 70s, to a "holy , this stuff is really, really good!" by the early 90s.

Now, you see endless derivation, endless repetition of old ideas, endless recycling...and it's part of the larger Arc of Culture that the West is going through in its dying phase. Look at what's popular on TV. Do you see groundbreaking shows, like Lost (which, due to the ineptitude of its creators, Damon and Lindelof, was squandered)? Do you see groundbreaking cultural shows, despite what you may think of their premises, like Will & Grace, or Roseanne, or Murphy Brown..?

No. 

You see Will & Grace, Roseanne, and Murphy Brown...and Magnum PI, and Twin Peaks, and....well, you get the idea. 2017-2018 reboots of these 80s and 90s originals! 

And, as an example of how taking an idea and building on it can work, that quintessential sequel, Star Trek: The Next Generation, was a "Copper Age" (1987) production. Then....Paramount took that idea and ran it smack dab into the ground until...it...couldn't....get....back....up....again.

So.

There you have it.

You want to know why new comics struggle to sell 100,000 copies, or 50,000, or 2,000...?

It's not...AT ALL...because "people are moving away from print to digital."

No. It's because very few companies are publishing anything that connects with the public.

If someone came up with an X-Men, like Claremont, Cockrum, and Byrne did...or a DD like Miller did....or a Sandman like Gaiman did...or Swamp Thing like Moore did...but NONE of those things, something totally original....the public would eat it up.

The superhero movies are proof of that...and the Star Wars movies are going down the tubes because they're just rehashing the same stories. 

Tell a good story, and the people will flock to you, regardless of the format. They really will. 

Everything Donny Cates is writing right now is absolutely great. His Venom story is making everyone take notice on how to do comics right. He's taken a character that's been around for 30 years & cleared up the messy back story of everything symbiote related in just one arc & did it in a great story. Hopefully, other writers take notice. Cosmic Ghost Rider is another one worth looking at. Quickly becoming a "fanboy" of Cates. If he's writing, I'm buying. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, Not A Clone said:

Everything Donny Cates is writing right now is absolutely great. His Venom story is making everyone take notice on how to do comics right. He's taken a character that's been around for 30 years & cleared up the messy back story of everything symbiote related in just one arc & did it in a great story. Hopefully, other writers take notice. Cosmic Ghost Rider is another one worth looking at. Quickly becoming a "fanboy" of Cates. If he's writing, I'm buying. 

Good...I've been hearing good things about him. We need more of that.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Damon and Lindelof

I meant "Cuse and Lindelof."  Damon and Lindelof is just one guy.

 

[Prince Namor]

32 minutes ago, Not A Clone said:

Everything Donny Cates is writing right now is absolutely great. His Venom story is making everyone take notice on how to do comics right. He's taken a character that's been around for 30 years & cleared up the messy back story of everything symbiote related in just one arc & did it in a great story. Hopefully, other writers take notice. Cosmic Ghost Rider is another one worth looking at. Quickly becoming a "fanboy" of Cates. If he's writing, I'm buying. 

It’s not that there aren’t good writers in the modern age of big two comics. 

All the big names have worked for them. 

But they do exactly as you say - clean up continuity, breathe life in the book, bring some fresh sounding ideas...

At the end of the day, did Court of Owls really change anything about Batman or the Batman Universe? 

Its still good, just not... anything really new. 

We had this discussion a few years ago about Geoff Johns... good writer, conscientious about the history of the character, brings fresh ideas to the old world, etc. 

He’s yet to prove he’s a great writer. You can’t do that within the Big Two. It’s THEIR sandbox. You can only paint within a designated area. 

When Glenn dies in the Walking Dead, he’s DEAD. No ones ever going to write that book but Kirkman. At Marvel, in the next 5 years, whatever that writer is doing with Venom, somebody will surely undo it. 

[Not A Clone]

34 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

It’s not that there aren’t good writers in the modern age of big two comics. 

All the big names have worked for them. 

But they do exactly as you say - clean up continuity, breathe life in the book, bring some fresh sounding ideas...

At the end of the day, did Court of Owls really change anything about Batman or the Batman Universe? 

Its still good, just not... anything really new. 

We had this discussion a few years ago about Geoff Johns... good writer, conscientious about the history of the character, brings fresh ideas to the old world, etc. 

He’s yet to prove he’s a great writer. You can’t do that within the Big Two. It’s THEIR sandbox. You can only paint within a designated area. 

When Glenn dies in the Walking Dead, he’s DEAD. No ones ever going to write that book but Kirkman. At Marvel, in the next 5 years, whatever that writer is doing with Venom, somebody will surely undo it. 

I agree about most of this. I know it sounds repetitive, but what Cates is doing & even Spencer on ASM may open some eyes. There has always been a perception that you can't change the status quo of a character. It started with Stan Lee (Marvel-wise). Do whatever you want to a character during a story, but when it's over everything has to return to normal. Just give the illusion of change. It's always been this way. Marvel has given Cates & Spencer the green light to do what they want pretty much on their titles. EVERYONE assumed that Peter wasn't allowed to be with MJ again. He smashed that theory in the first issue he took over. He even elaborated that he was never told that he can't have them be married again. Cates is taking a different approach. As a Venom fan, he took it upon himself to clean up the continuity & build a fantastic story over it. Marvel handed him the keys to their universe pretty much not long ago when they made him exclusive & rightfully so. 

Will someone come along & undo these things? Possibly. The sandbox is getting bigger though so it should be easier to build upon a story rather than tear it down & start over. 

Death in comics is tricky. It's a joke now for sure, but can you really expect a company to kill off a money making property permanently for one great story? I'm surprised they've kept Cyclops dead this long to be honest. They are probably waiting until a writer comes up with a story that's worthy. I've seen people on these boards comment on TWD/Glenn death & say they quit reading it once he died. I don't read TWD, but how has he not come back as a Zombie?

Marvel/DC writers may still have limitations, but it's the great writers that see ways around this & can jam more into the sandbox than we thought it could hold. I don't read DC anymore (just fell behind & gave up on catching up), but I'm willing to bet that they have already noticed these books & why they are working with fans. I'm super excited about them because of what they could mean to comics in general. It's a blue print on how to write a great comic in the modern day. 

[sfcityduck]

7 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Look at what's popular on TV. Do you see groundbreaking shows, like Lost (which, due to the ineptitude of its creators, Damon and Lindelof, was squandered)? Do you see groundbreaking cultural shows, despite what you may think of their premises, like Will & Grace, or Roseanne, or Murphy Brown..?

No. 

You see Will & Grace, Roseanne, and Murphy Brown...and Magnum PI, and Twin Peaks, and....well, you get the idea. 2017-2018 reboots of these 80s and 90s originals! 

And, as an example of how taking an idea and building on it can work, that quintessential sequel, Star Trek: The Next Generation, was a "Copper Age" (1987) production. Then....Paramount took that idea and ran it smack dab into the ground until...it...couldn't....get....back....up....again.

So.

There you have it.

You want to know why new comics struggle to sell 100,000 copies, or 50,000, or 2,000...?

It's not...AT ALL...because "people are moving away from print to digital."

No. It's because very few companies are publishing anything that connects with the public.

 

It's very hard for any entertainment producer to connect with the public in a world that where there are infinite options for our attention. It used to be we were all a captive audience.  We had four tv channels (ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS).  Which meant that we all had shared cultural references for "water cooler" talk.  We might not all be watching the same channels every night, but you can be sure we were on some of the seven nights of the week.  That went away starting in the early 80s.  Suddenly we had MTV, ESPN, and other cable options.  That was the true beginning of the end for pop culture homogeneity in the U.S.  

I don't know anyone watching Will & Grace, Roaseanne, or Murphy Brown, and I'm of the demographic which watched the originals.  Instead, most people have t.v. viewing interests that just don't jive any more.  My wife favors HGTV, the Crown, and wedding dress shows, my kid watches Stranger Things and House of Cards, I don't watch much tv anymore but like Flash and Big Bang, and all our friends are constantly recommending their own favorite shows (many of which I've never heard of and never watch).  

I see people watching more youtube and more on demand, than watching scheduled tv.  Aside from sports, there just aren't that many "viewing events" any more.

Truth be told, video games are a much bigger pop culture unifying force than anything short of big screen movies.  There are limited platforms and limited good games.  You talk video games with someone, and you'll probably discover its more likely you both play Fortnite, Pubg, CoD, GTA, Elder Scrolls, etc. than you both watch the same tv shows.

Comics and books are now a small part of the pop culture puzzle -- when before they were a huge piece.  The direct market probably did more to marginalise comics as a pop culture force than anything else - but it also did more to free the creativity of the medium.  So its a higher quality but more niche art form.

Big screen movies, on the other hand, still are sold to a captive audience.  There are only so many big screens.  So moviegoers do have those shared viewing experiences and water cooler talks.  That superheros dominate movies today says very little about comic books.  

But, in the end, we live in a world where the number of choices is just not comparable to the limited options in earlier times.  Consequently, it is hard to blame the comic industry for its diminishing pop culture reach -- the same thing is true for network comedy and drama, network news, music, really everything but big screen movies and video games - both which have more limited options available than all other mediums.  

 

[sfcityduck]

20 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I am curious as to why the modern age has lasted such a long time? Besting golden age, silver age, bronze age and copper age for longevity. It's like most comic historians quit telling the story of the history of comics sometime between 1990s over printed dreck and Marvel's bankruptcy.

Modern Age is over 20 years old going on 30.

 

Personally, I think it is because comic historians woke up to how artificial these "ages" are.  Partly because the collecting focus for many on the higher end have shifted from just superheroes to PCH, GGA, Romance, and other genres where the "ages" are not meaningful concepts.  Partly because the definitions have become so unwieldy, debated, illogical, and inconsistent in criteria from one age to another.  So why do we need to keep cutting up "comics history" into "ages"?  What purpose does it serve?

[divad]

6 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Personally, I think it is because comic historians woke up to how artificial these "ages" are.  Partly because the collecting focus for many on the higher end have shifted from just superheroes to PCH, GGA, Romance, and other genres where the "ages" are not meaningful concepts.  Partly because the definitions have become so unwieldy, debated, illogical, and inconsistent in criteria from one age to another.  So why do we need to keep cutting up "comics history" into "ages"?  What purpose does it serve?

What a debbie-downer you are. 

[DavidTheDavid]

2 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Personally, I think it is because comic historians woke up to how artificial these "ages" are.  Partly because the collecting focus for many on the higher end have shifted from just superheroes to PCH, GGA, Romance, and other genres where the "ages" are not meaningful concepts.  Partly because the definitions have become so unwieldy, debated, illogical, and inconsistent in criteria from one age to another.  So why do we need to keep cutting up "comics history" into "ages"?  What purpose does it serve?

It should let us explore and understand trends for things like printing practices, editorial shifts, artistic trends, reflections of the larger culture, and so on, right? Doesn't that happen to some degree?

 

[Ryan.]

Murphy Brown is back? 

[DavidTheDavid]

7 minutes ago, Ryan. said:

Murphy Brown is back? 

One can dream.

[Readcomix]

3 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

It should let us explore and understand trends for things like printing practices, editorial shifts, artistic trends, reflections of the larger culture, and so on, right? Doesn't that happen to some degree?

 

Yes, but we can do that as easily by referring to timespans. If nothing of industry-wide creative significance occurs within a given timespan, be it five or 35 years, does it need a label? The modern age is as long as it is because there's no impetus for another label in that there's no critical mass of creative significance. 

I'm sure we can all pick a handful of things to accurately defend as non-drek; there's just not enough going on to define as some significant "era." If ya just gotta have a label, then that's another thing. By all means, reach for it and make something up. But we don't need the notion that every year of comics history must fit into a neatly defined era.

Perhaps, one day down the line, we might rename much of the now "modern" era something like the "microbrew" or "boutique" era, as its perhaps best defined by small publisher/small circ creativity.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Readcomix
Typos

[sfcityduck]

4 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

It should let us explore and understand trends for things like printing practices, editorial shifts, artistic trends, reflections of the larger culture, and so on, right? Doesn't that happen to some degree?

 

I'm not sure it tells us that much about trends because the coiners of the first two terms used - the Golden Age of Superhero Comics and the Silver Age of Superhero comics - were really primarily focused on just one genre (and mainly one publisher)  As used originally, those terms referred to the emergence of Superman, and by extension other superheros, and the emergence of a rebooted Flash, followed by other reboots of GA DC characters that had gone out of print.  That doesn't really tell us much about the things you mention.  It does tell us a lot about DC and DC's subsequent convoluted continuity. 

The Platinum Age used to be defined by emergence of the "comic book" format for presenting comics - many of which were reprints of comics originally printed in a different format.  But, now, it appears to be defined as just whatever happened before Action 1 - a period of time that is far larger than the present Modern Age.

While the Golden Age is defined by emergence of a new type of literary character - the superhero, superhero comics were only the majority type of comics produced in 1940 and 1941.  In all other years of the Golden Age (meaning until Showcase 1), superhero comics were not even the majority genre and yet that's how we define the Golden Age?  Heck, after 1946, superhero comics were not even the biggest genre.  The term tells us nothing about the many other genres and the trends in the comic industry.

Some folks propose an Atomic Age defined by the use of the Atomic Bomb.  This is not even a comic related event.

The Silver Age is commonly defined by the first revamp of a DC Golden Age hero - the new Flash - in 1956.  But that year was actually the nadir of superhero comics.  There were actually more revivals of Golden Age superheros in 1954 (HT, CA and Subby) than 1956.  The focus on the Flash has actually created a lot of misinformation about the state of superhero comics in the 1950s.

I don't know if there is any agreement on how to define the Bronze, Copper, and Modern Ages.  

To me, the things you mention (printing practices, editorial shifts, artistic trends, etc.) are all worth exploring.  The focus on ages, though, does not help explore these subjects.  It actually obscures a lot of these topics.  Far better, if you want to discuss the emergence of independent publishers, to focus on the timeline of that topic without recourse to "ages" which don't really help the analysis.  Ditto for Romance Comics, horror, etc.  Likewise for an examination of the selling trends.  

All the "ages" do is create some watercooler talk and help dealers organize their inventory.  They could do that better just by using decades, or references like pre-WWII which reflect relative scarcity, pre-Code which reflect content, etc., I think.

Edited August 24, 2018 by sfcityduck