Were the 80s really the first decade to attempt this kind of approach to superheroes in comic format?
>>151056988I suppose. O'Neil, Gerber, Englehart, and Claremont laid the groundwork in the 70s, but it seems Frank Miller got the ball rolling when was writing Daredevil. Then writers like Mike Baron and Alan Moore followed suit.
you talk like comics have existed forever.by that time comics have only been a thing for around 80 years, and superheroes for just 40 years, is it that surprising?we have been in a weird and amazing age for a very short time, 100 years ago we could barely fly, we call it modernity
>>151057132Literature had already been around. Film was already great by the 60s.
>>151056988Yes
>>151057301literature with superheroes?
>>151057376With heroes, characters, plots, dialogue, etc.
>>151057620How the fuck is that relevant to the topic of superhero comics? It isn't.
Maybe not the first time creators wanted to try and explore such themes, but the first time they could to completion.Siegel’s first Superman concept was itself about the rise and corruption and fall of a “Superman”. He wanted to shake up his own DC Superman’s status quo before he was shot down. And later his Starling comic would also revisit the idea thematically with a brisk narrative going from a woman’s impregnation by a cosmic being to the child being grown and developing powers.There’s even some now PD heroes that didn’t make it far who’s comics in the 40s attempted to have more dynamic and changing storytelling, heroes who died and were replaced for example. But those weren’t very big or remembered.The late 60s/70s is another dry run for such takes on characters I’d say. Like the Goodwin/Simonson Manhunter, or Steranko’s brief comics career
>>151056988Yes and it killed comics cause every hack writer after tried to copy it
>>151058933You're joking, right?
>>151060226No. Capeshitters are retarded.
>>151057132But you figure there'd be some kind of comic from the 70s that predates these but touches the same ground
An aging audience who still wanted to read superheroes plus a growing direct market that allowed companies bypass the newsstands and still make money resulted in edgier capes in the 80s, yes. Couldn't have happened earlier. The 70s had edgier magazines, but there were a lot of distribution problems, nothing except Conan really took off.
>>151057101>it seems Frank Miller got the ball rolling when was writing Daredevil.Disagree, Claremont started that ball rolling and the Dark Phoenix saga finished before Miller started writing Daredevil.I'm reading Marvel chronologically right now, have been at it about 2 years or so now reading EVERYTHING Marvel (except reprints) while also throwing in some other titles (Elfquest, Cerebus, Tales From the Crypt, etc). It's been both fun and monotonous at times. I can't do DC at the same time, its just way too much material and I'm just now up to 1981.The real fun has been watching the shifts in quality and the lulls when some get complacent. I totally get what Shooter meant about writers also editing themselves, while Marv Wolfman is bringing his "A" game on Tomb of Dracula for instance, he's spread way too thin when he gets around to his other books. It's been fun seeing how everything relates to other books and what's going on at the same time. SpiderMan went from top top tier to very status-quo, and Iron Man went from being a boring book to my favorite at the moment. But Claremont. I've read ALL of Claremont back in the day. Now, reading him while I'm reading everything coming out the same month, it's just such a HUGE explosion in terms of Marvel storytelling. Reading him, versus reading what everyone else is doing, is so eye opening. And I just crossed in to Miller's first written Daredevil, so it's really exciting. I can't wait to get to Simonson's Thor.
>>151059217>Yes and it killed comics cause every hack writer after tried to copy itVersus every hack writer trying to copy the status quo? Sure buddy.
>>151059217The industry killed comics. They could have pushed for the production of better comics like these from the 80s, but they chased quick profits instead. Now we're up to our necks in gimmicks like variant covers and events because they stopped caring.
>>151062090>Disagree, Claremont started that ball rolling and the Dark PhoenixThat shit wasn't good or mature.
>>151061736Depends what themes you mean exactly. like showing more severe consequences to hero's actions?there is the case of the Comet, a superhero who was around for a year before being killed off and replaced by his brother, who became the superhero known as the Hangman, who was more violent and dark.
>>151062090>Marv Wolfman is bringing his "A" game on Tomb of DraculaThere's a part near the end when Tomb starts dragging and spinning its wheels a lot before Wolfman correctly realized "Okay I need to end this" and brings it to a pretty decent conclusion.
>>151062090Dark Phoenix is fine, but it's not on the level of Miller's Elektra Saga.
>>151062479>That shit wasn't good or mature.A contrarian zoomer has entered the chat!Okay, sport!>>151063108True>>151063446>Dark Phoenix is fine, but it's not on the level of Miller's Elektra Saga.Literally NOT the topic of discussion, low IQ poster! We're discussing who came first, not who did it "better". Every goddamn time with you types.
>>151063813Miller came first. Claremont wasn't there yet. The Dark Phoenix Saga does not meet the requirements, while the Elektra Saga does.
>>151063956I'm sorry you're so heavily burdened by retardation. You're so wrong its sad.
>>151063956>The Dark Phoenix Saga does not meet the requirementsWhy?
>>151063813>A contrarian zoomerBut enough about you.
>>151064028>>151064068It's still full of those Bronze Age contrivances and lack of regard for the art. Miller changed the game.
>>151064156>Miller came first. Claremont wasn't there yet.Changing the parameters of your own stupid argument already I see. Anyone can look up when Claremont started writing X-Men and when Miller started writing Daredevil. You're just trying to bullshit your own poorly contrived argument. This is why I don't like discussing comics, retards like you just pull shit out of your own ass and smear it all over the wall just to argue. Fuck off.
>>151064257You just threw out insuots while he told you>It's still full of those Bronze Age contrivances and lack of regard for the art. Miller changed the game.Miller was ahead of the game, Claremont was still behind.
>>151059155PD?
>>151064257I wasn't referring to being there in a chronological sense, but you're one of those people I have to spell everything out for. Miller was first in this full-force approach to superheroes even though Claremont had already been writing them for years.You're being aggressively stupid.
>>151063956>while the Elektra Saga does.Eisner did it like 30 years prior. With better art.
>>151056988In American comics? Yes.It's called the British Invasion for a reason. You got a fresh infusion of people with different perspectives, from a culture that is similar yet distinct.You're also considering that the British Invasion people were clearly more well-read than their American counter-parts. Which raised the quality of the British Invasion comics.
>>151064520Not really. Great art, but the stories are too quick to really hit hard the way Miller's Daredevil does. While Miller was greatly influenced by Eisner, it was the manga influence that put him up and over.
>>151064828And yet Frank miller hit harder than any of the Brits.
>>151057376Chivalry Romance
>>151064981No. Unless you mean he hit rock bottom harder than them which is true.
