"Not your Dad's comics." But wait, they are!

Continuing my commentary about how the term "all ages" has been reduced to "kiddie comics", I present exhibit B:



There had been many super-hero cartoons before, both theatrical and on broadcast television. The Fleischer Superman cartoons of the 1940's played it straight. They represented what was seen in the comics of the time. In the 1960's, both Marvel and DC licensed their characters to various animation studios with mixed results. The 1970's and '80's were likewise littered with various comic book characters on television although they were under heavy restrictions from the television's Practices and Standards as well as the networks that aired them. Violence was toned way down and many stories were crafted not as action-filled adventures, but as morality plays or ecology lessons. Then in 1989, movie theaters were hit with a huge bat-signal.

Tim Burton's Batman movie made a huge splash at the box office and everybody wanted to jump on the super-hero bandwagon. We were bombarded with movies, television shows and cartoons featuring all sorts of costumed adventures. And then just three years later, Batman: The Animated Series debuted, leaving everything else in the dust. Paul Dini and Bruce Timm had perfectly channeled the design and dynamic of the Fleischer Superman cartoons of fifty years earlier. The series featured characters familiar to the public and brought to the screen many others that had only been seen in the pages of comics. DC soon released a tie-in series written and drawn in the style established by the cartoon. This was a self-contained, single story per issue, out of main continuity series that was highly reminiscent of the main Batman and Detective Comics issues prior to the coming of Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One stories.

Within a year of the new series debut, the main Bat books went into a multi-year, convoluted storyline where Batman has his back broken and is temporarily replaced by another hero named Azrael wearing the batsuit. The stories got very dark and following the pattern established by the Superman Comics the year before when that titular character was killed off, the reader had to purchase several comics each month to follow the story. Meanwhile, the Batman animated tie-in continued and became the only published version of the character that was even recognizable to the casual fan or the diehard comics reader. The series was cancelled and restarted several times adjusting to the changes in the television show, but still maintained the high level of quality and entertainment value. When Superman received his own new show in the same universe and style as Batman, a new comic for him was also introduced. They even produced a title in the animated style called "Adventures in the DC Universe" to tell stories of other characters not yet on television.



Watching the competition and reacting accordingly as they had done back and forth for decades, Marvel saw the success of the new cartoons and added their own. The X-Men, Spider-Man, Iron Man, The Fantastic Four and others were brought to television and naturally, their own new comic series out of continuity. But while DC had maximized their cartoons potential by using Dini and Timm to design the show with extremely high production values, Marvel merely took the then current versions in the books and threw them on the screen. Being the 1990's, this meant that the excesses and over-design that we were seeing in the comics were magnified and looked even more ridiculous. The Marvel cartoons were trying too hard to play it straight, as well. The dialogue was borderline camp as the scripts seemed overly melodramatic in comparison to those of the distinguished competition. Another mis-step was that while DC hired talent to match the unique look in their comic versions of the cartoons, Marvel's cartoons had no distinctive look, so the comic versions looked like knock-offs of their mainline. (With an exception and due respect to Alex Saviuk who worked on the Spider-Man comic as well as the in-continuity Spider-Man.)

As time rolled on, each cartoon would end and be replaced by another on both sides of the fence. And the tie-in comics would follow suit with varying degrees of success matching that of the cartoon it would be adapting. Returning to the present, Marvel has created several series of comics that are out of continuity featuring the mainline characters that aren't tied to animated cartoons. DC has pretty much stuck to the pattern of following the cartoons, but both companies keep these lines separate from the mainline and does little to no promotion to show that these books,unlike the main titles, are accessible to everyone. Most modern comics readers are trained to follow the cross-overs and events that they are given. A one shot story? A done-in-one? Forget it. If it doesn't have repercussions to the characters in all the books, it's not important. It's almost as if the companies are trying to make the main books as difficult to get into as they are to quit when one "event" leads into another and no story ever truly ends. Are they afraid that if they end a story, everyone will quit buying the books? "Jumping on point" is a catchphrase overly used by publishers to convince potential readers that they can start reading a new title without having to have read a ton of back story. I find that this is more the opposite and every time that phrase is used, I see it as a "jumping OFF point".

Which brings us back to the animated tie-ins and out of continuity books. Marvel editors in interviews will state how Amazing Spider-Man is rated for "teens+", but Marvel Adventures: Spider-Man is rated "All Ages". I don't think I like the idea of ANY Spider-Man comic that isn't created to be read, enjoyed, and understood by anyone of any age. Likewise with Batman, Superman, or any comic book super-hero. For years, Stan Lee sang it on high that Marvel comics were being read by college students and adults, but were still great for kids everywhere. So why is it that all those great characters that he, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and many others created and wrote/drew for decades now have to have separate titles for different demographics? Have the audiences really become more sophisticated as the publishers would like us to believe? A walk through any comic shop in America will permit you to answer that question for yourself. Maybe it's because the industry allowed itself to become too complacent and dependent on the direct market distribution system. When the only people that can find comics are the people that have already been buying them for years without any new readers coming in, it's easy to give up and pander to that audience. But that's another discussion for another day. Leaving the availability issue to the side for the moment, I believe that the content of the product is at least, if not more, important. If you aim narrowly, you will hit fewer targets. If comics publishers could get over themselves and realize that it's not necessary to divide your line to reach more and that creating a solid, entertaining, accessible product is the key to success, I think we would all be better off. But I'm a dreamer.

When did "All Ages" become "Kiddie Comics"?

I've noticed a strange trend in comics in the last ten years or so: any comics put out by Marvel and DC that are labeled "All Ages" are dumbed down, out of continuity and generally insulting to most readers. I make certain exceptions, of course. Chris Eliopoulos' excellent Pet Avengers comics certainly can be enjoyed by readers of any age and manage to blend a light mix of current continuity with a timelessness that only adds to their charm. Another title that deserved a much better shot than it got was Roger Langridge's Thor: The Mighty Avenger. It was a re-telling of Thor's first adventures on earth meeting Jane Foster in a fun and interesting way without treating the reader like an idiot. Very few modern updates were added outside of the truly bizarre concept of Jane giving Thor a cell phone to reach her, and even that fit well without standing out as an "updating".

I've read many of the titles labeled "All Ages" over the years and seen lots of diehard comics fans and newbies turn their noses up at what they call "Kiddie Comics". I've even read interviews where the editors use that term and I wonder if the inmates are truly running the asylum. Both Marvel and DC have been publishing comics for over 70 years and until the early/mid-1980's, ALL of their output was considered to be entertainment for people of all ages. Then with the advent of Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns as well as "mature" imprints such as Epic and Vertigo, the audience somehow decided that they were "sophisticated" and above basic, fun story-telling and escapism. DC went to great lengths to emphasize that their comics were not just for kids anymore. Even going so far as to manufacture and distribute free buttons to fans to wear saying just that. Many people think that the medium grew and gained a great respectability during this era. I can agree to a point, but I also think we lost something, as well: accessibility.



Multi-part stories and writing for the trade collection have become the standard. Single issue stories are considered shallow and compressed. I've read reviews of wonderful done-in-one-issue comics that were described as "too fast", and "too tight with too much going on". I've also read one reviewer advise a writer who has been in the business longer than the reviewer has been alive to "slow down and give the characters room to develop". This kind of stuff really bothers me. Why is it that you can pick up virtually any comic produced before 1980 and not only get entertained, but get that ever important context to understand who the characters are and what's going on? And why is it that you can give that same comic to a person of any age and they can still receive the same courtesy? Granted, your mileage may vary on whether not you actually like the art or dialogue, but I think it's pretty inarguable that the material stands on it's own.



Marvel tried an experiment in 1974 and in conjunction with the Children's Television Workshop, created Spidey Super Stories (SSS). CTW had introduced Sesame Street five years earlier and followed it with The Electric Company in 1971. The Electric Company was aimed at slightly older children and focused on the process of learning to read. Marvel had granted the use of Spider-Man to the CTW and they featured him in live-action segments much to the excitement of the viewers. Marvel in turn created Spidey Super Stories as a tie-in and created a title that told stories in very simple dialogue. At the same time, the character was appearing monthly in Amazing Spider-Man, Marvel Team-Up, and the reprint title, Marvel Tales. Those books were created for "All Ages", while SSS was specifically aimed at learning readers. Notice that I said that SSS was aimed at a specific demographic, but yet it could be read, understood and even enjoyed by persons of any age. The book lasted 57 issues and served its purpose justly.

Next time, I'll rant some more and examine the DC series Batman: The Animated Series and how it helped push us down the hill we're sitting at the bottom of now.

Thinking of Specialist Beverly Clark on Veteran's day, 2010.

This doesn't really go with the theme of my blog, but I wanted to share something I posted on my facebook page today.

As some of you know, I served in the MS National Guard and was activated for Operation Desert Shield/Storm 20 years ago this month. On Feb 25, 1991, the day before my birthday, I borrowed the lieutenant's truck and went to the makeshift PX at the Saudi airbase near Dharan. I bought a half-pint of Baskin & Robbins ice cream at a trailer outside the PX and sat at a nearby picnic table to eat it quickly before the intense heat turned it to mush. There I met Spc. Beverly Clark, a reservist from Pennsylvania that had just arrived in country. Her unit was to assist mine in supply operations throughout the region. She was polite and friendly, although she seemed very nervous about her tour even though the ground fighting had been declared over just a day before. We talked and ate our ice cream and I wished her luck. I also told her not to worry to much and hang in there as it seemed then as though we all might be going home soon. That night, Iraq launched the last and only successful SCUD missile launch they would make on allied forces. Spc Clark's unit was bunked at a civilian warehouse we all called "toy town". It was ground zero for the SCUD and she and 41 other US soldiers died that night. While I was only 2 kilometers away, I was unaware of the identities of the casualties until a week later when the newest issue of Stars and Stripes arrived in our camp. It featured not only all their names, but had pictures of Spc. Clark and another soldier on the front page. While I witnessed many horrible things during my tour of duty, I simply can't begin to describe my feelings upon seeing that article and the picture. Less than 12 hours after I had met her and we had talked and even laughed a bit, she was gone. The many SCUD attacks that we endured and more importantly, survived, had caused most of us to feel safe. Maybe even a little complacent or lucky. Until that night.

Spc. Beverly Clark didn't live to become a veteran. But I still think of her every year on the day as well as appropriately on Memorial Day. She may have been worried and somewhat naturally apprehensive about the situation and surroundings, but she knew she was there because she wanted to serve her country. I made many friends during my time in the service. A few of which I still get to talk to occasionally. I only knew her for an afternoon, but I will never forget her.

The future 'aint what it used to be

I think I'm getting old. I read things on the internet and my thoughts and opinions seem so out of touch with the majority. But I don't think that makes me wrong, necessarily. I watch TV shows and movies and wonder "Why did they have to show that?" or "Is this what people truly want for entertainment?".

I've been told before that I live in the past. Or that I WANT to live in the past. Why wouldn't I? I grew up in the 70's and 80's. The sixties may have been the decade of change, but who could have possibly imagined what the next 20 years would bring? I love that era. It used to bother me to hear people insult the culture of that time, but one day, I realized those people just don't get it. What some people think is awful, cheesy or tacky, might just be wonderful, awesome or cool to others. And usually I end up being one of the "others".

Looking back, I see that things for me started changing around the end of the 80's. The media got nastier. So-called entertainment became crude. People stopped caring about each other and seemed to try every chance they could to make each other look bad. When I was growing up, I found heroes to inspire me to be a better person. All of a sudden, it seemed that no one wanted to be better than they were. They wanted people to accept them as they were without any aspirations for improvement. This started a shift that has now become a full-scale earthquake. This is reflected in all forms of entertainment now. Every character has doubts. No one is confident and sure, rather they are worried and insecure. I don't like this. I like a bright future. I miss it. Although it wasn't one of my favorites, Star Trek had shown us a utopian future where there was no hunger, no poverty, no crime, etc. We looked forward to this and did what we could to get there. In recent years, there has been a push to protect the planet and preserve what we can for future generations. Everywhere you turn, something is carrying on about "going green". But will today's super-cynical world be able to do it? I think that entropy has not only begun, but is rapidly spreading.

That's what the title of this blog is about. Let's hit the pause button on entropy. Let's take a few minutes every chance we can to remember that it wasn't always like it is now. It's a simple thing, but so many times I have seen things on the internet that took me away from my problems and made me smile. Even if it was just for a moment. We don't have to live in the past, but it sure is nice to visit it when we can.

Let's go back together.

This is just a little fun place to look at old stuff and remember how much fun the world used to be before everybody got so serious.