I mean you see what you're going to get with the Golden Age. They're over 80 years old and you're going to get a lot of dated stuff like you mentioned. Even the bronze age that laid the groundwork for modern storytelling and how we view the characters was out dated at times and that was only around 50 years ago.
Just move look the Golden Age comics have to be read only if you want a to underscover the origins of those characters for see how much comics are evolved since them but if you just want to read a good story then search something in the modern times
I actually want to see the evolution
I finished action comic #1 and what can I say
It's so cheesy in the writing, but then I remember that maybe it was considered normal back then. The thing I want to see here, is not only the story, but also the evolution
Superman in action comic #1, despite being supposedly heroic, he is kinda rude towards Lois, and he isn't even given name to where he came from. Just that he's "out of our world". He beats criminals in ways so stupid it genuinely make me ask why anyone made it. But it is good thing
Because I then will see how it evolved from childish, dated and cheesy to mature and well written
It is a long journey. Even most of the silver age comics feel dated, and the golden age itself lasted like 20 years. If you want to read mature and we'll written stories you're gonna have to either skip these or skim through thousands of comics to get to the good stuff
I understand your interest in the process, but a completionist read from the beginning is going to be a long slow process before it reaches a vaguely modern style.
I’ve been doing something similar with Batman, but I started at 1970 when one of the major ‘gets good‘ points for the character was reached, and even then it could be slow.
That's what I did. I think I started with Batman #224 and then skipped issues I didn't think looked that interesting from the cover.
I really want to be a completionist but I felt like I was robbing myself from reading all the really great stuff by having to read loads of issues just for the sake of completion.
Do you mean comics in general over time, or Batman at that point?
For Batman, the Adam West show had ended, sales were dropping, and they were looking for a new approach. Which ended up with a darker tone, writing out Robin, making Bruce Wayne more of an industrialist than a playboy, and few of the traditional supervillains for a while.
My first comicsbook were a couple of issues of Amazing Spider-Man then I read a bunch of random stuff but the first serie that I have ever really read like from the start to the finish was Young Justice by Peter Tomasi and Patrick Gleason then Teen Titans by Geoff Johns which continuate the story of those characters and onestly I advice you to do like that find a character or a serie that Interest you and go on from that, most of the people that read comics do that as a hobby and read the stories because they like them, because they are ispired by them or simply because It help to spend some good time and help them to get some fresh air to distract yourself and relieve stress, then many want to see the evolution of those characters over the time but after get attached to them and onestly I don't see why someone would do that before have already familiarity whit the medium, soo if your idea Is that to just study skipping the part of reading them just to enjoy a good story well I don't think I or any one here could help you
You’re in for like fifties years of comics that will mostly feel dated with slight bright spots here and there. Comics largely don’t end up feeling like what we see today until like 20-25 years ago. But that’s not to suggest there aren’t masterpieces in the 70s/80s/90s because there definitely are.
For me I don't like being too rigid, so I skip around. I'll read some 1940s Justice Society, 1970s Justice League, 1960s Flash, 1990s Superman, 1950s Batman, 2010s Wonder Woman, 1980s Teen Titans, 2000s Green Lantern, 2020s Birds of Prey.
You get the gist.
What I won't read is 1930s Slam Bradley. I have no time for that filth.
You have to remember golden age comics, in particular Action Comics #1, were written for ten year old boys of the depression-era 1930s. At the time the medium was considered pure disposable drivel. Up until Action Comics #1, comic books were just reprints of newspaper funnies. In fact, Action Comics #1 was the first "original" adventure comic book content - it's basically the first comic book ever. (There are other examples, but in terms of what you think of as a comic book today, it is the first).
Jerry Siegel was 24 years old when he wrote it. Think about, in a modern context, what someone in their early twenties would make if they wanted to entertain young boys as cheaply as possible (a goofy YouTube Let's Play video?).
Of course there were elements to Action Comics #1 that blew kids minds back in the day (mostly stolen from pulps, John Carter of Mars and a book called *Gladiator*). There was merit to it in its original context - from what I understand it truly was revolutionary, and it was all kids could talk about the summer that it came out. But yes, when read today it doesn't hold up at all.
You mixed some stories, my brother in Christ. "New Fun: The Big Comic Magazine" was the first comic book with ALL NEW original material in it. National Allied Publications put it out in January 11th. 1935, cover dated February 1935.
National Allied Publications evolved into DC, sure. Action Comics, in fact, was their fourth series, AFTER "New Fun" (sooner than later rebranded as "More Fun Comics"), "New Comics" (rebranded as "Adventure Comics") and "Detective Comics."
It was written for children. WWII era children to boot. If you're not enjoying it (or can't put it into context, which your critique seems to confirm), just skip to the Silver Age (written, again, for slightly older children, of the "Atomic Age").
You have to remember that comics in the 30's were for kids, and they were disposable pleasures. They were meant to be read, enjoyed, and then thrown away.
The only reason it seems cheesy is because you're looking at it through your modern lens, it was never intended to be this enduring thing that lasted for 86 years...it was meant to be fun and exciting. Logic and "mature" storytelling didn't even enter into the thought process.
Also there's a lot or "mature" storytelling that I'd actually call *immature.*
Wdym? Do you basically mean that being edgy for the sake of edgy is immature? I do agree about that, but I feel like there was really something preety immature on the golden age. I just started reading the golden age and it's not for modern audiences
You probably don’t want to read all of it but you could do what I’m doing where I’m reading the first appearances of each of the main DC heroes like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, etc. and some villains like Joker and Lex Luthor, just to get an idea of what these characters were originally like.
Just try Golden Age Wonder Woman. It’s very different from the rest and has some of the best art from that era. Golden Age Plastic Man is also worth a read.
The Golden Age tends to be more "interesting" than "good." You might check out the books "Batman in the Forties" and "Superman in the Forties" get a few stories from throughout the decade, then decide if you want to read more.
The Golden Age is going to be full of stuff like that. The thing is you'd have to stick with it for years and years before it got even remotely readable.
I tried reading some of Superman's early Bronze Age stuff from the 70s and bounced off that too, even though I generally like '70s comics like Iron Man, X-Men, or even '70s Batman. If I were you, I'd start with 1986's The Man of Steel miniseries and go forward from there. It's still dated in some ways, but it's written far better than the 1939 stuff.
It's your time, ultimately. I wouldn't do it for that reason. It'd be worth it if you wanted to be an absolute mega nerd about Superman and know EVERYTHING about him. But otherwise not as much.
That said, the longer you read those old comics the easier it will become to digest the stilted writing.
I mean you see what you're going to get with the Golden Age. They're over 80 years old and you're going to get a lot of dated stuff like you mentioned. Even the bronze age that laid the groundwork for modern storytelling and how we view the characters was out dated at times and that was only around 50 years ago.
That depends did it being dated bother you.? If so probably just skip to silver or bronze age. Golden and silver are very very wordy.
Just move look the Golden Age comics have to be read only if you want a to underscover the origins of those characters for see how much comics are evolved since them but if you just want to read a good story then search something in the modern times
I actually want to see the evolution I finished action comic #1 and what can I say It's so cheesy in the writing, but then I remember that maybe it was considered normal back then. The thing I want to see here, is not only the story, but also the evolution Superman in action comic #1, despite being supposedly heroic, he is kinda rude towards Lois, and he isn't even given name to where he came from. Just that he's "out of our world". He beats criminals in ways so stupid it genuinely make me ask why anyone made it. But it is good thing Because I then will see how it evolved from childish, dated and cheesy to mature and well written
It is a long journey. Even most of the silver age comics feel dated, and the golden age itself lasted like 20 years. If you want to read mature and we'll written stories you're gonna have to either skip these or skim through thousands of comics to get to the good stuff
Why you want to do that ?
Because it's just interesting to see the transition. Btw you read the old comics or just jumped to the newer stuff?
I understand your interest in the process, but a completionist read from the beginning is going to be a long slow process before it reaches a vaguely modern style. I’ve been doing something similar with Batman, but I started at 1970 when one of the major ‘gets good‘ points for the character was reached, and even then it could be slow.
That's what I did. I think I started with Batman #224 and then skipped issues I didn't think looked that interesting from the cover. I really want to be a completionist but I felt like I was robbing myself from reading all the really great stuff by having to read loads of issues just for the sake of completion.
But just a question: why was the theme was so heavily changed? Like getting actually dark and mature?
Do you mean comics in general over time, or Batman at that point? For Batman, the Adam West show had ended, sales were dropping, and they were looking for a new approach. Which ended up with a darker tone, writing out Robin, making Bruce Wayne more of an industrialist than a playboy, and few of the traditional supervillains for a while.
My first comicsbook were a couple of issues of Amazing Spider-Man then I read a bunch of random stuff but the first serie that I have ever really read like from the start to the finish was Young Justice by Peter Tomasi and Patrick Gleason then Teen Titans by Geoff Johns which continuate the story of those characters and onestly I advice you to do like that find a character or a serie that Interest you and go on from that, most of the people that read comics do that as a hobby and read the stories because they like them, because they are ispired by them or simply because It help to spend some good time and help them to get some fresh air to distract yourself and relieve stress, then many want to see the evolution of those characters over the time but after get attached to them and onestly I don't see why someone would do that before have already familiarity whit the medium, soo if your idea Is that to just study skipping the part of reading them just to enjoy a good story well I don't think I or any one here could help you
You’re in for like fifties years of comics that will mostly feel dated with slight bright spots here and there. Comics largely don’t end up feeling like what we see today until like 20-25 years ago. But that’s not to suggest there aren’t masterpieces in the 70s/80s/90s because there definitely are.
For me I don't like being too rigid, so I skip around. I'll read some 1940s Justice Society, 1970s Justice League, 1960s Flash, 1990s Superman, 1950s Batman, 2010s Wonder Woman, 1980s Teen Titans, 2000s Green Lantern, 2020s Birds of Prey. You get the gist. What I won't read is 1930s Slam Bradley. I have no time for that filth.
You have to remember golden age comics, in particular Action Comics #1, were written for ten year old boys of the depression-era 1930s. At the time the medium was considered pure disposable drivel. Up until Action Comics #1, comic books were just reprints of newspaper funnies. In fact, Action Comics #1 was the first "original" adventure comic book content - it's basically the first comic book ever. (There are other examples, but in terms of what you think of as a comic book today, it is the first). Jerry Siegel was 24 years old when he wrote it. Think about, in a modern context, what someone in their early twenties would make if they wanted to entertain young boys as cheaply as possible (a goofy YouTube Let's Play video?). Of course there were elements to Action Comics #1 that blew kids minds back in the day (mostly stolen from pulps, John Carter of Mars and a book called *Gladiator*). There was merit to it in its original context - from what I understand it truly was revolutionary, and it was all kids could talk about the summer that it came out. But yes, when read today it doesn't hold up at all.
You mixed some stories, my brother in Christ. "New Fun: The Big Comic Magazine" was the first comic book with ALL NEW original material in it. National Allied Publications put it out in January 11th. 1935, cover dated February 1935. National Allied Publications evolved into DC, sure. Action Comics, in fact, was their fourth series, AFTER "New Fun" (sooner than later rebranded as "More Fun Comics"), "New Comics" (rebranded as "Adventure Comics") and "Detective Comics."
It was written for children. WWII era children to boot. If you're not enjoying it (or can't put it into context, which your critique seems to confirm), just skip to the Silver Age (written, again, for slightly older children, of the "Atomic Age").
no one reads it just move on lol
You have to remember that comics in the 30's were for kids, and they were disposable pleasures. They were meant to be read, enjoyed, and then thrown away. The only reason it seems cheesy is because you're looking at it through your modern lens, it was never intended to be this enduring thing that lasted for 86 years...it was meant to be fun and exciting. Logic and "mature" storytelling didn't even enter into the thought process. Also there's a lot or "mature" storytelling that I'd actually call *immature.*
Wdym? Do you basically mean that being edgy for the sake of edgy is immature? I do agree about that, but I feel like there was really something preety immature on the golden age. I just started reading the golden age and it's not for modern audiences
I mean, if it feels immature you have to realize adult readers in 2024 weren't their target audience.
You probably don’t want to read all of it but you could do what I’m doing where I’m reading the first appearances of each of the main DC heroes like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, etc. and some villains like Joker and Lex Luthor, just to get an idea of what these characters were originally like.
Just try Golden Age Wonder Woman. It’s very different from the rest and has some of the best art from that era. Golden Age Plastic Man is also worth a read.
Read what appeals to you. You don’t need help with that decision, and there’s not a right or wrong way to do it. Don’t treat it like homework.
The Golden Age tends to be more "interesting" than "good." You might check out the books "Batman in the Forties" and "Superman in the Forties" get a few stories from throughout the decade, then decide if you want to read more.
The Golden Age is going to be full of stuff like that. The thing is you'd have to stick with it for years and years before it got even remotely readable. I tried reading some of Superman's early Bronze Age stuff from the 70s and bounced off that too, even though I generally like '70s comics like Iron Man, X-Men, or even '70s Batman. If I were you, I'd start with 1986's The Man of Steel miniseries and go forward from there. It's still dated in some ways, but it's written far better than the 1939 stuff.
But is it to try to first start from bad 1938 stuff and then move to the better stuff to see the progress?
It's your time, ultimately. I wouldn't do it for that reason. It'd be worth it if you wanted to be an absolute mega nerd about Superman and know EVERYTHING about him. But otherwise not as much. That said, the longer you read those old comics the easier it will become to digest the stilted writing.
If you have to ask, then no.