Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Bronze age begins for Superman in 1972 (but perhaps the true beginning is in 1970 on Jack Kirby's Jimmy Olsen).But when the bronze age begins for DC characters? in 1969,right,but which it is the first comic that marks the passage from Silver to Bronze age? And again,in yours opinion would not have  be divided this age in "Ancient bronze" age and "fade bronze" age.In my opinion the real ,bold, creative,bronze age (even if i prefer Silver) is 1969-1972. Agree?

Well, it was different...

I don't really think it was any one year, but the accumulated differences.  I saw signs of it when the Kents were made young in Superboy, and the markers for me were Lois quitiing the paper to find herself, Wonder Woman renouncing her powers and following I Ching, Clark joining WGBS, the Green Lantern traveling America with the Green Arrow.

I agree with MEL... Also did it start when Batman came out of his "camp" phase when Neal Adams started doing covers, or when Bruce moved out of Wayne Manor?

Well, for Batman and Superman it is pretty easy to tell, for the rest, not so much.

For Batman is the end of the Camp Batman and the start of the return of the Dark Knight (the real one that acts like a hero).

For Superman, his comics change from many stories a comic to just one "long" story an issue. The artwork is also bigger, bolder and more in your face, even though it is still Curt Swan doing it, his layouts are completely different than his Silver Age style. Of course this was Jack Kirby natural style as well.

For DC Comics, the stories start to get more "serious" with the start of the so-called "Social Relevance" era. The famous Lois Lane story "I am curious Black" being the best example of this for Superman.
 

 

I've said this before, but a friend of mine put forth a very, very persuasive case that the moment the Silver Age officially ended was when Neal Adams did his very first cover.

I have to agree with MatterEaterLad that it was a whole bunch of different things that crept in. Kurt Busiek, who started reading Marvel comics in 1974, and DC in 1976, even then still believed he was LIVING in the Silver Age. It's something that can only be truly identified in retrospect.

In that context, the totally different visual language and shocking realism of Adams and his covers can really be pointed to as one of the start points for the end of the Silver Age.

Me? I'd say the first sign that DC was moving into something new was the introduction of the JLA Satellite.

Let me explain that.

Personally, I think the Silver Age died of sheer exhaustion. Arguably all the best Superman stories of the Silver Age happened after 1967 - from Jim Shooter/Swan on the Legion, to Ed Hamilton's science fiction/adventure stories, which had much more in common with the Bronze Age that was to come: an emphasis on adventure and science fiction over gimmickry.

But then again, Superman wasn't typical of DC output at this time.

This was a weird kind of in-between period for DC, whose most typical output were creators like Mike Sekowsky doing "Jason's Quest," a totally unremarkable story about a kid on a bicycle. JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA and GREEN LANTERN had definitively jumped the shark at this point; Gardner Fox clearly didn't care anymore.

Marvel-hating pinheads often cite Hal Jordan's Marvel style personality transplant in GL as being a sign that Marvel-style approach on characterization and "hero with problems" doesn't work, but its' really more complicated than that. His personlity transplant was symptomatic of the fact the series had run on too long. It was a symptom, not the cause of GL's exhaustion. At least giving him a personality was SOMETHING to do.

The end of the Silver Age was filled with characters like Prince Ra-Man and his back-up strip (a character that is clearly based on the blueprint of Doctor Strange), as well as the Elongated Man.

Really, if anything is the definitive end of the Silver Age, it would be Arnold Drake leaving DC. His weird energy made DOOM PATROL the most readable comic of the time (why the Animal-Vegetable-Mineral Man hasn't fought Superman is a mystery to me), and his DOOM PATROL/CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN crossovers some of the most weirdly fascinating this side of Hamilton and Shooter. They had all the cool energy that the JLA/JSA team-ups had lost by that point: no JLA/JSA villain was possibly as cool as Muto was.

It's funny: the worse other superheroes do, the better Martian Manhunter does. The late 1960s was the age of MM's backup in HOUSE OF SECRETS.

I'm painting a very bleak picture here, but it really wasn't; in addition to Hamilton and Shooter and Drake, this was the era of O'Neil being DC's hotshot wunderkind, the Geoff Johns of his age, creating the JLA Satellite and the coolest team-up book ever, HAWKMAN AND THE ATOM. But even he was discernable by the totally different energy he brought, that he was the start of something new: consider his introduction of the Red Tornado and Black Canary going over to Earth-1 after the death of her husband. Both were very un-Foxlike stories centered on getting inside the characters' heads.

And this was a book that had been dominated by the Fox/Sekowsky team for thousands of years!

So, now you see why I consider the creation of the JLA Sattellite to be the definitive beginning of the Bronze Age: it was the first step, a symbol a whole new kind of energy and spirit, a new direction and rejuvination for a tired book.

The Red Tornado was introduced by Gardner Fox in JLA #64-65, which was Fox's last JLA story. But O'Neil did get the first chance to develop the character, in the next two JLA/JSA team-ups.

Well, I agree with the signs that Julian posted here, I just don't agree on the relative value he places on the stories.  But, I was going to mention Black Canary coming to Earth 1 too.

As someone who actually read the the Silver Age stories WHEN they came out, I will say that the change to Bronze Age was different enough to make me stop reading comics.  As far as I was concerned, having superficial contemporary issues superimposed on Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and Superman was not the answer. I didn't want to get inside their heads.  DC could have emphasized increased science fiction and the situations on many planets, rather than making social statements that were quickly dated, only scratched the surface of the issues, and were following trends rather than leading them.

There was a time that giving Lois her own comic and having stories with Pat Boone was change for change's sake too.

i htink it was different times for different characters, for the teen titans say, i would reckon it would be when they had the whole assination storyline and the titans became plainclothes heroes (with the exception of robin.. hay you dont mess with the icons!)

i think this would be the in dcu canon point of when the silver age becomes the bronze age, i think its the first "major event" where the heroes seemed less than perfect, but thats just my opnion

And it was these events that shifted us from the Silver to Bronze Ages that we shifted reading about our heroes on Earth One & Earth Two to an alternate Earth One & Earth Two...

The characters simply aren't the same...

It was also going into the Bronze Age when Superman was stuck at 29 and Superboy wans always 15 years (or so) behind... before that it was the opinion that it was the same guy from 1938 (IIRC)

It's interesting how many of the Bronze Age changes got rolled back, well before Crisis took us into the next era.

Lois went back to the Planet pretty quickly. Clark eventually did likewise, if only part-time. Curt Swan's art settled back into more of a Silver-Agey style, and a lot of the characters and concepts that had been dropped quietly from the series began to reappear.

The Titans went back to being costumed heroes pretty quickly. Wonder Woman eventually did as well. Green Lantern broke up with Green Arrow and he also went back to being a more or less straight action hero. The changed GA did stick, though he was relegated to guest appearances and backup features in places like World's Finest.

dont forget the bronze age revamp of the more serious batman and more homocidal joker did stick... although that was a more of a "returning to roots" after the camp age.

and after reading "showcase presents Green Arrow volume 1" i have to say GA really needed that personality makeover... if he wasnt made so political you can bet your back issues that green arrow and speedy wouldnt be so prominent in modern dc comics... only brought out for "nostalgic" purposes

and i liked how they tended to try and tie in superman with the rest of the DCU in those days, it made him seem more epic hero, made him a champion of the universe

what i DONT  like in the bronze age superman tales is... supermobile...its just so dumb even my usually abundant lovefor silly and wacky is taken aback... maybe its because it reeks of "toy tie-in"

I think that early bronze age,in superman and batman case, was very much inspired from late 30s-early 40s comics."The Batman" without Robin,Superman with less powers ("Sandman saga"),The Joker that return a very dangerous homicide (see the "laugh gas").

Strangely enough, in the Superfriends cartoon(and tie in comic), the Supermobile was used more often and a lot more logically. 

The Bronze Age has the rise of the Teen Titans, Amethyst, Infinity Inc, Young All Stars, All Star Squadron, and a few others

The 2nd and 3rd string heroes were outselling the Superman, Batman, and  Wonder Woman books.

I do think that people overestimate the length of time the characters spent in their "roots".  Superman and Batman were both much less dark (or maybe just fleshed out) within 2 years after their debut.  Robin appears only a year after Batman's first appearance.

I'm not a big fan of the periodization of American comics (meaning American superhero comics) into the metalllic Ages.  Mostly because it leads to these sorts of discussions.  Really, the first person to coin the term should have the final say and the endless hair-splitting and redefining is largely an ahistorical, useless (but fun!) pastime.  It's not like there is an official body of comics historians who will finally decide this matter (although it's not a bad idea).

Really, how can you argue for when a particular Age started if you can't define the characteristics of an Age?  Besides, I think better systems of categorization include genre, tone and readership.  As well, other artforms concentrate on artistic movements.  I'd love to see more discussion of the growth and decline of various "schools" within American superhero comics.  The Kirby school vs the Adams school, for instance.  Kirby jumping ship is a huge event.  As is the end of the distribution deal between National and Marvel --when Marvel increased its titles.

I think the changes in editorial, especially at DC, also had a huge impact on the content and marketing/presentation of the comics.
There is a definite flavour and tone to the Weisinger-era Superman books that simply ceased when he retired.  Ditto the change between the Lee and Thomas eras at Marvel, etc etc.


I think political/social eras are useful as well.  Most of Marvel's 60s superhero comics can accurately be characterized as "Cold War comics".  An most Bronze Age comics can usefully be lumped under the category "70s Malaise era comics".

Yup, I agree with you there, and it's a sort of nomenclature that can only be added after the fact. Much like Shakespeare and his lot weren't going around saying "We are making Elizabethan literature", nobody ever thought of themselves as a "Bronze Age Superman writer". As you say, it's far more useful to put them in their political/social context: The Golden Age is basically the end of the Great Depression and WW2, the Silver Age is the Cold War and to an extent the Swingin' Sixties (though for obvious reasons the counterculture was better represented by underground comix), then we move into 70s malaise, or Vietnam and Opec as I like to think of it, and so on.

Divisions like this are useful as shorthand in discussions, but are essentially artificial. I'm put in mind of the comedy sketch - can't remember who did it - in which a man walks onstage and says: "Hey everybody! The Thirty Years War has begun!"

What, my grandfather didn't fight in "World War I" in 1917?  ;D

The only problem is that while the comics ages are defined after the fact, so are the decades and other eras - the 60s for instance were really not typified by protests and hippies until the last few years and that tone lasted until around the Ford presidency.  I didn't wear bell bottoms until 1971.

That's right about when I got my first pair !   I was born in 1959 so I'm assuming you're close to my age.

IMO, the "fifties"  ended when The Beatles arrived, and the "sixties" ended when Nixon resigned.

The "seventies" pretty much ended when they were supposed to.

LOL... ;D

I was born in February of 61, so it looks like you, me, and Klar are some of the few here that remember the Silver/Bronze transition as it happened.

 I kind of wonder if the "Bronze Age" really exists. The difference between the Golden and Silver Ages is largely a historical difference in terms of Superman's history. In the Golden Age, Superman never was a Superboy and he didn't "develop" powers, all Kryptonians naturally had them. The Silver Age had all of these other things that the Golden Age didn't as far as his history is concerned. The additions that are talked about that are considered part of the Bronze Age are mostly just that, additions. With the exception of how his parents died and how he changed his name in college, the Bronze Age history is basically the Silver Age history with new stuff added on.

The Sandman Saga and other defining stories from that era took place in the same continuity as the Silver Age stories. This is the profound difference between this transition and the others that came before or since. Bare in mind that there is no general concensus on when things like the Silver Age even began. Many people say, for Superman, it was in 1958; but Krypto, a major recurring character, was introduced in 1955. Couple that with the fact that it is unclear whether every story ever published counts as continuity, as some have suggested. Let's be honest, the pre-crisis Superman may have been intended to be a continuity, but it certainly could have been handled better.

Speaking of the Silver/Bronze transition ,I recall not liking the changes so much, and my favorites during those times were the 80-page Giants with all the reprints, and when the Jimmy Olsen/Lois Lane/Supergirl switched to Superman Family for the same reason

Since I am a bit younger, my grandfather's uncle fought in WW1 for the US.

Both my father and mother were the youngest in their family (my fathers sister was 20 years older than him , born in 1907  and her husband bought my father a copy of the New York Worlds Fair comic ! ) and my father's father was born in 1883 !

To give some perspective, my father used to save up a penny at a time to buy comic books.  But the Worlds Fair comic with its higher cover price was a bit out of his reach ,  so he was always grateful to Uncle Nick for doing that

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but is it the consensus that the ending point of the Golden Age
for Superman is when Siegel and Shuster no longer were involved in its production?

 8)

The original point was that no one called "World War I" that until a good deal of time after the original "European War" was decided to be "World War II"...

My grandfather on my dad's side was in the infantry in "The Great War", my dad (1925-1992) was an Army Aircorp bombadier on a B-17 in 1944-45 and my mom (still alive, born 1929) was the one who read comics, she liked Flash in the 1940s.

It depends on who you ask!

Some say 1948 and some say 1958.

hehe ive just watched a simpsons episode that made a joke on that...

its set in 1938 and grampa simpson moans "and i fought in world war one" and he gets asked "why do you call it that" and he just replies "oh you'll see!"

Well,1964-1966 period was very,very different from 1967-69.In my opinion "50s" are  1953-1963,60s 1964-1966,70s 1967-1981.

WA-HOOOO! I was born in 1967! Now I can tell people I was born in the 1970s! I can finally start hitting on women in their early thirties!

See, we can't even agree when less contentious, more "mainstream" eras began and ended.  Heck, we can't even agree when specific decades began or ended!

(Although I would add, since the Civil Rights protests began under Kennedy or maybe even earlier,  I think the characterization of the 60s as the decade of protest is very useful.)

And the whole debate collapses once we get into exceptionalism --Superman's Silver Age is different from everyone else's, for example.

At the very least, it shows the problem of trying to name our own current era --I've lost track if it's supposed to be the IronAge, Mercury Age, Stone Age, Clay Age, Chromium Age, Hollywood Age (Tinsel Age?), New Golden Age, or what.   

I'm guessing I'm one of the younger people on here---I was born in 1975, while my parents were born in the mid-50s (and grandparents in the mid-30s). Don't think my grandparents or parents were ever big comic readers though...

I assumed the same end/start dates for those decades as well (the 60's starting in '64, the 70s with Nixon resigning, and the 80's with Reagan's inauguration into office)...

You don't kill me,but my favourite and beloved  age is  1955-1962. ;D                              (http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1183/14504019xe2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)                                                                                                  (http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4317/124340077tp3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)                                                                                                            (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/1482/12964029ie6.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

My dad was born in 1938, the same year that Action Comics No. 1 was released!

http://superman.nu/tales2/action1/?page=-1