Talk about anything you want, so long as it's about comics!
| Yes: |
9
 |
| No: |
3
|
|
|
|
|
BburgDaddy-o Posts: 22
4/15/2016
|
Isn't it about time for the so-called "Modern" age of comics, that generally seem be agreed upon to be from 1986- present, to be split? All of the previous eras are roughly 15 years in length. Has the industry remained the same for the past 30 years? Surely there has been some seminal event (9-11?) or change in character/art/writing/publishing style that merits splitting the modern age in two.
The modern age of comics is bursting at the seams.
And what would you call these "new" eras?
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
stevegreer1 Posts: 41
4/15/2016
|
I voted yes. I think it should definitely be split because there has been many changes since 1986 with paper stock and inks used as well as a huge turnover in industry leading artists and writers. And if you go by the 15-year average rule then it could even be chopped into thirds in a couple of years with '87 through '02 being something like the Brass Age and '03 through '18 being the Aluminum Age, and then have '19 starting the new modern age.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
|
CapnDoug Administrator Posts: 151
4/15/2016
|
Honestly, if we want to start calling something the copper age, the years from 1986 to 1994-1996 or so would be the best fit. Basically, the production value of a single issue seems to have gone up, while print runs plummeted. Where exactly you put this break would not be clear, but it would make sense to put the break after the crash of the mid-90's. We might even be able to say that we are in a seperate age from that as well, with the New 52 and Marvel Now allowing for a fairly clean break in 2011.
But then again, no one can really point to when the Bronze Age started (I've heard death of Gwen Stacy, debut of Punisher, debut of Conan, etc), so pinpointing the start of these ages would be tricky, too.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
|
CapnDoug Administrator Posts: 151
4/16/2016
|
genuine_article_comics wrote:
CapnDoug wrote:
genuine_article_comics wrote:
Respectfully, I'm not sure what purpose these names serve. I can't think of another artistic field that labels eras the way comics do. Film and music don't do this. They may refer to a "golden age" but it's not the same as comics naming all the eras. Why do we need to name the eras?
Actually, film kind of does. I just doesn't feel the need to ensure that every year is part of an era, like the Silent Era, the Studio Era or the New Hollywood era.
Hmmm..I suppose that's true, good point.
What purpose do "silverage" or "goldenage" etc. names serve? Is it just for casual conversations? They're not offensive by any means but I'm curious why we use them at all.
To me, they serve as a decent guide post when I am buying a collection. If I am told that it's 3 long boxes, mostly modern and bronze age Marvel, but there are a fair number of mid and low grade Silver Age DC, too, I know what to expect and still have the joy of finding things as I'm going through it. Same goes for eBay. It's mostly a guidepost for age. Using it as anything more doesn't make sense.
That's kind of why my preference would be for some sort of distinction for before and after the 90's crash. Comics published between 1986 and 1994 or so are just so easy to find. After that, comics tend to be rarer, but much better taken care of. Plus, I tend to see anything that was published before about 1995 as kind of interesting, since that was when I started collecting regularly. It doesn't hold any force or effect, just a slightly better guide post.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
