 |
| Copyright relevant owner |
One could easily be forgiven for thinking that progress and improvement go hand-in-hand, and that items produced nowadays would be superior to their 1960s counterparts. Alas, not so however! Back in the mid-1990s, when CORGI re-issued what they claimed was their original JAMES BOND ASTON MARTIN DB5 (but wasn't), it was vastly inferior in every way to the actual original version. As well as numerous other faults, the spoked wheels of the re-issued car were nowhere near as detailed or as well-made as those of its predecessor. So much for modern methods of manufacturing!
It's the same with comics and annuals, sadly. Take a look at the above pages by RON TURNER from the CAPTAIN SCARLET Annual for 1968, then compare them with the ones from the annual for 1995 (issued in the wake of a BBC repeat of the series in the early '90s). Absolutely everything about the latter pages is an immense disappointment in comparison to their '60s counterparts. 26 years after the first CS Annual was released and, instead of an improvement in quality, the reverse is true and standards have deteriorated.
I can't help but see an equivalence with The DANDY. When it was relaunched in 2010, some deluded souls defended the inferior artwork of some of the strips by claiming it was every bit as good as in the comic's former glory days. The only difference, they asserted, was that the new strips were drawn in a more up-to-date, anarchic style that readers found popular. (Perhaps some did, but the majority dropped the comic like a hot brick, hence its eventual demise.)
So, take a look at these pages again, and remember: 'Newer' doesn't necessarily mean 'better'. I just wish that publishers would remember that - then we might still have a comics industry in this country of which we could be proud.
OMG! you could not have chosen a more dramatic contrast to prove your point - and the 'artist' in the recent version actually got paid for that?! Before I read your text I though it was art by some school aged fan. At the risk of sounding like an old fart, to my eyes (and ears) a lot, but not all I hasten to add, of the modern versions of not just comics but music, cinema and TV does not stand close comparison with examples from several decades earlier in the respective art forms. Are the producers of such items out to make a quick buck and being enabled by a less discerning audience whose disposable income outweighs their critical faculties, or are there just not the number of dedicated artisans around these days?
ReplyDeleteProbably a little of both, Phil. Sad, innit?
ReplyDeleteSome older things are better, some newer things are better. It all depends.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Dandy, I liked the 2010 version.
Don't you think it's interesting 'though, George, that you preferred Whizzer & Chips - a comic that had been discontinued years before you were born?
ReplyDeleteHowever, you're right in your first statement, sure enough.
I'm thinking the overall decline in quality of, well, EVERYTHING can be blamed on the sheer abundance we have today.
ReplyDeleteEverything's so easy and cheap to get hold of, and we acquire so much of it, and this translates to the actual creation of stuff too - it's rushed out, the less details the better.
This makes things quicker to create (giving the creators more time to mess around with all the other stuff they want to be reading/watching/listening to etc), and also quicker to consume. Things are skimmed over so that we can move onto the next thing.
How we got into this state is another matter entirely, but I know I don't like it!
Certainly a lot of truth in what you say, THB. My one reservation is on your point that everything is so cheap nowadays. Compared to the '60s and '70s, comics and annuals cost an absolute fortune. However, everything is relative so I hear what you're saying.
ReplyDeletePreach on my brother!
ReplyDeleteYou've given us a stark and truly sad comparison, one to make a fan weep truly.
But even with artwork which is more "competent", I find a lack of spirit and individuality which made the classic stuff so inviting.
Despite modern reproduction techniques, or more likely because of them, modern artists produce overly rendered images lacking substance and soul.
It's rare I stumble across a modern comic book page that has individual character.
Rip Off
Amen, brother Rip, Amen!
ReplyDeleteIt's cultural atrophy, there's plenty of folk with ability out there in every field of endeavour, there's just not much opportunity for them to get to a wider public. There's are a couple of reasons for it, one of 'em is, what I term, the forces of austerity. They're the people who trying to pull anything good down to the level of mediocre: Nader, Wertham, Whitehouse, under the pretext of some moral imperative. They're always there in every culture, they were in Japan closing down Bunraku and No theatre, Florence and Rome burning paintings and books in the 15th Century, they were probably there in the stone age breaking wheels and stamping out fires. At them moment they're winning because they flourish in the kind of authoritarian environment Britain has become, only the barest shadow of our past cultural wealth remains.
ReplyDeleteI think that with Wertham and Whitehouse, there was at least a kernel of truth behind their basic premise; they just stretched it to ridiculous extremes.
ReplyDeleteI think the main reason behind the rise of mediocrity is the PC notion that everyone's 'artistic' expression is as valid as the next guy's. That's why an unmade bed is these days considered to be as artistically valid as the Mona Lisa.
Let's not fool ourselves - sh*te is sh*te - regardless of how popular it might be in certain circles. (And some of the artwork in The Dandy, for example, was pure sh*te!)
Maybe you have a point with standards of art but my feeling is that increasingly there is no tolerance of the kind of expression we used to take for granted. To illustrate my point image a new comic arriving at your newsagents, it becomes an instant sell out, within a few weeks the kids are scrambling to get hold of it as it arrives. How long would it be before it garnered the kind of attention, we've all witnessed from the forces of austerity? What are the chances they'd pass it over without comment? The answer to the second queston would be zero, there'd be something for 'em to get their hooks in, maybe an effeminate character would be a "homophobic stereotype". A popular feature would be seen to be, "not supporting social cohesion" or incompatible with "gender equality". And you know what, there's a a chance they'd be right because the more you dictate the greater the desire to rebel, especially in kids, so they'd lap up the adventures of -Gaylord Ramsbottom- and the forbidden fruit of satire and ridicule of his accompanying features.
ReplyDeleteMaybe there's a link with the falling standards of published art too, most decent artists/writers are not motivated unless they have freedom of expression, so we're left with the disillusioned or hacks, churning out their innocuous, bland fodder, fit only to hang from the nail on the toilet wall.
Kid, there really can be no main reason for the decline in "quality".
ReplyDeleteTalent goes to where the money is.
Look at pop music industry:-
singles were the main thing for many years, then it was albums, now it's live performances where everybody makes the money.
Also, people get interested in music as young kids and all through life maintain some connection with it.
But with comics it used to be only a kid thing here in UK and that proportion of the child population exposed to comic slowly dwindled over the years as kids were attracted at even earlier ages by tv, video games, mp3 players, iphones and now tablets.
There cannot be a so-called creative intelligentsia preaching what should be called a 'good comic'.
It's like you have a DIY repair you have to do in your home. So you go to the Pound Shop and buy a handful of cheap cr*p chinese tools. It gets the job done, maybe not to professional standards, maybe there was little pleasure in doing the job with such inferior blunt tools. But that's enough for most people. That's the job done! Now back to where their real lives and interests are. Now some, a very small minority will invest in some superior tools. For them its not some momentary make-do. It's craft, it's skill and it brings them a lot of satisfaction. It also impresses other people, but only for the moment. It changes only a few lives! Is either right or wrong?
Honestly, I did not know what to write on this subject.
(Jake)
Interesting comments, Jake I'm not advocating (as I'm sure you're aware) a creative intelligentsia to PREACH on what a good comic is, I'm merely pointing out that the first two Captain Scarlet pages are obviously 'good' and the second two are patently 'bad'. I think, therefore, that comics would have a better chance of selling if they contained good art (and writing) rather than bad, but even then success isn't guaranteed. That's no excuse for publishers to take the lazy route however. One thing you certainly need 'though, is editors (and publishers) who are able to RECOGNIZE what a good comic is, and that also seems to be in decline, sadly.
ReplyDeleteAs for talent going where the money is - agreed. I even said as much in my comment before yours.
And never let not knowing what to write about prevent you from commenting - I've never let it stop me. (Whaddya mean it shows?)
That artwork is so bad.
ReplyDeleteWhen i was a nine year old I could buy a weekly title and there was enough second hand swaps going around that I could read also.
My nine year old sons do not have a regular ongoing title they can buy from the local newsagents.
Unless it has a toy stuck to it and an expensive price tag with no content.
I could take them to Glasgow comic book stores but they will only buy lego or minimates.( they peruse some of the comics but when you are limited by budget..)
What are the geek sons of a geek to do ?
Baab, I've always considered it a mistake for publishers to have separated adventure and humour strips into their own titles. Buster was a great comic when it had that mix, and if comics had continued in that vein, perhaps they might have sold better in later years. Also, because comics were so cheap (relatively speaking), even if a reader only liked a couple of strips out of several, it was still great value for money. That's not the case any more and hasn't been for a while. (I wish The Beano would bring back Billy the Cat.)
ReplyDelete