|
|
Jim Smith (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jim_smith) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2008-02-20 23:24:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
These kids today with their 15-cent comics and their year zeroes...
Some introduction may be necessary, so...Marvel Comics publishes a line of swank hardcovers reprinting classic series in chronological order, known as Marvel Masterworks. The Marvel Masterworks Message Board, then, is a forum for discussing these books, and anxiously speculating as to which ones will come out next. Typical discussions go like "Should Marvel begin reprinting The New Mutants before or after Ziggy Pig and Silly Seal?
After some 25 years, the Masterworks line is getting pretty close to reprinting every Marvel superhero comic from the 1960s, which prompts Bilbo to proclaim that the Silver Age is nearly complete. But when exactly does the Silver Age of Comics end, and how many more volumes will it take to get there?
This goes on rather politely (if somewhat pointlessly) for a couple of pages, until ReviveTheRedRaven rushes in where angels fear to tread:
Uh-oh. This can't end well. Sure enough...
You really have to go look at RRR's post, complete with every "I'm angry/frustrated!" emoticon available on the board, to get the full effect of his rage. He is BEATING HIS HEAD AGAINST A WALL with outrage!
It can't get any worse, can it? Yes it can.
Can't argue with that logic.
Right around here the moderator finally wakes up and closes the thread. It's a shame--after eight pages of this I never did find out whether Yehoshua's non-biological birth happened in the 15-cent era or when Microsoft Flight Simulator came out.
Some introduction may be necessary, so...Marvel Comics publishes a line of swank hardcovers reprinting classic series in chronological order, known as Marvel Masterworks. The Marvel Masterworks Message Board, then, is a forum for discussing these books, and anxiously speculating as to which ones will come out next. Typical discussions go like "Should Marvel begin reprinting The New Mutants before or after Ziggy Pig and Silly Seal?
After some 25 years, the Masterworks line is getting pretty close to reprinting every Marvel superhero comic from the 1960s, which prompts Bilbo to proclaim that the Silver Age is nearly complete. But when exactly does the Silver Age of Comics end, and how many more volumes will it take to get there?
Lockjaw: Depending on where you say the silver age ends (1969, 1970, when Kirby leaves in mid 1970, the end of the 15 cent era or the beginng of the 20 cent era) there are from about 18 to 30 volumes.
MakeMineMarvel: I consider anything with a 12 or 15 cent cover price to be Silver age. May sound kind of dumb but my thinking is Spider-Man #100 was the end of an era.
gardibolt: Personally, I place the end of the Silver Age a lot later than most people, but the significance of the death of Gwen is just too huge to ignore it as a dividing line. Marvel Comics after were not the same as comics before.
Giant Turtle Boy:Spider-Man was certainly not the same afterward. But all Marvel Comics?
Personally, I think the Silver Age ends at a different time for each title.
droid714: To me, the end of the Silver age happened with the expansion in 1968. It wasn't long after the anthology titles went to a single character and the displaced characters were given their own mags, that the overall quality went noticeably downhill.
MakeMineMarvel: I consider anything with a 12 or 15 cent cover price to be Silver age. May sound kind of dumb but my thinking is Spider-Man #100 was the end of an era.
gardibolt: Personally, I place the end of the Silver Age a lot later than most people, but the significance of the death of Gwen is just too huge to ignore it as a dividing line. Marvel Comics after were not the same as comics before.
Giant Turtle Boy:Spider-Man was certainly not the same afterward. But all Marvel Comics?
Personally, I think the Silver Age ends at a different time for each title.
droid714: To me, the end of the Silver age happened with the expansion in 1968. It wasn't long after the anthology titles went to a single character and the displaced characters were given their own mags, that the overall quality went noticeably downhill.
This goes on rather politely (if somewhat pointlessly) for a couple of pages, until ReviveTheRedRaven rushes in where angels fear to tread:
Well, for convenience's sake as well as the calendar's, the Silver Age should be considered the decade of the sixties. That is, the years including 1961-1970. In 1961 we have the birth of the Marvel Age in FF #1 and by the end of 1970 its pretty clear that the Marvel Age has lost some of its luster.
For DC, the Silver Age would start sooner and still end in 1970. In the late 50's we had Julie's books including Strange Adventures and Mystery In Space plus the fine stories/art in the war comics. This continued into the sixties and there's really no easy place to end it, so do it with the Dec. 1970 books, the last ones of the sixties.
Bronze can be 1971 -1980. Granted, there will be some overlap but the simple decade way is the easiest.
For DC, the Silver Age would start sooner and still end in 1970. In the late 50's we had Julie's books including Strange Adventures and Mystery In Space plus the fine stories/art in the war comics. This continued into the sixties and there's really no easy place to end it, so do it with the Dec. 1970 books, the last ones of the sixties.
Bronze can be 1971 -1980. Granted, there will be some overlap but the simple decade way is the easiest.
Uh-oh. This can't end well. Sure enough...
richard63: While the 20th century is 1901-2000, the 60's are by definition 1960-69, just as the 1900's are 1900-1999.
The 7th decade of the 20th century is 1961-1970.
The 7th decade of the 20th century is 1961-1970.
ReviveTheRedRaven: And what is the point of defining them that way?
A decade is ten years, there was no year zero, image so the first decade ever was the years one through ten. Decades end with zeros.
The 1900's/sixties, etc. nonsense is why kids (and news anchors) can't tell time, dates, or much of anything else accurately.
A decade is ten years, there was no year zero, image so the first decade ever was the years one through ten. Decades end with zeros.
The 1900's/sixties, etc. nonsense is why kids (and news anchors) can't tell time, dates, or much of anything else accurately.
You really have to go look at RRR's post, complete with every "I'm angry/frustrated!" emoticon available on the board, to get the full effect of his rage. He is BEATING HIS HEAD AGAINST A WALL with outrage!
richard63: I get annoyed when people apply that "there was no year zero" reasoning to EVERYTHING.
You can use it to say the year 2000 is part of the 20th century. That's it.
Saying the 20th century isn't the same as saying the 1900's. You can look it up in any dictionary.
You can use it to say the year 2000 is part of the 20th century. That's it.
Saying the 20th century isn't the same as saying the 1900's. You can look it up in any dictionary.
ReviveTheRedRaven: Ah, but to MOST of those using the phrase it is. They think the century ends with 1999, mainly because of the influence of brain dead TV newsmen and a decline in the public schools.. Back early in the century they KNEW the century started with Jan. 1, 1901 and that decades ended with Dec. 31, whatever00.
Then we have those fools who celebrated the new millenium on Dec. 31, 1999...
Numbers are numbers. A century is a century.
Then we have those fools who celebrated the new millenium on Dec. 31, 1999...
Numbers are numbers. A century is a century.
Samy Merchi: Some closed minded people are stuck in obsessing that "their way" is the only way.
A decade is any ten years you mean it to be. 1960-1969, 1961-1970 or even 1966-1975. Those are all decades.
Similarly, one can mean 1000-1999 with a millennium if that's what one means. Or 1563-2462. That's a millennium too.
After all, if somebody lived for a century, that doesn't mean they have to have been born in 1901 and died in 2000. A person who was born in 1955 and died in 2054 lived a century too.
Microsoft's Flight Simulator 2004 was titled "A Century of Flight", from 1904 to 2004. Note that it was *not* the version of Flight Simulator released in 2000 or 2001 that was "A Century", but the one in *2004*.
A decade is any ten years you mean it to be. 1960-1969, 1961-1970 or even 1966-1975. Those are all decades.
Similarly, one can mean 1000-1999 with a millennium if that's what one means. Or 1563-2462. That's a millennium too.
After all, if somebody lived for a century, that doesn't mean they have to have been born in 1901 and died in 2000. A person who was born in 1955 and died in 2054 lived a century too.
Microsoft's Flight Simulator 2004 was titled "A Century of Flight", from 1904 to 2004. Note that it was *not* the version of Flight Simulator released in 2000 or 2001 that was "A Century", but the one in *2004*.
It can't get any worse, can it? Yes it can.
TODD TAMANEND CLARK: The Eurocentric date system is based on the supposed year of birth of Jesus (Yehoshua/Joshua) The Christ, but since Jesus is merely an imaginary spiritual archetype and not a human being with an actual biological birth, the whole system is null and void.
soulfreq: There are a few billion people on the planet who disagree with this opinion!
Marshall Crist: It's probably more like only hundreds of millions. Thus, they could be mistaken.
Can't argue with that logic.
Right around here the moderator finally wakes up and closes the thread. It's a shame--after eight pages of this I never did find out whether Yehoshua's non-biological birth happened in the 15-cent era or when Microsoft Flight Simulator came out.
Post a comment in response:
