posted
Although I started reading comic books as a kid in 1969-70, I didn't became a hardcore, rabid comics fan until sometime around 1976. By then comics were dying on the news stands and the direct market was just starting to grow into what it would become in the 80's. To be honest the prospects for comics as a medium weren't all that great. Oh, sure there were the occasional gems like Claremont/Byrne's X-Men and the Englehart/Rogers run on Batman but they were few and far between. And to the outside world comics were at best a nostalgic piece of our collective past and certainly not something to pay much attention to. But what a difference 32 years make.
We've already been through the Third or fourth consecutive summer of the Superhero Movie so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by anything but I was nevertheless startled to see the cast of next years Watchmen movie featured on the cover of this weeks Entertainment Weekly along with the promise of reports from Comicon International. Reports from the old San Diego Con were being carried in the pages of a national magazine! Then there was a full page write-up on the convention in Thursdays USATODAY. To cap it off Friday's USATODAY Money section has a front page article on how the comics industry is supposedly booming financially due to film revenue and the supposedly increased retail sales of comics in both book and pamphlet form. Things have gotten so comics crazy that last month I read an article that referred to Moore and Gibbons Watchmen as the modern day geek equivalent to J.D. Salinger's Catcher In The Rye.
Now I'll grant you that these developments didn't occur overnight but at what point did the world as we know it begin to embrace many of the things that comics and SF fans love so much? The late Phil Seuling must be grinning from ear to ear.
Posts: 1938 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if there was a "turn over" point. Much of the change was gradual.
But if there was, I am going to credit it to a specific geek. His name is Mitchell Mendy and he paid $1800 in 1970 for an Action #1.
I remember him being embarrassed on international news. A journalist asked him why he bought the comic. He said he bought it because Action #1 was a great story. The journalist asked him what he was going to do with it. He said that he would put it in a safety deposit box. The journalist then asked how he could read it if it was in a safety deposit box. End of interview. Cut to Viet Nam news.
Suddenly, everyone knew that comics had value. Overstreet was nothing compared to that news item.
It was also embarrassing for me. I was every bit as much a geek as that kid but I tried to hide it. He was the public face for us all. I was too old to get beat up in the school yard the next day but had I been ten years younger... geez. At the time I was trying to hide that comics were things of collectible value while trying to convince anyone foolish enough to listen that comics were an art form. Well after that geek hit the TV nobody wanted to listen to me anymore.
Mitchell Mendy is the guy to blame. I wonder if he ever recovered from the mocking. I wonder if he still has the Action #1. A great news story would be to find out what he sold it for and mention what it is worth now. I am sure that he sold low. He can be made fun of twice for the same purchase. If his life wasn't ruined there in 1970, a good journalist can wreck the rest of it now.
-------------------- Jeez, granfalloon, that longer post above might be one of the most thoughtful, best written things I've ever read on Comicon. --Lawson Posts: 493 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
C'mon, why do you want to make poor Mitchell's life anymore unpleasant than it already is?
Posts: 1938 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despite the huge flood of superhero movies this year, it's hard to believe that the trend isn't a fad that will eventually fade. Comics themselves are still shaky as an industry, after all.
But assuming for the sake of the argument that comics and superheroes are now a permanent part of the mainstream cultural landscape, yes, that really is an amazing progression. Calling it a "Strange New World" captures it perfectly, Randy.
Granfalloon, that's pretty funny, blaming it all on Mitchell Mendy. Good work unearthing his name and story!
Posts: 913 | From: Salem, MA, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am older than the average Canadian. I am 54. I refer to comics as "the sickness". Though they ruin the lives of virtually everyone they touch, including me. I just can't keep my hands off them. I actually gave up my crack and callgirl habits because they were taking money away from my comic book purchases.
Really though, I am 54. I still have a comic or two left over from when I was ten.
-------------------- Jeez, granfalloon, that longer post above might be one of the most thoughtful, best written things I've ever read on Comicon. --Lawson Posts: 493 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Jeez, granfalloon, that longer post above might be one of the most thoughtful, best written things I've ever read on Comicon. --Lawson Posts: 493 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
His name is actually Mitchell Mehdy, and he did create quite a stir when he paid that money. IN retrospect, had he hung onto it, it would have made a good investment. http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1517
posted
With your pedigree,Granfalloon,you're probably one of the very few who recognize the true significance of DC's purchase of the Archie/Impact characters. We may finally see more of the mysterious FLYWORLD! Heretofore seen (I believe) in only one panel by Jack Kirby,it's remained an enigma for well over 40 years. Probably too silly a concept for Dc's regular line,but instead of reintroducing it just to blow it up or something,I hope they'll place the Archie superheroes in a younger readers line.
Posts: 537 | From: Tallahassee,FL | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the correct spelling of Mitchell Mehdy. Clicking on the above should get you to a picture of him as a youth. There are some similarities in appearance, I think, in the mouth and teeth to the picture of the older Mitchell Mehdy but it is anybody's guess if it is a coincedence or not.
Mighty Quinn, thank you for assuming that I have been around this long enough to understand the significance of the DC purchase. I don't think I really do though. Growing up, there were many aspects of comics that I was very close to but others that I didn't have much involvement with at all. I really didn't pay much attention to the Archie characters. At the time I was busy making mine Marvel and though I had a carry over knowledge of DC which was the company of choice before Marvel blossomed, I never knew much about the Archie line.
I must also add that not only was I at just the right age to jump into the Marvel stream, I was at just the right age to discover Dylan at his peak. Like you, I must assume, I love his work every bit as much as I love Stan Lee's!
-------------------- Jeez, granfalloon, that longer post above might be one of the most thoughtful, best written things I've ever read on Comicon. --Lawson Posts: 493 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not at all surprising you didn't pick up the Archie superhero line all those years back. In the mid '60's they were pretty third rate pale imitations of Marvel Comics by creators who didn't quite get what the Marvel revolution was about. They gave it a try though,even naming the line Mighty Comics Group and adopting Marvel's upper left corner character icons on covers. No doubt some of their sales were due to mistaken identity!
Posts: 537 | From: Tallahassee,FL | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO, Two things boosted the formerly "icky" comic books into the mainstream.
1-- Batman movie in 1989. Sure, the Superman franchise had been in theatres just two years before (and petering out), but Tim Burton's "Batman" was huge. It had that sort of widespread movie mania that stuff like "Ghostbusters" and "Star Wars" had.
2-- All the geeks who grew up in the 70's and 80's have grown up, have more money, and are now in a position of influence.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
