Terry Bave

[Raven]

Odhams' three newsprint comics were not mostly American reprint. The Marvel material didn't even appear in their comics until 1966, two years after Wham! had been running. Pow! had more pages of Marvel material than Smash or Wham, but even then it didn't fill most of the comic.

Perhaps I was thinking that they featured more American material than they did, though there seemed to be a lot in most of those I've looked through; it was indeed Pow that I most recently pored over a few volumes of. And didn't Fantastic and Terrific have lots?

I know Wham didn't at first, but I thought Wham did have a lot of very pedestrian material.

In what sense, for example, was, say, Terror TV "careful" in what it presented?

I'm not really familiar with that strip I must admit. In what way wasn't it careful?

Well, it tended to feature 'innocent' people being harassed and driven to dementia by horror characters and situations.

Here's a page from Peter's site where a quiz show contestant is led to the Terror TV surgeons to have his brain removed:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Jm70Jx1fU-Y/S ... 3part2.jpg

That's not really what Nigel meant, or how it went down. IPC wanted "safe" comics, not "unexciting" comics. Any dullness was an unfortunate byproduct of being too careful. However, being told to "be careful" doesn't mean the creators will deliberately hack out uninspired material. Good writers and artists work within the limitations to produce the best work they can, and they did, as the high quality of IPC's output demonstrated.

I was responding to Nigel specifically saying "I got the feeling in the 1970s that he was under instructions from the publisher to create a bland ... product."

I'd still imagine that rather than wanting "safe" comics (whatever that means), they'd essentially want successful comics. Through their peak years, IPC's output seemed continually experimental with their formats (Monster Fun, Krazy, Cheeky Weekly, etc.) which seems to me the opposite of playing it safe. I often stand up for them on here because I think during their great initial burst of creativity from about 69-77 they really don't deserve that reputation of somehow representing a diminishing of the medium from what went before.

[NP]

didn't Fantastic and Terrific have lots [of Marvel Reprints}?

Yes but as they didn't have any humour material bringing them up is irrelevant.

I know Wham didn't at first, but I thought Wham did have a lot of very pedestrian material.

Not in the early days. It got more routine by 1966-7.

Terror TV ... tended to feature 'innocent' people being harassed and driven to dementia by horror characters and situations.... a quiz show contestant is led to the Terror TV surgeons to have his brain removed

Having looked at that page I can say it is pretty standard IPC fare and in no way as 'unsafe' as some of the more extreme Odhams stuff.

I'd still imagine that rather than wanting "safe" comics (whatever that means), they'd essentially want successful comics.

Your imaginings are one thing, what actually happened is another.
IPC published comics purely as a tax loss in the 1970s. They were alarmed to find genuine hits on their hands with Whizzer and Chips, Buster and, later 2000AD.
Odhams' SMASH! had attracted 'the wrong kind of' attention from parents from the start and John Sanders, the IPC Comics Publishing Director, instructed Bob Paynter to produce comics that would not court controversy, his very words. My interpretation of that is 'bland', as I considered most of IPCs 70s/80s stuff to be very samey, innocuous and timid. There were some exceptions; Kids from stalag Luft 42 in Buster, for instance, dealt with POW camps!

[Raven]

I know Wham didn't at first, but I thought Wham did have a lot of very pedestrian material.

Not in the early days. It got more routine by 1966-7.

The issues I have are all very early (starting with number 3, I think) and that's what I based my opinion on. Strips like Biff, Footsie, Danny Dare and some others, I thought were quite pedestrian, contrasting sharply with the stand outs.

Having looked at that page I can say it is pretty standard IPC fare and in no way as 'unsafe' as some of the more extreme Odhams stuff.

But nor does it present some kind of nice, innocent, bland, safe world - and I could imagine quite a few parents not looking very approvingly upon this kind of strip.

My interpretation of that is 'bland', as I considered most of IPCs 70s/80s stuff to be very samey, innocuous and timid.

Obviously, you're free to dismiss the 1970s work and inventiveness of Leo Baxendale, Ken Reid, Brian Walker, Robert Nixon, Frank McDiarmid, Ian Knox, Mike Lacey, and all the rest of IPC's '70s team of creatives as much as you like, Nigel. Unsurprisingly, I disagree! I think they were a very talented bunch, whose work was far from innocuous and timid.

I'd still imagine that rather than wanting "safe" comics (whatever that means), they'd essentially want successful comics.

Your imaginings are one thing, what actually happened is another.
IPC published comics purely as a tax loss in the 1970s ... They were alarmed to find genuine hits on their hands ...

As comics had generally sold very well through the years, then, I wonder why they thought publishing them would automatically be a mere tax loss, with having hits such an alarming surprise. I'd assumed - perhaps naively - that having free gifts, and advertising them on TV, etc. were all attempts to get as many readers and make the comics as successful as possible. It also makes you wonder why they quickly merged/cancelled comics after they went below whatever six figure number it was; as a mere tax loss, it probably shouldn't have mattered so much - especially if having hits was such anathema to them. Funny business, comics.

[NP]

Funny business, comics.

Indeed it is. At times baffling to we mere mortals but to the bean counters, it's all clearly very straightforward.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

I remember Thomsons being inundated with many IPC artists in the mid-80s, notably Robert Nixon, who put out so much of their 'appealing' stuff.....creators at IPC must have known the writing was on the wall, and the ship was sinking.

I have always partly blamed the decision to scale down the size of artwork as one of the reasons the comics industry started to decline by the '80s; I collect absolutely no comics with scaled-down artwork , even by such accomplished artists as John Geering [probably my favourite UK comics artist as a kid] .

I put the scaling down of comics artwork artistically in the same league as the difference between theatrical, big-screen animated shorts by M-G-M and Warners compared to TV animation by Hanna-Barbera later on. Many fine artists have been denied the opportunity to put out work that does them justice: this cost-cutting stratetgy has not benefited the industry in the long-term, in my humble view.

If this scaling-down of artwork had been applied to such visionaries as Watkins, Ken Reid or Ken Hunter in their heyday, their output may have increased, but the quality of comics in general would have sadly suffered......artists like Terry Bave would likely have emerged unscathed, but would Bave really have sold more comics than these 3 aforementioned artists?

I am quite happy to look through IPCS/Odhams' 60s/ 70s material. however. I preffered DCT stuff as a kid, but it was healthier to have competing comics companies putting out inherently British stuff, unlike the TV-tie-in mags that pollute the newstands today.......lack of diversity is another reason the business is ailing.

[Lew Stringer]

"safe" comics (whatever that means)

Safe from parents and retailers objecting to content. So no more schoolgirls smoking cigarettes (Dolls of St.Dominics) or O.T.T. comedy-violence (much of Ken Reid's Odhams work or that of some of his contemporaries) for two examples.

We've drifted into the merits of various artists but that's irrelevant really. It was a shift in tone that differentiated IPC from Odhams. No one's faulting the high quality of IPC's artists. It was the writing and editorial direction that became "safer".

One easy way to see the difference is to compare Ken Reid's Frankie Stein to Bob Nixon's version. Both superbly drawn, but the tone of the stories in Bob's version was younger and more innocent.

Odhams had more of an edge. I always felt that with the dominance of IPC, comics had shifted from being funny to just being fun, though there were exceptions and laugh-out-loud moments at IPC as well. Swots and Blots for example became wilder and funnier under Baxendale at IPC than it had been by Mike Lacey & co at Odhams. But then, Swots and Blots was in an adventure comic for slightly older readers than Whizzer & Chips, Whoopee, etc and not part of Bob Paynter's remit.

[klakadak-ploobadoof]

Discussions about the contents of British children’s comics becoming toned-down in the early 70s always seem to revolve around the takeover of Odhams titles by IPC and the changes which followed. Was there any shift in the tone of DC Thomson publications as well? Presumably, both publishers would have wanted to follow the same developments in parents’ and retailers attitudes, had there been any such thing. My interest in DCT ends with 1964 so I am not familiar with the development of their children’s titles beyond that point.

[Digifiend]

Well if you compare an early 1965 Sparky with a later 1977 one, you'll see two very different comics. Beano changed a fair bit in the same period as well, removing the last adventure story in 1975.

[klakadak-ploobadoof]

Well if you compare an early 1965 Sparky with a later 1977 one, you'll see two very different comics.

But this applies to any comic, doesn’t it?

Beano changed a fair bit in the same period as well, removing the last adventure story in 1975.

My understanding is that the toning-down in question has little to do with the presence or quantity of adventure strips in a children’s comic but rather with the type of humour which the publishers believed parents and retailers had issues with.

[Raven]

One easy way to see the difference is to compare Ken Reid's Frankie Stein to Bob Nixon's version. Both superbly drawn, but the tone of the stories in Bob's version was younger and more innocent.

Yes, I've admitted that Ken Reid's stuff specifically stood out that way, and clearly the IPC version of Frankie was a reimagining of the story as more of a fast moving, non-stop action, slapstick fest where no-one seems to stay still. The Odham's version was a bit weirder, more static and very, very wordy; the really nice thing about it being how creative the wordplay could be (same with Dare a Day Davy) - which impressively assumed a bright, literate readership. I found it a little stodgy in 70s reprints, but nonetheless interesting.(The Shiver and Shake Frankie was often creative and well written, too, though, with some nice turns of phrase: "Aaagh! What other dad has to put up with a soggy packet of Popsie Wopsies wrapped round his left earhole?")

But that's one strip and it's Ken Reid. You could equally compare one of the duller Odhams strips with one of IPC's most outre, or Kelpie, the Boy Wizard with The Siege of Castle Gloom to show how much edgier IPC was! And I think there's a generational thing going on. Lots of Odhams strips were actually repeated in abundance in various IPC Specials and publications through the 70s and, to me as a boy, with a few exceptions, they always seemed quite stiff, restrained and dated in comparison with the modern material. We'll all probably have a very strong attachment to what fired our own imaginations when we were growing up, and with what seemed to reflect our own times.

Re UK Marvel reprints, I think we definitely had it better and edgier in the 70s, with the proper reprinting (no dodgy resizing, etc.) and, of course, amount of material like Tomb of Dracula and the other monsters that Marvel wouldn't even have been allowed to do in the Sixties. The UK Marvel titles of the 70s seemed much more 'grown up' after they got past the very early stuff and Tomb of Dracula/Planet of the Apes/Shang Chi/The Defenders in Rampage, etc. started kicking in. I expect these were unpopular with some parents with all the fighting on the covers and throughout the comics.

Anyway, when does Phil send us our cash prizes for getting all the Terry Bave characters in the big picture?

[Lew Stringer]

I think there's a generational thing going on. Lots of Odhams strips were actually repeated in abundance in various IPC Specials and publications through the 70s and, to me as a boy, with a few exceptions, they always seemed rather stiff, restrained and dated in comparison with the modern material. We'll all probably have a very strong attachment to what fired our own imaginations when we were growing up, and with what seemed to reflect our own times.

Surely it's the same generation? I was nine when I was reading Ken Reid's Nervs and Mike Higgs' Cloak, and ten when Whizzer and Chips came out. It's not about a "generational thing". Suddenly comics were a whole lot flatter and "safer" than they had been 12 months earlier due to a deliberate policy by IPC. I'm not looking at it with rose tinted specs. That's how things were at the time when I was a kid growing up with those comics.

I used Frankie Stein as the most blindingly obvious difference in tone, but other changes were more subtle.

Was there any shift in the tone of DC Thomson publications as well? Presumably, both publishers would have wanted to follow the same developments in parents’ and retailers attitudes, had there been any such thing. My interest in DCT ends with 1964 so I am not familiar with the development of their children’s titles beyond that point.

You haven't read Dandy or Beano for 46 years? Yes, they've changed quite a bit over the decades and have reflected parential/retailers concerns, but with a more gradual change than the sudden Odhams/IPC shift.

[Raven]

Surely it's the same generation? I was nine when I was reading Ken Reid's Nervs and Mike Higgs' Cloak, and ten when Whizzer and Chips came out. It's not about a "generational thing". Suddenly comics were a whole lot flatter and "safer" than they had been 12 months earlier due to a deliberate policy by IPC. I'm not looking at it with rose tinted specs. That's how things were at the time when I was a kid growing up with those comics.

I think you're about six years older than me, and I suppose I'm comparing 60s kids with 70s kids; obviously there's some overlap with some people and certainly for you, Lew (sounds like you were on the cusp of growing out of the fun comics as W + C started, though, whereas I was only just four but still reading it); for me, I grew up with IPC with no awareness of Odhams, and Marvel UK (from Mighty World of Marvel onwards) with no awareness of earlier US reprints. But when I picked up a few old Odhams titles at a mart as a boy I didn't continue to collect them as I thought they were quite boring, and seemed much flatter than the comics I'd grown up with, and I'm sure I remember someone else on here ages ago saying they had the same experience. Same as when some complained that Smash got much worse under IPC, others thought it was much improved. But I only have the relatively few I've got, the Odhams reprints through the 70s, and whatever I've pored over at Colindale to go by. Maybe it's just a taste thing!

[philcom55]

Anyway, when does Phil send us our cash prizes for getting all the Terry Bave characters in the big picture?

Ulp!

...Ah! - but has anyone identified the character with the weird haircut who's shown reading '9.5 Cine' ? (whatever that is! )

- Phil R.

[Raven]

...Ah! - but has anyone identified the character with the weird haircut who's shown reading '9.5 Cine' ? (whatever that is! )

- Phil R.

Assuming you haven't drawn that one yourself in to confuse future historians, Phil, there was a magazine called 9.5, for cine enthusiasts. I think it's a reference to the film used by enthusiastic amateurs which was 9.5mm wide, and cheaper than 16mm film. I wonder if Terry did a comic strip for the mag.

When looking for the character you mention, I also noticed the My Bruvver characters from Knockout. So we may have them all now, except for the mysterious 9.5 chap.

[Lew Stringer]

(sounds like you were on the cusp of growing out of the fun comics as W + C started, though, whereas I was only just four but still reading it)

No, I read the IPC humour comics for years; Cor!!, Whoopee, Shiver & Shake, all of them. I could see they were "safer" than the Sixties stuff though. As I said, they had their merits and were well crafted comics, but the lack of an edge was noticeable.

Maybe it's just a taste thing!

I think your opinion is down to taste, but I'm talking about the facts. As Nigel and I explained, IPC editors had a remit to deliberately tone the humour down and make it "safe". Some changes were blatant, (reigning in Ken Reid), others were more subtle (dropping Mike Higgs' pop-culture inspired The Cloak and giving him the tepid Space School for example).

Yes, IPC still produced good quality material but artists and writers were now being told to be "careful".

It was a deliberate shift in tone and policy. Fact, not opinion. Or do you simply not believe that happened?