Comics UK

Digifiend wrote:I said their... as in Fleetway/IPC. Commando is a DC Thomson comic.

Ah, I thought you were speaking in more general terms.

Steelclaw I have a bundle of modern Eagle comics which are bound for ebay (but I doubt they'd sell) I'll look through them at the weekend and see if I have any of your wants.

Cheers Steve I still need some Eagles, I need loads of Battles bought a a whole year a few weeks ago 1978 for £21.

I certainly regarded `Thunder` as rather better than `Lion` Lewis-but that's individual taste! I agree those strips you mentioned were `weak` but no comic's perfect!

On the whole, I felt `Thunder` a rather more consistant comic than `Jet` though Jet did have one strip I rate to this day as truly outstanding "Bala the Briton" Anyone interested in acquiring copies of Jet- then `Bala the Briton` makes it very worthwhile in my view!

Must admit i'm slightly puzzled by Lewis` mention of thousand's of readership. Puzzled in that we know now that all comic sales were in a gradual decline! yes. But, `if` IPC actually knew that then (By audit returns), why risk saturating an already weak market with new publications? I always though that a massive revamp of Lion, Valiant, Tiger et al would have made more sense instead of putting out new comics!

`Thunder` (and Jet) never truly caught on (Or wern't given the chance to- maybe?) - but both surely attracted ardent buyers - `Thunder` certainly seemed to by the feedback it got!

Too many of those "Great News Folks" blurbs that actually were awful news that you're fave comic was going, in my view actually alienated readers! I do vaguely recall a comic somewhere bieng brave enough to print a letter from a reader (circa 1972 I think) making this point it was `Not` "Great news"

Maybe `Jet` was doomed to fail, but I feel that `Thunder` just might have become a big sales sucess had IPC given it more time-but who knows?

alanultron5 wrote:Too many of those "Great News Folks" blurbs that actually were awful news that you're fave comic was going, in my view actually alienated readers! I do vaguely recall a comic somewhere bieng brave enough to print a letter from a reader (circa 1972 I think) making this point it was `Not` "Great news"

That wasn't the only time that the downside of a merge was mentioned. This from Buster & Monster Fun, 25 December 1976. MF had merged into Buster effective from 06 November that year. The editor chooses to ignore all those loyal Buster readers who had no doubt written in to complain about the loss of some of their favourite features.

alanultron5 wrote:I certainly regarded `Thunder` as rather better than `Lion` Lewis-but that's individual taste! I agree those strips you mentioned were `weak` but no comic's perfect!

Fair enough. Each to his own.

alanultron5 wrote:Must admit i'm slightly puzzled by Lewis` mention of thousand's of readership. Puzzled in that we know now that all comic sales were in a gradual decline!

If you look at my comment in context you'll see I was responding to your comment about how Thunder must have been good because it printed positive letters. My point being that a handful of letters didn't show that the comic wasn't as popular as hoped sales-wise.

I'll tell you what I'm puzzled about; why you're suddenly calling me Lewis instead of Lew.

alanultron5 wrote:yes. But, `if` IPC actually knew that then (By audit returns), why risk saturating an already weak market with new publications? I always though that a massive revamp of Lion, Valiant, Tiger et al would have made more sense instead of putting out new comics!

Not quite how business works though is it? As long as other publishers were putting out new product (which they were, such as Countdown, Target, Buzz for example) IPC felt it necessary to compete. Some of their launches were very successful indeed (Whizzer & Chips, Tammy, for two. Even Scorcher had a respectable run of four years or so.)

IPC did give Valiant a massive revamp eventually, but it was too late, and it merged into Battle which was a tougher, more dynamic comic in keeping what modern kids of the Seventies wanted. Basically, Thunder and Jet failed to capture the mood of the times, but Battle, Action, and 2000AD were more clued up about it.

alanultron5 wrote: `Thunder` (and Jet) never truly caught on (Or wern't given the chance to- maybe?) - but both surely attracted ardent buyers - `Thunder` certainly seemed to by the feedback it got!

As I said, a dozen letters of praise mean nothing when a comic needs thousands of readers to survive.

alanultron5 wrote: Maybe `Jet` was doomed to fail, but I feel that `Thunder` just might have become a big sales sucess had IPC given it more time-but who knows?

At a guess, IPC probably knew.

As an avid UK comic reader in 1970 (a mere kid of 9/10) I vividly remember picking up early issues of both Thunder and Jet. Jet, quite frankly for myself and my pals was a poor comic and we never bought many issues,Thunder was a bit better with a couple of good strips (Adam Eterno and Black Max) but compared to The Valiant, Lion, Tiger etc it wasn't that strong - however when I bought a few old Thunders a few years ago I thought it was pretty good/interesting comic but not as a 10 year old (nostalgia perhaps?). I would question the fact that IPC published THUNDER to fail on one possible count only (although I know this practice was done) as I am sure that Thunder was advertised a lot on TV for the first 2 or 3 issues which must have cost a lot even then.

Lewis! Nobody expects every reader to write back to a comic! I meant that if the comic such as `Thunder` was getting such good feedback, then they have -as in opinion poll sampling-a good idea where theyr'e going right/wrong!

If even a `good` comic like "Thunder" is going to fail anyway-why go ahead with `Jet` six months later? Must admit I really find it a mystery!?

Oh! Regarding the `Duff` (My word) `Thunder` strips you mentioned Lewis, I recall that `Phil the Fluter` was one of those transposed to `Lion & Thunder` so some readers rated it! can't say I regarded it highly, but compared to Sparky's "Invisible Dick" (On which I bet your comic collection it was based on) it was a work of genius!!

alanultron5 wrote:Lewis! Nobody expects every reader to write back to a comic! I meant that if the comic such as `Thunder` was getting such good feedback, then they have -as in opinion poll sampling-a good idea where theyr'e going right/wrong!

Didn't comics mostly only tend to publish the positive letters, though?

And didn't readers tend to send in very positive letters to increase their chances of being published?

(And mightn't some of them possibly have been made up?!)

alanultron5 wrote: If even a `good` comic like "Thunder" is going to fail anyway-why go ahead with `Jet` six months later? Must admit I really find it a mystery!?

No mystery whatsoever. See my previous reply regarding business practices. IPC simply wanted to dominate the market with product.

Luckily for IPC, good editors such as John Wagner and Pat Mills came along on Battle Picture Weekly, Action, and 2000AD (and Gerry Finley-Day editing Tammy) which turned the fortunes of the company around (in that those comics were fresh and lasted longer than 22 weeks). Otherwise we'd have seen even more outdated comics such as Thunder and Jet. (Even as it was, we still got Speed in the 1980s. Another old fashioned comic that was doomed from the outset, but then it didn't have Wagner or Mills behind it so its short run wasn't a surprise.)

Remember, IPC's management even expected 2000AD to fail after six months but the policy was to throw as much product out there as they could in order to compete with their rivals. That's the comic business, - or at least how it was in the 1970s. (Over in America Marvel and DC still operate that way even today.)

I rather liked Speed-it was quite innovative, I thought. Where else would you find a bitter, crippled ex daredevil sending his aide out to perform fantastically risky stunts suggested by the readers and a horribly disfigured stuntman taking potentially suicidal risks in the apparent hope that he wouldn't survive?

tony ingram wrote:I rather liked Speed-it was quite innovative, I thought. Where else would you find a bitter, crippled ex daredevil sending his aide out to perform fantastically risky stunts suggested by the readers and a horribly disfigured stuntman taking potentially suicidal risks in the apparent hope that he wouldn't survive?

The execution of the stories was still quite outdated for the time though. I think that's why Speed failed. Battle, Action and 2000AD had moved things forward, but Speed took a step back, learning very little from the comics that had captured the mood of the times. Some of the concepts in Speed may have been ok but the style and direction of the comic was old fashioned. Understandably IPC were a bit nervous not to have another Action incident so they played it safe. Too safe.

Yes! its a good point about IPC practise Raven & Lewis. I can see that. But for those few of us who were very ardent fans of `Thunder` it was -how can I put it - "tough cheese!!" I know I didn't want to carry on with `Lion & Thunder` (though I did relent) I certainly didn't follow on to `Buster & Jet` which I'm sure wasn't in IPCs interests!

I don't think the management properly realised all this "Great News Folks" actually alienated sections of the readership!

Do, if you can get hold of them, check out the letters pages of `Thunder` please folks! I find it the most thoughtful forum of any comics letters page I have come across. Such a shame it had to go! If sales wern't good enough - fair do's. But if it `was` planned for 22 issues no matter what, to me that's not great! Ah well!

Every time Speed is mentioned people only talk about that one story with the death-seeking daredevil. It can't have been all that good if only one story was memorable! What were the others about?

felneymike wrote:Every time Speed is mentioned people only talk about that one story with the death-seeking daredevil. It can't have been all that good if only one story was memorable! What were the others about?

For me the highlight of Speed - and the only strip in it I really liked at the time - was the colour science fiction serial Journey to the Stars, drawn by Ron Turner:

http://www.bookpalace.com/UKComics/RonT ... eStars.htm

http://hemlockslegacy.blogspot.com/2008 ... stars.html

This, to me, is the strip it's mostly worth collecting the comic for. I have a lot of affection for Ron Turner's juvenile adventure strip work, having grown up reading it each week in Whizzer and Chips through the 70s, and it was especially nice to see some in full colour.