1988: THE LAST GREAT YEAR FOR MOVIES

1988: The Last Great Year for Movies 

By Barry Dutter

In the late 1980s, I used to go to the movies all the time with my friends. We were in our mid-twenties, we had crappy jobs and we were broke all the time, but the movies provided cheap entertainment to us at least once a week, sometimes twice.

I remember 1988 in particular because that was the year that we all moved from dreary New Jersey to Southern California. And there was an impressive variety of quality movies released that year.

Let’s take a look at the Top Ten highest-grossing movies of 1988:

1) RAIN MAN

2) WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT

3) COMING TO AMERICA

4) BIG

5) TWINS

6) CROCODILE DUNDEE  II

7) DIE HARD

8) THE NAKED GUN

9) COCKTAIL

10) BEETLEJUICE

Now let’s look at the top 10 movies from 2014.



1. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

2. HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY PART 1

3. CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER

4. THE LEGO MOVIE

5. TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION

6. MALEFICENT

7. X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST

8. DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

9. BIG HERO 6

10. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2

(The next 3 movies on the list are the GODZILLA reboot, the sequel to the TV reboot 22 JUMP STREET, and the TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES reboot.)
Pretty sad comparison, huh? Many of the movies on the 1988 list are beloved classics. Most of the movies on the 2014 list are bloated, derivative big-budget action epics where you just shrug your shoulders and go, “Meh.”
Movies are so disposable and so generic these days, it’s hard to remember what the movie was about five minutes after it’s over.
1988 was notable because of the sheer lack of “franchise“ films that came out that year. Consider: The STAR WARS trilogy had ended five years before, with George Lucas vowing to never make another film in his epic space fantasy saga. The series of Christopher Reeve SUPERMAN films had come to an inglorious end the year before with the abysmal SUPERMAN IV. The first of the big-budget BATMAN films was still a year away, as was the “conclusion” of the INDIANA JONES “trilogy.”
The TERMINATOR sequel was only a rumor at that point. Even GHOSTBUSTERS 2 was still a year away.
So with hardly any sequels or super-hero movies to see in theaters, what did movie-goers do? They went to see original movies instead.
The biggest hit of the year was RAIN MAN, a movie which won the Academy Award for Best Picture. In second place at the box office was WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, a ground-breaking animation/live action hybrid. Next up was COMING TO AMERICA, one of Eddie Murphy’s all-time best comedies. Then we had BIG starring Tom Hanks, another timeless tale.
Then came TWINS, which was a dopy movie, but not without its charms. The first sequel on the list, CROCODILE DUNDEE II, comes in at #6. Then we have DIE HARD, perhaps the greatest action movie of all time. (Yes, DIE HARD later became a franchise, but at the time of its release, it was an untested concept starting an unproven TV actor who had never had a big hit movie before.)
Rounding out the top 10 were the hilarious NAKED GUN, the goofy but watchable COCKTAIL, and the bizarre and unforgettable BEETLEJUICE. 
Here is a partial list of some of the other memorable films that came out that year: A FISH CALLED WANDA. COLORS. BULL DURHAM. WORKING GIRL. SCROOGED. BEACHES. TUCKER. YOUNG GUNS. MIDNIGHT RUN. ALIEN NATION. BILOXI BLUES. DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS.
What an eclectic group of movies. You may not love all of them, but you must admit they are a diverse group.

It just seems like audiences were willing to embrace all different types of movies back in the late 80's. These days, it seems people don’t want to see any movie in a theater unless it has robots, superheroes, zombies, aliens, car chases, and lots of explosions.
I guess we only have only ourselves to blame. Studios give us what we want to see. When they make a serious drama, moviegoers generally stay home.
But it’s not only the fault of those of us who live in the US. It’s also the fault of filmgoers from around the world, who flock to see the latest superhero and sci-fi extravaganzas at the box office. Foreign box office now accounts for over 50% of a U.S. film’s total take. And nothing translates better overseas than superhero and action movies.
With the amount of money at stake, you can hardly blame studio execs for playing it safe and only approving the sequels and comic book-based properties that are almost guaranteed to be hits. 

Sequels are nothing new, of course They’ve been around since the dawn of movies, and yes, the 80’s had their share. Three of the top 20 movies released in 1988 were sequels: Rambo III, Nightmare on Elm Street 4, and Crocodile Dundee II.
This means that people who saw the top 20 movies of 1988 were treated to 17 original concepts.
Now let’s compare those numbers to the past few years.

Of the top 20 movies of 2012, 10 were sequels, remakes, or reboots. In 2013, 11 of the top 20. In 2014, it was 16 out of 20. When you look at just the top ten of each year, the numbers get even worse. In the past 3 years, roughly 90% of the movies in the top ten are installments of franchises, and a good chunk of those are based on comic books.

As a lifelong comics fan, it pains me to say this, but when it comes to story and characterization, superhero comics are not the best source material for movies. (Remember when movies used to be based on books? I mean, REAL books, like JAWS and THE GODFATHER? Remember books? But I digress…)

Comics were designed as a form of cheap entertainment that could be read in ten minutes. When you take a ten minute story and try to stretch it out over a two and a half hour movie, well, let’s just say plot and characterization are not the main strengths of most superhero movies. They all kind of blend together in a nonstop blur of pointless fight scenes, incoherent plots, and weak characterizations.

Marvel, of course, is responsible for the Comic book-ization of Hollywood starting with IRON MAN in 2008, because that was the first movie to get film-goers excited about the concept of a collective movie universe.

Sure, there were many comic book movies before, starring the likes of Spider-Man, Batman, Daredevil, Green Lantern, and the X-Men -- but those films were not part of a shared universe. IRON MAN was really the first film to launch the “Superhero Movie Universe” concept, where story threads and characters carry over from one series of films to another.

Marvel’s shared universe of films has proven so successful that it’s inspired DC Comics to launch their own universe of movies, which started with MAN OF STEEL in 2013. DC came very late to the “shared universe” party, but they’ve announced a plethora of upcoming of films of their own.

This has led to other studios figuring out how they could really milk their cash cows. Thus we will soon be treated to expanded universes of the X-MEN, SPIDER-MAN, FAST AND FURIOUS and TRANSFORMERS franchises.

Definitely makes me nostalgic for a time when we had more variety at the multiplex. I didn’t love all the movies made in 1988. Some of them I didn’t like much at all. ( I could’ve done without the Joe Piscopo/ Treat Williams zombie action comedy, DEAD HEAT, for instance.)

But the point is that we had variety. There were many different types of hit movies at the box office. These days, it seems like all the big movies consist of guys in costumes punching each other.

Movie-goers used to complain about all the sequels in the 70s, 80s and 90s, but we didn’t know how good we had it. Back then, Hollywood was still not afraid to take a chance on a new idea.

I know we’ll never see another year like 1988, but I will always look back at it as a golden year. It was one of the last years when we would go to the movies and actually see a movie instead of a two-hour toy commercial.

So am I saying that there haven't been any good movies since 1988? Of course I'm not saying that. In fact, in the 1990s, there was a welcome influx of visionary new directors like Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, and the Wachowski Brothers. They brought us movies like RESERVOIR DOGS, THE MATRIX, and EL MARIACHI. Directors who first came on the scene in the 80s like Spike Lee and the Coen Brothers did some of their most memorable work in the 90s. And even an old war horse like Martin Scorcese proved he could still show those young bucks how it's done by making the best movie of the decade, GOODFELLAS.
The big difference was that movies like that were not the biggest films of the year. Quirky low-budget films had to play second fiddle to an increasing number of sequels.

The 90s were one last gasp for creativity and originality in the movie business before the monsters, robots, aliens and super-heroes took over.  

Now it seems like we're stuck in a cycle where there are about 40 or 50 ongoing franchises -- almost enough for one new franchise film every weekend. At one time, movies series used to stop with trilogies. But the thinking these days is that there is no need for any franchise to stop -- ever. As long as a film series keeps making money, the studios will keep cranking them out. 

And if a film series does stop making money, they will just put it on hold for a few years and then reboot it

Definitely makes you miss the days when you would go to the movies and be pleasantly surprised by what you saw. I will never forget that magical year of 1988, when it seemed like the movies still had the ability to show you things you hadn't seen before. These days, it's just the same old, same old.

I blame you, Megatron! (Or whatever the hell your name is!)

COMIC BOOK MOVIES ARE NOW AFFECTING COMIC BOOK SALES! Just ask GROOT!

COMIC BOOK MOVIES ARE NOW AFFECTING COMIC BOOK SALES! Just ask GROOT!

By Barry Dutter





Movies based on comic books do not significantly affect the sales of comic books. This has been conventional wisdom for almost 50 years, ever since the first Batman movie came out in 1966.


Over the past five decades, comic fans have been treated to dozens of big-budget movies starring their favorite super-heroes -- everything from the Superman films with Christopher Reeve to more Batman movies to Spider-Man, the X-Men, Swamp Thing, Blade and more.


And through it all, one constant has remained: none of these movies has ever resulted in a sharp increase in sales of the characters featured in those movies.

In other words, movies do not create new comic book fans. There are now a couple of generations of movie-goers whose only exposure to characters like Superman, Batman and Spider-Man has been through blockbuster movies (and video games). The majority of these film-goers have not been inspired to go head to the local comics shop and seek out the source material.


But starting in 2011 with the release of the first AVENGERS movie, a curious phenomenon began to happen. That movie featured legendary Marvel villain Thanos in an after-the-end-credits cameo, and it was heavily rumored that the mad Titan was going to be the main villain in AVENGERS 2.

Sales of Thanos’ first comic book appearance (IRON MAN #55) began to go up. That book now goes for $300 to $400 in VF to NM condition.


That is the first example I can recall of a Marvel or DC back issue going up in value because of a movie or TV show. That started a trend where seemingly every time a Marvel (and now DC) movie was announced, it spurred back issue sales of whichever characters were making their cinematic debuts in that movie.


We’ve seen Deadpool in a movie before (X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE), but that wasn’t the DEADPOOL that fans know and love. When in 2015 it was announced that there would be a real Deadpool movie, featuring the actual character (and costume) from

the comics, the price of New Mutants #98 skyrocketed. What had been a $100 to $150 book until recently was now a solid $250 to $300 highly-sought collectible.


The trend has even started involving movies that are years away. A complete set of Marvel’s CIVIL WAR series skyrocketed up to $125 when it was announced as the sub-title of CAPTAIN AMERICA 3. And the INFINITY GAUNTLET Limited Series now fetches $100 and up since it will serve as the basis for AVENGERS 3 & 4 -- movies coming out in 2018 and 2019!

DC has come very late to the “shared movie universe” party, but now that they have announced an ambitious slate of new movies to come over the next few years, sales of their key back issues are being affected as well.


The most obvious example I can think of is the New 52 version of SUICIDE SQUAD #1. That back issue was semi-hot since it came out in 2011, but now that the Squad will be featured in a big-budget movie starring Will Smith as Deadshot, Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn, and Jared Leto as the Joker, the 2011 first issue of that series is a solid $80 to $100 and will surely continue to rise in value as we get closer to the release of the film. 

I can't think on any example of comic back issue prices being affected by movies prior to Thanos in 2011. You didn’t see the first appearance of the Silver Surfer go up significantly in price because he was featured in a FANTASTIC FOUR sequel. You didn’t see prices go up on the first Joker or Luthor after the characters were featured in Super man and Batman movies. Even recently, you didn’t see Spider-Man characters like the Green Goblin or X-Men characters like Gambit go up after those characters made their movie debuts.


No, the trend really seems to have started with Thanos -- who, ironically, turned out to not be the villain in AVENGERS 2. (But will surely play huge roles in AVENGERS 3 & 4.)


Incredibly, the first appearances of entire GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY team have gone up in value, after the smash success of the movie -- and in many cases, those appearances could have been had for just a few bucks up until the movie was announced.


A few years ago, the first appearance of Rocket Raccoon was worth its 60-cent cover price, at best, if you could get someone to pay that much for it. Rocket was a throwaway character, a funny animal in a world of super-heroes, of little interest to most Marvel fans.

Then it was announced that Rocket would be appearing in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY movie. That 60 cent issue of THE INCREDIBLE HULK now sells for $100 and up. There is even a much rarer “1^st true appearance” of Rocket in a Black and white mag called MARVEL PREVIEW. That mag, which you could have gotten for a buck or two a few years ago, now sells for up to $500 on eBay.

A different issue of MARVEL PREVIEW featuring the first appearance of STAR-LORD, sells for $300 on average, and I see graded copies listed at $1,000.


STRANGE TALES #180 -- the first appearance of GAMORA -- lists for $80 to $100 on eBay.

But wait -- here’s the one that really blows my mind: A mid-grade copy of the first appearance of GROOT (TALES TO ASTONISH #13) is listed at $3500 on ebay right now.


Marvel made magic happen when they released Guardians -- a movie about a team of super-heroes that most people had never heard of, and even the people who heard of them didn’t like them very much -- and it became the biggest hit of the year. It remains to be seen whether Marvel can make lightning strike twice with the upcoming ANTMAN --a movie that no one demanded!


But one thing is for sure: demand for early Ant-Man appearances has never been higher.

The movie features Scott Lang and Hank Pym, both of whom have worn the Ant-Man costume in the comics. As you might have expected, back issues prices for both characters were affected.


The first appearances of Scott Lang, in MARVEL PREMIERE #47-48 (1979) now sell for about $100 for the pair.


But what of the first appearance of Hank Pym, who was just a regular non-costumed scientist in his 1962 debut in TALES TO ASTONISH #27?


That issue is very hard to find in decent condition. … A quick eBay search shows 4 copies, all graded. Three of them are in poor condition (3.0 or lower) and list for $1600 and up. The copy that is in the best condition is graded 7.0. How much does it sell for?


I'll tell you. (Are you sitting down?) A staggering $15,000. Yes, you read that right.

All because of a movie that hasn’t even come out yet.


One last piece of evidence? Consider the fate of Howard the Duck, a character whose 1986 movie was such a huge bomb, it seemingly poisoned the character and made film-goers never want to see him again. That 80s flop did not affect back issue sales of Howard comics at all.


Howard was largely forgotten as a character by Marvel. A few attempts to revive the character in recent years were largely ignored by fans.


Then Howard was featured in a 30-second cameo at the end of GUARDIANS. Suddenly, those ice-cold Howard the Duck comics started warming up again. Howard’s first appearance in ADVENTURE INTO FEAR #19 is a solid $60 book, and HOWARD THE DUCK #1 (1976) is also $60.

I can’t think of anything that shows off the effect of Hollywood movies on comics back issue sales better than that. If a brief movie cameo can make Howard hot again, I suppose anything is possible. (There’s hope for SQUIRREL GIRL yet!)


So there you have it. Judging by current sales figures, it seems unlikely that movies based on comic books are inspiring any non-comics fans to seek out the modern comics featuring those heroes of the silver screen.


But the movies sure are getting comic fans to seek out those key first appearances and number ones.

　










　




　




　




　




　

IN DEFENSE OF STAN THE MAN

By  Barry Dutter

I never thought I would writing an article defending Stan Lee. Since I was 10 years old, Stan has been my idol. My hero. The man whose career I have most tried to emulate. (I even wrote the Bullpen Bulletins for about 5 years in the 90s -- just like Stan!)
One would think such a legendary figure in the comics world would not need defending from anyone.
But there are a number of Jack Kirby tribute groups on the Internet that spend a considerable amount of time denigrating the work of Jack’s frequent collaborator, the esteemed Mr. Lee.
The general theme of the posts on these sites is along the lines of, “Stan didn’t really write those stories. Kirby and Ditko really wrote the stories. Stan was just the scripter. And even then, he just took the dialogue that guys like Kirby wrote in the margins and polished it up a little bit.”
Now, let’s put things in perspective. When Marvel launched an all-new line of  superhero comics in 1961, Stan was the primary writer, and he did type up plots for the stories.
There exists a plot to Fantastic Four #1, written by Stan. You can read it online. It’s incredibly loose and leaves a lot to the artist’s imagination, (and was presumably based on discussions Stan had with Jack beforehand). But clearly, at least in the beginning, Stan was writing plots for the Marvel books that his artists would work from.
There came a time when Marvel started publishing so many books, it became physically impossible for Stan to plot and script all of them, so he began to delegate the plotting duties to his trusted artists like Kirby, Ditko, Wally Wood and Gene Colan. Reportedly Stan would sometimes give the artist a one-line description of the plot, like “Daredevil helps the FF fight Dr. Doom” -- and the artist would flesh out that idea into a full story.
Stan would then add the dialogue and captions later, and he did so with such flair and such panache that generations of writers who came later imitate his

style to this day.
As time went on, Stan was often too busy to even give his artists that one line description. (Steve Ditko is credited as “Plotter” of his final Spider-Man issues.)
But there seems to be no argument that the actual scripts for all those early Marvels were written by Stan. He wrote every word of every page of the first 100 issues of Spider-Man (plus annuals), the first 100+ issues of FANTASTIC FOUR, and countless stories of the Hulk, Sub-Mariner, X-Men, the Avengers, Dr. Strange, etc.
To those who say that Stan was just a glorified typist on those books, consider this: both Kirby and Ditko went on to write the bulk of their own work after they stopped working with Stan. None of the work that Kirby and Ditko did on their own was ever as well-written as the work they did with Stan. Kirby, in particular, had a real tin ear for dialogue. His dialogue always sounded so stiff and unnatural.
In the early 1960s, Stan Lee revolutionized the comics medium by writing dialogue that was smart, loose, and felt “real.” No one had ever heard comic book characters sound like that before. His work was smart, snappy and sarcastic. Stan wrote characters who talked the same way you or I do.
And no one has ever accused Kirby or Ditko of writing dialogue that sounded like the way real people speak.
But Stan didn't just write thousand of pages of great stories. His was the voice of Marvel. He wrote the letters pages and the Bullpen Bulletins pages, too.
He created a house style that was so friendly, so inviting, it made each reader feel like he was part of the Marvel family. Stan made each Marvelite feel like he was a member of a private club with its own secret language. (Hang Loose! Face Front! ‘Nuff said! Etc. )
There are those who will point to the work that Kirby did after he left Marvel -- THE NEW GODS, THE FOREVER PEOPLE, KAMANDI, MISTER MIRACLE, JIMMY OLSEN -- and say it was as imaginative and as great as any of the work he did at Marvel.
To this I will reply: have you actually tried to read any of those books? Honestly, they are mostly unreadable. Just try to make it through any issue of any one of those mags. You may have enjoyed them as a kid, but trust me when I say, they do not hold up.
Now go back and read any issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN or FANTASTIC FOUR that Stan wrote in the 60s. Some of them may seem a  little corny, a little old-fashioned, but you know what? They all have a certain charm. They all hold up today.
Stan was the first comic book writer that wrote comics that could be enjoyed by children, college students, and adults -- all at the same time. He told stories that were clear and fun, populated by characters who all spoke with different voices (a skill that seems to have been forgotten by most modern writers).

When you read stories written by Kirby and Ditko, all the heart, humanity and humor of the Stan Lee stories simply isn't there. Ditko and Kirby were incredibly imaginative artists whose work has been highly influential -- but writing has never been their strong suit.
Both men needed the work of a true craftsman to take their ideas and mold them into great stories.
“But Jack Kirby created hundreds and hundreds of characters after he stopped working with Stan,” you say. “And Stan hasn’t created any worthwhile characters in decades!”
Well, let’s break this down. Out of all the characters that Jack Kirby created since the dissolution of the Lee/Kirby team in 1971, how many of those characters have been as popular and beloved as the ones he created with Stan?
You can point to the Demon, the Forever People, the New Gods. Maybe OMAC, or Kamandi… but can you honestly say that any of those characters have caught on with the American public in the same manner as the Hulk? The Silver Surfer? The X-Men? The Avengers?
Not even close.
And as much as you might have enjoyed Ditko's creations, The Creeper and Shade the Changing Man, you must admit that neither of those characters has exactly set the comics world on fire.
The characters that Stan and Jack (and Steve Ditko) created together form the foundation of the Marvel Universe. Without those heroes, there would in all likelihood be no Marvel Comics today.
“But Kirby’s concepts are constantly being revived,” you say. “The Demon gets a new series every couple of years. So do the New Gods.”
This is true, and both of those series have their cult audiences. But neither has truly captivated the comics-buying public the same way those early Lee/Kirby characters did.
In fact, I can only name one character that Kirby created after 1971 that has truly won the hearts of comics fans, and that’s Darkseid. He has transcended his New Gods roots to become one of the top villains in the DC Universe. He has gone on to challenge Superman, the Legion of Super Heroes and the Justice League, and he has appeared in countless cartoons and seems destined for big-screen stardom.
As for Stan?  I would argue that Stan also has one notable character he created after 1971: the She-Hulk in 1980.
The She-Hulk came about not because of creative reasons but for copyright reasons only. Marvel had to publish a female version of the Hulk that they would own the rights to because if they didn’t, Universal, which was then producing the Hulk TV show, could do a TV movie starring a female version of the Hulk that they would own the rights to.
She-Hulk was not welcomed into the Marvel Universe with open arms, but over time, fans came to embrace her as a member of the Avengers and the FF, and in several long-running series of her own.
It can safely be said that She-Hulk has earned a place alongside the classic Marvel heroes. She bears little resemblance to the savage bruiser created by Stan in 1980, but still, the initial spark of the character was there from the start.
So there you go: I will give Stan and Jack one character each since 1971: Darkseid and She-Hulk. The others are all pretty forgettable.
“But Stan takes credit for characters he didn’t even create, like the Silver Surfer, who was entirely a Kirby creation. Stan hadn’t even written the Surfer into the plot!” Stan has always credited Kirby for coming up with the concept and the visual for the Surfer. But it was Stan’s words that brought the Surfer to life. Kirby created the vessel, but Lee gave him a soul.
“But the quality of Stan’s work has declined considerably since 1970,”  you say. To which I reply, name me a comic writer whose work hasn’t declined as they got older! Most comic book writers do their best work when they are in their 20s and 30s. Stan created the FF when he was 38, Spider-Man and the most of the rest of the Marvel Universe when he was 39. The real miracle is that he had his most creative peak from ages 40 to 50. That’s almost unheard of in comics.

And one could also that the quality of Kirby and Ditko’s work also declined as they got older. But again, this is a pretty normal occurrence. It’s called aging. It happens to all of us!
It’s worth noting that Kirby was 44 when he co-created the Fantastic Four, and his mid-to late 40s were perhaps the most creative streak ever seen by any artist in the history of  comics.
Why were Lee and Kirby both inspired to do the best work of their careers in their forties? And why did very little of the work they did before (or since) show that same level of greatness?

Steve Ditko, self-portrait

The answer is that Stan & Jack needed each other. Just as Captain America needed Bucky… just as Mr. Fantastic needed the Invisible Girl… just as Peter Parker needed… um… his Aunt May, I guess… so were Stan and Jack (and Steve) codependent on each other.
Lee and Kirby were an unbeatable team. Separately, neither man ever did any work that was as good as what they did together. Theirs was a mythic pairing that truly changed the world of comics for the better.
So the next time you see someone trashing Stan’s writing, remind them that Ditko and Kirby simply could not have done it without him.
That was the magic of the early Marvel Universe. And no amount of revisionist history can ever change that. I know that sometimes in the media, Stan is given too much credit for “single-handedly” creating the Marvel Universe. But to deny him any credit at all seems insulting to his legacy.
Truly Stan Lee was the greatest superhero writer (and in my eyes, the best comic book writer) of all time.
There’s only one possible word that can end this article, and every true Marvelite knows what it is: Excelsior!