[DennyWilson]

OK, what's consitered the worse comic - cover and content on GAC? A book so bad, it's good!

[boox909]

OK, what's consitere the worse comic - cover and content on GAC? A book so bad, it's good!

Great topic idea!   

I will take a look, but I am positive that Centaur's Funny Pages and a few titles from Croydon fit the bill.

B. 

[Astaldo711]

I read an issue a while back with Captain Wizard. I think it was Meteor Comics. It wasn't bad, just really weird. Like Clockwork Orange or something. I guess there was supposed to be a hidden meaning that I missed.

[Captain Audio]

Sort of the Plan Nine or Robot Monster of comics.

[boox909]

I read an issue a while back with Captain Wizard. I think it was Meteor Comics. It wasn't bad, just really weird. Like Clockwork Orange or something. I guess there was supposed to be a hidden meaning that I missed.

I forget the half naked super guy from Croydon...gah...I done wanna look!  Oh, AIRMALE!!!  Beyond ridiculous! 

[narfstar]

How dare you defame Hanks. He was a Picasso of comics ahead of his time.

[Astaldo711]

I like Stardust. The only criticism I have is that his head seems a bit small for his body. What I don't understand is why didn't DC put up a fuss about him? Wasn't he an alien with super strength, flight and invulnerability? They got all upset about Wonder Man.

[narfstar]

OK not worried about defaming his lack of character but his comic talent. Fletchers Hanks was "a hoot"

[darkmark]

If we have SUPERWORLD COMICS that should fill the bill.

[narfstar]

We have Superworld 3

[bchat]

I like Stardust. The only criticism I have is that his head seems a bit small for his body. What I don't understand is why didn't DC put up a fuss about him? Wasn't he an alien with super strength, flight and invulnerability? They got all upset about Wonder Man.

I feel that Hanks used a short-cut ("cut & paste") when drawing heads.  Many of his male heroes like Stardust have the same details and expression in every panel throughout a story.

Stardust had so many powers (turn invisible, Anti-Gravity Ray, Suspending Ray, Boomerang Ray, etc etc etc) that DC probably would have had a hard time convincing anyone that Stardust was just like Superman.

[Poztron]

To return to this topic's subject, "Worst Golden Age Comic on GAC?", I believe this is the kind of provocative question that eludes a final answer. Is the worst comic the dullest? Or the most spectacularly "bad"? Those are two very different things. I'd define the worst comic as one of those issue scans I wouldn't even bother downloading to begin with. But in terms of sheer worst, I'm sure that some Charlton comic here would fit the bill. 

[Astaldo711]

Sometimes reading a bad comic is like watching a bad movie for me. It's such malarkey that you feel the company made it just to fill some legal obligation somewhere. Worst comic might be subjective. When I mentioned that Captain Wizard story it was because the writing didn't make sense. It's like the precursor to one of those trippy LSD 60's songs. It can be subjective since some people might like some of that weirdness.

[narfstar]

Majority of fans are art centric. JVJ has mentioned that he is. I was always story oriented. So to be bad I think of bad story others bad art. So to be the worst it would have to be something with bad story and art. I can think of some SA Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane that were terrible stories so dumb even for a kid's comic but the art was good. I stopped reading New Mutants even though I liked the story because I just could not get past the Bill S art. As far as the worst book on the site I have not dug into it yet.

[Astaldo711]

I couldn't get into the Dark Knight series because I didn't like the art. Some artists try to become too "artsy" if that makes sense.

[Poztron]

I have a hard time separating the art in comics from the writing. The cartoonists I most admire were/are those who do both. I hate it when my wife tries to read a daily comic strip to me while I'm driving. It's akin to watching a movie with the sound off. One is missing half the experience. OTOH, I've probably only read 10% of the comics I've downloaded over the past couple years, but I've skimmed them all for good art. But if I see a story with really good or striking art, it makes me want to read it.

I do think that some potentially good comics were sabotaged by crappy printing, coloring and lettering. There are some scans on GAC that include scans of the original art interspersed with the printed pages. Often the B&W art is quite good, but you'd hardly know it from looking at the printed product with lousy color registration and inept coloring and washed out black ink. Charlton was an obvious offender in this regard, but so was Fawcett and Fox and many others. Quality, by contrast, usually lived up to its name.

[Astaldo711]

Even some early marvels had crappy color registration. It looks like a little kid coloring outside the lines. I thought my eyes were going blurry.

[narfstar]

Coloring was usually done out of shop. Since they had to pay for it anyway you would have thought they would have complained.

[JVJ]

Majority of fans are art centric. JVJ has mentioned that he is. I was always story oriented. So to be bad I think of bad story others bad art. So to be the worst it would have to be something with bad story and art. I can think of some SA Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane that were terrible stories so dumb even for a kid's comic but the art was good. I stopped reading New Mutants even though I liked the story because I just could not get past the Bill S art. As far as the worst book on the site I have not dug into it yet.

Now I LOVED Bill Sienkiewicz's art, narf. so it just goes to show ya...

As for Worst GA Story, was it you who pointed out that BIZARRE Blue Beetle story in issue #33 (?) where he changes size and powers? Do you remember the actual issue number? I'm too lazy to go upstairs to see.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

No it was not me but I remember the convo if not the issue

[JVJ]

Coloring was usually done out of shop. Since they had to pay for it anyway you would have thought they would have complained.

If you've ever explored HOW they did the coloring, Narf, you'd be amazed that it even happened, let alone was done well.

(|:{>

[narfstar]

I have seen how they had to lay down each of the four colors separately (a word I now always spell right thanks to JVJ). I do wonder why some books stay in the lines so much better than others. Did they pay more? That part that has no excuse is the very bad selection of colors that some books have. I wondered why the GCD wanted to include colorist since it seems like a not so artistic a job. Then I saw a Charlton western that had such a bad color choice it was difficult to take seriously. Good coloring often does not get recognized until compared to the bad. I imagine it is the same with lettering. The machine lettering actually kept me from buying many of their books off the stands it looked so bad.

[Poztron]

I have seen how they had to lay down each of the four colors separately (a word I now always spell right thanks to JVJ). I do wonder why some books stay in the lines so much better than others. Did they pay more?

"Staying within the lines" with the color is a function largely of the pressmen paying attention and adjusting the color registration when the books are printed. I mean, it could theoretically be due to a sloppy colorist, but I doubt that was the case usually. Though I have seen some quick and dirty separations where the colorist was obviously cutting corners and batting it out.

[JVJ]

I have seen how they had to lay down each of the four colors separately (a word I now always spell right thanks to JVJ). I do wonder why some books stay in the lines so much better than others. Did they pay more?

"Staying within the lines" with the color is a function largely of the pressmen paying attention and adjusting the color registration when the books are printed. I mean, it could theoretically be due to a sloppy colorist, but I doubt that was the case usually. Though I have seen some quick and dirty separations where the colorist was obviously cutting corners and batting it out.

I agree, Poztron,
Much more likely the former than the latter. And, of course, the plates could slip a bit over the print run or a different pressman could take over. There were some examples of very cheap and bad overlays done (they didn't actually "separate" plates from a full color example), but on the whole it was bad printing, often on presses that weren't precise enough to hold registration.

(|:{>

[Marconero]

I am going to look for the titles suggested here, thanks all. For my 2 cents, I'm suggesting Bruno Gillers as the "worst" character in a comic here (see my sig). The title page alone made me laugh out loud. I love these books, thanks for the suggestions and especially thanks to all the uploaders!

P.S. - I'm definitely one of those who gravitates towards the art first then the story (Bill S. is a genius in my eyes, but tastes are all different, I totally respect that). I have found that many of the "imperfections" in some of the comics here (like color/printing errors) are what make the books so interesting and so much more intriguing than reading a re-touched and corrected classic title that loses it's comic-book-feel. For example, there are some titles here (many of the "True Crime" books) where the colors are off because it was inked in great detail and then sent to color somewhere else most likely, where they could not or did not take the time to make it precise. So in reading these "imperfections",  I am reminded of the process of the comic being made, in addition to the story and the art. That is why I like "old" comics.