Let me start by saying that it's pretty common knowledge nowadays that Bill Finger co-created Batman. But what is it about this that makes normies vigilant about proclaiming this, or tearing down Bob Kane to make their point?
Firstly, the facts: the prerequisites for being a comic book creator weren't as well established before the silver age. It seems like there was this belief that if you conceived of the character, you were the sole creator (as Stan Lee maintained before Steve Ditko protested). The common understanding nowadays is that there's a conceptual and visual element that goes into creating a comic book character; usually assigned to a writer and artist.
As this became more established, Bill Finger was willfully neglected from the conversation when it came to Batman's creation, even subject to some false claims by Bob Kane before he eventually softened his stance and gave Finger more credit later in life. This became officially recognized in 2015.
The point? I felt compelled to make this point because we've reached a ridiculous point where there's abundant vitriol and misinformation whenever Bob Kane is so much as mentioned.
Michael Uslan, one of the leading champions of giving Bill Finger his credit, simply shared a comic panel from Superman: Zero Hour that showed different Batmen sharing the scene, inspired by the art of Kane, Frank Miller, and Neal Adams (crediting the influences as such).
So a guy comments that it should be Bill Finger. Thinking he made an honest mistake, I just correct him that Bill did not draw that Detective Comics #27 Batman, and that it should rightfully be credited to only Bill Finger because he had the idea to revise the infamous "red with domino mask" Batman prototype. So this guy was willfully being an idiot and it became popular to accept this as fact, calling me incorrect.
So is it right to give Bill Finger credit where it isn't due because of the transgressions against him in the past? Is it productive to only celebrate Bill Finger in the context of tearing down Bob Kane? People honestly made the argument that Kane being callous to Finger, or using ghost artists made it okay to miscredit them. Also, taking this genius's claim to its logical conclusion, the Neal Adams and Frank Miller Batman should also be credited solely to Bill Finger, since he had the idea for the batsuit.
As someone who's well-read on comic history, and especially golden age Batman, it's a little annoying to see the influx of assholes with a surface level knowledge confidently spew disinformation. There was an immediate, positive impact of internet exposés bringing Bill Finger's contributions to light to a wider audience, but far too many people try to condense this story and parrot their own conclusions. It's only when you're in a forum of serious Bat-fans that you can actually have a serious and objective conversation or debate about the history, and that's a shame.
Firstly, the facts: the prerequisites for being a comic book creator weren't as well established before the silver age. It seems like there was this belief that if you conceived of the character, you were the sole creator (as Stan Lee maintained before Steve Ditko protested). The common understanding nowadays is that there's a conceptual and visual element that goes into creating a comic book character; usually assigned to a writer and artist.
As this became more established, Bill Finger was willfully neglected from the conversation when it came to Batman's creation, even subject to some false claims by Bob Kane before he eventually softened his stance and gave Finger more credit later in life. This became officially recognized in 2015.
The point? I felt compelled to make this point because we've reached a ridiculous point where there's abundant vitriol and misinformation whenever Bob Kane is so much as mentioned.
Michael Uslan, one of the leading champions of giving Bill Finger his credit, simply shared a comic panel from Superman: Zero Hour that showed different Batmen sharing the scene, inspired by the art of Kane, Frank Miller, and Neal Adams (crediting the influences as such).
So a guy comments that it should be Bill Finger. Thinking he made an honest mistake, I just correct him that Bill did not draw that Detective Comics #27 Batman, and that it should rightfully be credited to only Bill Finger because he had the idea to revise the infamous "red with domino mask" Batman prototype. So this guy was willfully being an idiot and it became popular to accept this as fact, calling me incorrect.
So is it right to give Bill Finger credit where it isn't due because of the transgressions against him in the past? Is it productive to only celebrate Bill Finger in the context of tearing down Bob Kane? People honestly made the argument that Kane being callous to Finger, or using ghost artists made it okay to miscredit them. Also, taking this genius's claim to its logical conclusion, the Neal Adams and Frank Miller Batman should also be credited solely to Bill Finger, since he had the idea for the batsuit.
As someone who's well-read on comic history, and especially golden age Batman, it's a little annoying to see the influx of assholes with a surface level knowledge confidently spew disinformation. There was an immediate, positive impact of internet exposés bringing Bill Finger's contributions to light to a wider audience, but far too many people try to condense this story and parrot their own conclusions. It's only when you're in a forum of serious Bat-fans that you can actually have a serious and objective conversation or debate about the history, and that's a shame.