The Golden Age Batman

[Silver Nemesis]

But if you must use a prison thing... well, horrible things happen in maximum security prisons so, um, why not show him being afraid of that?

They should've used one of Gus Gorman's lines from Superman III.

STRYKER: I-I don't wanna go to jail, Mr. Batman. They have robbers and rapists, and rapists who rape robbers, and--
BATMAN: Mind the rail!
STRYKER: Aghhhhhh! (splash)
BATMAN: A fitting end for his kind.

That would've been perfect.

But yeah, the change to the ending taints what is otherwise a very good comic. When it comes to Stryker's fate, I still consider the DC #27 version canon: Batman punched him into the acid on purpose, and he had no regrets about it afterwards.

[thecolorsblend]

Tec 27 is basically canon of some kind so what I don't get is why DC hasn't embraced it. Show that Batman killed when necessary in his early years but softened some of the rough edges after he took on a sidekick... which is basically what happened in the comics anyway. Just codify it.

I dunno, I'm in a really cranky mood today so I probably shouldn't rant about comics and how much I hate them because of how much I love them...

[Slash Man]

I wonder if someone's been able to nail down when the series shifted from taking place in real time to moving to a floating timeline that shifts all events to be closer to the present once the characters started aging too much.

It seems like Robin is the best indicator because his age is most often touched upon, though I've run into a bit of a continuity error. In Batman #10, Robin turns 8, meaning he would have been at most 7 when he became Robin. Two issues later, we're given the definitive date as 1942 (Brothers in Crime). But during the course of the story, we flashback to 1939 and Robin is Batman's partner at this point, meaning Robin's debut and early issues have actually been shifted backwards into the late 30s. If taken at face value, Robin would have been 5 when he started, which seems a bit young.

Though because these stories don't necessarily take place in chronological order it's not an outright continuity error. The first two Two-Face stories take place back-to-back, but are separated by multiple issues. But essentially, Robin would have been born around 1932-1934. I know this is consistent well into the 40s, since the Star-Spangled Comics issues begin referring to Robin as a teen, consistent with those previous birthdates. Robin is also in high school at this time (1947), so the ages are still consistent.

While I'm still making my way through older issues, I do know that Robin is still a teen well into the 80s, so I'd still be interested to know when the comics simply stopped aging him and the rest of the universe.

[thecolorsblend]

I wonder if someone's been able to nail down when the series shifted from taking place in real time to moving to a floating timeline that shifts all events to be closer to the present once the characters started aging too much.

It seems like Robin is the best indicator because his age is most often touched upon, though I've run into a bit of a continuity error. In Batman #10, Robin turns 8, meaning he would have been at most 7 when he became Robin. Two issues later, we're given the definitive date as 1942 (Brothers in Crime). But during the course of the story, we flashback to 1939 and Robin is Batman's partner at this point, meaning Robin's debut and early issues have actually been shifted backwards into the late 30s. If taken at face value, Robin would have been 5 when he started, which seems a bit young.

Though because these stories don't necessarily take place in chronological order it's not an outright continuity error. The first two Two-Face stories take place back-to-back, but are separated by multiple issues. But essentially, Robin would have been born around 1932-1934. I know this is consistent well into the 40s, since the Star-Spangled Comics issues begin referring to Robin as a teen, consistent with those previous birthdates. Robin is also in high school at this time (1947), so the ages are still consistent.

While I'm still making my way through older issues, I do know that Robin is still a teen well into the 80s, so I'd still be interested to know when the comics simply stopped aging him and the rest of the universe.

I think DC got hard-nosed about that in the Seventies or so. I can't give a specific answer for Batman. But in Superman comics, they went so far as to include a note from E. Nelson Bridwell in the letter column saying that from that time on, Superboy stories took place "fifteen years ago". Before that time, you had Superboy stories published in the Sixties which anachronistically showed Twenties cars puttering around. Robin's age was probably a more imperative issue than Superboy's tho, so you'd think they would've established that by the Sixties at the latest.

Honestly, the whole idea of characters gradually aging is a recipe for disaster in a shared universe. If you believe that Batman "in the modern day" should be perpetually 29 *AND* about ten or twelve years older than Dick, you've got a lot of contortions to figure out once Dick is a full grown adult and living on his owner. In order for that to be viable, Batman would have to be pushing forty.

[Slash Man]

I've been keeping tabs on continuity while going through all the comics, and Batman #12's Around the Clock with Batman has a few timeline clues. The story itself takes place on May 25 and 26 (made a mention of that in the Batman Day thread). The year is a bit tougher to pin down as to whether it takes place in the near past or future from its September 1942 cover date. It has to take place after 1941 later due to Batman's promotion of war bonds (but not 1941 because of a passing reference to not being Monday).

Another clue during the Batman Day parade in the first part of the story is that Batman had fought and beaten the Joker six times previously. By the time of this book's publication, Joker had actually fought Batman 14 times, including an appearance in an earlier story in this very comic. So by this logic, this story is pushed into taking place sometime between Batman #5's Riddle of the Missing Card and Batman #7's Wanted: Practical Jokers. Now this part is just conjecture, but with the timeline being shifted backwards for this story, it makes sense to make it the earliest possible date: May 1942.

[Slash Man]

A point of interest is that Superman and Batman did not originally share a universe. In Detective Comics 66, Two-Face mobs a movie theater showing a Superman film. To further cement Superman's fictional status in the Batman universe, Jerry Siegel himself appears in Batman #13.

[Slash Man]

A point of interest is that Superman and Batman did not originally share a universe. In Detective Comics 66, Two-Face mobs a movie theater showing a Superman film. To further cement Superman's fictional status in the Batman universe, Jerry Siegel himself appears in Batman #13.

As it turns out, DC comics exists in the same capacity as real life within the fictional world. In Batman #13's Destination Unknown, Robin goes under cover and sells some comic books, including the fourth wall breaking Batman #12. Also included is a World's Finest Comics #5. Does this mean the stories and characters featured in World's Finest also coexist in Batman's universe? Who knows. But at least this makes it more plausible for Superman to later crossover.

This bit of meta knowledge also explains the looping cover of Batman #8.

[thecolorsblend]

My understanding of the legal history going on there is that "DC Comics" as we know it today didn't rly exist until the mid-Forties. The "DC" name itself wasn't used until, like, the Seventies.

Prior to the mid-Forties, the company that published Superman and the company that published Batman were technically two legally distinct entities. They were kissing cousins in a sense due to the fact that the two companies were owned by some of the same people. Hence, Batman comics could make allusions to Superman and vice versa and nobody would get sued over it.

Nevertheless, they were still two different companies.

So, Superman/Batman team-ups today would be business as usual but team-ups back in that time would've technically been inter-company crossovers.

If someone has a better explanation then I welcome their correction.

[Slash Man]

Just read the Batman story in Detective Comics #76 (Slay 'Em With Flowers). It might just be me, but the art was very unusual in this story - and I mean that in the best way possible. At this point in time, Batman's art style had become pretty solidified, and all of Bob Kane's ghost artists were successful at duplicating his style. But this comic has thinner and more detailed linework, as well as a very dynamic style full of motion.

I thought this was a one-off artists, but nope: it's none other than Jerry Robinson - one of, if not the earliest ghost artist for the Batman series. Needless to say his style has historically been the closest to Bob Kane's (and what we associate with Golden Age Batman), so that further mystifies things. To me, it doesn't look like Jerry's art immediately before or after. I really wonder what the reasoning is; did Jerry just have a lot more time to perfect his layouts?