Messages

So, it's been a while since SN popped up. Am I the only one who noticed that?

I luvz me some Adam Hughes. Guy's a legend. I have no idea how he makes a living tho since it doesn't look like he does full interiors very often and I can't imagine that covers and pinups pay very much.

But I've always been fond of this one:



I always found it telling that you can identify each character even tho they're dressed fairly identically to each other. Zatanna, Babs and Wonder Woman are easy but the others could've (and should've?) been very hard to distinguish from each other. But somehow, they're not.

And here are some scans from Wizard #45, May 1995. A fairly lengthy interview with Hughes.

I find it amusing that the first mention of Harley that I can ever recall seeing is so lowkey. "Also, the Joker will have a girlfriend called Harley Quinn". From such humble beginnings, she became a real force in the Batman mythos.

Comics Scene #29, October 1992

When I first heard about BTAS when I was 11 or so, I went into it with the assumption that it was going to be a very Filmation or Hanna-Barbera type of thing. And honestly, I was totally okay with that.

But this feature from Comics Scene is the first inkling I ever got that BTAS aspired to be a LOT more than a 20 some odd minute toy commercial with Good Moral Lessons at the end of each episode. I was already excited about the show. But this feature made me a BTAS True Believer very early on.

Also, this is a very Batman-oriented issue of Comics Scene. There are features about BTAS, an interview with Michael Keaton about Batman Returns and an interview with Kelley Jones where he discusses (among other things) Red Rain.

Very enjoyable issue of an underrated comics industry trade publication. I like Wizard as much as the next guy. But Comics Scene had some very high quality interviews and features too.

It's the appeal of esoterica. "Herpa derpa derp, did you know Bob Kane didn't ackchyually create Batman?"

As you say, the issue of credit was VERY hazy back then. Especially since comics were regarded as a fly by night industry that would probably be extinct by 1945 at the latest. That was conventional wisdom in the industry even at the time. Nobody was too worried with who got credit for what since comic book characters were not understood to be gigantic franchise in those days.

Bob Kane negotiated a deal with Vincent Sullivan to create "another Superman", he named and made an initial design for Batman (or Bat-Man, if that works better for anyone), he presented the beginning of his idea to Bill Finger, Bill Finger redesigned the character, Bob Kane then sold the character/concept to Sullivan and Kane then used Bill Finger in what history would probably consider a work for hire capacity.

I'm not trying to minimize Finger's massive contributions. I'm simply saying that Kane did a lot more than collect a paycheck.

Still, if we're going to take a warts and all look at Batman's history, can we start by acknowledging that Bill Finger was hardly a saint (or a victim) (or a martyr) in his own right? The Case Of The Chemical Syndicate was virtually plagiarized from The Shadow pulp 'Partners In Peril'. Bill Finger wrote that. But how much crap does he take for swiping someone else's work?

My point is that crediting solely Bob Kane for Batman's creation had considerable legal accuracy behind it. It might not have been "fair" by modern standards. But by legal standards, it made a lot of sense to give Kane sole credit. I have no problem with crediting Finger as co-creator. By all means, do it.

All I'm saying is we need to let go of the idea of Kane being a dastardly villain and Finger being a helpless victim.

Back in 2015, I started wondering what floodgates would be opened if Finger received co-creator credit. And sure enough, it looks like the floodgates have been coming open. Roy Thomas has been jockeying for co-creator credit for Wolverine now that Wolverine's other co-creators are dead and can't set the record straight. I'm sure there will be plenty more of this to come in the future.

My anticipation for this movie remains strong.

One thing that still isn't super clear is the Knightmare sequences. The other glimpses of the future can sort of be explained. But how does Bruce see the first Knightmare vision in BVS while he and Cyborg see it in ZSJL?

The most that I've been able to figure is that when Mother Box was dropped onto Superman's body, the Kryptonian AI says the future has taken root in the present. Whatever else that might mean, it seems that one byproduct of it is that Bruce occasionally gets glimpses of the Knightmare future in his dreams.

This is one of those plot points which we can be fairly certain would've addressed in subsequent films. But as it stands, it's not entirely clear now.

As I'm always the skeptic, the one burning question is "where's Jim Starlin?" I'm not up to date on his personal life, but I don't believe he's retired yet

My understanding is that the Batman office and Starlin parted ways on some pretty bad terms with each other shortly after ADITF. Starlin mentioned some of that stuff in an interview at some point or another.

And I got the idea that at least on Starlin's side, those wounds went DEEP. Because apparently, and among other things, he had TONS of story ideas for where Batman could go following Jason's death. But after getting chased out of the Bat office, I got the idea that something broke inside of him.

Not to speak ill of the dead. But while Denny O'Neil did a LOT of good for Batman in his time, it sure looks like he left quite a lot of damage in his wake. The people who loved him back then seem to be loyal to this very day. But others, like Starlin (plus Alan Grant and somewhat Norm Breyfogle) had grudges that were never truly resolved.

My first choice for art probably would have been Graham Nolan

Understandable. But Graham Nolan is probably persona non grata at DC these days. For that matter, you may as well add Chuck Dixon to that list too. Because anybody even remotely associated with Comicsgate (as Nolan and Dixon are) will probably never find mainstream comics work ever again.

And it's a crying shame too because creators like Dixon and Nolan don't exactly grow on trees. Bane didn't create himself, after all.

Also, at the rate things are going, it's probably just a matter of time until Kelley Jones gives up the pretense and announces that he's also Comicsgate through and through. He's been sympathetic enough to their cause that he may as well end the charade.

And anyway, Dixon and Nolan have both found plenty of lucrative Comicsgate work. Frankly, DC needs them a hell of a lot more than they need DC. I'm just describing the situation on the ground.

I've been reading a bunch of X-Men stuff lately. Obvious things. Claremont, Morrison and Whedon (in 616) and Millar (on Ultimate X-Men) and a bit of Hama (on Wolverine).

Frankly, I've developed a completely new appreciation for X-Men over the last couple of weeks. Such an amazingly rich tapestry. So many interesting characters and conflicts and storylines.

And artist after artist turning out some of the best work of their entire careers. The list is almost endless. Joe Madureira, John Byrne, Dave Cockrum, the Kuberts, Frank Quitely, all of the Image guys, etc.

Much respect to X-Men comics.

Great find. It's interesting to contrast Singer's apparent humility with the first X-Men as compared to almost critical mass ego he displayed in the run up to Days Of Future Past.

Then again, DOFP is a vastly superior film to the first X-Men. So, maybe Singer with an out of control ego makes for a great X-Men film?