Views: 50793

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Lee would likely have been aware of Ditko's plans, as Ditko would have had to indicate to him that Norman was the Goblin to make sure Lee didn't get in the way of the storyline in the dialogue.

Well, now I know I'm being deliberately ignored by the police. Last night I reported the neighbors were parked in front of a fire hydrant. They said they'd take care of it. They didn't. They're still parked in front of the hydrant.

In Lee's origin story for the Goblin, Norman wasn't particularly nice even before that gas explosion.  It just made him even more ornery and unhinged.  He only became "nice" after the explosion that caused him to forget that he had been the Goblin.  Of course, the situation as previously set up by Ditko offered too much in dramatic possibilities for Lee to allow Norman to be killed off right away.  And in short order, under Lee & Romita, Harry, whom Ditko had depicted as a thoughtless jerk, would be softened and become Peter's best friend and roommate, completing the shift of the series from a superhero who happened to be a high school student living with his elderly aunt to one who happened to be a college student living with a wealthy classmate whose father was one of his greatest enemies.

I don't buy this blogger's theory that the Time Trapper story in Adventure Comics #338 was supposed to appear earlier and delayed. My guess is the iron curtain of time was introduced to explain why the LSH didn't travel into the more distant future to find out what was going to happen. But the point about the Trapper's similarity to the Time Master from Wonder Woman #101 is interesting. I find their similarities compelling, but there's a catch; the Wonder Woman story appeared in 1958 and the first story in which the Trapper was depicted in 1964, and it might not be plausible anyone involved with the Legion story remembered the Wonder Woman one (or had read it).

(Corrected.)

Luke Blanchard said:

Lee would likely have been aware of Ditko's plans, as Ditko would have had to indicate to him that Norman was the Goblin to make sure Lee didn't get in the way of the storyline in the dialogue.

In the Cat story the lack of communication between Lee and Ditko had resulted in the Master Planner's gang being scripted as working for the Cat. So either Ditko actually talked to Lee (hard to believe) or Lee (not wanting to be burned again) figured it out from the broad hints in the plotting and art.

The art probably came with notes as to what was going on. In the Master Planner's men case Ditko's note might not have explained who they were. It could've been something like "Crooks come out of truck, talk about how smart their boss is." With Norman Ditko might've been more alert to the danger of Lee's writing dialogue that didn't fit his plans. In #37 he would've needed him to know that Norman was the guy sniping from the window, and how he got there.

It might also be - this is pure speculation - that Lee was obliged to change the Master Planner's men sequence in #30 by the Comics Code Authority. The Code's rules included that criminals had to be punished for their misdeeds. In #30 the men get away, and they're not caught by the issue's end. Making them the Cat's men could have satisfied the Authority since he is caught at the issue's end. (That could also be why Stromm is said to have died of a heart attack in #37; so the sniper wouldn't get away with straight murder.)

"Unused Page by John Romita Sr (Probably Intended for Amazing Spider-Man #40)"

Luke Blanchard said:

It might also be - this is pure speculation - that Lee was obliged to change the Master Planner's men sequence in #30 by the Comics Code Authority. The Code's rules included that criminals had to be punished for their misdeeds. In #30 the men get away, and they're not caught by the issue's end. Making them the Cat's men could have satisfied the Authority since he is caught at the issue's end. (That could also be why Stromm is said to have died of a heart attack in #37; so the sniper wouldn't get away with straight murder.)

This is an interesting theory. I'm more likely to buy it in the case of Stromm, since the target of an assassin's bullet dying of a heart attack seems forced, like a last-minute fix forced by the Code. Since there were a lot of continued stories where no one was punished at the end of the first part (or at all), it just goes to show how inconsistent the Code was.

I think the dialogue problems with the Master Planner's men were a little to drastic to be a Code fix. Ditko's walk-out was less than a year away and he just wasn't communicating with Lee. Feeling like he was writing without being paid for it and watching as Lee was celebrated as creating everything, he resentment continued to grow. Watching all the money roll in with none for him just added to his resentment. This directly played into his Objectivist beliefs.

I was just thinking about bimonthlies. Presumably around 1960 the main point of bimonthlies was they could remain on the shelves longer, and so sell a higher proportion of their print runs. Possibly some readers would pick up a title every two months that they wouldn't pick up every month. Possibly also some distributors would take an extra bimonthly title when they wouldn't take an extra monthly one.

But at his website Christopher Priest writes (here) that "all agreed" the reduction of Power Man and Iron Fist to a bimonthly schedule in 1985 was done to kill the title as "bi-monthly publication nearly always depresses sales". I can believe this, as the market had partly changed to a comics shop one at that point, and in the direct market bimonthly status may have worked differently. But his statement raises the question of why, that being the case, bimonthly status was ever still used. I suppose a company can only put out a limited number of titles, and might want to free up company resources and capital for something else.

But at his website Christopher Priest writes (here) that "all agreed" the reduction of Power Man and Iron Fist to a bimonthly schedule in 1985 was done to kill the title as "bi-monthly publication nearly always depresses sales".

Why would any comics company want to depress sales on anything?

The old DC put out a lot of books bi-monthly and eight times a year (bi-monthly except for the Summer). When they were bi-monthly they would be available to new eyes longer. In the comic shops, the non-returnable comics have a tendency to be ordered so that none are available for the shelf, except on the big-selling titles, so new eyes never see them. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and causes attempts at new directions to fail more often than not.

I believe Superman was still being published eight times a year until somewhere in the 1970s.

Superman went monthly (plus reprint giants) when Julie Schwartz took over editing the title in 1970, but Batman remained on an eight-times schedule (plus reprint giants) until the last third of 1973, when both it and Detective Comics were converted into bimonthly 100 pagers that came out alternating months. They both went back to a standard size in Feb. 1975 (on sale), and that's when Batman went monthly. Detective Comics, at that time, went back to being a monthly.

The 100 page format replaced the reprint giants. Other titles also became bimonthly 100 pagers for a bit (e.g. The Brave and the Bold, Justice League of America, Shazam!, Tarzan; Jimmy Olsen was replaced by Superman Family). Some others had 100 page issue from time to time (e.g. Superman, The Flash, Wonder Woman).

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2021   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service