Someone mentioned publisher Goodwin's habit of having various companies on paper, and having complicated publishing deals as a method of protecting them from having one go under and dragging the whole operation under.

 

Can anyone shed more light on this?

We know that Atlas/Timely was a fore-runner of what became Marvel comics, but is anyone familiar with the how and why Atlas went under and what was left.  Are there any written accounts?

Looking for help from comic historians here as well as fans....

Views: 401

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was there at that appearance as well.  I remember Bob Kane adamantly saying "My Batman doesn't use guns."

I don't recall the Batman/Robin sexual inuenendo but it may have been more subtle.  Since it was posited in Wertheim's book (at least, that's the first and only place I'd heard about it for years and years...) I suspect Kane may have been making the joke at Seduction's expense.

Richard Willis said:

In 1989 my wife and I attended the San Diego Comic-con. Bob Kane was there because of the first Michael Keaton Batman movie. I was disappointed when he, of all people, made a joke about Batman and Robin having a sexual relationship. I don’t think jokes about child molestation are funny.


Dave Blanchard said:

I think the "basis in truth" is that a lot of people found Bob Kane to be insufferable. That's the 5% of the story that I find believable.

In 1989 my wife and I attended the San Diego Comic-con. Bob Kane was there because of the first Michael Keaton Batman movie. I was disappointed when he, of all people, made a joke about Batman and Robin having a sexual relationship. I don’t think jokes about child molestation are funny.

I agree with Kirk in that he must have been making a joke about Wertham. I saw Bob Kane at the NY convention in, I think 1974, and he was there with an almost cartoony sexy blond and when someone in the audience brought up Wertham's homosexual accusation he refuted it by saying he was certainly no homosexual, indicating his babe escort as proof. Of course in hindsight this could just as well have been proof that he was :)!

That all being said, I found his appearance to be quite entertaining, although I heard other people there were pretty put off by him. Of course that probably says more about what I personally find entertaining, and he certainly was a character. One thing he said that I found pretty interesting which was that he was looking to buy up old issues of Batman because his complete collection (up to what date I don't remember), bound in leather, was set on fire by his ex-wife.

Andy

Gee, I wonder why she would have set them afire..... Hmmmm.....

Yes, I remember it was always referred to as National. I think the name DC came into more usage around the time they got rid of the "Superman DC National Comics" bullet.

Andrew Horn said:

But because of the Superman-DC (Detective Comics) bullet, everybody called them DC Comics until the company officially changed its name to DC Comics around 1976 or so.

Actually when I was a kid, we all called the company National Comics or just National.

Andy

As for Kane's Batman/Robin sexual relationship comment at his 1989 San Diego appearance, it may have been said (loudly) before the panel started. There had been a lot of stand-up comedians who had made this reference leading up to that day. I think Kane was trying to show how "hip and trendy" he was. There was no reference to Wertham before or after the comment. He came across as smarmy.

I will give you that he came across very strong and opinionated.  (But I also got the impression that he had no input on the movie, or that he said as  much...)

(Having never met nor seen the man before, I didn't recognise him and would know his personality or if he were joking or out of sorts, etc.)

 

[Say Richard, do you recall attending the costume contest or masquerade parade across the stage in 1989?


My wife and I were also at that convention (she was displaying several stained glass pieces, and I had some latch hook rugs to display...all with comic themes...Ditko's spiderman, Kirby's Thing Face, Cover of X-men 175, etc. ) so we took advantage of a complimentary admission in exchange for working/volunteering in the art display...and I sat in on the Bob Kane appearance/pannel  and  we both were there for the costumes.  I have  vivid memory of  one of the audience members making an ass of himself and I came this close to saying something to him or having him ejected.

To my shock, I read in his CBG column a few weeks later how he attended the costume presentations and hooted and hollered, drunk...as he put it, the only way to participate in such a spectacle.  I recognised his white suit and panama hat, and realized that I almost allowed him to make a scene if I had risen to the bait.

Can you guess who it was?]

Yes, I always attended the masquerade as a spectator whenever I was at the Con. If I saw the guy in the white suit making trouble I don't remember. It's been a long time since 1989!

He's famous, but not for his acting up. (It wasn't that he was causing trouble, as much as his cat calls and rude behavior was out of step with the rest of the audience. HE was used to a rouchous, raunchy atmosphere, whereas the rest of the crowd wasn't in that space. [He admits to being tipsy in his regular column that he wrote at the time for CBG newspaper...]  But I digress....

Richard Willis said:

Yes, I always attended the masquerade as a spectator whenever I was at the Con. If I saw the guy in the white suit making trouble I don't remember. It's been a long time since 1989!

I was surprised when looking up old Marvel Comics just how far back there was a "Marvel" Comic seal on the covers. The company seemed to go Timely, to Marvel, back to Timely, to Atlas, then back to Marvel. When is the company supposed to have officially switched to Marvel.
Reading the first DC Archives on Batman, I noticed after the first six stories that the art style completely changed. The first few were very roughly drawn, #28 being the worst, and the Monk two parter seems to have had a third issue planned that disappeared, because the second part seems to take place long after the end of part one. Anyway, with #33, the first issue to give an origin (in #28 we're just told Bruce Wayne dresses like a bat because he's a bored millionaire with nothing better to do with his time) and the artwork looks very different. The GCD says Sheldon Moldoff was doing backgrounds almost from the beginning while Bob Kane was just doing the characters, but #27-32 look like they're all drawn by the same guy (and not all that well) while from #33 on it looks very spiffy and more professional. The faces are still the same (I've read Kane went through the comics and redrew the faces for quite awhile) but otherwise the artist of #33-on does not look like the artist of #27-32. I think Kane really drew those first six stories then pretty much just "corrected" whatever he didn't like about an art job from then on. From the way the Monk story is so messed up and confusing I have a feeling he actually tried to write that two parter himself and Bill Finger had to fix it.

Reportedly the Monk two-parter was by Gardner Fox. There are articles by Bob Hughes on the early Bat-artists here.

Something is wrong with that Monk story. I really think it was meant to be a three parter.

The Spark Stevens page shown when I clicked Bob Kane looks an awful lot like the page in Detective #27 where Bruce Wayne is talking to Commisioner Gordon.  

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

© 2020   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service