Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 275
  1. #211

    Default

    Geoff can be awful too, and IMO the reason why current Superman suffers is because all the good Superman writers are gone, they left and the current hierarchy at DC and WB have left the character DIRECTIONLESS. So without a strong solid writer to drive the brand forward in a sensible direction, Superman with red cape instead flies around in circles like a dog chasing its tail. Of course there are other factors hurting such as competition from brands like MIB, Batman and Ironman etc Superman needs to be managed by a good writer, some editor, inker or writer who can help put out a work as good as Alan Moore's ...For The Man Who Has Everything or John Byrne's revamp of Lex, Lois, Clark in the late 80s or Mark Waid and Alex's Kingdom Come. Even Jeph Loeb, i know the sometimes writes crap but the former DC writer who now manages Marvel tv did a great story with Superman/Batman/Supergirl a great story that helped introduce new readers to the DC world. Superman suffers because its the same ol'...managed by a directionless hierarchy at DC and WB

  2. #212
    Creator Bill Finger The Bat-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post
    I don't think we agree on much but I agree with you the vast majority of this.
    We're actually agreeing for a change. We did have a lot of arguments in regards to Frank Miller's Batman material and John Byrne's Superman material over at superherohype, I'm the Man-Bat over there as you likely deduced. While I'm a fan of Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Batman: Year One and John Byrne's The Man of Steel, I also acknowledge that the success of Frank's Dark Knight and Batman: Year One, along with Alan's Watchmen, unintentionally inspired copycat imitators attempts at outdoing Frank Miller and Alan Moore created a grisly grim and gritty trend in comics, as Frank Miller acknowledged, "the trend is depressing, and dumb. Why Green Lantern became a drunk driver when he can fly always loses me. And I'm told they turned him into a mass murderer as well."
    http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=192
    Alan Moore acknowledged, "It seemed that the existence of Watchmen had pretty much doomed the mainstream comic industry to about 20 years of very grim and often pretentious stories that seemed to be unable to get around the massive psychological stumbling block that Watchmen had turned out to be, although that had never been my intention with the work."
    http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2...ooks_grap.html
    Also the success of John's The Man of Steel unintentionally inspired attempts at reboot after reboot at DC. As John Byrne acknowledged, "basically a swarm of people saying 'Well, Byrne got to do it!' Suddenly, every new team saw their mandate as rebooting whatever title they were assigned to -- even if it had been 'rebooted' by the previous team."
    http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f....asp?TID=42988

    Quote Originally Posted by The Duke View Post
    I want you to know, Mr. B., that I've read a lot of commentary about what's wrong with comics these days, most of it insipid. Yours was probably the most insightful thing I've read on the subject. Thank you.
    Thanks. Although, I must disagree with you, Duke, in regards to Neal Adams.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Duke View Post
    I'm not sure if this has been posted or not but this is the reason why things are the way they are.

    In 2009, a court ruling resulted in Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's families recapturing the rights to Superman's origins and copyright. The decision stated that Warner Bros. did not owe the families additional royalties from previous films, comic books and merchandise, but if they did not begin production on a Superman film by 2011, then the Shuster and Siegel estates would be able to sue for lost revenue on an unproduced film. To avoid a bloodbath in the courts that could have meant the end of DC Entertainment as has stood since 1935, Warners green lit Man of Steel in 2010 and DC Comics rebooted their comic line including Superman in 2011; thus preventing the families to capitalizing on the brand.

    So we all suffer because of greed. Pure and simple.

    Oh, and the real villain of the piece.

    Neal Adams.

    He's the one that "convinced" the Siegel and Shuster families to go after more money.

    I used to love that man and his artwork, which always considered second only to Don Newton. Now I hate him.
    That's misplaced hate, misplaced blame.

    The real blame is Siegel's relatives and Marc Toberoff, the lawyer of Siegel's relatives. The DC reboot was Dan DiDio's plan and the costumes are Jim Lee's designs. Producer Christopher Nolan and director Zack Snyder are the ones in charge of The Man of Steel movie.

    What Neal Adams did for Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster was in 1975 Neal Adams begin a campaign to get DC to credit Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster as the creators of Superman and give them a financial compensation. On December 1st, 1975, Neal Adams appeared on Tom Snyder's Tomorrow Show on NBC and publicly shamed Warner Brothers into giving Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster creator credits on all Superman comic books, films and TV series, and a pension and full medical benefits. Jerry Robinson (early Batman artist and president of the National Cartoonists Society) negotiated with Warner Brothers and, on December 23rd, 1975, Warner Brothers began giving $20,000 a year for both Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, payment of medical and law bills, and having all Superman stories from that point on (including the movies and TV series) accompanied by the words, "Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster." The deal was announced to the public by Walter Cronkite on CBS News in 1975.


    Neal Adams doesn't support the relatives and their lawyer Marc Toberoff going after more money and ownership of the Superman characters.


    Neal Adams: "Sometimes when you call in a lawyer there is no sense of fairness at all it is just 'what can I get' and that can destroy things. Things have started to shift the other way. When I was fighting for Jerry and Joe, it was so far unbalanced against Jerry and Joe that it was a worthy fight. It was black and white. It’s not black and white anymore."

    Todd Matthy: "So there’s a possibility that Marvel could publish Superman?"

    Neal Adams: "Isn’t that disturbing."
    http://comics.gearlive.com/comix411/...th-neal-adams/

    Also, Neal Adams doesn't support Jim Lee's redesigns of the characters.


    Neal Adams: "It seems like they’re trying to start anew by redesigning costumes with really bad designs. It’s like Superman, will we ever see Superman again? Are they doing it because of the lawsuit? I don’t know what the answer is, it just seems like it’s all cloaked in mystery.
    And I keep on seeing these guys with these armored suits with lines all over them and wondering whether or not this is a serious attempt at refurbishing characters or just an attempt to draw lines over the suits. I mean, it’s sort of up to the film companies to clutter up the suits isn’t it? Not up to the comic book companies. Artists don’t even like to draw all these lines. So is this a permanent plan or is this a shot in the dark or just screwing around? I have no idea and I don’t think anybody does."
    http://nerdbastards.com/2012/10/12/n...th-neal-adams/
    Last edited by The Bat-Man; 12-15-2012 at 08:23 AM.
    Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster, Bill Finger/Bob Kane, William Moulton Marston. Creators of the most enduring iconic archetypes of the comic book superhero genre and its powerful legacy.

  3. #213
    Creator Bill Finger The Bat-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Duke View Post
    Where was his great push for Bill Finger's creative rights?
    By the time Neal Adams left DC and formed Continuity, and was in a position where he could taken up the cause of creator rights in 1975 against DC/Warner, Bill Finger was unfortunately already deceased. Bill Finger died of a heart attack in January 1974. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were still alive, were friends and they agreed on how Superman was created and that they were the co-creators and wanted credit and financial compensation. This was a whole other matter in regards to Bob Kane and Bill Finger and also Jerry Robinson and the creation of the Batman characters. Bob Kane had an ironclad contract with DC, and it would have been one person's word against anothers about the creation of the Batman characters without concrete evidence to hold up in court. Without Bill Finger around to speak for himself, it would be even more difficult as it would have been the Neal Adams hearsay about the creation of Batman, etc. against the word of the then still living Bob Kane. This 1965 letter to the fanzine Batmania shows that Bob Kane was not willing to admit that Bill Finger had co-created Batman. Bob Kane claimed "The fact is that I conceived the Batman figure and costume entirely by myself even before I called Bill in to help me write the Batman. I created the title, masthead, the format and concept, as well as the Batman figure and costume."
    http://twomorrows.com/comicbookartis...es/03kane.html
    It was only after Bill Finger had died that Bob Kane first admitted in Comics Interview #31 (1986):

    Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster, Bill Finger/Bob Kane, William Moulton Marston. Creators of the most enduring iconic archetypes of the comic book superhero genre and its powerful legacy.

  4. #214
    Creator Bill Finger The Bat-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Bob Kane also admitted about Bill Finger in Comics Interview #31 (1986):


    Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster, Bill Finger/Bob Kane, William Moulton Marston. Creators of the most enduring iconic archetypes of the comic book superhero genre and its powerful legacy.

  5. #215
    Creator Bill Finger The Bat-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Bob Kane said about Bill Finger in The History of the DC Universe (1988):


    Also in his autobiography Batman & Me (1990) Bob Kane said about Bill Finger:



    Jerry Robinson and Bob Kane couldn't even agree on who created Robin and the Joker and how they were created. One person's word against anothers.

    Jerry Robinson's claim about creating the Joker:
    "My goal was to be a writer...The first thought that I had was to create a villain that was Ė we didnít use the word supervillain at that time Ė a larger-than-life villain, one that would be worthy of Batman.
    In my own family, playing cards played a big role, socially at least. One of my brothers Ė I had three older brothers Ėwas a lawyer, a Yale graduate, and while he was at college, became a champion bridge player which he continued after college. So cards were always around the house. Thatís one influence why I immediately thought of the Joker playing card. So once I thought of the villain with a sense of humor, I began to think of a name and the name 'the Joker' immediately came to mind. There was the association with the Joker in the deck of cards, and I probably yelled literally, 'Eureka!' because I knew I had the name and the image at the same time. I remember searching frantically that night for a deck of cards in my little room in the Bronx where I was holed up and did my work. Luckily I had it and it had somewhat the same image as the classic one, and that was the marriage. Thatís how the Joker came into being."
    http://www.rocketllama.com/blog-it/2...erry-robinson/
    Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster, Bill Finger/Bob Kane, William Moulton Marston. Creators of the most enduring iconic archetypes of the comic book superhero genre and its powerful legacy.

  6. #216
    Creator Bill Finger The Bat-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    571

    Default

    The creation of the Joker according to Bob Kane from his interview in Comics Interview #31 (1986):


    Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster, Bill Finger/Bob Kane, William Moulton Marston. Creators of the most enduring iconic archetypes of the comic book superhero genre and its powerful legacy.

  7. #217
    Creator Bill Finger The Bat-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    Why does there have to be a moral lesson?
    It is beneficial educationally in the upbringing of children, giving moral messages for impressionable kids in their formative years. When I was growing up we had our moralistic comic books for all-ages, as well as The Shazam!/Isis Hour on TV, which helped teach us right from wrong and gave us positive heroes to look up to, which is something kids still need, especially in this day and age of single parent families, deadbeat dads, etc.

    As Harlan Ellison said on the Legends of the Dark Knight: The History of Batman documentary, "My generation learned right from wrong, good from evil, the ethical and moral thing to do, from comic books."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAiJyvjb-1I

    As Jackson Bostwick/Captain Marvel, star of the Shazam! TV series, said on Flashback, "Kids get away will a lot of stuff and when their 13 and parents decide they gotta reprimand 'em there's gonna be resentment because they never had it in their lives. Like a puppy when he just goes to the bathroom on the floor, he doesn't know any better, he needs to be trained, it's the same with a kid, and if you have the superheroes, whether it's comic book form, or cartoon form, or like we did a live-action form where they can be able to have the message slipped to 'em, without preaching to 'em, that's where you can really make a mark on kids lives. And that's what needs to be brought back. You get somebody who never had that, were never introduced to it as a child, they had to go out struggling and everything and all they know is the street violence and stuff like that, that's where they get into trouble."
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/flashba...on-flashback-w

    Jackson Bostwick/Captain Marvel said, "To me, the most effective part of the show was not even in the initial episodes when they first started airing, but which eventually became the icing on the cake for the series. It was the end tags, when Captain Marvel flies back and talks to the audience about what they learned in that weekís episode. Right after they first aired, I told the Producer, Bob Chenault, that they missed the boat by not having the hero come back and wrap things up, ala The Lone Ranger, Cisco Kid, Sgt. Preston of the Yukon, etc. He told me that the network didnít want to give up the 60 seconds of commercial time. Well, after the fan mail started arriving and indicated that they wanted to see more of Captain Marvel (not just in the last 15 minutes of the story), the gang at CBS in New York finally relented and we went back and filmed those tags for those first 15 episodes in one day out at Franklin Canyon Reservoir in Bel-Air. (It was important) not to preach to the kids and to give them a friend and someone to look up to, like I had with Clayton Moore as the Lone Ranger when I was growing up."
    http://www.newsarama.com/comics/oral...-7-110103.html

    Jackson Bostwick/Captain Marvel explained the impact the moral messages had on people in FilmFax magazine #112 (2006):


    Brian Cutler/Rick Mason explained the impact the moral messages had on people on the Secrets of Isis DVD set by BCI, "Isis was the first Saturday morning heroine, and a lot of people watched TV on Saturday mornings, both youngsters and oldsters. It had a great appeal because it had a message and a moral in every single episode. Over the years, as surprisingly as it may seem, I've received dozens and dozens and dozens of emails from people all over the country, if not the world, commenting about the show and how it changed their lives. For example last year I received an email from a very very successful person in New York whose a stock broker who happens to be Chinese. He told me all of this in his email, and he was sending me the email because everybody that he grew up with in his neighborhood was either dead or in jail, and he attributed his success to watching The Shazam!/Isis Hour every Saturday morning and it gave him a path to follow. Now the impact of that on me, receiving an email like that, when your not aware of the impact you have at the time your doing something is phenomenal. And I just received an email the other day from someone saying, 'Oh, I loved your show, I loved you on Emergency, I loved your guest star work, but Isis was such an important part of my life.' And it's interesting and unique to see the impact that the show had on people, and still has on people. Wonderful email praising the show and the message and the moral and the lessons because, as I say and have said for years, there was a lesson and a message in every single episode of the show and those were all very good, necessary things and it gave people something to hang onto. If somebody were to ask me, whats the legacy of Isis? I would say, the depth, the moral issues. The strength that it gave people to go on with their lives. There are so many people over the years that have emailed me about how Isis changed their life. It's amazing how many different people have emailed me over the years that the messages that they received from Isis came at a time when they were down and out and it changed something in their life. And I get this from people of every walk of life, every ethnicity, every background, so hopefully, and I say this very seriously, because I don't know that people have a lot of heroes to look towards anymore, and maybe what this will do with the new DVD coming out, maybe this will give people maybe a little inspiration, maybe a new message said in an old way that they hadn't thought about before, but will allow them to look at life a little differently and with more enlightenment."

    Joanna Pang Atkins/Cindy Lee said on the Secrets of Isis DVD set by BCI, "The series is uplifting and positive and it always has a great message and I think that's important. I work with a lot of children now and at the school I am at now they talk about character education all the time. Even at some of the high schools they are talking about character education. It's respect and citizenship and just having a good character and the Isis series instills that."

    Denny O'Neil remembered the effect of Superman's words against racism had on him when he was a kid listening to the Adventures of Superman radio show in the 1940s. "The Superman radio show, I know, gave me my first peek into race situations because I remember, I was a avid listener of that show, if you can imagine little Denny OíNeil standing listening to mommyís radio, every afternoon at 5:15," he said with a laugh. "And Superman once said that the difference in skin color was only due to a chemical. And that was the first time I ever heard anything like that. It is now 66 years later or so, and I still remember it."
    http://www.newsarama.com/comics/2011...ary-11027.html

    On the other hand, I do believe that routinely viewing snuff films and films glorifying sociopathic killers and torture horror films can negatively fuel a childs lack of morality, lack of ethics and lack of empathy to the suffering of others. However, I'm not saying that films or comic books or video games or gangsta rap music or satanic metal music or neo-nazi punk music turns anyone into sociopaths, but it can negatively influence impressionable kids lacking positive morality in their upbringing. Sociopathic people stem from damage to the orbital cortex and anterior cortex of the brain, the aggressive high risk MAOA "warrior" genetic from birth, along with a lack of nurturing parents and positive role-models during childhood, a traumatic rejection or abuse during youthhood, and often a history of antisocial isolation or emotional detachment in early life. Negative memories drives a psychotic mind as rage rises without positive influences. Neural scientist Jim Fallon discovered that he has the damage to the orbital cortex and anterior cortex of the brain, the aggressive high risk MAOA "warrior" genetic from birth, but due to his loving nurturing upbringing with positive influences, he didn't become a sociopathic killer.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnV4RnWcmWo
    Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster, Bill Finger/Bob Kane, William Moulton Marston. Creators of the most enduring iconic archetypes of the comic book superhero genre and its powerful legacy.

  8. #218
    Creator Bill Finger The Bat-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    Not with adaptation comics. They're only there to promote the show. When the show ends, the promotion ends. That's how it has been with DC and Marvel in this regard. This if the opposite of what's done with the works of Joss Whedon, which was about continuing the story beyond the show's end. The comics were initially canceled because the shows ended.
    If the series have strong enough sales then I definitely believe they would keep publishing them, especially since they own these characters.

    And fortunately, Warner Brothers realized that was a stupid thing to do. Hence the last three Batman films retained the level of darkness and grounded realism, while becoming more and more profitable. They didn't care about the Happy Meal. They cared about the audience and the fans first.
    McDonald's shouldn't have been promoting the film to young children with Batman Returns toys in Happy Meals in the first place because it's not a film aimed for little kids. As Tim Burton said about the Penguin in Batman Returns, "He doesn't really fit into the Happy Meal mode."
    http://www.empireonline.com/features...m-burton/5.asp

    Other than the Happy Meal promotion, Warner Brothers and McDonald's should have defended Batman Returns and their Batman Returns promotion rather than cowardly suppressing and turning their backs on what some found offensive. They shouldn't be so terrified of controversy.

    And kids see all of that elsewhere. Comics should be no different. As to what is and isn't appropriate, I hate to tell you, but the only ones who decide that are the parents and the kids. And the kids will always win out, because they will eventually get to consume that product. "Mortal Kombat" has an M rating for mature, but twelve year olds were playing it at home and in the arcades.
    I'm well aware that there is an abundance of material that isn't really appropriate for kids, lacking positive moral messages for impressionable kids. Many kids increasingly see entertainment that was intended only for older audiences.

    No, but it still exposes them to it. Whether they still buy the product or not is irrelevant to the larger goal of exposure.
    The goal is for the people to buy the product. That is always the primary goal.

    Bullshit on that one. You don't have to buy other books in crossovers. You can choose to or not. Same with choosing to watch that show, order that pay-per-view or anything else.
    Of course many have chosen not to buy comic books at all anymore. If they want to read a crossover storyline then they have to buy numerous different comic books a month to read the storyline.

    Well, fortunately, we have comics for all ages.
    Unfortunately we have very few comics for all-ages.

    That's my point. People can talk about sports and not have that problem, but comic fans do and they get treated like dirt. It's a double standard.
    Amongst other sports fans they don't have that problem, amongst none sports fans they do have that problem.

    What is considered cool isn't cool. It's a false illusion that people create for themselves, which is the far opposite of actually being a geek.
    What is considered cool and uncool has changed. I was referring to classically geeky things that are considered cool nowadays, which use to be considered uncool, ugly. There is nothing more fashionable now than a pair of stereotypically nerdy black rimed glasses. Who would have thought that such a classic nerd stereotype would ever be considered cool and actually in style, although it's silly for anyone to wear glasses unless they actually need them to see. Black rimed glasses are now very popular among celebrities and teenagers in particular.


    Back in the old days, nobody, outside of a movie, willingly called themselves a nerd, especially a teenager. Other people called them that to mockingly bully them as uncool and ugly, making fun of their glasses, etc. Many people in the '80s and '90s wore contact lenses instead of glasses. Nowadays, many people wear glasses and people willingly call themselves nerds. Nerd is largely not thought of as the mockingly negative uncool stigma nowadays. When people call themselves nerds today, they're not thinking about the classic negative aspect of the word, but about the brainy aspect, which glasses were stereotypically thought to denote. Braininess has always been associated with nerds, describing people who actually enjoy reading, using computers, playing video games, loving technology, etc. Those things don't make nerds social misfits in society anymore in our technology-driven, computer-driven world in the information age, the mainstreaming of computer games with Facebook's farmville, etc., the popularity of digital cameras and cell phones.
    Many superheroes and anime characters have crossed over into the mainstream, and are considered cool to much more people than just todays smaller group of comic book readers, as has Comic-Con. It's become popular and considered cool to a lot of people to cosplay as superheroes and anime characters and partake in nerd culture at Comic-Con.
    Last edited by The Bat-Man; 12-15-2012 at 08:28 AM.
    Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster, Bill Finger/Bob Kane, William Moulton Marston. Creators of the most enduring iconic archetypes of the comic book superhero genre and its powerful legacy.

  9. #219
    Creator Bill Finger The Bat-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    The creators who had the heroes kill for no reason, other than they can and don't even show remorse for it.
    The creators of Batman, Superman, etc. didn't have the heroes kill villains for no reason. It was either deemed as necessary..."As much as I hate to take human life I'm afraid this time it's necessary," Batman #1 (1940) "Professor Hugo Strange and the Monsters" by Bill Finger, Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson:
    Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster, Bill Finger/Bob Kane, William Moulton Marston. Creators of the most enduring iconic archetypes of the comic book superhero genre and its powerful legacy.

  10. #220
    Creator Bill Finger The Bat-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    571

    Default

    In other cases it was unintended deaths of villains, for example....
    A villain unintentionally dies when Superman accidentally drops him in Action Comics #13 (1939) "Superman vs. the Cab Protective League" by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster:


    Last edited by The Bat-Man; 12-15-2012 at 08:01 AM.
    Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster, Bill Finger/Bob Kane, William Moulton Marston. Creators of the most enduring iconic archetypes of the comic book superhero genre and its powerful legacy.

  11. #221
    Creator Bill Finger The Bat-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Batman's punch unintentionally leads to a villain breaking his neck in Batman #2 (1940) "Wolf, the Crime Master" by Bill Finger, Bob Kane, Jerry Robinson and George Roussos:


    Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster, Bill Finger/Bob Kane, William Moulton Marston. Creators of the most enduring iconic archetypes of the comic book superhero genre and its powerful legacy.

  12. #222
    Creator Bill Finger The Bat-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    571

    Default

    In the case of the Spectre, death was a supernatural payment for villains sins...
    More Fun Comics #52 (1940) "Spectre" by Jerry Siegel and Bernard Baily:



    When villains died it wasn't gratuitous gore-fests in the superhero comics by the creators, nor were they sanitized stories only for little children where nobody ever dies ever.
    Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster, Bill Finger/Bob Kane, William Moulton Marston. Creators of the most enduring iconic archetypes of the comic book superhero genre and its powerful legacy.

  13. #223
    Creator Bill Finger The Bat-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    Who only toned down the violence because of marketability and later government censorship.
    The 1954 Comics Code Authority wasn't government censorship. It was self-censorship formed by John Goldwater, publisher of Archie Comics, within the comic book industry. John Goldwater, publisher of Archie, was the Comics Code president. Jack Lebowiz, publisher of DC, was the vice-president of the Comics Code. With the Comics Code restrictions the publishers of Archie Comics and DC Comics forced their competitors EC Comics and Lev Gleason Publications, the publishers of gory horror comics (Tales of the Crypt, Vault of Horror and The Haunt of Fear) and bloody murderous crime comics (Crime Does Not Pay, Crime SuspenStories and Shock SuspenStories), out of business.
    The Comics Code of 1954 didn't really effect DC much at all, since DC editor Whitney Ellsworth had already created a code of ethics Editorial Advisory Board in 1941 (similar to the Hays Motion Picture Production Code (1930-1968), and the basis for John Goldwater's Comics Code Authority in 1954) which included a ban against deaths, trying to make all of the DC characters as wholesome and tame as possible to protect DC from the growing criticisms of comic books in the 1940s and 1950s by Sterling North, Fredric Wertham, Greshon Legman. Links that talk about the Editorial Advisory Board:
    http://www.thegraphicnovels.com/nsp1-21.html
    http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext...ibit1/dc.shtml
    These book excerpts are from Comic Book Nation by Bradford W. Wright about the Editorial Advisory Board DC had:


    Every DC title had a list of the Editorial Advisory Board members.
    Jerry Siegel/Joe Shuster, Bill Finger/Bob Kane, William Moulton Marston. Creators of the most enduring iconic archetypes of the comic book superhero genre and its powerful legacy.

  14. #224
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bat-Man
    It is beneficial educationally in the upbringing of children, giving moral messages for impressionable kids in their formative years. When I was growing up we had our moralistic comic books for all-ages, as well as The Shazam!/Isis Hour on TV, which helped teach us right from wrong and gave us positive heroes to look up to, which is something kids still need, especially in this day and age of single parent families, deadbeat dads, etc.
    Morality is fine, but it doesn't have to be in every issue. I liked stories like Robin #39 and 40, as well as the Superman two parter "Crisis At Hand". But the other stories in between those were just as good. There doesn't need to be a moral lesson because Bruce and Selena have sex, in the first issue of the current volume.

    If the series have strong enough sales then I definitely believe they would keep publishing them, especially since they own these characters.
    Nope, it was never about strong sales. It was about promoting a show. That's the opposite of having an ongoing series that's been around for years, to promote the character itself.

    Other than the Happy Meal promotion, Warner Brothers and McDonald's should have defended Batman Returns and their Batman Returns promotion rather than cowardly suppressing and turning their backs on what some found offensive. They shouldn't be so terrified of controversy.
    Fortunately, they learned their lesson and we had three dark films that kids still went to see. No one batted an eyelash. Besides, what the Joker did with the bombs, is far darker than the Penguin drowning children. Especially since one boat had children on there.

    I'm well aware that there is an abundance of material that isn't really appropriate for kids, lacking positive moral messages for impressionable kids. Many kids increasingly see entertainment that was intended only for older audiences.
    And many of them turned out fine.

    The goal is for the people to buy the product. That is always the primary goal.
    Sadly, in the digital age, that's just not going to happen. It's why CD and LP sales are low compared to digital sales and illegal downloads. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? People will always choose free.

    Of course many have chosen not to buy comic books at all anymore. If they want to read a crossover storyline then they have to buy numerous different comic books a month to read the storyline.
    No, they can buy the one comic and be done with it. They don't have to buy. They can choose to. When "Final Crisis" rolled around four years back, I didn't feel obligated to buy everything. I bought what I bought because it appealed to me. I bought "Legion Of 3 Worlds" because I had been following the Legion in Action Comics and I had followed the whole Time Trapper storyline dating back to 1988, when I picked up my third Superman title ever. Of course, having a crossover helps promote other books. If not for "Reign Of The Supermen", I wouldn't have read "Emerald Twilight".

    Unfortunately we have very few comics for all-ages.
    DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, IDW, Image, Bongo, Dynamite and more out there have all ages books. They also have for specific ages which is also appropriate just as it is for movies, television and video games.

    Amongst other sports fans they don't have that problem, amongst none sports fans they do have that problem.
    You don't see sports fans being ostercized like comic fans are.

    The 1954 Comics Code Authority wasn't government censorship. It was self-censorship formed by John Goldwater, publisher of Archie Comics, within the comic book industry. John Goldwater, publisher of Archie, was the Comics Code president. Jack Lebowiz, publisher of DC, was the vice-president of the Comics Code. With the Comics Code restrictions the publishers of Archie Comics and DC Comics forced their competitors EC Comics and Lev Gleason Publications, the publishers of gory horror comics (Tales of the Crypt, Vault of Horror and The Haunt of Fear) and bloody murderous crime comics (Crime Does Not Pay, Crime SuspenStories and Shock SuspenStories), out of business
    Yes, but the government was getting involved before the industry self-regulated.

  15. #225
    It's Lexrules... GET HIM. Lexrules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bat-Man View Post
    We're actually agreeing for a change. We did have a lot of arguments in regards to Frank Miller's Batman material and John Byrne's Superman material over at superherohype, I'm the Man-Bat over there as you likely deduced. While I'm a fan of Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Batman: Year One and John Byrne's The Man of Steel, I also acknowledge that the success of Frank's Dark Knight and Batman: Year One, along with Alan's Watchmen, unintentionally inspired copycat imitators attempts at outdoing Frank Miller and Alan Moore created a grisly grim and gritty trend in comics, as Frank Miller acknowledged, "the trend is depressing, and dumb. Why Green Lantern became a drunk driver when he can fly always loses me. And I'm told they turned him into a mass murderer as well."
    http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=192
    Alan Moore acknowledged, "It seemed that the existence of Watchmen had pretty much doomed the mainstream comic industry to about 20 years of very grim and often pretentious stories that seemed to be unable to get around the massive psychological stumbling block that Watchmen had turned out to be, although that had never been my intention with the work."
    http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2...ooks_grap.html
    Also the success of John's The Man of Steel unintentionally inspired attempts at reboot after reboot at DC. As John Byrne acknowledged, "basically a swarm of people saying 'Well, Byrne got to do it!' Suddenly, every new team saw their mandate as rebooting whatever title they were assigned to -- even if it had been 'rebooted' by the previous team."
    http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/f....asp?TID=42988



    Thanks. Although, I must disagree with you, Duke, in regards to Neal Adams.



    That's misplaced hate, misplaced blame.

    The real blame is Siegel's relatives and Marc Toberoff, the lawyer of Siegel's relatives. The DC reboot was Dan DiDio's plan and the costumes are Jim Lee's designs. Producer Christopher Nolan and director Zack Snyder are the ones in charge of The Man of Steel movie.

    What Neal Adams did for Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster was in 1975 Neal Adams begin a campaign to get DC to credit Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster as the creators of Superman and give them a financial compensation. On December 1st, 1975, Neal Adams appeared on Tom Snyder's Tomorrow Show on NBC and publicly shamed Warner Brothers into giving Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster creator credits on all Superman comic books, films and TV series, and a pension and full medical benefits. Jerry Robinson (early Batman artist and president of the National Cartoonists Society) negotiated with Warner Brothers and, on December 23rd, 1975, Warner Brothers began giving $20,000 a year for both Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, payment of medical and law bills, and having all Superman stories from that point on (including the movies and TV series) accompanied by the words, "Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster." The deal was announced to the public by Walter Cronkite on CBS News in 1975.


    Neal Adams doesn't support the relatives and their lawyer Marc Toberoff going after more money and ownership of the Superman characters.


    Neal Adams: "Sometimes when you call in a lawyer there is no sense of fairness at all it is just 'what can I get' and that can destroy things. Things have started to shift the other way. When I was fighting for Jerry and Joe, it was so far unbalanced against Jerry and Joe that it was a worthy fight. It was black and white. Itís not black and white anymore."

    Todd Matthy: "So thereís a possibility that Marvel could publish Superman?"

    Neal Adams: "Isnít that disturbing."
    http://comics.gearlive.com/comix411/...th-neal-adams/

    Also, Neal Adams doesn't support Jim Lee's redesigns of the characters.


    Neal Adams: "It seems like theyíre trying to start anew by redesigning costumes with really bad designs. Itís like Superman, will we ever see Superman again? Are they doing it because of the lawsuit? I donít know what the answer is, it just seems like itís all cloaked in mystery.
    And I keep on seeing these guys with these armored suits with lines all over them and wondering whether or not this is a serious attempt at refurbishing characters or just an attempt to draw lines over the suits. I mean, itís sort of up to the film companies to clutter up the suits isnít it? Not up to the comic book companies. Artists donít even like to draw all these lines. So is this a permanent plan or is this a shot in the dark or just screwing around? I have no idea and I donít think anybody does."
    http://nerdbastards.com/2012/10/12/n...th-neal-adams/
    Neal Adams is the MAN. I love when people call out Jim Untalented Lee and how he has ruined so many Iconic costumes starting back with Marvel. How this guy got so much power is beyond me to this day.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •