|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 18, 2016 16:54:31 GMT -5
Blue Oyster Cult
Demon Hunter
Rich Buckler
(Don't Fear) The Reaper
Atlas/Seaboard
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 18, 2016 15:26:23 GMT -5
Great question.
When I hear Cowboy Song by Thin Lizzy I associate it with the El Diablo stories drawn by Neal Adams in Weird Western Tales.
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 9, 2016 19:19:03 GMT -5
I believe you are correct. I read an interview with Berry and he said he was just inking what was on the page.
In hindsight it is obvious that Royer was investing a lot of time and energy into his inks on Kirby.
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 9, 2016 18:52:51 GMT -5
I just saw this thread since it was bumped up. I thought Mike Royer was Kirby's best inker at DC. I was disappointed by the inks of D. Bruce Berry near the end of Kirby's stint at DC.
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 9, 2016 7:56:02 GMT -5
I was lucky. When I got the collecting bug around age 15, my mom would pick up any comics she found at garage sales for me. I remember coming home from school one day and there were some old comics on the living room table. One of them was the Tales of Suspense with the first appearance of Black Widow. Another was an issue of My Greatest Adventure from the 50s. You can't beat that for service.
I don't have either comic now.
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 8, 2016 10:15:05 GMT -5
The only comics I actually own from March 1966 are Adventure #344 (first part of the Super-Stalag of Space tale--great story!) and a rather tattered copy of Avengers #28. I remember buying Adventure 345 and being disappointed that it was the second half of a continued story. I think it was the first time I had seen a two part story in a DC comic. Want to trade?
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 1, 2016 19:15:09 GMT -5
February, 1966...I do remember that I wanted one issue in particular because I had seen ads for it the month before: The thing was, I wasn’t a real fan of the Flash I think I may have read only one of his regular comics and knew him mostly from the JLA, but I know that I wanted this issue because of the layout and the Johnny Quick story. You had to love the annuals that showed the title character beckoning you to take a peek, as Superman 183 had just a few months before. I loved DC's 80 page Giants. Those (what I call) "postcard" covers made each story within seem like the most exciting story ever. And you're right, Prince Hal, the "direct address" device was quite compelling, esp. to a young audience . And even though at that time I wasn't buying DC (still reading Harveys, I think), I remember looking through my cousins' immense DC collection when we visited them at holidays and being riveted by those DC house ads. By the time I could buy my own comics, I felt I had a good basic idea of the DC characters through the house ads and Direct Currents. I think just about all the comics I bought in 1965 were Batman Annuals.
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 1, 2016 18:38:38 GMT -5
Sooner or later someone would have tapped into the genius of Kirby and Ditko. I'm not as sure about that. Twice, in the late 50s and the mid 70s, Stan hired Kirby at a time when no other publisher would. In the 50s, the Sky Masters debacle got Jack blackballed at DC and made other publishers leery. In the 70s no one else would give him the creative freedom he wanted. And Ditko did work for others but never got the kind of support that really unleashed his genius. His DC books all got cancelled quickly. I think you are right. DC only gave out finished scripts to their artists in the 60s. It was Stan's Marvel style of scripting that unleashed Kirby and Ditko.
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 1, 2016 15:03:08 GMT -5
I don't consider Stan as a malicious man. He certainly contributed much to the comics industry in his own right. However he was always a self-promoter. No one ever described him as a humble man. Many here grew up with Stan as the public face for Marvel, with his Presenting Banner adorning decades of comics he never looked at and they are willing to cut him as much slack as possible. Again, to me, Stan is not a "bad" guy. Not quite as bad as a Bob Kane for instance. But he certainly had his faults in his handling of Kirby and Ditko and other bullpenners by not championing their creator rights and not giving them proper credit for far too many years. I remember when that Stan Lee Presents banner first appeared and I was very upset by it. And I would say that Stan Lee benefited more from his association with Kirby and Ditko than they benefited from him. Sooner or later someone would have tapped into the genius of Kirby and Ditko. My biggest "What If" is what if Joe Maneely had lived. He was Stan's favorite artist at the dawn of the Marvel Age. He probably would have been Stan's go to guy on FF or Spiderman.
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 1, 2016 9:18:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Feb 29, 2016 18:52:26 GMT -5
Thank you.
This article seems to say that, with the exception of giving credit to the Siegel Family, Warners has not made any payments to them.
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Feb 29, 2016 17:19:48 GMT -5
I bought some new comics today with variant Neal Adams covers.
A couple of them had this on the title page: Superman Created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, By Special Arrangement With the Jerry Siegel Family.
I've been away from comics for awhile. What kind of deal has DC made with the Siegel family?
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Feb 29, 2016 17:04:39 GMT -5
It's certainly possible that the 1947 Stan Lee book was written for the reasons tolworthy stated.
I don't think there is a connection between the book and the Superman lawsuit but I have no facts to back that belief.
I guess it comes down to how a person views Stan Lee.
I don't think Stan Lee was a calculating person who knowingly worked to rob people of their credit in creating anything, for his personal benefit.
When Marvel took off in the 60s, and Stan did interviews where he took credit for writing everything, I think he was just trying to promote Marvel Comics. I think, in his mind, any promotion in the media for Marvel Comics was a good thing for everyone working for Marvel. It meant increased sales which meant job security for the artists. After all this was just a few years removed from the late 50s when Marvel/Atlas almost shut down. I think he assumed that everyone working for Marvel would be as excited as he was by the mention of Marvel comic books in big time magazines and newspapers.
But everyone is welcome to their own opinion of Stan and his motivations.
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Feb 27, 2016 8:53:42 GMT -5
I don't think this should be read as an historical document on the creation of Captain America. This is simply PR for Martin Goodman and Timely Comics. It's Corporate BS meant to make it look like lowly comic books are created in the same way an ad campaign for a new car or other product is created;ie; numerous meetings around a conference table between editors, writers, artists doing all kinds of research and coming up with several proposals which are then presented to the publisher, MARTIN GOODMAN, who is the unquestioned genius running Timely Comics just like Henry Ford is running Ford Motor Company.
The writer of this article, Stan Lee, is supposedly pulling back the curtain and letting the public see how Timely Comics and MARTIN GOODMAN, come up with characters like Capt. America.
Stan Lee isn't claiming that he was present when CA was created. He is supposedly recounting the process that resulted in the creation of a Timely comic book. Of course we now know that the process was not nearly as rigidly structured as this puff piece would have the public believe.
If,today, DC Comics wants to tell how Superman was created they would hire a writer to write the story but that does not mean the writer is claiming that he or she was present when Superman was created.
The main thrust of this article is to make Martin Goodman and Timely Comics look respectable.
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Feb 25, 2016 20:05:27 GMT -5
My mother was a collector and I guess I got that gene from her. As long as I can remember, I've always been interested in the past. As a small kid I was interested in things like old cars, old radio shows, etc.
I think the value of old things goes in cycles. It also has to do with who has disposable income.
When I was a kid, old cars, like Ford Model T's had the highest value.
But now, the Baby Boomer generation values the muscle cars of the 60s. And they have the income to purchase them. The people who love the cars of the 1920s are on Social Security.
But eventually everything comes back around in value.
But you have to live a long life to cash in.
|
|