|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 13:55:02 GMT -5
What is the difference between Young Justice & Teen Titans? In comics I see YJ as a more humorous version of the TT. On TV I feel YJ is the more serious version of the TT. @mrjupiter , is the only Member that I know of can seriously answer this question - in my mind (I think it is my own opinion [not the right one] ... ) that in the version of the Teen Titans found in Cartoon Network is very humorous and fits with the young demographics. I feel that Young Justice is more an older version of a Teen Justice League and having said that ... it's more a Junior Justice League of America. Teen Titans in the older days especially the original version is more on adventurous edge with a youthful approach. As the Teen Titans progressed into Teen Titans East and Teen Titans West ... the group started to mature and becoming more like Young Justice and eventually The New Teen Titans and that group was more like Young Justice at heart. I always hated the Teen Titans Cartoon on Cartoon Network and I don't consider that version is the true Teen Titans whether it's in Cartoon and Printed form. This is the best that I can help you and I hope that mrjupiter can assist you on answering your question here.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Apr 25, 2017 15:56:07 GMT -5
I always hated the Teen Titans Cartoon on Cartoon Network and I don't consider that version is the true Teen Titans whether it's in Cartoon and Printed form. Though I've enjoyed some of the Titans cartoons I've seen (including a movie), they don't seem teen to me at all. Maybe Tween Titans...
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Apr 25, 2017 18:53:06 GMT -5
Yeah, he was a conceited jerk, but, of course, that's the whole point of the lesson that life meted out to him, with the car accident and subsequently becoming the Sorcerer Supreme. It's a highly moralistic tale, even by Silver Age Marvel standards. That was really well done in the movie. I was hoping someone would punch him in the face 5 minutes into it. And then he comes out in the end being the Sorcerer Supreme. Though the rest of the movie was pretty meh. It played like a CGI martial arts action film. It looked amazing. There just wasn't a lot of story going on.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Apr 25, 2017 20:31:04 GMT -5
What is the difference between Young Justice & Teen Titans? In comics I see YJ as a more humorous version of the TT. On TV I feel YJ is the more serious version of the TT. Young Justice was basically a return of the original concept of the Teen Titans... basically a team of the JLAs side kicks. The Titans started that way, then moved away from it with the Wolfman-Perez era team, which more non-side kicks (or former ones). You're correct that the original team (Robin, Superboy, and Impulse) had a much lighter tone than the Titans at the time... but I think that was more a matter of the characters used than anything. As far as on TV goes, the original Teen Titans cartoon was series and (slightly) less cartoony style wise.. I think that version ran 3 seasons. The current 'Teen Titans Go!' series uses the same characters and voice actors but it 100% spoof/Parody/Humor. The Young Justice cartoon was series (some might even say grim)... I never got into it, but alot of people like it.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,737
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 28, 2017 9:25:25 GMT -5
I never realized until now that the Manhunters in DC's post crisis are visually derived from the original Paul Kirk Manhunter. I'm wondering if anyone knows the story behind why this was done. Seems like a really odd direction to take the property.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 28, 2017 9:53:21 GMT -5
I never realized until now that the Manhunters in DC's post crisis are visually derived from the original Paul Kirk Manhunter. I'm wondering if anyone knows the story behind why this was done. Seems like a really odd direction to take the property. Well, it all boils down to First Issue Special. Kirby created a new Manhunter, Mark Shaw, who was an updating of the original Paul Kirk, ignoring or totally oblivious to the then-recent Goodwin/Simonson updating of Paul Kirk. The story introduces an entire cult of Manhunters, sort of Knights Templar guarding society. Nothing more came of it until Steve Engelhart took the idea and threw it into the past of the Green Lantern Corps, in JLA. When he came back to DC, in the 80s, and was writing Green Lantern, he brought them into the post-Crisis continuity, via Millennium. That pretty much set the template for the Manhunters in DC continuity. Meanwhile, DC periodically wanted to keep the trademark on the name and put out new versions. First, we got Mark Shaw, reformed and written by John Ostrander and Kim Yale. Then, DC went the Image route, in the 90s, with that horrible Chase Lawler version. Mark Shaw was killed off, by Eclipso; but, got better. He turns up at the end of the Lawler title. DC went at it again with Kate Spencer and had Mark Shaw turn up again. They keep coming back to the Kirby/Engelhart Manhunter(s). Geoff Johns used the Manhunter androids again in his writing, which probably tells you all you need to know about why they have stuck with that version. They were seen in the Justice League cartoon (based loosely around the Engelhart JLA story) and in The Batman.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,737
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 28, 2017 10:05:35 GMT -5
I never realized until now that the Manhunters in DC's post crisis are visually derived from the original Paul Kirk Manhunter. I'm wondering if anyone knows the story behind why this was done. Seems like a really odd direction to take the property. Well, it all boils down to First Issue Special. Kirby created a new Manhunter, Mark Shaw, who was an updating of the original Paul Kirk, ignoring or totally oblivious to the then-recent Goodwin/Simonson updating of Paul Kirk. The story introduces an entire cult of Manhunters, sort of Knights Templar guarding society. Nothing more came of it until Steve Engelhart took the idea and threw it into the past of the Green Lantern Corps, in JLA. When he came back to DC, in the 80s, and was writing Green Lantern, he brought them into the post-Crisis continuity, via Millennium. That pretty much set the template for the Manhunters in DC continuity. Meanwhile, DC periodically wanted to keep the trademark on the name and put out new versions. First, we got Mark Shaw, reformed and written by John Ostrander and Kim Yale. Then, DC went the Image route, in the 90s, with that horrible Chase Lawler version. Mark Shaw was killed off, by Eclipso; but, got better. He turns up at the end of the Lawler title. DC went at it again with Kate Spencer and had Mark Shaw turn up again. They keep coming back to the Kirby/Engelhart Manhunter(s). Geoff Johns used the Manhunter androids again in his writing, which probably tells you all you need to know about why they have stuck with that version. They were seen in the Justice League cartoon (based loosely around the Engelhart JLA story) and in The Batman. Thank you for all of this. It was your recent podcast that got me thinking about this in the first place!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 28, 2017 20:30:23 GMT -5
I suspect part of it is that Kirby tweaked the original costume enough to make a pretty distinctive design, vs the more generic look of the 40s costume. What set the 40s costume apart is the face mask, that solid theatrical-style facemask, rather than a domino mask or hood. Also, his blockier look probably fed the idea of androids. The secret brotherhood aspect has also proven to have legs and everyone jumped on that bandwagon, from the 90s onward. You think the post-Watergate 70s were big on conspiracies; it's got nothing on the fever for that stuff these days.
That was the thing about Millennium; it sounded cool at first, that these Manhunter sleeper agents would turn up and be characters you never suspected. Unfortunately, a large chunk of the titles used lesser characters as the sleepers or the bigger characters were dupes or mind-controlled or other nonsense. That and the New Guardians group was rather underwhelming.
Personally, I wish DC had stuck more with what Kirby created, without throwing in the android angle. It was more interesting as a group of "knights" protecting mankind, secretly. Sort of like an entire army of Phantoms, rather than a family dynasty. I suspect it also factored into the conception of Azrael, especially since Denny O'Neil called the group the Order of St. Dumas, and Dumas was the most memorable opponent of Mark Shaw, in the Ostrander & Yale series (pretty cool design, from Doug Rice, too).
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on May 10, 2017 13:37:12 GMT -5
The cover of ASM #7 has the phrase ...This--The Marvel Age of Comics. Just wondering when was the first time Stan Lee used this phrase. Either on the cover or inside on a splash page or in the letters section. I have done an internet search the last hour & have not found any mention that predates this cover. Hey guys, just noticed your posts here. You since may have discovered this already, but the covers of most of the Marvel comics on sale in May 1963 were "emblazoned with Marvel Comics Group Ushers in The Marvel Age of Comics!" if I may quote myself . There was no Spider-Man issue newly on sale in May 1963 (it was still bi-monthly at that point; #3 had just been puiblished in April). Spider-Man #7 was on sale several months later, in December September 1963. The Marvel comics on sale in May 1963: www.dcindexes.com/features/newsstand.php?publisher=marvel&type=calendar&month=5&year=1963&sort=alphaI remembered this because awhile back I had posted Tales of Suspense #44 in the cover contest, and that's when I noticed the blurb was present on most of that month's covers, at least for the superhero and western comics. Shellhead, Cleo, and the infamous Mad (mispelled) Pharoah ... 'nuff said see addendum below Addendum: Marvel's superhero and western comics on sale in May 1963 were emblazoned with "Marvel Comics Group Ushers in The Marvel Age of Comics!" Here, that slogan is oh-so-cleverly positioned on a pyramid.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on May 10, 2017 14:37:06 GMT -5
Spider-Man #7 was on sale several months later, in December 1963. December was the cover date for ASM #7; it went on sale September 10, and six-year-old me picked up a copy some time in the following month. You're right about the "Marvel Age" being introduced in the comics on sale in May - it's on all the superhero and western books that month, but not on Sgt. Fury, Love Romances, or Patsy & Hedy. Then it disappears and isn't seen again until August, when "Marvel Age of Comics" appears on FF #20 and ASM #6, "Marvel Age" on Strange Tales #114, and "Marvelous Marvel Manner" on TOS #47.
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on May 10, 2017 14:52:25 GMT -5
Spider-Man #7 was on sale several months later, in December 1963. December was the cover date for ASM #7; it went on sale September 10, and six-year-old me picked up a copy some time in the following month. You're right about the "Marvel Age" being introduced in the comics on sale in May - it's on all the superhero and western books that month, but not on Sgt. Fury, Love Romances, or Patsy & Hedy. Then it disappears and isn't seen again until August, when "Marvel Age of Comics" appears on FF #20 and ASM #6, "Marvel Age" on Strange Tales #114, and "Marvelous Marvel Manner" on TOS #47 Thanks Rob--yeah, I realized after the fact I had erroneously included the ASM cover date and not the on sale date--was about to edit my post to reflect that but you beat it me to it! At any rate, the phrase was used prior to ASM #7. And what the heck, I'll still update my post Fwiw, FF #17 (one of the Marvels on sale in May 1963) includes the phase in a house for that Sgt. Fury issue: house ad in FF #17 I believe Marvel had announced its new name/trademark (Marvel Comics Group) a few months earlier, circa FF #14. Nice branding strategy to then stick "Marvel Comics Group ushers in the Marvel Age of Comics" blurbs all over the place!
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on May 10, 2017 14:56:53 GMT -5
Spider-Man #7 was on sale several months later, in December 1963.December was the cover date for ASM #7; it went on sale September 10, and six-year-old me picked up a copy some time in the following month.Btw, it occurs to me that you don't seem to post in the great thread you started, the 50 Years Ago... thread, and IMO we are the poorer for that --I would love to read more about your comic book buying/reading habits back then!
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on May 10, 2017 17:01:23 GMT -5
Spider-Man #7 was on sale several months later, in December 1963.December was the cover date for ASM #7; it went on sale September 10, and six-year-old me picked up a copy some time in the following month.Btw, it occurs to me that you don't seem to post in the great thread you started, the 50 Years Ago... thread, and IMO we are the poorer for that --I would love to read more about your comic book buying/reading habits back then! And I would actually love to write about the comics I bought and read back then, but until someone is willing to pay me to do that, I have to focus my energies elsewhere for now. I really hope to get back to it before I become eligible to post a "60 years ago" thread.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 15, 2017 5:42:12 GMT -5
I always wondered how a " readers copy" is graded. I bought a shabby Batman #245 yesterday and am wondering why someone would try to sell the game book as a 3.0 or some low grade . Is it just trying to place value on something that doesn't have any value?
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on May 15, 2017 6:30:35 GMT -5
I always wondered how a " readers copy" is graded. I bought a shabby Batman #245 yesterday and am wondering why someone would try to sell the game book as a 3.0 or some low grade . Is it just trying to place value on something that doesn't have any value? As far as I can see, the value of something is defined by what people are willing to pay for it.
|
|