|
Post by Trevor on Feb 29, 2020 13:05:33 GMT -5
Superman 300, the 1976 “Elseworlds” issue called Superman 2001, was a Cold War re-imagining of Superman’s origin. It set his landing on earth day as leap day. I know it was ‘confirmed’ in Alan Moore’s classic “For the Man Who Has Everything”, but not sure if it was mentioned in other stories over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on Feb 29, 2020 14:15:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 29, 2020 15:30:34 GMT -5
On the subject of Superman’s and Clark Kent’s birthdays, excerpted from the estimable Commander Benson’s always fascinating and erudite Deck Log column over at Captain Comics. A must-read for all fans, but especially anyone even mildly interested in the Silver Age. The Commander is not just knowledgeable, he's also a great writer. captaincomics.ning.com/forum/topics/deck-log-entry-175-superman-and-the-younger-womanOffered for your consideration “The Superman mythos... established an age discrepancy between Superman and Clark Kent. In the letter column of World’s Finest Comics # 164 (Feb., 1967), Mort Weisinger responded to a letter from Miss Cathy Burnett, of Goshen, New York, requesting the birth dates of Superman, Batman, and Robin . . . . 'You’ll have to get Batman and Robin’s birth dates from editor Julius Schwartz, official custodian of the Caped Crusaders’ calendar. As for Superman, the Man of Might was born, by a strange stroke of fate, on a date in the Kryptonian year which corresponds with our Feb. 29---Leap Year Day!' Weisinger took advantage of the next year, 1968, being a leap year, to remind the fans of the Man of Steel’s once-every-four-years birthday in the letter columns of Action Comics # 364 (Jun., 1968) and Superman # 210 (Oct., 1968). Clark Kent’s birth date was established later in ’67, in response to a letter from Pat Freeman, of Whitehall, Ohio, which appeared in Superboy # 143 (Dec., 1967). Pat wrote: 'When is Superboy’s birthday? And when is Clark Kent’s birthday? Certainly they must be celebrated on different days to protect the secret of his double identity.' And Mort replied: 'Superboy’s birthday corresponds to that rarest of Earth dates, Feb. 29. Clark celebrates his birthday on the anniversary of the day the Kents adopted him, June 18.' Subsequent mentions of Clark’s birthday revised 18 June to be the day his rocket landed on Earth, rather than the day he was adopted by the Kents. (Nb., “Unhappy Birthday to You”, Superman # 263 [Apr., 1973], et al.) Either way, Clark Kent was, officially, almost four months younger than Superboy/man."
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Mar 3, 2020 18:52:09 GMT -5
Have there ever been any creator interviews with creators of covers that are regarded as having sexual innuendo on the cover? Covers that come to mind include Rifleman #10. Maybe back then minds were not as in the gutter? It would be interesting to know when a book like this gained collectability. Surely not instantly. Ditto for some Archie covers like the "beat off three guys" and "pearl necklace" covers.
So I guess two questions....has anyone ever talked about these covers after the fact? And two, when did they become collectible? Like are we talking since 2000 or was a book like Rifleman #10 always laughed and and picked up because of that cover.
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Mar 3, 2020 19:06:54 GMT -5
I remember one of the old 'Ask the Answer Man' columns give Superman's birthday as Feb. 29.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 4, 2020 0:52:56 GMT -5
Have there ever been any creator interviews with creators of covers that are regarded as having sexual innuendo on the cover? Covers that come to mind include Rifleman #10. Maybe back then minds were not as in the gutter? It would be interesting to know when a book like this gained collectability. Surely not instantly. Ditto for some Archie covers like the "beat off three guys" and "pearl necklace" covers. So I guess two questions....has anyone ever talked about these covers after the fact? And two, when did they become collectible? Like are we talking since 2000 or was a book like Rifleman #10 always laughed and and picked up because of that cover. Looking at the Rifleman cover, I think some people are seeing things they want to see. I can't speak to timeframe; but, i would suspect any collectability, based on perceived innuendo, is a more recent phenomena. The internet has popularized these kinds of things, with memes and satirical websites. The Rifleman was a popular tv show and Dell tv and movie-related comics have a pretty strong following. Also, Boomers who grew up with the shows and movies often collect memorabilia for specific shows, which puts the Dell/Western/Gold Key comics on a lot of radars, outside of comics. Comics have always sought the same kinds of audiences that responded to the imagery that sold the pulps, slicks and newspaper strips: cheesecake, bondage, action, terror, damsels in distress, beefcake, scantily clad figures and covers that grab people's attention, for various reasons. Overstreet listed certain elements going way back, based on Wertham and the Congressional hearings: bondage, injury-to-the-eye, comic covers cited in testimony or in Wertham's book, etc. As for innuendo, much of that is in the mind of the reader. i suspect you run into more of that from the late 60s on, with the counter-culture and the Undergrounds, the young generation that entered comics, and relaxed editorial standards, at different times. You also have to remember that innuendo is often reflective of slang at a particular period and that evolves constantly. Something on a cover that was created in innocence may seem to carry innuendo today, because of slang terms that only date back a decade or so. I don't think I heard the term "pearl necklace" until the late 70s or 80s; so, I doubt a 60s Archie had anything of the sort in mind, especially since pearls were a regular fashion accessory for girls and women.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 4, 2020 7:50:49 GMT -5
Many Lois lane and Wonder Woman covers skewed towards racy imagery. Most of the audience was adolescent males, so it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 4, 2020 8:23:34 GMT -5
Where on Earth is Wakanda???
"In Africa" seems to be the most precise answer we can hope for.
In Jungle Action #6, we get a map of the country (which seems very, very small). It is on the Atlantic shore of Africa. A few issues later, the same map is presented once more, but updated: the coastline is gone, replaced by an arrow pointing left (presumably west) toward... the Indian Ocean! That would mean that (a) the map is upside down, with the South pointing up, and (b) Wakanda is actually on the east coast of Africa.
In Black Panther #1 (2005 series), Wakanda is shown to be somewhere in central Africa, roughly around the Central African Republic or in the north of Congo. But shortly thereafter, in issue 6 or 7, military zombies dropped from an American aircraft carrier walk across the sea floor to Wakanda... suggesting that the country is indeed next to an ocean. Plus in the Avengers vs X-Men series, Namor attacks the country by causing a tsunami, once more pointing to it having a seashore.
Reginald Hudlin's run on Black Panther starts with South African invaders trying to attack Wakanda. South Africa is a long way from northern Congo (something in excess of 3,000 km), which makes the trip kind of unlikely and suggests Wakanda might be further south; I also dimly remember T'Challa entering South Africa on foot in an old Marvel Comics Presents issue. But then when Storm left Egypt and crossed the Sahara, she promptly met a young T'Challa before eventually settling in Kenya; this would place Wakanda back to its more central position on the continent.
Perhaps Wakanda is like Atlantis in "The books of Magic". It's not a place, it's an idea!
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 4, 2020 10:38:47 GMT -5
Have there ever been any creator interviews with creators of covers that are regarded as having sexual innuendo on the cover? Covers that come to mind include Rifleman #10. Maybe back then minds were not as in the gutter? It would be interesting to know when a book like this gained collectability. Surely not instantly. Ditto for some Archie covers like the "beat off three guys" and "pearl necklace" covers. So I guess two questions....has anyone ever talked about these covers after the fact? And two, when did they become collectible? Like are we talking since 2000 or was a book like Rifleman #10 always laughed and and picked up because of that cover. Looking at the Rifleman cover, I think some people are seeing things they want to see. I can't speak to timeframe; but, i would suspect any collectability, based on perceived innuendo, is a more recent phenomena. The internet has popularized these kinds of things, with memes and satirical websites. The Rifleman was a popular tv show and Dell tv and movie-related comics have a pretty strong following. Also, Boomers who grew up with the shows and movies often collect memorabilia for specific shows, which puts the Dell/Western/Gold Key comics on a lot of radars, outside of comics. . I would say that if there's any collectibility to the Rifleman book due to the nature of the cover it is completely an internet phenomenon. I had never heard of that cover prior to ten years ago or so.
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Mar 4, 2020 10:59:05 GMT -5
Have there ever been any creator interviews with creators of covers that are regarded as having sexual innuendo on the cover? Covers that come to mind include Rifleman #10. Maybe back then minds were not as in the gutter? It would be interesting to know when a book like this gained collectability. Surely not instantly. Ditto for some Archie covers like the "beat off three guys" and "pearl necklace" covers. So I guess two questions....has anyone ever talked about these covers after the fact? And two, when did they become collectible? Like are we talking since 2000 or was a book like Rifleman #10 always laughed and and picked up because of that cover. I believe Scott Shaw!, famed for his Oddball Comics slideshows, has said that Joe Orlando confirmed to him that the innuendo on this one was intentional:
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 4, 2020 12:34:49 GMT -5
Where on Earth is Wakanda??? "In Africa" seems to be the most precise answer we can hope for. In Jungle Action #6, we get a map of the country (which seems very, very small). It is on the Atlantic shore of Africa. A few issues later, the same map is presented once more, but updated: the coastline is gone, replaced by an arrow pointing left (presumably west) toward... the Indian Ocean! That would mean that (a) the map is upside down, with the South pointing up, and (b) Wakanda is actually on the east coast of Africa. In Black Panther #1 (2005 series), Wakanda is shown to be somewhere in central Africa, roughly around the Central African Republic or in the north of Congo. But shortly thereafter, in issue 6 or 7, military zombies dropped from an American aircraft carrier walk across the sea floor to Wakanda... suggesting that the country is indeed next to an ocean. Plus in the Avengers vs X-Men series, Namor attacks the country by causing a tsunami, once more pointing to it having a seashore. Reginald Hudlin's run on Black Panther starts with South African invaders trying to attack Wakanda. South Africa is a long way from northern Congo (something in excess of 3,000 km), which makes the trip kind of unlikely and suggests Wakanda might be further south; I also dimly remember T'Challa entering South Africa on foot in an old Marvel Comics Presents issue. But then when Storm left Egypt and crossed the Sahara, she promptly met a young T'Challa before eventually settling in Kenya; this would place Wakanda back to its more central position on the continent. Perhaps Wakanda is like Atlantis in "The books of Magic". It's not a place, it's an idea! From the Marvel Atlas. As official as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Mar 5, 2020 10:33:50 GMT -5
Have there ever been any creator interviews with creators of covers that are regarded as having sexual innuendo on the cover? Covers that come to mind include Rifleman #10. Maybe back then minds were not as in the gutter? It would be interesting to know when a book like this gained collectability. Surely not instantly. Ditto for some Archie covers like the "beat off three guys" and "pearl necklace" covers. So I guess two questions....has anyone ever talked about these covers after the fact? And two, when did they become collectible? Like are we talking since 2000 or was a book like Rifleman #10 always laughed and and picked up because of that cover. I believe Scott Shaw!, famed for his Oddball Comics slideshows, has said that Joe Orlando confirmed to him that the innuendo on this one was intentional: Interesting. I figured the Archie covers and Rifleman ones were recent phenomenon because of the internet. It is just weird to me that those are desired. Like, what is the point of owning that book? To say "ha, Archie says beat off three guys, haha"? I see the humour in it by today's wording but to want to pay $50-100 for that? Nope. Ditto for the Rifleman comic. It is a book I would sell in a heartbeat to fund more meaningful comics. I just find it interesting that people pay hundreds of dollars for a copy.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 5, 2020 14:11:02 GMT -5
I believe Scott Shaw!, famed for his Oddball Comics slideshows, has said that Joe Orlando confirmed to him that the innuendo on this one was intentional: Interesting. I figured the Archie covers and Rifleman ones were recent phenomenon because of the internet. It is just weird to me that those are desired. Like, what is the point of owning that book? To say "ha, Archie says beat off three guys, haha"? I see the humour in it by today's wording but to want to pay $50-100 for that? Nope. Ditto for the Rifleman comic. It is a book I would sell in a heartbeat to fund more meaningful comics. I just find it interesting that people pay hundreds of dollars for a copy. As I say, collectibility on the Rifleman comic is more due to it being a Dell tie-in series and a popular Boomer western tv series. The meme may have gotten some to post it at inflated prices, which seems to be the common thread with the internet, as so many prices I see are grossly inflated, based on actual demand. There are a lot of dreamers out there, though there are also plenty of people with more money than sense. Any time someone asked me what a comic was worth I told them whatever someone is willing to pay and whatever you will accept. That's the basic definition of a market price (where the supply and demand curves intersect). Now, anyone buying it because of a meme is a moron of colossal proportions and should not be allowed to breed, though I suspect that's not much of a danger.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 5, 2020 14:37:10 GMT -5
The more morons, the higher the price.
Capitalism. Ain't it grand?
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Mar 5, 2020 14:46:35 GMT -5
True...but if you grew up on the show and wanted to accumulate the comic run, it would set ya back because of that silly issue being worth so much in the eyes of the twisted minded.
|
|