|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 22, 2019 18:09:21 GMT -5
Bat Lash #1: The hidden treasure that precipitates the story was hidden by Don Sergio Aragones. Sergio Aragones being the fastest cartoonist alive...and also the plotter of Bat Lash #1.
Slang mistake in Bat Lash #2...probably attributable to Denny O'Neil who did the dialogue. Bat refers to the hombres who have him boxed in as "gunsels." Gunsel did not mean a person carrying a gun in the late 1800s. It was a Yiddish term for a catamite. The term was misused (though probably not) in the movie version of The Maltese Falcon.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 23, 2019 14:40:18 GMT -5
Bat Lash #1: The hidden treasure that precipitates the story was hidden by Don Sergio Aragones. Sergio Aragones being the fastest cartoonist alive...and also the plotter of Bat Lash #1. And again in issue #5 one of the main protagonists, a Mexican bandito, is named Sergio Aragones. And he bears more than a striking resemblance to Plotter, Sergio Aragones.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 23, 2019 18:13:39 GMT -5
Sergio also appears in Jon Sable 33, which he also draws (well, the story within the story).
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 24, 2019 5:42:59 GMT -5
On the subject of hidden treasures , Sergio used to hide a hidden message in every Groo comic when it was under the Epic line . My first wife used to read it and look forward to finding it. Also, the Jim Balents Catwoman series used to have a Cat drawn into every cover for readers to search for.
|
|
|
Post by foxley on May 25, 2019 2:29:54 GMT -5
Still on hidden gems, Kurt Schaffenberger would frequently draw himself in as a background character in stories he illustrated.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on May 25, 2019 3:52:11 GMT -5
Bat Lash #1: The hidden treasure that precipitates the story was hidden by Don Sergio Aragones. Sergio Aragones being the fastest cartoonist alive...and also the plotter of Bat Lash #1. Slang mistake in Bat Lash #2...probably attributable to Denny O'Neil who did the dialogue. Bat refers to the hombres who have him boxed in as "gunsels." Gunsel did not mean a person carrying a gun in the late 1800s. It was a Yiddish term for a catamite. Googles *Catamite* Huh. But, I mean, by 1969 "guy with a gun" IS what it meant, and I suspect that the period dialect was written more for flavor than accuracy in any Western book from that era. (I've only read a couple issues of Bat Lash. I really need to finish the series someday.)
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 25, 2019 9:13:27 GMT -5
Bat Lash #1: The hidden treasure that precipitates the story was hidden by Don Sergio Aragones. Sergio Aragones being the fastest cartoonist alive...and also the plotter of Bat Lash #1. Slang mistake in Bat Lash #2...probably attributable to Denny O'Neil who did the dialogue. Bat refers to the hombres who have him boxed in as "gunsels." Gunsel did not mean a person carrying a gun in the late 1800s. It was a Yiddish term for a catamite. Googles *Catamite* Huh. But, I mean, by 1969 "guy with a gun" IS what it meant, and I suspect that the period dialect was written more for flavor than accuracy in any Western book from that era. (I've only read a couple issues of Bat Lash. I really need to finish the series someday.) Oh sure. By 1969 the meaning had changed. But it’s anachronistic within the story. It’s an interesting question as to its use in The Maltese Falcon. It was pretty clear in the book that Wilmer is Cairo’s gay lover as well as providing protection for Gutman. But there’s no way that would get past the Hayes Board. Cairo’s behaviors were toned down but the term got past the censors. And morphed into meaning someone who uses a gun.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 31, 2019 16:21:09 GMT -5
Beep Beep the Road Runner lasted 105 issues. I find this absolutely mind-boggling. The cartoon is not a concept that can work as a comic book. I know that they made everyone talk and gave the Road Runner a family. But it's just not a book I can see lasting that long.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 31, 2019 19:54:30 GMT -5
Beep Beep the Road Runner lasted 105 issues. I find this absolutely mind-boggling. The cartoon is not a concept that can work as a comic book. I know that they made everyone talk and gave the Road Runner a family. But it's just not a book I can see lasting that long. They made it work somehow. I can’t believed Archie comics lasted as long as it did.
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on Jun 1, 2019 9:00:48 GMT -5
Beep Beep the Road Runner lasted 105 issues. I find this absolutely mind-boggling. The cartoon is not a concept that can work as a comic book. I know that they made everyone talk and gave the Road Runner a family. But it's just not a book I can see lasting that long. They made it work somehow. I can’t be Archie comics lasted as long as it did. They’re still going strong afaik. They’ve always had quality books and creators in my occasional sampling over the decades, I’m not sure why you’re surprised. I’m more surprised that superhero comics from the big two lasted this long.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 1, 2019 9:33:26 GMT -5
Archie’s survival isn’t surprising at all. It’s a strong concept. So strong that if you look at comics in the late 60’s you’ll find DC, Marvel, Tower, Harvey, etc. putting out dozens of Archie clones trying to tap into that market.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 14:11:11 GMT -5
Archie’s survival isn’t surprising at all. It’s a strong concept. So strong that if you look at comics in the late 60’s you’ll find DC, Marvel, Tower, Harvey, etc. putting out dozens of Archie clones trying to tap into that market. It's a logical fallacy common to many comic fans-I don't like that comic/those kind of comics, so I can't understand why anyone else would ever buy them. They can't be successful if it's something I don't like. It's also a big reason why the industry market is in the state it's in now and lacks growth potential. Nothing is made that might appeal to someone who isn't already a customer and that's the way current customers like it. -M
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 1, 2019 17:42:24 GMT -5
Archie’s survival isn’t surprising at all. It’s a strong concept. So strong that if you look at comics in the late 60’s you’ll find DC, Marvel, Tower, Harvey, etc. putting out dozens of Archie clones trying to tap into that market. It's a logical fallacy common to many comic fans-I don't like that comic/those kind of comics, so I can't understand why anyone else would ever buy them. They can't be successful if it's something I don't like. It's also a big reason why the industry market is in the state it's in now and lacks growth potential. Nothing is made that might appeal to someone who isn't already a customer and that's the way current customers like it. -M That's not it at all. I don't like a lot of comic genres and series ( Star Wars, Cerebus, Conan) but Archie has always been billed as the " gateway drug" for comic fans, and the prevailing theory is that there are no new comic fans entering the hobby. How can you explain that ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 22:49:02 GMT -5
It was the gateway drug, until the gate was mutually abandoned by retailers and the industry itself when newsstand distribution ended. Through the 90s, lots of kids started reading comics like Archie (or Dell or Harvey, etc.) well before they dipped into the Marvel/DC super-hero pool. They gained their comic literacy through Archie, which read in tone and content more like the material in most non-adventure comic strips. Some later moved on to super-hero comics. As super-hero comics became more prominent in the later Silver Age, particlarly on TV with cartoons and the Batman '66 show, people came to super-hero comics in other ways too, but comics appealing to younger readers were still the primary when readers came to comics. But then the gateway closed and comics became something for the already initiated when they became the primarily focused on the direct market. There was no gateway drug to comics, it was focused on selling to the addicts, and has been that way going into its third decade now, thus no new readers entering the hobby. Archie still sold well on the newsstands, where they remained while others didn't, but that wasn't going to lead potential new readers to the comic shops, niche locations you had to already be in the know to find to expand in to other comics. Archie could still have served as the gateway, except there was no other comics where they were sold and people weren't going to go form buying Archie at the supermarket checkout to seeking out a niche specialty shop somewhere else just because they enjoyed Archie.
At the time comics didn't need new readers to be profitable, they had enough addicts on the hook and a system that was gamed in their favor through non-returnability (i.e. the dealers assumed all the risk and took the hit if they didn't sell). No one looked at the long term though, which was bleak even if the short term was rosy because their business practices were short-sighted and neglected having a gateway for future generations to enter through, and too many comic "fans" tuned their nose up at the types of books that would do that as being childish or beneath them for those types of books to thrive in the direct market, so no gateway was established in the direct market for capturing younger readers and growing the customer base.
So in short, books like Archie were the gateway drug for comics for a long time, until comics hid themselves away in the equivalent of opium dens for comic addicts until their customer base thinned out. Now they try other gateways (hey kids it's Free Comic Book Day i.e. the first hit is free day), but it's too little too late you really need to capture new audiences of readers when they are young. There is a new generation of gateway comics now though, it's things like Raina Telgmeier GN and Dog Boy and such, but again these aren't going to bring readers to periodical comics sold in comic shops because the people buying them aren't going to comic shops and Marvel/DC books aren't where people/new customers are buying comics now, so the gateway to super-heroes and the big 2 is closed. Essentially, to quote the old down home Maine expression, "you can't get there from here..."
-M
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jun 2, 2019 5:38:46 GMT -5
Archie’s survival isn’t surprising at all. It’s a strong concept. So strong that if you look at comics in the late 60’s you’ll find DC, Marvel, Tower, Harvey, etc. putting out dozens of Archie clones trying to tap into that market. I'm with IccT here. Archie's based on the "Andy Hardy" movies and other teen radio plays/fimls of the era which I've never seen and have been 99.99% excised from popular culture. Why is Archie the only remnant of the "birth of the teenager" cultural fad? Honestly, I don't quite see why Superman or (especially!) Batman lasted either. Superman is very much rooted in the politics and fashions of 1939, and Batman is the most generic of Shadow-type vigilante characters. I guess that people really liked Robin, 'cause he was the only thing even slightly original about the first couple years of Batman stories. Meanwhile the Fighting Hobo and Fantomah, both of which are (conservatively) 74,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger concepts than Batman are lost to history. There's no justice, I tells ya.
|
|