|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 27, 2021 12:26:23 GMT -5
Re: Tomahawk. The obsession with frontier heroes predates the Davy Crockett fad of the 50s and the Daniel Boone tv series. 1930s and 40s literature and film are filled with stories and images of the frontier. One of the best-selling books of the 30s was Kenneth Robeson's Northwest Passage, a story of Rogers Rangers, the frontier fighting force, during the French & Indian War. That was adapted to film, with Spencer Tracy, Robert Young, and Walter Brennan, in 1940. From the same period and nearly as big a seller was Walter D Edmonds' novel, Drums Along the Mohawk, which features frontier battles during the American Revolution. That was filmed in 1939, with Henry Fonda and Claudette Colbert. James Fenimore Cooper's Leatherstocking Tales had been around since the early to mid-1800s and were still popular in the 30s and 40s (though they are a chore to read, in my opinion), especially The Deerslayer and (most especially) Last of the Mohicans. Between 1920 and 1950, it was adapted 5 times, including a movie serial. So, DC beat Disney to the punch; but, they were both following on the same tradition. Re: Batman-That was kind of my point about the grief this era gets. All of that comes purely from fandom; not the thousands of other kids who read the stories, but didn't grow up as collectors. Comics were still more of a mass medium, without a heavily organized fandom, beyond publisher-driven fan clubs. Fandom emerges in the Silver Age and becomes the historical voice for the era, bringing with it the prejudices of a rather narrow subset of the readers of the era. The same thing happens with the Batman tv series. It was a massive hit in it's first two seasons, but, had pretty much worn out the premise by the third (and had lower quality writing). Fandom blames it for bad Batman stories and suddenly it was a terrible series that destroyed the character, until Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams rescued him. In the words of Col Sherman T Potter, "Horse Hockey!" The history of comics was written by fandom and much of it has been opinion, presented as fact. Fandom blames Jack Schiff because he didn't have a grim-dark Batman that they wanted, but ignores the thousands of others who read and enjoyed those stories, but didn't write fanzine articles. This is a large part of why the market has gone from a mass medium to a very specialized niche, catering to fans. Fans took over positions of authority in the publishing companies and fan prejudices took hold within, aided by fan writers and fan artists, until we are cannibalizing old stories every decade or so, or writing long stories about minor details from 20 year old comics. Fandom will tell you that Richie Rich comics were cookie cutter, boring kids' comics, yet they are filled with imaginative adventures and fun characters and sold masses of comics. Charlton was some kind of bottom feeder, churning out junk to keep the presses rolling, until you actually read a wide selection of their comics and discover that a lot of really great talent was working on them and they were catering to a much wider market than superhero fans; heck, their romance comics alone! My point is, be very careful about believing sweeping generalizations about eras of comics or titles, especially when those notions originated in organized fandom. Except the 90s; 90s comics sucked!
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 27, 2021 12:40:00 GMT -5
I thought of those frontiersmen movies after I posted but I never got around to following up on it. The one I love is Unconquered with Gary Cooper and Paulette Goddard, as well as Boris Karloff playing an Indian leader, Guyasuta, the chief of the Senecas.
Thanks, cody, for providing more information on the popularity of the Buckskin Brigade in popular culture.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jun 27, 2021 16:16:58 GMT -5
Re: Batman-That was kind of my point about the grief this era gets. All of that comes purely from fandom; not the thousands of other kids who read the stories, but didn't grow up as collectors. Comics were still more of a mass medium, without a heavily organized fandom, beyond publisher-driven fan clubs. Fandom emerges in the Silver Age and becomes the historical voice for the era, bringing with it the prejudices of a rather narrow subset of the readers of the era. The same thing happens with the Batman tv series. It was a massive hit in it's first two seasons, but, had pretty much worn out the premise by the third (and had lower quality writing). Fandom blames it for bad Batman stories and suddenly it was a terrible series that destroyed the character, until Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams rescued him. In the words of Col Sherman T Potter, "Horse Hockey!" The history of comics was written by fandom and much of it has been opinion, presented as fact. Fandom blames Jack Schiff because he didn't have a grim-dark Batman that they wanted, but ignores the thousands of others who read and enjoyed those stories, but didn't write fanzine articles. This is a large part of why the market has gone from a mass medium to a very specialized niche, catering to fans. Fans took over positions of authority in the publishing companies and fan prejudices took hold within, aided by fan writers and fan artists, until we are cannibalizing old stories every decade or so, or writing long stories about minor details from 20 year old comics. Fandom will tell you that Richie Rich comics were cookie cutter, boring kids' comics, yet they are filled with imaginative adventures and fun characters and sold masses of comics. Charlton was some kind of bottom feeder, churning out junk to keep the presses rolling, until you actually read a wide selection of their comics and discover that a lot of really great talent was working on them and they were catering to a much wider market than superhero fans; heck, their romance comics alone! My point is, be very careful about believing sweeping generalizations about eras of comics or titles, especially when those notions originated in organized fandom. Except the 90s; 90s comics sucked! Beautifully said and a point I wish everyone would take into consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2021 17:54:04 GMT -5
Bill Finger really is awesome and we are very, very lucky to have had him involved with Batman. I cringe in thinking about what would have been without him. Have you seen Ty Templeton's version of what that might have been like? I loved it so much, I have a copy saved on my computer.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,417
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 28, 2021 15:42:23 GMT -5
I also wonder how much of an impact these team-ups had on Batman's popularity - something which I don't think I've ever been able to gauge well before the TV series. Popular enough to have survived the mass culling of superhero titles during the early 50's and significant enough to have had his own newspaper strip for a while, two serials, and occasional appearances on the Superman radio show, but never able to rival the success of Superman until 1966 who boasted all of that and more (the Reeves' series, his own radio show, the Fleischer cartoons). I've never really believed that DC readership was broken into "those who love Superman" and "those who love Batman", but at the same time, I wonder how many Superman fans were beginning to take a second look at Batman now that the two were partners. I have a crude theory that the entire reason Batman got a second magazine, an ongoing presence in World's Finest, two movie serials, the newspaper strip, and the guest spots on the Superman radio show, was because he had a boy sidekick. Pretty much all of the things I just listed went into effect immediately following Robin's introduction. Then suddenly every DC hero had a boy sidekick, robbing Batman of the distinctiveness that had made him so successful. So I suspect, by the 1950s, that Batman and Robin were running on name-brand recognition from those early days and little else. At the same time, if Batman's initial partner made him such a success, maybe partnering him with DC's greatest property would boost interest as well. That certainly seemed to be the logic behind the World's Finest Team-Ups, to raise DC's second most famous property up to a first tier level. Hoozier X argued earlier in this thread that Batman of the 1950s had to have been reasonably successful if DC waited until 1964 to renovate the character and franchise, but whether Batman was doing "good enough" or hitting near-Superman popularity levels is something I don't claim to know. Maybe advertising and merchandizing of the era would reveal some of this. I'm just not familiar enough with the time period, myself. Hopefully, we'll come across a Statement of Ownership in these issues soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 28, 2021 16:27:01 GMT -5
Sorry this has to be just a quick response, but can't stick around just now after a day of writing 1. codystarbuck is on-target re the constant interest in the "frontier Western," if I can coin that phrase. Kenneth Roberts' "Northwest Passage" was popular enough in the late 50s that it was adapted as a prime-time TV show in addition to the excellent 1940 movie made of it. John Wayne and sidekick Oliver hardy starred in 1949's "Fighting Kentuckian." The 50s also saw Jim Bowie turned in to a TV show and movies like Burt Lancaster's "The Kentuckian" and "Daniel Boone, Trailblazer." That appetite, though not always huge, never seemed to die out. I also think that the original Tomahawk strip was a pet project for Fred Ray, who was a noted expert, basically, on the pre-Revolutionary and Revolutionary eras. He illustrated -- and may have written, I'd have to check -- many a book about those years, as well as pamphlets about the Civil War and the Alamo, for example, that I'm betting you can still purchase at museums and historical sites. I'm thinking that Ray approached his editor with his idea for a strip set in colonial America and that his fine artwork and knowledge of the ear would have made the strip an easy sell, at least to try it out. 2. I think shaxper 's idea about Robin's being the impetus for much of Batman's success in comics and beyond, is spot-on, despite his obvious bias in offering this opinion. 3. Very quick check here -- www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales/postaldata/1960.html -- on circulation figures from the early 60s. Taken even with an enormous chunk of salt, you can see that Superman ruled the DC roost, but that Batman was a more than respectable "sidekick." The Superman mags, if you add the numbers of one average issue's sales (1960) WF, sold probably tens of millions of issues a year. (You'll have to break it out in more detail.) But Batman, even without including WF, sold eight million in both of his titles.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 28, 2021 19:11:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jun 29, 2021 21:06:48 GMT -5
I also wonder how much of an impact these team-ups had on Batman's popularity - something which I don't think I've ever been able to gauge well before the TV series. Popular enough to have survived the mass culling of superhero titles during the early 50's and significant enough to have had his own newspaper strip for a while, two serials, and occasional appearances on the Superman radio show, but never able to rival the success of Superman until 1966 who boasted all of that and more (the Reeves' series, his own radio show, the Fleischer cartoons). I've never really believed that DC readership was broken into "those who love Superman" and "those who love Batman", but at the same time, I wonder how many Superman fans were beginning to take a second look at Batman now that the two were partners. I have a crude theory that the entire reason Batman got a second magazine, an ongoing presence in World's Finest, two movie serials, the newspaper strip, and the guest spots on the Superman radio show, was because he had a boy sidekick. Pretty much all of the things I just listed went into effect immediately following Robin's introduction. Then suddenly every DC hero had a boy sidekick, robbing Batman of the distinctiveness that had made him so successful. So I suspect, by the 1950s, that Batman and Robin were running on name-brand recognition from those early days and little else. At the same time, if Batman's initial partner made him such a success, maybe partnering him with DC's greatest property would boost interest as well. That certainly seemed to be the logic behind the World's Finest Team-Ups, to raise DC's second most famous property up to a first tier level. I'll go with that. Come to think of it, for DC's idea of an encore to Superman, Batman didn't seem to be as copied as his predecessor in the respect that suddenly, you saw a lot of night themed, detective styled heroes with a colorful Rogues Gallery pop up shortly after he did. Black Bat aside (and I'm sure that one was just coincidental timing) DC didn't seem to think anyone was infringing on their copyrights as they had with Superman. Give the guy a kid sidekick however and suddenly... If I had to guess, I'd think that Batman had more going for him than "name-brand recognition" by the 50's simply because that era seemed to be so brutally merciless on superhero comics that he'd need to be bringing something a little more tangible to the table than that. As for why the team-ups happened - the page count dropped from 68 to 40 and rather than give up one of the two, the decision was made to combine the pair which, I suppose, sheds a little more light on how popular Batman was that it wasn't considered a foregone conclusion to just drop him and keep Superman instead (or, less charitably, DC could have kept the two separated in the title and gotten rid of Tomahawk or Green Arrow but wasn't confident enough that they'd be losing a character that kids liked more than Batman and hedged their bets by sticking Batman with The Man of Steel).
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jun 29, 2021 21:24:11 GMT -5
Between you and Shaxper, I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps Batman wasn't just the guy kids tolerated to get their Robin fix every month.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 29, 2021 22:16:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 29, 2021 22:18:47 GMT -5
(How great is it that this story was written by David V. Reed?)
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,417
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 2, 2021 14:24:55 GMT -5
Batman #89 (February 1955) As I've done with Detective Comics and World's Finest, I'll only be focusing on the Batman features in this title, though I do have to admit the two page text article about how modern technology helps police officers of 1955 fight crime more effectively was certainly worth checking out! "River Rogues" Script: Bill Finger Pencils: Dick Sprang Inks: Charles Paris Colors: ? Letters: Pat Gordon Grade: D+ A tale where Batman and Robin travel back in time to the 19th century in order to catch a Victorian criminal. It's not exactly Gotham By Gaslight, and it doesn't really take enough advantage of the period--of horses, carts, and steamships--to warrant violating the space-time continuum. Another time traveler in 1955Really, the concept for this story, in which an inside guy is arranging for robberies to correlate to the movements of a travelling entertainment troupe, could have worked just as well in 1955, except that would mean acknowledging street-level crime in 1955, which (as I've pointed out repeatedly in these reviews), DC wanted to avoid at all costs. Thus, by making this a time travelling story, such crime can be attributed to some earlier and wilder era, before The United States became the center of the geopolitical world and (thus) also become beyond reproach. And before we get too excited about this being an early example of Atom-Age zaniness for the Bat titles, a quick GCD search reveals that Professor Carter Nichols (Batman and Robin's means of traveling into the past) has been assisting them with time travel since Batman #24 (1944), further proving Hoosier X's argument that Jack Schiff didn't pour on all these outrageous sci-fi elements at one time; some had been there almost since the beginning. Though one does have to wonder, then: If Batman and Robin can travel back in time on a whim, why not use that ability to solve and prevent literally every crime they encounter? Shouldn't this sort of be their regular M.O. even moreso than the Batmobile, utility belts, and silk ropes? Anyway, the under-utilized time travel component aside, this is a pretty stale and embarrassingly predictable mystery. Who could possibly be framing the Riverboat captain ancestor of James Gordon? Certainly not the employee introduced on page three who is literally the only other character given a name in this story... Yep. The whole mystery is obvious after only two pages. Weirder still is the actual threat at work in this story. Batman and Robin don't go back in time to protect innocents or even to punish evil-doers; they do so out of concern for James Gordon's family reputation: I guess it was a different era; one in which protecting one's deceased great grandfather's good name mattered more than protecting and serving the people of 1955. I just don't get it. Minor Detail:- Batman and Robin need an entire crowd of masqueraders to believe it is midnight so that they will remove their masks, and this somehow works: Like, not a single person is going to be like "I literally just checked the time a moment ago," or even "Hey, look at those colorful costumed people swinging high above us! They're doing something to the clock!". Heck, no one owns a pocket watch? Because this entire plan depends upon EVERY innocent reveler removing their masks so that Batman and Robin can then assume whoever is still masked is a villain that needs to be captured. Just a lazy, lazy story. I can see why this one didn't earn the cover. "The Seven Wonders of the Underworld!" Script: ? Pencils: Sheldon Moldoff Inks: Charles Paris Colors: ? Letters: Pat Gordon Grade: C+ A semi-fun premise for a story in which a washed up gangster decides to re-inflate his ego by purchasing the most impressive criminal inventions of all time. I have to say, I really felt this one as an Amazon Prime member in the age of Covid: It's a cute idea, but none of the inventions are all that creative from a writing standpoint. One forges signatures, one cracks any safe in the world, one is a car that can transform to look like other cars -- none of it is really good enough to make for an exciting story while these capers are being performed. So what this story ends up relying on is the mysterious 7th invention that will somehow defeat Batman and Robin for good: Whatever you just imagined in the past two seconds was probably more creative and satisfying than the solution we finally get: Though I did at least appreciate this small moment of introspection that Batman and Robin are afforded beforehand. I'm not used to seeing characters of this era actually take time to feel things like apprehension and fear, so this brief panel impressed me, even if Batman quickly dismisses Robin's doubts. The heavy shadowing suggest Batman was feeling them too. "Bruce Wayne's Aunt Agatha!" Script: Bill Finger Pencils: Sheldon Moldoff (signed as Bob Kane) Inks: Stan Kaye Colors: ? Letters: Pat Gordon Grade: A What may initially look like a tired premise matures beautifully over the course of eight pages. This is no predecessor to Aunt Harriet. While Aunt Agatha's presence is a disruption and a burden, her well-meaning nature makes it all the more forgivable and endearing. She isn't trying to impose on Bruce and Dick's lives; she just wants to help them. At first, this results in outright hilarity: Those faces on the bottom left panel are priceless!but it evolves into understanding and respect. The umbrella Aunt Agatha made Bruce take with him to the masquerade party (Finger sure had masquerades on the brain when he wrote this and the first story for this issue) ends up inadvertently saving Batman's life, and he and Dick come to respect and appreciate her, even while sneaking around her to continue fighting crime. And yet, where the story goes next took me totally by surprise and was absolutely awesome: Fully believing that Bruce and Dick are simply being mistaken for Batman and Robin, Aunt Agatha takes crimefighting into her own hands...AND KICKS BUTT! Certainly, old ladies fighting crime wasn't unheard of in superhero books of the era. Only recently, Crimebuster turned me onto Granny Gumshoe, who debuted nine years earlier, but this certainly defied our expectations and taught the dynamic duo (as well as their readers) a valuable lesson about respecting well-meaning elders. That, plus the auto-gyro backpack battles were a lot of fun! A truly solid 8 pager that kept managing to raise the stakes and surprise/delight me as it progressed. Minor Details:Even when you remove the out-of-context hilarity, this is some damn funny writing from Finger:
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 2, 2021 15:51:40 GMT -5
The Aunt Agatha story is, indeed, hilarious!
I’ve known of Aunt Agatha since I was a kid because it’s summarized in detail in Fleisher’s Batman Encyclopedia, but I had never read the actual story until just a few weeks ago. (I got a digital copy of Batman #233, which reprints the Aunt Agatha story.)
Aunt Agatha is a tough old bird. I’m sure she would give Aunt May a stroke within five minutes.
The Rotor-Robbers are also wonderfully hilarious. I would bring them back to put them in a gang war with the Gorilla Gang. (I would love to see the Rotor-Robbers worked into the current Catwoman storyline. Selina would be rolling her eyes so hard!)
The Gotham Underworld of the 1950s (and early 1960s) is another subject that I find fascinating. It wasn’t just a bunch of thugs ... it was a community! They had a dress code. (Orange, green and purple suits! Only the boss could have facial hair! And don’t dare get caught walking around without your fedora!) They had their own theater! And their own radio station! And their own newspaper and printing shops!
You could have your own gang where the boss was just some Gotham crime dude. Or you could be a henchmen for the Joker or whoever. (But as we’ll see when we get to Signalman, not just anybody could get a gang together; you have to have a reputation.) Or you could talk a bunch of your gangster friends into wearing look-a-like masks and become ... The Gorilla Gang or whatever.
And in this story, the Gotham Underworld comes together to support a washed-up guy who’s come up with a last-ditch gimmick to GET BATMAN! With some inventions!
It didn’t work, but it’s the dream of every generic Gotham gangster to come up with a “Get Batman” scheme that’s good for 9 to 12 pages.
And then there’s Carter Nichols. Professor Nichols gets a separate post. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 2, 2021 16:17:54 GMT -5
I probably should have mentioned Professor Nichols in my essay. He appeared a lot! With his nonsensical ability to somehow send Bruce Wayne and Robin through time with hypnosis!
Honestly, I think about Professor Nichols a lot.
But I forgot to put him in my essay because I haven’t read that many of his stories and he didn’t appear very much in the issues with which I’m most familiar from 1959 to 1964. (He’s in Detective Comics #295, his only appearance in Detective from 1959 on.)
The only Carter Nichols story that has been reprinted often enough for many people to see it is “The Origin of the Bat-Cave” from Detective Comics #205, where Batman goes back to the 1600s and finds out the Bat-Cave has been the headquarters of a frontiersman who masqueraded as an Indian to spy on them.
Sometimes it seems like the main purpose of the time-travel series is to provide an opportunity for the artist, particularly Dick Sprang, to draw different time periods. There’s frequently a guest star, like the Three Musketeers or ... Frankenstein’s monster!?! (Detective Comics #135, “The True Story of Frankenstein.”)
I think there’s something funny going on with Nichols. How do you send people back through time with hypnosis? I’ve pondered this since I was a kid after I read about him in the Batman Encyclopedia, long before I read any of the stories.
(Sometimes Nichols also uses very vaguely described devices for time travel.)
But here’s my theory. Nichols is some kind of chronal vampire. He absorbs chronal energy, and sometimes he has absorbed so much of it that he has to discharge it somehow. He may not even be conscious of his affliction. From time to time, he uses his excess chronal energy to send Batman and Robin (and sometimes Superman ) through time.
It must be something like that. There’s an awesome untold story about the TRUTH surrounding Carter Nichols.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 2, 2021 16:23:27 GMT -5
Very good write-up of Batman #89, shaxper.
I have only read the Aunt Agatha story. I’m guessing I would agree with you about the Carter Nichols story (some of them are good but I’ve read some bad ones) and I would probably be kinder to the Gotham Underworld story because I love these guys! I recently read one that included a feud between Little Dougie and Joey the Rod and I just can’t help but be sympathetic to poor Little Dougie! He didn’t deserve that!
|
|