Iconic Characters
Felix Rosado
Here's one for the fans:
Why is it that DC has the more iconic characters? By Iconic
characters, I mean characters that represent a purer form of comic-book
super-hero, and one that the general public will readily recognize.
In other words, if you show someone a picture of Dr. Doom or the
Fantastic Four, odds are that most people outside of the comics world
won't recognize them. Pick any Avenger INCLUDING Captain America. Then
ask any five year old who the character is, or ask anyone who's not a
comic fan.
Then pick Superman, Batman, the Flash, or Wonder Woman. Odds are
good that non-native speakers of English, deaf-mutes, the blind, the
elderly, and 9 out of 10 teenagers will be able to tell you the
character's name and maybe even a little about their origin and powers.
Why is that?
Here are some theories; feel free to add, dispute, agree, or
disagree. Please note that this does not mean that any particular
character or group of characters is better than the other. This is just
an attempt to determine why one group is better known or considered
archetypes for super-heroes.
* DC Comics characters started before most Marvel comic characters
or they stayed in publication longer than most Marvel characters.
Captain America, the Sub-Mariner, and the Human Torch all
disappeared by the mid-to-late fifties, while Superman, Batman,
and Wonder Woman comics thrived by comparison.
* DCU characters are also inspired by other archetypical heroes of
media that preceded comic books. They evoke our
collective memory or cultural history with their parallels
to other, equally famous figures in history or mythology.
Superman Doc Savage
Paul Bunyon
Hercules
Samson
Achilles
Batman The Shadow
The Phantom
Sherlock Holmes
Nosferatu
The Bat
Dracula
The Green Hornet
The Lone Ranger
The Scarlet Pimpernel
Odysseus
Flash Mercury, Hermes
Wonder Woman Helen of Troy
Xena ;-)
(as a female counterpart to Hercules)
* DCU characters branched out into other media long before Marvel
characters. Superman had a popular radio show as well as
a top-rated syndicated televison show, a broadway play, serials,
and movie years before most other characters. Batman enlarged his
fan-base by not only including serials, but also television
shows, cartoon series, and newspaper strips.
* DCU characters were simpler in design and conception. They were
closer to pure archetypes than Marvel characters who were created
as closer to human beings. Marvel's angst-ridden web-slinger is
the closest thing to an Icon they have; DC heroes were grander or
less like us, so one could argue that they are perceived by the
general non-comic fan as being grander heroes.
* DCU characters are simpler in design. Compare the clean lines
of a Superman with the bestial edges of a Hulk. Look at Batman's
uniform compared to the rocky surface of the Thing. Compare Wonder
Woman's Stars and Stripes bikini to the intricate webbing of
Spider-Man or beautifully ornate uniform of Dr. Strange.
Simpler in design means easier to draw. Easier to draw means
less costs involved in animation and toy production.
* DCU continuity was not as tightly structured as Marvel's.
Therefore, it was easier for the general public to "get" a
character without having to be familiar with an intricate
back-story.
Batman- orphaned at a young age, dedicated life to fighting crime
Cable - son of Cyclops and Jean Grey sent back from the future
to... Ohhhhh, my head hurts.
Flash - the fastest man alive
Quicksilver - mutant who with his sister lived on a mountain
and has a father who is also a mutant who is sometimes good and
sometimes bad and is sometimes old and sometimes young.
He joined a few superteams, can run very fast, and is
usually pissed off.
* DC was eventually purchased by a huge entertainment conglomerate
that was experienced in multi-media marketing of its properties. Warner
Bros had the animation experience, owned record companies and ran movie
studios that helped to widen the audience for their characters, while
Marvel was a smaller concern.
* there are more DC heroes than Marvel heroes to showcase. DC or
NPP as they were once known, made it a point at one time to litigate a
competitor to death and then purchase the rights to their characters once
the company folded. They also incorporated the heroes of several different
publishers into their own DCU, while the Marvel Universe is relatively
self-contained. (EXTRA quiz points if newbies can say who originally
published Captain Marvel and the Marvel family, Uncle Sam, Doll Man,
Plastic Man, Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, and Bulletman.)
* Marvel heroes are intentionally flawed. Their motivations are
sometimes more complex. They are not as kid-friendly as their
counterparts in the DC world. Norrin Radd feels guilt, regret, and
remorse because of his actions as Galactus' herald; Peter Parker as
Spider-Man is a happy-go-lucky, wise-crackin' crime-fighter. Which
character is more recognizable to the general public and has made Marvel
more money in the past thirty years?
* Marvel never really developed its characters outside of the
context of the comic universe because its comic people directed its
multimedia forays into animation, television, and movies. With one
exception, The Incredible Hulk, most of Marvel's efforts before 1990 were
quite dreadful.
Evidence: Reb Brown as Captain America
The Captain America movie
The unreleased Fantastic Four movie
A polyester, afroed Dr. Strange
Nick Hammond as Peter Parker
Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends
The Punisher
and last but not least
Howard the Duck...
For that same time period (1960-1990), let's see what Warner
Bros/DC produced
Superman I, II, III, IV
Batman I
The Batman album by Prince
the Superfriends cartoon show
Batman (The Television Show)
Superboy: The Television Series
Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman
The Flash Television Series
Shazam: The Television Series
Plastic Man cartoon
The beautifully noirish Batman: the animated adventures
Each one of these events was cleverly and masterfully marketed;
many of them giving rise to fads and/or frenzies that expanded WAY beyond
the comic-book fan base. How many people do YOU remember in 1989 with the
Bat symbol shaved into their heads? In NYC, especially in Times Square,
there were plenty!
Anyway, this was all off the top of my head, so don't crucify me
by saying that Captain America also had serials, that Superman I came out
in December of 1978 and not January of 1977, that Herbie the Robot was a
bonafide hit, etc, etc, etc.
The main point is:
Why does Marvel have a Squadron Supreme and a Gladiator?
Why does Awesome have a Supreme?
Why doesn't DC have a equivalent parody/homage of Marvel's
Greatest Heroes?
And Why Does my 94 year old Grandmother Know that Clark Kent is
Superman and that Bruce Wayne is an Orphan, but can't name
one of the X-Men, FF, Avengers, Defenders, or Champions to save my
life?
As Jim Hammond would say:
Flame ON!!! ;-)
Felix Rosado
On 22 Apr 1998, Prestorjon wrote:
> > * DCU characters are also inspired by other archetypical heroes of
> > media that preceded comic books. They evoke our
> > collective memory or cultural history with their parallels
> > to other, equally famous figures in history or mythology.
>
> I hate to tell you this but Supes and Doc Savage were contemporaries. So were
> Bats and the Shadow, The Phantom, The Green Horney and the Lone Ranger.
>
Doc Savage and the Shadow originated in the pulp magazines which
predated Action Comics #1 by a few years. The Phantom was a newspaper
strip at about the same time at Detective Comics #27.
Both Superman and Batman creators have acknowledged their debt
to Clark Savage Jr. and Kent Allard/"Lamont Cranston". If I must, I'll
look up the original dates, but there must be someone who knows this
backwards and forward.
First Appearance of Doc Savage:
V 1 #1 Mar. 1933 The Man of Bronze by Lester Dent
http://www.ma.ultranet.com/~eclipse/docfaq2.html
First Appearance of the Shadow:
in print, April 1931
on the radio, 1930
http://idt.net/~nexus1/_shadow/history.html
"Clearly one of the inspirations for Batman,
The Phantom was the first of the comic
strip/comic book costumed heroes and one of
the most important of them all..."
Jeff Rovin, The Encyclopedia of Super Heroes,
1985.
" The daily Phantom strip started 2/17/36, the Sunday 5/28/39, and
both continue to this day"
http://members.aol.com/TGoldberg/phantom.txt
As for the Lone Ranger, the Green Hornet, and oops, I forgot about
Zorro, I'll leave it to the Webheads to note THEIR first appearances.
After you get married, the memory starts to progressively
fade... ;-)
Kenny Abernathy
Felix Rosado wrote in message ...
>
>
> Here's one for the fans:
>
> Why is it that DC has the more iconic characters? By Iconic
>characters, I mean characters that represent a purer form of comic-book
>super-hero, and one that the general public will readily recognize.
The first fallacy is assuming that DC heroes are more representative of
"pure" comic heroes. People are usually going to judge based on the first
comics they read. If you read DC first, you would consider that the
benchmark. The reverse is true for anyone introduced to Marvel first.
> In other words, if you show someone a picture of Dr. Doom or the
>Fantastic Four, odds are that most people outside of the comics world
>won't recognize them. Pick any Avenger INCLUDING Captain America. Then
>ask any five year old who the character is, or ask anyone who's not a
>comic fan.
You're quite wrong about Captain America. Although he isn't in the public
eye as much as Superman, he is still known by most Americans. For example,
a colleague of mine once put together a briefing for a group of army people.
He included a slide with a picture of Cap. The place rang out with applause
and cheering when they reached that part of the briefing. They knew who he
was and what he represented.
> Then pick Superman, Batman, the Flash, or Wonder Woman. Odds are
>good that non-native speakers of English, deaf-mutes, the blind, the
>elderly, and 9 out of 10 teenagers will be able to tell you the
>character's name and maybe even a little about their origin and powers.
Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman yes. I'd say Flash has about the same
recognition factor as Captain America. And the Hulk and Spider-Man have the
same as Superman and Batman. You're not presenting the argument fairly.
> * DC Comics characters started before most Marvel comic characters
> or they stayed in publication longer than most Marvel characters.
> Captain America, the Sub-Mariner, and the Human Torch all
> disappeared by the mid-to-late fifties, while Superman, Batman,
> and Wonder Woman comics thrived by comparison.
> * DCU characters are also inspired by other archetypical heroes of
> media that preceded comic books. They evoke our
> collective memory or cultural history with their parallels
> to other, equally famous figures in history or mythology.
Without breaking into a discussion on the pros and cons (and I consider no
real evidence) to support Jungian psychology, I still say this would be a
no. You want archetypes? What about the Hulk. He's the "monster"
archetype. I'd say that's one of the most basic. He's also been preceeded
by Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Besides, using pure Jungian thinking all
superheroes, including Marvel, would be based on archetypes. Besides, Thor
(who's fairly well recognized) and Hercules would be much more popular among
non-comic readers because they ARE the mythological figures.
> * DCU characters branched out into other media long before Marvel
> characters. Superman had a popular radio show as well as
> a top-rated syndicated televison show, a broadway play, serials,
> and movie years before most other characters. Batman enlarged his
> fan-base by not only including serials, but also television
> shows, cartoon series, and newspaper strips.
I think this is the real reason. DC had better marketing, pure and simple.
> * DCU characters were simpler in design and conception. They were
> closer to pure archetypes than Marvel characters who were created
> as closer to human beings. Marvel's angst-ridden web-slinger is
> the closest thing to an Icon they have; DC heroes were grander or
> less like us, so one could argue that they are perceived by the
> general non-comic fan as being grander heroes.
"Closest thing to an icon"? He IS an icon. He's instantly recognized by
people all over the world. He's had two successful cartoon series, a
debatable foray into live action, and thousands of kids have him on their
lunchboxes. And his toy line does alot better than Superman's. Because of
his popularity people who haven't read a comic in their lives know who
Firestar and Iceman are. Probably more people know about those two than
know about Martian Manhunter.
> * DCU characters are simpler in design. Compare the clean lines
> of a Superman with the bestial edges of a Hulk. Look at Batman's
> uniform compared to the rocky surface of the Thing. Compare Wonder
> Woman's Stars and Stripes bikini to the intricate webbing of
> Spider-Man or beautifully ornate uniform of Dr. Strange.
You can't get much simpler in design than the Hulk. He's a big green guy
with lots of muscles. And Batman's costume is no simpler than the Thing's
hide. This argument makes no sense at all. And Spider-Man's costume makes
alot more sense than Wonder Woman's. Take someone who's never seen a TV or
movie or comic in their lives and they can pick out Spider-Man in a lineup
with him, Superman, and Moon Knight. Take the same person and have them
choose Wonder Woman from a lineup of her, Sersi, and Crystal. There are no
clues in her design that she is Wonder Woman. Besides which, WW's costume
can be quite ornate, especially considering the eagle. Again, this argument
doesn't pan out.
> Simpler in design means easier to draw. Easier to draw means
> less costs involved in animation and toy production.
As I've pointed out, X-Men and Spider-Man toys sell better than DC toys.
And most Marvel costumes are not that much more difficult than DC costumes.
> * DCU continuity was not as tightly structured as Marvel's.
> Therefore, it was easier for the general public to "get" a
> character without having to be familiar with an intricate
> back-story.
Can we say Crisis?
>
> Batman- orphaned at a young age, dedicated life to fighting crime
> Cable - son of Cyclops and Jean Grey sent back from the future
> to... Ohhhhh, my head hurts.
Again you're picking two specific cases that are not representative.
Parallax? He was the Green Lantern and then he turned evil and got really
powerful even though he didn't have his ring, and then he died and came back
and died, or what... Captain America got an injection that made him strong
and he fights Nazis. Which one is easier? Plus DC has two or three
versions of alot of their characters.
> Flash - the fastest man alive
> Quicksilver - mutant who with his sister lived on a mountain
> and has a father who is also a mutant who is sometimes good and
> sometimes bad and is sometimes old and sometimes young.
> He joined a few superteams, can run very fast, and is
> usually pissed off.
Flash--This guy had superspeed but then he died when the universe was
reconstructed and his sidekick took his place and it turned out that the
sidekick got his powers because he was sent back through time and became a
lightning bolt that hit him in the past and he used to be a womanizer but
he's straightened up sense then and he became part of another dimension and
if he's not careful might again
Quicksilver--A really fast guy that went from being a bad guy to a good guy.
Do you see the illogical reasoning you're using? You use the power in the
Flash's case and the history in Quicksilvers. I did the opposite (and even
added a little history). Again, this argument makes no sense.
> * DC was eventually purchased by a huge entertainment conglomerate
>that was experienced in multi-media marketing of its properties. Warner
>Bros had the animation experience, owned record companies and ran movie
>studios that helped to widen the audience for their characters, while
>Marvel was a smaller concern.
This helps them continue, but it's not responsible for the fact that they
were already well known.
> * there are more DC heroes than Marvel heroes to showcase. DC or
>NPP as they were once known, made it a point at one time to litigate a
>competitor to death and then purchase the rights to their characters once
>the company folded. They also incorporated the heroes of several different
>publishers into their own DCU, while the Marvel Universe is relatively
>self-contained. (EXTRA quiz points if newbies can say who originally
>published Captain Marvel and the Marvel family, Uncle Sam, Doll Man,
>Plastic Man, Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, and Bulletman.)
I don't know the numbers. They both have huge stables. Neither company can
showcase all of their heroes. Irrelevant.
> * Marvel heroes are intentionally flawed. Their motivations are
>sometimes more complex. They are not as kid-friendly as their
>counterparts in the DC world. Norrin Radd feels guilt, regret, and
>remorse because of his actions as Galactus' herald; Peter Parker as
>Spider-Man is a happy-go-lucky, wise-crackin' crime-fighter. Which
>character is more recognizable to the general public and has made Marvel
>more money in the past thirty years?
Whatever. My first comic was Silver Surfer and I had no problem
comprehending it. He worked for a bad guy who wanted to destory the earth,
turned on him, and was punished. That's really not a whole lot to digest.
No more so than Batman's motivation.
> * Marvel never really developed its characters outside of the
>context of the comic universe because its comic people directed its
>multimedia forays into animation, television, and movies. With one
>exception, The Incredible Hulk, most of Marvel's efforts before 1990 were
>quite dreadful.
> Evidence: Reb Brown as Captain America
> The Captain America movie
> The unreleased Fantastic Four movie
> A polyester, afroed Dr. Strange
> Nick Hammond as Peter Parker
> Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends
> The Punisher
>
> and last but not least
>
> Howard the Duck...
Say what you will about the others, but leave Howard the Duck alone.
Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends did VERY well. Better than the Superman
cartoon that ran on CBS that lasted less than a season. And you're
backwards on your facts. Marvel's live-action things were terrible because
they DIDN'T have much input from the comic aspect. TV and Hollywood raped
the characters. But Marvel has had incredible success with their cartoons.
> For that same time period (1960-1990), let's see what Warner
> Bros/DC produced
>
> Superman I, II, III, IV
> Batman I
> The Batman album by Prince
> the Superfriends cartoon show
> Batman (The Television Show)
> Superboy: The Television Series
Most people don't know this show existed.
> Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman
> The Flash Television Series
Lasted less than a season
> Shazam: The Television Series
I could have sworn Captain America was on an episode of this cartoon.
> Plastic Man cartoon
> The beautifully noirish Batman: the animated adventures
>
> Each one of these events was cleverly and masterfully marketed;
No they weren't, because some were failures.
>many of them giving rise to fads and/or frenzies that expanded WAY beyond
>the comic-book fan base. How many people do YOU remember in 1989 with the
>Bat symbol shaved into their heads? In NYC, especially in Times Square,
>there were plenty!
Again, by narrowing the time period you've tipped the scales in DC's
direction. But in recent history Marvel has had three popular cartoons
(Spider-Man, X-Men, Silver Surfer) with Captain America on the way (which
will probably do pretty well. DC's had two cartoons. Steel flopped, as did
the last Batman. Lois and Clark did well. I've heard reactions to trailers
of Marvel's new Blade movie. They've both had successes and failures.
> The main point is:
>
> Why does Marvel have a Squadron Supreme and a Gladiator?
Why did DC start putting out more realistic, human heroes after Marvel was
successful with it?
> Why does Awesome have a Supreme?
> Why doesn't DC have a equivalent parody/homage of Marvel's
> Greatest Heroes?
Characters like Blue Beetle and Booster Gold probably wouldn't exist if it
weren't for characters like Spider-Man. DC had lots of characters that were
very one-dimensional. Stan Lee took a completely different route and
created real characters that weren't perfect. This resonated well with lots
and lots of readers. It was at that point that DC saw Marvel had the right
idea and switched tracks. Marvel has a team based on the Justice League.
DC changed how they wrote comics to be more like Marvel. Which is the
greater compliment?
> And Why Does my 94 year old Grandmother Know that Clark Kent is
> Superman and that Bruce Wayne is an Orphan, but can't name
> one of the X-Men, FF, Avengers, Defenders, or Champions to save my
> life?
Does she know who the Birds of Prey are? Can she name a member of the
Outsiders or the Teen Titans? But I'm willing to bet she can identify
Spider-Man.
You've spent the majority of this post misrepresenting information and
making fallacious arguments, as I've stated before. You've compared apples
and oranges. You've carefully chosen to make DC look better, but you
haven't been fair.
The whole recognition thing comes down to marketing. DC was a bit more
savvy with their forays into other media. The only three DC characters that
are well known for their own projects are Superman, Batman, and Wonder
Woman. The others are fairly well known but not as identifiable as the
others. Flash, Green Lantern, and Aquaman are only known because of
Superfriends. If it hadn't been for that they'd still be relatively
obscure.
Captain America, Spider-Man, and Hulk are the same way for Marvel. People
see those characters and know who they are. But Marvel has a larger stable
of "2nd tier popularity" characters like the X-Men (collective), Thor, the
Fantastic Four, and Iron Man. While not as famous as the others, they are
fairly well known (and becoming more popular). Even the Silver Surfer is
reaching this point (mentioned in Crimson Tide and has his own cartoon).
And when the X-Men movie comes out this is going to change even more.
DC has the real "public recognition" advantage in the villains. Because of
the old Batman TV show more DC bad guys are recognized than Marvel bad guys.
Kenny
Nicholas Blas
Kenny Abernathy wrote:
>
> Felix Rosado wrote in message ...
> > * Marvel heroes are intentionally flawed. Their motivations are
> >sometimes more complex. They are not as kid-friendly as their
> >counterparts in the DC world. Norrin Radd feels guilt, regret, and
> >remorse because of his actions as Galactus' herald; Peter Parker as
> >Spider-Man is a happy-go-lucky, wise-crackin' crime-fighter. Which
> >character is more recognizable to the general public and has made Marvel
> >more money in the past thirty years?
>
> Whatever. My first comic was Silver Surfer and I had no problem
> comprehending it. He worked for a bad guy who wanted to destory the earth,
> turned on him, and was punished. That's really not a whole lot to digest.
> No more so than Batman's motivation.
Then again, SS was never meant to be popular or easily understood. The
reason his first series was cancelled was because Stan Lee was told he
could either change it to a "regular" super hero book, or cancel it. He
choose to cancel it because that's not how the character should be.
> > Why does Awesome have a Supreme?
> > Why doesn't DC have a equivalent parody/homage of Marvel's
> > Greatest Heroes?
>
> Characters like Blue Beetle and Booster Gold probably wouldn't exist if it
> weren't for characters like Spider-Man. DC had lots of characters that were
> very one-dimensional. Stan Lee took a completely different route and
> created real characters that weren't perfect. This resonated well with lots
> and lots of readers. It was at that point that DC saw Marvel had the right
> idea and switched tracks. Marvel has a team based on the Justice League.
> DC changed how they wrote comics to be more like Marvel. Which is the
> greater compliment?
MArvel has a team based on the Justice League and the Legion of
Superheroes. DC has a team based on the Avengers, I'm not sure, but I
think the FF too. The difference is, we all know of the Squadron Supreme
and the Imperial Guard because Marvel did the original crossovers well.
Nothing more than that. The first SS story was one of the best comic
story arcs I've ever read. The JLA version of the same was crap.
Oh, and Why does Awesome have Fighting American?
Nick.
Patrick
Kenny, this was a very lucid and intelligent post. Each phrase summed
up my own feelings exactly. Great work!
--
Patrick
Patrick
Patrick wrote:
>
>
> Kenny, this was a very lucid and intelligent post. Each phrase summed
> up my own feelings exactly. Great work!
>
> --
> Patrick
fuck. I meant to only send this in email, I swear. Sorry for the lack
of snippage.
--
Patrick
Bad Karma
Nicholas Blas wrote:
>
> Superheroes. DC has a team based on the Avengers, I'm not sure, but I
> think the FF too. The difference is, we all know of the >
Hi Nick!
Can you help a non-DC-reader (me) and tell me what teams that are and
which members this teams have? Thanks a lot in advance!
Markus
Ranma Al'Thor
Bad Karma (markus....@banyan.siemens.at) wrote:
: Nicholas Blas wrote:
: >
: > Superheroes. DC has a team based on the Avengers, I'm not sure, but I
: Hi Nick!
The Superman books had an FF style incident quite a while back,, but all
those characters are dead, except for the Reed Richards parallel, who is
now the Cyborg.
The Avengers parallel showed up in the Early part of the Keith Giffen JL
run. Unfortunately, those of my comics are in Texas, while I'm in Kansas.
All I remember were the Silver Sorceress and Blue Jay.
--
John Walter Biles : MA-History, Ph.D Wannabe at U. Kansas
ra...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
rh...@tass.org http://www.tass.org/~rhea/falcon.html
rh...@maison-otaku.net http://www.maison-otaku.net/~rhea/
"Usagi, with your dex and bad rolling, getting out of BED is a
dramatic skill resolution."--Naru, Sailor Moon Z #9.
Brahma: the Creator.
Vishnu: the Preserver.
Mentos: the Freshmaker.
Nicholas Blas
Bad Karma wrote:
>
> Nicholas Blas wrote:
> >
> > Superheroes. DC has a team based on the Avengers, I'm not sure, but I
> > think the FF too. The difference is, we all know of the >
> > Nick.
>
> Hi Nick!
>
> Can you help a non-DC-reader (me) and tell me what teams that are and
> which members this teams have? Thanks a lot in advance!
I don't know. I've never read a story with them. All I do know is that
they exist, because it came up in a conversation about the first
Squadron Supreme story, and how Thomas did a much better job than
whomever it was at DC doing the JLA one.
Nick.
bsvit...@mln.lib.ma.us
In article <6hnid6$tbt$1...@news.cc.ukans.edu>,
ra...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (Ranma Al'Thor) wrote:> : > Superheroes. DC has a team based on the Avengers, I'm not sure, but I
> : > think the FF too. The difference is, we all know of the >
> : > Nick.
>
> : Hi Nick!
>
> : Can you help a non-DC-reader (me) and tell me what teams that are and
> : which members this teams have? Thanks a lot in advance!
>
> those characters are dead, except for the Reed Richards parallel, who is
> now the Cyborg.
>
The FF group was a John Byrne story, with a cover which exactly paralleled a
Byrne FF story which guest-starred Gladiator.
> The Avengers parallel showed up in the Early part of the Keith Giffen JL
> run. Unfortunately, those of my comics are in Texas, while I'm in Kansas.
> All I remember were the Silver Sorceress and Blue Jay.
>
Wandjina, a Thor counterpart, was the other significant member. The group
originally appeared in a late 60's or early 70's issue of the original series.
This may have been the first case of a clear tribute/parody/parallel group, if
we don't count commercial imitations (I say, seeking a polite term for
rip-offs) like JLA/FF, Doom Patrol/X-Men, and even JSA/JLA. (The Inferior Five
have some Avengers similarities, but I'd call them more a parody.)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Kenny Abernathy
bsvit...@mln.lib.ma.us wrote in message
>we don't count commercial imitations (I say, seeking a polite term for
>rip-offs) like JLA/FF, Doom Patrol/X-Men, and even JSA/JLA. (The Inferior
Five
> have some Avengers similarities, but I'd call them more a parody.)
I don't see how you can say that Fantastic Four is a rip-off of JLA. They
are both superhero teams. That's where the similarity ends. The FF were
created to be different from the DC superheroes. The JLA was the perfect,
nothing's wrong with us group. Part of the reason for JLA: Year One is to
flesh out the characters and their interactions when they started. DC's
attempt to shed light on the neophyte team's origin makes them look alot
more like the Fantastic Four than the FF resemembled the JLA when they first
came out.
Stan wanted a team that bickered, that didn't get along. The FF started as
a group of people with superpowers, not superheroes that banded together.
They didn't even have costumes until the 3rd issue, and those were uniforms
to denote they were part of a team, not standard superhero fare at the time.
And even at that point a large part of their charm was that they were
explorers, not "superheroes". I don't see how you can say FF was a rip-off
to JLA. An answer to JLA, maybe, but not a rip-off.
Kenny
Jonathan L. Miller
In article <MoqkJZ5...@newstoo.hiwaay.net>, "Kenny Abernathy"
<kaber...@aegisrc.com> wrote:
> bsvit...@mln.lib.ma.us wrote in message
> >we don't count commercial imitations (I say, seeking a polite term for
> >rip-offs) like JLA/FF, Doom Patrol/X-Men, and even JSA/JLA. (The Inferior
> Five
> > have some Avengers similarities, but I'd call them more a parody.)
>
>
> I don't see how you can say that Fantastic Four is a rip-off of JLA. They
Well, I think he's going for the fact that the FF were created as a direct
result of the JLA's popularity. Stan Lee's uncle (whose name I'm blocking
on and who was TPTB at Marvel at the time) got wind of the JLA's numbers
and told Stan he wanted his own version on the stands. Mr. Lee had better
ideas than imitation in mind. ;-)
But I *do* take exception to the Doom Patrol/X-Men thing. Hasn't this been
discussed to death? There are a *lot* of similaritites, but there's also
plenty of documentation to show that they were developed *at the same
time.* They appeared the same month (or thereabouts), for crying out loud!
jonathan.
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>Felix Rosado wrote in message ...
>>characters, I mean characters that represent a purer form of comic-book
>>super-hero, and one that the general public will readily recognize.
>> In other words, if you show someone a picture of Dr. Doom or the
>>Fantastic Four, odds are that most people outside of the comics world
>>won't recognize them. Pick any Avenger INCLUDING Captain America. Then
>>ask any five year old who the character is, or ask anyone who's not a
>>comic fan.
My pal Kenny Abernathy said:
>You're quite wrong about Captain America. Although he isn't in the public
>eye as much as Superman, he is still known by most Americans. For example,
>a colleague of mine once put together a briefing for a group of army people.
>He included a slide with a picture of Cap. The place rang out with applause
>and cheering when they reached that part of the briefing. They knew who he
>was and what he represented.
But that's "army people". They're more likely than the typical American
to recognise a fictional =war= hero. Also, if they were fairly
high-ranking officers (i.e. not 18-year-old recruits) that would also make
them more likely to recognise him. Make of it what you will, but I don't
think Captain America is nearly as well known today as he was 30-50 years
ago.
Cheers, Todd
--
"...It was the year everything changed."
Kenny Abernathy
Jonathan L. Miller wrote in message ...
>Well, I think he's going for the fact that the FF were created as a direct
>result of the JLA's popularity. Stan Lee's uncle (whose name I'm blocking
>on and who was TPTB at Marvel at the time) got wind of the JLA's numbers
>and told Stan he wanted his own version on the stands. Mr. Lee had better
>ideas than imitation in mind. ;-)
Nah, he meant a ripoff in the worst sense of the word. The whole discussion
was about teams that are entirely based on other teams (the Squardron
Supreme members have a one-to-one correlation with JLA, etc). In the sense
you're talking about, every superhero comic today would be a "ripoff" of
whatever the first superhero comic was. The reference meant that the team
was supposed to "be" the JLA, which is ludicrous.
Kenny
Nicholas Blas
Todd VerBeek, gwm wrote:
> My pal Kenny Abernathy said:
> >You're quite wrong about Captain America. Although he isn't in the public
> >eye as much as Superman, he is still known by most Americans. For example,
> >a colleague of mine once put together a briefing for a group of army people.
> >He included a slide with a picture of Cap. The place rang out with applause
> >and cheering when they reached that part of the briefing. They knew who he
> >was and what he represented.
>
> But that's "army people". They're more likely than the typical American
> to recognise a fictional =war= hero. Also, if they were fairly
> high-ranking officers (i.e. not 18-year-old recruits) that would also make
> them more likely to recognise him. Make of it what you will, but I don't
> think Captain America is nearly as well known today as he was 30-50 years
> ago.
I was sitting in a history class covering WWII- and the teacher asked us
how many people knew who Captain America was. Every single person knew.
He asked about some other influenctial fictional character from the time
whom not one person had heard of. The teacher excepted both these
things. This was a couple years ago, so the people in the class were
about 17. He's more well-known than you think.
Nick.
bsvit...@mln.lib.ma.us
In article <hEP7zx6...@newstoo.hiwaay.net>,
No, I meant a ripoff in a positive sense, which is why I tried the more polite
phrase "commercial imitation" but had to explain what I meant by it. My basic
point was to make a distinction between that kind of imitation and the kind
that takes place with undisguised parallels like the Squadron Supreme,
"Buried Alien", Englehart's resolution of his Avengers Mantis storyline in
JLA, etc. The FF's inspiration by the JLA is well-documented (though I agree
that it added something new to comics.)
As for the Doom Patrol/X-Men thing, I'm not convinced either way. I probably
should have described it as "alleged" or "supposed".
W100000
>In article <6hnid6$tbt$1...@news.cc.ukans.edu>,
> ra...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (Ranma Al'Thor) wrote:
>>
>> Bad Karma (markus....@banyan.siemens.at) wrote:
>> : Nicholas Blas wrote:
>> : >
>> : > Superheroes. DC has a team based on the Avengers, I'm not sure, but I
>> : > think the FF too. The difference is, we all know of the >
>> : > Nick.
>>
>> : Hi Nick!
>>
>> : Can you help a non-DC-reader (me) and tell me what teams that are and
>> : which members this teams have? Thanks a lot in advance!
>>
>> The Superman books had an FF style incident quite a while back,, but all
>> those characters are dead, except for the Reed Richards parallel, who is
>> now the Cyborg.
>>
>
>The FF group was a John Byrne story, with a cover which exactly paralleled a
>Byrne FF story which guest-starred Gladiator.
>
>> The Avengers parallel showed up in the Early part of the Keith Giffen JL
>> run. Unfortunately, those of my comics are in Texas, while I'm in Kansas.
>> All I remember were the Silver Sorceress and Blue Jay.
>>
>
>Wandjina, a Thor counterpart, was the other significant member. The group
>originally appeared in a late 60's or early 70's issue of the original
>series.
The group's name is the Justifiers. They first appeared in JUSTICE LEAGUE OF
AMERICA #87, dated July 1971. Besides
Wandjina, Silver Sorceress (Scarlett Witch counterpart), and Blue Jay (Wasp
counterpart), the only other member originally depcited was Jack B. Quick.
Much, much later,
the world (Angora) the Justifiers came from was revisited, and more members
were retroactively added to that group including their quirkly leader Mitch
Wacky (Tony Stark counterpart), Bowman/Archer (Hawkeye counterpart), Tin-Man
(Iron Man counterpart), and an unnamed giant (Giant Man counterpart). Jack B.
Quick was renamed Captain Speed.
>This may have been the first case of a clear tribute/parody/parallel group,
>if
>we don't count commercial imitations.
Actually, the Jusifiers and the Squadron Supreme and the Imperial Guard were
all part of a homage by DC and Marvel of each other's creations. "Homage"
meaning that TPTW at each company actually called the other asking permission
if they could use the other's teams likenesses in stories. I would guess
Marvel made the first move, since they had two "homages" as opposed to DC only
using one.
W100000
Kenny Abernathy wrote:
>Stan wanted a team that bickered, that didn't get along. The FF started as
>a group of people with superpowers, not superheroes that banded together.
>They didn't even have costumes until the 3rd issue, and those were uniforms
>to denote they were part of a team, not standard superhero fare at the time.
>And even at that point a large part of their charm was that they were
>explorers, not "superheroes". I don't see how you can say FF was a rip-off
>to JLA. An answer to JLA, maybe, but not a rip-off.
Going along the "explorer" motif, I'd like to quote an article from the
AVENGERS 30TH ANNIVERSARY MAGAZINE.
"JE NE SAIS QUOI
'The Fantastic Four are a family who are adventure hobbyists and
celebrities,' <snip> 'On missions, each member is expected to do his or her
part, but they never work out on maneuvers in their free time. They do it for
the love of it.' ... likened the group to DC's Challengers of the Unknown."
I think the comparison, if one must be made between the FF and any DC team,
between the FF and the CotU would be more accurate than the JLA. Plus, the
CotU were introduced first.
W100000
Jonathan L. Miller wrote:
>But I *do* take exception to the Doom Patrol/X-Men thing. Hasn't this been
>discussed to death? There are a *lot* of similaritites, but there's also
>plenty of documentation to show that they were developed *at the same
>time.* They appeared the same month (or thereabouts), for crying out loud!
Hmm... I'm not sure about that. I think that the Doom Patrol preceeded the
X-Men just enough that if they so chose, Marvel could actually have ripped off
the "freak" motif while still passing it off as an original idea. And it's a
good thing they decided not to give up on it all together when it wasn't
working out around the late 60's/early 70's... if they had, the Doom Patrol
would have been a more successful franchise than the X-Men, but it obviously
hasn't turned out that way. If it had, we wouldn't have the X-Men as a major
contender in this whole DC/Marvel debate. I would say the X-Men have as much
recognition value as even Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man and more than
Captain America, or the Hulk, at this current period in time. Note: I mean as
a TEAM, not as the individual X-Men. In 1998, "X-Men" is a household word just
as much as "Superman" or "Batman" or "Spider-Man". Now if TPTB would
concentrate on getting the first X-Men movie out in theaters as well as the
first universally agreed upon as "good" Marvel comic book based movie out in
theaters instead of worrying about releasing the umpteenth X-Men title, the
X-Men might actually be the first Marvel iconic characters to actually attain
more recognition value than either Superman or Batman.
GregoryD
>I was sitting in a history class covering WWII- and the teacher asked us
>how many people knew who Captain America was. Every single person knew.
>He asked about some other influenctial fictional character from the time
>whom not one person had heard of. The teacher excepted both these
>things. This was a couple years ago, so the people in the class were
>about 17. He's more well-known than you think.
>
>Nick
Now, the question is... do they actually know who Captain America is, or
have they just heard the name mentioned before? I'd have to say the latter.
There's a difference between recognition of the character himself and name
recognition. For the longest time, I knew what he looked like, but I didn't
know who he was. That doesn't count either. I also knew a bit about his
history, but I couldn't mention his name. Don't get me wrong, he is one of
my 3 favorite characters, but he's not THAT well known.