Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,032

    Default SDCC: O'Neil, Adams & More Revisit Batman of the 1970s

    The 1970s put the Dark back into the Dark Knight, and Mark Evanier, Neal Adams, Denny O'Neil and more gathered in San Diego to look at the pivotal decade.


    Full article here.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Nick Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    328

    Default

    we need these collected properly all the way up to Year One

    serious question, what did Adams do in the 80's,'90's, and 00's?

    did he do commercial art, run a studio?

  3. #3
    Senior Member Tupiaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Right behind you
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Miller View Post
    we need these collected properly all the way up to Year One

    serious question, what did Adams do in the 80's,'90's, and 00's?

    did he do commercial art, run a studio?
    He fought for creators right to get back their art and for the Superman creators Jerry Siegel og Joe Shuster to get money from DC. He also tried to made the Comics Creators Guild (it wasn't successful). He did a few covers for his TPB's but he was pretty absent as a comic creator until 2010 where he did Batman Odyssey.
    Last edited by Tupiaz; 07-28-2014 at 04:52 PM.

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    24

    Default

    And he also set up his own company, Continuity Comics, that ran from the late 80s to the mid 90s.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Bounty Hunter ABH-1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,264

    Default

    Neal also formed Continuity Comics (1984-1994), which published Bucky O'Hare, and many other titles.

    edit: QBall beat me to the punch!

  6. #6

    Default

    I love The Bronze Age Batman. I agree with Nick Miller in that all of these Bronze Age issues should be collected up to Year One.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,464

    Default

    Scanning through that article, while it has some facts straight, it's so jumbled that it gets a lot wrong. Of course, people speaking in interviews tend to overstate things in the interest of a good story and they only know things from their own perspective. I feel like someone should go through the article and footnote it to set straight all the niggling details that have been gotten wrong.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1

    Default

    One nit: Schwartz edited the Englehart/Rogers run and Archie Goodwin the Englehart/Amendola story - the one story he did not write during his tenure. Otherwise, perfect.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markpf View Post
    One nit: Schwartz edited the Englehart/Rogers run and Archie Goodwin the Englehart/Amendola story - the one story he did not write during his tenure. Otherwise, perfect.
    There are several nits. Just to demonstrate--

    When he was first offered "Batman," O'Neil said the camp sensibility was still firmly attached to the character, but soon "someone turned out the lights on that TV show." At that time O'Neil said he and Adams were "kind of flavors of the week" and legendary editor Julie Schwartz asked them if they had any ideas. O'Neil said his plan was to "take the character back to May of 1939 and do to what Bill Finger and Bob Kane did."

    This might be how O'Neil remembers it, but the TV show had ended in June of '68 and no sooner had it ended then the Bat books turned a corner with Frank Robbins--along with pencillers Irv Novick and Bob Brown--giving a very different take on Batman. I'd argue that the "camp" trend in the comics had already ended several months even before that, but the departure of Bob Kane (or his ghosts) set a very different tone for the character. Then in late '69 Robbins wrote the story that had Robin leaving Wayne Manor and Bruce getting back to basics with the Batman (in stories again pencilled by Novick and by Brown). The team of O'Neil and Adams did indeed make their debut in DETECTIVE COMICS 395, a month later. But it was Robbins with Novick and Brown who got Batman to that point.

    I'd also argue that several other writers and artists were already drawing inspiration from Finger and Kane and their early work. There were several moody stories with nighttime settings. Several stories evoking the classic Batman of the late '30s and early '40s.

    Adams, in his own inimitable fashion, said that at the beginning of the decade Infantino had "Batman in the day time walking around in his underwear." When Adams asked Schwartz to allow him to draw "Batman," the editor kicked him out of his office. Finally, Schwartz told Adams "Batman" wasn't selling well and "Detective Comics" was in danger of being cancelled. The editor hadn't changed his mind about putting Adams on the book, but he did ask editor Murray Boltinoff if he could draw "The Brave and the Bold." Legendary Silver Age writer Bob Haney was willing to adapt his scripts to suit Adams style and suddenly Batman wasn't "walking through doors but coming through windows."

    Again close but not quite right. Infantino had already left Batman in 1967--other artists worked on Batman after that--because Carmine was too busy working as the editorial director at National Periodicals. It's in that capacity that Infantino enlisted Adams to work for DC. It was Infantino who was pushing Adams as one of his favourite artists. It's silly that Adams talks about Batman walking around in his underwear--but that's a whole mess of trouble and not worth getting into. Yes, Adams drew Batman for Weisinger and for Boltinoff long before he drew Batman for Schwartz--although he did work on several covers for the Schwartz books. At first Adams worked within the style of Infantino's Batman, but more and more on THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD, as he himself has said, Adams tried to bring more moody nighttime settings into the stories he was drawing from Bob Haney's scripts. All of this happened between '67 and '69, not at the beginning of the '70s.

    In the article Anthony Tollin mentions Frank Robbins--but he's only noted as an artist! For sure, Robbins eventually got to draw some of the Batman stories, but this was after he had been writing Batman for more than three years!

    That just a few of the problems with the article. It's full of nits.

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    That just a few of the problems with the article. It's full of nits.
    Unfortunately history shows for the news articles on this site, the first draft published is almost never corrected either for egregious errors of fact ("DC Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada") or grammar ("Stan Lee said the problem did not phase him").

    Too busy getting the next article approximately right to worry about the accuracy of those already published, I guess. The concept of a publication of record seems a completely alien one.

  11. #11
    Moderator nepenthes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Ivy's Lair
    Posts
    971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deason View Post
    or grammar ("Stan Lee said the problem did not phase him").
    Sorry to nit ... what's the issue with this sentence?

    Edit - does? Can't they be used interchangeably?

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,464

    Default

    I usually read through anything I post to check that I didn't make any mistakes. And then I read through it again after I've posted. But I goofed on the last line of my previous post--"That just a few . . ."--meant to write "That's just a few . . ."

    So I understand when goofs like that are made (and there were a few like that in the article). What gets my goat is that there are hundreds of experts on various periods of comics history. You'd think CBR would enlist those folks to give the copy a fact check. The article could have been re-edited to leave out the bits that are back to front and put in credit where it's properly due (like Robbins for writing).

    Indeed, if this article had been run by Mark Evanier, he probably would have caught most of the errors.

    That wouldn't just satisfy nit-pickers like me, it would better serve people like Adams and O'Neil in making them look better. It's forgivable when talent make errors in fact while speaking extemporaneously at a convention--but when those errors are registered in written prose without correction it magnifies the error.

    Still, I've noticed that a lot of talent speaking at cons start to talk like sailors. It's surprising to hear guys who made their living as writers and artists, talking like old salts. As an old sailor myself, I can talk salty with the best of the them. But my naval training impressed on me that that kind of talk only belonged below decks with my mates. Once we were in the public, speaking to civilians--especially women and children--we were required to be polite and choose our words carefully.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nepenthes View Post
    Sorry to nit ... what's the issue with this sentence?

    Edit - does? Can't they be used interchangeably?
    I think it should be faze, not phase. Different words, different meanings.

    Sandy Hausler

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandy Hausler View Post
    I think it should be faze, not phase. Different words, different meanings.
    Correct. I know professional wordsmith Stan Lee understands the difference, and said and meant "faze". Pointing the error out in the comment thread for the original article was a waste of time, though. The writers or editors or publishers of the news articles here give the impression they don't care for correct English.

    It's human to make mistakes like calling Joe Quesada EiC of DC. No one's perfect. But never correcting such errors even when they're pointed out smacks of contemptuous laziness.

  15. #15
    Lord of HyperTime! fumetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister BoMan View Post
    I love The Bronze Age Batman. I agree with Nick Miller in that all of these Bronze Age issues should be collected up to Year One.
    It has started already with Batman Showcase v5. And v6 is available for pre-order on Amazon. So maybe we'll get this done over the next 10-15 years.

    I'd also prefer DC to jump the Batman Chronicles up to 1969 (volume 100?) so we can get these in color, too.

    It's just too expensive to try buying originals.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •