Superman turns 75 on Thursday

Posts : 99 Join date : 2013-04-14

ChrisW wrote:

Lawson wrote:: Not long ago, the $130 check surfaced that Jack Liebowitz paid to Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1938 for the rights to Superman. It then auctioned for $160,000.

The check would make a good date. But I don't think any of us would want the day Siegel and Shuster lost their creation to qualify as Superman's birthday. And it's not likely that the books went to the newsstands that particular day anyway.

No, no, I'm sorry. I just meant that we obviously still have some of the publisher's business records from that year, not that the check itself is proof of a publishing date. (The check was written March 1, 1938.) But I'm at a loss to show you what records substantiate April 18.

Incidentally, adding to the historical indignity, that check misspelled Siegel and Shuster's names, forcing the creators to endorse it twice on the back -- using their correct spelling and then using the names "Jerome Seigel" and "Joe Schuster."

Posts : 99 Join date : 2013-04-14

ChrisW wrote:: Superman vs. Muhammed Ali has been rereleased for a new generation. I was tempted to buy it, but I can't really wrap my head around that one.

This is one of those comics that you just get for the art.

My apologies to whomever wrote it, but the story was silly nonsense.

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

Lawson wrote:: This is one of those comics that you just get for the art...

and the sheer spectacle of it all. cheers

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

Lawson wrote:: No, no, I'm sorry. I just meant that we obviously still have some of the publisher's business records from that year, not that the check itself is proof of a publishing date. (The check was written March 1, 1938.) But I'm at a loss to show you what records substantiate April 18.

But the date on the check fits nicely with the time-line above. If they received the converted art from S&S, on what looks to be the deadline requested, it would make sense they would cut them a check to mail right back. And April 18 would give them plenty of time for pre press, (layout, shooting&stripping), printing, delivery to the news service and time for them to get to the newstands. Easily 4-6 weeks back then with what would have been current technology.

Posts : 180 Join date : 2012-09-14

The dating of the check certainly fits in with Joe's theory. Frankly, I'm amazed that the check has survived. I'm less amazed that they misspelled Siegel and Shuster's name. Heh.

I was pretty sure Denny O'Neill wrote "S vs. M. Ali" and Wikipedia confirms it, although apparently Neal Adams *adapted* the story, whatever that means. His credit involves more than just pencils.

Posts : 99 Join date : 2013-04-14

ChrisW wrote:: I was pretty sure Denny O'Neill wrote "S vs. M. Ali" and Wikipedia confirms it, although apparently Neal Adams *adapted* the story, whatever that means. His credit involves more than just pencils.

My guess is, it means Adams cheerfully went his own way on the story. That may explain some of the book's crazier aspects. Adams is a terrific artist, but there is a part of him, as a storyteller, that is batshit insane, as seen in his recent Batman mini-series.

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

ChrisW wrote:: The dating of the check certainly fits in with Joe's theory. Frankly, I'm amazed that the check has survived. I'm less amazed that they misspelled Siegel and Shuster's name. Heh.

Now you have me thinking. What other little historic details do we take seriously, that are just made up because the real details are lost or ignored.

It doesn't take long for something to become an accepted fact.

Posts : 180 Join date : 2012-09-14

As long as Superman invaded Nazi Germany, then Soviet Russia, and brought Hitler and Stalin to trial before the League of Nations, history still makes sense. Also Stan Lee created Captain America and Jack Kirby created Spider-Man. That's, like, historical fact. You can even look it up. Bob Banner and Peter Palmer would agree.

As to Supes vs. Muhammad, I get the notion of adapting a story, but it isn't clear what it means in this context. Personally, I suspect it has more to do with DC and Muhammad Ali than, say, John Byrne adapting Chris Claremont's plot for the new issue of "X-Men." In the latter case, Claremont had the basic story, Byrne changed it as he saw fit and with editorial approval, things were all worked out in time for the new issue. In the former case, Muhammad Ali's "people" (you can make up your own mind about who surrounded the victorious Cassius Clay, and the first two guesses don't count) would probably make enough demands upon DC that legally, they can't call Denny O'Neill the writer any more than Claremont or Stan Lee could be called the sole "writer" in their issues with Byrne/Kirby/Ditko.

Just look at what the lawyers could make of anything they object to, at all. Whatever script Denny O'Neill wrote, they could complain that "This panel of Superman using his heat vision to dehydrate and destroy anything he looks at should show Ali floating like a butterfly. The drawing does not show him floating like a butterfly, or stinging like a bee, and is therefore in breach of contract. It damages his trademark and THEREFORE you are wrong.") If nothing else, the extra credit is probably to Neal Adams drawing ability in that he navigated the turbulous seas and jagged rocks and managed to finish the book on time and looking good.

» Batman & Superman vs ANTMAN!
» Superman dates potential Wonder Woman?
» Batman/Superman afraid of Antman