|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2020 7:07:16 GMT -5
I'm shocked it took until 1947 for Robin to have a solo feature.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2020 7:12:06 GMT -5
I remember being surprised that Plastic Man was published up through 1956. I thought it ended before the code. I think it was reprints the last few years?
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Nov 2, 2020 9:06:30 GMT -5
I was always surprised that it took almost 15 years for Spidey to battle Rhino again after he was initially introduced. Granted, Rhino popped up over the years to fight Hulk and the Defenders but didn't take Spidey on again for quite some time. It is weird that I still associate him more as a Spidey villain than a Hulk one but between 1966 and 1986 he was featured elsewhere more often than against Spidey.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 2, 2020 9:09:11 GMT -5
It always surprises me that DC was producing a western book as intelligent and 'adult' (if you'll pardon the expression) as Bat Lash while Marvel still churning out endless iterations of their 'Fill-in-the-Blank' Kids. Marvel’s westerns were just dire. You can argue the merits of the two companies superhero books. But DC’s non-long underwear books were generally leaps and bounds better than Marvel's.
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Nov 2, 2020 9:20:26 GMT -5
The Justice Society's Johnny Thunder made his final bow in December of 1947 in All-Star Comics#39. Less than half a year later, DC was already recycling the trademark with another "Johnny Thunder" in All-American Comics #100.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2020 10:56:21 GMT -5
When I got a copy of My Greatest Adventure #80 (first Doom Patrol) I really did a double-take that it was dated June 1963. Three weirdly powered characters lead by another in a wheel-chair, and three months before five weirdly powered characters also led by someone in a wheel-chair 'changed comics forever'. Getting an X-Men #1 would've taken at least $180, while the first Doom Patrol comic was barely more that 10% of that then (I'd paid $20). Yes that always amazes me. It still happens today. Right now both Bruce Wayne & Tony Stark have lost most of their fortunes. Similar storylines that had to be planned for quite awhile.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 2, 2020 18:33:27 GMT -5
I'll admit I was a little surprised that Gold Key's Winnie the Pooh comic not only lasted 31 issues, but also continued into mid 1984.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Nov 2, 2020 19:45:08 GMT -5
On that note, not only Doctor Solar lasting into 1982, but still publishing new stories to boot (most everything else by Gold Key/Whitman were reprints by that time):
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2020 8:06:16 GMT -5
I remember being surprised that Plastic Man was published up through 1956. I thought it ended before the code. I think it was reprints the last few years? it appears that the title went from all new material to reprints with one new story to all reprints in the last 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 3, 2020 10:25:18 GMT -5
Without wanting to sound smug or superior, I almost never get confused or mistaken about the release dates of things like films, albums or singles, or comics. I have a really keen sense of historical chronology -- at least as far as 20th Century art or literature goes -- probably because I'm a history fan generally. Dates tend to stick in my mind. I also have a keen sense of the conventions or styles of things like movies, comics or music over the decades. So identifying a piece of work's approximate date is usually pretty easy for me. Again, I don't mean to sound smug, but that's the truth of it. I think even for us history-lovers, part of the problem with comics is how haphazard the distribution system was back in the "old days." Comics often arrived late or not at all. I also have vivid memories of picking up comics well after the dates that they went on sale ( Sgt. Fury 16, for example) because the comics racks weren't given much attention by the store owners and thus you'd see a couple of issues of a title on the racks at the same time. Same with movies. Not all movies were released nationwide on the same day as most are (were) these days. Many films were only placed into so-called "first-run" theatres, usually in big cities (and often at a higher price) for a good while before they made their way to your local movie house. Thus we'd often see a movie months after its release because that's the first time it made its way to our neck of the woods. And for movies originally released at the end of the year, it meant that you didn't see it until the next year. "The Graduate" was released in late December, 1967, but for me it was a 1968 movie because the first chance I had to see it was in April of that year.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,545
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 3, 2020 14:25:54 GMT -5
Without wanting to sound smug or superior, I almost never get confused or mistaken about the release dates of things like films, albums or singles, or comics. I have a really keen sense of historical chronology -- at least as far as 20th Century art or literature goes -- probably because I'm a history fan generally. Dates tend to stick in my mind. I also have a keen sense of the conventions or styles of things like movies, comics or music over the decades. So identifying a piece of work's approximate date is usually pretty easy for me. Again, I don't mean to sound smug, but that's the truth of it. I think even for us history-lovers, part of the problem with comics is how haphazard the distribution system was back in the "old days." Comics often arrived late or not at all. I also have vivid memories of picking up comics well after the dates that they went on sale ( Sgt. Fury 16, for example) because the comics racks weren't given much attention by the store owners and thus you'd see a couple of issues of a title on the racks at the same time. Same with movies. Not all movies were released nationwide on the same day as most are (were) these days. Many films were only placed into so-called "first-run" theatres, usually in big cities (and often at a higher price) for a good while before they made their way to your local movie house. Thus we'd often see a movie months after its release because that's the first time it made its way to our neck of the woods. And for movies originally released at the end of the year, it meant that you didn't see it until the next year. "The Graduate" was released in late December, 1967, but for me it was a 1968 movie because the first chance I had to see it was in April of that year. I hear ya. In my experience, people thinking that the Graduate was a 1968 film is pretty common. And, of course, in the UK, it absolutely was. Just a few months ago a question came up in a "pub quiz" that my wife and I were doing online with some friends, and the given date of the film's initial release was 1968. I had to politely disagree and refer to Google to prove my point. In the particular case of that film, it also doesn't help that both the soundtrack album and Simon & Garfunkel's hit version of "Mrs. Robinson" didn't appear until early 1968. In the U.K., the original Star Wars movie is another one people often get kind of wrong. The fact that this was a 1977 film has Been imprinted onto the minds of those of us on this side of the Atlantic who are of a geeky, nerd-esque persuasion over the intervening decades. But actually, over here it didn't go on general release until January 1978. But I guess we're getting into the realms of the frequent conflict between the public consciousness and the historical truth here.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 3, 2020 14:57:28 GMT -5
And also, Confessor, the unreliability of memory.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Nov 3, 2020 15:58:50 GMT -5
It always surprises me that DC was producing a western book as intelligent and 'adult' (if you'll pardon the expression) as Bat Lash while Marvel still churning out endless iterations of their 'Fill-in-the-Blank' Kids. Marvel’s westerns were just dire. You can argue the merits of the two companies superhero books. But DC’s non-long underwear books were generally leaps and bounds better than Marvel's. That's a fair assessment; some Marvel westerns were solid adventure stories, but many fell into Old West tropes TV of the same era (late Golden / early Silver Age) seen a million times. DC ended up being far more daring with their lone and continuing character westerns, with books that can still be read today without feeling you've seen it all before.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 3, 2020 16:23:48 GMT -5
In the U.K., the original Star Wars movie is another one people often get kind of wrong. The fact that this was a 1977 film has Been imprinted onto the minds of those of us on this side of the Atlantic who are of a geeky, nerd-esque persuasion over the intervening decades. But actually, over here it didn't go on general release until January 1978. I could have sworn it was a 1977 movie too, but if I think about it seriously it's unlikely that I saw it before late 1978 or even early 1979! I wish I could see it again. Without the added special effects and the "episode IV" in the scrolling text intro.
|
|
|
Post by Calidore on Nov 3, 2020 20:27:54 GMT -5
It has always blown my mind that a mere ten day span of January 1929 saw the debuts of the Buck Rogers and Tarzan comic strips (both Jan. 7) and the characters of Tintin (Jan. 10) and Popeye (Jan. 17).
|
|