Bigger SA Key: Flash 105 or Justice League of America 1?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Give it a rest, rfoiii. Your smokescreens aren't fooling anyone. I didn't post "to you" when you started this mess, and despite your claim that it IS "about you", it's not. You're a troublemaker, and when called on it, a prevaricator. You are disingenuous to the hilt.

 

Read Lazyboy's post again. The answer is right there in front of you.

 

You may have the last word, though you certainly don't need my permission; you'll take it regardless, because that's what you do.

 

Enough already.

 

(snip)

 

 

 

[Lazyboy]

Hard to keep up with everything in the thread, but re any knowledge that Goodman may or may not possibly have had of Justice League sales...

 

1) All available info indicates that the title was a very good but not game-changing seller (particularly considering the context of point 2). It certainly wasn't some monster seller that towered over the rest of the DC line.

 

We could quibble over this, but -- in 1961, Archie sold way better. Turok sold better. Blackhawk sold almost as well. Eight other DC titles sold better.

 

2) It had both Superman and Batman in it, which makes it very difficult to draw conclusions over why it sold well.

 

EIGHT of the top 10 titles of 1961 were Superman or Batman related, and that's not including Justice League. (incidentally, I think this explains Lois Lane's quick green-light more than any other factor)

 

I can imagine that golf game going something like this:

 

Independent News Exec: "Hey guess what Martin? We launched Justice League and it's already our 9th best selling title! Isn't that amazing? Turns out if you put the two most famous superheroes on the planet on a team with a bunch of our other characters, it does ok!"

 

Goodman thinks: "If a team including the two characters who own the industry can sell well, then a team of complete unknowns will also sell well!"

 

The rest -- history.

 

A nice idea, but Superman and Batman weren't involved in the title until issue #6, which according to RMA's timeline and theory, was much too late to have played into any conversation on sales.

You might want to recheck your facts (or just use some for once) and stop relying only on hearsay. They're even on the cover of issue 5.

[ttfitz]

 

Well, you've made some progress - moved from this being "apocryphal" to an acknowledgment of it's existence.

 

You are mistaken. The "Goodman/Donenfeld golf" story that has been told many times over is to what my original comment referred, not the "Stan Lee quoting Goodman" story.

 

Hopefully, that clears up any misunderstanding you might have. Since you, yourself, acknowledged that that story was apocryphal, I'm surprised you misunderstood my comment.

 

Let's review, shall we? Here is the original exchange:

 

The shift happened with SC4 (first in a huge reintro of older superheroes) and BB28 (the success of JLA inspired FF1 and the Marvel age). JLA1 then is the first true appearance of JLA in own title. Flash 105 is the second time the Flash has his own title.

 

The "JLA inspired FF" story never happened. It is apocryphal, it didn't occur.

 

As you can see, there is no mention of the "Goodman/Donenfeld golf story"

 

Correct, because that's what I thought others were referring to, since it's a famous story. When it became clear that they were talking about the Goodman/Lee story, I said "oh, ok." and moved on.

 

And? Is it clear now? Did it eventually get cleared up? Yes. Wouldn't all of this have been avoided if you had simply asked "which story?" instead of assuming I was referring to the Goodman/Lee story?

 

Is the goal to increase knowledge and understanding, or is the goal to score points against people we don't like....?

 

 

If you had say, "Oh, ok" that would have been a different thing. But since you didn't acknowledge that supposed difference (they really aren't two stories, but two parts of a single story), when I saw you then talking about it as something other than apocryphal, I just smiled and went on. When it continued, and there was other things I wished to comment on, I made note of you moving off your original contention.

 

As for my "just asking", my original response to your statement was

 

The "JLA inspired FF" story never happened. It is apocryphal, it didn't occur.

 

What I have read is that the "Martin Goodman playing golf with Jack Liebowitz /Irwin Donenfeld DC" story is apocryphal, but Stan Lee certainly supports the FF coming about because of JLA in some part. In Origins of Marvel Comics, Stan writes:

 

You could have at that time said, "Yeah, it was that golf story I was talking about" and cleared that whole "misunderstanding" up. You didn't, so I was left to deal with what you had actually written, as opposed to what was supposedly on your mind.

 

and your direct response doesn't mention it, either.

 

You'll have to post what response you're referring to.

 

It was quoted above - your direct response to AlexanderM's statement about the FF being inspired by the JLA. Your response - "The 'JLA inspired FF' story never happened. It is apocryphal, it didn't occur." That makes no qualifiers as it being the golf story that you were referring to.

[BarryAllen]

(snip)

 

(snip)

 

 

 

 

[ttfitz]

Hard to keep up with everything in the thread, but re any knowledge that Goodman may or may not possibly have had of Justice League sales...

 

1) All available info indicates that the title was a very good but not game-changing seller (particularly considering the context of point 2). It certainly wasn't some monster seller that towered over the rest of the DC line.

 

We could quibble over this, but -- in 1961, Archie sold way better. Turok sold better. Blackhawk sold almost as well. Eight other DC titles sold better.

 

2) It had both Superman and Batman in it, which makes it very difficult to draw conclusions over why it sold well.

 

EIGHT of the top 10 titles of 1961 were Superman or Batman related, and that's not including Justice League. (incidentally, I think this explains Lois Lane's quick green-light more than any other factor)

 

I can imagine that golf game going something like this:

 

Independent News Exec: "Hey guess what Martin? We launched Justice League and it's already our 9th best selling title! Isn't that amazing? Turns out if you put the two most famous superheroes on the planet on a team with a bunch of our other characters, it does ok!"

 

Goodman thinks: "If a team including the two characters who own the industry can sell well, then a team of complete unknowns will also sell well!"

 

The rest -- history.

 

A nice idea, but Superman and Batman weren't involved in the title until issue #6, which according to RMA's timeline and theory, was much too late to have played into any conversation on sales.

You might want to recheck your facts (or just use some for once) and stop relying only on hearsay. They're even on the cover of issue 5.

 

Sorry, a typo. I had looked it up on the Grand Comics database - still have the page open, in fact - and just typed the wrong number.

 

Please note, though, that it makes my point stronger, as that is even less time between the two dates. So thanks for pointing that out.

[ttfitz]

 

That's more than a tad condescending. Just who do you imagine posts on this "comic collecting forum"? Chopped liver? Are you unaware that some of the best researchers, statisticians, and historians in the industry post here?

 

Sure. Have any of them posted here on this subject?

 

Yes.

 

 

Could you name them, please?

[ttfitz]

 

And, point of order, ASM #1 was published 7 months after AF #15, not 6. The devil's in the details.

 

If you're not going to be reasonable in the conversation, why waste everyone's time?

 

According to the Grand Comics Database, Amazing Fantasy #15 had an on-sale date of 1962-06-05 ("Both the 1962 initial copyright and the 1990 renewal list the publication date as June 5th 1962."); Amazing Spider-Man #1 1962-12-10 ("The on-sale date is the publication date reported in U. S. Copyright Office filings"), which is 6 months. I wasn't actually there, so I can't speak firsthand, so I had to go with what I found there.

[Lazyboy]

Hard to keep up with everything in the thread, but re any knowledge that Goodman may or may not possibly have had of Justice League sales...

 

1) All available info indicates that the title was a very good but not game-changing seller (particularly considering the context of point 2). It certainly wasn't some monster seller that towered over the rest of the DC line.

 

We could quibble over this, but -- in 1961, Archie sold way better. Turok sold better. Blackhawk sold almost as well. Eight other DC titles sold better.

 

2) It had both Superman and Batman in it, which makes it very difficult to draw conclusions over why it sold well.

 

EIGHT of the top 10 titles of 1961 were Superman or Batman related, and that's not including Justice League. (incidentally, I think this explains Lois Lane's quick green-light more than any other factor)

 

I can imagine that golf game going something like this:

 

Independent News Exec: "Hey guess what Martin? We launched Justice League and it's already our 9th best selling title! Isn't that amazing? Turns out if you put the two most famous superheroes on the planet on a team with a bunch of our other characters, it does ok!"

 

Goodman thinks: "If a team including the two characters who own the industry can sell well, then a team of complete unknowns will also sell well!"

 

The rest -- history.

 

A nice idea, but Superman and Batman weren't involved in the title until issue #6, which according to RMA's timeline and theory, was much too late to have played into any conversation on sales.

You might want to recheck your facts (or just use some for once) and stop relying only on hearsay. They're even on the cover of issue 5.

 

Sorry, a typo. I had looked it up on the Grand Comics database - still have the page open, in fact - and just typed the wrong number.

 

Please note, though, that it makes my point strong, as that is even less time between the two dates. So thanks for pointing that out.

They're in EVERY ISSUE starting with BB 28! But they were intentionally left off the covers (and minimized on 5).

[ttfitz]

So, your "I see we're making progess" when the conversation had moved far beyond that point, and the issue clarified, is the problem. I suspect you didn't read the rest of the thread before making that post. Am I right?

 

Sorry, I missed this part in my response. No, you are incorrect. I generally try to read to the end of the thread, to make sure I don't make a point already made by others.

 

No need cluttering up the board with things already said.

[ttfitz]

 

Sorry, a typo. I had looked it up on the Grand Comics database - still have the page open, in fact - and just typed the wrong number.

 

Please note, though, that it makes my point stronger, as that is even less time between the two dates. So thanks for pointing that out.

They're in EVERY ISSUE starting with BB 28! But they were intentionally left off the covers (and minimized on 5).

 

As I said, I looked on the Grand Comics Database (seemed easier than digging through my boxes for the books I own), and they didn't (appear) to list them as appearing in any issues. When I just went and looked at the issues I could find, I discovered you are (at least for the ones I have) correct.

 

I say "appear" above because in the main box for the book, it did not have Superman or Batman listed as characters, but if you scroll down, it does have them listed in the individual story credits. I guess the top part is only the characters on the cover?

 

But I misinterpreted that information, so I was mistaken. Thanks for pointing it out.

[markseifert]

 

A nice idea, but Superman and Batman weren't involved in the title until issue #6, which according to RMA's timeline and theory, was much too late to have played into any conversation on sales.

 

 

Untrue. You must be misremembering that. [edit -- it's been pointed out to me you already corrected this. Sorry, just missed it]

 

Superman and Batman are in #1-5 also. Not cameos, full participants.

[AlexanderM]

 

A nice idea, but Superman and Batman weren't involved in the title until issue #6, which according to RMA's timeline and theory, was much too late to have played into any conversation on sales.

 

 

Untrue. You must be misremembering that.

 

Superman and Batman are in #1-5 also. Not cameos, full participants.

 

 

It just doesn't give the impression of wanting to actually come to the truth about the events when repeating a statement he already said was a typing error.

 

Milking a typing error for all it's worth - gives the impression of wanting to 'win' the discussion - regardless of facts etc.

 

I wish we could discuss this issue with the aim to getting to the truth. For example, also the idea that because Stan Lee in ancient he might have misremembered... but then we learn that this sentence was written in 1978 when Stan was on the top of his game and not at all old...

 

Imo. I trust Stan Lee and find it obvious too that the success of JLA inspired FF. Furthermore BB28 is the first appearance of JLA. SC4 is not the first appearance of the Flash - rather it is the comeback of a revamped version of the Flash. And Flash 105 is not the first time flash had his own title - Flash Comics 1 is. Flash 105 is the first time that Flash has his own title after his comeback.

 

All 4 books are important with some factors counting for or against their importance.

 

[mysterio]

 

A nice idea, but Superman and Batman weren't involved in the title until issue #6, which according to RMA's timeline and theory, was much too late to have played into any conversation on sales.

 

 

Untrue. You must be misremembering that.

 

Superman and Batman are in #1-5 also. Not cameos, full participants.

 

 

It just doesn't give the impression of wanting to actually come to the truth about the events when repeating a statement he already said was a typing error.

 

Milking a typing error for all it's worth - gives the impression of wanting to 'win' the discussion - regardless of facts etc.

 

I wish we could discuss this issue with the aim to getting to the truth. For example, also the idea that because Stan Lee in ancient he might have misremembered... but then we learn that this sentence was written in 1978 when Stan was on the top of his game and not at all old...

 

Imo. I trust Stan Lee and find it obvious too that the success of JLA inspired FF. Furthermore BB28 is the first appearance of JLA. SC4 is not the first appearance of the Flash - rather it is the comeback of a revamped version of the Flash. And Flash 105 is not the first time flash had his own title - Flash Comics 1 is. Flash 105 is the first time that Flash has his own title after his comeback.

 

All 4 books are important with some factors counting for or against their importance.

 

My guess is that Mark replied to that statement before reading to the end of the thread, and did not see that it had been debunked already. We've all done that at some point.

 

Whether Stan wrote that memory down in 1978 or 2008, it is still his recollection of something that may or may not have happened the way he recalled it. As discussed ad nauseum, there are different versions of the story that have circulated, and all are hearsay. You are free to believe them if you think that that is the smoking gun to this whole discussion.

 

Maybe it is just me, but I just don't see the parallels between the JLA and the FF. I am more persuaded by the similarities between the FF and COTU, and the publishing timeline fits that storyline better as well.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Flash comics was actually a shared book despite the title. Hawkman basically co-headlined, and has many covers. There were other features as well, so the pages dedicated to Flash are much less numerous than you'd think. A minor point, but worth noting.

 

Lastly, as pointed out several times, Jay Garrick and Barry Allen are not the same character. The Flash introduced in SC 4 is not a reintro of a character, but is in fact a new character. The SA is very different from the preceding GA. Moving these new characters into their own books was an important new development. And if JLA's main claim to fame was inspiring the FF then you have an exceptionally myopic view on comic history.

 

And with that, I think we're done here.

[markseifert]

It just doesn't give the impression of wanting to actually come to the truth about the events when repeating a statement he already said was a typing error.

 

Milking a typing error for all it's worth - gives the impression of wanting to 'win' the discussion - regardless of facts etc.

 

 

Ah jeez, It'd never be my intent to pile on. I simply didn't see his later comment.

 

That said... we're all just having fun here, yeah? Would anybody in this thread not sit down together over pizza and beer and have a good laugh about it? I'd hope we all would.

 

THAT said. History is fluid. I really do think it's important to keep examining how these things all fit together and questioning the conventional wisdom. If fans didn't do that in the 60s & 70s, we might still think Bob Kane was the only person who had anything to do with Batman in the early days.

[AlexanderM]

It just doesn't give the impression of wanting to actually come to the truth about the events when repeating a statement he already said was a typing error.

 

Milking a typing error for all it's worth - gives the impression of wanting to 'win' the discussion - regardless of facts etc.

 

 

Ah jeez, It'd never be my intent to pile on. I simply didn't see his later comment.

 

That said... we're all just having fun here, yeah? Would anybody in this thread not sit down together over pizza and beer and have a good laugh about it? I'd hope we all would.

 

THAT said. History is fluid. I really do think it's important to keep examining how these things all fit together and questioning the conventional wisdom. If fans didn't do that in the 60s & 70s, we might still think Bob Kane was the only person who had anything to do with Batman in the early days.

 

Fair enough. Yeah, for sure - we might get into these issues over pizza and beer too

 

Surely history is fluid, and questioning conventional wisdom is always good. But not being 100% convinced about the conventional wisdom doesn't make it sensible to on the other hand believe less evidenced explanations without the same critical mind.

 

And with only some loose bits of sounds and broken branches... claiming the existence of big foot might not only be a bit hasty, it is not being being critical of established wisdom - in fact, it's not being critical at all (nor scientific for that matter).

[markseifert]

Surely history is fluid, and questioning conventional wisdom is always good. But not being 100% convinced about the conventional wisdom doesn't make it sensible to on the other hand believe less evidenced explanations without the same critical mind.

 

And with only some loose bits of sounds and broken branches... claiming the existence of big foot might not only be a bit hasty, it is not being being critical of established wisdom - in fact, it's not being critical at all (nor scientific for that matter).

 

It's a point, but... I've just seen too many really important things that need "revising" now. I would honestly listen to any theory no matter how unlikely it seems, just to examine if it challenges the way I think about these things (which is 99.9999 percent of what I'm doing in a thread like this anyway). It's not that I'd accept that theory at face value, but I'd let it challenge me to examine what I DO believe, or if there's some tiny hook there that'll lead me to something else.

 

I've mentioned a couple famous revisions of history already, here's another really important one -- The DC v Bruns transcripts which emerged around 2010 or so, vs Eisner's published versions of those events.

 

I mean... if you can't believe Will Freaking Eisner's account of a vastly important historical event... then you can't believe anything. That leaves virtually anything in our history on the table for being wrong. Anything.

 

Anybody thinks they've got a viable theory on any aspect of our history, I'm all ears. Maybe it won't be right, but maybe it'll make me reexamine what I do think.

 

But truly -- always happy to admit I'm wrong, and cheerfully get back to some real work. I'm guessing many here feel the same when it comes down to it.

[AlexanderM]

Surely history is fluid, and questioning conventional wisdom is always good. But not being 100% convinced about the conventional wisdom doesn't make it sensible to on the other hand believe less evidenced explanations without the same critical mind.

 

And with only some loose bits of sounds and broken branches... claiming the existence of big foot might not only be a bit hasty, it is not being being critical of established wisdom - in fact, it's not being critical at all (nor scientific for that matter).

 

It's a point, but... I've just seen too many really important things that need "revising" now. I would honestly listen to any theory no matter how unlikely it seems, just to examine if it challenges the way I think about these things (which is 99.9999 percent of what I'm doing in a thread like this anyway). It's not that I'd accept that theory at face value, but I'd let it challenge me to examine what I DO believe, or if there's some tiny hook there that'll lead me to something else.

 

I've mentioned a couple famous revisions of history already, here's another really important one -- The DC v Bruns transcripts which emerged around 2010 or so, vs Eisner's published versions of those events.

 

I mean... if you can't believe Will Freaking Eisner's account of a vastly important historical event... then you can't believe anything. That leaves virtually anything in our history on the table for being wrong. Anything.

 

Anybody thinks they've got a viable theory on any aspect of our history, I'm all ears. Maybe it won't be right, but maybe it'll make me reexamine what I do think.

 

But truly -- always happy to admit I'm wrong, and cheerfully get back to some real work. I'm guessing many here feel the same when it comes down to it.

 

Yes, I'm all for trying to find truth regardless of what is "accepted". But in all honesty we should also recognize that those revisions are exceptions rather than the rule. So taking the great leap and arguing that things are naturally wrong because they are accepted is much too far to the other extreme.

 

If there were things in the JLA influenced FF that sounded highly unlikely I would be the first to point out the uncertainties. I just really think it is both the most plausible explanation and also the one all the evidence we have points to. Especially if we consider the alternative which relies on a bunch of rather far-fetched assumptions and denials (that Marvel had no idea how their great rivals were faring, that Stan Lee was either lying or had not only memory-loss, but chose to share a story noone prompted... while not remembering it (if someone has memory-loss wouldn't they just not talk about it?) and so on.

[rjpb]

Similarities between the FF and the Challengers are probably due to Kirby, not Lee and Goodman. Beyond the obvious artistic connection, Kirby is likely the one who came up with matching monochromatic uniforms for the team, perhaps as a nod to his Challs design. This uniformity of costumes goes back to The Blackhawks though when it comes to teams with no prior individual adventures, the difference with the FF is that it's the first time a team was created with all new characters ( sort of) who also had superpowers.

 

The anticipation of the JL movies becoming an Avengers level franchise has elevated the importance of JLA #1 in the eyes of collectors, just as five years ago Showcase #22 was considered a bigger key than B&B #28 largely due to movie hype and expectations. Historically, Flash #105 was considered a more important book than any of the DC SA #1s as it predates even the rest of the Showcase/B&B tryouts. The seven month lag between Flash #105 and SC #22 is a strong indication that it wasn't until DC saw that a superhero besides Superman or Batman could succeed as a stand alone title that they were even interested in expanding their SA revival. So if we get into a what begat what discussion, without the success of Flash #105 and the subsequent continuing series, it's possible that Showcase continues for a while longer as a sci-fi oriented title, and B&B as an adventure/fantasy one, and GL and the JLA are delayed or never see the light of day.

 

Given that All-Star lasted longer than the contributing series/titles ( except WW), it's no surprise that once DC decided to jump on the superhero expansion, that they would quickly come up with a modern day equivalent of the JSA. I see the early development of the JLA in DC's SA superhero universe as not so much a vote of confidence in a superhero revival, but as a less risky way of expanding it than continuing to drop newly revised versions of GA heroes into their own series. It's clear from the 1959-1961 roll out that DC had hopes for a revived interest in superheroes, but was still hedging their bets, thus alternating superhero tryouts with characters like Cave Carson, Rip Hunter and Sea Devils. This was not 1938-1940, where the success of Superman led to a wholesale transformation of the medium within two years of his appearance.

 

So back to the question, what's the more important first issue of a new series that's already had a tryout, Flash #105 or JLA #1? Right now, JLA seems to have the edge, and it may even pull away if the JLA movies are monster hits, but there is also no historical preference for the book either, and fandom has been known to move on. Who knows, ten years from now Doom Patrol could be the most popular SA DC creation with the larger public.

[AlexanderM]

Similarities between the FF and the Challengers are probably due to Kirby, not Lee and Goodman. Beyond the obvious artistic connection, Kirby is likely the one who came up with matching monochromatic uniforms for the team, perhaps as a nod to his Challs design. This uniformity of costumes goes back to The Blackhawks though when it comes to teams with no prior individual adventures, the difference with the FF is that it's the first time a team was created with all new characters ( sort of) who also had superpowers.

 

The anticipation of the JL movies becoming an Avengers level franchise has elevated the importance of JLA #1 in the eyes of collectors, just as five years ago Showcase #22 was considered a bigger key than B&B #28 largely due to movie hype and expectations. Historically, Flash #105 was considered a more important book than any of the DC SA #1s as it predates even the rest of the Showcase/B&B tryouts. The seven month lag between Flash #105 and SC #22 is a strong indication that it wasn't until DC saw that a superhero besides Superman or Batman could succeed as a stand alone title that they were even interested in expanding their SA revival. So if we get into a what begat what discussion, without the success of Flash #105 and the subsequent continuing series, it's possible that Showcase continues for a while longer as a sci-fi oriented title, and B&B as an adventure/fantasy one, and GL and the JLA are delayed or never see the light of day.

 

Given that All-Star lasted longer than the contributing series/titles ( except WW), it's no surprise that once DC decided to jump on the superhero expansion, that they would quickly come up with a modern day equivalent of the JSA. I see the early development of the JLA in DC's SA superhero universe as not so much a vote of confidence in a superhero revival, but as a less risky way of expanding it than continuing to drop newly revised versions of GA heroes into their own series. It's clear from the 1959-1961 roll out that DC had hopes for a revived interest in superheroes, but was still hedging their bets, thus alternating superhero tryouts with characters like Cave Carson, Rip Hunter and Sea Devils. This was not 1938-1940, where the success of Superman led to a wholesale transformation of the medium within two years of his appearance.

 

So back to the question, what's the more important first issue of a new series that's already had a tryout, Flash #105 or JLA #1? Right now, JLA seems to have the edge, and it may even pull away if the JLA movies are monster hits, but there is also no historical preference for the book either, and fandom has been known to move on. Who knows, ten years from now Doom Patrol could be the most popular SA DC creation with the larger public.

 

Doom Patrol.... quickly....My Greatest Adventure #80 buy buy buy!!!!

 

 

But seriously... yes I mostly agree.

[bronze johnny]

 

A nice idea, but Superman and Batman weren't involved in the title until issue #6, which according to RMA's timeline and theory, was much too late to have played into any conversation on sales.

 

 

Untrue. You must be misremembering that.

 

Superman and Batman are in #1-5 also. Not cameos, full participants.

 

 

It just doesn't give the impression of wanting to actually come to the truth about the events when repeating a statement he already said was a typing error.

 

Milking a typing error for all it's worth - gives the impression of wanting to 'win' the discussion - regardless of facts etc.

 

I wish we could discuss this issue with the aim to getting to the truth. For example, also the idea that because Stan Lee in ancient he might have misremembered... but then we learn that this sentence was written in 1978 when Stan was on the top of his game and not at all old...

 

Imo. I trust Stan Lee and find it obvious too that the success of JLA inspired FF. Furthermore BB28 is the first appearance of JLA. SC4 is not the first appearance of the Flash - rather it is the comeback of a revamped version of the Flash. And Flash 105 is not the first time flash had his own title - Flash Comics 1 is. Flash 105 is the first time that Flash has his own title after his comeback.

 

All 4 books are important with some factors counting for or against their importance.

 

My guess is that Mark replied to that statement before reading to the end of the thread, and did not see that it had been debunked already. We've all done that at some point.

 

Whether Stan wrote that memory down in 1978 or 2008, it is still his recollection of something that may or may not have happened the way he recalled it. As discussed ad nauseum, there are different versions of the story that have circulated, and all are hearsay. You are free to believe them if you think that that is the smoking gun to this whole discussion.

 

Maybe it is just me, but I just don't see the parallels between the JLA and the FF. I am more persuaded by the similarities between the FF and COTU, and the publishing timeline fits that storyline better as well.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Flash comics was actually a shared book despite the title. Hawkman basically co-headlined, and has many covers. There were other features as well, so the pages dedicated to Flash are much less numerous than you'd think. A minor point, but worth noting.

 

Lastly, as pointed out several times, Jay Garrick and Barry Allen are not the same character. The Flash introduced in SC 4 is not a reintro of a character, but is in fact a new character. The SA is very different from the preceding GA. Moving these new characters into their own books was an important new development. And if JLA's main claim to fame was inspiring the FF then you have an exceptionally myopic view on comic history.

 

And with that, I think we're done here.

 

The same could be said about the Justice League/Justice Society similarities.

 

There's another underlying question here: How much influence did Jack Kirby have on creating the Fantastic Four? Kirby's role in creating the FF is greater where the "Challies primarily influenced the development theory" is accepted. The opposite can be said where the "JLA primarily inspired the development of the FF theory" is applied- we have a "revamped" JSA supergroup influencing the beginnings of the Marvel SA. Then Kirby's role in developing the FF is of lesser significance. And the first original SA concept that Kirby created has a lesser impact on the origin of a new Marvel Age- original conceptual creations have a lesser influence than new "adaptations" of a prior Age?

 

If we accept the belief that Flash 105's role in having been the premiere issue of DC's first revamped superhero series was of lesser significance in influencing the later DC superhero series that followed than the Justice League's influence on the development of the beginning of the Marvel Age, what are we saying about DC's 1956-1960 period of the SA? What are we saying about SC 4? Flash 105 defines the influence of SC 4 since the superhero revival referred to in conventional comic book history doesn't happen until after the faster man alive gets his own series. Yes, the LSH makes an appearance in Adventure 247 but a continuing series begins later.

 

And coinciding with these new adaptations and influences was the continuing success of the original DC Golden Age creations that survived the postwar decline and subsequent "seduction of censorship," remaining the most popular superhero characters through the early 1960s- led by the Superman "family" books. Was the JLA a revamped JSA + Superman-Batman- Wonder Woman book with supporting characters?

 

Interestingly, Kirby's influence on the beginnings of the DC and Marvel Silver Ages is a question that deserves greater consideration- he may have seen the power of the Superman family books and realized that new concepts were the best way to challenge them in the unknown future of comic book sales. Kirby wouldn't succeed in achieving this until he teamed up with Lee to create the greatest new concepts of the SA.