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

[ttfitz]

 

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.

 

No problem, we all make mistakes.

 

And just to add, I don't have any problem with the plausibility of your theory.

[ttfitz]

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.

 

Sure, I'd agree with that, you can make your own determination of the reliability of the statement, as long as you are working off the knowledge that it was written a dozen years after the event and not decades.

 

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.

 

I'm with you on the parallels, FF seems clearly based more on the Challengers model than the JLA one - The Avengers is clearly what I would say "inspired" by the JLA fits. But given Marvel (Kirby/Lee) history, it doesn't seem at all implausible that Goodman said, "JLA is doing well, give me something like that" and Kirby/Lee twisted it up. It's what they were good at, and did many times.

 

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.

 

I think you may be confusing Flash with the Atom - there was a Atom/Hawkman book, don't recall the dates. I have Flash #109 handy, and it is all Flash (well, except for those one page "Speedsters in Nature" type features that taught physics to many young people). Grand Comics database shows nothing but Flash stories for the issues of Showcase that were Flash, and the same for issues 105-108 of his own title - I read more closely this time.

[markseifert]

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.

 

I realize we're going to disagree on this point, which is all good but I don't think some of the new info and revisions that we've seen can be characterized as the exception. The foundational narratives of both major companies have undergone substantial revisions over the years. In the face of that, I'm willing to listen to many plausible scenarios to decide what I think it means myself.

 

When you don't do that, you get things like DC asserting in court that Joe Shuster didn't draw the cover of Action Comics #1. True? I dunno (yet), but I'm not going to take their word for it.

 

And heck... something as simple and unlikely as a 1939 letter from Bill Everett's mom showing up on ebay, talking about how Bill had been instructed to create a character like Superman for Jacquet. These little history bombs from the past are being dropped into our present more often than you think.

 

Don't get me started on GA DC in general... what we don't know about how that played out 1935-1938 is going to fill several more books.

 

I'm not saying everything we know is wrong, but I do think there's enough suspect info still lurking out there that the history books are going to be substantially rewritten over the next decade (and beyond), now that we all have a lot greater access to information and the ability to share and discuss it as we are here.

 

As for what Stan said in the 70s and what it meant, I'd respond with this: "How I Invented Spider-Man, by Stan Lee"

 

 

[AlexanderM]

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.

 

I realize we're going to disagree on this point, which is all good but I don't think some of the new info and revisions that we've seen can be characterized as the exception. The foundational narratives of both major companies have undergone substantial revisions over the years. In the face of that, I'm willing to listen to many plausible scenarios to decide what I think it means myself.

 

When you don't do that, you get things like DC asserting in court that Joe Shuster didn't draw the cover of Action Comics #1. True? I dunno (yet), but I'm not going to take their word for it.

 

And heck... something as simple and unlikely as a 1939 letter from Bill Everett's mom showing up on ebay, talking about how Bill had been instructed to create a character like Superman for Jacquet. These little history bombs from the past are being dropped into our present more often than you think.

 

Don't get me started on GA DC in general... what we don't know about how that played out 1935-1938 is going to fill several more books.

 

I'm not saying everything we know is wrong, but I do think there's enough suspect info still lurking out there that the history books are going to be substantially rewritten over the next decade (and beyond), now that we all have a lot greater access to information and the ability to share and discuss it as we are here.

 

As for what Stan said in the 70s and what it meant, I'd respond with this: "How I Invented Spider-Man, by Stan Lee"

 

 

Regarding the not drawing the cover to Action Comics 1 and similar issues, I agree. That is worth not taking at face value. Why? Because there is a degree of motive! We can clearly see (without making conspiracy-theory like twists and assumptions) that DC has a clear motive for saying what they may be saying.

 

I fail to see (although some story can always be made up to explain anything) the clear and obvious reason why Stan Lee in 1978 should give DC some of the credit for FF.

 

Back to what inspired FF - I don't doubt really that FF was inspired by the success of JLA. This should be understood as mainly (probably) the idea of bringing back the super-hero teams, and not least the success that was undoubtedly rumored JLA was having at the time. In regards to how Kirby and Lee artistically went about making the team, I also think it is inspired in general by JLA (because Marvel did not want to take the lead from JLA and then not at all try to figure out why the title was successful, and use some of those aspects - that would defy any common sense) but more so by COTU.

[ttfitz]

 

I fail to see (although some story can always be made up to explain anything) the clear and obvious reason why Stan Lee in 1978 should give DC some of the credit for FF.

 

To play devil's advocate here, this story does make the actual creation of the FF all on Martin Goodman and Stan Lee, possibly leaving out Jack Kirby in the creation.

[markseifert]

 

I fail to see (although some story can always be made up to explain anything) the clear and obvious reason why Stan Lee in 1978 should give DC some of the credit for FF.

 

Well, being intentionally over-dramatic I can think of about 4 billion reasons...

 

The operative part of the narrative boils down to this (paraphrasing):

 

"My boss instructed me to do this, due to industry sales conditions."

 

In other words, textbook work-for-hire.

 

Consider, by that time:

Joe Simon had sued Marvel over Captain America.

Carl Burgos attempted legal action over the Human Torch.

Jack Kirby had made a high profile departure and subsequent return.

 

Stan CAN'T say, "well, you know, Jack had done something along these lines at DC, so we rolled with something similar here."

 

Now... I just made that up and don't believe it... much, but it's a pretty valid theory, off the cuff.

 

But think about that. Stan says Challengers instead of JLA, lots and lots of things potentially change as a result of that.

 

 

 

 

[mysterio]

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.

 

I think you may be confusing Flash with the Atom - there was a Atom/Hawkman book, don't recall the dates. I have Flash #109 handy, and it is all Flash (well, except for those one page "Speedsters in Nature" type features that taught physics to many young people). Grand Comics database shows nothing but Flash stories for the issues of Showcase that were Flash, and the same for issues 105-108 of his own title - I read more closely this time.

 

No, I meant Flash Comics, the GA title. Since I forgot to capitalize the C in comics I can see why you made that conclusion. My mistake.

[ttfitz]

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.

 

I think you may be confusing Flash with the Atom - there was a Atom/Hawkman book, don't recall the dates. I have Flash #109 handy, and it is all Flash (well, except for those one page "Speedsters in Nature" type features that taught physics to many young people). Grand Comics database shows nothing but Flash stories for the issues of Showcase that were Flash, and the same for issues 105-108 of his own title - I read more closely this time.

 

No, I meant Flash Comics, the GA title. Since I forgot to capitalize the C in comics I can see why you made that conclusion. My mistake.

 

Ah, sorry. Since we were talking about the SA title, and how important it might be relatively speaking, it seemed likely that you were referring to it.

 

[ttfitz]

So tough.... having the cake and eating it too...

 

Flash is the first time DC revamped a GA super-hero, and that started the silver age...

 

But wait.... "revamping" isn't quite what collectors look for, right? They mostly look for first appearances rather than comebacks or reintroductions/revampings....

 

So let's claim it's an entirely new super hero!!!

 

But wait - then it's not a reintroduction of a GA super-hero and isn't that the real claim to fame for SC4 and F105?

 

Tough one....

 

Imo.. SA Flash is a revamped version of the Flash (so not a first appearance) but it does have the historical significance of being the first SA reintroduction/revamping of a super-hero (SC4) and also in own title (F105) - which obviously make both books very important.

 

I was thinking about this - due to the mixup on which Flash was being talked about in another post - and I wondered how far you took this line of thinking.

 

For example, is Detective #359 "not a first appearance", since Batgirl is just a revamping of Batman as a female? What about Action #252? That one is even closer to the same - same powers, same costume, same origin story (sent to Earth in a rocket by her parents).

[AlexanderM]

So tough.... having the cake and eating it too...

 

Flash is the first time DC revamped a GA super-hero, and that started the silver age...

 

But wait.... "revamping" isn't quite what collectors look for, right? They mostly look for first appearances rather than comebacks or reintroductions/revampings....

 

So let's claim it's an entirely new super hero!!!

 

But wait - then it's not a reintroduction of a GA super-hero and isn't that the real claim to fame for SC4 and F105?

 

Tough one....

 

Imo.. SA Flash is a revamped version of the Flash (so not a first appearance) but it does have the historical significance of being the first SA reintroduction/revamping of a super-hero (SC4) and also in own title (F105) - which obviously make both books very important.

 

I was thinking about this - due to the mixup on which Flash was being talked about in another post - and I wondered how far you took this line of thinking.

 

For example, is Detective #359 "not a first appearance", since Batgirl is just a revamping of Batman as a female? What about Action #252? That one is even closer to the same - same powers, same costume, same origin story (sent to Earth in a rocket by her parents).

 

Is Spider-woman and Spider-man the same super-hero?

 

Of course not. The name is not even the same. If only parts of the name could be the same then Spider-MAN, superMAN, and batMAN is the same - obviously not.

 

Flash and..... Flash.... same basic super power......The SA version is different because the GA version would have been too old by now (not until later did DC come up with the idea of having the GA version on a different earth).

 

It's not rocket science... another idea is to google search for the Flash:

 

The Silver Age - Penn State University

www.psu.edu/dept/inart10_110/.../cmbk6silver.html

Oversæt denne side

This Flash was a revamped version of the Golden Age Flash, he was created ... After a few appearances in Showcase comics, The Flash received his own title.

 

Silver Age of Comic Books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Age_of_Comic_Books

Oversæt denne side

Following the Golden Age of Comic Books and an interregnum in the early to ... of a new version of DC Comics's The Flash in Showcase #4 (Oct. 1956).

 

Baby Boomer Comics: The Wild, Wacky, Wonderful Comic Books ...

https://books.google.dk/books?isbn=1440225133 - Oversæt denne side

Craig Shutt - 2011 - ‎Antiques & Collectibles

Sadly, though, Silver Age comics were mostly produced by people old enough ... Schwartz began his revival of Golden Age characters with a revamped Flash in ....

 

And so on and on and on...

 

No-one is arguing that Supergirl is really Superman, or that Batgirl is really Batman...That just doesn't make sense. Then everyone in the Incredibles would also be the same super-hero? No, of course not.

 

Everyone seems to agree that Flash was pepped up a bit and re-introduced - so it's pretty strange to begin to argue it is suddenly a completely independent super-hero.

 

Another person is now the Super-hero the Flash, but it is still the same Super-hero - the Flash. Somewhat like The Phantom is the Phantom, regardless of actually being 20 some different people and sometimes a woman. The versions of Flash are slightly more different from one to the other than Phantom's (perhaps except for the female versions), but it is still a version of the Flash.

 

 

[AlexanderM]

 

I fail to see (although some story can always be made up to explain anything) the clear and obvious reason why Stan Lee in 1978 should give DC some of the credit for FF.

 

Well, being intentionally over-dramatic I can think of about 4 billion reasons...

 

The operative part of the narrative boils down to this (paraphrasing):

 

"My boss instructed me to do this, due to industry sales conditions."

 

In other words, textbook work-for-hire.

 

Consider, by that time:

Joe Simon had sued Marvel over Captain America.

Carl Burgos attempted legal action over the Human Torch.

Jack Kirby had made a high profile departure and subsequent return.

 

Stan CAN'T say, "well, you know, Jack had done something along these lines at DC, so we rolled with something similar here."

 

Now... I just made that up and don't believe it... much, but it's a pretty valid theory, off the cuff.

 

But think about that. Stan says Challengers instead of JLA, lots and lots of things potentially change as a result of that.

 

 

 

 

There is just one major issue with taking Challengers instead of JLA.... Challengers were not popular... It makes little business sense to imagine Marvel said "wow look at Challengers!! let's jump on that bandwagon!"..... there was no band-wagon!

 

It is far more logical that they looked at the success of JLA .. and then used a lot of the ideas from Challengers to actually carry it out.

 

Not to mention that the statements we have support this.

[Lazyboy]

So the Silver Age Flash - Barry Allen - is the same character as Jay Garrick, but Impulse is a completely new character (he has a different name!) even though he is directly related (in more ways than one) to Barry's Flash?

 

Your "logic" is astounding.

[AlexanderM]

So the Silver Age Flash - Barry Allen - is the same character as Jay Garrick, but Impulse is a completely new character (he has a different name!) even though he is directly related (in more ways than one) to Barry's Flash?

 

Your "logic" is astounding.

 

Go google it... Most people agree the SA Flash is a revamped version of the GA Flash.

 

Or let me ask you something.... is the Phantom the same basic super-hero as another version of The Phantom despite being different people living maybe hundreds of years apart?

[bronze johnny]

 

I fail to see (although some story can always be made up to explain anything) the clear and obvious reason why Stan Lee in 1978 should give DC some of the credit for FF.

 

Well, being intentionally over-dramatic I can think of about 4 billion reasons...

 

The operative part of the narrative boils down to this (paraphrasing):

 

"My boss instructed me to do this, due to industry sales conditions."

 

In other words, textbook work-for-hire.

 

Consider, by that time:

Joe Simon had sued Marvel over Captain America.

Carl Burgos attempted legal action over the Human Torch.

Jack Kirby had made a high profile departure and subsequent return.

 

Stan CAN'T say, "well, you know, Jack had done something along these lines at DC, so we rolled with something similar here."

 

Now... I just made that up and don't believe it... much, but it's a pretty valid theory, off the cuff.

 

But think about that. Stan says Challengers instead of JLA, lots and lots of things potentially change as a result of that.

 

 

 

 

There is just one major issue with taking Challengers instead of JLA.... Challengers were not popular... It makes little business sense to imagine Marvel said "wow look at Challengers!! let's jump on that bandwagon!"..... there was no band-wagon!

 

It is far more logical that they looked at the success of JLA .. and then used a lot of the ideas from Challengers to actually carry it out.

 

Not to mention that the statements we have support this.

 

The Challengers were the second DC SA title after Lois Lane and the first non-Superman related book to get a continuing series. DC didn't do this because the Challengers were unpopular at the time.

[ttfitz]

 

Is Spider-woman and Spider-man the same super-hero?

 

Of course not. The name is not even the same. If only parts of the name could be the same then Spider-MAN, superMAN, and batMAN is the same - obviously not.

 

Hey, I'm not the one arguing that Showcase #4 isn't a first appearance.

 

And picking off the "man" part rather that the rest is a little silly - and it would have been silly to name a female version of Superman as SuperMAN.

 

Flash and..... Flash.... same basic super power......The SA version is different because the GA version would have been too old by now (not until later did DC come up with the idea of having the GA version on a different earth).

 

Given that Superman in 1938 was essentially the same age as Superman in 1956, I doubt that the "age" of Jay Garrick played much of a role in this.

 

It's not rocket science... another idea is to google search for the Flash:

 

The Silver Age - Penn State University

www.psu.edu/dept/inart10_110/.../cmbk6silver.html

Oversæt denne side

This Flash was a revamped version of the Golden Age Flash, he was created ... After a few appearances in Showcase comics, The Flash received his own title.

 

Silver Age of Comic Books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Age_of_Comic_Books

Oversæt denne side

Following the Golden Age of Comic Books and an interregnum in the early to ... of a new version of DC Comics's The Flash in Showcase #4 (Oct. 1956).

 

Baby Boomer Comics: The Wild, Wacky, Wonderful Comic Books ...

https://books.google.dk/books?isbn=1440225133 - Oversæt denne side

Craig Shutt - 2011 - ‎Antiques & Collectibles

Sadly, though, Silver Age comics were mostly produced by people old enough ... Schwartz began his revival of Golden Age characters with a revamped Flash in ....

 

And so on and on and on...

 

Sure, nobody is disputing that the SA Flash was based in part on the GA one, just whether you can logically call the Barry Allen Flash "the same character", and thus Showcase #4 wasn't a first appearance.

 

 

No-one is arguing that Supergirl is really Superman, or that Batgirl is really Batman...That just doesn't make sense. Then everyone in the Incredibles would also be the same super-hero? No, of course not.

 

Of course it doesn't make sense, they are two separate characters, who share the same name (with the necessary modification for gender), with the same powers - in the first instance with the same origin. You know, like Barry Allen and Jay Garrick.

 

You seem rather selective in how you apply your logic on this one.

 

Everyone seems to agree that Flash was pepped up a bit and re-introduced - so it's pretty strange to begin to argue it is suddenly a completely independent super-hero.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that is a "completely independent super-hero", just that they are two different character, with two different "first appearances".

[ttfitz]

Or let me ask you something.... is the Phantom the same basic super-hero as another version of The Phantom despite being different people living maybe hundreds of years apart?

 

I've lost track of the goings on of The Phantom in the last 30 years or so, but were any of those previous Phantom's actually featured, or just part of the back story for the current one?

 

In any case, I'm pretty sure in the comic book world, if the person behind the mask changed, that issue with new person as The Phantom would be seen as a first appearance.

 

Whether anyone would care is a different matter.

[AlexanderM]

Or let me ask you something.... is the Phantom the same basic super-hero as another version of The Phantom despite being different people living maybe hundreds of years apart?

 

I've lost track of the goings on of The Phantom in the last 30 years or so, but were any of those previous Phantom's actually featured, or just part of the back story for the current one?

 

In any case, I'm pretty sure in the comic book world, if the person behind the mask changed, that issue with new person as The Phantom would be seen as a first appearance.

 

Whether anyone would care is a different matter.

 

Many of them have featured, not only back story. So everyone is a new super-hero?

 

Then you should tell that to collectors who thought they had Phantom's first appearance (which I would love to have btw.) because they now need to collect multiple first appearances for the Phantom according to you.

 

You really have a job ahead of you of you want to convince everyone that the Phantom has multiple first appearances... in other words that are many different super-heroes.

 

Most, if not everyone else but you agree that - they are different people obviously... and first appearances a person X, Y, Z as the Phantom.. but the first appearance of the super-hero the Phantom happened once.

[AlexanderM]

 

Is Spider-woman and Spider-man the same super-hero?

 

Of course not. The name is not even the same. If only parts of the name could be the same then Spider-MAN, superMAN, and batMAN is the same - obviously not.

 

Hey, I'm not the one arguing that Showcase #4 isn't a first appearance.

 

And picking off the "man" part rather that the rest is a little silly - and it would have been silly to name a female version of Superman as SuperMAN.

 

Flash and..... Flash.... same basic super power......The SA version is different because the GA version would have been too old by now (not until later did DC come up with the idea of having the GA version on a different earth).

 

Given that Superman in 1938 was essentially the same age as Superman in 1956, I doubt that the "age" of Jay Garrick played much of a role in this.

 

It's not rocket science... another idea is to google search for the Flash:

 

The Silver Age - Penn State University

www.psu.edu/dept/inart10_110/.../cmbk6silver.html

Oversæt denne side

This Flash was a revamped version of the Golden Age Flash, he was created ... After a few appearances in Showcase comics, The Flash received his own title.

 

Silver Age of Comic Books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Age_of_Comic_Books

Oversæt denne side

Following the Golden Age of Comic Books and an interregnum in the early to ... of a new version of DC Comics's The Flash in Showcase #4 (Oct. 1956).

 

Baby Boomer Comics: The Wild, Wacky, Wonderful Comic Books ...

https://books.google.dk/books?isbn=1440225133 - Oversæt denne side

Craig Shutt - 2011 - ‎Antiques & Collectibles

Sadly, though, Silver Age comics were mostly produced by people old enough ... Schwartz began his revival of Golden Age characters with a revamped Flash in ....

 

And so on and on and on...

 

Sure, nobody is disputing that the SA Flash was based in part on the GA one, just whether you can logically call the Barry Allen Flash "the same character", and thus Showcase #4 wasn't a first appearance.

 

 

No-one is arguing that Supergirl is really Superman, or that Batgirl is really Batman...That just doesn't make sense. Then everyone in the Incredibles would also be the same super-hero? No, of course not.

 

Of course it doesn't make sense, they are two separate characters, who share the same name (with the necessary modification for gender), with the same powers - in the first instance with the same origin. You know, like Barry Allen and Jay Garrick.

 

You seem rather selective in how you apply your logic on this one.

 

Everyone seems to agree that Flash was pepped up a bit and re-introduced - so it's pretty strange to begin to argue it is suddenly a completely independent super-hero.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that is a "completely independent super-hero", just that they are two different character, with two different "first appearances".

 

They are different people being the super-hero The Flash. That is of course true. So each is the first appearance of each of these people. But the first appearance of the super-hero is Flash Comics 1.

 

Just like there are multiple people being the Phantom at different times with different mentalities and some use slightly different weaponry etc, but everyone agrees that while issue X and Y may be the first appearance of the person being the Phanton, the first appearance of the Phantom happened once. The others are versions of the Phantom. Just like the SC4 Flash is the SA version of the Flash.

 

I hardly understand that this is debatable.... would someone who has SC4 be able to say "this is the first appearance of the Flash!"? No, they would have to qualify it. Something like "it is the first appearance of this person being Flash"...

 

Would someone who has a Flash Comics 1 be able to say "this is the first appearance of the Flash!"?

 

Yes, they would - because it is.

 

Sure - others have later taken the baton and been the Flash, but this was the first appearance of the super-hero they have been.

[mysterio]

 

Is Spider-woman and Spider-man the same super-hero?

 

Of course not. The name is not even the same. If only parts of the name could be the same then Spider-MAN, superMAN, and batMAN is the same - obviously not.

 

Hey, I'm not the one arguing that Showcase #4 isn't a first appearance.

 

And picking off the "man" part rather that the rest is a little silly - and it would have been silly to name a female version of Superman as SuperMAN.

 

Flash and..... Flash.... same basic super power......The SA version is different because the GA version would have been too old by now (not until later did DC come up with the idea of having the GA version on a different earth).

 

Given that Superman in 1938 was essentially the same age as Superman in 1956, I doubt that the "age" of Jay Garrick played much of a role in this.

 

It's not rocket science... another idea is to google search for the Flash:

 

The Silver Age - Penn State University

www.psu.edu/dept/inart10_110/.../cmbk6silver.html

Oversæt denne side

This Flash was a revamped version of the Golden Age Flash, he was created ... After a few appearances in Showcase comics, The Flash received his own title.

 

Silver Age of Comic Books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Age_of_Comic_Books

Oversæt denne side

Following the Golden Age of Comic Books and an interregnum in the early to ... of a new version of DC Comics's The Flash in Showcase #4 (Oct. 1956).

 

Baby Boomer Comics: The Wild, Wacky, Wonderful Comic Books ...

https://books.google.dk/books?isbn=1440225133 - Oversæt denne side

Craig Shutt - 2011 - ‎Antiques & Collectibles

Sadly, though, Silver Age comics were mostly produced by people old enough ... Schwartz began his revival of Golden Age characters with a revamped Flash in ....

 

And so on and on and on...

 

Sure, nobody is disputing that the SA Flash was based in part on the GA one, just whether you can logically call the Barry Allen Flash "the same character", and thus Showcase #4 wasn't a first appearance.

 

 

No-one is arguing that Supergirl is really Superman, or that Batgirl is really Batman...That just doesn't make sense. Then everyone in the Incredibles would also be the same super-hero? No, of course not.

 

Of course it doesn't make sense, they are two separate characters, who share the same name (with the necessary modification for gender), with the same powers - in the first instance with the same origin. You know, like Barry Allen and Jay Garrick.

 

You seem rather selective in how you apply your logic on this one.

 

Everyone seems to agree that Flash was pepped up a bit and re-introduced - so it's pretty strange to begin to argue it is suddenly a completely independent super-hero.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that is a "completely independent super-hero", just that they are two different character, with two different "first appearances".

 

They are different people being the super-hero The Flash. That is of course true. So each is the first appearance of each of these people. But the first appearance of the super-hero is Flash Comics 1.

 

The origin is different. The characters are different. The costume is different. The rogues are different. But it is the same hero. Makes sense.

[AlexanderM]

 

Is Spider-woman and Spider-man the same super-hero?

 

Of course not. The name is not even the same. If only parts of the name could be the same then Spider-MAN, superMAN, and batMAN is the same - obviously not.

 

Hey, I'm not the one arguing that Showcase #4 isn't a first appearance.

 

And picking off the "man" part rather that the rest is a little silly - and it would have been silly to name a female version of Superman as SuperMAN.

 

Flash and..... Flash.... same basic super power......The SA version is different because the GA version would have been too old by now (not until later did DC come up with the idea of having the GA version on a different earth).

 

Given that Superman in 1938 was essentially the same age as Superman in 1956, I doubt that the "age" of Jay Garrick played much of a role in this.

 

It's not rocket science... another idea is to google search for the Flash:

 

The Silver Age - Penn State University

www.psu.edu/dept/inart10_110/.../cmbk6silver.html

Oversæt denne side

This Flash was a revamped version of the Golden Age Flash, he was created ... After a few appearances in Showcase comics, The Flash received his own title.

 

Silver Age of Comic Books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Age_of_Comic_Books

Oversæt denne side

Following the Golden Age of Comic Books and an interregnum in the early to ... of a new version of DC Comics's The Flash in Showcase #4 (Oct. 1956).

 

Baby Boomer Comics: The Wild, Wacky, Wonderful Comic Books ...

https://books.google.dk/books?isbn=1440225133 - Oversæt denne side

Craig Shutt - 2011 - ‎Antiques & Collectibles

Sadly, though, Silver Age comics were mostly produced by people old enough ... Schwartz began his revival of Golden Age characters with a revamped Flash in ....

 

And so on and on and on...

 

Sure, nobody is disputing that the SA Flash was based in part on the GA one, just whether you can logically call the Barry Allen Flash "the same character", and thus Showcase #4 wasn't a first appearance.

 

 

No-one is arguing that Supergirl is really Superman, or that Batgirl is really Batman...That just doesn't make sense. Then everyone in the Incredibles would also be the same super-hero? No, of course not.

 

Of course it doesn't make sense, they are two separate characters, who share the same name (with the necessary modification for gender), with the same powers - in the first instance with the same origin. You know, like Barry Allen and Jay Garrick.

 

You seem rather selective in how you apply your logic on this one.

 

Everyone seems to agree that Flash was pepped up a bit and re-introduced - so it's pretty strange to begin to argue it is suddenly a completely independent super-hero.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that is a "completely independent super-hero", just that they are two different character, with two different "first appearances".

 

They are different people being the super-hero The Flash. That is of course true. So each is the first appearance of each of these people. But the first appearance of the super-hero is Flash Comics 1.

 

The origin is different. The characters are different. The costume is different. The rogues are different. But it is the same hero. Makes sense.

 

They are versions. Versions are per definition not the same. A GA version and a SA version.

 

Just like Phantoms are versions. Those versions also had updated customes over time, updated weapons, different origin stories because they became the Phantom at different times under different circumstances, they have different villains they are fighting etc. Still, they are versions of the Phantom. Not independents super-heroes. The true first appearance of the basic super-hero the Phantom happened once.