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

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Noone is saying they did not happen. They just do not show what RMA wanted them to show.

 

Did you read the timeline? I'm sensing you didn't, skimmed it, and now are making comments that aren't supported by what I have said. The data shows what it shows, not what I "want" it to show.

 

Read my post again.

 

They do not prove in any way that people in the industry had no idea how JLA was doing.

 

That's true. DC knew how JLA was doing.

 

But the question isn't what DC knew. The question is what did Martin Goodman know.

 

So the conspiracy theory still has zero substance.

 

Yes, the timeline of events, recorded history, is just a "conspiracy theory."

 

[BarryAllen]

 

The timeline looks something like this:

 

June-Aug 1956: Jack Kirby and Dave Wood are commissioned to create Showcase #6, which is the first appearance of Challengers of the Unknown, featuring four characters dressed in the same outfit having "superheroic" adventures. One of the characters is named "Lester 'Rocky' Davis."

Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1956: Showcase #7 appears on the newsstands.

 

July-Aug 1957: Jack Kirby and Dave Wood are commissioned and begin work on Showcase #11.

 

Sept 1957: Showcase #11 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov 1957: Showcase #12 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1957: Jack Kirby creates Challengers of the Unknown #1.

 

Jan 1958: Challengers of the Unknown, the first "superhero/adventurer" "tryout" to win their own title. This occurs almost a full year prior to Flash #105. Yes, Lois Lane appears a month or so before Challengers, but Lois isn't a "superhero/adventurer" title; it's a humor title aimed at girls.

 

This is critical. Sales on Showcase #6 and #7 were so good, it convinced Julius Schwartz and Jack Schiff that the characters could sustain their own title. Remember, starting a new title in the 50's was anything but a sure bet, and, as we know, there were Second Class Postage considerations that influenced these decisions.

 

And...because of the way the distribution system worked, DC wouldn't have gotten a good handle on actual sales for Showcase #6 and #7 until well into 1957, many months after they hit the stands. If one considers that Showcase #6 would be removed from the stands around February, 1957, and #7 around April of 1957, returns would have been finalized around April and June respectively, the fact that they commissioned Kirby to create two more "tryout" issues within 1-3 months after finalized sales from Showcase #6 and #7, and then they gave Kirby the go ahead to begin creating a new title 2-3 months after that, attests to the sell-through of those particular issues.

 

They were obviously quite successful. And the title itself lasted throughout the entire Silver Age, 77 issues, all the way until 1971, before being cancelled.

 

Showcase #4, on the other hand, which appeared 4-5 months before Showcase #6, wasn't enough to convince Schwartz to give Flash his own title again....that would require no less than three MORE tryouts (double what it took Challengers) and even then, they took the opportunity to resurrect the old title numbering, rather than giving Flash a #1.

 

YES, the Challengers DID appear two more times in Showcase, but those were published in Sept and Nov of 1957, while Kirby was given the commission to work on what would become Challengers #1. (Published Jan-Feb 1958.) Those two additional "tryouts" would not be in a position to influence the decision to publish Challengers #1....there simply wasn't enough time.

 

(Lois Lane is even more astonishing. From tryout to her own title in the 8 month interval. The response must have been overwhelming.)

 

Dec 1958: Flash #105 is published.

 

1958-1959: DC continues to roll out new tryout series, some of which work (Flash, Green Lantern), some of which don't (Suicide Squad.)

 

July 1959: Showcase #22, featuring the second "GA name revival", Green Lantern, is published.

 

Nov-Dec 1959: A full three years after Showcase #6, and almost two years after Challengers #1, The "Justice" superhero team idea is resurrected from the ashes of the Justice Society, which had last been seen 8 years earlier (a lifetime in comics terms in those days.)

 

May 1960: DC publishes Green Lantern #1, after the last tryout issue, Showcase #24, is published six months earlier. At this point, with Challengers #1, Lois Lane #1, Flash #105, Rip, and were proving to be successful. The time between "tryout" and "title" is getting shorter and shorter, as DC was willing to take more and more risks. They were firing on all cylinders at this point.

 

August 1960: Justice League of America #1 is published, after a 3 issue tryout in B&B. The interval between tryout and new title was now only 4 months, but I suspect Schwartz wasn't taking that big a risk with JLA and knew it.

 

Oct 1960: JLA #2 is published.

 

Dec 1960: JLA #3 is published

 

Feb 1961: JLA #4 is published.

 

April 1961: JLA #5 is published.

 

April-May: DC gets finalized sales results for JLA #3.

 

June 1961: JLA #6 is published.

 

June-July: DC gets finalized sales results for JL #4.

 

June-July 1961: Stan and Jack create FF #1.

 

(Early) August 1961: FF #1 is published.

 

Now...as the timeline makes clear, DC was having a tremendous amount of success, and what would be called "the Silver Age" was well on its way for DC. But, as mentioned before, because of the way the distribution system worked...long before the internet, long before trade papers, long before anyone really had any idea how to gauge sales fairly quickly...DC wouldn't have had sales results for #1 until around Jan of 1961. They certainly wouldn't have had sales results back for even issue #4 before Stan and Jack begin work on FF #1.

 

So....the question becomes this: if we accept Stan Lee's quote of Martin Goodman's quote at face value....repeated here:

 

Martin mentioned that he had noticed one of the titles published by National Comics seemed to be selling better than most. It was a book called The Justice League of America and it was composed of a team of superheroes. ... 'If the Justice League is selling', spoke he, 'why don't we put out a comic book that features a team of superheroes?'

 

...the question of how could Goodman possibly have known this, when even DC ITSELF didn't? At the time FF #1 was created, DC had sales information for, at best, 3 issues of this new title. And, even if you consider B&B #28-30, that's SIX issues, total, over a span of a year. And DC has never been in the habit of sharing sales results with the public.

 

 

Do you think Goodman polled a reasonable sample of newsstands? Do you think he did any research to find out how well JLA was selling compared to other titles? How did Goodman manage to pick out JLA, out of all the other books DC was publishing at the time, including a TEAM of "superheroes" by the name of "Challengers of the Unknown" which, by the time FF #1 was created, had TWENTY issues published...?

 

 

None of which, by the way, even considers BLACKHAWK.

 

Considering all of this...how, then, is it possible for Martin Goodman to have told Stan: "Hey, Natonal's publishing a title that looks like it's selling better than others, this Justice League. We should create a team of superheroes.'

 

When you lay everything out, you see that, even if Goodman made such a statement, in the context of what was being published at the time, it becomes much less likely, and is, at best, a substantial guess on the part of Goodman.

 

To then say "well, yes, that comment is what led Stan and Jack to create FF #1!"....you see what a shaky foundation the whole concept rests on.

 

It doesn't need to be a question of "well, STAN said it, and who are YOU to question STAN?"...the facts, laid out, don't support such a statement, if it was even made.

 

These things are forgotten, or not considered in the first place, and then people are quoting Stan Lee quoting Martin Goodman (which, of course, is hearsay), on a situation that Goodman couldn't *really* have known, and now JLA becomes the direct reason why FF exists.

 

The prosecution rests.

 

 

Everything with a strike-through is your opinion or interpretation of events between factual known dates.

 

The actual timeline looks like this:

 

Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1956: Showcase #7 appears on the newsstands.

 

Sept 1957: Showcase #11 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov 1957: Showcase #12 appears on the newsstands.

 

Jan 1958: Challengers of the Unknown is published

 

Dec 1958: Flash #105 is published.

 

July 1959: Showcase #22 is published.

 

May 1960: DC publishes Green Lantern #1

 

August 1960: Justice League of America #1 is published

 

Oct 1960: JLA #2 is published.

 

Dec 1960: JLA #3 is published

 

Feb 1961: JLA #4 is published.

 

April 1961: JLA #5 is published.

 

June 1961: JLA #6 is published.

 

August 1961: FF #1 is published.

 

1 year between the comics, everything else is balderdash (elegantly crafted prose if you prefer). There were 9-10 months minimum for Marvel to learn something and act.

 

Whether or you like it or not, there is a direct quote from one of the creators: "Martin mentioned that he had noticed one of the titles published by National Comics seemed to be selling better than most. It was a book called The Justice League of America and it was composed of a team of superheroes. ... 'If the Justice League is selling', spoke he, 'why don't we put out a comic book that features a team of superheroes?'"

 

This is not hard, people are making it hard and creating extremely complex (and LONG) strings of assumptions to make it happen. This reminds me of Theoretical Physicists who work on String Theory and have to create 15 dimensions just to make the math work on their hypotheses. Assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption doesn't make it anything more than a theory.

 

:shrug:

[AlexanderM]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

 

Great post! My one quibble would be that Flash and GL were GA reintroductions only in the loosest sense. Both were new characters with new costumes that had similar powers to the GA heroes, but were not the same. The true GA heroes wouldn't come back until yet another underappreciated historic key, Flash #123. Just one more example of Flash being called upon to blaze the trail.

 

Thanks Mysterio- I agree with you - I'm calling them reintro GA characters but they Flash and GL are new as to costume and alter ego- thankfully!

 

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!!!

 

From the historical lens of 1956, it WAS an entirely new superhero. Far from the collection and continuity obsessiveness of the 21st century, at that time, there was no established fandom, no "collectors" per se. What had happened in the past was very literally the past, and unless you were diligent, you had no idea that there had ever been a "Jay Garrick" (because "Golden Age" was a term that didn't yet exist) Flash.

 

It was a tabula rasa.

 

(Yes, I understand that's not what you're saying, but it does bring up the interesting point.)

 

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.

 

In comparison, JLA1 inspired FF1 and the Marvel age. It is also the first appearance in own title (which F105 is not) of JLA.

 

Unfortunately, "JLA1 inspired FF1" is not a claim you can substantiate.

 

RMA, you seem interested in debating-peacockery rather than what the truth of these events actually were.

 

With the time I am willing to spend on these debates, I don't think I can put these things forth much clearer than I and others have already done, so I will just assume you will stick to your story no matter what.

 

As for your last statement, my answer is: "true, unless one prefers Stan Lee's words over yours in this matter".

 

 

I've never all capped before, but this seems to be an appropriate time to pop that cherry. DID YOU READ HIS TIMELINE?

 

 

Yes, so what? It is exactly that... HIS timeline. The point of it (the only point I can see RMA is trying to make) is that no-one in the industry could have known whether or not JLA was looking like a success or not because there were 3 issues out (or 6).

 

Of course people in the industry could have had a very very good idea. Publishers get notified whether each issue sells out .. and "several newsstands are reporting they could have sold twice as many" or whatever could have been said all would inform people in the industry... well, at the center of the industry. RMA is severely underestimating the industry and how things worked if he really things they had no idea how things were going after 3 (6) issues.

 

So that time line is a none issue as far as I am concerned.

 

The big (and only) evidence we have is that Stan Lee said he had a discussion with Martin in which they discussed that it looked like JLA's were flying off the newsstands like hot cakes... and maybe they should consider a team. I see no reason to discredit Stan Lee in this matter... nor do I find it very reasonable to trust the self-made conspiracy theory of another collector over the statements of one of the key people actually involved in these decisions.

 

Unless you're going to claim that he fabricated any or all of the known historical events on that timeline, you might do better to weigh that single offhand remark by Stan Lee against the order of events as we know they occurred. Historical, factual evidence of the relevant events as they actually transpired, or a remark Stan Lee remembers from 50+ years ago, which do you find more credible?

 

I'm guessing you'll still pick the single, offhand remark from a 50+ year old conversation.

 

Noone is saying they did not happen. They just do not show what RMA wanted them to show.

 

Read my post again.

 

They do not prove in any way that people in the industry had no idea how JLA was doing.

 

So the conspiracy theory still has zero substance.

 

Nor do your statements prove in any way that the publishers in the late 1950s and early 1960s had anywhere near the level of feedback you're claiming from newsstands or other outlets for their books. If this information was so good, certainly in this day and age, with nearly instantaneous access to a stupefying amount of information, you should be able to tell us the sales figures for those books. I'll take the aggregate data, no need to pull down the month by month numbers. As the publishers surely archived and made those data public you should have no trouble accessing them 60+ years later.

 

RMA, you pick any post into small bits and then make wild claims you can handle and refute. For example, "you show ignorance about the distribution system at the time. I strongly doubt any comic issue sold out across the country".

 

As usual I never claimed the things you are so proud to refute. So what is the purpose then?

 

Anyway - I said that they were not completely blind as to the failure or success of JLA after 3 (6) issues. By our standards today there level of complete data was not very high and precise, but for the time they would have had enough of an idea. Hearing from other people in the indistry and news stands that were sold out (and no not all newsstands in the country RMA - try to avoid twisting my words too much) et cetera.

 

So again, maybe by our standards they would have had much less than complete data, but by the standards of the time they for sure would have had a good idea (as would their competitors) after 3 or 6 issues.

 

The status remains: The point of the timeline was to argue that no-one in the industry could have known whether or not JLA was looking like a success or not because there were 3 issues out (or 6).

 

Of course people in the industry could have had a very very good idea. Publishers get notified whether each issue sells out .. and "several newsstands are reporting they could have sold twice as many" or whatever could have been said all would inform people in the industry... well, at the center of the industry. RMA is severely underestimating the industry and how things worked if he really things they had no idea how things were going after 3 (6) issues.

 

So that time line is a none issue as far as I am concerned.

 

The big (and only) evidence we have is that Stan Lee said he had a discussion with Martin in which they discussed that it looked like JLA's were flying off the newsstands like hot cakes... and maybe they should consider a team. I see no reason to discredit Stan Lee in this matter... nor do I find it very reasonable to trust the self-made conspiracy theory of another collector over the statements of one of the key people actually involved in these decisions.

[AlexanderM]

 

Noone is saying they did not happen. They just do not show what RMA wanted them to show.

 

Did you read the timeline? I'm sensing you didn't, skimmed it, and now are making comments that aren't supported by what I have said. The data shows what it shows, not what I "want" it to show.

 

Read my post again.

 

They do not prove in any way that people in the industry had no idea how JLA was doing.

 

That's true. DC knew how JLA was doing.

 

But the question isn't what DC knew. The question is what did Martin Goodman know.

 

So the conspiracy theory still has zero substance.

 

Yes, the timeline of events, recorded history, is just a "conspiracy theory."

 

 

People who see big foot also see actual broken branches and hear sounds. The sounds are real and the branches are broken.

 

Mostly the timeline is correct. It just doesn't show what you want it to show.

[mysterio]

 

Noone is saying they did not happen. They just do not show what RMA wanted them to show.

 

Did you read the timeline? I'm sensing you didn't, skimmed it, and now are making comments that aren't supported by what I have said. The data shows what it shows, not what I "want" it to show.

 

Read my post again.

 

They do not prove in any way that people in the industry had no idea how JLA was doing.

 

That's true. DC knew how JLA was doing.

 

But the question isn't what DC knew. The question is what did Martin Goodman know.

 

So the conspiracy theory still has zero substance.

 

Yes, the timeline of events, recorded history, is just a "conspiracy theory."

 

 

People who see big foot also see actual broken branches and hear sounds. The sounds are real and the branches are broken.

 

Mostly the timeline is correct. It just doesn't show what you want it to show.

 

Comparing your case to Bigfoot sightings is the best post you've made all day.

[AlexanderM]

 

Noone is saying they did not happen. They just do not show what RMA wanted them to show.

 

Did you read the timeline? I'm sensing you didn't, skimmed it, and now are making comments that aren't supported by what I have said. The data shows what it shows, not what I "want" it to show.

 

Read my post again.

 

They do not prove in any way that people in the industry had no idea how JLA was doing.

 

That's true. DC knew how JLA was doing.

 

But the question isn't what DC knew. The question is what did Martin Goodman know.

 

So the conspiracy theory still has zero substance.

 

Yes, the timeline of events, recorded history, is just a "conspiracy theory."

 

 

People who see big foot also see actual broken branches and hear sounds. The sounds are real and the branches are broken.

 

Mostly the timeline is correct. It just doesn't show what you want it to show.

 

Comparing your case to Bigfoot sightings is the best post you've made all day.

 

Try again. And let it just simmer a bit this time.

[mysterio]

 

Noone is saying they did not happen. They just do not show what RMA wanted them to show.

 

Did you read the timeline? I'm sensing you didn't, skimmed it, and now are making comments that aren't supported by what I have said. The data shows what it shows, not what I "want" it to show.

 

Read my post again.

 

They do not prove in any way that people in the industry had no idea how JLA was doing.

 

That's true. DC knew how JLA was doing.

 

But the question isn't what DC knew. The question is what did Martin Goodman know.

 

So the conspiracy theory still has zero substance.

 

Yes, the timeline of events, recorded history, is just a "conspiracy theory."

 

 

People who see big foot also see actual broken branches and hear sounds. The sounds are real and the branches are broken.

 

Mostly the timeline is correct. It just doesn't show what you want it to show.

 

Comparing your case to Bigfoot sightings is the best post you've made all day.

 

Try again. And let it just simmer a bit this time.

 

Nope, it is just as funny after it simmers.

[AlexanderM]

 

Noone is saying they did not happen. They just do not show what RMA wanted them to show.

 

Did you read the timeline? I'm sensing you didn't, skimmed it, and now are making comments that aren't supported by what I have said. The data shows what it shows, not what I "want" it to show.

 

Read my post again.

 

They do not prove in any way that people in the industry had no idea how JLA was doing.

 

That's true. DC knew how JLA was doing.

 

But the question isn't what DC knew. The question is what did Martin Goodman know.

 

So the conspiracy theory still has zero substance.

 

Yes, the timeline of events, recorded history, is just a "conspiracy theory."

 

 

People who see big foot also see actual broken branches and hear sounds. The sounds are real and the branches are broken.

 

Mostly the timeline is correct. It just doesn't show what you want it to show.

 

Comparing your case to Bigfoot sightings is the best post you've made all day.

 

Try again. And let it just simmer a bit this time.

 

Nope, it is just as funny after it simmers.

 

Then its more fundamental. Sorry.

[AlexanderM]

Off to bed - it's late here.

[bb8]

This thread has legs! I like it!

[Lazyboy]

 

Noone is saying they did not happen. They just do not show what RMA wanted them to show.

 

Did you read the timeline? I'm sensing you didn't, skimmed it, and now are making comments that aren't supported by what I have said. The data shows what it shows, not what I "want" it to show.

 

Read my post again.

 

They do not prove in any way that people in the industry had no idea how JLA was doing.

 

That's true. DC knew how JLA was doing.

 

But the question isn't what DC knew. The question is what did Martin Goodman know.

 

So the conspiracy theory still has zero substance.

 

Yes, the timeline of events, recorded history, is just a "conspiracy theory."

 

 

People who see big foot also see actual broken branches and hear sounds. The sounds are real and the branches are broken.

 

Mostly the timeline is correct. It just doesn't show what you want it to show.

 

Comparing your case to Bigfoot sightings is the best post you've made all day.

 

 

Bigfoot sightings aren't nearly as rare as clear, accurate recollections from Stan Lee.

[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", and your direct response doesn't mention it, either. I'm the only one who mentioned it, in my response to you. No "misunderstanding" on my part - I cannot be expected to respond to something you claim was in your head, only what you type out on the keyboard.

 

 

But still, it isn't really a "leap", it's what Stan said happened. Once again:

 

"Martin mentioned that he had noticed one of the titles published by National Comics seemed to be selling better than most. It was a book called The Justice League of America and it was composed of a team of superheroes. ... 'If the Justice League is selling', spoke he, 'why don't we put out a comic book that features a team of superheroes?'"

 

Whether you call that "inspiring" the Fantastic Four or not is a matter of interpretation, but it DOES speak of direct causality, or "the reason FF exists."

 

One more time...that quote, of and by itself, does not mean that Stan Lee then said "ok, we'll get to work right on it" and then they deliver FF #1 however many weeks/months later.

 

Timely/Atlas/Marvel had already published "teams of superheroes" in the past, so it wasn't anything new to them...it just hadn't been done for quite a while.

 

Whether Goodman actually said that or not (and all we have is Stan's statement, and Stan is an old man, who is known for "misremembering" things that have happened in the past), to say that that comment is the direct causality for FF #1 is still a stretch based solely on that single comment.

 

Starting at the end - you might have missed it, but this statement of Stan's is not something recent, it comes from Origins of Marvel Comics, which was published in 1974. So it was likely said barely a dozen years after the events, and Stan was 50 or so at the time - for my sake, I hope this doesn't qualify him as "an old man." Not to say he couldn't possibly be misremembering, but I can't find anyone who thinks that part of the story isn't true.

 

As to whether that quote "of and by itself" does not mean Stan agreed and they went on to create the Fantastic Four, that is true; however, once again, the quote is from Origins of Marvel Comics, and is in regards to the creation of the FF. So I would say, yes, it does mean that.

[ttfitz]

You must understand it, or you are going to continue to be frustrated and annoyed by things that you shouldn't let frustrate and annoy you.

 

This is some good advice. I find myself quite often disagreeing with many things that RMA says, and the way he says them. But I don't get annoyed and frustrated by it - that would give him too much power over me. Truthfully, much of the time it just amuses me.

 

It's not about having "power" over anyone; it's about exercising self-control, and not letting your emotions rule your reason.

 

I have no problem with you disagreeing with what I say. But how someone says what they say isn't anyone else's business, unless they're violating board rules, and then it is the moderation team's business. You might want to ask yourself if the issue is really the way I say what I say, or how you read what I say. That's always an important question to ask.

 

Is there a reason for saying this, however? Seems unnecessarily condescending to tell someone they "just amuse" you.

 

And why do you quote me, and then refer to me in the third person? That's a bit dismissive, is it not? Is there a reason to make contemptuous personal comments about others? Is there a reason to be discussing personality issues in a thread like this...? First rfoiii, and now you...? Why must we continually talk about the people IN the discussion, rather than just the discussion?

 

 

I referred to you in the third person because, despite quoting you, I was not responding to you. I was agreeing with your statement of what someone else should be doing, and was speaking to him.

 

As for my amusement, I point you to the impersonal pronoun used. I didn't say that "you" amused me, I said "it", which would be many of your posts. Those are separate things.

 

You might want to look into how you are reading what has been said, rather than how you feel about what might have been said. That's your standard on things, right?

[RockMyAmadeus]

You must understand it, or you are going to continue to be frustrated and annoyed by things that you shouldn't let frustrate and annoy you.

 

This is some good advice. I find myself quite often disagreeing with many things that RMA says, and the way he says them. But I don't get annoyed and frustrated by it - that would give him too much power over me. Truthfully, much of the time it just amuses me.

 

It's not about having "power" over anyone; it's about exercising self-control, and not letting your emotions rule your reason.

 

I have no problem with you disagreeing with what I say. But how someone says what they say isn't anyone else's business, unless they're violating board rules, and then it is the moderation team's business. You might want to ask yourself if the issue is really the way I say what I say, or how you read what I say. That's always an important question to ask.

 

Is there a reason for saying this, however? Seems unnecessarily condescending to tell someone they "just amuse" you.

 

And why do you quote me, and then refer to me in the third person? That's a bit dismissive, is it not? Is there a reason to make contemptuous personal comments about others? Is there a reason to be discussing personality issues in a thread like this...? First rfoiii, and now you...? Why must we continually talk about the people IN the discussion, rather than just the discussion?

 

 

I referred to you in the third person because, despite quoting you, I was not responding to you. I was agreeing with your statement of what someone else should be doing, and was speaking to him.

 

As for my amusement, I point you to the impersonal pronoun used. I didn't say that "you" amused me, I said "it", which would be many of your posts. Those are separate things.

 

You might want to look into how you are reading what has been said, rather than how you feel about what might have been said. That's your standard on things, right?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there wasn't any contempt in your post whatsoever?

 

 

[Sam I am]

I know after the last few pages of this tennis match, everyone here wants to know if you two see the white dress or the green dress?

[bb8]

I think JLA 1 had something to do with FF 1.

[ttfitz]

The issue, of course, is context.

 

Let's assume the statement by Goodman actually happened. The problem is this: how could he possibly know?

 

The timeline looks something like this:

 

 

June-Aug 1956: Jack Kirby and Dave Wood are commissioned to create Showcase #6, which is the first appearance of Challengers of the Unknown, featuring four characters dressed in the same outfit having "superheroic" adventures. One of the characters is named "Lester 'Rocky' Davis."

 

Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1956: Showcase #7 appears on the newsstands.

 

July-Aug 1957: Jack Kirby and Dave Wood are commissioned and begin work on Showcase #11.

 

Sept 1957: Showcase #11 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov 1957: Showcase #12 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1957: Jack Kirby creates Challengers of the Unknown #1.

 

Jan 1958: Challengers of the Unknown, the first "superhero/adventurer" "tryout" to win their own title. This occurs almost a full year prior to Flash #105. Yes, Lois Lane appears a month or so before Challengers, but Lois isn't a "superhero/adventurer" title; it's a humor title aimed at girls.

 

This is critical. Sales on Showcase #6 and #7 were so good, it convinced Julius Schwartz and Jack Schiff that the characters could sustain their own title. Remember, starting a new title in the 50's was anything but a sure bet, and, as we know, there were Second Class Postage considerations that influenced these decisions.

 

And...because of the way the distribution system worked, DC wouldn't have gotten a good handle on actual sales for Showcase #6 and #7 until well into 1957, many months after they hit the stands. If one considers that Showcase #6 would be removed from the stands around February, 1957, and #7 around April of 1957, returns would have been finalized around April and June respectively, the fact that they commissioned Kirby to create two more "tryout" issues within 1-3 months after finalized sales from Showcase #6 and #7, and then they gave Kirby the go ahead to begin creating a new title 2-3 months after that, attests to the sell-through of those particular issues.

 

They were obviously quite successful. And the title itself lasted throughout the entire Silver Age, 77 issues, all the way until 1971, before being cancelled.

 

Showcase #4, on the other hand, which appeared 4-5 months before Showcase #6, wasn't enough to convince Schwartz to give Flash his own title again....that would require no less than three MORE tryouts (double what it took Challengers) and even then, they took the opportunity to resurrect the old title numbering, rather than giving Flash a #1.

 

YES, the Challengers DID appear two more times in Showcase, but those were published in Sept and Nov of 1957, while Kirby was given the commission to work on what would become Challengers #1. (Published Jan-Feb 1958.) Those two additional "tryouts" would not be in a position to influence the decision to publish Challengers #1....there simply wasn't enough time.

 

(Lois Lane is even more astonishing. From tryout to her own title in the 8 month interval. The response must have been overwhelming.)

 

Dec 1958: Flash #105 is published.

 

1958-1959: DC continues to roll out new tryout series, some of which work (Flash, Green Lantern), some of which don't (Suicide Squad.)

 

July 1959: Showcase #22, featuring the second "GA name revival", Green Lantern, is published.

 

Nov-Dec 1959: A full three years after Showcase #6, and almost two years after Challengers #1, The "Justice" superhero team idea is resurrected from the ashes of the Justice Society, which had last been seen 8 years earlier (a lifetime in comics terms in those days.)

 

May 1960: DC publishes Green Lantern #1, after the last tryout issue, Showcase #24, is published six months earlier. At this point, with Challengers #1, Lois Lane #1, Flash #105, Rip, and were proving to be successful. The time between "tryout" and "title" is getting shorter and shorter, as DC was willing to take more and more risks. They were firing on all cylinders at this point.

 

August 1960: Justice League of America #1 is published, after a 3 issue tryout in B&B. The interval between tryout and new title was now only 4 months, but I suspect Schwartz wasn't taking that big a risk with JLA and knew it.

 

Oct 1960: JLA #2 is published.

 

Dec 1960: JLA #3 is published

 

Feb 1961: JLA #4 is published.

 

April 1961: JLA #5 is published.

 

April-May: DC gets finalized sales results for JLA #3.

 

June 1961: JLA #6 is published.

 

June-July: DC gets finalized sales results for JL #4.

 

June-July 1961: Stan and Jack create FF #1.

 

(Early) August 1961: FF #1 is published.

 

 

 

Now...as the timeline makes clear, DC was having a tremendous amount of success, and what would be called "the Silver Age" was well on its way for DC. But, as mentioned before, because of the way the distribution system worked...long before the internet, long before trade papers, long before anyone really had any idea how to gauge sales fairly quickly...DC wouldn't have had sales results for #1 until around Jan of 1961. They certainly wouldn't have had sales results back for even issue #4 before Stan and Jack begin work on FF #1.

 

So....the question becomes this: if we accept Stan Lee's quote of Martin Goodman's quote at face value....repeated here:

 

Martin mentioned that he had noticed one of the titles published by National Comics seemed to be selling better than most. It was a book called The Justice League of America and it was composed of a team of superheroes. ... 'If the Justice League is selling', spoke he, 'why don't we put out a comic book that features a team of superheroes?'

 

...the question of how could Goodman possibly have known this, when even DC ITSELF didn't? At the time FF #1 was created, DC had sales information for, at best, 3 issues of this new title. And, even if you consider B&B #28-30, that's SIX issues, total, over a span of a year. And DC has never been in the habit of sharing sales results with the public.

 

 

Do you think Goodman polled a reasonable sample of newsstands? Do you think he did any research to find out how well JLA was selling compared to other titles? How did Goodman manage to pick out JLA, out of all the other books DC was publishing at the time, including a TEAM of "superheroes" by the name of "Challengers of the Unknown" which, by the time FF #1 was created, had TWENTY issues published...?

 

From the Wikipedia article on The Fantastic Four:

 

Michael Uslan, in a letter published in Alter Ego #43 (December 2004), pp. 43–44, writes: "Irwin Donenfeld said he never played golf with Goodman, so the story is untrue. I heard this story more than a couple of times while sitting in the lunchroom at DC's 909 Third Avenue and 75 Rockefeller Plaza office as Sol Harrison and [production chief] Jack Adler were schmoozing with some of us... who worked for DC during our college summers.... [T]he way I heard the story from Sol was that Goodman was playing with one of the heads of Independent News, not DC Comics (though DC owned Independent News). ... As the distributor of DC Comics, this man certainly knew all the sales figures and was in the best position to tell this tidbit to Goodman. ... Of course, Goodman would want to be playing golf with this fellow and be in his good graces. ... Sol worked closely with Independent News' top management over the decades and would have gotten this story straight from the horse's mouth."

[Spiderphill]

So jla(all existing super heros) impacted ff1(all new except torch)?? Or it's the whole team concept??

[Spiderphill]

Maybe it was all star 3 that made ff1 blossom.

[ttfitz]

Unless you're going to claim that he fabricated any or all of the known historical events on that timeline, you might do better to weigh that single offhand remark by Stan Lee against the order of events as we know they occurred. Historical, factual evidence of the relevant events as they actually transpired, or a remark Stan Lee remembers from 50+ years ago, which do you find more credible?

 

I'm guessing you'll still pick the single, offhand remark from a 50+ year old conversation that doesn't fit any of the other actual evidence that bears on the question.

 

I responded directly to RMA on this, but thought it bears repeating - the quote in question was neither an "single, offhand remark" nor was it made 50+ years after the fact, the quote comes from Stan's version of events from Origins of Marvel Comics, which was published in 1974.

 

Not to say they are true or that Stan didn't misremember, but we at least need to be dealing with the facts of the circumstances of what was said.