• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

5 Ways Batman's TRUE Creator Got S###### Out Of His Legacy

Started by Comicopolis,

29 posts in this topic

Tony S

Tony S

Posted
Posted

The truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes.

 

Working from memory, I believe in "Batman and Me" - Bob Kane's 1989 book - that Kane did express regret over not having given Bill Finger more credit for his role in the creation of and contributions to Batman. That doesn't exactly make up for his copping all the glory, fame and $$ for Batman. But in the book and his later years Kane spoke of Finger's contributions.

 

I've never read before that Bob Kane "ratted out" Superman's creators. What I've read before - and what makes more sense I think - is that when Siegel & Shuster filed suit over the rights to Superman, DC was keen on striking a deal with Kane to avoid in legal challenges with Batman.

 

As someone else noted, Cracked.com isn't exactly a straight up news site - they stretch the facts on occasion for humor. I like the website though and they do some pretty interesting and even gritty articles as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
Posted
Man, what a terrible, pathetic attempt at "journalism" that "article" is.

 

Those people ought to be ashamed of themselves.

 

Yikes.

 

Kane behaved like a d--k and admitted as much in his later years. But he did create Batman.

 

Finger got less credit than he deserves for helping develop and write a lot of it. But so did others, such as Jerry Robinson, Gardner Fox and others. Kane was like the comic version of the "showrunner," and as such gets more credit than he deserves. But that's how the system works and how it worked in 1940s comics.

 

 

Kane may take an "extreme" view of what he did, but it's not as extreme as the assertions by this guy who has made it his personal life's goal to destroy Kane' reputation and boost Fingers. The guy is so absolutist in his view that when asked if Kane did anything, he can't bear to go on record that Kane contributed anything at all.

 

And he literally says that Finger and Robinson are both telling the truth when they say that Kane didn't create Robin or the Joker, but doesn't fault either Finger or Robinson for saying the other is a liar. So long as two men are slamming Kane, Marc believes,they are both telling the absolute truth. Even if it's impossible that they are telling the truth about themselves, and each other.

 

 

If you ask whether Finger could have or would have sold Batman on his own, that was apparently not his personality. Without Kane he would most likely not have had a career at all. He was working in a shoe store when Kane got him a job at DC and throughout Finger's career he negotiated badly and missed deadlines constantly. Guys like that are common in all forms of entertainment industries,and they routinely do not get the pay or the credit they deserve because business favors those who negotiate well and meet deadlines above those who are more creative but negotiate poorly and can't be relied on. If Finger had been reporting directly to DC's editors, instead of Kane,he would not have last long enough to be remembered at all today.

 

Just as Finger was selling shoes before Kane got him work, Robinson was playing on a tennis court when Kane changed his life with a job offer. Doesn't make Kane a saint; just a man with an eye for talent. But neither of those men would've had the careers they had,otherwise. Kane needed them for Batman, but not as much as they needed him.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony S

Tony S

Posted
Posted
Man, what a terrible, pathetic attempt at "journalism" that "article" is.

 

Those people ought to be ashamed of themselves.

 

Yikes.

 

Kane behaved like a d--k and admitted as much in his later years. But he did create Batman.

 

Finger got less credit than he deserves for helping develop and write a lot of it. But so did others, such as Jerry Robinson, Gardner Fox and others. Kane was like the comic version of the "showrunner," and as such gets more credit than he deserves. But that's how the system works and how it worked in 1940s comics.

 

 

Kane may take an "extreme" view of what he did, but it's not as extreme as the assertions by this guy who has made it his personal life's goal to destroy Kane' reputation and boost Fingers. The guy is so absolutist in his view that when asked if Kane did anything, he can't bear to go on record that Kane contributed anything at all.

 

And he literally says that Finger and Robinson are both telling the truth when they say that Kane didn't create Robin or the Joker, but doesn't fault either Finger or Robinson for saying the other is a liar. So long as two men are slamming Kane, Marc believes,they are both telling the absolute truth. Even if it's impossible that they are telling the truth about themselves, and each other.

 

 

If you ask whether Finger could have or would have sold Batman on his own, that was apparently not his personality. Without Kane he would most likely not have had a career at all. He was working in a shoe store when Kane got him a job at DC and throughout Finger's career he negotiated badly and missed deadlines constantly. Guys like that are common in all forms of entertainment industries,and they routinely do not get the pay or the credit they deserve because business favors those who negotiate well and meet deadlines above those who are more creative but negotiate poorly and can't be relied on. If Finger had been reporting directly to DC's editors, instead of Kane,he would not have last long enough to be remembered at all today.

 

Just as Finger was selling shoes before Kane got him work, Robinson was playing on a tennis court when Kane changed his life with a job offer. Doesn't make Kane a saint; just a man with an eye for talent. But neither of those men would've had the careers they had,otherwise. Kane needed them for Batman, but not as much as they needed him.

 

 

 

Damn! (worship)

Well said sir!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted
But neither of those men would've had the careers they had,otherwise. Kane needed them for Batman, but not as much as they needed him.

 

You could just as easily say Kane might not have had the career he did without those two, as no one knows for sure exactly who created what.

One thing we DO know for sure, is that Kane lied about the amount of contribution to the comic he had:

 

"First of all, let me state that I still draw about ninety percent of all Batman stories." (1965)

 

That's a lie.

 

"I do all the stories for Batman Bimonthly, and share Detective Comics with Infantino, who draws every other one ." (1965)

 

That's a lie.

 

"I do know one thing though, that in the "Golden Age" of Batman, I penciled, inked, and lettered my strip by myself." (1965)

 

That's a lie.

 

Reading something like that puts most of what that guys says in the 'highly suspect' category. I mean, that's not even close to the truth....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing