Top 5 M-SHE-U Failures 4 4

[PopKulture]

On 3/22/2023 at 10:19 PM, sfcityduck said:

GCD views the Charlton issue as a continuation of the Charlton run as I guess Charlton picked up parts of Fawcett.  The attribution get mentioned on these boards every time one comes up for sale.  I can't say it is true.  GCD is silent. Sellers are making out well.

There's enough Baker in the men's faces as well as the clothing that gives some credence. 

On a side note, I wouldn't feel comfortable displaying that book anymore, and I would certainly not value it anywhere near $7000, were I to swim in those waters.  I noted in a thread in Comics General recently that I dabble in antique sheet music and that one of the hotter areas of collecting years ago was black Americana. I don't think those pieces aged or present well today, and certainly require a context and nuance I'm not willing to provide every time somebody sees them. In other words, if I'm not comfortable showing it to my wife's co-workers or my kid's college buddies, then why would I want to own it? Just to keep it hidden away?  Those pieces in a vacuum don't reflect favorably on their owners sans explanation, as people too often ascribe motives to collecting, if even subconsciously, and it might not be enough across the board to simply wave your hand and say it's part of history.  

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 8:10 PM, PopKulture said:

Lamentably, I believe in today's hyper-charged social environment, there is a recent taint associated with nostalgia, a sort of inexorable contagion if you will, wherein people ascribe or somehow affix the worst aspects of an era instead of the better aspects. For example, if you grew up in the 50's, it's no longer okay with some people to wax nostalgic. It's regrettable that you almost feel compelled to offer caveats - yes, I miss the cars, the music, the malt shop... but, I simultaneously and zealously condemn all the persistent racial animus, the McCarthyism of the era, the entrenched misogyny...

You shouldn't have to over-qualify everything. 

Take my words literally:  Why should anyone feel nostalgia for a white segregated society portrayed in a comic (or movie)?  Does it really ruin the experience for Gwen to be black?  Not for me.  Not sure why Gwen needs to be white just because she was portrayed as white in a time when interracial relationships were literally illegal in portions of our country.  That is exactly why she was white. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby fought against this attitude and so did Star Trek when it had the first interracial kiss on major tv.  As a comic and Star Trek fan, those are the moments I'm nostalgic about because they make me proud of these industries:

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 8:32 PM, PopKulture said:

 

On a side note, I wouldn't feel comfortable displaying that book anymore, and I would certainly not value it anywhere near $7000, were I to swim in those waters.  I noted in a thread in Comics General recently that I dabble in antique sheet music and that one of the hotter areas of collecting years ago was black Americana. I don't think those pieces aged or present well today, and certainly require a context and nuance I'm not willing to provide every time somebody sees them. In other words, if I'm not comfortable showing it to my wife's co-workers or my kid's college buddies, then why would I want to own it? Just to keep it hidden away?  Those pieces in a vacuum don't reflect favorably on their owners sans explanation, as people too often ascribe motives to collecting, if even subconsciously, and it might not be enough across the board to simply wave your hand and say it's part of history.  

I agree and disagree. Little Nemo in Slumberland's jungle imps are pretty embarrassing even though the art is spectacular. Even Flip is a bit problematic because he looks like a racist caricature when he's not. When I consider a Winsor McCay piece I always first look to see if it has racist content.  Political content doesn't bother me (he was pro prohibition and I'm certainly not but I'd love his anti-drinking art), but racist content is different.  It makes people feel uncomfortable..

Negro Romances arguably reflects an emerging black culture that inspires pride. No stigma there.  Likewise with the black sports hero comic covers. No shame in my mind in displaying those comics.

Comics reflect the best and worst of society.  They are history and owning them for that reason is no shame. But you are right that I would not want racist content on my wall that needed an explanation to make it seem ok. Why make my guests feel uncomfortable?

 

 

[Hulksdaddy1]

On 3/22/2023 at 11:17 PM, sfcityduck said:

Many things wrong here.

First, the comic industry was not segregated.  Being based in the North, in worldly NYC, it had prominent black (Matt Baker), asian (Bob Fuji), female (Lily Renee), Jewish (Siegel), etc. artists and writers.

Second, most comic heroes were of an unidentified religion. Was Superman Jewish?  He had Jewish influences. But who knew?  He was from Krypton!  I don't think religion was a thing for many comic characters. Hawkman being an exception.

Third, but vast portions of the U.S. were segregated.  If you don't know what that means I'd suggest you look it up.  Racism was prevalent in comics with many racist caricatures - an easy thing to fall into in a profession where caricature is a big part of the art form.  Blacks were generally characters in all Black comics or minor or supporting characters.  There are some pretty good books on this topic if you're interested.  

That was the time.  But we don't need to feel strait jacketed by that now.  Plenty of room to be creative and have a black Gwen and Spiderman in an interracial relationship in today's world.

It just occurred to me that you're talking more GA, whereas I'm talking SA and up, since that's what the movies are based on. Two very different times in comics. 

A predominantly Christian nation is going to assume their heroes are Christian, identified or not. May not have been a big deal, but if asked, I'd put money on the vast majority back then saying they were.

The black caricatures of the GA were all but gone by time we got to the mid-60s in comics. Segregation is not the right term.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 8:45 PM, Hulksdaddy1 said:

It just occurred to me that you're talking more GA, ....

 

The black caricatures of the GA were all but gone by time we got to the mid-60s in comics. Segregation is not the right term.

 

To be clear, I'm talking about GA through to about the mid-1960s.  Brown v. Bd. of Education which declared segregation as unconstitutional came down in the mid-1950s, but the battles to de-segregate the nation were front and center into the mid-1960s.  Around 1965 or so, a lot of victories had been won by the Civil Rights Movement, important Acts were implemented in the 1964 and 1965, and Governors were no longer standing at the school house doors trying to bar black kids from going to school.  But, all major Marvel characters were created when segregation was very much a thing that could impact comic sales.  Stan was courageous to start taking it on in the mid-1960s. 

[PopKulture]

On 3/22/2023 at 10:40 PM, sfcityduck said:

Negro Romances arguably reflects an emerging black culture that inspires pride. No stigma there.  Likewise with the black sports hero comic covers. No shame in my mind in displaying those comics.

Comics reflect the best and worst of society.  They are history and owning them for that reason is no shame. But you are right that I would not want racist content on my wall that needed an explanation to make it seem ok. Why make my guests feel uncomfortable?

I think you're more correct than not regarding Negro Romances as closer to the empowering end of the spectrum rather than the exploitive end of the spectrum, but the mere fact that it requires that I perform these social gymnastics is concerning enough - to me, at least. Add to that the notion that I can just as easily conjure a snarky counter-argument that, as an old white male, who am I to decide?

These discussions by their very nature are fraught with similar peril! 

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 8:45 PM, Hulksdaddy1 said:

 

A predominantly Christian nation is going to assume their heroes are Christian, identified or not. May not have been a big deal, but if asked, I'd put money on the vast majority back then saying they were.

 

 

I didn't give any thought to what the religion was of any superhero as I was growing up.  Why would you?  Aside from Spire Christian Comics none of the publishers had a religious agenda. The only characters who I can think of built on a religious orientation were pagans of some sort.  

[Hulksdaddy1]

On 3/22/2023 at 11:51 PM, sfcityduck said:

To be clear, I'm talking about GA through to about the mid-1960s.  Brown v. Bd. of Education which declared segregation as unconstitutional came down in the mid-1950s, but the battles to de-segregate the nation were front and center into the mid-1960s.  Around 1965 or so, a lot of victories had been won by the Civil Rights Movement, important Acts were implemented in the 1964 and 1965, and Governors were no longer standing at the school house doors trying to bar black kids from going to school.  But, all major Marvel characters were created when segregation was very much a thing that could impact comic sales.  Stan was courageous to start taking it on in the mid-1960s. 

That's where we were having miscommunication. Marvel started, and then really got going at the end of that period, became much more diverse and inclusive. By time I started reading in the early 70s, diversity was more the norm.

[Hulksdaddy1]

On 3/22/2023 at 11:54 PM, sfcityduck said:

I didn't give any thought to what the religion was of any superhero as I was growing up.  Why would you?  Aside from Spire Christian Comics none of the publishers had a religious agenda. The only characters who I can think of built on a religious orientation were pagans of some sort.  

I'd put it the category that if you see Captain America has short hair, you assume he gets haircuts. You don't need to see them, or even mention them, but you'd assume it. You wouldn't even think about it, but if asked about his hair, you'd say "Yeah, I'll bet he gets haircuts."

If you got back to 1970, and ask the readers what religion Cap, Spidey, Reed, etc are, you'd probably get the answer of sort of Christian denomination.

[PopKulture]

On 3/22/2023 at 10:51 PM, sfcityduck said:

Stan was courageous to start taking it on in the mid-1960s. 

Not to get too far off track, but don't you think Jack was more the iconoclast than Lee? The greater part of what Stan did with his editorial platform was to maintain the status quo, and on a month-to-month basis, perpetuate Millie the Model and My Girl Pearl as stereotypical dumb blondes. He didn't seem to care much about civil rights until he met the college crowd and started playing to their priorities like the deft showman he was. The stories took on a more progressive feel when the bullpen grew larger - and younger (think Roy Thomas). If it cast Stan in a favorable light years later to claim it was chiefly him leading the charge - well, he was a bit of a revisionist when it came to his own self-promotion. 

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 8:56 PM, Hulksdaddy1 said:

That's where we were having miscommunication. Marvel started, and then really got going at the end of that period, became much more diverse and inclusive. By time I started reading in the early 70s, diversity was more the norm.

Fair enough.  By the mid-70s Marvel had interracial relationships.  

I view the core Avengers movies are about a GA hero and a bunch of SA heroes.

[Hulksdaddy1]

On 3/23/2023 at 12:03 AM, PopKulture said:

Not to get too far off track, but don't you think Jack was more the iconoclast than Lee? The greater part of what Stan did with his editorial platform was to maintain the status quo, and on a month-to-month basis, perpetuate Millie the Model and My Girl Pearl as stereotypical dumb blondes. He didn't seem to care much about civil rights until he met the college crowd and started playing to their priorities like the deft showman he was. The stories took on a more progressive feel when the bullpen grew larger - and younger (think Roy Thomas). If it cast Stan in a favorable light years later to claim it was chiefly him leading the charge - well, he was a bit of a revisionist when it came to his own self-promotion. 

I agree

[Hulksdaddy1]

On 3/23/2023 at 12:03 AM, sfcityduck said:

Fair enough.  By the mid-70s Marvel had interracial relationships.  

I view the core Avengers movies are about a GA hero and a bunch of SA heroes.

How dare you! Cap really started at #100. 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Hulksdaddy1

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:03 PM, PopKulture said:

Not to get too far off track, but don't you think Jack was more the iconoclast than Lee? The greater part of what Stan did with his editorial platform was to maintain the status quo, and on a month-to-month basis, perpetuate Millie the Model and My Girl Pearl as stereotypical dumb blondes. He didn't seem to care much about civil rights until he met the college crowd and started playing to their priorities like the deft showman he was. The stories took on a more progressive feel when the bullpen grew larger - and younger (think Roy Thomas). If it cast Stan in a favorable light years later to claim it was chiefly him leading the charge - well, he was a bit of a revisionist when it came to his own self-promotion. 

Stan showed some editorial courage at a key time in the history of the comics industry, writing and running an editorial many publishers were afraid to emulate:

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:03 PM, Hulksdaddy1 said:

 

If you got back to 1970, and ask the readers what religion Cap, Spidey, Reed, etc are, you'd probably get the answer of sort of Christian denomination.

My guess is it probably depends on where you lived.  Having lived my life on the West Coast, my view is that you'd probably more likely get people wondering why you wanted to know the religion of a funny book character. I've seen comic fans debate many things, but never the religious views of Spiderman. 

I will say this to support you:  Comic publishers love the way folks shell out for Christmas comics.  So I'm pretty sure most Marvel, DC, and Fawcett comic characters (and probably many others as well) can be found to have had a Christmas cover or story at one time or another, including those controlled and owned by Jewish creators.  But, that's not a matter of theology, that's a matter of money.  And I suspect a fair number of folks in certain denominations hate Santa Clause as a non-Christian and Christian subverting gateway drug towards atheism. They think its a small step from learning Santa is a myth to concluding God is a myth as well.  They may well be right.  Comics may also serve the same function.

You definitely are taking us in a new direction.  Not a topic I've given any thought to.

 

[Dr. Love]

Re: Negro Romance(s)

There was nothing about the stories in 1-3 that reflected black culture per se.  The characters could just as easily been white.  Exploitive, perhaps, but only in terms of appropriating ethnicity for perceived market share.  

Negro Romances #4 is a reprint of Negro Romance #2 except for the cover.  The Baker attribution on the cover art is tenuous, it's much more likely Giordano.  However, the cover art is rumored to depict Baker; his good looks, jaunty style, and particularly the yellow convertible, which it is said he had owned.

Interestingly enough, the interior art on that issue, two stories in particular, while not drawn by Baker, are attributed by some to an artist sometimes called the "other Baker" - Alvin Hollingsworth, another African American.

 

 

 

[Larryw7]

On 3/22/2023 at 4:31 PM, sfcityduck said:

More accurately, Marvel has been a voice for diversity for a long, long time.  It is the most "woke" (in the correct meaning of that term) comic company.  Here's a Stan's Soapbox from 1968 after the killing of MLK and Robert Kennedy:

 

I wonder who he got to write this for him?

[Gatsby77]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:01 PM, sfcityduck said:

No.  Your argument is falling very flat.  Therealsilvermane says exactly what needs to be said about that.  There are very very few Marvel characters that are truly defined by their ethnicity.  But Black Panther is one of those few.  He's a product of his times and was very intentionally made a black man. Maybe Black Goliath also is one of those characters?  I don't know.

Most of the Marvel characters are only white because when they were created when segregation was still in full effect.  If they'd been created in the present day, they might be anything because their ethnicity is immaterial to their characters real essence.  It is hard to come up with Marvel characters other than Black Panther who are defined by their ethnicity.  I don't think even Storm is based on the way she was portrayed in X-Men.  Her race was never really an issue. Could she be white and still be Storm the X-Man?  I think so. 

I'm ok with black Nick Fury. Heck, Nick Fury was crusading for civil rights in the 1960s so I'm sure Stan and Jack were or would be too.  Does that really bother you?   

This.

Black Panther needs to be played by a black actor because being black is core to the character's identity.

Nick Fury, however, doesn't need to be played by a white actor because his ethnicity is *not* core to his identity in the comics. If anything, it's even more powerful if he's played by a minority because he spent the 1940s - and the 1960s - fighting Nazis.

Similarly, there are many things wrong with the 2015 FF film - but Michael B. Jordan's casting as Johnny Storm isn't one of them.

The core to Johnny Storm's character is he is a rebellious, impulsive hothead. And Jordan captured that perfectly. That the film went one step further and had Sue Storm be the adopted one was interesting social commentary.

It works the other way too, though. I don't remember mass outrage at the news that Sue Storm was being portrayed by a Hispanic woman in the first two movies.

[TupennyConan]

On 3/23/2023 at 7:11 AM, Gatsby77 said:

This.

Black Panther needs to be played by a black actor because being black is core to the character's identity.

Nick Fury, however, doesn't need to be played by a white actor because his ethnicity is *not* core to his identity in the comics. If anything, it's even more powerful if he's played by a minority because he spent the 1940s - and the 1960s - fighting Nazis.

Similarly, there are many things wrong with the 2015 FF film - but Michael B. Jordan's casting as Johnny Storm isn't one of them.

The core to Johnny Storm's character is he is a rebellious, impulsive hothead. And Jordan captured that perfectly. That the film went one step further and had Sue Storm be the adopted one was interesting social commentary.

It works the other way too, though. I don't remember mass outrage at the news that Sue Storm was being portrayed by a Hispanic woman in the first two movies.

While I didn't see that FF film, your post is logical & agreeable.

The bit I like the most is the bit I highlighted. Instead of all this multiverse handwringing [which is what it is: it is creative anxiety over how to account for mutants & the FF so late in the MCU game. This anxiety must be enormous considering the price Disney paid for FOX], Disney could've bought some creative planning time after End Game & done a WW2 prequel with Cap [recast or otherwise; Evans is still youthful, I think], Namor, & a recast [but still black or even gender swapped. &c., Fury]. Having a black WW2 Fury adds drama to the writing & isn't merely box-checking diversity for diversity's sake.      

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 3/22/2023 at 2:35 PM, sfcityduck said:

The recent shake-up was apparently because the executive was abusive.

And bad at the technical aspects of her job with regards to VFX, budgets, and deadlines.