[darkmark]

The recent uploads of Amazing-Man from Michael Barnes and I got me thinking about the number of heroes in more recent times who can trace their lineage back to the guy in the green mist.  Befuddled?  Have patience, True Believer.

First off, Pete Morisi, in a 1980's COMIC READER column, admitted that he swiped a famed sequence in THUNDERBOLT (T-Bolt chomping a cobra's throat) from the cover of AMAZING-MAN COMICS #1.  That got me to thinking, and, reviewing the character's origin, I discovered one thing:  Charlton's Thunderbolt IS derived from Amazing-Man.  He doesn't have the same powers, as Thunderbolt's abilities are only normal human ones enhanced by "total mind control".  But it's all there, from the Tibetian monastery to the three tasks the hero must perform to graduate to the corrupt monk who becomes his enemy (the Great Question for A-Man, the Hidden One for T-Bolt).  So John Aman and Peter Cannon are comic cousins, no doubt about it.

In the 1970's, a decade later, Roy Thomas more or less created Iron Fist, a costumed super-hero kung fu character who had a similar origin but different powers, and Roy never denied the inspiration of the 1940's Amazing-Man for the character.  Kun-Lun stood in for Tibet.

Then there's the Amazing-Man who Roy Thomas cooked up for ALL-STAR SQUADRON, who only shares the name of his forebear.  But Roy has never denied that it's a left-handed tribute to the Bill Everett character of the Golden Age.

Also, the 1980's Malibu super-group THE PROTECTORS boasted an Amazing-Man based on the original Centaur hero in an MLJ / Impact manner.  But that's not all.  We've saved the best for last.

It's well-known that Alan Moore based the WATCHMEN on the 1960's Charlton super-heroes.  And the one who took the place of Thunderbolt was...

...Ozymandias!

So the guy who came from Tibet to battle the Great Question ends up being the grandfather of the one who is the master manipulator of the Watchmen's world (and gets into a big movie soon, to boot).

I don't even want to think about the karma behind that.  But that's a pretty good pedigree for a little old Centaur hero from 1939, ain't it?

[Yoc]

Nice write up there DM!
Thanks.

Now I seem to recall a rumour that Moore's Watchman plot original was to use the MLJ heroes and he adjusted them to the Charlton crew before making them more generic.  I can't call the particulars and it might just be fan-boy talk.

-Yoc

[darkmark]

I've heard mention of the same, that possibly the Comedian was supposed to be the Shield.  I'm glad Moore never got his hands on that one.  I like the Shield.

[Yoc]

Sure, but still an interesting story even if it isn't true about MLJ.

I'm not holding my breath on the Watchman movie going over big but who knows?
I never expected Iron Man to do half the business that it did.  It still wasn't much better than any X-Men movie but thankfully better than the FF films.

-Yoc

[John C]

Moore avoided mention for a while, but yes, before investigating the copyrights, his original plan was that the Watchmen were the Archie heroes, specifically (mostly) the Silver Agers.  I believe that he implied that the corpse (the Comedian) would've been the Lancelot Strong (Simon and Kirby) Shield, whereas the lead (Rorschach) would've been a jaded and neurotic (original) Shield, or possibly vice-versa.  One assumes that Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre were Fly-Man and Fly-Girl in this iteration, Dr. Manhattan would be Mr. Justice, and Ozymandias would be the Black Hood or the Jaguar, depending on the precise era he was likely recalling.

Then DC bought the Charlton rights (whatever they were, since we know that very few of the books were copyrighted correctly) as a "gift" for Dick Giordano, and editorial steered Moore in that direction, then away when they realized that maybe they should use their investments for something.

Not that I care too much.  Moore never really captured my imagination.  "Watchmen" was an amusing read at the time, but it didn't exactly change my world view, like it apparently did for some readers (like, y'know, every single writer in the industry today).

One more catch under the Amazing-Man banner, though (depending on how you count such things), should possibly be Namor.  Everett obviously took what was most popular about John Aman, the conflicted hero torn in two moral directions, and created one of Marvel's most enduring characters.

And also noteworthy is that, despite the obvious connection in origins to Amazing-Man, Morisi wanted Thunderbolt to be the new Daredevil, but Biro wouldn't part with the rights.  Hence the asymmetric red and blue costume Cannon wears.

[narfstar]

verrry interesting

[bchat]

One more catch under the Amazing-Man banner, though (depending on how you count such things), should possibly be Namor.  Everett obviously took what was most popular about John Aman, the conflicted hero torn in two moral directions, and created one of Marvel's most enduring characters.

Namor first appeared in Motion Picture Funnies Weekly in "April 1939", Amazing Man 1st appeared in "September 1939", so it seems to me that Namor came first.

[John C]

Namor first appeared in Motion Picture Funnies Weekly in "April 1939", Amazing Man 1st appeared in "September 1939", so it seems to me that Namor came first.

Oops.  OK, let's pretend that I didn't bring that up.

Actually, I still stand behind the hypothesis, since Namor wasn't conflicted at all, in that first appearance, but it's a lot harder to figure out Everett's intentions if Amazing Man didn't appear first.

[JVJ]

I think you're giving too much prescience to any of the creators in 1939 and 1940, jc. Why would anyone base his new character on what were probably wildly diverse (and perhaps transient) traits of another character? I would suspect that it was a case of two people searching for a unique slot in the ever-growing pantheon of comic "gods" and coming up with a similar approach.

IMHO. (|:{>

[John C]

Amazing-Man and Namor were both Bill Everett creations, weren't they?  I'm not suggesting that one company or the other concluded that, forty years later, anti-heroes and jerks posing as heroes would dominate the industry (though they could have--after all, Arthur Conan Doyle said something very similar about the rising popularity of his brother-in-law's Raffles in comparison to Holmes).  I'm merely assuming that Everett received enough good feedback on John Aman that he adapted the strongest idea for his other major project of the day.

Granted, it's an assertion without any paper trail to back it.  However, the Jekyll and Hyde motif for both characters is pretty much unique in the industry, especially when the connection is not made explicit.  Even among Everett's own work, it stands out, so it's not like it was his gimmick as a writer.

I think of Namor as sort of a "younger brother" than a "son," basically.

[JVJ]

Amazing-Man and Namor were both Bill Everett creations, weren't they?  I'm not suggesting that one company or the other concluded that, forty years later, anti-heroes and jerks posing as heroes would dominate the industry (though they could have--after all, Arthur Conan Doyle said something very similar about the rising popularity of his brother-in-law's Raffles in comparison to Holmes).  I'm merely assuming that Everett received enough good feedback on John Aman that he adapted the strongest idea for his other major project of the day.

Granted, it's an assertion without any paper trail to back it.  However, the Jekyll and Hyde motif for both characters is pretty much unique in the industry, especially when the connection is not made explicit.  Even among Everett's own work, it stands out, so it's not like it was his gimmick as a writer.

I think of Namor as sort of a "younger brother" than a "son," basically.

I think that Namor was VERY MUCH the anti-hero in his first appearence. What seems most likely to me is that Everett did the first Namor story for Motion Picture Funnies and it went absolutely nowhere. There was no follow up issue, so he recycled the ideas into A-Man and then was taken by surprise when Jacquet resold the Sub-Mariner story to Martin Goodman as a part of the Marvel Comics #1 package and it was a hit. Now he had two successful strips on his hands, both through Funnies, Inc. but one on land and one on sea. I think you have to give Namor the nod for being done first and  that would make him the "older brother".

My 2

[John C]

I think that Namor was VERY MUCH the anti-hero in his first appearence.

True, and I should have been clearer to start with, but the two characters were different sorts of anti-heroes.  Subbie is what I like to call "Somebody Else's Hero."  He's a heroic figure, and even a good person, but he's not on our side; you get the feeling that, had he been raised by his father, he would've been Aquaman, instead.  By contrast, Aman is a Jekyll and Hyde sort of creature, who's a classic hero on our side, but has periods out of his control where he's a destructive monster.

I don't know when it happened in his history (maybe even as late as the Silver Age), but eventually this became Namor's schtick and his destructive tendencies (related to water quality or salt content, no?) were still a major part of his character relatively recently.

What seems most likely to me is that Everett did the first Namor story for Motion Picture Funnies and it went absolutely nowhere. There was no follow up issue, so he recycled the ideas into A-Man and then was taken by surprise when Jacquet resold the Sub-Mariner story to Martin Goodman as a part of the Marvel Comics #1 package and it was a hit. Now he had two successful strips on his hands, both through Funnies, Inc. but one on land and one on sea. I think you have to give Namor the nod for being done first and  that would make him the "older brother".

Easily also possible.  The only reason that it doesn't feel right to me is that there was nobody to give feedback on Namor, and no obvious means to guess that anti-heroes would be popular enough for a continuing series.

Incidentally, since I mentioned Daredevil in relation to Thunderbolt, people interested in that ongoing legacy might want to take a look at the Flashback Universe site.  This morning's blog article (by their lead artist) shows the rather frequent reuse of the classic design, though doesn't talk so much about the characters themselves.

[JVJ]

True, and I should have been clearer to start with, but the two characters were different sorts of anti-heroes.  Subbie is what I like to call "Somebody Else's Hero."  He's a heroic figure, and even a good person, but he's not on our side; you get the feeling that, had he been raised by his father, he would've been Aquaman, instead.  By contrast, Aman is a Jekyll and Hyde sort of creature, who's a classic hero on our side, but has periods out of his control where he's a destructive monster.

My contention is virtually the same as your, jc. It was the IDEA he used and he cleverly re-conceived the character, probably so he could claim to Jacquet that it was something new. Obviously he was successful as Jacquet didn't seem to worry about selling Goodman the Sub-Mariner story for Marvel #1. But just as you see a linear inspirational connection between the two, so do I. So, I'm AGREEING with you, man! I just think that you need to acknowledge that the original "germ" of the idea was Sub-Mariner and Everett revised it for A-Man, rather that the other way round.

I don't know when it happened in his history (maybe even as late as the Silver Age), but eventually this became Namor's schtick and his destructive tendencies (related to water quality or salt content, no?) were still a major part of his character relatively recently.

Golden Age Sub-Mariner was a raging maniac at times. Yes, he was a "hero" but he often had absolutely no regard for humans whatsoever. Not as bi-polar as A-Man to be sure, but his heroic aspects seemed like a very thin veneer at times.

What seems most likely to me is that Everett did the first Namor story for Motion Picture Funnies and it went absolutely nowhere. There was no follow up issue, so he recycled the ideas into A-Man and then was taken by surprise when Jacquet resold the Sub-Mariner story to Martin Goodman as a part of the Marvel Comics #1 package and it was a hit. Now he had two successful strips on his hands, both through Funnies, Inc. but one on land and one on sea. I think you have to give Namor the nod for being done first and  that would make him the "older brother".

Easily also possible.  The only reason that it doesn't feel right to me is that there was nobody to give feedback on Namor, and no obvious means to guess that anti-heroes would be popular enough for a continuing series.

I NEVER implied that Everett was going for "popularity" or that he had any sense that EITHER of his characters would be successful. I think he was just trying to do his job, which was to come up with some "new" type of character for Jacquet to sell to the publishers who were paying the bills. He probably wasn't counting on a success but rather a paycheck. And he had this idea that he'd used the year before that was lying fallow at the time and he yanked it around into what appeared (he hoped) to Jacquet to be a new character. Seems to have worked.

All I'm saying is that IF there's a Namor/A-Man connection it goes from N to A-M not the other way round. Now I will shut up.

(|:{>

[John C]

Golden Age Sub-Mariner was a raging maniac at times. Yes, he was a "hero" but he often had absolutely no regard for humans whatsoever. Not as bi-polar as A-Man to be sure, but his heroic aspects seemed like a very thin veneer at times.

Oh, that's actually what I meant.  Namor is no less heroic than, say, Captain America in his earliest days.  Cap didn't sweat killing Germans, but we would cheer him on because the Germans were The Enemy.  Namor mostly sees humanity the same way.  He's never a monster, by the rules of his story, but we might be.  If he had been ripping up the streets of Barsoom or Tokyo, rather than New York, nobody would have bat an eyelash.

All I'm saying is that IF there's a Namor/A-Man connection it goes from N to A-M not the other way round. Now I will shut up.

I hope I didn't sound argumentative, there.  I was thinking out loud in hopes of tinkering with the ideas in hopes of someone correcting the flaws in my reasoning.  I was trying to "zero in" on the details, and that seemed more obvious to me than it really was.  And thanks for "keeping me honest."  It's appreciated.

[JVJ]

All I'm saying is that IF there's a Namor/A-Man connection it goes from N to A-M not the other way round. Now I will shut up.

I hope I didn't sound argumentative, there.  I was thinking out loud in hopes of tinkering with the ideas in hopes of someone correcting the flaws in my reasoning.  I was trying to "zero in" on the details, and that seemed more obvious to me than it really was.  And thanks for "keeping me honest."  It's appreciated.

I hope I didn't sound argumentative, jc.
I'm seldom going to get on anyone's case about an opinion. We're all entitled. But I AM a stickler for facts. We owe it to the creators of the medium to spell their names correctly, attribute to them the work they did, and to try to keep the chronology straight so that influences and inspirations are are correctly documented.

It seems to be as effective as Canute and the tides, but I keep trying. Taken as a group, comic fans seem rather careless about their scholarship, spelling and history - which is why I tend to gravitate towards people and threads who display the uncommon trait of serious interest in the truth (and with enough dedication to it to bother to turn on their spellcheckers - call me a hopeless optimist, but I still believe that serious research demands proper spelling).

Once I've said my piece, I generally "shut up" and go on to whatever's next on my plate. By the way, "argumentative" is totally OKAY with me. As long as we're discussing/arguing opinions and possible/probable interpretations of the facts. AND as long as it's done politely and without rancor. I HATE confrontations and sincerely believe that it takes two to have a fight. I refuse to play that game. Life's too short and my blood pressure can get too high.

So let's discuss any topic that strikes your fancy about GAC (that is, IF I know anything about it - I have VERY large blind spots in my knowledge!), but trust me that if things turn nasty you'll know by my absence.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Yoc]

Guys,
There was an interesting conversation among the Atlas-Timely experts about the chronology of MOTION PICTURES FUNNIES WEEKLY #1.
Try this link to see it:
http://tinyurl.com/cgqkc6

-Yoc

[phabox]

Looks like you need to join this group to view the messages.

-Nigel

[Yoc]

Ah, well.  It's free but I don't recall if it open admission or not.
Very informative group though!

[narfstar]

Too mainstream for me. You won't see me much involved in Timely, DC, Fawcett, Quality or even Fiction House except maybe a little about some of their lesser known characters which would most interest me. I have always been a fan of the underdog because I was one.