[boox909]

Hey gang!

Just came in out of the cold while out goof'n with a pal. We stopped by one of the local comics shops and one copy of Silver Streak Comics #24 (Larsen's Next Project) was on the shelf. Picked up the lone copy with glee. Haven't read it yet, but I will report in when I have a chance.

B.

[narfstar]

congrats great find

[boox909]

Finished reading....

Overall I grade this effort a B.

The DareDevil feature is okay, but different. This definitely could have been told with the same amount of pages, but with more back story. Not sure this story takes place in the 1940s though, but with a bit more focus it could (and should) have.

SilverStreak was oddly amusing, although I don't remember him having a television set much less comedy variety show broadcasts. I know that television existed and that there were telecasts of some time in the period; I just suspect not to the degree the story portrays. Then again, I think the story takes place in the 1950s on third thought...

The Claw will please fans of 'MSNBC-CNN-New York Slimes'. I prefer more political nuance in stories that attempt to be political, but in the overly left-wing world of Comics Creators, this is pretty standard fare. To be fair, the story takes place in contemporary times and is funny in more than a few places:  "Britney, Paris and Lindsey'll make your back feel like a million!"   

Kelly the Cop should have simply been left out of the book. I hope this one was done for free.

Captain Battle wasn't that bad at all...too short...but not bad at all. Kind of makes me wonder about Captain Battle Jr. though. However, the story takes place in 1941, so it is clearly the one story that does occur in the Golden Age era.

I would like to see future efforts be a bit more in keeping with the mores of Golden Age writing and production though...the modern styled update is seriously disjointing in my opinion.  The writing needs to keep in mind that the fan base for these efforts are Golden Age fans.

I recommend this because it is an effort that should be supported. Such efforts are fishhooks that gain a few new Golden Age fans and hopefully brings them to sites like GA-UK where they can then sample the real goods.

Regardless, much respect and appreciation to Mr. Larsen for bringing us these books. If you are reading Mr. Larsen, I look forward to more in the future.

B.

[phabox]

Like yourself I managed to pick up a copy but have yet to read it, to much going on in my life just now.

I Think work is underway on issues of both Speed Comics and Crack Comics so they should prove of interest.

A Very worthwhile project IMO, maybe it sometimes misses the mark but that's only to be expected at least Larsen is trying to do something a little daring here.

-Nigel

[bchat]

I've seen covers for both Image's Speed (by Larsen) & Crack Comics (by Allred).  From what I understand (somebody made a comment somewhere on the internet ... maybe here, maybe not), the books will be published when all of the stories are done.  In an interview with CBR, Larsen suggests that Allred was doing a Clock story.  Seeing as how the interview was done in 2007, I would imagine that story is done by now, but I guess the rest of the features still need work.

I find it interesting that fans of Dynamite's Project Superpowers don't seem to like Larsen's idea and fans of the "Next Issue Project" don't seem to like "PSP".  That's fair, as nobody likes everything, but the fact that the respective fans seem to go out of their way to put the other book down is what I don't get.  Yeah, I understand that both "Projects" utilize Golden Age characters, but that's where the similarities end as far as I'm concerned, so why compare the two?

[Ed Love]

I think the comparison is mainly of the mindsets that fuel the stories and their execution. I am of the mind that the ideal is really somewhere in between the two. I've not seen Silver Streak yet, but based on Fantastic Comics, Larsen doesn't seem to want to step on anybody's toes as an editor, thus there is a wide range in execution of the characters and stories. Some were  pastiches, almost mocking in their execution. Some, like Larsen's tales seemed to strive to telling a story with modern sensibilities but keeping to the spirit of the original characters. Others updated the characters to almost complete unrecognizability. The first book just felt very schizophrenic with all the different approaches to the characters.

Whereas, Superpowers seems to think it's taking the original characters and putting them in modern stories and styles, but it does so poorly and violates the spirit and histories of the majority of the characters. Although, Chapter Two has been a vast improvement in terms of pacing and storytelling and the Miss Masque mini was fairly well done. Meet the Bad Guys is just a mess of bad writing.

I'd rather see how DC and Marvel handled it when the JSA, Freedom Fighters, Captain America and Namor were folded into then modern continuity and books like The Invaders and All-Star Squadron. Books that at least tried to keep much of the history and characters on model. Thomas' few mis-steps are the norm for the handling of such characters these days.

[narfstar]

I think is has to do with a fans feelings about moderenization of beloved characters. I hate what DC has done with Charlton. Have not read much of the new MLJ stuff because I do not think they kept the feel of the originals. If you think some semblance of the original should be kept you prefer the Next Issue Project but if you feel things need to step up to modernization you prefer SP. Easy to see why there can be a very strong preference to one or the other.

[darkmark]

I have to admit there isn't much connection with the original characters, theme-wise, in PROJECT SUPERHEROES.  They take heroes from an uber-patriotic time and distort them to make them fit contemporary liberal sensibilities.  Great art and I like seeing something like the old heroes back, but this really isn't a very enjoyable series.

[narfstar]

I read the first go around just to see what was up but did not like it. I enjoyed some of the Next Issue stuff. Variety like the GA so some yo can like and some not

[phabox]

I Gave up on Project Superpowers after the first series for most of the same reasons given here.

'The Twelve' I was enjoying only that series gave up on me 

-Nigel

[bchat]

I've enjoyed the Project Superpowers books.  I like the large cast of characters, the artwork has been decent enough and the story has been interesting so far.

I want to check-out the Next Issue Project, but not unless I can get it dirt cheap.  The mix of characters in the issues released so far doesn't thrill me and the cover price is a turn-off.  I'm also not thrilled with the work ethic that's going into it.  For a "series" that was announced in 2007, a book-per-year pace doesn't give me the impression that this is something anyone involved is taking seriously.  I don't mind late books, but a non-existent schedule and "whenever it gets done" attitude?  That's kind of disrespectful to readers.

Whereas, Superpowers seems to think it's taking the original characters and putting them in modern stories and styles, but it does so poorly and violates the spirit and histories of the majority of the characters. Although, Chapter Two has been a vast improvement in terms of pacing and storytelling and the Miss Masque mini was fairly well done. Meet the Bad Guys is just a mess of bad writing.

I keep seeing people say they liked Miss Masque the best of the three spin-off series, and while the first three issues were well-written, I felt that the fourth issue was a waste of my money & time.  I've only read one issue of Meet The Bad Guys (Samson/Dagon) and it was ok enough to make me feel like I didn't waste my money.

I think is has to do with a fans feelings about moderenization of beloved characters. I hate what DC has done with Charlton. Have not read much of the new MLJ stuff because I do not think they kept the feel of the originals. If you think some semblance of the original should be kept you prefer the Next Issue Project but if you feel things need to step up to modernization you prefer SP. Easy to see why there can be a very strong preference to one or the other.

Yeah, I'm not thrilled with how DC has handled the Charlton characters overall, either.  I always felt the characters got the short end of the stick by coming into the company just as DC got rid of the multiverse.  I think it would have worked-out better for the "Action Heroes" if they had been allowed to develope on their own first so that readers could have gotten familiar with them in a series that let them have the spotlight, not simply thrown into the mix of the DC Universe right from the start.

I'm not interested in reading the "new" MLJ books because of who is involved ...  you know, the guy who apparently couldn't care less that he hasn't finished another series yet.

'The Twelve' I was enjoying only that series gave up on me 
-Nigel

I don't understand why Marvel doesn't just assign another writer to finish the series.  It seems, from what I read on the 'net somewhere, that the artist is reading & waiting, but apparently the writer (a person I don't respect enough to mention by name) has better things to do.  This never would have happened under Jim Shooter ... or Stan Lee ... or Roy Thomas ... or even Bob Harras.

The Twelve was interesting, but the only reason I even picked it up was because the one comic shop I visit had all the books sitting on the shelf (they don't mind hanging onto books for more than a week after they're released).  Like a lot of Marvel's books, had I picked this up one issue at a time, I wouldn't have continued buying it because the pacing is too slow and nothing really happens in any given issue.

[John C]

For a "series" that was announced in 2007, a book-per-year pace doesn't give me the impression that this is something anyone involved is taking seriously.  I don't mind late books, but a non-existent schedule and "whenever it gets done" attitude?  That's kind of disrespectful to readers.

While I understand that, too, if you think of it more as a set similarly-themed specials instead of a series, the objection diminishes somewhat.  Plus, after waiting fifty to sixty years for some of these books, what's another few months...?

I think other people nailed my objection.  It's billed as "what would the very next issues of this old series be like," and some of the stories kinda-sorta feel like it.  But there's far too much time spent looking down on the Golden Age work.  The stories are often (but not always) too tongue-in-cheek or decompressed, and the art is more "dumbed down" than Golden Age, which irritates.  This is the sort of project where Larson needs to get out his big stompy foot and say "this is my vision for the book; if you're not on board, the sources are public domain and you can go do what you want elsewhere with my blessing."

Project Superpowers...?  I gave up on it after a few issues for a variety of reasons.  It felt like more "guided tour" than story, like the old Marvel and DC "scavenger hunt" storylines for crossovers.  The characters didn't seem to have any chronicled history, instead getting a common backstory.  Everything that's wrong with the world is due to superheroes, in some way or another.  Real world revisionist history abounds, to make superheroes and the United States look bad.  Attempts at humor fell flat for me.  I mean, I could go on for a while, here, but lots of things just rubbed me the wrong way, in the final analysis, and it wasn't helped by Alex Ross wandering around talking about how he wanted the characters "as archetypes," rather than actually reading stories and trying to figure out what everybody's about.

A lot of my complaints may have been fixed, and I'm not saying that anybody who liked it needs to defend it to me, because heaven knows there are probably TONS of things I enjoy that are even more objectively horrid, so I'm in no position to judge quality.  But for my sensibilities, it was a bad way to start a story that didn't look like it would go anywhere.

On the other hand, I'm totally agreed on the Charlton thing...but I'd also include Fawcett and Quality in that mix.  In my eyes, DC has consistently dropped the ball with acquired characters, because they always reinvent and segregate them.

I mean, really.  In the Post-Crisis DCU, the universe is without a Golden Age Superman.  And here you have Captain Marvel, who's got a strong Golden Age sensibility and similar conceptual clout, and can have successors to the modern day.  And therefore?  Let's create him anew with no history, in the modern age, and then exile him to "Fawcett City," because nobody really knows what to do with him.

The Freedom Fighters had a decent run under Rozakis, but even Roy Thomas stumbled around until finally just dumping the characters on Earth-X to be picked up later, rather than integrating their Earth-2 counterparts into his stories.  And since then, they're barely seen except as cannon fodder when there's a big villain on the loose.  (Meanwhile, Black Canary becomes increasingly important to continuity, while the more interesting and more recognizable Phantom Lady sits in Limbo, waiting to be killed again.)

So it's not really a surprise that DC couldn't bring the Charltonites in as-is and integrate them into the world's history, even though they could certainly use Cold War heroes like Captain Atom, as the JSA slides further into the past.  (And they certainly wouldn't dream of giving a major DC player the Blue Beetle identity--a friend once suggested Dick Grayson, since the Nightwing mantle is sort of a dead end, less than Batman, but still tethered in.  Giving him top-billing in a different legacy would finally let him grow up.  Plus, the personalities match up fairly well.)

(This is also why I never had high hopes for the Archie deal.  From the very fist interview, DC said they'd be new characters with the same names, as if they were created from scratch today.  But, to be fair, I haven't given it a look.  Same with the Twelve; seemed like an OK idea, but I just couldn't muster up the motivation to try it out.)

I wonder if it's a copyright thing, in the end.  DC could be reluctant to overplay these historically-important characters, because it draws attention to the fact that anybody could also use them.  So they create brand new versions, hoping they catch on and replace the memories of the versions they don't own.

[Ed Love]

DC's inability seems to stem from unexpected fallout from CRISIS ON INFINITIE EARTHS. 1) The cosmic reboot allowed all creators to start characters from scratch whether they needed to or not which lead creators to violate even post-CRISIS stories when they so chose. Once big retcons were allowed, everyone was doing retcon history whether the story needed it or not. This lead to continuity being a bigger bugaloo than before 2) With every hero on Earth, no super-powered hero is going to be allowed to eclipse Superman and no non-powered hero is going to eclipse Batman. So characters that were big guns on their own Earths are treated as second and third stringers on the combined-Earth. There were a few other bad decisions such as the rebooting of Wonder Woman as her history was connected to the history of the JSA, JLA, AND the Teen Titans. There's no reason why Green Arrow and Speedy couldn't have been the GA ones and then brought to the present with the other Seven Soldiers.

The Archie comics, the problem for me was besides JMS' not finishing THE TWELVE was his constant going on about working on the original characters when that's not what he was doing nor was he doing anything with them over the long haul, just the opening arc. Seemed that more than a little bait and switch was going on.

[Yoc]

I think your last sentence is likely John.  They've got to make their new versions different enough to hold a copyright.  It's sad they don't seem to want to use much of anything from the originals though.

-Yoc

[Ed Love]

I think there may be some truth to the copyright argument although if DC or the companies were really concerned, they'd just strengthen their hold on the trademarks. While anyone can do what they will with the original characters, they can lock up the trademarks to the point it doesn't really matter if they own the copyrights outright or not. In fact, many of these "new" characters to me seems like an argument could be made that DC then is abandoning the trademarks to the original looks. Ted Kord may be dead, but to prevent another company doing their own comic featuring him on the covers and in ads, DC is still going to have to trot him out in the Ditko designed costume regularly to maintain that particular trademark. In that sense, the massacres and wholesale changes actually weakens DC's claims to the characters, not strengthens because now they have two, three, four versions they have to market to hold onto the trademarks to the various versions.

[bchat]

While I understand that, too, if you think of it more as a set similarly-themed specials instead of a series, the objection diminishes somewhat.  Plus, after waiting fifty to sixty years for some of these books, what's another few months...?

Personally, it's hard for me to get excited about something, whether it's monthly, quarterly or annually, if there's no indication when the next issue/"special" will come out.  I think the idea of what Larsen wanted to do was a good one, but I'ld rather have seen a collection of a single company's top characters rather than the "best of" a single title.  As it stands, there isn't anything in "Fantastic Comics" I'm interested in seeing.  Stardust is one of my favorite Golden Age characters, but that's only because of Fletcher Hanks.  Stories where he wasn't involved simply fall-flat for me, so I have no interest in seeing what one of today's creators do with the character as I have no faith that any modern creator can grasp what made the Hanks' stories unique.

Project Superpowers...?  I gave up on it after a few issues for a variety of reasons.  It felt like more "guided tour" than story, like the old Marvel and DC "scavenger hunt" storylines for crossovers.  The characters didn't seem to have any chronicled history, instead getting a common backstory. 

I've seen a lot of folks around the 'net have a simlar complaint.  I've always felt, even when first reading it, that the first chapter was a massive set-up/introduction to the characters, a lot to show in limited amount of space, and as such, it would be incredibly difficult for the creators involved to focus on too many characters properly.

it wasn't helped by Alex Ross wandering around talking about how he wanted the characters "as archetypes," rather than actually reading stories and trying to figure out what everybody's about.

To me, if Ross doesn't actually KNOW these characters, that's neither here nor there.  I don't look at the series as "Golden Age Heroes" but simply a massive team book with familiar-looking characters, like "it's The Twister but it ISN'T The Twister from Blue Bolt Comics".

On the other hand, I'm totally agreed on the Charlton thing...but I'd also include Fawcett and Quality in that mix.  In my eyes, DC has consistently dropped the ball with acquired characters, because they always reinvent and segregate them.

I know I'm going out on a limb here with the idea that maybe DC treats the acquired characters this way because they're "acquired" as opposed to "home grown".  If Captain Marvel, Phantom Layd & Blue Beetle were as popular as Superman, Wonder Woman & Batman, maybe DC feels that readers would view DC as being a weaker company that's only any good because of the characters they've purchased, rather than the thousands of characters they've created.

I mean, really.  In the Post-Crisis DCU, the universe is without a Golden Age Superman.  And here you have Captain Marvel, who's got a strong Golden Age sensibility and similar conceptual clout, and can have successors to the modern day.  And therefore?  Let's create him anew with no history, in the modern age, and then exile him to "Fawcett City," because nobody really knows what to do with him.

I liked when he was part of the JSA, but then, all of a sudden, he was out of that group.  It didn't make sense to me, since he has that Golden Age feel and fits-in pretty well with The Flash & Green Lantern.  It's not like any series that DC gave Cap has lasted for any length of time, so why didn't they just leave him in the JSA?  It's like they're afraid of the character getting too popular, or, as I said, maybe they simply don't want him to be popular.

I wonder if it's a copyright thing, in the end.  DC could be reluctant to overplay these historically-important characters, because it draws attention to the fact that anybody could also use them. 

I agree with you here, as there are comic fans out there who seem unwilling to accept the idea that some of the characters from Archie are Public Domain.  They don't see anyone use them beyond Archie reprinting some old stories or cramming them into the occasional "Archie Comic", and it's not like DC has ever been very forward about the Copyright status of any character they use, like "Phantom of The Fair" from years back.  It's why I respect Dynamite Entertainment, Erik Larsen and even Malibu Comics back in the 1990s ... they came-out and said "these characters are Public Domain, everybody can use them".

[Roygbiv666]

....
Project Superpowers...?  I gave up on it after a few issues for a variety of reasons.  It felt like more "guided tour" than story, like the old Marvel and DC "scavenger hunt" storylines for crossovers.  The characters didn't seem to have any chronicled history, instead getting a common backstory.  Everything that's wrong with the world is due to superheroes, in some way or another.  Real world revisionist history abounds, to make superheroes and the United States look bad.  Attempts at humor fell flat for me.  I mean, I could go on for a while, here, but lots of things just rubbed me the wrong way, in the final analysis, and it wasn't helped by Alex Ross wandering around talking about how he wanted the characters "as archetypes," rather than actually reading stories and trying to figure out what everybody's about.
...

Wasn't the point that they don't have a history that readers need to get caught up on, that they are new? And it's my understanding that Dynamite wanted to use these characters as jumping off points for their own superhero universe, not as an exercise in preserving the Golden Age characters as-is.

and, if it's fiction, how exactly is it revisionist? They apparently used the WWIII in the 1980s from ... Shock Gibson, or Power Nelson, right? So, in a way, they were staying true to the original story ...

Anyway, I liked the idea somewhat better than the execution.

[John C]

I half-agree on the Crisis issues, but the problem seems to have gone deeper.  Keep in mind that a lot of the "Superman is the best at anything" ideas date back to the Weisinger stories, and became canonical (in DCU terms) with events like the Superman/Flash races.

Plus, the first idea out of the gate for Crisis was "only the modern Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman exist," and several writers then scrambled to figure out what the early JLA (and the All-Star Squadron) would have looked like without them.

The JLA's "Magnificient Seven" became "four second-tier heroes and a token chick."  This catapulted Black Canary to "axial" status.  She got herself a legacy, and has increased in prominence ever since, and the Golden Age version gets pushed back earlier and earlier.  This despite having a "costume" that's just a cigarette girl's outfit (minus the tray), and nothing historically to recommend her apart from ousting Johnny Thunder from his strip.  Oh, and dating Green Arrow.

I don't object to this, in principle.  The '80s required that women be everywhere important, even if anachronistic (All-Star Squadron) or contrived.  And four characters doesn't sound at all like a "league," so padding was needed.  But I do object to the choice, when Phantom Lady, Mary Marvel, Nightshade (soon to be completely revamped for Suicide Squad), and other female characters were available, more historically important, and equally usable.

Plus, there was the big worry over "what it all means" without Superman or Batman, while there are many characters who could fill the slot on the team on an "honorary" basis.

Likewise, the Golden Age writers scrambled in similar ways.  They tried harder, I think, making the Crimson Avenger the ur-inspiration for all masked heroes, and Green Lantern the archetypal core go-to hero.  But that never rang true, maybe because the exalted Avenger is a Green Hornet knockoff.  Meanwhile, Fawcett and Quality provide a wealth of heroes who could either replace the major heroes outright (Captain Marvel and Spy Smasher, for example) or spread the responsibility out among them, so that nobody is TOO important.

(And you're right about Green Arrow.  He's not central enough to the early JLA stories that his absence would make a difference, and the Soldiers crossover is a perfect excuse to bring him in.  Alternatively, the JLA's Green Arrow could've just been Speedy grown up; it's not like an archer hero is such a fancy idea that only one guy could ever pull it off.  Or again, just pick another Golden Age hero--it doesn't need to be an archer!)

As to my copyright hypothesis, keep in mind that DC is an old company that has yet to get with the times.  Today, yes, many people understand copyrights and trademarks to some extent or other.  We get that Jaime Reyes (the new Blue Beetle, whose series was actually pretty darn good) doesn't relate to a copyright on Ted Kord or Dan Garret (or Dan Garrett).  However, in 1986?  Not so much.

It seems more like the intent is to...retroactively discard the unprotectable character.  What I mean is that, if the new Blue Beetle becomes popular enough, HE gets into the mainstream team books and crossovers, while the OLD Beetles are ignored and forgotten.  And it's harder to revive a character you've never heard of.

As an analogy to what might be happening, I know there are several holdings companies that claim to own copyrights on stories that don't appear to have valid copyrights at all (Lovecraft's work and the Conan stories come to mind).  So, rather than publish the original "free" stories, everything appears in edited and mildly rewritten form with its own copyright.

I'm not sure how much I actually believe that as a primary motive, though.  It's just as likely that the DC writers and editors can't leave well enough alone, and the acquired characters simply have the least oversight, since they haven't yet been integrated.

[John C]

Project Superpowers...?  I gave up on it after a few issues for a variety of reasons.  It felt like more "guided tour" than story, like the old Marvel and DC "scavenger hunt" storylines for crossovers.  The characters didn't seem to have any chronicled history, instead getting a common backstory. 

I've seen a lot of folks around the 'net have a simlar complaint.  I've always felt, even when first reading it, that the first chapter was a massive set-up/introduction to the characters, a lot to show in limited amount of space, and as such, it would be incredibly difficult for the creators involved to focus on too many characters properly.

As I said, I'm not necessarily against it in principle.  But I like more story in my story.  And added in with all the other problems, I just decided it wasn't being written for me.  Save the exposition and fashion show for the numerous text pages and encyclopedia entries that are going to be part of the project anyway, y'know?

it wasn't helped by Alex Ross wandering around talking about how he wanted the characters "as archetypes," rather than actually reading stories and trying to figure out what everybody's about.

To me, if Ross doesn't actually KNOW these characters, that's neither here nor there.  I don't look at the series as "Golden Age Heroes" but simply a massive team book with familiar-looking characters, like "it's The Twister but it ISN'T The Twister from Blue Bolt Comics".

And I admit that's merely a pet peeve of mine.  I figure that, if you don't want the baggage, just create new characters.  It's not like Alex Ross can't churn out a thousand halfway-decent costumes in a weekend.  And I don't think the familiarity aspect is strong enough to be a selling point without having the characters carry over.  I mean, how many people buy Superman comics just because they recognize the costume?

Also, it also hits another pet peeve of mine, which is inserting obscure things just to see if the reader is paying attention.  It's bad enough to read about the heroes scouring the globe for puzzle-pieces, but now I'm expected to keep a list of everything I see, too?  (And yeah, I know it's the nature of the entertainment industry today, and that it's optional, and I'm exaggerating.  I still don't like it.)

I know I'm going out on a limb here with the idea that maybe DC treats the acquired characters this way because they're "acquired" as opposed to "home grown".  If Captain Marvel, Phantom Layd & Blue Beetle were as popular as Superman, Wonder Woman & Batman, maybe DC feels that readers would view DC as being a weaker company that's only any good because of the characters they've purchased, rather than the thousands of characters they've created.

It's certainly another possibility.  But there are two more data points I didn't really mention because they only half-count.  All-American characters are fully integrated, and in fact, seem to make up the majority of the popular characters.  Meanwhile, National Allied's characters (the Nicholson-Wheeler books) are all abandoned, with the exception of Doctor Occult, who Roy Thomas brought kicking and screaming into the then-modern day after an absence of almost fifty years.

Interestingly, those early pre-Detective issues didn't have copyrights on them.

But you're right, and it could also be as simple as nobody going to bat for them, too.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and Superman's editor is a much squeakier wheel than...uhm...I don't think anybody's assigned to Captain Marvel.  (And yeah, I agree that the JSA stint worked well, both with and without the Black Adam addition--but it'd be nicer to see how well it works in the '40s, too.)

I wonder if it's a copyright thing, in the end.  DC could be reluctant to overplay these historically-important characters, because it draws attention to the fact that anybody could also use them. 

I agree with you here, as there are comic fans out there who seem unwilling to accept the idea that some of the characters from Archie are Public Domain.  They don't see anyone use them beyond Archie reprinting some old stories or cramming them into the occasional "Archie Comic", and it's not like DC has ever been very forward about the Copyright status of any character they use, like "Phantom of The Fair" from years back.  It's why I respect Dynamite Entertainment, Erik Larsen and even Malibu Comics back in the 1990s ... they came-out and said "these characters are Public Domain, everybody can use them".

It's been a long time since I've seen the book, but I thought the Phantom's first DC appearance made it abundantly clear that he was a copy of Centaur's Fantom of the Fair.  They probably didn't make reference to copyright or its lack, but I do remember it being one of the first indications I had that there were...other comic companies out there, somewhere, even in the "distant past," and that the might have things worth reading, if Roy Thomas liked'em.

In other cases, certainly no mention was made, of course.

OK, shovel break.  I've got company coming throughout the holiday weekend, and so far, I can barely fit two cars in the drive way... (Now substantially better, for those keeping track for some odd reason.)

[John C]

Oops.  Meant to copy and paste this reply in with my last one.

Wasn't the point that they don't have a history that readers need to get caught up on, that they are new? And it's my understanding that Dynamite wanted to use these characters as jumping off points for their own superhero universe, not as an exercise in preserving the Golden Age characters as-is.

Maybe, but it didn't seem like the goal.  They tried to establish all the characters as they were, then took a left turn to cram them into the narrative.  I don't care which way a writing team goes, but you have to stick with it to avoid looking clumsy.

and, if it's fiction, how exactly is it revisionist? They apparently used the WWIII in the 1980s from ... Shock Gibson, or Power Nelson, right? So, in a way, they were staying true to the original story ...

Real-world history.  The idea that superheroes vanished soon after the end of WWII.  The idea that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was gratuitious.  I remember there being others, but those stick out to me as added to sound smart while showing ignorance.  That doesn't engender trust in the reader, when caught.

[Roygbiv666]

Oops.  Meant to copy and paste this reply in with my last one.

Wasn't the point that they don't have a history that readers need to get caught up on, that they are new? And it's my understanding that Dynamite wanted to use these characters as jumping off points for their own superhero universe, not as an exercise in preserving the Golden Age characters as-is.

Maybe, but it didn't seem like the goal.  They tried to establish all the characters as they were, then took a left turn to cram them into the narrative.  I don't care which way a writing team goes, but you have to stick with it to avoid looking clumsy.

and, if it's fiction, how exactly is it revisionist? They apparently used the WWIII in the 1980s from ... Shock Gibson, or Power Nelson, right? So, in a way, they were staying true to the original story ...

Real-world history.  The idea that superheroes vanished soon after the end of WWII.  The idea that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was gratuitious.  I remember there being others, but those stick out to me as added to sound smart while showing ignorance.  That doesn't engender trust in the reader, when caught.

Super-heroes in real life declined markedly in popularity after WWII (I mean, who was being published - Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman/and ....), so that doesn't seem like a big stretch to me, having the in-universe heroes disappear (most of them anyway) is just ham-fisted symbolism, not necessarily a bad thing. And the "idea" that the bombing were gratuitous is just that, an idea. Some people share it, some don't.

Anyway, I don't want to get off on a rant here ... so, I think it's not a great series, but I think it was good that they (the writers) had some kind of game plan for re-introducing these characters and making them known to modern audiences. The fact they aren't exactly the same is because they're free to play with and Dynamite wants material that is trademarkable (?) and copyrighted, so they have to be different.

[jrvandore]

The JLA's "Magnificient Seven" became "four second-tier heroes and a token chick."  This catapulted Black Canary to "axial" status.  She got herself a legacy, and has increased in prominence ever since, and the Golden Age version gets pushed back earlier and earlier.  This despite having a "costume" that's just a cigarette girl's outfit (minus the tray), and nothing historically to recommend her apart from ousting Johnny Thunder from his strip.  Oh, and dating Green Arrow.

Actually Black Canary became a legacy character pre-Crisis when it was revealed that the modern-day BC was the daughter of the GA BC in JLA 219-220 (summer 1983).

And of course BC was already established as the replacement for Wonder Woman (and the only female on the team) from 1969 to 1976.  Seems to me she was the logical replacement for Wonder Woman in the post-Crisis universe.

[bchat]

 I've always felt, even when first reading it (Project Superpowers), that the first chapter was a massive set-up/introduction to the characters, a lot to show in limited amount of space, and as such, it would be incredibly difficult for the creators involved to focus on too many characters properly.

As I said, I'm not necessarily against it in principle.  But I like more story in my story.  And added in with all the other problems, I just decided it wasn't being written for me.  Save the exposition and fashion show for the numerous text pages and encyclopedia entries that are going to be part of the project anyway, y'know?

Project Superpowers is one of the few series that, going into it, I knew wasn't going to be a short mini-series that might blossom into an ongoing series, but instead was planned to be a series of maxi-series.  It was clear that there was a game-plan from the get-go, so I was willing to be patient with it.  As with most everything else over the last few years, I picked-up the series after they were about four or five issues in.   I don't know if I could have bothered with it had I only been able to read it one issue every month or so.  Maybe my view of "PSP" would have been different, but I'll never know for sure since I didn't read it one issue at a time. 

I also didn't go into the series expecting to see "Golden Age stories", just a story featuring Golden Age characters.  If PSP were being produced by a company like AC Comics, then maybe my expectations would be different, and I would expect a lighter tone with characters acting like they were pulled right out of the 1940s.  That's not to say that I don't find fault with some of the PSP books (Jim Krueger is not may favorite writer), but it's the only new series I'm reading right now and it's good enough for me.  I simply don't have the patience or the willingness to waste money to try new books anymore.

But you're right, and it could also be as simple as nobody going to bat for them, too.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and Superman's editor is a much squeakier wheel than...uhm...I don't think anybody's assigned to Captain Marvel.  (And yeah, I agree that the JSA stint worked well, both with and without the Black Adam addition--but it'd be nicer to see how well it works in the '40s, too.)

I wish DC would just take the Fawcett, Charlton & Quality characters and put them in their own little universe, giving them their own imprint and treating it like a separate company, with its own EIC or whatever title DC uses for the guy in-charge.  It would allow characters like Captain Marvel, Blue Beetle etc etc so on and so forth, to stand on their own instead under the shadow of all of DC's "Big Guns".

It's been a long time since I've seen the book, but I thought the Phantom's first DC appearance made it abundantly clear that he was a copy of Centaur's Fantom of the Fair.  They probably didn't make reference to copyright or its lack, but I do remember it being one of the first indications I had that there were...other comic companies out there, somewhere, even in the "distant past," and that the might have things worth reading, if Roy Thomas liked'em.

Yeah, if I remember correctly, you're right that Roy Thomas, in The Phantom of The Fair's Secret Origins appearance, was pretty clear about where he was getting the character from, and while it seemed that there were plans to use "Phantom" again, they probably got derailed by Crisis and the cancellation of All-Star Squadron.

[phabox]

Roy also 'borrowed' a number of PD Golden Age heroes to go up against The Invaders in the four part Mini-Series from the earliy 90's, don't have it to hand just now but believe The Human Comet, Voltron and Spider Queen were part of the line up.

-Nigel

[bchat]

Human Meteor, Strongman, Spider Queen, Volton and Dr Nemesis (called "Dr Death") ... aka "Battle-Axis".  It's because of the appearances of those PD heroes that I love that mini-series.  In issue four, Thomas lets readers know where he got the various characters from, what comics they appeared in (but not from what companies), and why Spider Queen is colored wrong (he was using B&W photocopies for reference).