| Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93668] |
Sun, 13 February 2011 15:42  |
Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The cover of Robin's first appearance has something like "The most
sensation new character of 1940".
Which is massive oversell... but just might be true in this case,
although there are a few contenders... does anyone think someone has
more right to the crown? (This may help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Comics_characters_intr oduced_in_1940)
Other than that what's the biggest comic cover claim that ended up
true despite the oversell...?
And what is the biggest comic cover claim fail?
===
= DUG.
===
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93675 is a reply to message #93674] |
Sun, 13 February 2011 20:38  |
Pat O'Neill
Messages: 9
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Feb 13, 7:58Â pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 10:23Â am, "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 6:34Â pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>> On Feb 14, 8:19Â am, "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I think Captain Marvel just might be a bigger "sensation" than Robin.
>
>>> At one time. Â Not today.
>> In 1940...and for a decade thereafter, most definitely. CM had a major
>> impact on the industry.
>
> Yes, at one time.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===
And the question is whether Robin was "the most sensational new
character of 1940"--with Captain Marvel in the list, not even close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93698 is a reply to message #93675] |
Mon, 14 February 2011 00:19 |
Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 14, 11:38Â am, "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
> And the question is whether Robin was "the most sensational new
> character of 1940"--with Captain Marvel in the list, not even close.
In 1940, that's true, now it isn't.
Star Trek may not have been the most sesnational new show of 1966, at
the time, but it is now.
===
= DUG.
===
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93719 is a reply to message #93698] |
Mon, 14 February 2011 06:28 |
Pat O'Neill
Messages: 9
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Feb 14, 12:19Â am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:38Â am, "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> And the question is whether Robin was "the most sensational new
>> character of 1940"--with Captain Marvel in the list, not even close.
>
> In 1940, that's true, now it isn't.
>
> Star Trek may not have been the most sesnational new show of 1966, at
> the time, but it is now.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===
Umm, no, ST is the most sensational SF TV show of all time, but in '66
it was a dud. You can't put in a year as your point of reference and
then talk about a character or show's full history.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93720 is a reply to message #93719] |
Mon, 14 February 2011 07:28 |
Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 14, 9:28Â pm, "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Umm, no, ST is the most sensational SF TV show of all time, but in '66
> it was a dud. You can't put in a year as your point of reference and
> then talk about a character or show's full history.
The year is when it was found... doesn't mean it was a sensation then,
it's the life of the character that determines that.
===
= DUG.
===
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93723 is a reply to message #93698] |
Mon, 14 February 2011 12:38 |
anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article
<ec33ba2a-826d-41a4-9767-27b521919269@y36g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:38 am, "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> And the question is whether Robin was "the most sensational new
>> character of 1940"--with Captain Marvel in the list, not even close.
>
> In 1940, that's true, now it isn't.
>
> Star Trek may not have been the most sesnational new show of 1966, at
> the time, but it is now.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===
That Thursay/Friday in September '66, The Time Tunnel was probably
waaaay more sensational than TOS.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93724 is a reply to message #93723] |
Mon, 14 February 2011 13:21 |
M1keB
Messages: 2
Registered: October 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Anim8rFSK wrote:
> Duggy <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> And the question is whether Robin was "the most sensational new
>>> character of 1940"--with Captain Marvel in the list, not even close.
>> In 1940, that's true, now it isn't.
>>
>> Star Trek may not have been the most sesnational new show of 1966,
>> at the time, but it is now.
>
> That Thursay/Friday in September '66, The Time
> Tunnel was probably waaaay more sensational than TOS.
1966? I'd say another Allen show, VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF
THE SEA, was literally more sensational, though I admit it was
on Sundays. You could even see one of the episodes where
Admiral Nelson turns into a werewolf in September of 66!
Mike Blake
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93725 is a reply to message #93698] |
Mon, 14 February 2011 13:27 |
Will Dockery
Messages: 23
Registered: January 2013
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Feb 14, 12:19Â am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:38Â am, "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> And the question is whether Robin was "the most sensational new
>> character of 1940"--with Captain Marvel in the list, not even close.
>
> In 1940, that's true, now it isn't.
The blurb didn't say "of all time" or anything, it reads "the most
sensational new character of 1940".
> Star Trek may not have been the most sesnational new show of 1966, at
> the time, but it is now.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93752 is a reply to message #93670] |
Mon, 14 February 2011 17:13 |
plausible prose man
Messages: 2
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Feb 13, 5:19Â pm, "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 3:42Â pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> The cover of Robin's first appearance has something like "The most
>> sensation new character of 1940".
>
>> Which is massive oversell... but just might be true in this case,
>> although there are a few contenders... does anyone think someone has
>> more right to the crown? Â (This may help:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Comics_characters _introduced_in...)
>
>> Other than that what's the biggest comic cover claim that ended up
>> true despite the oversell...?
>
>> And what is the biggest comic cover claim fail?
>
>> ===
>> = DUG.
>> ===
>
> I think Captain Marvel just might be a bigger "sensation" than Robin.
Probably not, but in any case Captain Marvel was "found" in 1939. The
question is, is Robin more sensational than Captain America?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93753 is a reply to message #93724] |
Mon, 14 February 2011 17:13 |
Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 15, 4:21Â am, M1keB <M1keB.NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>> "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> And the question is whether Robin was "the most sensational new
>>>> character of 1940"--with Captain Marvel in the list, not even close.
>>> In 1940, that's true, now it isn't.
>
>>> Star Trek may not have been the most sesnational new show of 1966,
>>> at the time, but it is now.
>
>> That Thursay/Friday in September '66, The Time Â
>> Tunnel was probably waaaay more sensational than TOS.
>
> 1966? I'd say another Allen show, VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF
> THE SEA, was literally more sensational, though I admit it was
> on Sundays. You could even see one of the episodes where
> Admiral Nelson turns into a werewolf in September of 66!
But it wasn't new.
===
= DUG.
===
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93754 is a reply to message #93725] |
Mon, 14 February 2011 17:18 |
Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 15, 4:27Â am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:19Â am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 14, 11:38Â am, "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> And the question is whether Robin was "the most sensational new
>>> character of 1940"--with Captain Marvel in the list, not even close.
>
>> In 1940, that's true, now it isn't.
>
> The blurb didn't say "of all time" or anything, it reads "the most
> sensational new character of 1940".
True, but the "find" is related to the year, the "sensational" is open
ended.
Would the most sensation new band formed in 19XX be some one hot
wonder from that year, or a band that no one hears about for 2 or 3
years and then tops the charts for decades?
In the year in question and for some years after the cover claim is
wrong. Today the most sensation character found in 1940 is probably
Robin.
===
= DUG.
===
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93757 is a reply to message #93724] |
Mon, 14 February 2011 21:12 |
anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <ijbrq9$faj$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
M1keB <M1keB.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> Duggy <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> And the question is whether Robin was "the most sensational new
>>>> character of 1940"--with Captain Marvel in the list, not even close.
>>> In 1940, that's true, now it isn't.
>>>
>>> Star Trek may not have been the most sesnational new show of 1966,
>>> at the time, but it is now.
>>
>> That Thursay/Friday in September '66, The Time
>> Tunnel was probably waaaay more sensational than TOS.
>
> 1966? I'd say another Allen show, VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF
> THE SEA, was literally more sensational, though I admit it was
> on Sundays. You could even see one of the episodes where
> Admiral Nelson turns into a werewolf in September of 66!
>
> Mike Blake
Yeah, but Voyage was old news, it was waning. LOST IN SPACE was
launching it's color year though; it would be it's worst year (and
that's saying something!) but you wouldn't know that for a week or two.
THE MAN TRAP was "huh, that was pretty interesting, I wonder where
they'll go from here." RENDEZVOUS WITH YESTERDAY was "hokey smokes
Bullwinkle did you SEE that place? That is just SO cool!!!"
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93761 is a reply to message #93754] |
Tue, 15 February 2011 10:53 |
greenaum
Messages: 57
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Okay, so this is 2 questions....
Was Robin the most sensational comic star of 1940, in 1940?
Is Robin the most sensational comic star nowadays, out of all those
who debuted in 1940?
There, that's that bit of confusion sorted.
The general opinion so far seems to be no, to the first, yes, to the
second. At least let's argue about the answer, not the question.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
"hey let's educate the brutes, we know we are superior to them anyway,
just through genetics, we are gentically superior to the working
class. They are a shaved monkey. If we educate them, they will be able
to read instructions, turn up on time and man the conveyor belts,
sorted." #
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93782 is a reply to message #93761] |
Tue, 15 February 2011 19:18 |
Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 16, 1:53Â am, green...@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) wrote:
> Okay, so this is 2 questions....
> Was Robin the most sensational comic star of 1940, in 1940?
"character find".
CM was created in 39, but first appear in Feb 1940... not sure how
popular he was in 1940, but he was the first to get a serial in 1941
(although Superman would have been, but National pulled out of
negoiations) and by 1944 was the biggest selling comic... so in the
mid 40s he was certainly the sensational find of 1940.
Golden Age versions of several DC heroes debuted: Flash, Atom, Green
Lantern, Hawkman and some villians, Luthor, The Joker and Catwoman.
Pretty sure Luthor took a while to take off, so he wasn't the find of
that year.
> Is Robin the most sensational comic star nowadays, out of all those
> who debuted in 1940?
Do we could Dick Grayson or any "Robin". Is it a far comparison
because everyone knows Robin because he is Batman's partner and that's
what makes him famous?
> There, that's that bit of confusion sorted.
We're arguing the English language. There's 2 whole newsgroups
devoted to that that I post to regularly (one that is extremely active
and pretty spam free despite being usenet these days...)
> The general opinion so far seems to be no, to the first, yes, to the
> second. At least let's argue about the answer, not the question.
Where's the fun in that?
===
= DUG.
===
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Astounding comic cover claims... [message #93786 is a reply to message #93783] |
Wed, 16 February 2011 17:11 |
Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 17, 6:47Â am, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is it possible the Joker is more well known than Robin?
I'd certainly say, ATM, he's getting there. The fear of Robin that
most of media has caused the balance to even out.
Probably about even... but I can certainly see the argument either
way.
===
= DUG.
===
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
