Atlas seaboard comics to movies??

[son_ofgolem]

Is it true paramount will bring the 70s atlas comics to films??

[MajorHoy]

Is it true paramount will bring the 70s atlas comics to films??

I don't know . . . do you have a source where you heard about this?

(Considering those titles didn't really last that long, I'd be surprised if anybody would try to do that. But, you never know . . . )

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbr...-universe/amp/

Cbr.com reported on it a few days ago.

[Vakanai]

Wow, I've never even heard of these comics or characters. Really bottom of the barrel. But hey, could be good. Still, if you're going that obscure, why not just create original characters?

[Comic-Reader Lad]

Wow, I've never even heard of these comics or characters. Really bottom of the barrel. But hey, could be good. Still, if you're going that obscure, why not just create original characters?

I have all of the 1974-1975 Atlas Comics, and I have many of the revivals from 2010-2011 that were released through Ardden Comics.

The comics had top talent in both iterations, and were OK, but were clearly trying to ape Marvel in the 1974 launch. Martin Goodman, who founded Atlas, also founded Marvel in 1939 (as Timely Comics).

As for why try to bring Atlas to the big screen rather than creating original characters, I think right now there is a cachet to claiming that your movie is based on a comic book. It makes the general public think that they are discovering a previously existing successful property.

Of course, Atlas has never been successful, so we'll see just how much of a benefit it is, but I do think the public "trusts" properties of this type that they feel are established rather than a studio just making up its own superheroes. It may grab the publc's attention more.

Of course, like you, most comics fans have never heard of Atlas, and there's no reason why they should have. The company lasted only a year or two each time it was launched.

There is potential there, however, under the right creative people. Akiva Goldsman is heading up the writers' room, and even though he was the writer of Batman and Robin, he also won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay for the Russel Crowe movie, A Beautiful Mind. So, he's had his hits and duds. The toy-friendly direction of B&R was mandated by Warners, but he also added camp elements and puns to Batman Forever, so he was definitely the worst part of those films, script-wise.

The article says that Atlas is not sure which of their characters should be their flagship character. I'm thinking it should be either Destructor or Tiger-Man, each drawn by Steve Ditko. In the 1970s line, it felt like they were the main characters to me.

For anyone unfamiliar with the Atlas-Seaboard line of comics, here's a handy list that contains cover scans. You can see it is highly derivative of what Marvel was publishing in terms of look and genre. But, hey, given the success of Marvel in Hollywood, that may be the exact point.

https://www.comics.org/publisher/372/

[MajorHoy]

. . . The article says that Atlas is not sure which of their characters should be their flagship character. I'm thinking it should be either Destructor or Tiger-Man, each drawn by Steve Ditko. In the 1970s line, it felt like they were the main characters to me.

Destructor managed to get four issues; Tigerman (or "Tiger-Man") only made it to issue #3.

You might also want to consider Wulf the Barbarian or Iron Jaw if you're wanting to do something more towards the sword & sorcery line (four issues for each).


Another book that made it to issue #4 was Phoenix, though towards the end the character was also being billed as "Protector".

[Surf]

Great. I'm still a handfull of issues short of the entire 70s Seaboard run (which includes the magazines), so I guess If this happens I'll never find a Vicki out in the wild :/ . I've always felt Tiger-Man was the Spider-Man of Atlas comics, Destructor was more like Cap imo. Planet of the Vampires was prolly the best of the bunch everything else gets an E for effort lol. Heart was in the right place just the execution of the 'line' didn't work. It was the 70s though and they were a real precursor to the independent wave that hit in the 80s. Had they not tried to be a Marvel clone, from the 60s operating in the 70s, it might have worked better than it did.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

The latest wrinkle is that Dynamite Comics is contesting the use of the name "Atlas Comics" because the name was abandoned as a trademark by Martin Goodman and was trademarked by Jeffrey Stevens in 2005 after he started using it in 2001. Dynamite purchased it in 2014 from Stevens to use on their line of signed variant covers.

The Goodman family went to the Trademark Office Appeal Board to try to get Stevens to stop using the name in 2010, but the Trademark office sided with Stevens -- as it should have since the name hadn't been in use by Goodman since 1975.

This might be why Jason Goodman's (Martin's grandson) Atlas Comics revival of 2011 didn't last -- beyond lackluster sales. He used the name "Atlas Comics" even though he knew someone else owned the trademark and even after he lost the appeal.

It's amazing they would try again, and it's amazing that Steven Paul, who bought a majority stake in the Atlas Comics properties didn't pick up on the fact that the trademark has been in use by Dynamite.

Maybe Paul doesn't care and he'll market the characters under a different company name like "Seaboard Comics," "Goodman Comics," or "Nemesis Group," the underlying company name Jason had used for the 2011 revival.

They really don't need the Atlas Comics name because it doesn't mean anything to anyone -- not even in the comics industry -- besides being the name that Marvel is commonly known under during the 1950s.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he..._medium=social