Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 19 of 19
  1. #16
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus Arkham View Post
    Just got done watching that Bill Finger documentary and it was real eye opener for me in terms of Finger’s contributions. Finger created Gotham, crafted Batman’s origin, created Bruce Wayne, among other things. Kane’s contributions by comparison seem rather minuscule in comparison. He only created like one drawing that looked nothing the one seen in Detective Comics #27. It didn’t have the ears and there was no cowl, just a blonde haired dude in a domino mask with wings. Do you think Kane deserves to be credited as the creator, or do you think Bill Finger deserves solo credit for the creation?

    You seem to be considering only artists as creators.
    What about the writers?

    Drawing is a big contribution to comics but so is the actual writing of the stories

    You seem to want to dismiss one's contribution while promoting another's contribution.
    Both were equally important.
    Last edited by Starrius; 06-25-2020 at 02:02 PM.
    I created a thread about Dick Grayson/Nightwing and Koriand'r/Starfire.
    It is to acknowledge and honor their iconic and popular relationship.
    https://comicvine.gamespot.com/teen-...rfire-1975639/

    I created a fan page about Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Mary Jane Watson.
    This page is for all the Spider-Marriage fans.
    http://www.facebook.com/SpiderManMaryJane/

  2. #17
    Standing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackDaw View Post
    But he was such a tricky character that I wouldn’t place any real faith in “the story we know...”.
    I considered this, but I could never come up with enough evidence to support that theory. And what defines the Bob Kane ghost style is the unique Bob Kane look--a certain naive quality to the art that is nevertheless appealing. All of the ghosts we know about were capable of doing more mainstream art--but deliberately evoked this weird quality to the art, so it would match with Bob Kane's style.

    It's hard to imagine a scenario where some unknown artist constructed that style and then Bob had every other ghost copy it.

    Maybe wanting it to be "Bill Finger and Bob Kane" is asking for too much. As far as I know, the Finger family now gets royalties. So I count that as a win. Maybe this is what Bob Kane was always afraid of and why he couldn't risk any kind of compromise, because he might lose everything if he gave an inch. And there was no guarantee that Finger would get anything. Given how D.C. was back then--knowing what they did to Siegel and Shuster--D.C. could have just cancelled Kane and Finger both.

    One thing we do know is that Bob Kane had a lot of ambition. He was the driving force behind Batman's success. Bill Finger was easily taken advantage of by others and he wouldn't have fought for Batman the way that Bob Kane did. Bob kept Batman going for thirty years, he made the deals, he got others to work on the character for him. While he was clearly immoral, his selfish interests kept Batman going.

    When I was a kid, I was very interested in the title logo for the Batman comics. Sometimes it said "Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder" and sometimes it said "Batman with Robin, the Boy Wonder." I'd ponder for hours which was better. Is the conjunction "and" better than the preposition "with?" For me "with" had a lot more character and it didn't downgrade Robin at all--it actually made him more special.

  3. #18
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,421

    Default

    Yes. You can debate the amount if his contribution but the character isn’t made in the form he was without Kane.

  4. #19
    Astonishing Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I considered this, but I could never come up with enough evidence to support that theory. And what defines the Bob Kane ghost style is the unique Bob Kane look--a certain naive quality to the art that is nevertheless appealing. All of the ghosts we know about were capable of doing more mainstream art--but deliberately evoked this weird quality to the art, so it would match with Bob Kane's style.

    It's hard to imagine a scenario where some unknown artist constructed that style and then Bob had every other ghost copy it.

    Maybe wanting it to be "Bill Finger and Bob Kane" is asking for too much. As far as I know, the Finger family now gets royalties. So I count that as a win. Maybe this is what Bob Kane was always afraid of and why he couldn't risk any kind of compromise, because he might lose everything if he gave an inch. And there was no guarantee that Finger would get anything. Given how D.C. was back then--knowing what they did to Siegel and Shuster--D.C. could have just cancelled Kane and Finger both.

    One thing we do know is that Bob Kane had a lot of ambition. He was the driving force behind Batman's success. Bill Finger was easily taken advantage of by others and he wouldn't have fought for Batman the way that Bob Kane did. Bob kept Batman going for thirty years, he made the deals, he got others to work on the character for him. While he was clearly immoral, his selfish interests kept Batman going.

    When I was a kid, I was very interested in the title logo for the Batman comics. Sometimes it said "Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder" and sometimes it said "Batman with Robin, the Boy Wonder." I'd ponder for hours which was better. Is the conjunction "and" better than the preposition "with?" For me "with" had a lot more character and it didn't downgrade Robin at all--it actually made him more special.
    I guessed when I posted comment that you would have thought about subject a zillion times more than I had...not surprised you’d considered the theory and had good grounds for rejecting it.

    I’ll ponder your thoughts about whether there’s any real difference between “with” and “and” in this specific context. My gut feeling is that in this case “and” implies an equal partnership between the two creators and “with” implies the second guy acted as an assistant to the first.

    But my gut feelings are far from infallible...wouldn’t be surprised if you are right.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •