BTW, what about that other question Watson raised? I can verify everything he said (If you want the direct quote as to two Spectre stories left on the shelf, I'd be more than happy to give it to you; it DID come out of the interviewer's mouth rather than Mike's, but there are other statements present which reduce that fact's ability to relieve Fleisher of being held to the comment, which I can also quote, if you want them) and add one more piece: Paul Kupperberg's "Dr. 13, Ghostbreaker" series in GHOSTS had a three-issue story arc (#s 97-99, Feb.-April '81) that was a direct sequel to Fleisher & Aparo's ADVENTURE Spectre run, including their character of reporter Earl Crawford. Even THOSE three stories followed the title format from the first 10, so it is a VERY strange thing that the WRATH OF THE SPECTRE #4's third Spec story did not. If two scripts AND ONE PLOT OUTLINE were left by Fleisher and the latter scripted by somebody else, why wouldn't DC say so? Sanderson quotes Fleisher as saying that he felt he could not go back and write THAT Spectre again in one of his text pieces, which would seem to eliminate the idea of Mike turning an old outline into a full script at that time (again, full quotes and citations are available if you want them, by email if you'd prefer not to tip your hand to a possible future topic; just ask!). Oh, yes, it should be obvious that I do not share Watson's theory that the TCJ interview is a phony, despite Mike's statements comparing his and the 60s versions of the Spectre to the early 40s original being VERY contradicted by the evidence in the last's Archive collection. Don't know just what to make of that, but publicly suggesting that THE COMICS JOURNAL might well have fabricated an interview with evidence no stronger than that--it IS enough to justify further investigation, IMHO--is going too far. Do you have any interest in this mystery? If "No," that is certainly your prerogative, no problem.

I only caught the first one because it got caught in the spam filter. Same thing happened with today's.

Anyhow, I was only concerned with the character insults. I see you've addressed that, which was very good of you, thank you.

Beyond that, everything Fleisher says today matches what he said at the time - the only thing of interest was to check out Ted's theory and see if Fleisher was saying one thing back then but would now reveal a different thing given time and distance - as there is no reason for him not to tell the truth 20 years later - and he confirmed what he said 20 years ago. Seeing as how you're not going to find any contrary proof from anyone (and in the 20 years between when he made the original statement and now, Fleisher has never contradicted the original statement), then it's really all I need now.

CBUL #49, first item--"Legend: In the comic books, Superman was declared 4-F because he accidentally read the eye chart in another room with his X-Ray vision....Status: False." Why do you call it false? Because it happened in the Superman NEWSPAPER STRIP of the day rather than the BOOKS, but by not only your own admission, but even by your own repro, the event WAS referenced in a comic BOOK story. THAT is a "lame semantic argument." That aside....

Note that absolutely nobody here ever tried at all to tell Watson that he was wrong about this, including you. I am going to have to insist on a direct answer to each of three direct questions that are straight-forward requests for information:

1. Assuming that the posts you quoted to me are from the thread that Watson mentioned ("some other board on this site"), is it still up on the 'net, and if so, just where can I find it?

2. Have you ever read the last half-dozen or so issues of Fleisher's JONAH HEX?

3. What was your basis for being so absolutely certain Watson's contention about this business was wrong BEFORE you got the statement from Fleisher?

Ted's bottom line was as follows:

Reader Paul Wargelin wrote:

I remember Michael Fleisher describing the origin of the Hex series in a column in the back of the first issue.

Jonah Hex was facing cancellation from low sales, but Fleisher wasn’t considering any reboot of the character until he saw the Hex logo, which I believe was designed by Ed Hannigan. Hannigan was just having fun sketching the name, but the look of it inspired Fleisher with the idea to drop Jonah into a post-apocalyptic future.

Fleisher pitched it to the powers that be at DC, and although everyone agreed it was a bit out there, they approved it because Jonah was ending anyway.

Ted replied:

Sorry, but I stand by my statement that there was a ton of unfinished business in the JH title, including the cliffhanger in the final issue. Let me put it another way: While one could see house ads promising a big change coming for the series, Fleisher was ADDING new plot machinations in the Western format, which were just—and very abruptly—abandoned with the transition to HEX. Doesn’t jibe with cancellation already a given. I have always suspected that some other revamp was planned but jettisoned in favor of the SF shift. And a statement in the text page of HEX #1 that the Western book had already gotten its pink slip anyway should have thrown THAT out the window

It was THIS statement that I went to Fleisher with, and which Fleisher denied fully (Fleisher basically just echoed what Paul had written).

Because I knew that Ted would absolutely freak out if I posted his statements and then showed Fleisher denying them, I adapted what Ted said and avoided using Ted's name, because:

A. I wanted to spare the guy's feelings, and

B. Like I said, I knew if I posted Ted's comments followed by Fleisher totally denying them, Ted would freak out.

Ted then decided to try to come up with any possible semantic argument where the legend could be proven wrong, which of course did not sit well with me, as the only reason his lame semantic argument is even VAGUELY on point is because I altered the legend so as to not offend the guy, and that's why I ignored his nonsense posts.

Which is fine, until 8 months later, I get to cap it all off by you popping in to not only support Ted's nonsense, but to toss in some character aspersions, which are ESPECIALLY lovely as the nonsense occurred due to me trying to be a good guy about the situation.

Bless you, Hal, bless you.

"STATUS: False"

Actually, there is no question that this should be "True." Those dangling, and as far as I know unresolved to this day, plot threads I described earlier (post #s 18 & 19) WERE Fleisher's "original plan for the character." The ONLY question is whether or not the book was abruptly and flatly cancelled THEN almost immediately revived in the HEX format, or simply--but equally abruptly--revamped, including a new #1 issue, with no actual cancellation happening. Again, the promos months in advance for big changes coming and Fleisher not only NOT tying off anything whatsoever but ending the Western on a cliffhanger says there HAD to be non--HEX plans we never heard anything about, that specificless statement otherwise from Mike, made twenty years after the events, notwithstanding.

By the way, Brian, since you do have means of contacting Fleisher, why don't you ask him if he left two scripts on the shelf when his and Aparo's 70s Spectre series in ADVENTURE COMICS was cancelled and replaced with Aquaman, as indicated by his interview in THE COMICS JOURNAL #56, June (on the cover) or May (on the contents page, while the dateless indicia says "published monthly"!) 1980, or three, as DC published, newly pencilled by Jim, in WRATH OF THE SPECTRE #4, August 1988, the finale of a deluxe format miniseries whose three earlier issues reprinted the original ten stories from AC. THAT's been bugging me since the first time I reread that interview after the mini came out. Since the TCJ interview came three issues AFTER the one with Harlan Ellison (in #53) that Fleisher sued over, he may very well have never looked at it. Maybe he should have, and modified his suit to include its misrepresentations of what he said, if THAT is the explanation for this discrepancy. There were other statements it attributed to Mike, about the 1940s Spectre series that were contradicted by THE GOLDEN AGE SPECTRE ARCHIVES VOLUME 1, 2003, which also call its authenticity into question. On the other hand, there are things about the third story in WRATH #4 that call ITS authenticity into question. It had a different letterer and inker than the other two (given that all 41 pages of "new" story & art were in the last issue, from scripts that had supposedly been in-house for 12 years, this IMHO should not have happened), and the title did not follow the structural format of all twelve others; even the titles of Peter Sanderson's inside-covers text pieces for that series did THAT. So I really wonder what is and is not bogus here.

I heard that when John Cassaday was designing the Astonishing X-Men costumes, he got to do hem all himself, except Wolverine. Rumor goes that Wolverine’s new suit was designed by committee and handed down (similarly, there’s a rumor that Joss Whedon was told he had to use Wolvie on his team). Is that the case, and if so, who was on the team that designed Logan’s new duds?

I'd heard this too, as it was one of the reasons I was furiously against the characters reverting back to "classic" costumes.

The problem here is that the "New Look," including the yellow oval, came in not with the TV series in 1966, but when Julius Schwartz became Bat--editor in early 1964. In fact, he and his staff had to do some revamping to match the show, bringing Alfred, who Julie had had killed off in his second issue of DETECTIVE, back from the dead! Besides, virtually everyone familiar with the pre--Schwartz Bats era hates most of those stories (not all, by any means) and that is why his revamp was done.

I have a suggestion for an urban legend, but honestly, I don’t even know where you’d start, and sometimes I think I just dreamed this factoid:

The Batman featured in Dark Knight Returns is meant to reflect the Adam West incarnation of the character. Has anyone else ever heard this?

AND

33.Lyle said …on 01 Oct 2007 at 6:00 am

About Dark Knight supposed to represent the Adam West Batman: I wonder if this got mixed up with an actual thing that happened. When Tim Burton was doing the first Batman movie, Adam West claimed that he was called to play Batman’s father, and he stated that he would only play Batman. When people heard this, the whole idea was considered laughable, so he went on to explain that he could have played the Dark Knight older Batman. There were others who thought this was a good idea, there was even a radio disc jockey who created the song ‘Adam West’ (utilizing the song Wild West) to make his statement that only Adam West should play Batman. So many deluded people…

-----------------------------------------

(apologies for the extensive quoting above)

As I recall the Dark Knight tale, Miller had said that his original "Dark Knight" storyline was supposed to have represented the early Silver-Age Batman (the 1956-1966 era character, not the "New Look" Batman whose look came from the TV series--think of the yellow oval Bat-Emblem as the distinguishing characteristic). THAT Batman had "retired" after a decade-long (or so) career, around the age of 40. When he "returned", he was now the middle-aged (late 50ish or 60ish) character we saw in the mini-series, and the storyline was actually set in the 1980s (rather than the "future", as most people assumed). When the story was read from that framework, it made a bit more sense (especially with the use of Ronald Reagan in the story--the real-life Reagan was already in his 70s when the story appeared, so it seemed to really stretch things to presume that his comic-book counterpart would still be so vibrant in another 20 or so years*).
As to Adam West and the "I'll only play Batman" tale, I do believe that was story that made the rounds but whether he actually made that claim or not is not verified by any actual source that I'm aware of. (Most of the sources turn out to be little more than secondhand hearsay. The only accounts I ever read were of the "friend of a friend" type. I never read or heard any source which actually did a face-to-face interview with West during this time.) West has said he was initially upset (even to the point of crying) when he heard the direction the story would go but he's also denied that he was ever offered a cameo as Bruce Wayne's father. What I do remember is the widespread naysaying (especially in the fan community--this before the internet's massive commercial usage) over Michael Keaton's casting as Bruce Wayne/Batman (Keaton had made a comment that he was preparing for work on a comedy, most likely The Dream Team which came out a couple of months before Batman, and this was the source of the fans' casting concerns).

One version of the story is that Columbia, after being afforded an acknowledgement in the first issue of BIG NUMBERS for being Sienkiewicz’s studio assistant, was pissed at not receiving any credit or acknowledgement for issue two, which he claims to have done mostly by himself, as Sienkiewicz had by that time given up on the project..

Another version, as recounted in Eddy Campbell’s HOW TO BE AN ARTIST, is that Al threw the artwork for issue four (or was it three?) out the window of his car while on the way to printer.

One thing that is true, as I have a copy in front of me, is that ten pages of the “lost” third issue were printed in the first issue (and only) issue of Ashley Wood’s magazine SUBMEDIA, which was published in 1999.

In the intervening years Columbia has produced a lot of work that has never been published, which seems to be a result of his obsessive perfectionism more than anything. My best guess is that if anyone has the artwork for issue four, he does. In any case Fantagraphics has announced they’ll be publishing a large hardcover collection of Columbia’s work sometime in the next year.

"You see, I never had any intention of staying with the project but merely attatched myself to it in order to gain (through Eastman’s money) a certain prominence, at which time I would quit in the manner that we have all heard about."

Do you really believe that?

"Yes, I am a boy with horns. There is not a single thing I say or do that is not designed with a specific outcome in mind. Any and all rumors about myself were generated and manufactured by me and me alone. Please allow me to introduce myself…"

He's obviously being sarcastic, reacting to all the vilification. Remember, these are comments he made at one point on a message board. He told the whole story later (possibly in response to anger over his ill-chosen flippant words repeated here) at the TCJ boards. I don't remember it exactly, and TCJ doesn't save from that far back, but Eddie Campbell drew on the conversation in his book Alec: How to Be an Artist if anyone cares to look it up.

Going on memory: after Bill Sienkiewicz backed out of the project, Eastman asked his assistant, Columbia, to step in and complete it in Sienkiewicz's style. Columbia, a young man of 21 or 22, foolishly agreed. He soon realized this would mean about ten years of labor, imitating another artist rather than being himself. Remember, Sienkiewicz, a seasoned pro, couldn't complete the thing. Not surprisingly, Columbia had a meltdown. Yes, he probably should've handed in what he'd done and quit, rather than destroying what he'd done and disappearing. What he says here seems plausible: that he just didn't have that much done, and had taken money he couldn't pay back.

Others have summed it up best: what a dick this guy is.