The main point I wanted to get across was in response to what I have seen written elsewhere (and folks have suggested to me) was that Marvel was legally forbidden to do the project, and that's the part i wanted to establish that it was not that they could NOT do the project, but rather that they chose not to due to the costs involved, which is consistent with what you're saying.

Thanks for writing, I'm always glad to have stuff cleared up further!

The explanation for the Ozma adaptation's cancellation that I first heard back in the mid-1980s is that Marvel thought the book Ozma of Oz was in public domain in 1976, but it wasn't. I was told that Marvel knew there were three Oz titles in PD at the time and that they assumed the third was Ozma of Oz, but it was actually The New Wizard of Oz (which was merely The Wizard of Oz retitled when it returned to print due to the huge popularity of the 1903 Broadway stage adaptation). Once Marvel realized that Ozma of Oz was still under copyright, they cancelled the comics adaptation of Ozma of Oz.

Maybe that's not the actual explanation, but to claim that it was based on the conflict between Neill-based imagery and MGM-based imagery doesn't wash. Marvel had already published a Land adaptation and since it wasn't an issue there, why would it have been an issue for an Ozma adaptation? To claim that the reason was a reluctance pay MGM seems shaky to me, especially since this Web site claims that Marvel was paying for a license to the Baum books, which seems highly suspicious. That implies that Marvel paid the Baum estate for rights to adapt Wizard and Land. Surely Marvel wasn't stupid enough to pay to adapt books that were already in public domain. Perhaps this site means that it didn't make financial sense to pay the Baum Trust for the rights to adapt Ozma, since they were already paying MGM for character-depiction rights. That would make much more sense, and simply means that someone mixed up the two rights-holders in telling this story. It also would fit with the explanation I'm familiar with.

It would be nice if this Ozma adaptation could finally be published. The art by Alfredo Alcala exists. When I was still involved with Hungry Tiger Press in the late 1990s, Roy Thomas contacted Hungry Tiger Press about publishing it, but it was too big a job for us to consider at the time. Unfortunately, the rights to the MGM character depictions would have to be re-negotiated. And the state of the artwork is very poor. Lots of the word balloons, which were pasted on after the artwork was completed, fell off over the years. The photocopies of the art that I've seen (two separate, partial sets) have some of the balloons paper-clipped to the art. Other balloons seem to be completely missing. The restoration would take some time and effort.

There is one piece of it that did make it into print. The cover by John Romita was printed on a Baum Bugle back cover in the late 1980s. (With coloring by me.)

Best,
Eric Shanower

The guy has a point, Nightcrawler looks like a freak, but so do a lot of stars with plastic surgery these days. Nightcrawler still has a soul, though.

How come the Golden Arrow and the Black Terror are white guys? It's discrimination against gold people... who are not human.

Sinbad can't even play the Black Terror to comedic affect as he did on SNL back when Superman died. "Black Lightning!'

Second to Wonderland, maybe."

It could be (in that it wouldn't irreparably damage the story or anything), but Baum was always pretty consistent that animals in Oz, although they could talk, were animals, not furry humanoids. (The only exception I can think of offhand is a village of rabbits that appeared in one chapter of one book.) More to the point, it makes a difference in the way the character is portrayed; the Hungry Tiger is supposed to come off as kind of threatening until it's made clear that he's all talk, and a twelve-foot-long bundle of muscle, teeth and claws presents itself differently than a guy in a fur suit, and mixing the two highlights the point that the humanoid Lion is a screen convention that's unnecessary in comics.

Wonderland, now, is supposed to be full of dream-like inconsistency, where normal if talking animals exist alongside frogs and fish dressed as footmen and rabbits with waistcoats, so pretty much anything goes there.

Imagine how impoverished DC and Kenner would be if they had to shell out millions to cover all those retroactive Batman "doll" tariffs...

Adding to the mix: the first "true" revival (no alterations to the name or costume) of the Black Terror I know of is the Dark Adventures version published back in 1987 (two years before the Eclipse version) when the character had NOT been ruled as public domain.

This does NOT mean, however, that the original comics are necessarily in the public domain.

I'll let someone else answer the question but there is a distinction (as I believe a prior urban legends brought up the distinction to me).

How many times have they used this character in the modern era? I counted at least four off the top of my head. The Eclipse/Dixon verson, the AC Comics version, Alan Moore's ABC version, and the Project Superpowers one Dynamite and Alex Ross are doing now.

Of course I would not doubt he may have turned up in the Invaders (when Roy Thomas was using some PD characters in the series) or even a Spawn book (I am pretty sure Todd may have some rights to the Eclipse Black Terror character) but not being a fan of either of those books puts me in the dark on that.

Second to Wonderland, maybe.