Jump to content

Scarecrow????


mynameisash
 Share

Recommended Posts

A question for you.......what were you reading? When last I checked, Silver Age was the corny Batman stuff. Also I'm not talking Superman, I'm talking Batman's books in particular...they were dark from day one and slowly transitioned to camp and went back to dark in the 70's. You may want to check your facts before you go and act like a "holier then thou" misinformed comics reader. ;)

OK, your belief that the Silver Age is a description for the corny era is 100% undeniably and laughably wrong. DC's Silver Age officially began in 1956 when Showcase #4 was published. This issue contained the first appearance of Barry Allen. The ending of the Silver Age is debatable but 1970 was the year Showcase was cancelled so that's approximately right.

 

I wanted to mention Bat-Mite as an example of a ridiculous Batman villain but I checked and noticed he made his first appearance in 1959 which is after DC's Golden Age. The next most silly villain was Mr. Mxyzptlk who was introduced very early in the Golden Age. I wasn't straying from the topic at all. We're talking about Golden Age villains and camp stories. Since Mr. Mxyzptlk is a Golden Age villain and his early stories were very camp, he should be mentioned in this thread.

 

I'm not an expert on Golden Age comic books but I've read enough posts at the Marvel Masterworks Home Page Forums and seen more than enough classic covers to know there were very goofy Batman comic books published prior to 1956. You've obviously never read many Golden Age Detective Comics either because it's a gross exagerration to say Batman was dark from 1939 to 1956. You are correct in saying Batman comic books were dark on day one but that period did *NOT* last for more than a year. Batman was not killing people while he worked with Robin.

 

There's no need for me to check my facts here. I definitely know what I'm talking about. I'm sorry if I seem holier than thou but you're the one spreading false information. The Adam West TV series probably did make Batman comic books a little less serious but there wasn't a drastic change in 1966.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In other words, Liefeld didn't create him, so it's probably not a knockoff. @loll@

Or Mcfarlane. (cough-Deathlok-is-Spawn.cough)

If you consider Deathlok to be the exact same creation as Spawn, I guess you view Superman & Dr. Strange as identical too. Deathlok is supposed to be ugly but his face isn't meant to be rotting.

 

OmegaHarbinger

McFarlane actually did base Spawn on Deathlok and Venom.

You can base a creation on an already existing character without it being a knockoff. I can see maybe 5% of Deathlok's design in Spawn's appearance but The Flash & Quicksilver dress ten times more alike. If Spawn is a knockoff of Deathlok, then Dr. Strange is a knockoff of Superman. Both statements are equally absurd.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for you.......what were you reading? When last I checked, Silver Age was the corny Batman stuff. Also I'm not talking Superman, I'm talking Batman's books in particular...they were dark from day one and slowly transitioned to camp and went back to dark in the 70's. You may want to check your facts before you go and act like a "holier then thou" misinformed comics reader. ;)

OK, your belief that the Silver Age is a description for the corny era is 100% undeniably and laughably wrong. DC's Silver Age officially began in 1956 when Showcase #4 was published. This issue contained the first appearance of Barry Allen. The ending of the Silver Age is debatable but 1970 was the year Showcase was cancelled so that's approximately right.

 

I wanted to mention Bat-Mite as an example of a ridiculous Batman villain but I checked and noticed he made his first appearance in 1959 which is after DC's Golden Age. The next most silly villain was Mr. Mxyzptlk who was introduced very early in the Golden Age. I wasn't straying from the topic at all. We're talking about Golden Age villains and camp stories. Since Mr. Mxyzptlk is a Golden Age villain and his early stories were very camp, he should be mentioned in this thread.

 

I'm not an expert on Golden Age comic books but I've read enough posts at the Marvel Masterworks Home Page Forums and seen more than enough classic covers to know there were very goofy Batman comic books published prior to 1956. You've obviously never read many Golden Age Detective Comics either because it's a gross exagerration to say Batman was dark from 1939 to 1956. You are correct in saying Batman comic books were dark on day one but that period did *NOT* last for more than a year. Batman was not killing people while he worked with Robin.

 

There's no need for me to check my facts here. I definitely know what I'm talking about. I'm sorry if I seem holier than thou but you're the one spreading false information. The Adam West TV series probably did make Batman comic books a little less serious but there wasn't a drastic change in 1966.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Well, I won't argue with the fact that you said you don't know much about the Golden Age. Honestly, can you read? I wasn't stating Batman himself was always dark during that period, I was stating Batman (as in the book title) and/or Detective comics was a darker book in general. Batman was very dark his first year but after the introduction of robin, he grew tamed (now understanding he was a role model). Just because Batman grew tamed doesn't mean the book itself was tame. There are many characters in batman. You can have a insane, murder filled book with a boy scout hero for Christ sake. The hero alone isn't what establishes the feeling of the book. The book title Batman was very dark, though batman didn’t kill anyone in Batman #1, the Joker killed many making the story dark.

 

What are you dense? Are you ##$%$#ed or something? (If you don't get that, read all star batman number 2....if you even know what that is)

This is downright pathetic. You've been using the Silver Age term without knowing the years associated with it and now you have the nerve to get upset when I correct you. There's no point in tossing back the information I've spoonfed to you. _You_ are the one who claimed Batman comic books were dark from 1939-1956. That's false. There were goofy stories during that time frame. _I_ was the one who said Robin was created one year after Batman and he wasn't killing people from then on. My definition of dark doesn't need to match yours.

 

However, my main point was that there were tons of tame Batman stories prior to 1956. Are you intentionally limiting your knowledge to Batman and Detetive Comics? When a Golden Age World's Finest issue involved a corny team-up between Batman & Superman, that counts as a corny Batman comic book. I have no desire to continue a conversation with someone so rude and oblivious to the facts.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knock it off. The insults are completly uncalled for! Consider this a warning.

 

This is a forum for MARVEL TOYS. If you want to continue a discussion about DC Comics, please take it to teh appropriate forum. And please, refrain for talking down and negativly to eachother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knock it off. The insults are completly uncalled for! Consider this a warning.

 

This is a forum for MARVEL TOYS. If you want to continue a discussion about DC Comics, please take it to teh appropriate forum. And please, refrain for talking down and negativly to eachother.

Insults aren't completely uncalled for when someone else instigated a flame war. Why haven't you deleted MysterioMenace's full post? He implied that I was dense, ##$%$#ed, and couldn't read based on me knowing the definition of Silver Age and him being clueless. Besides, there's nothing the least bit controversial about saying Golden Age Batman comic books were frequently tame and corny. That's undeniably true regardless of your opinion.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, Liefeld didn't create him, so it's probably not a knockoff. @loll@

Or Mcfarlane. (cough-Deathlok-is-Spawn.cough)

If you consider Deathlok to be the exact same creation as Spawn, I guess you view Superman & Dr. Strange as identical too. Deathlok is supposed to be ugly but his face isn't meant to be rotting.

 

OmegaHarbinger

McFarlane actually did base Spawn on Deathlok and Venom.

You can base a creation on an already existing character without it being a knockoff. I can see maybe 5% of Deathlok's design in Spawn's appearance but The Flash & Quicksilver dress ten times more alike. If Spawn is a knockoff of Deathlok, then Dr. Strange is a knockoff of Superman. Both statements are equally absurd.

 

OmegaHarbinger

I'm not talking about appearances, I mean the entire character is just a rip-off of Deathlok, everything from his origin to his nationality is a rip-off of Deathlok, and It is obvious that Spawn's Necrosymbiote (I can't remember it's lame name at the moment.) is just an exact copy of Venom, but that's almost understandable, it's an "inspired" part of the heroe, it's not the heroe, but Spawn is Deathlok with demons replacing technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about appearances, I mean the entire character is just a rip-off of Deathlok, everything from his origin to his nationality is a rip-off of Deathlok, and It is obvious that Spawn's Necrosymbiote (I can't remember it's lame name at the moment.) is just an exact copy of Venom, but that's almost understandable, it's an "inspired" part of the heroe, it's not the heroe, but Spawn is Deathlok with demons replacing technology.

I don't see why nationality should play a major role in whether a character is a knockoff. So do you believe Luke Cage & Rage from the New Warriors are knockoffs? The other major aspect you're neglecting to mention about Deathlok is that the concept involves travelling back in time. Although Spawn deals with moving a few years forward in time from the protagonist's perspective, that's hardly the same thing.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about appearances, I mean the entire character is just a rip-off of Deathlok, everything from his origin to his nationality is a rip-off of Deathlok, and It is obvious that Spawn's Necrosymbiote (I can't remember it's lame name at the moment.) is just an exact copy of Venom, but that's almost understandable, it's an "inspired" part of the heroe, it's not the heroe, but Spawn is Deathlok with demons replacing technology.

I don't see why nationality should play a major role in whether a character is a knockoff. So do you believe Luke Cage & Rage from the New Warriors are knockoffs? The other major aspect you're neglecting to mention about Deathlok is that the concept involves travelling back in time. Although Spawn deals with moving a few years forward in time from the protagonist's perspective, that's hardly the same thing.

 

OmegaHarbinger

There shouldn't be a debate, since McFarlane has stated that Spawn is based on Deathlok and Venom.

 

Deathlok and Spawn commonalities;

-both killed by own company

-both brought back as living corpse

-both African American

-both seek revenge on the one man responsible (head of corp) who in both comics looks pratically identical

-both have an elderly advisor

= origin and story flow are the exact same

 

Costume

 

Venom and Spawn commonalities;

-both have a living costume

-costume can transform into whoever/whatever they want

-both costumes are self defensive

-chains = symbiote tendrils

 

Not to mention the fact that McFarlane worked on both titles before leaving Marvel and creating spawn with no previous writing experience........

We're debating semantics here. Can a character be based on another without being an outright knockoff? I say yes. You apparently say no. One of my all-time favoirite VALIANT comic book heroes is X-O Manowar who was sometimes described as "Conan in a can" meaning a cross between Conan, the Barbarian and Iron Man. X-O was still a completely original title though.

 

In my opinion, knockoff is a very demaning term. If a new character is a cross between 2 very different concepts, there's a good chance he's relatively unique. So I think it's unfair to say Spawn is a ripoff of Deathlok. By the way, Spawn is technically not African American. Al Simmons was African American but one of the unusual aspects of Spawn's origin is that he was resurrected in a white guy's body.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knock it off. The insults are completly uncalled for! Consider this a warning.

 

This is a forum for MARVEL TOYS. If you want to continue a discussion about DC Comics, please take it to teh appropriate forum. And please, refrain for talking down and negativly to eachother.

Insults aren't completely uncalled for when someone else instigated a flame war. Why haven't you deleted MysterioMenace's full post? He implied that I was dense, ##$%$#ed, and couldn't read based on me knowing the definition of Silver Age and him being clueless. Besides, there's nothing the least bit controversial about saying Golden Age Batman comic books were frequently tame and corny. That's undeniably true regardless of your opinion.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Well, actually I was joking about the dense and ##$%$#ed thing because it's in the new all star batman thing. Batman calls Dick Grayson that, I'm making a batman joke (hence why I put the backstory about All Star Batman) and I think you just didn't get it. I'm not ACTUALLY serious, I'm just teasing with a batman quote (it's the Darth Vader NOOOOOO of Batman, I thought everyone know of the dense/##$%$#ed batman line) but I guess I was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knock it off. The insults are completly uncalled for! Consider this a warning.

 

This is a forum for MARVEL TOYS. If you want to continue a discussion about DC Comics, please take it to teh appropriate forum. And please, refrain for talking down and negativly to eachother.

Insults aren't completely uncalled for when someone else instigated a flame war. Why haven't you deleted MysterioMenace's full post? He implied that I was dense, ##$%$#ed, and couldn't read based on me knowing the definition of Silver Age and him being clueless. Besides, there's nothing the least bit controversial about saying Golden Age Batman comic books were frequently tame and corny. That's undeniably true regardless of your opinion.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Well, actually I was joking about the dense and ##$%$#ed thing because it's in the new all star batman thing. Batman calls Dick Grayson that, I'm making a batman joke (hence why I put the backstory about All Star Batman) and I think you just didn't get it. I'm not ACTUALLY serious, I'm just teasing with a batman quote (it's the Darth Vader NOOOOOO of Batman, I thought everyone know of the dense/##$%$#ed batman line) but I guess I was wrong.

No moderator on Earth is naive enough to believe that you were just joking. Are you seriously going to claim that your question about whether I can read wasn't meant in a derogatory manner either? Give me a break.

 

I'm sure there were lots of dark stories published in between 1939 and 1956 but there was also lots of goofy material. I don't distinguish between a Detective Comics issue and a World's Finest issue. As long as they both star Batman, they count as Golden Age Batman comics. I never claimed you were 100% wrong but you're definitely not 100% right.

 

So far, I've only read the first issue of All-Star Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder. I assume DC will publish a Hardcover at some point and I prefer to read Jim Lee issues in that format. However, I can still recognize an insult when I see one.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, Spawn is technically not African American. Al Simmons was African American but one of the unusual aspects of Spawn's origin is that he was resurrected in a white guy's body.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Really? Which issue was that/was it recent? All I remember is that once he transformed into a white guy to visit his family, but thats because he didnt have the power to control his suit yet. That was early on though.

That's what Spawn believed at the time but the real explanation is that Al Simmons original body was too damaged for him to be resurrected in it. I believe this was addressed in Spawn #18. A scan can be found at

http://media.comics.ign.com/media/743/7434...mg_3149117.html

 

Notice that Spawn is lifting Al's skull from his coffin and looks extremely upset. I could be mistaken about this since I'm no longer a Spawn reader but I'm pretty confident that was one of the unexpected catches from the deal with Malebolgia.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Allstar Batman sucks hard, hands down. Easily the worst writing that Frank Miller may have ever done....including "The Dark Knight Strikes Back".

 

-Marvel's Scarecrow would pitchfork the hell out of DC's Scarecrow. Whoever is scarier is a personal preference, plain and simple.

 

-It doesn't matter if Spawn is copied from Venom, Deathlock, or Paste Pot Pete....it's no longer worth caring for anymore.

 

-Please take this little debacle to PM's you two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about appearances, I mean the entire character is just a rip-off of Deathlok, everything from his origin to his nationality is a rip-off of Deathlok, and It is obvious that Spawn's Necrosymbiote (I can't remember it's lame name at the moment.) is just an exact copy of Venom, but that's almost understandable, it's an "inspired" part of the heroe, it's not the heroe, but Spawn is Deathlok with demons replacing technology.

I don't see why nationality should play a major role in whether a character is a knockoff. So do you believe Luke Cage & Rage from the New Warriors are knockoffs? The other major aspect you're neglecting to mention about Deathlok is that the concept involves travelling back in time. Although Spawn deals with moving a few years forward in time from the protagonist's perspective, that's hardly the same thing.

 

OmegaHarbinger

There shouldn't be a debate, since McFarlane has stated that Spawn is based on Deathlok and Venom.

 

Deathlok and Spawn commonalities;

-both killed by own company

-both brought back as living corpse

-both African American

-both seek revenge on the one man responsible (head of corp) who in both comics looks pratically identical

-both have an elderly advisor

= origin and story flow are the exact same

 

Costume

 

Venom and Spawn commonalities;

-both have a living costume

-costume can transform into whoever/whatever they want

-both costumes are self defensive

-chains = symbiote tendrils

 

Not to mention the fact that McFarlane worked on both titles before leaving Marvel and creating spawn with no previous writing experience........

We're debating semantics here. Can a character be based on another without being an outright knockoff? I say yes. You apparently say no. One of my all-time favoirite VALIANT comic book heroes is X-O Manowar who was sometimes described as "Conan in a can" meaning a cross between Conan, the Barbarian and Iron Man. X-O was still a completely original title though.

 

In my opinion, knockoff is a very demaning term. If a new character is a cross between 2 very different concepts, there's a good chance he's relatively unique. So I think it's unfair to say Spawn is a ripoff of Deathlok. By the way, Spawn is technically not African American. Al Simmons was African American but one of the unusual aspects of Spawn's origin is that he was resurrected in a white guy's body.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Whether or not Spawn is black or white is, to borrow your comment, semantics. Interesting character study, but completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

 

Whether or not "knockoff" or "ripoff" are demeaning or insulting is also semantics and personal perspective. For example, when I place that label on a comic character, I am using it instead of phrases like "modeled after" or "in the spirit of." Others can (and do) mean insulting things when they say it, but that's thier POV.

 

So in my view, a character can very easily be based on another without being a copy. However, that character is still, IMO, a knockoff, with the followup that (also IMO) a knockoff isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

No less an authority on the character than McFarlane himself has stated that Spawn is equal parts Venom and Deathlok. This, in my eyes, makes him a knockoff, but again, I'm not associating a negative connotation with that. I can let the character and the comics stand or fall on their own merit... but I understand that I'm somewhat unique when it comes to positions like that in topics like this.

 

Again, this entire argument has become semantics. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a link to that figure...

It's not too bad for the 5" line.

http://www.marveltoys.net/figures.php?figu...line=136&v=1031

 

The character IS a pretty blatant Rip-Off of Crane, but it's a pretty common to have cross characters.

I'm not sure how you can make the assumption that Marvel's Scarecrow is a rip-off of DC's Scarecrow.

 

Let's be honest: If you take a name like "Scarecrow" and apply it to a comic book villain, having never heard of the two existing characters, you'd come up with something very similar regardless. I mean, the guy's either going to look like a giant bird or, well, a scarecrow.

 

I'm not trying to absolve Marvel of anything. For all I know, they did indeed know of DC's Scarecrow and base their own on it. However, I do have serious doubts that was the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No less an authority on the character than McFarlane himself has stated that Spawn is equal parts Venom and Deathlok. This, in my eyes, makes him a knockoff, but again, I'm not associating a negative connotation with that.

I have a hypothetical question for you. If I combine equal parts Snake-Eyes and Strawberry Shortcake, is my new creation also a knockoff? I don't see how that's possible since a ninja commando and a doll don't logically mix together. That process creates something completely new. Likewise, Deathlok, Venom, and Spawn are each too different to be considered the same thing.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Please take this little debacle to PM's you two.

 

In what way does this conversation qualify as a debacle? Besides, you're not a moderator so there's no reason why a valid on topic discussion should end just because it no longer interests you.

 

OmegaHarbinger

This thread essentially degenerated into two people trading whits, barbs, and bickering mixed in with a smidge of name-calling. It's nowhere even close to the original point of the thread, which was a pretty cut and dry question asked by the original poster, but more or less a simple argument over semantics. The thread was moved by a mod after the mod that moved it had already issued a warning for the bickering to stop. C'mon dude....common courtesy and dignity to the forum are given if this argument is moved to PM's. What purpose does a public argument such as this actually serve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread essentially degenerated into two people trading whits, barbs, and bickering mixed in with a smidge of name-calling. It's nowhere even close to the original point of the thread, which was a pretty cut and dry question asked by the original poster, but more or less a simple argument over semantics. The thread was moved by a mod after the mod that moved it had already issued a warning for the bickering to stop. C'mon dude....common courtesy and dignity to the forum are given if this argument is moved to PM's. What purpose does a public argument such as this actually serve?

 

Where do you get this bizarre idea that your opinion is shared by everyone? If you dislike this thread so much, then quit reading it. Some people may find it insightful. Would you walk up to a stranger at a party and insist they quit talking about something that doesn't interest you? Of course not. Randomly telling people to shut up is not what common courtesy and dignity are about.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If u guys are interested, pick up Batman CHoronicle TPB.

It collects the first appearance of Batman in Detective Comics#27 and other till the first few issues of the Batman comics. Let's see, in this TPB it collects the first appearace of Batman,Commisioner Gordon,RObin,The Cat(Catwoman),Joker and Scarecrow.

 

The early scarecrow was nothing special at all. He just dressed up in a scarecrow costume and do dirty works for hire. The joker, however does kill. The first story for Joker was Joker murdering a person everynight mysteriously until Batman stopped him.

Those comics were ofcoz nothing like today's. Today's comics are more detailed and readers expect a more detailed,dramatic and complex stories but during those days, comics were pretty simple, good guys fighting,chasing the bat guys. It's still cool to see how the comic writting and characters develop though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No  less an authority on the character than McFarlane himself has stated that Spawn is equal parts Venom and Deathlok. This, in my eyes, makes him a knockoff, but again, I'm not associating a negative connotation with that.

I have a hypothetical question for you. If I combine equal parts Snake-Eyes and Strawberry Shortcake, is my new creation also a knockoff? I don't see how that's possible since a ninja commando and a doll don't logically mix together. That process creates something completely new. Likewise, Deathlok, Venom, and Spawn are each too different to be considered the same thing.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Any time you "borrow" from several elements to make something else, you're going to have elements of what was there before.

 

Deathlok + Venom + Satan= Spawn. Guess what? Deathlok and Venom are still there. The result of something that is a blending and morphing of already-established characters can NEVER be 100% new and unique. Any time you cross those three things, you will inevitably end up with something that is close to Spawn. Once again, it is the responsibility of the creator(s) to DO something new with the creation, unique or not.

 

Deathstroke crossed with Spider-Man yeilded Deadpool. He's a great character (when properly done), but he's still the sum of his parts. There are very few ways that you could cross those characters and not come up with Deadpool, but what has been done with him since his creation is what makes him a unique character.

 

In other words, as far as creation goes, a character based on one or more existing characters is just that. They are, indeed, knockoffs. Once again, that isn't bad (at least not to me). However, it is what is done with the character after creation that determines whether or not they are "completely new." In the case of Spawn, his creation paints him as a knockoff, but what was done with him marked him as a character that could stand on his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a hypothetical question for you. If I combine equal parts Snake-Eyes and Strawberry Shortcake, is my new creation also a knockoff? I don't see how that's possible since a ninja commando and a doll don't logically mix together. That process creates something completely new. Likewise, Deathlok, Venom, and Spawn are each too different to be considered the same thing.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Any time you "borrow" from several elements to make something else, you're going to have elements of what was there before.

 

Deathlok + Venom + Satan= Spawn. Guess what? Deathlok and Venom are still there. The result of something that is a blending and morphing of already-established characters can NEVER be 100% new and unique. Any time you cross those three things, you will inevitably end up with something that is close to Spawn. Once again, it is the responsibility of the creator(s) to DO something new with the creation, unique or not.

 

Deathstroke crossed with Spider-Man yeilded Deadpool. He's a great character (when properly done), but he's still the sum of his parts. There are very few ways that you could cross those characters and not come up with Deadpool, but what has been done with him since his creation is what makes him a unique character.

 

In other words, as far as creation goes, a character based on one or more existing characters is just that. They are, indeed, knockoffs. Once again, that isn't bad (at least not to me). However, it is what is done with the character after creation that determines whether or not they are "completely new." In the case of Spawn, his creation paints him as a knockoff, but what was done with him marked him as a character that could stand on his own.

 

According to your own logic, the amount of characters used as inspiration for a new character is immaterial. If I take small aspects from literally *every* Marvel and DC superhero from the Golden Age to today and incorporate them into my new concept, the result is still a knockoff. That sounds silly to me. Of course, Spawn isn't 100% new but I'm sure many would agree with me that knockoff implies less than 25% new. If you apply this theory to every publisher, there's probably a dozen protagonists at most who fit your originality criteria. If Spawn is a knockoff of Deathlok, Dr. Strange is a knockoff of Superman.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If u guys are interested, pick up Batman CHoronicle TPB.

It collects the first appearance of Batman in Detective Comics#27 and other till the first few issues of the Batman comics. Let's see, in this TPB it collects the first appearace of Batman,Commisioner Gordon,RObin,The Cat(Catwoman),Joker and Scarecrow.

 

The early scarecrow was nothing special at all. He just dressed up in a scarecrow costume and do dirty works for hire.

Thanks for providing this important information. I doubted DC's Scarecrow would use fear gas in his first apppearance. That idea is too creepy and imaginative for 1940's standards.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Find Action Figures on Ebay

×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE