I know it's a cheesy '70s-'80s cartoon show, but back then, the writers were so restricted due to the rules of television at the time. Still for what they are allowed to do, it's pretty damn good. I still like it even though Justice League is a much better written and animated cartoon. It's like watching the Adam West Batman series, even though it's very hokey and cheesy, I like it!
www.facebook.com/schosebone1
twitter.com/JML101582
This show has heart. It tried to teach some sort of values to kids. There was a time when comics were for kids!!! I sit at work & watch a 40 & 50 yr moan & groan about continuity & other bs. This stuff was meant for kids! It's great when adults can appreciate comics but I never expected the bulk of the audience to be late teens & up. Way up!
That's why I never look at this cartoon as stupid. I loved it as a child & have the warmest feeling in the works when I see it today! I don't try to break the plots down or think Aquaman was useless. The stories were for small children & I loved Aquaman on this! It's commendable that a show tried to do more than entertain. Yes it's corny but there's some decent about it to me.
As I alluded to in my review of the GEEC episode, DC felt obligated to present little morality plays such as the consequences of pollution, etc., as they had an entire hour of children's programming on their hands. With that in mind, and keeping mindful also of the low budget, they did O.K., I think.
Some of the guest characters like Plastic Man and Green Arrow likely had never been presented in animation before. It was very exciting back then to see TV versions of print superheroes like those for the first time. Now we take it for granted, as even relatively obscure DC characters like Crimson Avenger, Shining Knight, Vigilante, Captain Atom, Stargirl, and The Question have been animated.
DC didn't write the episodes and had little involvement in the show. It was produced by Hanna-Barbera, who handled the scripts and stories, so they were the ones presenting the morality plays. However, morality had been a huge part of comics since day one and during this time in particular. Justice League of America issues frequently dealt with social and environmental issues in this period, both in wake of the Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams Green Lantern/Green Arrow series and with those subjects at the forefront of the news. Environemntal topics were at the height of the national debate, with the anti-litter ads (with the native American with a tear in his eyes), the Clean Air Act, the outlawing of DDT, the foundation of the EPA and similar cultural events.
I loved the series as a kid, as it was the Justice League come to life (with some interlopers); but, I still enjoy it as an adult (despite the overabundance of bad pun names). The animation and storytelling are rock solid. I wanted more villains from the comics, but we got those a few years later. Besides, those Alex Toth models were great.
"Fortunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered for just such an emergency!"
I realize that DC didn't write the scripts -- however, if you know your comics history, DC Publisher Carmine Infantino was in on the decision to utilize the hour of programming to send strong messages to kids that were of value. It wasn't strictly an H-B decision as you've implied.
Your mention of Green Lantern/Green Arrow series is pretty much irrelevant, as by 1973 the title was gone (cancelled in 1972) and Green Lantern was soon back to being a solo character -- featured in backups in The Flash that had no social justice backdrops. Look through DC's titles from '73 and you will find nothing remotely like the O'Neil/Adams work on GL/GA, which arguably was heavy-handed (and certainly not aimed at children -- while of course SuperFriends was).
Aside from some ill-advised attempts at copying Marvel, like Green Arrow's feud with Hawkman, DC's superhero comic books from 1973 and up settled into basic fare, focusing on hero-vs.-villain. Morality plays, or at least obvious ones as seen on SuperFriends, were few and far between in DC's output.
I know my comic history quite well, thank you. Infantino did little more than approve the pitch from Hanna-Barbera and greenlit a Treasury edition tie-in and a comic book series. He did not approve scripts. Denny O'Neill, meanwhile, was writing socially conscious stories on Justice League of America, as were Cary Bates and, especially, Elliot S! Maggin. They were following both in the trend that O'Neill pioneered as GL/GA and in response to the soap opera approach at Marvel, as Marvel had surpassed DC in sales, by this point. Jon Stewart was introduced in this era, , plus they had stories like "Man Thy Name is Brother." O'Neill didn't stay long on JLA, preferring to focus on Batman, before moving over to Marvel. Yes, the social relevance trend didn't last long on JLA, though it continued company wide in special one-page public service strips. Meanwhile, books like Superman and his related "family" members often featured stories about social issues, especially Lois Lane (including one where she changes her skin tone and experiences life as a black woman). The level of writing wasn't as good as GL/GA; but that doesn't mean they weren't treading similar ground. DC actually had a better track record in these areas in their war and mystery books, where the writers had fewer people looking over their shoulders, except Joe Orlando and Joe Kubert, who both had reputations for encouraging young talent and experimentation. No, it wasn't as direct as these cartoons, but that had more to do with the network than DC.
The ecological tone on the Super-Friends was in large part to satisfy the network mandate for educational material, in light of the criticisms brought against the adventure cartoons of the 60s, as well as being topical. If you examine the cartoons of the era, it is quite common, with Filmation often the more heavy-handed of the two studios. ABC, as a network, soon got around the need for educational content within the cartoons themselves, by purchasing the Schoolhouse Rock cartoons and inserting them between programs. Filmation continued to put progressive messages inside their cartoons, none moreso than Fat Albert, though that was as much Bill Cosby's idea as Lou Scheimer and Norm Prescott's. However, cartoons such as the New Adv. of Batman, Space Sentinels, Tarzan, Zorro, the Super 7 and their various live action shows were filled with morality tales, not to mention other content, such as the Spanish lessons in Zorro and the racial mix in many of their cartoons.
The other reason for the disparity between the cartoons and the comics is that the cartoons were definitely aimed at a younger demographic. As stated above, the networks came under heavy fire over violence, by the end of the 60s, in response to shows such as the Filmation Batman (from the Superman/Batman hour, not the later New Adventures of...), so they were cautious about violence. Therefore, they needed conflict that required problem solving, rather than violent confrontation. The ecological aspects allowed the heroes to apply their powers, but didn't require them to engage in combat with human beings. Since they were aimed at a younger audience, the writers, in true Hollywood fashion, made things as simplistic as possible, while trying to keep the plots lively. By contrast, DC an Marvel were finding their audience shrinking and the average age of their readers was a good 3 to 5 years older than Saturday morning cartoons.
Regardless, that first season is filled with some great stories that were captivating when I was a child watching them on their original broadcasts and still held up well when I watched them on dvd. Wendy and Marvin were needless additions, and Frank Welker's voice for Marvin was beyond annoying; but it didn't drag the stories down as much as some would suggest. I have been watching the later series; and, for my money, these hold up better than the bulk of the other series, apart from Challenge of the Super Friends, and possibly the two Super Powers shows (though much of the animation is stiffer and the voicework of lower quality).
"Fortunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered for just such an emergency!"
"Man Thy Name Is Brother" (JLA) and "I Am Curious (Black)" (Lois Lane) were both released much earlier than SuperFriends (pre-1970 and 1970, respectively). I don't see what either has to do with a discussion of SuperFriends. Those types of efforts were long gone from the DC superhero titles by 1973. Jon Stewart appeared only briefly circa 1972 (the final issues of GL/GA) and wasn't used again for many years. If Julius Schwartz were really gung-ho on social relevance, he could have used Jon in JLA going forward -- but never bothered.
As far as Marvel surpassing DC in sales, this finally happened in 1972 -- but mainly due to Martin Goodman's fast move of keeping his titles at 20 cents for 36 pages (after just one month at 25 cents for 52 pages, Nov. 1971), while DC continued their 25 cent comics at (52 pages) for many months (well into 1972). It was a move that caught the attention of the U.S. Government as potentially in violation of the wage & price freeze then in effect, as Marvel had effectively raised their per-page price. Roy Thomas has stated that DC "took a bath" on their 25-cent line. It's very clear that economics played a much bigger role in Marvel's gains than most any other factor.
Goodman's publishing experience finally lifted Marvel to the top. He had also flooded the newsstands with new reprint titles, another move designed to "hurt" DC -- and was effective to some extent. DC made a lukewarm response to that by releasing short-lived reprint titles of their own, circa 1973: Legion, Doom Patrol, Boy Commandos, Challengers of the Unknown, Johnny Thunder, Inferior 5 -- all of which folded after 3 issues or less.
Look at it this way: If Marvel couldn't gain top share in the 1968-1971 period, with outstanding efforts like Conan and Silver Surfer, and steady titles like Avengers, Capt. America, Sub-Mariner, Daredevil, Iron Man, Thor, and Amazing Spider-Man, it's clear that something more happened in '72 than just readers' tastes evolving or changing. The socially relevant work DC's writers had been turning in, like the 2 stories mentioned above, was released BEFORE Marvel's overtaking of top market share in 1972. While it's true that for several years beginning in the '60s, DC's editors had been making efforts to respond to Marvel's popularity, the fact remains that almost all the way through the O'Neil/Adams collaboration years, DC remained the overall sales leader.
I disagree as far as Wendy & Marvin (and Wonder Dog) being "needless additions." They served multiple purposes, mainly as comedy relief and to fill the need for young viewers to have non-adult characters with whom to identify. Later on, the Wonder Twins served that latter purpose.
When we look at these animated series as adults, it's easy to find the Marvin character annoying and even go as far as to say that the later SuperFriends work holds up better partly as a result of his absence. But as someone who began with the first series at age 8, I have a different perspective. The "junior" characters actually had lot to do with the success of SuperFriends and gave the first series a lot of 'character' it wouldn't have had otherwise.
It's a simple good guy vs bad guy/misguided guy/natural disaster. That's not just for kids, it's simple super hero stuff. That works and always has. And not just for kids. Are we going to pretend no adults found that to be all they wanted in a super hero from the start?
Hell there's enough grown men commenting and being far happier about Super Friends on DVD that seems to apply they weren't kids when Super Friends aired.
People like what they like. Some kids are going to like it, some aren't. Some adults are going to like it, some won't. Which is why i don't really get why some people throw nostalgia around in entertainment. Normal people shouldn't become old miserable people with shriveled up tastes. You like what you like and it grows as you get older. The Super Friends are doing the same things they did way back when. The only factor to change is the person watching it and if for some reason a person can't still have fun watching it, they've got nothing to blame but themselves.
But again i don't know a single normal person who at some age "grew up" and no longer liked the shows from their childhood and they didn't only like them because they were young and stupid, they liked them because they entertained them then and still do now.
Gamefaqs has a far worse population than IMDB
Very well said, and I agree. As a father, I would be far more comfortable with my children watching this version.
share