Batman issue #164 yellow oval, new Batmobile

[John Mack]

Ok Batman comic book experts.....I was interested in when Batman's chest logo changed. I found out it was in issue #164 from June 1964. I could not however, find out WHO was credited with putting the yellow oval or circle around the bat. Google keeps coming up with the return of the yellow oval (which appears to be just a yellow outline on the bat). Also, I believe the Batmobile was updated in this issue as well. Anyway, so which artist is credited with this change and what is the concensus for the change? Thanks guys. Way out of my knowledge base on this kinda stuff.

Just found some references to Carmine Infantino that say he was the one who came up with the yellow oval, however, issue 164's artists are listed as Sheldon Moldoff and Joe Giella, further confusing me.

[SprangFan]

Actually, chronologically the first comic to feature the yellow oval was World's Finest Comics #141, which beat the Batman issue to the stands by a month or so. The oval is not present on the cover:




But it does appear in the story:




That means the first artist to get a yellow oval Batman in print is... Curt Swan. However, it wasn't his idea.

I'm guessing the change was the idea of Julie Schwartz, who took over as editor of the bat-books from Jack Schiff at this time. I think the "Batcave Companion" book from TwoMorrows Publishing might have the details, but I can't recall (the book's at home and I'm not). Anyway, the point is, it was a matter of an editor telling all artists "add the oval", not an artist deciding it'd be fun to draw it that way and everyone else following suit (no pun intended). In Swan's story, you can tell it was a late change: the image above looks good but others are more awkward. In some cases, it looks like a circle was added at the last second by someone other than Swan, maybe not even an "artist" at all. Interestingly, while no mention of the change is made in the story, there is a brief flashback sequence where Batman does not have the oval, so the in-universe implication is, "yeah we know he didn't have one before, but now he does. No biggie"

I should add that even though I believe the change resulted from an editorial edict, artist Carmine Infantino was tapped by Julie to craft Batman's "New Look," so it's entirely possible he drew up a redesign, showed it to Julie and Julie said, "I love it, everyone do this," and Swan just happened to get his story to print first. So in that sense, maybe it did start with an artist (Infantino).

It just hit me that Curt, Carmine and Julie have all left us, now. Bummer.

[John Mack]

I was hoping you'd see this post cause I knew you'd have a pretty good idea about it all! I guess I could have PMed you lol but this way we all win!

Yes, it pains me. We've lost so many and I had all the time in the world to have connected with them. I met Neal Adams (from a distance ) at convention in the late 80's and I apparently got to his table too late, as I was told he'd be going to lunch and to come back later. He never returned

[AndyFish]

I had lunch once with Carmine and Julie and I asked them this very question-- they bickered back and forth but what I took from it was it was Julie's idea to move Batman towards the more "realistic" style of Infantino but it was Infantino who opted to put the oval around the Bat symbol-- it was both to distinguish the "new look" but also because DC Comics couldn't TM the image of a Bat but they could a designed one on a yellow circle-- and it started as a circle (as seen in the examples above) but morphed into an oval.

I don't know if it's public knowledge but Carmine didn't want to draw Batman-- he was perfectly happy on The Flash-- he thought Batman was boring, but eventually he came around.

Neither of them thought very much of Bob Kane, and in 1964 he was still part of the equation, part of the deal they both made was that National (now DC) would buy Kane out of his contract to get him out of their way.

[SprangFan]

The first time this subject ever came up, I heard that the yellow oval was added to make the logo more easily protected under copyright laws, in the same way that Superman's "S" could never be mistaken for any other "S."

However, over time I came to doubt that because in 1964, Batman was at the bottom of the heap, sales-wise, with "Detective Comics" close to cancellation. It's hard to see the urgency in copyrighting a character that for all DC knew was going nowhere. Unlike Superman, Batman was not heavily merchandised, though that would soon change in the most dramatic way possible. But no one in '64 could have foreseen what was on the horizon for '66.

Personally I think it's just a design touch that looked good (Infantino was a master at that) and a handy visual cue that things were changing (the whole point being to woo readers who'd been passing Batman by for years by making them stop and take a second look). The fact that it worked to their advantage legally was just a happy coincidence (not that it discouraged lots of unscrupulous marketers, anyway).

I'm very happy to have met Julie and Carmine at a Heroes Con in the late 90s. I got some vintage mini-posters signed by Infantino and had a nice, if brief, chat with Julie (I can still hear him saying, "You need to ask CAW-miyne about that..."). As heroes go, they don't come much bigger than the guy who designed nearly every memorable DC cover for two decades and wooed Kirby to DC, and the guy who orchestrated the introductions of the Silver Age Flash, Green Lantern, Hawkman and Atom, created Adam Strange, gave us the Multiverse and topped it off with the Swanderson Superman. That was a good day for me.

[AndyFish]

Wish you'd been at the Lunch-- Julie also dismissed the idea that DC was going to cancel Batman-- they were going to cancel Detective Comics because the sales were so low (although those numbers today would be a best seller) but they would never have given up on Batman-- he was still in Justice League and World's Finest as well as his own title which sold fairly well at the time.

It was only when it was pointed out that the name DC Comics comes from Detective Comics-- although that means the full name is Detective Comics Comics right-- that cooler heads prevailed and they opted not to cancel their flagship title. I guess its no more redundant than asking for an "ATM Machine" which would be Automatic Teller Machine Machine.

[SprangFan]

I'm working my way through Taschen's "Age" books on DC history (since they got so cheap at Costco around Christmas time) and read for the first time that no one was 100% sure what "DC" stood for back when they first went to it, though some believed it was for "Donenfeld's Comics," after then-publisher "Harry Donenfeld." That was the first time I came across that notion, but I could see it being true. For a long time, it was just a meaningless bullet in the corner, since the actual company name was "National Publications" or "National Periodical Publications" (But not "National Comics", that was Uncle Sam's book from Quality).

Anyway, glad no one working there in the 60s thought it meant anything other than "Detective", or they might've canceled 'Tec for sure. It's interesting to look at the numbers for that title overall: they're in the toilet prior to the TV show, then they go way up at the height of Batmania (though never to "Batman" levels) and then when the show's done, they crater again. Apparently its status as the "flagship" title saved it from cancellation not once but several times. A peek at covers over the years reveals all kinds of tricks to make it more appealing, usually involving shrinking the title as small as possible and putting the accent on "starring BATMAN" or "BATMAN in..."

This site has some interesting figures for sales through the 60s. Doesn't look complete, but it's interesting. Superman ruled the world.

http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssa ... ldata.html

[John Mack]

Lou and Andy, you were so fortunate! Memories of a lifetime.

[Yellow Oval]

Basically most members here know my feelings on Batman and the yellow oval symbol (see avatar). I will say that Batman came into his own visually with the changes by Schwartz and Infantino proving my hardened stance that Bob Kane couldn't design costume color schemes to save his life! I hold out hope that eventually maybe one day the Ivory Tower at DC comics will fall and the entire management will be overturned allowing people who know and respect comic history to assume the helm and correct the course returning comic storylines and their heroes and/or characters back to what they should be - just fun and interesting. But, in today's world, that might just be too much to ask.

[John Mack]

I totally agree, as I'm sure you're aware. These days the movement towards making our "heroes" dark, rough, and killers has left me totally uninterested in any of them. They aren't more "realistic" they're just harse, mean sprited thugs. Our heroes were role models, someone you could look up to and aspire to be, upholding the law and values that make us all better in our lives. Today, the characters are anti-social, that have mental issues ranging from paranoia to down right psychotic behavior. That type of mindset is not fun and their exploits center on getting even, rather than solving a problem or upholding the law. Rant over.

[Keith Mayo]

I agree with the last two posts and will go a step further.

I don't care for the artwork in modern comics. To me it all looks computer generated.
Now I realize EVERYTHING is digital these days in publishing, but I much prefer the old style
comics that were actually drawn by the hand of an artists and inked by yet another. Maybe
I'm just an old fart who's stuck in his old ways but the older comics looked better to me.

[John Mack]

I agree with the last two posts and will go a step further.

I don't care for the artwork in modern comics. To me it all looks computer generated.
Now I realize EVERYTHING is digital these days in publishing, but I much prefer the old style
comics that were actually drawn by the hand of an artists and inked by yet another. Maybe
I'm just an old fart who's stuck in his old ways but the older comics looked better to me.

Tru dat! I'm surprised there is any black, crimson or brown inks left to use on computers lol.

[AndyFish]

The bloated look of todays superheroes leaves me cold. They are all over muscled over rendered monsters. There is still some good stuff out there though-- check out the work of someone like Chris Samnee who draws a lot like Alex Toth-- really nice work. He's proven himself to be a solid writer as well too and hopefully he branches out on his own and I suspect eventually he'll end up at DC and on Batman.

[AndyFish]

To answer your second question-- they changed the Batmobile around the same time, but in 1964 Batman dumped his bat-headed behemoth vehicle in favor of a convertible sports car which likely influenced Barris in his creating the classic design we all know and love (is there anyone that doesn't love the '66 Batmobile??). The Barris version eventually makes its way into the comics in a slightly less cool look almost as soon as the show hits the airwaves.

By that time we were seeing work by Irv Novick and Bob Brown on the titles as Carmine began to focus more on the managerial aspects of the company.

As for a return to the more heroic Batman we all prefer, it's a shame they did the Batman '66 series as a comedy and never took it seriously. Jeff Parker is a good guy, but I think he got some bad advice when he got the gig. Had they made it more a combination of the show and the "new look" of the comics at the time which were more serious I think it might have been a hit.

[SprangFan]

Sometimes I miss the look of "my" Batman, but over time I've come to accept that it's a thing of the past, and be grateful.

The real problem with (superhero) comics now is the dark, jaded, mean-spirited (even depraved) mindset behind so many of the stories, and frankly if they're going to be written that way, I'd just as soon they not involve "my" treasured versions of the characters. But on the bright side, they don't! Modern Batman, Superman, etc are not the characters I grew up with, and I'm cool with that: I might wish I could still enjoy new adventures with those old friends, but ultimately I'm content just knowing they now live only in another time, safe from molestation at the hands of modern creators. They live on in vintage adventures on paper and celluloid, and there's enough of that material (decades worth!) to go back and re-experience over and over without getting too awfully bored.

Of course I have pretty much the same feeling about James Bond and Star Trek. It's called "grumpy old man syndrome."

All that said, I'll second Andy's endorsement of Chris Samnee's work. There are a few guys like him out there -- enough to hold out a glimmer of hope for the future -- but for the most part the best stuff in comics these days is being done far away from the DC and Marvel offices, or indeed the superhero genre entirely.