Wednesday, 25 March 2015

PART TWO OF UNTOLD TALES OF SPIDER-MAN COVER & IMAGE GALLERY...


Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

And now, another bunch of covers and images from UNTOLD
TALES Of SPIDER-MAN, a retro-mag from the '90s which set its
stories back in the days of LEE & DITKO's era of the wondrous web-
slinger.  I told you just about everything you need to know about the mag
last time, so there's no point going over old ground.  Instead, let's focus on
the difference between comics of today and what I like to call 'the good ol'
days'.  I was in my local FORBIDDEN PLANET store recently, and over-
heard someone talking about the subject.  He may have been referring to
a specific title, but his comment was apropos to most contemporary
comicbooks, the main purpose of which seems to be to provide
content  for collected editions and thereby sell the same
material twice.

"You've got to read them all together or they don't make
any sense!" was what he said, referring to a continuing story-arc in
a series of issues of the same title.  And he's right.  I can't be bothered
with all that.  When I pick up a comic, I want it to be self-contained, or -
if it's a continued story - to be no more than three or four issues at most.
That was the good thing about the comics of a now-vanished era;  there
may have been a continuing sub-plot to keep the reader interested, but
the main storyline was usually done and dusted in one ish.  The only
comic that I know of that does this today is DAREDEVIL in
PANINI's The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL.

Got any thoughts on the matter?  Then you know where the
comments section is.  In the meantime, enjoy the piccies from a
comic that knew how to give readers what they wanted.















15 comments:

John Pitt said...

I never even read 'em all in the right order when I was a kid and I still managed to follow plots.
But now, I just ain't got enough years ahead of me to start at the very beginning again. I'll leave it to them youngsters. At least they'll be reading the classics which nobody should be denied!

Kid said...

I dunno what happened with this post, JP. I was making a revision, and when I'd finished, it popped up out of sequence like a new post. I don't think any comments were lost, but I can't remember.

What you say is correct. You could pick up one issue from a continued story in the '60s or '70s, and you immediately knew what was happening. Not any more, alas.

John Pitt said...

I can't remember seeing any comments, but I did mean to say something about "you gotta read 'em all in order!"
Anyway, first you need to buy/have 'em all!
Then, there are websites which are attempting to log them all in the correct reading order.
Me? - I wish I could just afford all the Essentials! That'd do me!!

Kid said...

I've got a few Essential volumes, but I prefer the Masterworks and Omnibus editions. Not enough dosh? You'll have to consider hawking yer mutton, JP.

John Pitt said...

Nah, you got me beat there! Hawking yer mutton? Can't work that one out?
Just like you & McScotty talking about "Boabby" - couldn't get that either, but didn't want to stick me neb in.

Kid said...

Hawk: to offer (goods) for sale, as in the street.

Mutton: meat.

You've obviously lead a sheltered life, JP.

Colin Jones said...

I do know 'hawking yer mutton' but I don't know 'boabby'. My father jokingly referred to pregnancy as 'a bellyful of beef' - ever heard that, Kid ?

Kid said...

Nope, don't think I've heard that one before, CJ. However, everyone knows 'boaby'.

John Pitt said...

But I haven't got any meat. I've got some bread, but I wouldn't get much for it on the street.

John Pitt said...

Just googled boaby and if mutton's the same thing, I'd get even less hawking THAT on the street than I would for the fecking bread!

Kid said...

No more Essentials for you then, JP. Unless you start baking bigger loaves.

John Pitt said...

And that retort works perfectly - both in the literal sense and as a euphemism!
You crafty little, wordsmith, you! - You get the punchline and nick all my laughs!

Kid said...

Shameless, that's me!

Colin Jones said...

I just googled 'boaby' and all I can say is that I never heard my father say it even once, perhaps they didn't use that word in Glasgow when he was young (he was born in 1927).

Kid said...

I think it's a relatively recent word, CJ. I suspect that it's no more than 15-20 years old - 'though I could be wrong.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...