 |
| Copyright relevant owner |
Great as the
QUERCETTI FIREBALL XL5 toy was, one disappointing aspect was the generic astronaut figure purporting to be
STEVE ZODIAC. There was Steve clearly illustrated on the box art, and I know that was what
I expected to see back in 1962 or '63 when I opened the lid and took out the contents. But no - it was
John Doe, astronaut, not Steve Zodiac that met my startled eyes.
AURORA models had to change the art on their
WOLFMAN kit's box because of complaints from parents that the illustration didn't reflect the actual model inside, so I wonder if Quercetti likewise ever received any negative feedback on their misrepresentation?
Anyway, do you remember being disappointed with a toy from your childhood for not matching the box art, or simply for not being what you were anticipating - for any reason? Reminisce, each of you, to your heart's content in the comments section. Go on, it's cathartic.
30 comments:
Luckily I never had this problem when a child as I saw the disappointment in others if they were given a Hornby or Brimtoy clockwork train set.
These O guage trains were ideal for playing with toy soldiers, Britains, Timpo or Crescent but they came in boxes with a colour illustration of a LMS Pacific locomotive with a wheel arrangement of 4-6-2 only to open the box and find a stubby 4 wheel locomotive.
My only disappointment with promise and delivery of fun was a Dan Dare Kite. It was bright yellow with a drawing of Dare. The canvas/cotton was heavy grade and the metal frame had to be fed through a sewn seam around the edge. There was a red tail to attach and no matter how much running into the wind on a cliff top I did it wouldn't fly. It was totally earthbound. The cardboard cylinder it came in was more aerodynamically sound.
If made today it would be plastic and wind/air friendly.
As you say Kid, that was cathartic!
So the proposed Dane Dare action figure line wasn't the only DD merchandise that failed to get off the ground, eh? Today, unless there was a blockbuster Dan Dare movie to generate renewed interest, I don't think any modern DD toys and stuff would set the collecting world on fire. As it stands, there just aren't enough original Dare fans left.
There are almost enough original fans of Dan Dare to support Spaceship Away magazine which certainly isn't running at a profit so yes there aren't enough fans to support much merchandise.
It still amazes me that science fiction movies and TV shows get made with huge budgets for special effects yet they are not that good in the end as entertainment while the incredible worlds of Dan Dare remains untapped.
Given the sad state of politics and morals on both side of the Atlantic one would think the time is right for a movie based on human decency.
The trouble with a Dan Dare movie is that to succeed, it would probably have to jettison the entire look of the original comic strip (uniforms, spaceships, etc.), because it all seems too rooted in a 1950s idea of what science-fiction was. To do a 'pure' DD movie, it would end up looking something like Forbidden Planet, which is a great movie, but is not the way modern audiences perceive sci-fi movies nowadays.
Thing is, unless it looked like the comic strip, it really wouldn't be Dan Dare, and under those circumstances, there wouldn't really be any point in doing it. Incidentally, did you know that the US had their own character called Dan Dare, who appeared in the first issue (#2, confusingly) of Whizz Comics, starring Captain Marvel?
Same name, no other similarity.
I don't agree about the look of Dan Dare being too 50's. Put Dare in spacesuit next to any Star Wars uniform and it holds it's own. Also, the Treens, Crypts and Phants could be in any Star Wars movie just as created by Hampson.
The Spacefleet team around Dare for his adventures are still the equals of any in Star Wars. In our heads (& hearts) we know Dan Dare is from the 50's but to a new audience the distinction wouldn't be seen.
The look of British military uniforms haven't changed that much since Hampson coloured them green and placed them in the future.
Wasn't suggesting that there were any other similarities, but the US beat us to the name. I think you're on your own about Dare's look not being too '50s, T47. That's why he was updated in 2000 A.D., the new Eagle, and most if not all recent incarnations (aside from Spaceship Away). The occasional thing in isolation you could probably get away with, but the overall 'vibe' of the strip (the Treens, Crypts, and Phants aside) screams '1950s' to me, in the same way that '60s Dr. Who screams '1960s'.
Have you ever heard the first episode of the Superman radio show? In response to Lara asking Jor-L (as he was named at the time) if he's nearly finished building his rocket, he replies (something like) "Nearly done - just driving the last rivet!" - to the accompanying sound of much banging and clanking. Such things always reveal that they're products of their time. Visually, I'd exclude the exterior designs of the Gerry Anderson craft, though most of their interior control consoles would need a serious overhaul to avoid looking '60s.
I've got the first 22 issues of Spaceship Away, and the Dan Dare pages look like they were drawn in the '50s - but that's a good thing, and it's just what the older DD fans want. They'd also probably like a movie to faithfully reflect the comic, but I don't think that would appeal to a wider audience, and would probably prevent it from becoming a runaway blockbuster hit.
As for British military uniforms not having changed that much since Hampson's time, that's the very thing that would date them in a futuristic sci-fi movie for the present day. Modern-day audiences would be expecting them to have changed in the future. Okay, Hampson set DD in 1997 (I think), but it's a very definite 1950's notion of what the '90s would look like. Remember, I'm mainly talking about human technology and styles in the strip, not alien technology - though I daresay even some of that reflects the times in which it was envisioned.
When I see old photos of the '60s, it looks normal to me because that's the era in which I grew up (though I was born in the '50s), but to younger generations, everything must look incredibly old-fashioned. I think there's a possibility that DD's world doesn't look dated to you because it was all new and fresh and modern at the time you originally encountered it, but I reckon modern, younger audiences would regard it as being out of its time.
And I say that as someone who, ironically, would prefer movie-makers to be as faithful as they can to Frank Hampson's original vision.
The 2000AD version was Dan Dare in name only. The lead charactor and stories had no link to the original. It wasn't an update in any way. To do that for a movie would be pointless. This was proved pretty much when a Biggles movie became a SF time travel piece of junk. My favourite book is the first novel for Biggles called 'The Cruise of the Condor'. This story could have Biggles replaced by Indiana Jones and no-one would be the wiser, yet it was published in 1933.
If younger audiences can accept Indiana Jones set in the 30's to 50's
As one of the generation of readers who appreciate Spaceship Away, it's not just the look but the sensibility of the new material that's enjoyable.
I was born in 1947 and was too young for the first few years of Eagle although I did read many of them as back then schools permitted Eagle to be donated to the class for reading at 'Wet Breaks' when we were trapped in the classroom due to inclement weather.
As you said, Dare was set in the late 90's almost 50 years in the future when published, yet when we reached the late 90's it didn't feel that any of the predicted changes had happened. Forward to today and climate change coupled with population growth we're actually getting closer to the original Dare story of going to other worlds to find new food sources.
In terms of updating Dare, The Revolver version was all too real.
So like you visually Dan is best as his creator made him. A retro SF would be fun.
And the reason why 2000 A.D's DD wasn't like the original was because it was perceived that then-modern readers would find it too old-fashioned. So they used the name, and set him in what was then regarded as a more futuristic setting. I assume he was meant to be the same man, but it was a 'reboot' for 1970s readers.
A retro SF movie might be fun, but just how would they do a film of the future set in the past's vision of the future? I have a terrible fear that they would camp it up like Flash Gordon. Therefore, they'd probably set it in 2097, which would make the uniforms, etc., appear even more dated if they based them too closely on the comic strip. So some things would need to be updated, but in such a way that didn't compromise the original look too much. Getting the balance right would be the problem.
Incidentally, did I mention that I have the original Eagle #1? (Just boasting.)
IIUC, the first published issue of Whiz Comics was #2 because #1 was an ashcan edition that was made up of proof sheets and odds & ends. It was sent to the Patent & Trademark Office to secure the copyright, and was never marketed (or intended) for retail sales.
From what little I've seen of Dan Dare, it looks like a product of the same decade that gave us Captain Video, Commando Cody, and Space Cadet.
Given the current state of politics and morals in Hollywood, I fear a story based on human decency would not have a chance. It would be "updated" to make it politically correct, or it would be a campy comedy, with the hero portrayed as a buffoon.
Actually, TC, there were two ashcan editions of Whiz Comics #1 (inadvertently pressed the 'z' key twice in my earlier mention), but they were called Flash Comics and Thrill Comics - and their hero was called Captain Thunder. Publishers Fawcett then had two issues in a row that were numbered three, making the published number two (the first edition on sale to the public) number one. So, in effect, it was the first issue for two different reasons - and the hero was now called Captain Marvel.
Confusing or what?
Incidentally, you can see the first 15 covers of Whiz Comics - plus the two ashcan editions - by simply typing Shazam into the blog's search box.
Comparing Dare to those other 50's US TV charactor's is not a true expression of the detail of the Hampson strip. The basis for the original Star Trek, international crew, Space Academy etc is a straight steal.
The reboot of Star Trek movies is 'retro'. The latest Star Wars movies were retro to the original movie.
Dare could start with the original setting then progress to the future. After the Man from Nowhere, then Rogue Planet stories Dare jumped to his future for Reign of the Robots so it could be done.
It will however never happen. Instead we will have TV shows like The Orville a tongue in cheek Star Trek. Somehow comedy is the way to go with SF movies. The best Star Trek movie is Galaxy Quest, the best Star Wars is Spaceballs.
Kid, to fully appreciate the first issue of Eagle you have to understand post war UK society with it's food rationing and generally run down society after 6 years of war. The original story based on looking for a new source of food reflected the shortages still felt by the readers.
The way politics are now, an uplifting SF story might be welcome?
The original point I was getting at though, T47, is that if movie-makers made a slavish copy of the 'look' of the strip in every detail (Dan's pistol for a start), it would have a dated feel, which most likely wouldn't appeal to modern audiences. So they'd have to be selective in what they updated and what they left alone if they wanted to try and appease the Dan Dare purists, which they probably wouldn't. So it's likely they'd just take the Star Wars/Star Trek/Battlestar Galactica approach - and then it wouldn't really be Dan Dare.
And I was born just after rationing ended in 1954, so I DO understand post-war UK society. After all, I grew up listening to adults talking about the immediate aftermath, when it was yet very fresh in their memories.
I must confess to hugely enjoying Galaxy Quest, but I've never seen Spaceballs.
I'd be bloody surprised to say the least if Star Trek's creators were at all influenced by Dan Dare...but I do think that the makers of Rentaghost got away with murder! But seriously, it's been well recorded what the actual Star Trek influences were...I remember reading about a Dare TV show starring Edward Fox being promo-ed in an early '80's issue of 2000AD and I was disappointed at the time that it never went anywhere, but if it was to end up as a cross between 2000AD Dare and Blake's 7 effects, perhaps it was a good thing that it didn't materialise?
I have no emotional vested interest in a Dan Dare film/show as I don't have that nostalgic connection to the original version, but I would still rather watch a faithful Dan Dare 'retro' in-period movie than any of the current Hollywood sci-fi offerings (the Guardians of the Galaxy movies excepted - I did find those entertaining)...the fact is, the man in the street couldn't care less about Dan Dare. Remember hey did that 'Sky Captain' movie that homaged the old serials, but who remembers that film now? That being said, the man in the street didn't give a soldered rivet about Iron Man, but look what happened there!
I think the best you can realistically hope for is a fan-film...there are Dredd and Strontium Dog 'amateur' short films on YouTube that are fab. I assume these are made as calling cards, but if one of those guys or gals turned their attention to Dan & Digby, that's probably your best shot at seeing anything remotely faithful to the 50's 'real' Dan Dare.
It's certainly possible to do a faithful Dan Dare movie, HS, but given the propensity of movie-makers to try and 'improve' (in their opinion) and update things in any given property, it seems unlikely to happen any time soon. I mean, the very idea of a 'batman' these days is a hugely old-fashioned concept, especially in the future. There was a radio series on Radio Luxembourg in the '50s, but (according to Wikipedia) 'the dialogue and manner of the characters is reminiscent of British war movies of the '50s'. And aged DD fans aside, after Star Trek and Star Wars, etc., modern audiences aren't really looking for sci-fi movies that come across like old British war films.
One day it'll maybe happen, but the driving force will have to be someone who loves the original Dan Dare, and even then, compromises would probably have to be made for it to have any expectation of being a huge hit. And it would need to be, because it would require a huge budget to do the special effects justice.
Have you checked out the live-action 2000AD 'fan-films' on You-Tube - there's Judge Minty, and a great Strontium Dog one that I don't recall the title of? They evoke the feel of the comic far better than Hollywood ever will...
For all the plaudits chucked at the Christopher Nolan Batman movies, I think they (mostly) suck. 'My' first Batman was the Adam West version that I obsessed over during the mid-70's repeats, but the Batman I really want to see on screen is Neal Adams' art come to life. I dunno what a real-life attempt at that version of the costume would look like on screen, but it can't be worse than Nolan's Batman with that silly voice who can't turn his head?
Talking of movie makers trying to 'improve' things, I just binged the 10 episodes of the recent Swamp Thing show. Swampy now looks and sounds as close to the comics as you could realistically hope for, but the amount of liberties they've taken with everything else is terrible - apparently, it's cancelled already. The one change that really rankled with me was making Madame Xanadu a black, bayou dwelling, witch-type...the original character was based on Mike Kaluta's squeeze of the time, so why don't they just introduce an analogue of the character if they wanna mess with it? Still, it's not as daft as a black Heimdall. I look forward to Andrew Dice Clay playing Luke Cage...
I haven't seen them, but may get around to checking them out later, HS. Trouble is, despite my pride in being associated with JD's Lawman Of The Future comic back in the '90s. I'm not really a huge fan of Dredd per se. As for Batman, I like the first Michael Keaton one, but not so much the others. As for the Neal Adams Batman, I don't think a skintight nylon costume would look good in 'real life', as a vigilante in a bat-suit would be too vulnerable in such an outfit. And as for the TV show, although I didn't think so as a kid, Adam West's costume looks positively ridiculous to me now.
Never seen any of the Swamp Thing TV series. Was it the Len Wein version or the Alan Moore version?
The origin of Swamp Thing in the show is messed about with to the point it doesn't resemble anything I'm familiar with in the comics. They do mine the Moore version towards the end of the episodes, the penultimate ep being 'The Anatomy Lesson' and the bit where he goes back to the swamp to find his old bones is very well done. They also mention the green and the rot. But (I suppose because it got cancelled) the teases of having Woodrue and Blue Devil in there doesn't really materialise into what us comic fans are hoping to see. Forgetting the comic writers, they did a really good job of making him look Wrightson-esque at the start, and Bissette/Totleben later on...I'll forgive a lot to see this stuff on screen, but to mess about with it to the extent they did, I dunno who it's aimed at. Comic purists will tut at the liberties taken and casual viewers won't see the rot for the green...
I must confess that I did like the issue where he goes back to claim his bones, but I don't like the fact that Moore made Swampy an echo of Alec Holland, rather than Alec himself. I was glad to see Len Wen return to Swamp Thing for six issues a couple or so years back, where he (mostly) ignored what Moore had done with the character.
I must admit I haven't seen those later Wein issues. I suppose the real question is about Holland's soul, but whether he's physical Alec wandering about encrusted in mucky muck, or just the essence of Alec controlling a man-shaped plant, it's still Alec living on and trying to help folk? I haven't all the Moore stories, and if I had to choose, I'd always keep the 70's Wrightson/Redondo run rather than the more highbrow Moore run. I know they're highly thought of and all that, but they were never as much fun as the Universal horror flavoured originals...I'm only sorry that Wein and Wrightson aren't still here to see their creation enduring...
I had to cut and paste your comment from my email alert, HS, because I inadvertently hit delete instead of publish. Nowadays I get so much Spam mail (that doesn't go to Spam, it pops up in the main comments), that I'm forever hitting the delete option, so I sometimes do it automatically without thinking.
It's been years since I read the Moore issues, but the impression I got (and I could be mistaken) was that 'his' Swamp Thing was like a vegetable clone of Alec Holland's essence, not the 'real' one, so that kind of made me less interested in the character. It's like someone recording your brain patterns and transferring them into someone or something else, thereby creating another you. However, though the copy has all your memories, it isn't 'really' you, just a copy.
That's the way I saw it anyway. Like you, I'm fortunate to own the original 24 issue series from the '70s.
Regarding Batman, I'm old enough to have been introduced to the 40's reprinted stories and new 50's stories. Back then The Batman was a detective and by carefully following visual clues in the story you could also solve the crime. Now that Batman is a superhero, without super powers, the dark villains just give us dark, dreary, loud movies.
The best screen version, where Batman is neither a 60's clown or way too dark is the early 90's BATMAN: The Animated Series. Great drawing, great voice, great music, good writing. Even the comic version was good fun.
The Batman, is a self motivated crime fighter, finding justice rather than just a legal solution. The movie versions are too tied up in marketing new Batmobile toys and new Batman costumed figures. The movies would gain by returning to detection, not hardware.
Wasn't Man-Thing a copy of Swamp Thing? The best ting to come out of that was Howard the Duck. The charactor, not the movie!
Some great comments from both of you guys on this post, I've really enjoyed reading them. I read some of the '40s & '50s Batman stories which were reprinted in b&w British (or maybe Australian) annuals. Unfortunately, '50s BM stories veered off into sci-fi and were a bit wild in concept. I liked the '70s Batman stories, wherein he was much more of a detective, especially the ones in which Robin was absent.
As for Man-Thing and Swamp Thing, the origins of both are slightly complicated, in that both came out in the same year, and the artists of both strips were rooming together, but each claimed they didn't know about the other's 'Thing'. Man-Thing appeared about two months before Swamp Thing, but given the fact that it takes around three or four months between creating a comic and publishing it, that wouldn't have been enough time for DC to get their story ready so soon after Man-Thing appeared.
Why no lawsuit from Marvel over the similarity between the two characters? Probably because Man-Thing was essentially a rip-off of The Heap (1942), right down to his peculiar facial features. Comics, eh?
The late 60's/70's Batman stories, especially with art by or inspired by Neal Adams were a refreshing break when Batman stopped being a clown as in the TV show and was a detective. Yes, the stories without Robin were always better. Robin's presence reduced stories to a seven year olds level.
I hadn't realised the two 'Things' appeared that close together in time. Swamp-Thing was better presented and didn't need Howard the Duck to save the story line. I often wondered if either was influenced by the 'Green Man' of English folk lore?
I don't know whether they were influenced by the Green Man, T47, but it wouldn't surprise me if Alan Moore had the character in mind when he took over the series. I always considered Swamp Thing the better of the two strips, mainly because I usually only saw Man-Thing in guest star spots, but I got two volumes of the Man Thing Complete Collection a couple of years ago (there might only have been two) and, surprisingly, found the stories to be rather good.
The Man-Thing stories (or the one's I've read, at least) were a lot less appealing as a kid because of Gerber's prose. I can appreciate him trying to do something different and elevate things for older readers, but there were definitely titles that I didn't think were for me as a kid and this would've been one of them. (Another was an issue of Killraven which I immediately regretted buying as a 7 year old, but then re-bought as an adult because of it's nostalgic value). Of course, because of the nature of Man-Thing, the stories have a changing cast and we get a self-indulgent story before ol' Manny turns up at the end to put the burn on someone. As an adult I appreciate them a bit more, but I'd still rather see Wrightson's Swampy up against Franken...sorry, Patchwork Man! As for the artists rooming together, wasn't it Wein and Conway? The reminiscences in the various interviews lead you to believe that Wrightson and the rest all lived in one apartment block or on the same street, but I think Gray Morrow drew Man-Thing's first appearance and I don't remember ever hearing his name mentioned in those flat-share stories?
You'll never believe this, HS, but I was under the impression that it was the writers who roomed together and that's originally what I typed. However, I couldn't remember Gerry Conway's name, so Googled the story behind their creation - and the account I read (Comicvine) said it was the artists who roomed together - so I amended what I'd originally typed in my response. I've now looked at Wikipedia, which says it was the writers, so I was right the first time before I changed it. Apparently, Len Wein wrote the second man-Thing story (in between the first and second issues of Swampy), but it wasn't used until around a year or two later.
And talking of people who don't usually get a mention, Stan Lee was in on the creation of man-Thing (as well as Roy Thomas) and even came up with the name.
I believe you, Kid - I wouldn't tune in regularly if I didn't. You run this blog with heart-on-sleeve honesty. I don't have the relevant 'zines to hand 'cos I'm at work, but something in the memory banks visualised them craning over to read each other's scripts in their typewriters rather than peering over at each other's drawing boards. I know these weird synchronicities do happen, but I don't think this was one...they were totally having a laugh submitting this stuff at exactly the same time IMHO (in my Hackney opinion)!
Oops! I meant 'Man-Thing' (capital 'm'), not 'man-Thing' (didn't press the shift key hard enough). Of course, it's always possible that the writers roomed together and the artists roomed together, but I'm not going through the many articles about the characters to find out. I think The Heap had been revived not long before either character, so that may well have been the catalyst for both Swampy and Manny.
Post a Comment