 |
| Copyright DC COMICS |
In a previous post (here), we looked at the very first story in DENNY O'NEIL's ground-breaking SUPERMAN run which lasted nine issues, with another two unconnected tales following soon after. (Issue #233, above, which kicked things off, was dated January 1971, but probably went on sale around October 1970 in the United States. Though exactly when it hit newsstands in Britain is anyone's guess.)
Anyway, I thought all you Crivvies would probably appreciate seeing the rest of the covers in O'Neil's KRYPTONITE NEVERMORE series, though #239 was a giant reprint issue which had nothing to do with the storyline so I haven't included it here. However, I have included #s 244 & 253, which ended O'Neil's involvement with The MAN Of STEEL. (As far as I'm aware, that is. If anyone knows otherwise, don't keep it to yourself.)
So - sit back and enjoy the accompanying eleven covers, from a time when publishers knew how to grab a potential purchaser's attention with dynamic layouts and intriguing illustrations!
10 comments:
IIRC, Superman #236 was a stand alone, unrelated to the "Kryptonite Nevermore"/sand creature story arc. The lead story, "Planet of the Angels," had a cameo appearance by Batman. The back-up story, "The Doomsayer," was a flashback, with Green Arrow and Black Canary in the framing sequence. Wonder Woman and her then-mentor, I Ching, appeared as guest stars in Superman #241 and #242.
Yes, but unlike the giant issue I excluded, #236 is part of O'Neil's uninterrupted 9 issue run in which the main tale was told. For that reason - and because DC themselves include it as part of the saga - I included the cover.
I love the way DC comic exaggerated events, like Superman's failure (whatever the hell that may be) on teh covers. Like Metropolis which was monthly attacked by Luthor, missiles, comets, earthquakes, would get rid of a Superman so quickly. And he was the biggest tourist attraction too.
It's better in the 1970s, in the 1950s the cover often had NOTHING to do with what was inside.
My favorite one was "Who is stronger, Superman or Super girl, like they were going to have a boxing match. When Marvel slowly became popular they stopped doing that.
One thing that has to be admitted is that, regardless of the stories inside (good, bad, or indifferent), the covers were usually always interesting.
For me the cover was always the great selling point.Even though the stories were different, inside you were guaranteed
to buy that comic through the strength of the cover. Todays comic covers, don't have the same impact they're just boring heavily muscled superhero pin-ups.
I think they should bring back the speech balloons to covers. Trouble is, they're trying to make them look like 'proper' magazines rather than comics nowadays. Seems as if they're embarrassed by 'comics'.
Re DC covers having little or nothing to do with the stories inside, perhaps the most infamous (or disappointing) example is the Wonder Woman "Women's Lib Issue".
I remember buying Superman 241, because all of a sudden the DC comics had gone over to the 48-page part-reprint format, completely without warning here in Britain. It was very confusing! But I liked the 48-page books over the next year or so. I think by then Marvel had been treading water for a couple of years and DC were doing more interesting new stuff, and the reprints gave their books more variety.
If I remember correctly, Marvel were first to increase the page count and price (from 15c to 25c) and DC followed suit. Then Marvel dropped back down to 36 pages and a 20c cover price. Apparently DC's sales suffered (despite the classic reprints), which allowed Marvel to surge ahead. At least, that's what I've always understood to be the case.
I think it was the other way round. I've read that DC had expanded their books and were committed to keeping them for that way for a year, having bought paper and/or printing in advance. Meanwhile Marvel were still doing 32-page books for 15c. Then they expanded to 25c 48-page books for one month only, and next month went back to 32 pages, but for 20c. This meant they were able to put up the price of the same product, but sell it as having been CUT - and it was something like six months before DC were able to do likewise. Machiavellian, hey?!
There's also evidence from the books - just before Marvel expanded, their books were labelled "still only", and that one month, all the expanded books' covers carried variations on "ALL-NEW", i.e. not like DC.
The whole business sticks in my mind because American comics almost completely vanished from the newsagents' shops where I'd always bought them. Something definitely happened to UK distribution around 1971-2, and it seems likely that the books' changing sizes and prices had something to do with it?
It may well have been as you say, but in the account I read (a few years ago now), it was presented as I described. That is, Marvel tricked DC into copying them, then switched back to their original size. Perhaps the writer merely assumed this on the basis that Marvel only had one issue of each of their titles at 25c, but I never thought to check.
However, I see that Fantastic Four #116 (Nov '71) was the 25c issue, and Superman #241 (Aug '71) was the first 25c issue, so unless there was a disparity in the dating system between Marvel and DC books, it would seem that you're right. (Although that's a three month gap.)
I'll have to look out for that article or introduction that I read some years back. Just goes to show - you can't believe everything you read.
Incidentally, availability of DC books weren't affected in my area, but I've read that Marvel restricted their distribution of American titles to avoid affecting the sales of Marvel UK, which started in '72. True or false? Who can tell?
Post a Comment