.jpg) |
| Copyright MARVEL COMICS |
GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY looks like it's going to be the blockbuster hit of the Summer, so I thought you might like to see where they got their start. Behold the cover and a few pages from MARVEL SUPER-HEROES #18, dated January 1969 (on sale from around October '68), which is when they made their debut. There's no real point in telling you anything about it, because (going by the stills I've seen) I very much doubt that the movie bears more than a superficial resemblance to the comicbook which inspired it. (Also, I'm far too lazy to be bothered reading up on it.)
So, don't worry about the details, just sit back and enjoy Genial GENE COLAN's awesome art.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
BONUS: The Guardians popped up again as an ongoing series in MARVEL PRESENTS #3 (dated February 1976, but on sale in November '75). Here's the cover and a few pages to please and appease your popping peepers!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
This cover is ALL I remember of GOTG. I used to have this comic, but I can't remember a thing about the story, even after reading these first few pages. I understand there was a second team around 2008 including Warlock amd Quasar. But a talking raccoon?!?! Oh well, we had Howard the Duck, so I suppose anything goes....
ReplyDeleteI've got it (obviously) and I'm sure I've read it, JP, but I can't remember anything about it either. I think the characters were pretty underwhelming, which is why it hasn't made much of an impression me.
ReplyDeleteKid, the new movie features the modern version of the Guardians which began in 2008 and is completely unrelated to the '60s bunch. I've read the modern comic and the film seems very faithful to it - I'm so fed up of these superhero movies messing about with the characters and canon but this time it seems different. I barely noticed the original Guardians and it was only via the internet that I even remembered any of them - Charlie 27 looks a bit ridiculous here with a bowl on his head, they wisely changed his look later on.
ReplyDeleteAs I suspected, CJ, which is why I said that I doubt that there's much similarity between the two. However, if not for MSH #18, there probably wouldn't be a modern Guardians of the Galaxy on which to base a movie, so you can trace a line from the film right back to the '60s mag.
ReplyDeleteI think they released MARVEL SUPER-HEROES #18 with the Gene Colan art again in the seventies,that was my first contact,and I did not realise then, it was from the sixties.
ReplyDeleteI have read the updated version,the one the movie is based on and the movie does seem pretty faithful according to the trailers etc.
My kids are really looking forward to seeing it.
So am I.
The story may have been reprinted in another mag in the '70s, Baab - or, if it was a copy of MSH #18 you bought, it was probably just an old copy that had been lying in a warehouse for years. (I remember the first Thor Annual from 1965 turning up in various newsagents in 1973-'74.)
ReplyDeleteYes, clearly the modern version couldn't exist without the '60s version. However all the modern members are characters that began in the '60s and '70s - the "walking tree", Groot, goes back to even before the Fantastic Four. By the way, Rocket Raccoon can talk because he comes from a planet where all the animals talk due to genetic experiments or mutations or something, I'm not too sure about that. I'll definitely watch this but it'll be the DVD version I'll be waiting for.
ReplyDeleteThink I'll probably wait 'til it comes on telly, CJ.
ReplyDeleteMarvel also seems to have ideas about bringing back the original characters in Guardians 3000 starting in October.
ReplyDeleteThat might be interesting. Ta - I'll keep an eye out for it.
ReplyDeleteThe original Guardians by Arnold Drake and Gene Colan is one of the seminal comics for me. I adore it. I had a treasured copy of this delightful one-off and still have. Read the cover off it and some pages as well. I've since replaced with a much better copy and reprints galore. I was exceedingly miffed when in the Marvel Firsts collections that they didn't use this amazing story.
ReplyDeleteIt's a beaut! Movie looks good too, though as you say it seems to have little to do with this Harkovian masterpiece.
Rip Off
Can you tell me in which mags it was reprinted, Rip? I don't recall ever seeing it anywhere else. Given your high words of praise, I'll have to dig my copy back out again and re-read it. Regarding Arnold Drake - strange to think that he wrote the adventures of a group of superheroes assembled by a wheelchair-bound leader for both DC and Marvel that came out at almost the same time. (Although he didn't write Marvel's 'til later.)
ReplyDeleteI ve long wondered about my acquisition of MARVEL SUPER-HEROES #18 as I don't have a memory of picking it up in 1968/9 (not the type of US comic I would have gone for I was more a Superman reader as a wee boy) so it looks like it was either reprinted in the early 70s or as you say an old stock copy shipped to UK shops (picked up lot of early 60s Marvel that way in the early 70s in Glasgow) I also loved that first version and read the entire ,Marvel Present series (mostly as it was always in my local shops) - Have to say i am really looking forward to the film it looks amazing , incidentally is this the first Marvel film not to be based on an an original idea by Stan Lee, Kirby, Ditko?
ReplyDeleteNo, McScotty, there was Blade and the Punisher - both characters not created by Stan or Jack. I think these are the only Marvel movies in which Stan didn't have a cameo. The movie's getting nothing but good reviews from what I hear, so it seems like a good 'un.
ReplyDeleteHi Kid - the original story was reprinted in Astonishing Tales No.27 after a no-show from Deathlok.
ReplyDeleteOops make that No.29 !
ReplyDeleteThanks for that, Chris. That's interesting, because I used to buy AT's Deathlok, which means I may have had #29. Don't seem to recall it 'though.
ReplyDeleteThats the one,Christopher Nevell.
ReplyDeleteI was off on a search of Images and was about to declare myself from another time line because I could not find it.
Astonishing Tales 29 with the same cover art ,but with the MARVEL COMICS GROUP logo etc. at the top.
I had and may still have two copies of this and remember reading it a lot.
I did also buy Deathlok at the time so that may have been the reason for me owning it.
So to me,the writing and artwork seemed to fit in with the Marvel universe at the time.
Jim Starlin and Adam Warlock in Strange Tales were my obsession for a while and I allowed the Guardians to fit in the same era.
It may be the 'jaunty 'nature of the lettering on the top of the cover of MARVEL SUPER-HEROES #18 that dates it,compare it with the re-print here,
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/0/229/126237-2470-109852-1-astonishing-tales.jpg
I reckon it looks just as 'seventies ' as it does 'sixties'.
Y'know, Baab, when I picked up MSH #18 a good number of years ago, I assumed I was replacing the comic I'd once had years earlier, but now I wonder if it was AT #29 I actually had. That may well be the case. I'll have to acquire a copy.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that Christopher I had a feeling I didn't pick up the original in 1969 and Astonishing tales was a regular purchase of mine. I would agree with "baab" the strip (art, story premise) etc was very much in line with 70s Marvel so I assumed that it was new, it certainly, to me at least seemed out of line with Marvel in 1969 though
ReplyDelete