Saturday, 10 September 2016


Images copyright MARVEL COMICS.  (Brilliant cover, eh?)

No in-depth analysis of this issue, I'm afraid - I'm just showing
it as an excuse to ask all you crackin' Criv-ites a question.  First,
though, let's get the black and white intro page out of the way, as
I'm sure there may be some of you who'd like to read a recap of
SPIDER-MAN's origin.  (Don't ask me why it's in b&w when
the rest of the mag is in colour, 'cos I'd only be guessing.) 

Right, here's what I'd like to know (but am too lazy to Google):
As you can see, the next issue (#3) was advertised, but was never
published.  Did the story intended for the third ish ever see print
anywhere, or was the ad for the tale the only part of it that was
produced?  Anyone know?  The comments section awaits.


Rip Jagger said...

According to some sources I found, the character who was to be the villain in "The TV Terror" was named "The Stalker". That character was revised a bit and became "The Prowler" in Spider-Man issues #78 and 79.

Rip Off

Kid said...

Thanks for the info, Rip. The Prowler, eh? I'll have to look up those two issues in Marvel Masterworks.

Unknown said...

That may explain the rather rushed looking cover to issue 79of the Amazing Spider-Man as it was probably meant to be concluded one issue in "Spectacular" issue 3 (that cover I assume being issues 78 of "Amazing") - As I recall from the UK SMCW reprint of this story the Prowler was created or suggested by John Romita Junior - As with the last Spectacular Spider-man special ISSUE 1, "Lo this Monster" I wasn't overly impressed with this story either (good but not worth a special edition / version imho)

Kid said...

I've read the first issue, but wasn't overly impressed with it. Haven't got around to reading the second issue yet. I wonder if the second issue was likewise adapted for the monthly, or was it merely a retread of earlier tales that had already appeared in Spidey's regular mag?

Britt Reid said...

#2, "The Goblin Lives", was also an all-new story and is considered "canon", as it's referenced in later Spider-Man stories.
(It wasn't adapted/modified as #1 was, with the modified version considered "canon".)

Kid said...

Thanks for the info, Britt. I suspect that I read the tale in Spider-Man Comics Weekly (probably spread over at least two issues) back in the '70s, because there's something about the images which seems familiar to me.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...