 |
| Images copyright MARVEL COMICS |
Back in December 1980, MARVEL TALES #137 (cover-dated March '81) started reprinting the STAN LEE & STEVE DITKO SPIDER-MAN classics in sequential order from the very beginning. Twelve years later, the same plates were used again for SPIDER-MAN CLASSICS (natch), but this time with brand-new covers. The title lasted for only 16 issues, but benefitted from superior printing compared to the Marvel Tales reprints.
So guess what, you lucky Criv-ites? We're now going to look at these new covers by some of the top talents in the industry, and enjoy mentally comparing them to the ASM Ditko originals.
 |
| 15 was also issued with a different coloured cover, along with a 16 page 'Work In Progress' mag featuring the animated show, plus an animation cel, both of which can be seen below |
8 comments:
Some great stories in those. I Have to say though that I much prefer the Marvel Tales issues that reused the original covers - most of those covers above aren't to my taste (although #16 is quite striking).
I clearly remember buying Marvel Tales 190-192 in WhSmiths in Argyle Street in 1986- what a set those three issues are: Spider-Man No More, a triple sized issue with the three part drug abuse storyline, and the Death of Gwen Stacy. Although I later came to discover the Ditko stories, those three issues of MT are still my favourite Spidey stories.
Something else I fondly remember about that period was that double and triple sized issues of American comics were sold in newsagents for the same price (40p!) as regular issues!
As you'll know, DD, the Lee/Ditko stories were reprinted in Marvel Tales twice - once in the '60s and again in the '80s, this time with the original covers. I've got most (if not all) of the '60s reprints, and all of the '80s (Ditko) ones also. As I said in the post, Spider-Man Classics used the same plates (or negatives) as the 2nd MT reprints, but the colours and line-work were much sharper due to superior printing. The three issues you mention are also safely tucked away in my collection. And I have to agree - I prefer the original covers over the new ones also, but clearly Marvel were trying to make the mags look more 'up-to-date' on the spinner racks.
They were definitely trying to get the covers to appeal to the young readers of the time-#7 has the word 'torment' in the same typeface as it's used on the covers of Todd McFarlane's Spider-Man comics with the story of the same name!
The cunning devils. They're worth having 'though, just for the superior printing. And, in most issues, the original covers are included in the back of the mag.
I remember the 80's reprints well, I bought them all, but by '93(?) US comics had disappeared from the newsagents, so I didn't know about these. No harm in making the "proper" Spidey comics appeal to a new generation. They should do it again now and sell them to another new generation!
I wish they'd reprint all the classics in monthly issue format, JP, but Marvel would probably be worried that it might detract from the sales of the Masterworks and Omnibus volumes. ('Though I doubt it, because the old stuff doesn't seem to sell too well, except to a minority of collectors.) If they ever do reprint them as single issue, monthly comics, I hope they don't do it on glossy paper - they look much better on matt paper.
I totally agree with that! Are modern Marvel comics printed on glossy?
Marvel and DC comics, as well as all the others I've seen on my visits into FP, are all printed on glossy paper, JP. It's as if they're trying to say "We're proper legitimate magazines, not comics!"
Post a Comment