 |
| Copyright MARVEL COMICS |
Yes, you're right - well-spotted! I've shown the first four of these covers before, but just arrived at Castel Crivens is a fifth version, adorning the very last weekly issue of MARVEL COMIC in 1979. As most of you will know, Marvel Comic was the revamped incarnation of The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL, and seeing as how it lasted for only six months, can hardly be considered a howling success.
Now here's where it might get just ever-so slightly confusing. Marvel Comic then became 'schizophrenic' in that it was split into two. The name and some of the content was merged into SPIDER-MAN COMIC (which had originally been SPIDER-MAN COMICS WEEKLY, revamped at the same time as MWOM), becoming The SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN WEEKLY And MARVEL COMIC.
With me so far, faithful Crivvies? Good! Then, in August (cover-dated September), MARVEL SUPERHEROES appeared in the shops, a monthly mag which continued the numbering from Marvel Comic, being identified as issue 353 in the indicia. This wasn't an afterthought though, as it had all been heralded in Marvel Comic's final issue. The new monthly magazine continued the adventures of The Original X-MEN and Ms. MARVEL, while adding The AVENGERS to the roster of contents.
It was called 'The Marvel Revolution' at the time, and things certainly 'revolved' in that they went round in circles, but the experiment seemed to lose more readers than it gained. Was it really a good idea to make Marvel UK comics more like their British rivals in appearance, thereby compromising their unique identity? What's your view if you read these titles at the time?
Anyway, while you're contemplating your response, enjoy the same cover artwork five times over - I like to give all you Crivs a choice.
I've already expressed my opinion on previous occasions - Marvel Comic and Spider-Man Comic were utter shite. MWOM had lasted for over 6 years while its' successor, the supposedly improved Marvel Comic, lasted a mere 6 months. Says it all really.
ReplyDeleteNah, don't be shy, CJ - tell us what you really think. However, it doesn't really say it all. Presumably, MWOM was in decline, hence the revamp. SMCW probably didn't need a revamp, but Dez was likely trying to have a unified look for the weeklies. (Marvel Comic, Spider-Man Comic, Hulk Comic.) So, although Marvel Comic may only have lasted 6 months, that might've been more than it otherwise would've had if it had remained untouched. But I guess we can't know for sure either way.
ReplyDeleteA unified look for the weeklies? What about Star Wars Weekly? It wasn't changed at all.
ReplyDeleteThe superhero weeklies obviously, CJ. Star Wars was a comic unto itself - and presumably selling better than the others. It made sense to keep that one standing out from the crowd.
ReplyDeleteWhoever edited Marvel Triple Action liked that gradiated red background colour on the cover (if gradiated is even a word): there's a similar background on issues 13 and 40.
ReplyDeleteI remember when the British Spider-Man title changed its name to Spidey and adopted a more juvenile tone - I thought that was a bad move, and I don't think it really recovered til Spider-man and Zoids launched (which I used to buy from an old- fashioned newsagents - the type of shop which sold string and the owner wore a long brown shopkeeper's coat. I miss those shops).
I miss these shops too, DS. There used to be a newsagent's in the local shops just along the road from me that, though staffed by woman (with long blue-ish coats), was like one you'd read about in a Just William book by Richmal Crompton. It was given a modern refit around 1976 or '77 and disappeared entirely a good few years back.
ReplyDeleteThe Spider-Man weekly was probably the longest-lasting Marvel UK weekly comic at that time - maybe even ever.
I might be wrong, but I have the feeling it lasted 666 issues, which is a great run for a British comic. I know the Beano would be the longest running, then I'd guess 2000AD, the Beezer... wonder if any others would beat Spider-man?
ReplyDeleteI think you're right, DS - #666 - I think I've got the issue too. I was thinking only in terms of Marvel UK titles - there'll be quite few by other publishers that lasted far longer. Valiant, Lion, Knockout (the original one, not the '70s series), Eagle, etc. And that's not counting the DCT ones.
ReplyDeleteMarvel Comic 330 is right up there with Avengers weekly 29 as one of the most nasty shocks in my comic buying history. Of course what I didn’t know at the time was that Shang Chi was a lucrative addition to the weeklies in 1974 and that by 1979 the bottom had fallen out of Marvel UK, with only Star Wars weekly profitable. However Marvel Superheroes 353 was brilliant and a very welcome revamp.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing I wasn't entirely happy with, CN, was that Marvel Superheroes continued to resize some strips from two US pages to one UK page. That apart, it was a great monthly mag.
ReplyDeleteMarvel Comic was such a rarity I don't remember seeing it at all! But to be fair my local newsagent didn't have a very good selection . Basically I got my comics delivered with the paper.
ReplyDeleteIt probably didn't help that it didn't have quite the same visual impact on newsagents' counters as previously, PS. It was easier to miss.
ReplyDeleteThe Spider-Man weekly had so many name-changes and even changes of format (going landscape for 17 months) that the final issue can hardly be called #666. The comic should have been re-launched at #1 with every new incarnation in my opinion. And yet nowadays the Panini Collector's Editions are regularly re-launched at #1 for no reason whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteCJ, as long as it had Spidey's name in the title and followed the same numbering, it was the same comic despite occasional tweaks in format or content from time to time. And there IS a reason for Panini relaunching their mags from #1. It's to appeal to those who want to start collecting from the 'first issue' as many readers want to be in on what they see as the 'ground floor'. It hopefully creates new interest from those who don't currently buy the mag in order to boost circulation. That's the theory behind it anyway, and presumably it works to a certain extent or they wouldn't do it.
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected :D
ReplyDeleteI don't mind if you sit down, CJ, and take the weight off your feet.
ReplyDeleteI've never really understood the mentality in comics over the past few decades that they have to relaunch titles from issue 1 to appeal to new readers.
ReplyDeleteMy first issue of the Fantastic Four was #293. It never discouraged or worried me that there were 292 previous issues that I hadn't read. If anything, it gave the comic a feeling of history, a mysterious but alluring past. Maybe I just have an unusual mind though, in that I like things that feel old or have a history behind them. I think I've mentioned before that I loved growing up in Glasgow seeing faded graffiti on walls, footholds worn into the mortar on walls where generations of kids had climbed them, paths trodden through the woods by decades of feet... When they renovated the area in the 90s, everything was suddenly new and pristine and it felt sterile and dull to me.
I suppose that comics sold well enough back then, DS, not to need the occasional 'relaunch' to give them a boost. They either sold or they didn't, and if they didn't, they got cancelled. Having said that, though, the original Eagle started a new volume at the beginning of each year, and many magazines may have done likewise.
ReplyDeleteIn days gone by, comics were published without collectors or speculators in mind, but publishers eventually realised they could sell the same issue several times by releasing it with variant covers. It's a whole different business these days. Remember, comics sell only a fraction of what they once did and are still in decline, so anything that might provide a temporary boost to keep a particular title going, like starting again from #1, is pounced upon.
In fact, the recently deceased MWOM was due a relaunch with its next issue, but someone must've looked at the sales figures and thought "Nah, it's dead, Jim!", so the planned for (and advertised) next ish never materialised. They must've figured that even a modest circulation increase wouldn't have made it profitable.
Comic book sales are a fraction of what they were back in the old days, and I suspect that even today's sales figures are artificially inflated because of collectors and speculators buying multiple copies of each issue. And variant covers contribute to that practice.
ReplyDeleteAnd the policy of reboots, starting the numbering over with a new #1, is to attract collectors and investors, but it is the opposite of what publishers did in the 1960s and earlier.
Often, publishers would change a title and continue the numbering sequence. That was not uncommon when a feature in an anthology took over the whole comic. Journey Into Mystery became Thor, My Greatest Adventure became Doom Patrol, and Strange Suspense Stories became Captain Atom.
Some publishers even assumed that #1 issues would not sell well, being an unknown quantity. The theory was that if a kid saw Flash #105 or Hulk #102 on sale, he would figure it must be a good comic, since it had evidently lasted over 100 issues.
All of which just shows how the market has changed, from casual readers to collectors and investors.
IIRC, I mentioned in a previous post that I had that issue of Marvel Triple Action (the American edition, of course). And that MTA usually reprinted The Avengers, but that issue reprinted an X-Men because it was a crossover story that tied in with Avengers #52 and #53.
Yeah, as you say, some publishers started the numbering of a title at 2, to give the impression that its first issue was well-received. (Though sometimes it was because the Ashcan edition was numbered at 1.)
ReplyDeleteThat 'UK' ish of MTA was printed in America, TC, from the same plates as the US issues, but the cover banner of 'Marvel Comics Group' was substituted with 'Marvel All-Colour Comics' after the copies for US distribution were printed, to distinguish the ones bound for our shores from the mostly black and white British weeklies. (I'm sure you know that anyway.)
I don't think they need have bothered - the difference was obvious.
In one of my above responses, I typed 'woman' when it should've been 'women'. My bad.
ReplyDelete