 |
| Copyright MARVEL COMICS |
Y'know, I've seen this cover a few times before. I'm sure it's reprinted in one of my two-part S.H.I.E.L.D. Special Edition mags from the early '80s, but I'd never noticed what appears to be The Batman in the bottom left-hand corner until Fantastic Four Follower referred to it in the comments section of the previous post. Well, I likely saw the figure (unless it was removed from reprints), but I just never clocked it looked like Batman. Was anyone else aware of the Dark Knight Detective on the front of a Marvel comic or is this as much a surprise to you as it was to me? In fact, is it even meant to be Batman, or is it merely a coincidental resemblance to another character inside the mag?
So much for that Sherlock Holmes 'Improve Your Observational Skills' kit I bought years ago. Maybe I should ask for a refund?!
I'd not noticed it resembled Batman (which it does) because I always knew it was "Black Hugh" the "ghost" in this Hound of the Baskervilles knock off. To get a look at him from a Steranko interior page go to this link:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1222399
Could be Batman, I also thought it looked a little like the character who hosted DC's House of Mystery series (Cain?), although not as portly.
ReplyDeleteBut what it really reminds me of is a demon called Murray, who graced the album covers of a fantastic heavy metal band called Dio in the 80s and 90s. I would post a link if I knew how to do so on my phone, but a quick Google search for "Murray Dio" (or "Dio Holy Diver") should find him...
Thanks, RJ. Having now looked at the link, I definitely have a reprint of that issue somewhere, so at one time I must've known who it was, but had just forgotten. Triple F said it was Batman (though he might have been only joking), so in my forgetfulness, I just assumed it was a Steranko 'in-joke'.
ReplyDelete******
Thanks, DS, but the 'mystery' is now solved. Going by the lack of comments other than RJ's and yours, it seems that everyone else knew I was talking p*sh, but didn't want to be the ones to enlighten me.
I never noticed that either but good to know who it actually is though. I loved the Steranko SHIELD run.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'll have to buy a collected edition of the strips some day, McS, as the series was visually very appealing. All I have is the first Masterworks volume (pre-Steranko, I think), a couple of Special Editions, and reprints in the Captain Britain weekly comic.
ReplyDeleteGlad I inspired a posting Kid and I might add that Neal Adams had written in a Dead man caption'Look a Jim Steranko Effect!It was an in joke as they were rivals at the time in a friendly way and in response Steranko sneaked the Batman figure onto a Marvel cover.I may be wrong but Roy Thomas no less suggested that Stan would have blocked that cover if he had known!He probably would have sacked him as he eventually did after numerous disagreements.Adams also had his problems with Marvel after Stan refused to allow the original cover of X-Men 56(Great cover) and of course Sterankos amazing Tower of Shadows #1.Genuinely think it is the Batman on Shield #3!Keep up the great work Kid.
ReplyDeleteI promise I'll do my best if you keep up the great comments, Triple F. It's certainly hard not to think that Steranko was deliberately aiming for the Batman effect, so it's more than likely, given your additional info, that it was his intention.
ReplyDeleteI vaguely remember that Nick Fury story from the Captain Britain weekly - it was set in Scotland, wasn't it?
ReplyDeleteYup, Scotland - where we spell the word depute as depute.
ReplyDeleteHaving examined further, I can't find it used as a noun, though I've seen it used as such before. In fact, because I'd seen the word used in the same context elsewhere, I once went back and changed all my uses of 'deputy' to 'depute' (you'll find it elsewhere on my blog). However, right or wrong, I used the word deliberately, it wasn't an accident.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great catch. This cover has some resemblance to the Neal Adams cover of Batman 227 "The Demon of Gothos Mansion" (Cover dated Dec 1970), which in itself was an homage to the cover of Detective #31 (Sep 1939). As the Nick Fury was dated August 1968, is it too much of a stretch to suggest that Steranko was acknowledging the original Detective #31 influence? Interestingly, in "Steranko's History of Comics" (pub 1970, Supergraphics) Steranko devotes quite a few column inches to discussing the debt that the original Batman story owes to Bram Stoker, and how it was a turning point for Batman portrayals, which subsequently turned to more prosaic villains.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting, B, but I think a resemblance to the Gothos cover is stretching things a bit - I don't really see it, layout-wise, if that's what you meant. As for Steranko's suggestion that Batman owes a debt to Dracula - well, maybe as far as the bat bit goes, as well as the cape, but I don't see much else. Maybe my brain will wake up shortly and I'll see it all then.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Nick Fury cover in no way tries to replicate the layout of the cover of Detective 31 , but the elements of the omniscient hero overseeing the scene, the gothic building looming over the action, the full moon (always a full moon!) at least suggested to me there may be some connection, or it was a starting point for Steranko’s inspiration for the cover. But I think it’s a tenuous connection admittedly, Kid.
ReplyDeleteI think you may well be correct in thinking that Steranko might've been trying to capture the mood of the earlier covers, B, so the elements you mention are all there. Talking of The Demon Of Gothos Mansion, I always thought that was a great issue. First saw it reprinted in the '30s to the '70s volume in 1972 and secured the actual ish many years later.
ReplyDeleteKid - agree that the Demon of Gothos Mansion is a great issue. Picked mine up for 2p in Keen’s bookshop in Ventnor on the Isle of Wight in Sept 1972 secondhand, having first seen it reprinted (like you) in “Batman from the 30s to the 70s” that summer. Sold the comic to Paul Hudson in 1984 as part of my great comics clear-out. Have just looked through my collection….no longer have that issue.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, if DC are still doing their facsimile editions, they'll get around to reprinting it. I'd buy one, even though I've got the original.
ReplyDeleteLooks like they’ve put a hold on those reprints, which is a real shame. It was almost an exciting picking up the facsimile of GL/GA 85 as buying the real thing in a North Devon Post Office in the early 70’s. That facsimile in particular more closely captures the original by using cheaper paper inside, as opposed to the Marvel facsimile editions which have brighter, shinier interiors
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, some of the DC facsimiles were mere scans from original issues, which means the reproduction quality wasn't always top-notch. Marvel have somehow mastered the knack of reproducing the ads in their facsimiles to a very high standard, unlike DC. I think it's more the ink in the Marvel ones which is shiny, rather than the paper itself, though obviously it's because of the paper that the ink reproduces that way.
ReplyDelete