.jpg) |
| Images copyright relevant and respective owners |
I don't know about you, but when I buy a facsimile edition of a comicbook, I don't expect (nor do I want) footnotes from publishers prominently posturing in a politically 'correct' way and thereby compromising a mag's historical 'integrity'. Look at that caption under the splash atop the indicia in the above example - no, Marvel, no! The 2019 facsimile didn't have it, so why does the 2024 version need it? Newsflash! It doesn't, and I just wish Marvel (and anyone else) would cease trying to convert us to whatever the current woke fashion in thinking happens to be.
Hitherto, Marvel have trumped DC in (at least) one important way with their facsimiles, and that's with the reproduction quality of the ads. In most cases, DC scan their ads from published comics of the past, and they look faded and just a bit rough, whereas Marvel (and don't ask me how they do it) usually manage to reproduce their ads in such a way as to make them look brand-spanking new and as sharp as they first appeared. In the recent facsimile of The Flash #105, the ads have curved corners in some instances, indicating that they were either scanned from a comic with spine roll, or a bound volume, but DC need to do better in this department.
Having said that, look below at the same ad from a recent DC facsimile compared to a Marvel one; surprisingly, the DC example is of a much higher quality than Marvel's, so at least DC is improving and may yet overtake their rival's replica editions when it comes to the reproduction quality of the adverts. Anyway, thought you might like to see the covers of some more recent facsimiles from the top two comics publishers so feast your eyes, effendis! And if you have any thoughts and observations you'd like to share with your fellow Crivs, feel entirely free to do so in the comments section.
Marvel facsimile ad DC facsimile ad
.jpg)
.jpg) |
| This is the new 2024 printing - it was also published in 2021 |
.jpg) |
| This is the 2023 printing - it was also published in 2019 (when it was only $4.99) |
.jpg) |
| Click to enlarge, then click again for optimum size |
11 comments:
I honestly don't understand why folks get so agitated by messages intended for modern audiences about vintage material. As long as the material is not changed, I will put up with a disclaimer. You and I know the historical nature of the work, we lived through it. But new readers might not understand, and a footnote (a longstanding Marvel practice) doesn't hurt anything, as far as I can tell. They are not trying to "convert" anyone, they are just trying to fend off a bunch of complaints from folks who feel differently than you and I do. That's allowed as far as I know.
There was always a dilemma in my Film Studies classes about showing vintage films filled with racism and sexism. I had to supply the context, but even then sometimes it was too much. I tried once to show "Birth of a Nation", an established classic of film but openly racist, but my principal turned me down, and frankly he saved me from myself. The blowback could've been powerful and distracting. The film was not worth the potential downside. Ideally, I'd have loved to share that ragged bit of cinema history and show students how ugly racism was and still is. But it's a balance about taste and decorum.
It's meant to be a facsimile, RJ. If they'd included that footnote as part of the indicia in the same size of font as the indicia, then I wouldn't be so bothered by it. However, it's overly prominent and intrusive and compromises the mag's historical integrity. (That's what it 'hurts'.) They actually had it ON the splash page of the facsimile of Tales Of Suspense #39. Also, I just can't see anything offensive or wrong in the comic, so it seems as though Marvel are merely trying to cover themselves - just in case. When you think of how many times GS X-Men #1 has been reprinted over the years (the facsimile was first released in 2019 - without the footnote) then it all seems so completely unnecessary.
Incidentally, I'm every bit as miffed by them not always including the 'Continued After Next Page' line before the ads, and them deleting the Comics Code box from the cover - as they've done with GS X-Men #1, Hulk #1, and Amazing Fantasy #15 (and maybe others). It diminishes the evocation of the period when they make arbitrary changes like that.
You make good points and I agree with your sentiments about the Comics Code symbol.
I just noticed your comment had come in as I was about to add another comic I received today, RJ, which shows how it should be done. Keep your peepers peeled.
Nothing to say on Andrew May's blog, Kid? The place isn't the same without you!
I've not been leaving any comments on a few blogs for a while, CJ, as it's hard enough churning out the occasional post for my own. I'm now categorised as disabled and my energy levels are particularly low-to-non-existent, plus I'm still trying to get a care home to do its job properly and I'm just about dead with the hassle of it all. Besides, I got the impression that AM was beginning to find my comments annoying so he'll likely be enjoying a rest from them.
Sorry to hear about your health problems, Kid, and your troubles with that care home which I recall you mentioning previously (didn't you plan to speak to a newspaper reporter about it?) but you're wrong about Andrew being annoyed with your comments - in fact his latest post includes something he'd hoped would interest you as it mentions (well, sort of) a character from the '60s Wham! comic. Anyway Andrew is planning a break from blogging for a few weeks to catch up on other things.
Yes, did speak to a newspaper about the situation and they contacted the care home who declined to comment. The paper ran the story anyway, but nothing much has improved. The home couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel and it's wearing me down at a time I don't have the energy to devote to it. The stories I could tell you...
What "negative content" are they talking about in the first place? All I can imagine is that someone thought that Marvel would get blowback if one or more of the POC characters wasn't a 100% nice guy? But so what if Thunderbird and Sunfire were a little snotty? That made them more real to me, and such minor faults didn't make them less heroic. Maybe someone didn't like Thunderbird wearing a feather in his hair? What a bunch of losers work for Marvel these days.
Considering the bad guys in '60s Marvel were the 'Reds', are these stories now going to carry such notices whenever they're reprinted? The world gets crazier and crazier, GP. I'm not so much against such 'advisements' in collected editions if they're discreet at the bottom of publishers' info pages (in small print), but not when it comes to facsimile editions where they're plastered over the art. (As in the case of Tales Of Suspense #39). When will the madness end?
Post a Comment