.jpg) |
| Copyright DC COMICS. Cover NEAL ADAMS & IRA SCHNAPP |
You've seen the above cover before on this blog, Crivs, but it was scanned from one of a trio of Neal Adams volumes featuring his Batman work for DC. This time around, though, it's the actual published issue on display, which I acquired only recently so I thought I'd show you the real deal, plus a few interior pages to give you a taste of what it was like.
You know the old saying, 'you can't judge a book by its cover' - well, never has that been more true than in this case as the contents are pretty mediocre in both writing and art, and any readers expecting anything different due to the striking Adams' cover were doomed to disappointment. For an Anniversary ish, it should've been a lot better.
Written be Mike Friedrich, pencilled by Chic Stone and inked by Joe Giella, the comic was published in 1968, but when you compare it to what Marvel was producing at the time, it falls far short of the superhero shenanigans emanating from The House Of Ideas. Number 200 should've been a significant issue story-wise, but sadly it was not to be.
Nice cover though.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
24 comments:
I'm old enough to remember when those "landmark" issues were just regular issues for the most part. I guess DC and Marvel were doing those regular Giant-Size issues, so maybe they just didn't think much about it. Both were really getting into it about the time I stopped reading regularly (early 80's), but if I saw the occasional anniversary issue, I did pick it up after that.
I guess people were disappointed when they say that groovy Neal Adams cover and opened it up to the story art inside. I can remember that happening to me a lot when I was reading with different artists.
I'd guess readers' disappointment with interior art after a great cover probably happened more often with DC mags than Marvel mags, G, though I've no way of knowing for sure. I still buy Anniversary issues, such as Action Comics #1000 and Detective Comics #1000, etc., but it's really just out of habit as I don't always read them. (I do at least browse through them though.) I'd say that Batman #200's interiors should have been drawn by Carmine Infantino, given its numerical and historical significance.
I think you’re right, Kid. DC was more likely to mislead with cover art from what I remember (JLA issues with Perez covers/Heck interiors, though I admired Heck’s 60’s art). I have to admit that the art you show from Batman 200 would have been a huge letdown for me, though I have admired some of Chic Stone’s art previously. Batman wasn’t a good fit.
Yes, a great cover with an extremely disappointing set of artwork inside. I can still remember the disappointment from a distance of fifty-plus years! But, of course, Batman was to be re-invented 4 issues later in Batman #204 "Operation Blindfold!" when Frank Robbins took over the writing chores, and the rogues gallery of traditional villains largely disappeared for a couple of years.
Yeah, Chic Stone wasn't a bad artist as such, but he's 'miscast' on Batman, who's an 'A-lister' and needs an 'A-list' artist. Like you, I've seen some Stone illustrated stories that were quite good, but this wasn't one of them, alas.
******
Batman was re-invented a few times in his career when you think about it, B. The 'new-look' had only come in a few years earlier (1964), and in 1969/'70 he again became the 'Dark-night Detective' in 'The Secret Of The Waiting Graves'. Thankfully, the TV show's influence was done away with for good.
I must have bought 100s of comics based on the cover alone by Adams, Cardy etc that were a major disapointment inside. Saying that I would have expected Batman #200 to have had a bit more to it than what they provided here.
Yeah, The Scarecrow was what I'd call a 2nd-rate villain, McS. They should've had The Joker or some new baddie that was (hopefully) equally memorable. I suppose some kids browsed through the mags on the spinner-racks and returned them if they weren't impressed by the interiors, though others would've bought them on the strength of the covers alone. (I was a bit of both at times.) The only plus about 200 is that they included the first page from Batman's debut, which not many readers would've seen before.
I liked the story more than you did. I think it was only the second full Silver Age story for the Scarecrow, and the first, while it boasted a cool cover, allowed the heroes to fight off the fear-spell too easily. I liked the fact that the good guys had to work a little to overcome their near paralysis. One problem with Scarecrow stories is that he works best if he finds a way to use his fear-power covertly for profit, rather than running around robbing banks with a gang, but not too many writers have come up with good plots. Best solo Scarecrow known to me was an episode of the nineties animated show, where the villain undermines sports figures with terror so Scarecrow can make money off fixing the games.
There's always a chance, GP, that had I read the tale back in 1968, I might have been less unimpressed by it, but my 'grown-up' sensibilities, seeing it for the first time, just thought it was very weak. Marvel, as you'll know, also later had a Scarecrow character, which (in memory) seemed almost a ringer for DC's. There were probably differences, but I recall them as being very similar in appearance.
In fact, Marvel had a Scarecrow character who fought Iron Man and pre-dates DC's. However, they also had a Scarecrow strip in later b&w mags (I think), and it didn't occur to me (brain fog) that it was the same baddie as IM fought. Anyone know if it was?
I you mean the The Marvel Scarecrow that appeared in Marvel Spotlight ( now named the Straw Man) the he was a different character to the Scarecrow that fought Iron man ( Im not aware of any other charater by that name for Marvel).
Wasnt DCs Scarecrow created before the Marvel character ?
I'm now not sure which one came first to be honest, McS. At first I thought it was DC's, but Marvel's version who fought Iron Man must've been from around the mid-'60s, so maybe he was first. Batman #200 was published in 1968, but he appeared before that - I'm just not sure exactly when. Someone'll know.
Just did a little research and found out that DC's Scarecrow first appeared in World's Finest Comics #3 in 1941, so DC was first. Marvel's Scarecrow appeared in Tales Of Suspense #51 in 1964.
From those halcyon days when hitting big numbers was desirable. It proved your magazine was worthy and had a sturdy history. These days the market wants a new number one every little whipstich but I notice they also keep a running total too.
Publishers felt that a number 1 on the cover attracted new readers, RJ, but they initially failed to realise it also gave old readers a jumping off point. They eventually twigged, which is why we get both sets of numbers nowadays.
The Scarecrow appeared in Marvel UK's The Superheroes in 1975, beginning with #41 I think. I didn't read any of the issues he was in but I remember the cover of his debut issue being advertised which showed the Scarecrow crashing through a skylight. I remember thinking at the time that he seemed like an odd sort of superhero and to this day I don't know what his powers were.
I can't even remember if Marvel's Scarecrow was a goodie or a baddie, CJ. I know he was in The Super-Heroes #41 'cos I've got a full set, but I can't recall anything about the stories involving the character.
Yeah, the horror-themed Marvel Scarecrow only enjoyed one solo appearance in the 70s, and then guest starred in that Thing team-up mag, THE BRAVE AND THE BOULDER. Someone in the 90s, probably Roy Thomas, revived him in the 90s under the name "Straw Man" (because as we all know demonic scarecrows are really picky about making sure their names don't conflict with other IP). If Strawface got an origin after that I dunno; I don't think anyone ever found him too interesting in any decade.
Yeah, I forgot to mention I was referring to Marvel's second incarnation of The Scarecrow in my reply to CJ. I know the Tales Of Suspense version was a baddie. In fact, DC or Marvel, the character was a dud, GP. I know I never found either of them interesting.
Hope you are keeping well Kid.Batman #200 did have an Adams cover but who could have foreseen the impact he would have on the character...for me the GREATEST Batman artist ever,bar none:And when you see the list of artists who have drawn him it is some achievement.The advent of horror titles like the Witching Hour,House of Secrets etc in the late 60's permeated the entire DC line from Teen Titans to Challangers of the Unknown but nowhere was it better than in Batman and Detective comics.I associate Batman from this time period with Scooby Doo cartoons which started in 1969,Mystery stories,Haunted Houses,Ghosts,seances,Man-bats,Werewolves,Circus of freaks etc......best time ever for the Batman with Neal Adams covers and stories.Batman has never been better and it all started with issue #200.Thanks for bringing back the memories and stay well my friend.
PS thought the Scarecrow was a poor mans Mr Fear from Daredevil.....loads of potential not realised.
Hi, Triple F. Adams certainly established 'the' look of the Batman, and along with Denny O'Neil, revolutionised the stories into something far more befitting the 'mood' of the character. Interesting that you should mention Scooby Doo as Batman actually appeared in (at least) one adventure, didn't he? (Or perhaps that's what you were saying?) Of course, Bats wasn't a nutter at this point, being a rational, detective-orientated crime-fighter, and without Robin, was a far more interesting and entertaining read than previously. As for The Scarecrow, I just found him a poor man's anybody, as the stories were still being written mainly for kids at that point. Drop in again whenever you like.
The Marvel Scarecrow in The Superheroes No.41 was my jumping off point for that title. The art was as impenetrable as the story. However had I held on then I’d have been delighted by the arrival of Marvel Two in One. I picked up the last issues years later.
I bought all 50 issues, but some are better than others it has to be said. The Scarecrow ones are below par.
Post a Comment