![]() |
Art NEAL ADAMS. Copyright DC COMICS |
You're correct, Crivvies, I've shown the above cover before, but it was 'borrowed' from eBay. This time it's my own copy, newly arrived this evening (19:19 pm to be precise) from the US. I suspect I had it back in the day, though for some obscure reason never kept it. The regular back-up story in Action Comics had been Metamorpho since #413, but with this issue The Human Target made his debut, with Morphy moving over to World's Finest Comics.
In the '60s, artist Curt Swan drew Superman with quite a high forehead, making him look older, but come the '70s, Swan gave Supes and Clark a lower hairline, bestowing on him a younger appearance. This, I imagine, was an editorial decision, as Superman's official age at the time was 29, but he previously looked as though he was at least in his mid-30s. Anyway, I'm glad to have this one back in the fold, and I'm going to love it and hug it and call it 'George'.
Any memories of this issue, readers? Feel free to wax lyrical in the comments section.
11 comments:
I don't think I picked this issue up at the time and possibly bought my issue in the 1980s in AKA as it had a Neal Adams cover - I remember a few Adams Superman/Action covers that had photo backgrounds and was a bit disappointed by them although this one is pretty nice. I do recall being miffed that Metamorpho was dropped for the Human Target but if I remember correctly Green Arrow and others were rotated as the back up tale.
It's certainly a very effective cover, McS, and makes me wonder if Adams was influenced by Kirby's collages in some of his mags. I don't really enjoy most modern comics and think I'll stick mainly to back issues from the '70s from now on, whether I had them at the time of publication or not.
I've been on a bit of a 1970s back issue binge ( for me) recently as Forbidden Planet Glasgow has some nice back issues in various conditions ( I don't mind those comics that are less than mint) Saying that they had a few ( 30 or 40) Alan Class back issues from late 1960s mid 1970s, but were asking silly money with £20 for some less than mint issues .
I don't really understand why the asking prices for Class comics are usually so high. They're b&w reprints, sometimes with the last panel omitted, and the reproduction could be quite awful. I'm getting the FF facsimiles at the moment, even though I have multiple reprints of the stories already, but there's something about them which is hard to resist.
I've tend to pick up the DC facsimilies and really enjoyed the recent More Fun issue with Dr Fate etc. The FF issues are nice although I cherry pick the issues I'm interested in .
They're doing the first dozen issues of the FF, McS, which I simply must have in individual mags. It's almost like having the originals (except for that pesky barcode). Commented on your latest post.
Kid, did you know that July 2025 marks the 100th anniversary of Robert E Howard's first published story? The story was called "Spear And Fang" about a caveman who rescues a female of his tribe from the clutches of a Neanderthal and it was published in Weird Tales magazine dated July 1925.
I probably read about Howard's first published story and what it was called in some biog of him years ago, CJ, but had long since forgotten. Now that you've reminded/informed me of the fact, I'll be holding a street party on the day. (You're invited.)
Hi Kid-- you commented on my blog that you didn't have any great desire to see the new SUPERMAN LEGACY. This made me wonder, though, as to why so many viewers in the UK, and in other parts of the international market, had little interest in LEGACY. I can't believe it failed for the improbable reason given by James Gunn: that international audiences didn't know who Superman was. What if anything has been the consensus of your readers that did go see it? Did UK critics give LEGACY a rough time?
I don't think anybody has commented on the movie on the blog yet, GP, so I don't know what my readers think about it. Critics seem to have been divided on the movie, some liking it and some not. Maybe I'm just getting too old to be enthused about such things - or maybe it's just the fact that I think Chris Reeve was a hard act to follow. I've never been too impressed by subsequent actors in the role, though Henry Cavill was pretty good (though the movie failed to impress me). I'd say James Gunn has got it the wrong way round, it's probably because audiences are over-familiar with Superman that yet another movie seems less of an attraction.
Also, because of all the Superman TV shows over the years, people probably think they've seen it all before so why pay good money to go and see it all again in the cinema?
Post a Comment