 |
| Copyright REBELLION |
Y'know, when it comes down to it I don't even need the book. After all, I've got a complete set of FANTASTIC and therefore already own every single MISSING LINK/JOHNNY FUTURE episode there is (apart from a new one in an upcoming Special). However, there's something to be said for having them all in one handy-dandy hardcover collected edition, especially when it's such a handsome volume as the one that REBELLION recently issued. And it seems to be selling well, if the fact that they're currently out of stock is anything to go by.
However, I've now spent just over £60 on three copies in a so far fruitless quest for a defect-free volume. The first you've already seen in a previous post. The second (from AMAZON) had wrinkles and scuffs on the back cover, and the third, received only today, still has some niggling imperfections that I could do without, but is the best out of a less-than-perfect trio. I'm currently waiting to hear whether Rebellion will give me a discount on a fourth copy, by way of compensation for sending me a damaged one to begin with. (I can't return it as I effected some repairs to make it presentable.)
So why my seeming obsession with acquiring a near-perfect copy? Well, Johnny Future simply swings me right back over 50 years into the past and represents my long-vanished youth. He's an interesting character that I'd like to know more about in regard to his origins as a comic strip superhero. For once, the usually scrupulous STEVE HOLLAND, who penned the introduction to the Rebellion volume, failed to deliver the goods when it came to JF's backstory (if it's known).
For instance, was it planned from the outset to switch him from a HULK knockoff to a stand-in for SUPERMAN, or did MARVEL protest to ODHAMS about the visual similarity between The Link and ol' Greenskin, necessitating a switch in direction midstream? (Remember that the strip appeared in a comic devoted to Marvel reprints.) Did it even, perhaps, start off as a British-produced Hulk strip (similar to the one in SMASH! #38), with the Link's transformation in Fantastic #8 supposed to be him reverting to BRUCE BANNER? Perhaps we'll never know.
It's interesting to note that the early Link strips were 'resized' - they were drawn in dimensions more suited to that of the first three POWER COMICS, before being extended height-wise to fit Fantastic. Also, in a couple of instances where artist LUIS BERMEJO signed pages, there seems to be a date of '64 on them. (Or could it be a stylised '67 with a stroke through the 7?) Was the link strip originally designed for another, earlier comic (WHAM! perhaps?), before being dusted off, resized, and then pressed into service for Fantastic?
That's the sort of information (or even speculation) that I'd have liked to read in the intro. Steve Holland (of BEAR ALLEY BOOKS) was originally going to reprint the strips a number of years ago (but was 'thwarted' at the last minute) so it's good that Rebellion invited (and hopefully paid) him to contribute to their own presentation of these classic strips.
Anyway, despite the inherent flaws in some copies of the book, it's well-worth having - and I realise that not everyone is as fussy as me when it comes to (relatively) minor imperfections - so if you haven't yet bought yourself this otherwise impressive hardback edition, order one today from Amazon. Or, if you're prepared to wait a bit until Rebellion replenish their stocks (which they plan on doing), buy one directly from them. However, I'd drop them an email requesting that they use sturdier packaging than they usually despatch their books in, otherwise it's pot luck as to whether it'll arrive damaged or not.
If you've already bought and received your copy, what do you think of it? The comments section awaits your valued input.
******
(
Footnote: As seems typical of Rebellion's collected editions, an element of carelessness has crept into this volume. Firstly, there seems to be a couple of typos in Luis Bermejo's biography, and the colour story is attributed (at the front of the book) to Fantastic Annual 1968 when it was, in fact, the 1969 Annual. True, it went on sale towards the end of '68, but the cover and spine declares 1969. I do wish they'd be a bit more careful with details like this.
