ADAM WARLOCK COVER & IMAGE GALLERY - PART ONE...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Accurate creator credits are difficult at the best of times, but to whom do you ascribe credit for creating the character of ADAM WARLOCK?  Is it STAN LEE and JACK KIRBY who deserve that distinction, or is it ROY THOMAS and GIL KANE, who, in the pages of MARVEL PREMIERE, significantly revamped the being known as HIM?  After all, they're meant to be the exact same person.

While you're trying to work that one out, take a loving look at the covers and splash pages (plus a few other full-page images) from the four issues of STRANGE TALES which featured Warlock in his own series, as written and drawn by JIM STARLIN.  If you've got any ideas about who really deserves the creator credit for this cosmic character, the captivating comments section awaits.

And don't forget to come back for Part Two.

PANEL-BY-PANEL - BAD PENNY...

Copyright relevant owner

Time now for some more original art, in this instance BAD PENNY by LEO BAXENDALE, from the back page of SMASH! #156, January 25th 1969.  I've scanned the first two panels as one, as they have a caption running across both of them.  And, although you can enlarge the panels by clicking on them, I've repeated the last one in two bigger halves for greater visual impact.  The strip has been drawn on two thin sheets of card, extended on the right-hand side, then stuck down on a thicker piece of art board.  To give you all an idea of how poorly these pages were treated in storage, this one has footprints on the back, indicating that it was lying face down on the floor at some stage and walked over.  (Or perhaps lay on top of a pile of art used as a step to reach something on a high shelf.)  Shameful, eh?

And look at the street name in the panel below.  Is this what you'd describe as a Nightmare on Elm Street?

And here's the published page as readers would have seen it back in 1969.

BEHOLD - GUARDIANS Of The GALAXY...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY looks like it's going to be the blockbuster hit of the Summer, so I thought you might like to see where they got their start.  Behold the cover and a few pages from MARVEL SUPER-HEROES #18, dated January 1969 (on sale from around October '68), which is when they made their debut.  There's no real point in telling you anything about it, because (going by the stills I've seen) I very much doubt that the movie bears more than a superficial resemblance to the comicbook which inspired it.  (Also, I'm far too lazy to be bothered reading up on it.)

So, don't worry about the details, just sit back and enjoy Genial GENE COLAN's awesome art.

BONUS: The Guardians popped up again as an ongoing series in MARVEL PRESENTS #3 (dated February 1976, but on sale in November '75). Here's the cover and a few pages to please and appease your popping peepers!

TOPPS 1966 BATMAN CARDS - PART ONE...

Images copyright DC COMICS and TOPPS

Remember the TOPPS BATMAN cards from the '60s?  The cards came with a vile piece of 'confectionery' (which I immediately discarded), and were released on the back of the popular TV series of the time.  There were three sets of cards in all, and the originals are highly collectable in certain quarters, commanding quite tidy prices from Batman aficionados.

Topps re-released the cards in a deluxe boxed edition in 1989, to coincide with the TIM BURTON/MICHAEL KEATON movie, and they're also highly regarded by collectors.  They're almost identical to the originals (might be slightly larger and on better card stock, though I'm not sure), the main difference being that the copyright is accredited to DC COMICS, rather than NATIONAL PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS, Inc. (as they were then known).

Incidentally, it amazes me that the deluxe edition came out 25 years ago, which is a longer period of time than the one between them and the originals.  It just doesn't feel like it to me.

  

Anyway, have a look at the first half dozen, and if you'd like to see more, let me know in the comments section.

BABE Of The DAY - JANET LEIGH...

It's actress JANET LEIGH again,

in what I suppose is a publicity still from

a movie - though I don't have a clue as to

which one.  Anyone know?  Anyway, she

certainly is one 'hot' babe, yessirree!

MYTH-BUSTERS! FACT, FICTION OR FABLE? NOW IT CAN BE TOLD...

A few posts back, I said I'd turn my attention to a couple of myths perpetuated about me.  True to my word, here's the first one.

******

What's your working environment like?  Do you get on with all of your colleagues, or do some of them really get on your t*ts?  What about the manager?  Nice guy or total @rsehole, with a bad attitude and a face you'd never get tired of punching?  If you think it's any different in the wonderful world of comics then think again, Charlie!  Unlike the MARVEL BULLPEN image created by STAN LEE (and replicated by ALF, BART & COS for the ODHAMS GARRETT), not everyone is loveable, or honourable - or even, believe it or not, the best person suited for the position in which they're employed.

There are some great people as well, of course; not only good at their jobs, but also really nice, decent, human beings.  I won't embarrass anyone by naming them (from either category), but there are some folk in comics who really make it a sheer pleasure to work with or for them. Unfortunately, however, there is also the usual contingent of idiots who don't have a scooby, and are unpleasant, surly, spiteful, resentful - and  don't really deserve to be on the planet, never mind in their jobs.

Let me now illustrate just what I mean by relating a true story of the type that many comics creators will be all too familiar with.  I once freelanced for a company that was terrible at paying their contributors in a timely fashion.  (They hadn't always been, but things had deteriorated.)  So tardy were they, that they actually sent out letters of apology (which I still have) and increased the page rates by way of compensation.  However, as they never managed to improve the speed at which they paid, it resulted only in contributors having to wait just as long for higher amounts than previously.

It eventually got so bad that my reliability in meeting deadlines was seriously put at risk.  For the first time in my life, I had to get overdrafts from the bank - not to eat or pay the rent, but just, on the odd occasion, to return jobs on the date required by.  Although the company was supposed to pay within 30 days, I often found myself waiting two or three months to be paid the full amount for several strips from a single week's work.  I wasn't the only one of course, but I probably found it more difficult because, having no other source of income (like a partner's wages) coming into the house apart from my freelance commissions, if I wasn't paid within a reasonable time, I simply had little or no money to meet the demands of having to send large packages to London on a regular basis.

To paint a clearer picture, if I earned, say, four or five hundred quid in a week for a few strips for the same company, I might get paid for one strip in a month's time (usually took about six weeks in fact), but I wouldn't get paid for another strip (returned on the same day) for another four to six weeks after that - and this would be repeated for each job until I was paid in full.  In theory, I was earning a fortune, but because I was being paid in instalments, it took ages to get my hands on the complete amount.  (Even when the company later changed from cheques to a direct transfer system, it only seemed to make things worse.)

It eventually got to the point where my bank wouldn't give me an overdraft because every time I'd assured them that money would be in my account on a certain day, it never was, despite me having been assured that it would be.  On one occasion, I even had to ask an editor to 'phone my bank and convince them that a cheque was on its way, so that they'd advance me cash to return a job.  (As well as the post, I sometimes used RED STAR, which could be costly.)

And now, having set the scene, let me finally come to the point.  An overdue cheque I'd been waiting on (this was before the transfer system had been adopted ) still hadn't turned up.  I needed the money to return a job in order to meet a looming deadline in a few days.  (It was all wrapped up and ready to send.)  I 'phoned the editor and asked him if he would chase up my cheque for me, because if it failed to arrive, I just didn't know how I was going to be able to return it on time.  As it turned out, the cheque arrived either the very next morning or the day after (having already been in transit), and I was able to return the job a day or two before deadline with no fuss.

Guess what though?  I later learned that this @rsehole of an editor (a smug b*st*rd who wasn't well-liked - either by colleagues or freelancers) was spreading it about that not only had I threatened to withhold the job 'til I was paid, but had actually done so.  I think I first learned of this when I was at a comic mart in Glasgow, and whilst chatting with a group of contributors to various publications, was asked about this apparently well-known (though not by me) 'legend' that had been doing the rounds in the comics community.  Now, remember, not only had I never threatened to withhold the work (expressing a concern over being able to is quite a different thing), but it had been returned well before deadline and hadn't been delayed for a second.

I may well still have a copy of the letter I sent to him in which I expressed my opinion about his disregard for the facts - should I ever find it, I'll post it here.  I was once told that whenever a particular group of former staff meet up, he isn't invited.  When I asked why, the answer was "Because he's a c**t!"  That's not a word I like or even use, but even I have to admit that it sums him up perfectly.

So, there you have it!  Despite any notions you may have about how great it would be to work in the comics industry, it's really no different than any other job when it comes to the people you'll meet and 'rub shoulders' with.  If you ever make it, you'll find out for yourself, sure enough.  Try not to be put off!

But don't go into it thinking it's going to be a bed of roses either.     

TV CLASSICS - The FLASHING BLADE...

For those who enjoyed The FLASHING BLADE

in the '70s (which is when I recall it from, though it was

first broadcast on U.K. TV in '69), here's the opening and

closing titles to help you relive part of your childhood.

 Takes you right back in time, eh?  Brill!

PANEL-BY-PANEL - MORE FRANKIE STEIN...

Copyright REBELLION

Here's a panel-by-panel presentation of half a page of a FRANKIE STEIN strip by the late, great, KEN REID that I was given nearly 30 years ago.  I no longer have it, but I was smart enough to laser-scan and laminate it before relinquishing ownership, and thought you might appreciate the opportunity of studying the detail at the original drawing size.  Nice, eh?

     

Below is the full, published version from WHAM! #29, January 2nd 1965.  The patch which changed 'am' to 'ain't' on the note in panel four was already missing when the original art first came into my possession.  (I may have shown this strip before, but not the scan of the original art.)

CRIVENS! CONFLICT, CONTENTION & CONTROVERSY...

As regular readers will have noticed, there's been a little controversy on the pages of CRIVENS! recently.  Some readers enjoy these little spats while others aren't too keen, but exactly what the proportions are, I don't have a clue.  (And not just about that, some critics would cry!)  Truth to tell, nobody ever really manages to come out of these things smelling of roses, so why do I bother airing these disputes if that's the case?  Simple.  Permit me to explain.

As it's this very blog that makes me a target for abusive comments, silent 'phone calls, implied threats of damage to my property, lies, distortions and insinuations about myself, etc., I see no reason why I shouldn't use the blog to address these matters and set the record straight.  To give you an example - a particularly loathsome individual recently used my comments section to lie about me in regard to a comic we both worked on for MARVEL U.K. back in the '90s.  While I could have chosen not to publish his comments, that would have allowed him to suggest I hadn't done so because they're true, and it wouldn't have prevented him from repeating those lies elsewhere, without a right of reply from me.

So, it's far better to confront the lies head-on and nip them in the bud before they pass into legend.  (Speaking of which, there are a couple of myths concerning me that have come to my attention that I'll get around to addressing one day.)  I usually alert readers to the nature of such posts so that they can skip over them if they don't fall within the scope of their interests.  One good thing has come from the most recent stushie, however.  In publicly accusing me of submitting abusive comments to the blog of one of his pals, he's revealed who his chum believes is responsible for them.  After all, he wouldn't level accusations against me in regard to a friend's blog if they ran contrary to that friend's own opinion, and it's clear that they've both discussed the situation.

That makes a nonsense of his buddy's claim that he had no particular person in mind concerning so-called 'anonymous' comments - proving that I was right all along.  'Nuff said!

(BOND) BABE Of The DAY - MARTINE BESWICK...

Here's MARTINE BESWICK, who

played PAULA in THUNDERBALL.  (She

was also one of the two fighting gypsy girls in

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.)  In this great

publicity pic she's wearing the swimming cossie

CLAUDINE AUGER, who played DOMINO,

also wore.  I wonder if they had to fight over it,

or was there more than one?  Either way, it's

us Crivvies who are the winners with hot

 pictures like this.  Right, guys?

The FIGHT Of The CENTURY - (The PREVIOUS ONE, OBVIOUSLY)...

Copyright DC COMICS

Big JOHN BUSCEMA never thought that MUHAMMAD ALI could box.  I used to doubt it myself, in fact.  I'd watch him dance around the ring, taking punches, and then wonder why he'd been declared winner when the other guy had done all the work.  However, as a symbol of what black Americans could aspire to, he was the perfect choice to go up against what some people might view as the epitome of the white superman - quite literally SUPERMAN.  Not that DC COMICS' blue-eyed boy was meant to represent such a notion, but it was hard to deny that he was the perfect peg on which to hang the accusation for those who were of a mind to.

I didn't buy the giant Treasury Edition back in 1978.  I didn't see the point in pitting a real-life character against a fictional superhero, so I gave it a miss.  It's now considered to be a bit of a collectors' item, and DC reissued the classic tale in a deluxe, omnibus-sized edition in 2010.  They also published a larger treasury sized version, but I'm running out of shelf-space as it is, so I opted for the slightly smaller tome.  (Update: I've now got the larger version as well.)

There are some nice extras in the back of the book, such as reproductions of pencil sketches and layouts, and an afterword by JENETTE KAHN, not forgetting an introduction by NEAL ADAMS himself at the front of this handsome volume.  A few panels seem to have been slightly reworked, though I'm unsure if the larger edition features these revisions.  However, it's definitely one to seek out, especially if, like me, you didn't buy the original and now wish you had.  Your local comicbook store is bound to stock a copy, and, if not, they can probably order it for you.

Why not pop in today and have a look?!

   

The PROOF Is In The PUDDING...

Images copyright relevant owners

Remember I said in the previous post that things would be back to normal with this one?  Well, let's compromise, shall we?  I'll meet you halfway by showing you some comics pages, but I'd like to wrap up a little unfinished business at the same time.

The above image is from RUGRATS, a monthly periodical (morphing into a fortnightly at some stage through its run) published by MARVEL U.K. in 1996.  It survived for 29 issues before being cancelled, and I contributed to 27 of them - from #3 right up to the very last one.  I lettered one of three strips in 5 issues, two of three strips in another 5, three of three strips in 1 issue, one of two strips in 2 issues (content was cut from three strips to two), and two of two strips in 14 issues.  So, out of a total of 71 strips, I lettered 48 of them - in short, the majority - right up to the final issue, completing the entire latter half of the run by myself.

Now let's remind ourselves of what a certain bitter blow-hard said in the comments section a few posts back:

"You were supplied with a Rugrats script to letter and took it upon yourself to rewrite the script replacing licensor-approved jokes and dialogue with dreadful old jokes and terrible puns of your own making!  Indeed so bad was your job, that I forced you to reletter the strip and then had to put up with your abject apologies as you squirmed in embarrassment on the end of the telephone begging for forgiveness.  Trouble is, once a freelancer has made that much of a tit of himself and shown you that level of ineptitude you never employ him again or indeed recommend him to colleagues and peers."

Got that?  I've already pointed out the absurdity of his claim, which is pure invention, but let's have a short recap.  The finished strip would have to be on his desk for him to read any departures from the script, meaning it had already been returned.  He'd then have to post it back to me to be re-lettered, and note that he claims he never gave me any further work afterwards.  Under those circumstances, it would be far more expedient to get a letterer closer to hand and cut me and the Royal Mail out of the proceedings altogether.  As that's not what he says he did, and seeing as how I was never asked (or 'forced') to redo a strip, his claim has absolutely no credibility.

So, at just what point could his 'imaginary story' have occurred?  If he kicked me off the mag as he claims, then how did I come to letter the remaining 14 issues all by myself?  Unless, of course, as luck (for him) would have it, my alleged crime didn't take place until the last issue, in which case there wasn't going to be any further lettering anyway.  And  if I'd revised the script (which, for reasons of space and internal consistency I occasionally did - after seeking and receiving editorial approval), Marvel simply wouldn't have gone to any additional bother for what was going to be the final issue.

So, there's nothing about his claim that withstands even a superficial consideration, which should come as no surprise to anyone who knows anything about how comics were produced all those years ago.  Conclusion?  He's simply being a lying b*st*rd!

However, I misremembered two things (age, alas).  It wasn't a cover which had 27 balloons on it, it was an interior page - and it had 28 balloons on it.  You can see just how copy-heavy some of them are - one even has 33 pieces of lettering on it.  By contrast, a complete seven page strip in an issue of Marvel's ACTION MAN published around the same period has only 25 word balloons - which is a helluva difference!  That means the letterer on Action Man had less work to do on seven pages than I had on one single page - and got paid six times as much for his efforts.  Lucky letterer.

I don't recall getting even one single chuckle out of any of the strips I worked on for the Rugrats mag.  Humour should never be so laboured - or so devoid of laughs.  I breathed a huge sigh of relief when the comic was eventually cancelled, believe me.  And that should tell you all you need to know about it.  Now, let's see if 'BILLY LIAR' has got anything to say about that, 'cos I sure could do with a laugh.  Probably the wrong person to go to for one though!  (He's crying inside, you see.)  Verdict?  Case proved, case closed!