Friday, 7 February 2020

POSTIE, POSTIE, HASTE YE BACK...


Copyright DC COMICS

Don't you just love receiving the morning post?  Unless it's bills of course.  I'm always looking forward to receiving my latest TRUE BELIEVERS and Facsimile Editions, and another mixed trio arrived at Castel Crivens earlier today.  First up is a facsimile of GREEN LANTERN #1 (above), and very nice it is too.  I see that DC are now incorporating the price as part of the bar-code box, but I preferred it when it was positioned where the original price used to be.  And once again, they've left off the cover-date, whereas it was included on a couple of previous issues.  I really do wish they were more consistent.

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Moving on to the TBs, the IRON MAN one benefits from retaining the original TALES Of SUSPENSE logo, though it would've looked more balanced if they'd left the corner 'avatar' in place.  The DAREDEVIL cover looks a bit sparse, and would've looked better with its original logo and corner box, but MARVEL seems to think differently.  Again, consistency is called for.  I purchase these issues for the reprints, not because they're loosely tied-in with some new ongoing series or contrived theme, and I'm pretty sure most other buyers likely do so as well.


However, despite those niggles, they're well-worth adding to one's collection and I'm anticipating a bundle of other TB and FE goodies arriving over the next few weeks - can't wait!  Have you been buying any of these reprints, fellow Crivs?  Which ones have been your favourites so far?  Tell all in the CS!

Thursday, 6 February 2020

SPIDER-MAN ART TIMES FIVE...


FIRST THERE WAS THIS...

JOHN ROMITA's original art design for the cover to The SPECTACULAR
SPIDER-MAN #1
.  Note that Spidey's crawling up the side of the building

THEN THERE WAS THIS...

The 1968 published cover based on Romita's original art, painted by HARRY
ROSENBAUM
.  Note that Spidey is now crawling along the rooftop ledge

THEN THERE WAS THIS...

The cover to the 1976 UK Annual (on sale in '75).  This looks like a retouched
version of Rosenbaum's, with an ink outline applied to the Spidey figure
 

THEN THERE WAS THIS...

The 2002 softcover facsimile edition of the original mag.  Unfortunately, most of
SAM ROSEN's interior lettering was replaced by a lacklustre computer font

AND, FINALLY, THERE WAS THIS...

The 2019 collected edition contained the two '60s issues.  This was a regular comicbook size,
whereas the originals were a larger magazine size.  Sam's interior lettering was retained

All images copyright MARVEL COMICS

EAGLE And CONCORDE...


Copyright relevant owner

Got this great book in a charity shop yesterday for a mere £2, having already bought its companion volume some years before at a discounted price, either in WHS or perhaps The WORKS.  (Why is it I can no longer seem to recall things the way I used to?  Extremely annoying.)  Incidentally, the 'aged' look of the logo is the way it was published, not the sad result of neglect.  Take a look at the page below of the CONCORDE.  I bought the CORGI TOYS model in 1969 or '70, at which time I was only 11 or 12, so to discover it had appeared in a comic when I was yet a mere 4 years old, 6 years before the supersonic jet's maiden flight (though it didn't enter commercial service until 1976), came as quite a surprise.  (After all, that was nearly two-thirds of my life away at the time.)

Of course, my adult self knows that these things spend years (decades even) in development, but when you're a kid, you tend to think that anything 'new' has just popped up fully-formed and ready-to-go, which was obviously my impression back in 1969.  And some impressions are hard to shift, hence my recent surprise at seeing how far in advance the Concorde had been announced and even named.


Having said that, I have a vague recollection of seeing (many years after the fact) either a photograph or an artist's impression of a couple of supersonic jets (one was Russian I think) which bore a strong resemblance to Concorde, but preceded it by quite a number of years.  The other one was probably an 'embryonic' Concorde when the idea of supersonic flight was first being developed.  (Perhaps the BRISTOL TYPE 223 SST.)  I should still have the mag or book it appeared in, and when I rediscover which one it is, I'll add the page to this post.

And that's my own little Corgi Toys Concorde (replacement) below.  Ain't it a beauty?!  (Go on, humour me.)


TWO MORE TRUE BELIEVERS...


Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Wow!  35 years.  Really?  Yes, really.  'Twas way back in 1985 when I bought the first ish of a new SPIDEY mag - WEB Of SPIDER-MAN #1, and now I have the TRUE BELIEVERS reprint issue to complete the circle.  This one came out almost a couple of years ago, but I've only just acquired it.  Note that the new logo (replacing the original 'Web' one) doesn't look as out of place as most of the other replacement logos on current TB issues do.

Talking of which, the cover of the True Believers reprint of The INVINCIBLE IRON MAN #54 would've looked better if MARVEL had retained the corner illo of ol' SHELL-HEAD to offset the space around the new name.  I think someone needs to have a word with whoever's responsible for the replacement logos on this current batch of TBs, because quite a few of them let the side down.

Anyway, that small observation aside, they're still well-worth having for the titanic tales from yesteryear contained within.  And as I've mentioned before, the original, untampered-with covers are reproduced in the back of each mag.  (Just a shame they're not on the front.)

More TBs and Facsimile Editions coming up soon, frantic ones.

Wednesday, 5 February 2020

DOES THE KING'S HORSE RING A BELL WITH ANYONE...?


One day back in the late '60s, my father brought home a book for me which contained various children's stories.  The book wasn't new, so he'd most likely bought it in a jumble sale or 'The Barras'.  Amongst the tales within its pages were The Three Billy Goats Gruff, The Little Red Hen, one about two kids looking after a hedgehog, and The King's Horse.  (Or it may've been The King's Bell.)  There were others of course, but those are the ones I remember.

My favourite story was The King's Horse (or Bell), which was about a King who installed a bell in the town square, for any of his subjects to ring in order to obtain justice in matters where they had been wronged.  The way I remember it, the King had a horse who, when it was no longer of use to him, was turned out into the street to fend for itself.  One cold winter's night, the bell is heard ringing in the square, and when the King turns up to see who needs his help, is ashamed to see that he himself is the guilty party, is overcome with remorse, and the horse returns to its comfy stable to live happily ever after.

The tale is based on Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem The Bell Of Atri, which has been rewritten as a prose story more than once, I believe.  However, in the original version, the horse doesn't belong to the King, but a knight (or soldier), so I'm left to wonder if I might be mis-remembering the details, or a little artistic license had been taken with events in order to provide an ironic ending to the tale.  (Y'know, King who wants justice for others is himself guilty of inflicting an injustice on another - in this case his horse.)

So Criv-ites, the call goes out.  Have any of you ever read the version I remember, or owned the book of which I speak?  If any of you actually have the book, I'd be prepared to purchase it for a more than reasonable price.  You know where the comments section is.

Tuesday, 4 February 2020

(BOND) BABE Of The DAY - TANYA ROBERTS



You can tell she's the queen of the
jungle, 'cos look at the hairy arms TANYA
ROBERTS sports.  Of course, she'll probably
claim they're down to the make-up department
for her role as SHEENA, but she ain't fooling
anyone.  Besides, the rest of her is well up to
scratch, so we'll generously give her a pass
 for her hugely hirsute appendages.

Monday, 3 February 2020

SOUVENIR FACSIMILE Of The MAGNET FIRST ISSUE...

Copyright relevant owner

If this were a more ambitious (and better) blog than it is, devoted to imparting knowledge on the featured subject, there would now follow an expository essay on the history of The MAGNET and BILLY BUNTER.  Fact is, though, I'm a lazy buggah and can't be bothered doing the required research just to justify showing you 5 pages, so if you click on the names, you'll be transported to their respective WIKIPEDIA entries, which should tell you everything you need to know (and probably more than you want to).  Problem sorted.

The images here are from a 1965 souvenir edition of the first issue of The Magnet, published by FLEETWAY.  Clock the back-page ad on the glossy cover, featuring RANGER, wherein the classic comic strip The TRIGAN EMPIRE made its debut.  A little slice of history, eh?  I think I once read a Bunter book, in which BILLY BUTLIN appeared, but I don't recall much about it.  I much prefer the comic strips of Billy that were drawn by REG PARLETT.  Any Bunter fans out there?  Declare your affection for the fat owl in our comments section. 




A FANTASTIC FACSIMILE EDITION & A TRIO OF TITANIC TRUE BELIEVERS - GRAB 'EM WHILE YOU CAN!

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Castel Crivens has just taken possession of a fabulous foursome of great comic mags, rabid readers!  Although I've got the original issue of FANTASTIC FOUR King-Size Special #6, I decided to get the Facsimile Edition to keep it company.  It's even got the 'continued next page' lines and the COMICS CODE box like the original.  What more could any Merry MARVELite ask for?  How about some TRUE BELIEVERS as well?  Yes?  Good, 'cos I've got some of them too!

Have to say that I'm not too keen on the new cover logos they're giving these otherwise magnificent mags.  They should retain the originals and find a way of adding the 'sub-title' in an unobtrusive way.  After all, I doubt that readers are buying them due to being tenuously linked to a theme, it's more likely because they're simply an inexpensive way of acquiring 'back issue' reprints of classic tales.

Anyway, if you've been wondering what to spend your pocket-money on, Crivs, then wonder no longer.  Straight round to your nearest comicbook shop and buy as many as you can carry.




SECRET ORIGINS COVER & IMAGE GALLERY PART SEVEN...

Copyright DC COMICS

Here's a question for all you cavortin' Crivvies.  Have you ever read a retelling of an origin story that was better - or even as good - as the original?  There must be some, but I just can't think of one.  Maybe that's why this series of SECRET ORIGINS didn't rock my boat as much as I would've liked it to, though it must've held its own, sales-wise, seeing as how it lasted for 50 issues.  If it wasn't selling, the plug would've been pulled much sooner.

Now, having written the above, KEITH GIFFEN's art on The CREEPER story below, looks quite good, and has some DITKO-esque touches without being a slavish imitation.  Credit must also go to MURPHY ANDERSON, as well as ARVELL JONES for their renditions in issue 19 of UNCLE SAM and The GUARDIAN (& The NEWSBOY LEGION) respectively.  MIKE CLARK (who I'd never heard of before) and RICK LEONARDI likewise do decent versions of Dr. MID-NITE and BATGIRL (#20), though I still prefer CARMINE INFANTINO's original debut tale of BARBARA GORDON's caped and cowled alter-ego.

GEORGE FREEMAN is another name I'm unfamiliar with, and though he turns in a perfectly respectable job on GREEN LANTERN in ish 18, his art doesn't really grab me.  However, it's JACK KIRBY who lets the side down with his frankly awful single illustration of The Guardian on #19's cover.  Murphy Anderson inked Jack's pencils, but even he couldn't save it, despite his magic pen and/or brush.  JK was offered the gig of drawing the whole strip for the issue, but declined, perhaps aware that age and illness had taken its toll and that he wouldn't be up to it.  If so, I think it was a wise decision on his part, but he should've knocked back the cover as well.

Well, that's us now got the first 20 issues out of the way - only another 30 to go.  Do you want to see them, or would you prefer me not to bother and just move on to something else?  My own instinct is to finish what I started, but knowing your opinion wouldn't hurt in helping me make up my mind one way or the other should I ever find myself wavering on the matter.  It's only taken me 3 and a half years to get to this point - if it takes even half the time with the remaining issues, my posts will have lasted far longer than the entire run of the mag.

Anyway, enjoy the accompanying images and feel free to leave a comment if you so wish.  Your opinion counts, even if it disagrees with mine.      














Saturday, 1 February 2020

MIGHTY MARVEL COLLECTORS' EDITIONS CHECKLIST - ON SALE NOW!


ASTONISHING SPIDER-MAN #46

Copyright MARVEL COMICS.  Published by PANINI

52 action-packed pages of arachnid adventure!  Free awesome giant-size Spidey poster!  Peter Parker and Boomerang side-by-side against a bar full of super-villains!

Plus, there’s a crime spree and the Thieves Guild are stealing all the Superheroes’ stuff... including Web-shooters!  By Nicks Spencer & Humberto Ramos!

Reprinting material from Amazing Spider-Man #7 & 8.

On sale Now!

£4.50.

******
MARVEL LEGENDS #21


52 action-packed pages in the Mighty Marvel Manner!  Call her Agent Roz Solomon, Agent of Wakanda, troll slayer, (ex-girlfriend of Thor – but we don't talk about that) and about to become frost giant food!  By Jason Aaron & Mike Del Mundo!

Plus: The next chapter begins!  Captain America is wanted for murder!  And you won't believe who the victim is!  By Ta-Nehisi Coates & Leinil Yu!

Reprinting material from Thor #9 & Captain America #7.

On sale Now!

£4.50.

Friday, 31 January 2020

MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU...



Here's what I consider an interesting thought which occurred to me while re-reading the post about my Casio calculator.  I posited a similar scenario a while back, but this one's slightly different, though worthy of contemplation.  Ready?  What if scientists could transfer someone's life-force into someone else?  For example, someone has just died, but their body is kept alive on life-support, and someone else is physically injured to such an extent that their days are numbered.  Got that?

So here's the scenario.  Let's say it's the love of your life who's just died, but their body is kept functioning, though it can only be for a short while.  Another person has been terribly injured and is about to die, but the 'energy' within them is strong.  If it were suggested to you that the second person's life-force could be transferred into the body of your beloved (by some kind of advanced, life-essence transferral technology), would you be up for it?

They'd have the same personality and everything, it'd just be like they'd been given a new power-pack.  Would it bother you that another 'source of energy' now inhabited them and kept them going, or is it a price you'd be willing to pay for your loved one's continuance?  Or wouldn't you countenance such a proposition even for a second?

And if certain personality aspects of the deceased person occasionally seemed to manifest themselves, would you regard it as coincidence, or fear that the life-force's original owner was trying to reassert themselves?

If you can get your head around the concept (emotionally-speaking), feel free to share your thoughts on the matter.    

EXCELLENT CONDITION FOR AGE...



If there's one thing (actually there's more than one, but I'll save the others for a rainy day) that bugs me about eBay, it's when sellers describe an item as being in 'excellent condition for age', as if that's in any way helpful.  Surely 'excellent condition' should be an objective definition regardless of age, especially when it comes to comics or books?  It shouldn't matter whether the object was made in 1940 or 1980, 'excellent condition' should be the same in either case.

I've just noticed it's raining, so here's one of the other things that annoys me.  I recently saw a book being described as 'mint condition'.  However, the seller then added something like 'except for some writing inside, a small tear on a page, and a scuff on the back cover'.  Pillock!  Then it's not 'mint condition, is it?  Where the hell do these people come from?  It's like saying someone is incredibly handsome, except for a big wart on their nose, no teeth, and there being a 6 inch gap between their eyes - which have a bit of a squint.

Anything about eBay sellers that particularly annoys you, fellow Crivs?  Feel free to rend your soul about it in the comments section.  What's that?  Why the pic of CLAUDIA?  Well, I couldn't think of anything else to illustrate the post with, so you'll just have to be satisfied with her, I'm afraid.  No hardship, eh?  After all, she's in excellent condition (for her age).

YOU CAN ALWAYS BANK ON GORDON...



Back in the '70s, various IPC comic weeklies were giving away sets of football cards for a few weeks, designed to be slotted into 'My Favourite Soccer Stars' booklets presented free at the start of the promotion.  (Each comic had its own booklet into which its own set of cards were to be inserted.)  The GORDON BANKS card was the only one I kept, due mainly to him having the same first name as me.  (Vanity, thy name is Robson.)

Of course, I never kept it for long and couldn't tell you what happened to it, but around 6 years ago, I bought a replacement on eBay.  I put it inside a book for safe keeping, but not only do I not remember where I put the book, I've now forgotten which book it actually was.  Anyway, I don't like not knowing where things are, so I bought a replacement for the first replacement, which I've stored inside my LION & THUNDER Favourite Soccer Stars booklet, kept amongst my back issues of the aforementioned comic.

However, being a lazy person, I couldn't be bothered scanning the card to show here, so I've used scans I made earlier from the first replacement.  Betcha you'd never be able to tell the difference!

A CALCULATED POST WHICH YOU MIGHT ENJOY IF YOU'RE SHARP...


Want to know something?  (Nah, don't bother answering, I'll pretend you do.)  I get attached to things - just can't help myself.  I'll find myself looking at something and suddenly remember that I've had it for 'x' number of years, and then my memory will return to where and when I acquired it, and I'll realise that I wouldn't want to be without it and am glad it's there.  I bet it's sometimes the same for you too, though perhaps not to the degree it is with me, which is off-the-scale.

However, before I go on, let's take a slight detour back to 2013 when I first published the following post, then I'll return to the here and now.  Go on, indulge me.  And besides, if you had anything better to do, you'd be doing it, so bite the bullet and cast your eyes below.

******

CALCULATOR KID...

Take a look at the above SHARP Scientific calculator, bought from W.H. SMITH's (or was it WOOLWORTH's?) in Portsmouth Shopping Centre (or was it Southsea?) in February or March of 1985.  (The ol' memory is beginning to fail me, I'm afraid. Let's just go with my first impressions - there must be some good reason why they were at the front of the queue.) Amazingly, the original batteries lasted for about 23 years before needing to be replaced, which surely must be some kind of a record. (Much like the 12 inch black plastic disc with a hole in the middle up in my attic.)

I've addressed this subject before, but it always amazes me how having a tangible reminder from a particular point in time brings home one's recollections of the period in much sharper focus than would otherwise be the case.  Memories somehow seem dimmer and more distant without a physical manifestation to accompany them.  When I look at the above calculator, it's almost as if I'm back in my bedsit room in Fratton, using my newly-acquired SHARP EL-508A to add up my weekly earnings from my freelance work for IPC MAGAZINES in London.

Just think - I've now had that calculator for more than half my life, although sometimes, when I'm lost in dreams of days gone by, it seems as if it's still a fairly recent acquisition.  Then it's as if someone's suddenly hit the fast-forward button, and the movie-clip playing in my head of that particular time accelerates to the present day - making me realize, with a start, just how much water has gone under the bridge since those days back in the mid-'80s actually took place.

I'll bet the following has happened to you.  You've sat down to watch a movie on TV which you remember seeing being reviewed a couple or so years back when it was doing the rounds in cinemas.  "Wanted to see that at the time," thinks you, "so I'll watch it now!"  After it finishes, you see the copyright date in the credits and nearly fall off your chair.  "1995?  No way!  It only came out about 2 or 3 years ago!"  Go on, admit it - it's happened a few times I'll bet.  And you know you're getting older the more often it occurs because, as we all know, time seems to pass much faster the older we get.

Anyway, now that I've suitably depressed you with thoughts of how brief life is, wouldn't it be great if you could punch in a figure on a calculator, hit the subtract button, and somehow suddenly find yourself magically younger by that very number of years?  Why aren't scientists working on such a device as I type this fanciful nonsense?  If they're not, they should be.  I'd be first in the queue to buy one.

******

Go on, be honest - it's not a bad little post, is it?  I managed to make it at least vaguely interesting, which is no mean feat when you consider how inconsequential the subject matter is.  However, that's not the point of my present ponderings.  No, what I wanted to say is that, a few years back, I had to pack all my stuff away (took months) and store it in the loft in order to enable workmen to put in new radiators and pipes.  They required unrestricted access, which they wouldn't have had if I hadn't cleared all the rooms in my house of what was, essentially, mere frivolous ornamentation.  The calculator was wrapped up along with everything else, placed in one of numerous boxes, then stored in the attic until all the work was completed.

And most of it stayed up there for months.  When I brought some of it down and unpacked it, I discovered that the calculator's digital display screen was no longer working properly.  Perhaps something else in the box had been pressing on the pads, b*ggering it up, or perhaps it was the less-than-ideal climactic conditions, but whatever, it just wasn't calculating.  And so it remained for - what, 4 or 5 years? - until I decided to do something about it.  I'd taken the batteries out to prevent leakage, but it bothered me that something I'd owned for so long was no longer operational.

Of course, I could've just left it and accepted that its span had ended, and contented myself with the fact that, though lifeless, its continued presence was still capable of maintaining my memories of the time it represented.  That wasn't enough for me though - I wanted to see it resuscitated to its former fully-functioning glory.  So earlier this week I bought another, worn-but-working model of the same calculator from eBay, with the express purpose of doing some transplant surgery.  I could've bought one in better cosmetic condition, but I was reluctant to sacrifice an almost pristine item in pursuit of repairing one which displayed signs of age, as that was akin to cutting up a new jacket to repair an old one.  I therefore bought one that, visually, looked worse than the one I already had.  (Best of all, it was inexpensive.)

I only used what was necessary to repair my own calculator, wanting to preserve as much of it as I could, otherwise there wouldn't be much point in going through with the process.  It bothered me slightly that some of the 'internals' would no longer be the actual components the calculator had started out with, but I consoled myself with the thought that the sacrifice was necessary if I wanted it to once again fulfil the function for which it was intended.  And besides, the 'new' parts were clones, created at the same time and in the same place as the original elements, so I suppose it really isn't any different to replacing the batteries.

Anyway, my calculator is now restored to full working order and I'm a happy chappie.  I press the buttons, and the numbers appear on the screen as in days of old.  It now means that - oh, wait a second while I see what this fellow with the concerned look wants.  "What's that you say, doctor? It's time to come with you now?  Who are these two men in white coats and what's that strange-looking jacket for?  Yes, of course I'll come quietly, but I don't really understand what's going on.  What have I done?  I only fixed a calculator, what's so wrong with that?"

H'mm, I'd better attend to this, Crivs.  Hopefully I'll have things sorted out before the next post.

******

And guess what?  Sometime later, I bought a brand-new condition (probably never been used) boxed one of the same model on eBay.  My old one, which was in great shape, nevertheless had a bit of discolouration on the base, accrued over the years, whereas my new one had no signs of entropy.  Nice to have a pristine version, though I'll never dispense with my original.         

Thursday, 30 January 2020

STOP MONKEYING AROUND...



A woman I know who often has her nephew in tow often refers to him as "a right little monkey".  There's no insult intended, and when I run into her on her own, I'll ask her where the 'little monkey' is today.  It's a term of affection on the aunt's part, and a sign of ignorance on mine because I don't know the kid's name, and if she's ever told me, I've forgotten.  I've heard lots of parents refer to their children in the same way, probably because monkeys (especially baby chimpanzees) are cute and elicit a warm response.  Incidentally, did you know that if you shave an ape, its skin is white?  (I use the word white in the same way as I would if I were describing myself, which really means 'pink' I suppose.)

Anyway, given the recent news that broadcaster ALASTAIR STEWART has 'resigned' after quoting SHAKESPEARE in what was obviously not intended in a racist way, it made me wonder if anyone would be in trouble for referring to a black toddler as 'a little monkey' in exactly the same sort of innocent way as they would a white one.  Is the onus on us to be aware of every instance in which we might inadvertently cause offence by the use of a particular word or phrase, or is it on those who are prepared to take offence at the drop of a hat to view things in their proper context and not see everything as an insult directed exclusively at them?  Is a black man entitled to feel automatically offended at the use of the word 'ape', when organic evolutionists regard the whole of humanity (regardless of colour) as being descended from apes?  

What are your views on the matter, Crivs?  Have things now got out of hand when it comes to what we can and cannot say?  Do you think Alastair Stewart was right to resign, or did he get the sh*tty end of the stick in this instance?  The comment section awaits - if you dare.

******

No takers so far.  Is this an indication that people are wary about commenting on controversial issues for fear of being branded racist or bigoted, or are all my regular readers far too busy out enjoying themselves to comment?  I await with interest.

Wednesday, 29 January 2020

(BOND) BABE Of The DAY - CAROLINE MUNRO...



Curvaceous CAROLINE MUNRO
graces today's babe spot, Crivvies, so try
not to get too excited over such ravishing
beauty.  After all, she only has eyes for
 me!  (Why's everyone laughing?)

Incidentally, this is (technically) Crivens' 5,000th post.  I say 'technically', 'cos over the years, I've returned 30 of them to my 'draft' file (like my 14 chapter story, The JANUS DILEMMA), so only 4,970 are currently available to read.  But hey - 5,000 posts!  Didn't I do well?!