ROLLICKING REPOST: So... VINCE The PRINCE Or FORGETTA-COLLETTA?

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

VINCE COLLETTA is a name which seems to cause controversy whenever it's mentioned these days.  Some comicbook fans think he was great, others think he was okay, and then there's another group who think he was the worst inker ever to work in the business.

Some JACK KIRBY fans in particular believe he ruined every page of the King's work he ever touched.  Others think he transformed Jack's THOR pages into a tour de force of illustrative brilliance which should grace the Sistine Chapel.  Then there are those poor souls who can't see the difference between one page and another, regardless of whoever pencilled or inked it.

While it's true that Vince's inks may not have suited every artist whose pencils he worked on, there are some whose art was definitely enhanced by the touch of his pen and brush.  (GENE COLAN, JOHN BUSCEMA, and FRANK ROBBINS, to name but three.)  Jack Kirby was definitely on that list.  Vinnie diluted the idiosyncrasies and abstractness of Kirby's art, imbuing it with a rugged, realistic quality that perfectly suited the mythical backdrop of Thor's adventures, particularly when set in ASGARD.

I'm not alone in thinking that part of the reason for Colletta's bad rep these days is based on poor quality reprints of his work in various magazines back in the early '70s, printed from proofs in which his fine detailing was lost and clumsily retouched by less-skilled hands.  (Using a blunt felt marker by the looks of things.)

However, back in the late '60s a U.K. publication called FANTASTIC reprinted Thor's adventures from JOURNEY Into MYSTERY, using clear, sharp proofs for near-perfect black and white reproduction. U.S. spellings, colloquialisms and references were changed, creator credits and corner page numbers were deleted, and open case sound-effects were sometimes blacked-in or cross-hatched for greater impact in the b&w format, but the art still looked great.

It gives me great pleasure to present Vince's inking of Jack's pencils more or less the way they would have looked when they were first completed, as opposed to the far inferior reprints which came later.  Enjoy.   

Click on image, when it appears, click again for optimum size.

RESONATING REPOST: JACK KIRBY - SAINT Or SINNER?

Much has been made over the last twenty-odd years in certain quarters about JACK 'KING' KIRBY not receiving either the credit or remuneration he deserved for his undoubted contribution to the success of MARVEL COMICS.  In fact, Jack - along with JERRY SIEGEL and JOE SHUSTER - is almost a poster boy for the 'hard-done-to creators' school of thought, and it would be all-too easy to believe that he indeed fell victim to the evil machinations of corporate big business.

I don't believe it's as simple as that, but on the matter of credit, Jack was every bit as shy as anyone else in sharing the glory of his accomplishments with those who fully deserved equal billing.  I'm struck by the fact that, when later relating his career in the comicbook biz, Jack usually neglected to mention his long-time collaborator JOE SIMON, instead preferring to airbrush him from the history of the many titles they both worked on when he could get away with it.

In Kirby's one-page essays in some of his 1970s DC mags, I can't remember Joe Simon being mentioned once, and the backup tales (reprints from the '40s) were labelled 'A Kirby Classic' on every page.  Also, in a summary of his comics career written in 1966 and printed in FOOM #8 in 1974, there is again no acknowledgement of his erstwhile art and business associate.  I guess it's human nature to believe that, in any partnership, we bring more to the table than the other guy, and it seems that Jack was as prone to this as anyone else you care to name.  

Take SPIDER-MAN for example.  Jack claimed for years that he had created the idea of Spidey and even designed the costume - however, the facts (as I understand them) are different. Apparently, Joe Simon, JACK OLECK and C.C. BECK were responsible for producing a strip called The SILVER SPIDER, which had developed from an earlier idea by Simon for a character called SPIDERMAN (no hyphen).  The idea languished in limbo until it was revised and appeared as The FLY for RED CIRCLE COMICS (ARCHIE) in 1959.

According to Jack's version of events, he showed a Spiderman logo (lettered by Joe when he first came up with the idea) to STAN LEE, and pitched to him Simon and Oleck's original concept before the character had been renamed and revised.  However, Jack claimed the idea as his own and failed to mention his former partner's involvement, taking sole credit in the matter. Jack later recanted his claim about the costume when it was pointed out to him that STEVE DITKO's unused cover for AMAZING FANTASY #15 was drawn before his own (published) version, but not before perpetuating his mistaken account of events in numerous fanzine and convention interviews over a period of time.

Don't get the wrong idea - this isn't meant as an attack on Jack's honesty or integrity, but his memory was every bit as bad as Stan Lee's is reputed to be.  And it seems that, on the matter of creators feeling deprived of credit or money, very often the determining factor seems to be "How rich did someone else get off an idea I worked on?"  To me, this is akin to someone freely selling a silver teapot for £100 (and believing they got a good deal), and then seeing it on television in The ANTIQUES ROADSHOW five or ten years later valued at £1,000.

You can bet your boots that the seller will be kicking himself and cursing the other guy's luck - but feelings of bitterness or frustration (however understandable) from missing out on something hardly entitles anyone to a share of an increased value from something they underestimated the potential worth of at the point of sale.  Regardless of whether it's property or ideas, the principle is surely the same.

When it comes to the matter of credit for who did what, it seems that more creators than you'd realise are in the exact same boat as those they point the finger at.  Thus has it been, thus shall it ever be.  As I said - it's human nature.  So, to answer my own question - saint or sinner?  Neither. Jack was just as human (though a lot more talented) as the rest of us.

Got any thoughts on the matter?  Feel free to express them in the Comments Section.  Go on - you know you want to.

BEAR Of The DAY - YOGI BEAR...

Here's yer actual real YOGI BEAR (no, it

isn't someone in a costume) to show you all what

a magnificent (and friendly) bruin he is.  He kindly

posed for this photo when he saw me with my camera

as that's just the sort of considerate bear he is.  He was

just setting off to a picnic in the woods with BOO BOO,

PADDINGTON, BARNEY, RUPERT, WINNIE The

POOH, and SUPERTED.  So, do bears sh*t in the

woods?  Winnie probably does if his name's any-

 thing to go by - dunno about the others.

FAVOURITE COMICS Of The PAST PART FIFTY-SEVEN - The PYRO-GRANULATE AFFAIR...

Copyright DC COMICS

Two for the price of one this time around, Crivs - SUPERMAN'S PAL THE NEW JIMMY OLSEN #s 139 & 141 (a two-parter, 140 being a giant ish containing non JK reprints), which I originally purchased in the early '70s.  I've always thought (and often said) that JACK KIRBY's turn on Jimmy Olsen was the best thing he ever did at DC COMICS, and these two mags (along with #s 142 & 143) are ample testimony to that fact.  An interesting plot, great art (inked by the unfairly maligned VINCE COLLETTA), and mostly (with the odd exception) freer-flowing dialogue than Kirby normally delivered, the tale rips along at a cracking pace and is hugely entertaining. 

I bought ish 139 twice at two different times.  My failing memory prevents 100% certainty, but I may've first got it while on holiday in Blackpool in 1973, (definitely) later buying another copy from a local newsagent's back home - purely because the pristine newness of the cover appealed to me.  DC republished all of Jack's Olsen issues (sans '40s reprints) a year or so back in a single collected edition, so if you missed them in the '70s (being either too busy or unborn), you can now catch up on them.  Check out your nearest comics store or bookshop right away - though they may be cheaper on Amazon or eBay.  In the meantime, you can whet your appetite by perusing the powerful pages on dynamic display in this 'ere pulsating post.

Got a favourite Kirby Jimmy Olsen issue?  If so, tell your fellow Crivs which one (or ones, if it's a two-parter) in our captivating comments section.

WEAR THE FOX HAT...

Having a ginormous back garden which is a bit wild and overgrown at the moment, the local foxes love lolling about in it.  Saw a couple today, with one lovingly grooming the other (no rumpy-pumpy involved), so grabbed my camera and snapped a few pics through the window and from just outside the back door.  The first one shows the reflection of the net curtain I drew aside to take the photo, and the focus isn't great on the next two as they were shot through glass, though the last two are perhaps slightly better.

Anyway, I thought it was a nice thing to behold and thought all you nature-loving Crivvies might too.  Incidentally, foxes are individuals and don't all behave in the same way.  Some will take food straight from my hand (very gently too), others get off their mark on sight of me (a bit like women), while a few keep their distance but don't look scared.  Any nice stories involving foxes, readers?  Let rip in the comments section.

 

OOPS!

Part 57 of FAVOURITE COMICS Of The PAST was also part 44 - newly worded to be sure, but the same two comics.  I just forgot that I'd already featured them, but then a nagging doubt made me check.  Should've done that first, eh?  Anyway, I've deleted it.  Oh, well, back to the drawing board.

BABE Of The DAY - VALERIE PEREZ...

Here's the astoundingly stunning

VALERIE PEREZ as DEJAH THORIS,

Princess Of MARS.  She's certainly royalty

amongst women and can knight me with that

sword of hers any time.  I imagine she's great

at carving the turkey at Christmas-time too.

 Wotta babe!  We are truly not worthy.

ARE HEROES ALL LOOSE CANNONS...?

Copyright relevant owner

If you're in a certain age group, you'll know that back in the '60s (and before), US comics were transported to this country as ballast on ships.  You probably didn't know that fact back then as there was no need to, but most older collectors are aware of it now, and probably have been since the '70s and '80s.  Again, if you're of a certain age, you'll remember some US comics turning up again in shops months or years after they'd first been on sale, presumably because there'd been copies lying forgotten in the hold of a ship or in a warehouse somewhere.

I recall buying my second copy of a 1966 issue of WORLD'S FINEST in Blackpool in '73 or '74, as well as several KIRBY FANTASTIC FOURS and BUSCEMA SILVER SURFERS.  Plus, numerous copies of JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY Annual #1 from 1965 turned up in various newsagents in my home town, again in '73/'74.  It was quite a common occurrence back then, but when the whole distribution setup changed, finding pristine copies of '60s comics years after the fact (and at cover price too) became a thing of the past.

With one exception that I know of - HEROES, INC. Presents CANNON, a 1969 self-published mag by WALLY WOOD, aimed at US military servicemen serving abroad.  Apparently, back in 2005, HERITAGE AUCTIONS auctioned off a lot of 70,000 issues from a warehouse find.  Some years ago, I saw several on a shelf in a Glasgow comics shop, going for the same price as new US comics alongside them, so I guess they came from that stash of 70,000 copies.  I bought a couple (though not both on the same day) and still have them now.  Surprisingly, great condition copies are still not that expensive today, so if you've ever thought about adding this comic to your collection, now might be a good time.

There was a second issue in 1976, this time published by CPL GANG PUBLICATIONS, but that's one I don't have.  As it seems to have been an afterthought, I probably won't bother tracking it down, but if I ever see one for a reasonable price, I may succumb.  I thought I'd featured the first issue on the blog before, but I can't find the post, so I've decided just to treat this occasion as the first time.  There's some nice art in the mag and it simply sings of the '60s, so I'm sure all you oldies out there will enjoy seeing it.

So here's a question for you all.  Have you ever bought any 'old' comics years after the fact in brand-new condition from a newsagent's spinner-rack (for the same price as then-contemporary comics), and if so, which ones were they and do you still have them?  Regardless of whether you do or not, what memories are conjured up in your mind on sight or thought of them, and do you still remember the thrill of exhilaration when you saw them looking up at you from that pile of other mags?    

'YESTERDAY' ONCE MORE...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Yesterday, August 1st, was a Saturday.  33 years ago, August 1st was also a Saturday, and that was the day my family moved back to the house we'd previously lived in just over 4 years before for 11 years.  That means I've now lived here three times longer the second time than I did the first, but, curiously, it doesn't feel like that.  I wonder if anyone else has lived somewhere, moved away, then moved back again, and if so, what it feels like to them.  Does their time away seem like a dream that never really happened, or do they just never think about it?  If such a thing has ever happened to you, feel free to share your thoughts.

21 years ago, August 2nd was a Monday, and that was when I was introduced (via nearby neighbours) to a young woman called... well, her name isn't really relevant so no need to identify her.  We had a brief fling, which meant more to me than to her, but I still look back on that time with a certain degree of fondness.  I doubt she'd even remember me now as she led a full life, always travelling and seeking out new places and meeting new people.  I remember her, though, and probably always will, but the longing dissipated a long time ago.  It's a safe bet that she never had any real longing for me, so there wouldn't have been anything on her part to get over.

As I sit typing this post, the realisation that so much time has gone by from each of those events is a sobering thought.  (Not that I've ever been drunk, being a lifelong teetotaller.)  How can they still seem so recent when the first is over half my life away, and the second is more than a third of it?  I've never been able to reconcile the mysteries, paradoxes, and complexities of time, and don't think I'll ever be able to. In one way, I'm glad that I have a pretty good memory when it comes to past events (though don't ask me what I did yesterday), but on the other, I sometimes wonder what it would be like to simply live for the day (or the morrow) and leave the past where it is - even forget it.

As you can tell, I'm in a reflective mood - if you feel you'd like to join in, please feel perfectly free. 

RIP-ROARIN' REPOST - The SILVER SURFER COVER GALLERY OMNIBUS... (With SURPRISE BONUS!)

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

I'm afraid it's another repost, Crivvies.  I'm beginning to wonder whether it's worth the effort of producing new posts when hardly anyone responds to them.  That could be my fault of course, but when I see the kind of dreary, clueless pish that commenters respond to in droves on other sites, I'm not convinced that my writing style or subject matter is the chief reason as to why my posts are seemingly sometimes ignored.  Why not tell me where you think I'm going wrong, and what I should do that would encourage a better response?  I had over 5,000 hits one night last week, so maybe I should be satisfied with that, but comments give a bit of life to a blog and make it more entertaining to the readers as well.

******

Yes, I know - I've shown these covers before, but it was over several posts and I thought it would be handy to have them all in one place for all you pantin' panelologists to slobber over.  The first seven issues were double-sized, 25 cents publications, and #8 was prepared that way as well. However, it was split over two issues when it was decided to make the mag a regular-sized, 15 cents monthly.  The series lasted for only 18 issues, so assuming the change was made because it was thought the pricier format was scaring off readers, it wasn't soon enough to make a difference in sales, alas.

JACK KIRBY drew what became the last issue, but the mag's cancellation proved that not even the 'King' could save it.  Sure, it was cancelled before the sales figures came in, but they must've been pretty underwhelming, as the mag would've been revived PDQ had it seemed to MARVEL that they suddenly had a sure-fire runaway hit on their hands.  In fact, it has to be said that Jack's issue is the weakest of the run and proves that STAN LEE was right in having big JOHN BUSCEMA illustrate the previous 17 tales.  I doubt the magazine would've lasted as long as it did had Jack drawn it from the very start , as his art had taken a decidedly cartoonish turn.

Got a favourite?  What memories are stirred in the cavernous confines of your mind as you peruse these powerful images from yesteryear?  Take a moment to savour those recollections, and then share them with the rest of us in the comments section.

Believe it or not, I bought pristine copies of #s 10-14 from a spinner-rack
 in a shop in Blackpool in 1973 or '74 - for the cover price of 5 pence each 

I hadn't noticed before that #18 came out a whole 3 months after #17

******

Bashful BARRY PEARL has reminded me that he had a letter published in #14 - it's on the page below.  Barry's a mere youngster, so obviously he must've been only around 6 months old when he wrote it.