UNPUBLISHED COMICS - WHACKO!

Copyright relevant owner

Back in the mists of time - well, around 1971 at least - some unidentified person or persons tried to get the LYONS company interested in producing a new comic called WHACKO!  (Or did Lyons approach a publisher like IPC with the idea?)  It may have been only a provisional name, but it was never published - though a single homemade 'dummy' was cobbled together by someone to show the company what it might look like.  Whoever came up with the idea - whether a Lyons employee or an outsider - is currently unknown, but the pages were discovered in a second-hand bookshop by someone (see last paragraph) quite a number of years ago.

If I rightly understand what I've read elsewhere, none of the strips used were specifically produced for the actual dummy, but culled from other sources.  Note that the concept of JOLLY ROLLO And His MAGIC FLUTE echoes that of PHIL The FLUTER (should actually be Flautist, but Fluter is 'smoother') from THUNDER (1970).  Was Jolly a rip-off of Phil, or an early 'prototype' that was later pressed into service for the dummy?  Perhaps we'll just never know.  ZOOM The SPACE DOG (a renamed HAPPY) seems similar in theme to strips like GALAXUS, BARRY & BOING, and, in particular, PADDY McGINTY'S GOAT, being a bit of a mix of them.

No original art was used in the dummy, the pages being merely boards with photocopies of strips stuck to them.  It's entirely possible that they were rejected proposals (with completely different strip titles, as Zoom/Happy seems to confirm) for IPC/FLEETWAY, which were then renamed to make the characters seem unique to Lyons & Co.  (I've digitally 'diluted' the shadows of the new logos pasted over the originals.)  The late and legendary cartoonist TERRY BAVE drew all the humour strips, so could he have been responsible for trying to interest Lyons in producing their own promotional 'custom comic', or was he called upon because he drew for IPC, who might've been the potential publisher on Lyons' behalf?

Or maybe it was an outside freelance project by an IPC editor, who asked Terry to come up with some ideas - or simply used some rejected strips of his.  Whichever of those scenarios it was, Terry never mentioned the comic in his autobiography, but if it was the latter, it's possible he never even knew that strips he'd submitted to IPC - possibly to try and drum up some extra work - had been renamed and included in the proposal for Whacko!  It may have been the same situation for the adventure strip artists, TOM KERR and JOHN RICHARDSON, to say nothing of the writers, whoever they were.

Would a comic priced at one new pence been a viable proposition for Lyons (or anyone) back in 1971?  Given the cost involved in producing a comic, it's doubtful it would ever have been intended as a 'giveaway', but perhaps the possibility of it being part of a promotional offer that readers could send away for, enclosing a penny (plus p&p?) along with several coupons cut from the wrappers or boxes of Lyons products was considered?  Again, the facts are probably lost to history, but isn't it fascinating to speculate?

Anyway, the pages have been shown before several years back on other blogs, but I suspect they're new to most Crivvies.  So thanks to STEVE HOLLAND from BEAR ALLEY BOOKS for permission to reproduce the pages (with a little mild enhancement by me for this presentation), to DEZ SKINN who produced an improved version of the cover (at the foot of the post), and to RICHARD SHEAF for finding them in a second-hand bookshop all those years ago.  What a discovery.

Does this look like the sort of comic you'd have bought as a kid?  Say yea or nay in the comments section - if you'd be so good.

FISHBOY, BIRDMAN Of BARATOGA, and
KID CHAMELEON spring to mind

A page from VALIANT by the look of it, suggesting
an IPC person's involvement in some capacity

DEZ SKINN wasn't too impressed by the cover logo,
so digitally reworked it to better effect

THUNDERBIRD 4 - TIMES TWO...

I've shown these two THUNDERBIRD 4s before, but never together, and I thought you might find it interesting to compare them side-by-side.  The size difference isn't huge, but the difference in detail is immense, one being just a piece of yellow plastic and the other being quite an intricate representation of GORDON TRACY's aqua-craft - complete with the pilot himself.  (You can just see part of him through the clear window.)

The first one came free with SUGAR SMACKS back in the '60s, and the second was issued sometime within the last 10 years or so (by a Japanese company - can't remember the name and the box isn't to hand for me to check), but I couldn't choose between them (if I had to).  So here's a question for you all - if you could have only one of these models, which one would you choose and why?

Also, did any of you Crivvies ever own any kind of TB4 - or in fact, any Thunderbirds toy back in the '60s?  Do you still have it (or them), or did you track down and buy a replacement years after the fact?  Or how about TB toys you wanted but never owned?  Would you be prepared to fork out the astronomical sums that some of them command today - even if you could afford to - or are you content with your memories, with no desire to own things you once had or wanted?  Tell all. 

GARTH...

Copyright relevant owner

For a number of years now, I've owned The DAILY MIRROR BOOK Of GARTH for 1975 (issued at the end of '74), but I've only very recently gotten around to reading it.  I enjoyed it so much, I bought the follow-up for 1976 from eBay, which arrived yesterday (Saturday).  The second book is smaller, height-wise, and only accommodates two strips per page (reprints of the newspaper strip from The Daily Mirror), whereas the first book has four strips per page.  Both have 128 pages and cost 60p, so the second gives you only half your money's worth than the first.  (Swizz.) 

I saw the first book in a local (long-gone) shop by the name of W. & R. HOLMES back in either '74 or '75.  It could've been both years, because they sometimes sold old stock from the year before that hadn't shifted.  I recall seeing the 1972 TV21 Annual (issued in '71) on a table of books in '72 or/and '73, though I didn't purchase it at the time.  (It was around 11 or 12 years later that I picked one up from another source.)

So I associate those two publications with Holmes (as we called it), along with the SUPERMAN and BATMAN volumes From The '30s To The '70s, and the MARVEL Annual for 1973 (and other books).  I'm sure I also saw the 1973 TV21 Annual there, but again, didn't buy it at the time.  It was because I remembered seeing the Garth book in the shop that I eventually bought it decades later, mainly because it reminded me of one of my very favourite shops from my childhood and teenage years.

But that's enough about me (you'll be glad to know) - let's talk about Garth.  He was co-created by STEVE DOWLING and GORDON BOSHELL and first appeared in The Daily Mirror on July 24th 1943 and ran until March 22nd 1997, making it the longest-running UK action-adventure strip in newspaper history.  After 59 adventures, JOHN ALLARD, who had worked on the strip from the beginning, took over the art chores from Dowling until 1971, whereupon the esteemed FRANK BELLAMY became the artist, with Dowling writing the scripts, followed later by other writers.  Almost every basic Garth plot had been established by DON FREEMAN.

However, let's not get bogged down in detail.  For those who want to read more, jump over to this link and soak up the strip's history to your heart's content.  In the meantime, enjoy looking at the very first Garth strip and the covers to the two Daily Mirror books.

Are you a fan of Garth?  Tell your fellow Crivvies what the character means to you in our ever-lovin' comments section.

BABE Of The DAY - VALERIE PEREZ...

If this photo of stunning VALERIE

PEREZ as DEJAH THORIS doesn't get

your heart beating a bit faster then check your

pulse, 'cos either you're dead or your name is

ALAN CARR.  You decide which of those

 options is worse.  (Val - call me!)

EVER WANTED TO BE A MARVEL EDITOR? NOW'S YOUR CHANCE (SORT OF)...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

This post was suggested by a regular (I assume) reader, but I'm unsure whether he wants me to identify him or not so I won't for the moment.  However, he's bound to let us know if he wants the fame, glory, and adulation from hordes of screaming females that comes from being name-checked on Crivens.  Anyway, he proposed that I put the following scenario to all you pantin' Crivvies, so are you ready for this?

The year is 1971 and from your Marvel office in New York you address the editors and bean-counters in front of you.  "Marvelites Assembled!  I decree that next year we open up our own operation in the UK (gasps heard).  No more licences - we’re going direct (more gasps).  I see a weekly title (murmurs around the table), then when that’s a success we’ll launch another one the following Spring (nods all round) and then another in the fall (cheers and applause).  So let me throw it open to you - what strips shall we include and what names should these mags have?"

So pretend that you're one of those editors or bean-counters.  Ah, but can you include any of the titles and contents actually used back in '72 or not?  The reader didn't specify, though let's assume you can answer the question either way.  Would you have chosen the same characters in the same order, or mixed and matched them differently?  Would you have picked the same names for the mags, or do you have other ideas as to what they could have been called?

Go on, let's have some fun - play along and think about how you might've done things had you been in charge.  Who's going to be first?

The MIGHTY THOR SPECIALS COVER GALLERY... (Updated)

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Looking at these covers, it's hard to believe that the earliest comic among them is 55 years old, while the youngest is 49, with some 50 year-olds in between.  Relax, I'm not going to bore you (again) with philosophical speculations on the nature of time, I just thought these images would be of interest to all the THOR fans among you.  I well remember the thrill of seeing the above JOURNEY Into MYSTERY Annual #1 (and only) in various local newsagents around 1973 or '74, and I must've bought around 3 or 4 of them over the course of a couple of weeks.

I was already familiar with the stories from their re-presentations in FANTASTIC and SPIDER-MAN COMICS WEEKLY, but it was good to re-read them in colour for the first time.  On the cover below, Thor's arm was altered, but if you look at the 2nd-last scan at the foot of this post, you'll see how Jack originally drew it, as taken from an unaltered proof used for a 1994 reprint of the 2nd Thor Special.  That's followed by a scan from Thor MASTERWORKS volume 5 which shows both arms, presumably the patch covering the original having fallen off without being noticed.

Are you a Thor fan?  Which costume do you prefer - JACK KIRBY's original design, or one of the others that he (Thor, not Jack) has worn over the years? 

Regular reader CJ suggested that I expand the post to include TREASURY EDITIONS, which I've now added, along with some other Annuals and two TALES Of ASGARD Specials.  Hope you like them.

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.