GUEST POST By GENE PHILLIPS - The GRAND SUPERHERO OPERA... (Updated)

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

I feel blessed, blessed I tell you, for the pure accident of my birth - for it was thanks to that cosmic coincidence that I saw the medium of comic books at its best, during the formation of the Fighting Marvel Age of Comics.

Yes, I know that's not how Stan Lee styled the era of his breakthrough, if only because it's not alliterative.  But I call it that, because the way Marvel opened up the medium for the depiction of Big Spectacular Fight-Scenes was one of the things that made the company great.

There were other aspects of the breakthrough.  "Heroes with problems".  More thought went into the SF and fantasy concepts.  Lee's unequalled ability to give all of his heroes slightly different ways of speaking and reacting.  But I think the sheer visceral power of Marvel fight-scenes may have been at least as important as any of these.

One has to remember that even though superheroes and related genres had been around for over twenty years, the people who made Golden Age comics in the U.S. had grown up with other media when they ended up writing and drawing them.  The early raconteurs modelled early comics mostly on prose pulp stories, crossed with elements from the comic strip medium.  Both media did sometimes use spectacular fight-scenes - but that wasn't a specialty.  As a result, even though there are some kick-ass fight-scenes in Golden Age comics, there aren't as many as you might expect.  Even those masters of kick-assery, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, varied a lot as to their use of sheer spectacle - though when they did it, they were among the best.

Even when Lee launched the Marvel imprint in the early 1960s, a lot of the earliest Fantastic Fours are fairly talky, like the best selling DC Comics of the time.  I tend to think that their second big feature, The Hulk, may have opened Lee and Kirby up to a more visceral approach to comic-book action - though to be sure, the Hulk's first comic pooped out after six issues.  But if it's true that great artists challenge each other, then Steve Ditko rose to Kirby's challenge.  The first couple of issues of Spider-Man were a little on the sedate side, fight-wise - but then you get The Vulture in issue #2 and Doc Ock in #3, and there was no going back.  Some artists, like Bob Powell and Alex Toth, didn't get this new approach, but others - Gene Colan, John Buscema, John Romita - assimilated the high-action approach to the funnybook page.

I'm not saying that every Silver Age comics-fan was as into the fight-scenes as I was.  However, I do think it's a major appeal for the superhero genre, as well as for a lot of related genres - space opera, supernatural sleuths, even Giant Monsters.  In fact, as I pored over the pop culture of my time, I saw a lot of parallels in other media.  The sixties were also a time when the FX in popular sixties movies took a similar quantum leap, if, say, you compare the effects in a Ray Harryhausen epic to one of the old black-and-white serials of the thirties and forties.  A particular favourite for me was the 1968 monster mash DESTROY ALL MONSTERS, which used puppets and men-in-suits to pull off a multi-monster battle that still grabs me, even though I can see things like goofs and misfires more readily.

Back in 2011, having already started a blog dealing with comics and other reading materials, I launched NATURALISTIC UNCANNY MARVELOUS, a review-blog for all types of fantasy-films.  Yet from time to time I wondered what it would be like to devote a blog just to fantasy-films with spectacular action-scenes (or even just the failed attempt at same).  So I finally did so, with my newest blog THE GRAND SUPERHERO OPERA.  Most of what I post there was already blogged on NUM, but I think I found an interesting way to organize the reviews into subgroups, with perhaps humorous names like "Costumed Crusaders", "Space the Fighting Frontier", and "Fight Like a Girl".

Copyright relevant owner

So that's my hype for the new blog (which you can find by clicking here), but I am curious to know if the readers at Crivens have any similar orientation toward fight-scenes in general.  I think of the Fleetway books as the equivalent of sixties Marvel in terms of kick-ass fight-scenes, but I admit there's a lot of British work of which I only have partial knowledge, like the work of Frank Bellamy.  How did fight-scenes evolve in British comics over the years, compared to the way they did in the U.S.?

******

C'mon, Crivvies - don't let GP down.  Consider his question and give him your answer.  After all, he wrote this specially for you!

JANUS STARK TAKES ANOTHER BOW...

Copyright REBELLION

Another trip back into the past for me, faithful Crivvies, as The Incredible Adventures Of Janus Stark Volume 3 arrives at Castel Crivens and conjures up memories of my youth.  I'm not sure why Rebellion have opted to reprint these stories in thin volumes as opposed to thicker tomes like Adam Eterno and The Steel Claw, but maybe they'll release an 'omnibus' edition somewhere along the line.  Anyway, whether you've read these tales before or not, this is one that should be in your collection so I thought I'd let you know about it.

Click here to buy direct from the publishers.

******

Update: I noticed a small mistake in one of the stories, where, in a flashback to Janus's days in an orphanage, the other boys refer to him as 'Janus'.  As most fans will know, Janus Stark is a stage name, adopted by Jonas Clarke at the start of his career.

The PINK PANTHER On HOLIDAY...

Copyright relevant owner

The first Pink Panther Holiday Special I ever bought was the 1976 one, which for many years was the only one in my collection.  Then I started buying others when I saw them on eBay and now have several of these TV Comic tie-ins from Polystyle Publications, the latest addition being the 1982 offering.  They were usually comprised of reprints from US Pink Panther comics, with a smattering of pages from TV Comic, most of which I think were also reprints, though there may have been the occasional specially produced new strip.

I prefer the British single page strips over the American several page ones (as the UK strips are usually funny and witty at the same time), so as a special treat, here are a few colour pages from my recently acquired Special which arrived at Castel Crivens yesterday.  (Click on images to enlarge, then click again for optimum size.)

'ELLO, 'ELLO, 'ELLO - WHAT'S GOING ON 'ERE THEN...?

I remember, a while back, a policeman was murdered in the course of his duty, resulting in calls from some for the restoration of the death penalty - specifically (and only) for killers of police officers.  Frankly, this struck me as more than a little bit insulting to the rest of us.  I have nothing against the death penalty per se for certain crimes, but surely, as a punishment, it should apply equally across the board for wilful murderers of anyone, not just a select few who wear a uniform.  It may not be the intention, but it implies that not every innocent person's life is of the same value, and that some are worth more than others purely because of the way in which they earn their living.

Everyone's life is of equal value (at least to their relatives), so think how you'd feel if the person who killed a member of your family was given just a few years imprisonment, while the miscreant who murdered a member of someone else's family received the death penalty, purely because the victim was a policeman or woman.  Hardly fair is it?  It creates a two-tier system in which the lives of some people are considered more valuable than others.  Protecting the police in the execution of their duty is not something that most people would object to, but surely the best way of doing it is to protect everyone by having the same punishment for murder, regardless of the victim's job? 

So let me ask you a question.  It's not the concept of capital punishment itself which is up for discussion (though you can tackle it if you want to), but rather whether it's fair or right that the death of someone in a minority (but important) occupation should be regarded as more worthy of the ultimate punishment for offenders than that of nurses, binmen, or shop workers.

What's your take on this, fellow Crivvies?  

RECAPTURE YOUR CHILDHOOD WITH CORGI...

CORGI TOYS CLASSIC REISSUES

Above, two versions of The Saint's Volvo P.1800, and also repeated below for good measure.  One is the original 1965 car (well, a later edition in the '60s run, with different 'hubcaps'), the other is a recent reissue by Corgi, in conjunction with Blue 14 DTC Brands.  Can you spot the difference?  There are some very slight ones, but nothing to write home about.

Take a look at the base-plates, which are distinguished mainly by one saying 'Made In Gt. Britain' and the other saying 'Made In China'.  However, the new box says 'Designed In Gt. Britain' to capture that '60s feel, and instead of Playcraft Toys Ltd., it says Hornby Hobbies Ltd., who now own Corgi (as well as Airfix and most likely some other brands).

There are other reissues on their way, including the gold-coloured Aston Martin D.B.5, which going by the photo at the top of this post, is closer to the original 1965 version than any other 'reissue' Corgi have thus far produced.  (Update: Actually, that is an original '65 D.B.5 in the pic, the new one couldn't have been ready.)  Oh, and the Batmobile is also one of the range, so that's something to look forward to.

Below are another couple of reissues, along with a free facsimile of the 1966 Corgi catalogue, which can be obtained as part of a special offer from the Corgi Model Club.   So what are you waiting for?  Scoot over there now by clicking on the name above and avail yourself of a great bunch of stuff that's certain to return you to your childhood.

Me?  I never left mine.  

The AVENGERS ANNUAL 1975...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS.  Look at their scowls - they
look more like villains than heroes, wouldn't you say?

Hail and welcome, fellow Crivvies.  And now, if you're all safely strapped into the comfy chairs of our cosmic time-cube, we're going to return (presuming you were alive then) to the end of 1974, when The Avengers Annual for 1975 first went on sale all across the country.  The premiere issue of the UK comic had appeared in September of '73, so this was undoubtedly the first Annual tied into its weekly namesake, and I recently obtained a replacement for my long-gone original book from the 'emporium' known as eBay.

I well-remember the Captain America story, which I associate with a shop called W. & R. Holmes where I first saw the book, and from where I presumably bought it back in the day.  I recall lingering over the CA pages, and one glance at them now and I'm back in a shop that disappeared sometime in the late '70s, once again a mere teenage schoolboy - though one destined to leave the halls of academia in a few short months and join the working world.  So much has changed since then, but everything is reset for a few brief moments when my eyes fall upon that cover and these Captain America pages.  Ah, bliss!

I was reminded while re-reading the book that it was where I first learned that William Congreve's adage, oft-misquoted as "Music has charms to soothe the savage beast", should more properly be rendered "...soothe a savage breast".  At some point in time, the word had morphed into 'beast' (perhaps to avoid the risk of embarrassing polite society by use of the word 'breast') and it had passed into common parlance, but here, in the book's first reprinted tale, writer Steve Englehart took the opportunity to put things right.  I always remembered that, and if ever I heard someone misquote it down through the years (and it happened a few times), I was swift to correct them, pedant that I am.

Anyway, you'll have your own memories of this book and/or the tales presented within, so enjoy reliving them and reconnecting with your long-vanished youth.  Is it just me, or were things better and brighter back then, with the present we now inhabit so far-off that we could scarcely imagine it?  It seemed like centuries ahead of us at the time, but we somehow arrived here far too quickly, as if we slept through the journey.  Not fair, is it?

Feel free to pitch in with any of your own memories surrounding this Annual, should you feel so inclined.  (That's if you actually have any, of course.)

This page was an education for me

Either Wanda's right leg is too short, or her left one is too long

Not sure why they used this illo twice, but here's the first one

At first I though the background was white and had browned
over time, but Cap's costume and shield show it isn't so

LET SLEEPING BOMBS LIE...? (UPDATED)

Copyright relevant owner

Received the above first edition paperback yesterday (Friday) after buying it on Amazon a few days ago.  It was first published in 1970 and then, in 1972, was given away in parts as a free gift over a number of issues in a magazine called Target by the New English Library.  It then fell to the readers to combine all the parts into one, trim it, and then read the completed result - if they hadn't already devoured each segment as it appeared.  I dutifully combined the various parts, but if I ever actually read it, I can remember absolutely nothing about it.

I managed to replace my Target #1 close to a couple of years back, but it didn't have the free gift, seen in the last picture below.  (Borrowed the image from somewhere, forget where.)  Anyway, I decided to track down the novel, which is a thin affair, and once I've read it (not sure when I'll get around to it) I'll have reconnected to an aspect of my past from 49 years ago, something I always enjoy doing when it comes to books, toys, records, and comics.

The middle picture of the three below is a scan of the comic's cover from my very own issue.  Did any of you Crivvies read the free gift novel back in '72, and if so, what do you remember about it - if anything?  Am I wasting my time in planning to read it, or was it an absolute belter of a book?  Make your impressions known!

******

Update: I've now read the book and much of it seems familiar, so it's extremely likely I've read at least several chapters given away with Target back in 1972.  I've also acquired a superior condition copy and replaced the previous image of its cover with a better one, as well as the back cover.  When I was reading it, images of my previous house (the one in which I lived when Target first came out) were uppermost in my mind, which just goes to show how powerful some subconscious associations are that they survived for so many years after-the-fact.

BUY Or SQUAWK - The 60 YEARS LATER AFFAIR... (Updated)

Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

D.C. Thomson recently reprinted the very first tale from Commando #1 with a brand-new cover by the excellent Ian Kennedy.  Then they followed it up with a sequel as part of their celebrations for the 60th Anniversary of the title, which publishes four mags per month.  I'm not really a fan of war stories, but as this is a special occasion, I bought the two you see here.  Looking forward to reading them later tonight. 

And below is the cover of the very first issue, alongside its 50th Anniversary reprint from 2011.

MIGHTY MARVEL ANNUAL COVER GALLERY...

Art JAMES E. McCONNELL.  Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Time marches relentlessly on, and I find myself amazed by the fact that seven Annuals over a six year period were first published between 43 to 49 years ago.  In that time I went from being a mere schoolboy to a working 'adult', yet I doubt I was aware of the distinction back then.  I was just me, the same as always, and very often we're not really conscious of such changes in our circumstances until long after the fact.  Or are we?  It certainly doesn't feel like it to me in retrospect.

Anyway, several posts back I said I'd do a cover gallery of all 7 Marvel Annual tie-ins to the weekly comic The Mighty World Of Marvel, and as the final three that I needed to complete my collection arrived at Castel Crivens today, there's not much sense in hanging about.  I remember reading somewhere that the cover of the Annual for 1979 was drawn by Frank Miller (and I may well have repeated that claim on the blog somewhere), but inside the book itself, the cover is attributed to Tony DeZuniga and Pablo Marcos.

Perhaps there's a story behind it.  Is the book correct or is it a mistaken attribution after a last minute change of plan where Frank Miller had to step in to the breach after the credits were prepared?  I assume that whoever first made the claim must have a reason for crediting it to Miller, so if anyone knows anything about the subject, kindly step up to the plate and enlighten us, ta much.

I suspect (though I'm not 100% certain) that I had all of these Annuals back in the day, though there's a possibility I might've missed a couple of the later ones.  However, even if I did buy all of them as they appeared, I didn't always keep them from one year to the next, so today is the first time that I've owned all seven at the same time.

So which one's your favourite cover, fellow Crivvies?  I tend to favour the first two, though the 1976 one by Herb Trimpe is good.  Couldn't say whether he drew it specially for us Brits or it was lifted from a previous US source, but it's a nice piece of work.  Anyone know if it appeared elsewhere first and was 'borrowed' for the Annual?  Again, if so, share the details with your fellow Crivvies.

I have completed my task of attempting to entertain you all.  'Tis now your task to be entertained - so get to it and check out these captivating covers!

******

Incidentally, the 1975 book is the only one to have a different back cover, so I've included that as well.  The '76-'79 books had the same illustration on the back as on the front, but without the Marvel masthead.  The covers of the '73-'74 Annuals were the exact same on the back as on the front, mastheads and all.

Art GEOFF CAMPION

TOYBOX TREASURES Of The PAST: THEY'VE GOT NO STRINGS...

Sometimes we begin journeys without even realising it, and reach a destination we didn't know we were travelling to until decades later when we finally arrive there.  Which probably sounds far more profound than it actually is, but I have to attract your attention in some way, and making a post sound interesting when perhaps it isn't, is the only way I can think of to lure you in.  (Yes, you're right - I'm a devious rascal.)

I couldn't swear to the year, but it must've been between 1969 and '71, so let's say it was 1970.  I bought a Marx Toys Twistable Geppetto figure from a shop called Nurseryland, but I no longer recall exactly how long I owned it or what happened to it.  However, it was because I once owned that figure that I decided to buy a Pinocchio one when I saw it on eBay a few years back.  Then, recently, I managed to acquire a replacement Geppetto twistable toy, again from eBay, and I felt quite pleased about 'reuniting' father and son.  (Even did a post about it.)

But guess what?  Last week I noticed a Jiminy Cricket figure from the same series, so I bought that as well (handy place, eBay).  As far as I know (I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm mistaken), there were only three figures in the series and I now have all of them - a complete collection (I hope).  So the three pals are back together and no longer exist in isolation, each having two companions for the duration of however long they reside in my vast accumulation of stuff.

And that'll be at least until I fall off the twig, though I'm hoping they'll be kept together when I'm no longer around.  That's four Marx twistable figures I now own - the three seen here, plus a Batman one, and I have no plans to expand this particular group.  Not unless I see something that really appeals to me that is.

Any Crivvies ever have any of those Marx toys when they were kids?  Why not take a moment to tell us all about them?

******

As you can see, Jiminy is a little grubby, but that's because he fell into a radioactive patch of mud from which he had to crawl out of.  When he did, he was surprised to find he was now as big as his two pals.  (Sounds convincing to me.)

******

Is it just me, or does Geppetto look a bit like Benny Hill as the Toymaker in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?  I wonder if the resemblance was intentional?