PART TWELVE OF THE MARVELLOUS MISSING LINK!

Copyright REBELLION

A while back, Sturdy STEVE HOLLAND - of BEAR ALLEY BLOG - was going to publish a book reprinting every MISSING LINK episode (plus the series it morphed into with its 16th episode) originally featured in FANTASTIC in the late 1960s.  Unfortunately however, for various reasons, the project was abandoned, meaning that a lot of frustrated POWER COMIC followers were deprived of a rare treat.

Hopefully, presenting the initial adventures on my blog might lead to renewed interest, and result in a revival of Steve's project, either by him or other parties.  LUIS BERMEJO's art deserves to be sensitively coloured and presented not only to former Fantastic Fans, but also a brand-new generation of readers who would be sure to welcome Linky into their hearts.  What do all you Criv-ites think of the strip thus far?  Feel free to let me know in the comments section.

    

HOW TO BE A COMIC BOOK ARTIST - THE MARVEL WAY...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

From NOT BRAND ECHH #11, Mirthful MARIE SEVERIN shows how to accomplish the goal of becoming a 'comic book' artist.  Funny text, humorous, well-drawn illustrations.  If only some artists I can think of were this good, how different might the fate of a certain beleaguered U.K. comic have been.  Sigh!  Too late now though.

   

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY...

Images copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

What's the point in flogging a dead horse?  Or even a dying DANDY?  Well, it's not until we admit our mistakes that we can ever hope to learn from them.  Case in point: some of the content in this week's issue of the terminally-ill comic from the stable of D.C. THOMSON.  Firstly, though, disregard any claims that The Dandy is going to a 'better place'; that it's not dying, it's merely 'evolving'.  Pants!  That's what we tell children (and sometimes ourselves) when someone dies.  "Granny's not dead, she's only gone to Heaven."  No, ol' Granny's definitely dead - at least from our earthly perspective.  The Dandy is also dead (or will be in three issues) - whether or not it's going to a better place yet remains to be seen.

The above comic cover is taken from the 1967 (released in '66) Dandy Annual, and it's a cracker.  Definitely what I'd place in 'The GOOD' category.  Recently, I was advised that, over on another blog, someone was dismissing me as a 'nostalgist' (which while true, is hardly something that invalidates my opinion).  The BEANO is well-drawn, they conceded, but not funny; whereas The Dandy is funny, but perhaps not quite so well-drawn.  They'd rather have funny and not so well-drawn than the other way around.  However, to my way of thinking, it needn't be a case of 'either-or' - why can't we have both?  (Incidentally, I don't necessarily agree with this person's assessment that The Beano is less funny than its sister publication.  Not when it's got CALAMITY JAMES.)

We all recognise that there are various reasons for the decline of many once-popular publications over the years, but The Dandy suffered disproportionately because, after its 2010 relaunch, it had become so unattractive that it deterred readers from buying it.  What's more, half of its former readers abandoned it once they'd seen what it had become.  What's the point of a comic being funny (presuming for the moment that it is) if it's so poorly and amateurishly drawn that it drives customers away in droves?  QUASIMODO could well have turned out to be the life and soul of the party if the crowd had only taken time to get to know him, but who wants to be laughing while simultaneously vomiting their guts into a bucket?  So, with that in mind, let's take a look at 'The BAD'...

First of all, the logo is basic, unimaginative, and has too much black space.  Much more could've been done with it.  One of the drawbacks of the 'new' Dandy is that the overall design was down to one man, resulting in a lack of variety throughout the comic.  Not necessarily a problem if the designer is a genius at his craft, but the logos are hardly prime examples of what can be achieved in the art of calligraphy, being rather roughly-rendered as well as uninspiring.

The strip itself is an exercise in how not to draw a comic strip.  Empty backgrounds, flat-looking characters, not enough variety in perspective (in fact, no actual perspective) - the result is nothing more than a series of talking heads not saying anything particularly amusing.  As I've said before, this looks like the work of a fourteen year old with a hint of promise that requires developing, not the work of an adult 'professional' artist who gets paid for it.  When I last made this observation, I received an email telling me that I was wrong!  "More like the work of a four year old!" claimed the correspondent.

        

Let's now take a look at 'The UGLY'...

Yet another extremely poor logo with severe limitations in execution (an apt word - "It's dead, Jim!").  Crammed panels with flat figures seemingly growing out of the ground, static positioning and no real sense of movement.  Add to that the fact that the drawings appear to be fighting for space with the dialogue and captions, and you have a recipe for an underwhelming example of so-called 'sequential' art.  (And don't start me on just how ugly the lettering is in both this strip and the one which precedes it.) Having said that, however, I've seen far worse from this artist.  I think his style would be more suited to greetings cards - sequential art doesn't seem to be his strong point. 

Now let's look at how it should be done (art-wise, that is - the story is nothing great).  In the strip below, there's a sense of space in the layouts, and the panel borders don't seem to be constricting the content within.  The figures have 'depth', appearing 'rounded' (almost 3D, as opposed to the paper-flat scribbles above), and there's a sense of movement, plus a natural progression from one panel to another.  What's more, the lettering fonts are clear and easy to read, and don't overpower or obscure the art.  Note that I'm not saying all strips should be drawn in the same style employed by CHARLES GRIGG, but observance of his storytelling principles is something that quite a few current Dandy artists would benefit from paying heed to.

(Also, bear in mind that this is essentially a black and white page with some spot-colour, as opposed to the full-colour pages above.  If the previous examples were in black and white, they'd be even more one-dimensional than they are.)  

Okay, that's my two cents worth.  Hopefully, any response will be something other than the same old tired insults and vitriol which usually follow.  Got an opinion?  Agree or disagree?  Let rip in the comments section, but try and keep it clean, eh?

G.I. JOE WAS ORIGINALLY A SOFTIE CALLED 'HAIR-LIP HARRY'...

You're looking at the very first prototype of G.I. JOE, hand-carved by designer DON LEVINE back in 1963.  Just as well  they chose another face for the finished article, as the fella in the photo looks about as hard as a soggy cornflake.  BARBIE's boyfriend KEN could've given this milksop a good kicking - and he's about as tough as wet noodle.  Ah, how different would've been the fate of all mankind had the constipated clown above turned up in shops instead of the real deal that made his debut in '64.  ('66 in Britain - and with a different name - ACTION MAN!)

CURIOSITY KILLED THE KAT...

A word of warning should you ever think of clicking on names
in your Traffic Sources in the Overview details of your blog.  I
saw one and clicked on it - only to find that someone with a seriously
dodgy interest had checked out my site because of my nickname.  For-
tunately, there was nothing shocking about the page my click took me
to (being as innocuous as my own), but it revealed the Search Key-

word used by the person - and I nearly choked on my KitKat.  So
 if you're curious about who might be visiting your site, it's prob-
ably better not to find out - you could get a nasty surprise.

While I'm on the subject, I had to remove a follower from my

blog recently, as his avatar contained many links to what appeared
to be porn sites.  I wasn't going to risk visiting them to find out, but
the names were a bit of a giveaway.  Not wanting younger visitors
to my blog having access to dubious sites which are unsuitable
for them, I thought it best to err on the side of caution.

I note that some of my  members also have this person's

avatar on their sites, so it might be wise to check it out in case
you likewise want to remove it.  Better safe than sorry.

THE SUPER HEROES ANNUAL 1982 - '84 - PLUS SUPERMAN SPECTACULAR #1 & 2...

Images copyright DC COMICS

Over on another comics blog, the host refers to (amongst other things) LONDON EDITIONS MAGAZINES' 19 issue run of The SUPER HEROES.  He happened to mention in his comments section that he's never seen the 1983 and 1984 Annuals, nor the two card-covered Albums which were also issued.  So - this one's for him!  (And you!)

  

MISSING LINK SUNDAY (PART ELEVEN)...

Copyright REBELLION

Hang on to your hats, heroes, as once again we fling ourselves into the fray and catch up on what's happening in the life of The MISSING LINK.  Originally published in the pulsating pages of FANTASTIC way back in the late 1960s, this is a strip which withstands the test of time and deserves to be preserved for posterity (hopefully in a deluxe hardbacked volume, with the addition of colour).  Drawn by LUIS BERMEJO and written by ALF WALLACE, this adventure serial is a true classic - so make yourself a nice cuppa char and sit back and enjoy this trip into yesteryear.

COMPASS OF THE STARS...

Long ago and far away, in a dimension which can be accessed only through the mystical portals of memory, I popped into the neighbourhood newsagents on my way to school one day and purchased a copy of TV CENTURY 21 #3.  Within this great comic, paradoxically dated a hundred years in the future, was a sheet of card from which could be pressed out a model of FIREBALL XL5.

When I got to school, before lessons began I sat and assembled the folded pieces into their predetermined shape while my teacher and classmates looked on, fascinated.  I wasn't one who particularly enjoyed being the object of of such rapt attention, but I was so engrossed in what I was doing that I paid them scant heed and just got on with it.  When I had finished and the teacher had expressed approbation for the fruits of my labour, lessons began, and although I couldn't tell you anything else that happened that day, that particular moment is a fond recollection nigh-on forty-eight years after the fact.

Relax - mine doesn't have 'Northernlad' stamped across it

I never saw that cardboard 'model' from childhood again until nearly twenty years later, when it was reproduced in black and white on the back cover of  S.I.G., a magazine devoted to the puppet programmes of GERRY ANDERSON.  I remember thinking that it was a shame it wasn't in colour and hoping that someone would one day get around to producing a proper facsimile of this free gift which I greatly coveted.

 

Well, almost three decades on, someone has finally done it.  Printed on card (though not perforated for pressing out), it enables nostalgists like myself to relive a part of our cherished childhood and bridge the span between past, present and future. Future?  Sure - after all, the comic was dated February 6th, 2065, so technically it's not due to be published for another fifty-three years.  Thanks to a rift in time and space, however, I managed to obtain a replacement for the actual comic a good while back.  It's immensely satisfying to finally be able to reunite it with a copy of its original free gift after so long a period.

Suddenly I'm an eager five year-old child once more, sitting in a chalk-dusty classroom in a different century - when the one we now live in was  the stuff of dreams and seemed too far away to even contemplate.

THE DEANO & BANDY SHOW - BEYOND A JOKE?

Images copyright Dundee Comics Tyrant

Recently, a well-respected cartoonist revealed that, as far as he understands things, one of the companies for which he freelances will no longer allow him to feature images of his own artwork on his blog, which he uses to promote the very publications they appear in.  Other artists (plural) apparently still do feature images (though I'm going by info gleaned from other sources) so, naturally enough this has led to discussion on various 'unofficial' fan sites as to what exactly the situation might be.

As usual, I was the 'Johnny-come-lately' to the table, but I expressed my opinion (as a comics buyer and collector) that this seemed to be a mean-spirited attitude for the company to take, as they would surely only benefit from any of their artists promoting the product - so why prevent them from doing so?  (Seems like a fair enough question to me.)

In the absence of any clear details or explanation as to why various contributors seemingly had a different understanding of what was going on, speculation arose as to whether certain cartoonists were operating under different conditions and whether there might be dissent between them, prompting one of them to deny such was the case.  (Which is fair enough I suppose.)  Unfortunately, he was initially rather vague in explaining just why it wasn't the case, preferring a 'read-between-the-lines' approach as opposed to a more specific account of the current state of play.

I pointed out that it was hardly fair to bemoan fan-speculation when his own actions - and subsequent silence or equivocation - has allowed it to take root; resulting in a sarcastic response which suggested that, not being 'included' in the situation, I shouldn't be expressing either an opinion or an interest in the matter.  As is usual in such cases, it wasn't long before the inevitable nameless diddy emerged from the woodwork, saying that I should be ignored as I was a 'troll' - apparently quite unaware of the inherent irony in him contributing nothing of significance and in doing so anonymously.

So, tell me - where do these t*ssers come from?

Anyway, let's hope that the company in question comes to its senses and removes any impositions which prevent its cartoonists from promoting the very images they produce for them.  And, just for fun, see if you can spot the subtle visual clues as to exactly which Dundee-based publishers of periodicals I'm referring to.  A free, lifetime subscription to a certain comic which ceases publication on December 4th for all those who guess correctly.

(Subscription commences from January, 2013.)

SPIDER-MAN AT 50-PLUS...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Believe it or not, back in August, SPIDER-MAN was officially 50 years old.  I say 'officially' because, although the comic in which he made his first appearance (AMAZING FANTASY #15) was dated August, it actually came out on or around the very merry month of May, 1962.  To commemorate this landmark event, PANINI BOOKS have released a '50th Anniversary Edition Vintage Annual', containing Spidey's debut from AF #15, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #s 1 & 6, and the first U.S. ANNUAL from 1964, including various pin-ups and features.

All in all, it's a nice little package, but a tad expensive at £12.99.  Panini have added 'age' effects to the cover and interior pages which are somewhat overdone in places, but, in the instances where their application is more subtle, it actually delivers a not-unpleasing result.

One of the main problems, however, especially in the case of the origin tale, is that Panini have utilised inferior proofs which have been 'revised' in several places.  Originally, these proofs were used for the early '80s MARVEL TALES reprint, and contained altered lettering and artwork.  For example, 'Spiderman' was changed to 'Spider-Man', 'costume hero' to 'costumed hero', etc., and some lettering was re-created in a couple of instances.  Also, on the last page, the final caption was omitted as it referred to the next issue of Amazing Fantasy and the dots on the eye-pieces of Spidey's mask were deleted as they were considered too 'cartoonish'.

These same proofs were again pressed into service for the first printing of the Spidey MASTERWORKS volume in the late '80s, but were later revised in an attempt to return them to their original 'unaltered' state - with rather lacklustre results it has to be said, as a couple of instances were overlooked.  Fortunately, however, with the release of the latest softcover Masterworks and OMNIBUS books, superior proofs were used, and a far more faithful presentation of this classic issue became available to collectors.  Alas, it's just a shame that Panini apparently didn't have access to these superior proofs for their own publication, as they used the ones which had been clumsily 'restored' to their pre-altered state.

Anyway, here's a few images from this (relatively) recently released 126 page, hardback tome.

TV21 CAPTAIN SCARLET ALBUM...

Images copyright relevant owner

Known and loved everywhere for my generosity as I am, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I often seek to share with others far less fortunate than myself.  Why, there's many a sleeping tramp who has been suddenly warmed by the steam from the amber liquid I bestow upon them whilst they're huddled in a cardboard box on the cold streets of Glasgow.  I'm just that sort of a guy.

It's that same spirit of charitable unselfishness for which I'm so justly famous that now prompts me to impart unto all you Crivs this super free gift given away with TV CENTURY 21 #155, cover-dated January 6th 1968.  There's no need to thank me - such altruism comes naturally to this humble blog host.

Incidentally, this was the first issue of the title to be called simply TV21, as opposed to TV Century 21, which it had been officially known as for the previous 154 numbers.  However, most kids had referred to it as TV21 since its inception, so the publishers were merely following suit.