A cascading cornucopia of cool comics, crazy cartoons, & classic collectables - plus other completely captivating & occasionally controversial contents. With nostalgic notions, sentimental sighings, wistful wonderings, remorseful ruminations, melancholy musings, rueful reflections, poignant ponderings, & yearnings for yesteryear. (And a few profound perplexities, puzzling paradoxes, & a bevy of big, beautiful, bedazzling, buxom Babes to round it all off.)
Something I noticed only recently is that a panel from the very first appearance of The CLOAK (POW! #18, cover-dated May 13th 1967) was clearly based on the front cover of MAD #1 (cover-dated October-November 1952). Or could it be no more than mere coincidence? Doubt it, but as it took me nigh on 50 years to spot it, I don't suppose I'll be getting a BLUE PETER badge for my keen observational skills anytime soon.
Art by Walter Simonson. Images copyright MARVEL COMICS
What a difference colour makes. Not convinced? Take a look at these basic, flat-coloured examples of JACK KIRBY & VINCE COLLETTA THOR stories from the TALES Of ASGARD 1984 Special (Vol. 2, No.1). Alongside are the newly coloured, multi-hued MATT MILLA pages from the hard-cover edition of the same tales. (First available as a 6-part mini-series.) The pages are given a whole new dimension, enabling them to go toe-to-toe with many contemporary offerings available in comics shops today.
Not wishing to labour the comparison, but the difference is similar to that of an old POPEYE or BETTY BOOP cartoon compared to the almost 3D effect of the animation in WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? Last year, I bought the computer-coloured reprint of MARVEL COMICS #1 and the effect was the same. The pages seem to have become imbued with a vitality lacking in their original printing and don't appear quite as dated in contrast to more modern presentations.
A while ago, the U.K. mag AVENGERS UNITED reprinted the Tales of Asgard series in its original form, and it was generally met with an indifferent, sometimes even hostile reaction. It seems that kids of today have been spoiled by the photo-realistic, more complex colour-art in contemporary stories, and couldn't quite take to the four-coloured classics of yesterday. I'm pretty sure that, had MARVEL/PANINI been able to present the Matt Milla versions (which hadn't yet been done), the response would've been more positive.
I think it can only be a matter of time before Marvel start colouring all their stories from yesteryear in this same fashion and then re-presenting them as 'definitive versions' in deluxe, hardcovered volumes. As I said, it certainly gives them a whole new dimension and might help them to appeal to younger readers not yet steeped in the company's glorious history who seem to have an aversion to older material. (Hard as it is to believe.)
ISBN # 9780-7851-3921-8
The Complete TALES Of ASGARD is available now from all good comic shops (and has been for some time). And here, for completists, is the cover to the original 1968 TOA Special. (Vol. 1, No. 1.)
Art by Jack Kirby & Frank Giacoia
******
Pencils by Jack Kirby
Following on from the previous post, here are a few more examples of the difference that colour (or, to be more precise, choice of colour) can make to a printed page. The first example, above, is how the cover of JOURNEY Into MYSTERY #83 would have looked (more or less) back in 1962. Compare it against the much brighter, recoloured version from the first printing of MARVEL MASTERWORKS Vol. 18, 1991/ '92. (Note: A superior version, more faithful to the original, appears in the recent softcover edition of THOR MASTERWORKS.)
Inks by Joe Sinnott
Now compare both of them to TOM CHU's version (below), reproduced in the TALES Of ASGARD hardcover volume, which also reprints J.I.M. #83's origin. (Unfortunately, despite the superb colouring, the art has been retouched in places, having been restored from the reprint in THOR #158. For a more faithful reprint of this classic story, see the softcover MASTERWORKS edition, referred to above.)
Is this guy seriously deluded or what? Giving me a dose of my own medicine? What a loser! It gives me immense satisfaction to know that, without even trying, I can get under the skin of some frustrated inadequate to such an extent that he feels compelled to vent his frustration in such an impotent way. He's obsessed with me to such a degree that he's glued to my blog every day, according every post a level of attention that surely marks him out as someone with too much time on his hands. Obviously doesn't have a girlfriend or wife (unless she's inflatable) because he's clearly got no balls - as shown by the fact he hides his real identity behind mine. Or perhaps he wants to be me, hence him using my name and face in the performance of his 'tribute act'?
So let's look at the 'truth', shall we? I don't impersonate people, I don't set up fake accounts with the intention of maliciously maligning anyone, I don't spread lies about folk, and I'm not and never have been a 'troll'. Yet this sad d*ck does all of that and believes he's got the moral highground? If anyone's laughing, it's me - my very existence is the bane of his life and he's so tormented he feels compelled to express his rage, even if it's only in this childish, pathetic and laughable way. (He's clearly of low intellect.) I've become his life's focus and he's on a mission to make people hate me. As if anyone gives a sh*t! I never knew I was so important. Hey, I've got my very own 'mini-me', an obsessed stalker - "Made it, Ma! Top of the world!"
Feel free to join me in laughing at the sad bell-end.
******
Just seen his latest tweets - says I 'angrily' say I'm not a 'troll'. I'm not dealing with 'Brain of Britain' here, am I? I laughingly said I'm not a troll - 'cos I'm not the one impersonating somebody and telling lies about them, am I? What a tit! Thanks for all the extra hits, dobber!
******
His latest tweet is extremely revealing. Says he's never used his real name online or the same alias twice. If it's a lie, he's a liar, and if it's the truth, he's admitted to being a 'troll'! Wotta dobber! Sounds like someone desperately trying to cover his tracks. The boy's a joke.
ANDY PANDY copyright relevant owner. Art by PHIL GASCOINE
Hard though it may be to believe, ANDY PANDY and his puppet pals first appeared on TV in June or July of 1950, in the FOR The CHILDREN slot. Astonishingly, the episodes were first broadcast live, until it was realized that filming them meant they could be conveniently repeated. 26 episodes were recorded in 1952 and repeated continuously up until 1970, whereupon 13 new episodes were filmed.
In 1953, the WATCH With MOTHER name was adopted and Andy alternated with The FLOWER POT MEN ('52) and RAG, TAG And BOBTAIL ('53). PICTURE BOOK and The WOODENTOPS (both 1955) were later added and the 15 minute, 1.30 p.m. slot expanded from three to five times a week, with other programmes added to the mix over the years. (The Watch With Mother name was finally dropped in 1975 on the grounds that it sounded dated.)
Surprised as I was to learn that new Andy shows were made in 1970, I was even more amazed to discover that Annuals (published by PURNELL) were issued every year from at least the '60s right into the early '80s. Who knew Andy was so popular with the Annual-buying public? Anyway, I only own one, dated internally from 1974, so here's two-pages to show you what you've been missing. (He also had a strip in the weekly ROBIN nursery comic.)
Anyone got a full set? (Anyone brave enough to admit to it?)
And here's an extra bonus - the opening and closing credits.
Hah! Thought I'd forgotten, didn't you? No chance, Charlie, the old brain-box may not be as sharp as it once was, but I always get around to things eventually. So here's the latest offering in our sizzlin' TALES Of SUSPENSE cover gallery, so that you cavortin' Criv-ites can track the early issues of IRON MAN & CAPTAIN AMERICA's MARVEL-lous adventures in the '60s.
For all their celebrated reputation, I think it's interesting to note just how few issues SIMON & KIRBY actually produced of some of their best-remembered comics. The duo worked on only the first ten numbers of CAPTAIN AMERICA, seven issues of FIGHTING AMERICAN, six of BOYS' RANCH, and a mere four of The STRANGE WORLD Of YOUR DREAMS.
Captain America, of course, continued for some years under other hands after the pair had departed TIMELY for NATIONAL, but the other titles mentioned above (for other publishers) died with S&K's final issues. I find that odd because, given their stature in the history of the comics industry, the impression often given is that everything they touched was a solid commercial hit. As we can see though, that wasn't always the case.
However, even their short-lived mags were not without merit so here's a mini cover gallery consisting of all four issues of their brief excursion into The Strange World Of Your Dreams.
Below is the cover for the unpublished #5, followed by (going by the date) the cover for #7. No cover for what would've been #6 has been found. However, I suppose it's possible that what is assumed to be #7 could've been #6 with a planned change of publishing frequency from bi-monthly to quarterly, before it was decided just to cancel the title. Or perhaps the masthead is a stat from the first ish before the new date was pasted over. What do the rest of you think?
If my old memory is functioning properly, I purchased this ish from the same newsagent's where I'd once regularly bought TV CENTURY 21 when I was a mere six years old. I then took a trip along to visit a friend who lived in a relatively newly-constructed housing scheme, and stopped by the side of a path bordering a field to read my latest acquisition. There was some kind of small concrete construct under which I sheltered, and when I'd finished the comic, I continued my journey to my friend's house. Oddly, I recall nothing much of the rest of the day after reading IRON MAN #66, but I associate the issue - and one page in particular (4th one down) - with the point in the road where I'd stopped to read it.
That's because the field at which I'd stopped resembled the one portrayed on the page. Had GEORGE TUSKA included a concrete water tower in the picture, it would have been almost a dead-ringer for where I read the comic. For many years, whenever I passed that field, I couldn't do so without thinking of ol' Shellhead smashing through his gigantic foe; nor could I read the comic without thinking of that stretch of road and the field itself. Sadly, there are houses there now and the field is no more than a memory, but the memory is never more vivid than when I peruse that page in one of my favourite comics of the past!
If you read this comic back in '74, what are your memories of it, and do you associate it with any particular place? Humour your fellow old farts by sharing your reminiscences in the comments section. Quick, before the memory fades forever!
Ah, I'm back there now, reading it for the very first time - magic!
Still got some leftover festive money burning a hole in your pocket? Then ponder no more on how you might part with it, frantic ones, 'cos I have some suggestions for you. Cop a gander at these four tomes, which are worthy additions to any comic fan's bookshelves. Rather than tell you about them ('cos I'm a lazy git), I direct you to the back covers, where all the spiel you require to make an informed decision awaits you.
Which one floats your boat the most? Can't decide? Then buy all four of them and spare yourself the angst of having to choose between them. Problem solved! Scurry straight round to your nearest comics shop and press some paltry pounds into the palms of those polite purveyors of pulse-pounding pleasures - that's books, Melvin! So why are you still here? Raid the piggy bank and get going!
