REMEMBER, REMEMBER, THE 5TH OF NOVEMBER? NO THANKS, I'D RATHER FORGET IT - AND WISH EVERYONE ELSE WOULD TOO...

You know you're getting old when the things that enthralled you as a kid no longer hold any magic for you - except perhaps in memory.  Take BONFIRE NIGHT for example.  I don't mind seeing and hearing fireworks when I'm out and about, but I find the noise irritating and intrusive when I'm ensconced in my house trying to relax and unwind.  The actual night is bad enough, but when you have to put up with continual explosions for at least a week before and a week after (sometimes longer), it goes beyond the pale.  I think fireworks should, by law, only be allowed on November 5th between 6 and 7.30 pm.  Anyone setting them off before or after should be heavily fined (or, failing that, given a good kicking).  What's more, they should only go on sale three days before the 5th.

HALLOWE'EN's another one.  This October 31st, I sat in the house with the lights off to deter any kids and their parents coming to the door.  Not that I think they would, but I wasn't prepared to take any chances.  It's not just that I've got no time for kids as a rule (unless they're quiet, well-behaved children of friends), but I didn't want to be subjected to their disappointment if I'd been placed in the position of having to turn them away empty-handed.

What a miserable old git I've turned into, but I just can't help myself.  It's not really fair, considering how much I enjoyed Hallowe'en and Bonfire Night when I was a kid.  I've tried to analyse the reasons for this shift in my attitude to these two events, and here's what I've come up with.

Not being a kid or a parent, I've got no reason to participate in the celebrations in any way, so therefore find them an intrusive nuisance to my routine, to say nothing of my peace and quiet.  I'm also struck by the fact they remind me that my childhood effectively ended in the previous house to this one.  Not that I realised it back then, as the transition process of growing up appears seamless at the time, but, in retrospect, we tend to divide each phase of our lives into segments and view them as individual links in a chain (that have become separated), as opposed to the single unrolling ball of string that life once seemed to be.

It was in my previous house that I last went out on Hallowe'en;  it was in my previous home that I last celebrated Bonfire Night;  and it was in my previous abode that I last crept downstairs with my brother in the early hours of Christmas day to see what Santa had brought us.  My tentative conclusions are therefore that I'm angry and bitter at no longer being a child, in much the same way that the lead actor in a TV show feels when he realises he's gone as far in his role as he can, and that the new young supporting actor is getting much more attention and fan mail, and will soon supplant him as the main star of the show.  I'm sort of half-joking of course, but perhaps there's more truth in my imaginative assessment than I realise.

Any thoughts on the matter, Criv-ites?  Let rip in the comments section.

CAN YOU TRACK A SOUND, DOCTOR? NO...?

Y'know, I'm quite partial to the original motion picture soundtrack of the first JAMES BOND movie, Dr. NO.  Although I didn't acquire it 'til around 1973 or '74, it reminds me just as much of the '60s as it does the '70s, which you might think is no big deal considering when it was first released.  There's more to it than that however, and let me try and explain just what I think it is, in the unlikely event you might be remotely interested.

First of all, I was only a young teenager in the early '70s, and to me at least, the stylish differences between the two decades weren't all that obvious.  This was because there were still many '60s cars on the roads, and, certainly where adults were concerned, clothes fashions were pretty much the same.  My grandparents still dressed in clothes that could have come from the '30s to the '50s, and my parents' apparel was much as it had always been since as far back as I was capable of remembering.

Another aspect that helped dull the differences between the decades was the fact that, right up until the late '70s, the furniture in our house had graced our three previous homes since 1960, and mainly dated from the '50s (and perhaps even from before I was born).  As this was 'the norm' for me, my childhood and teenage years seemed to take place in an unchanging, ageless environment, where the dividing lines between the decades didn't really exist.  They might well have for others of course, but not to me.  (It would be interesting to know if my friends from the period considered my house [and room] decidedly old-fashioned, or accepted it as normal in the same way that I did.)

So, because the accoutrements of my bedroom in the '70s didn't reflect the style of the period, it was as if I operated in a timeless bubble that was immune to the changing fashions of the passing years.  I've probably overstated the case in order to make the point, but that's why, whenever I listen to that Dr. No soundtrack, I have a real sense of the '60s around me, and associate it as much with the decade it first appeared as the one in which I first heard it.

Is there something in your life that reminds you of an earlier time than the one in which you first acquired or experienced it, or do you think I'm merely babbling like a lunatic?  If the former, feel free to express yourself in the comments section.

(BOND) BABE Of The DAY - JULIE EGE...

It's lovely JULIE EGE, deciding

on her first task of the day.  Shower me

with kisses or make me a fry-up brekkie?

Which should she do first?  I'm easy, so

 I'll just leave it up to her.

SUPERMAN & BATMAN - POSTER BOYS...

Image copyright DC COMICS

I've shown this poster (which was one of three free gifts with SUPER DC #1) before, but this is a superior scan to the ones used previously (which I've now replaced with this one).  It's based on the CARMINE INFANTINO & MURPHY ANDERSON poster of BATMAN & ROBIN from the '60s, but is obviously nowhere near as good.  (I think it was drawn by MICK ANGLO, but couldn't swear to it.)  However, if you had this poster as a kid and longed to own it again, here's your opportunity.  All you need is a printer.  (Can't help you with that, alas.)

And in case you've never seen the Infantino/Anderson pin-up, that's it below (sans 'inscription') so that you can compare the two.

A DASH OF COLOUR, BATMAN?

Images copyright DC COMICS

I imagine that there were probably BATMAN colouring books in the '40s & '50s, but they really came to the fore in the '60s to cash-in on the TV series.  At least, that's how it seems to this old fart, but, surprisingly, I don't think there's been a decade that hasn't had a colouring book devoted to the DC COMICS character.  I don't have all of them, but I've got a couple from the '60s, a couple from the '80s (or maybe it's the '90s - I've tucked the books away again and can't check), and only last week, I saw the latest one in HOME BARGAINS and snapped it up.  (I have to say that it's worth buying if you see it, 'cos it's got some cracking pictures in it.)

The only one I actually owned back in the '60s is the ROBIN in the BATCAVE book, and the one you see here is a replacement I acquired probably more than 20 years ago.  I've shown the '60s books before (with some of the age wear digitally removed - this time they're mostly unretouched), but thought it worthwhile showing them again alongside their more contemporary companions.  (One is actually an Activity Book, but it contains many pages for colouring, so I decided it deserved to be included.)

So that's it, Bat-fans, enjoy the images on display and perhaps even relive part of your childhood in the process.  Coming next - the lost JACK KIRBY SPIDER-MAN pages.  (Nah, calm down, I'm only joking.  Your heart skipped a beat though, didn't it?  I like to keep you all on your toes.)

I've included the back covers of this and the next book as, although they have
the same image front and back, they're sans logo and would make nice pin-ups

The back covers of this and the next book are the exact same as
on the front (with logos), so there's no point in repeating them

TAKE A LOOK-IN At The BEEB...

Images copyright relevant owners

No one could (or would) deny that BEEB Magazine was anything other than a clone of LOOK-IN.  The wonder is that it took the BBC 14 years to get around to introducing their rival publication, at a time, ironically, when Look-In's circulation was steadily falling.  They should've taken that fact into consideration, because Beeb only lasted for a mere 20 issues before disappearing - with no announcement in its final number and without resolving any of the continued stories.

When Look-In first came out in 1971, I didn't buy it.  It wouldn't be until 1975 that I started picking it up on a regular basis, simply because there was something intoxicating about the great cover paintings by Italian artist ARNALDO PUTZU, who painted many movie posters in the '60s, including ones for the 'CARRY ON' series.  My interest in the mag was relatively short-lived, though I continued to buy the occasional issue over the years, depending on the contents.

In 1985, I was living in Shearer Road, Fratton (Portsmouth) when I spotted a new mag in a newsagent's one day.  It really wasn't the sort I was usually interested in, but because it reminded me of Look-In (and also because it was new) I bought the first issue.  By this time, I'd developed the habit of buying the first three issues of any new mag or comic, mainly because they were usually the free gift issues.  I never saw #2, but got #3, telling myself that I'd locate the missing 2nd issue before too long.

I was back home in Scotland before I ever got around to sending away for a back issue of the missing number, and I think it was quite a few years since the mag had been cancelled before I did, so I was unsurprisingly unsuccessful in my task.  Until yesterday that is, when it popped through my letterbox after I'd managed to secure a copy via eBay a few days before.  It's odd to see it next to my almost pristine, clean copies of issues 1 & 3, because it's got a few creases and it's not quite as 'smart'-looking as its companions.

However, I feel a sense of achievement.  It may've taken me over 32 years, but I've finally fulfilled my original intention of owning the first three numbers of this short-lived publication.  Will I succumb to temptation and attempt to track down the remaining 17 issues?  Nah!  Despite some nice art, there was too much of a focus on pop music for my tastes, so I'll be giving the rest of the run a miss.  It's enough that I've finally got the first three after all this time, so they'll do for me.

Anyway, here are some pages from my trio of Beeb mags, so that you can see the cut of its jib.  Did you buy the title back in the day?  Feel free to share your views in the comments section.   

SUPER DC - IT'S A DATE...

Well, who'da thunk it?  I was right!  Browsing through an auction site (I'll be bidding on one or two items), I see that the free gifts (there were three) from issue #1 of SUPER DC are on offer.  One of the gifts was a 'wristwatch calendar' (three adhesive labels) bearing the dates of October and November of 1969, and January 1970.  In a previous post a couple of years back, I wondered why the comic had been copyright-dated 1969 and priced one shilling, when the free gift in my copy had borne the dates of 1970 and '71.  I knew I'd bought my original copy in 1970 because I was at secondary school when it went on sale, which I didn't start attending until that particular year, so I knew I wasn't wrong on that score.  I wondered whether the comic had perhaps gone on sale in England first, before being rolled out across the rest of the country a year later.  Well, thanks to Phil's Auctions, I now know that I was spot-on with that little speculation.  Below is my original post for your contemplative perusal.

******

SUPER DC - HISTORY Or MYSTERY...?

SUPERMAN and related characters copyright DC COMICS

I've read that SUPER DC came out in June 1969 and lasted to July of 1970.  That may be true (in some parts of the country anyway), but it's not the whole story.  When I bought issue #1, one of the trio of free gifts was a 'wristwatch calendar', consisting of three adhesive strips (one month on each) to be applied to the strap of one's watch.  The months on my calendar labels were that of November and December 1970, and January 1971.  Not that they were any good to me, because I didn't wear a watch then, nor do I wear a watch now.  However, this fact tends to indicate that, at least in Scotland, the first issue didn't go on sale until September or October of '70 at the earliest.

So what's the scoop?  You're asking me?  I can only speculate, but here's what may have happened.  The comics were tried out in England first, and unsold copies were then distributed to the rest of the U.K. at a later date.  This would explain why all 14 issues bore the price of 1/- (one shilling) even after decimalisation on February 15th 1971.  In some (but not all) cases, issues on sale after this date had a 5p sticker covering  the old price.  Or perhaps there was some kind of nationwide delay between publishing and distribution, and the main reason that people think the comic came out in 1969 is because of the price and the copyright date in the indicia.

There's evidence to suggest that issue #1 (at least) was reprinted, as the indicia is different in two copies I have in my collection.  Take a look at page 39 (above) and spot the difference between both versions.  I suppose this could perhaps merely be as a result of the NATIONAL PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS copyright attribution being added during a pause in the print run when it was noticed it was missing, but that wouldn't explain why the comics are also slightly different sizes.  So it's anyone's guess as to the true history of this U.K. reprint monthly, published by TOP SELLERS and edited by MICK ANGLO (who also illustrated some covers and text stories).  If you think you can help clear up this minor mystery, feel free to chip in your two cents (or pence) worth in the comments section.

******

The above post was published on July 7th 2015, and it's good to finally know the answer.  One mystery yet remains though.  Was it unsold stock that was later released in other parts of the country, or were the issues reprinted with no amendments to the date and price?  The fact that I now have three copies of number one (got another one a while back), with the size and copyright indicia of one of them being slightly different, seems to suggest such a scenario as a distinct possibility - at least as far as the first issue goes anyway.  

REMEMBER WHEN DAYS WERE LONGER? And, ONCE AGAIN, The HORROR Of The HOUSE On HAUNTED HILL...

It's a wet and windy Autumn day outside, as the rain runs down my window and leaves swirl past as if they need to be somewhere in a hurry.  I almost feel like I should be preparing to brave the elements whilst getting ready for school, so evocative is it of days of long ago when such weather was something to be enjoyed (if you were ten years old) rather than cower from like a big feartie.

I can smell that 'woody' tang in the air, with hints of fireworks and Hallowe'en, and find myself wondering why, when I was younger, All Hallow's Eve and Guy Fawkes' Night seemed separated by a period of several weeks instead of the actual five days that exist between them.  I can remember, in school, as the night of October 31st approached, the afternoon being given over to making masks for the big event to come.  Then it would all happen again for November 5th, and I defy anyone to cast their minds back without seeming to 'remember' these two celebrations as being separated by a far longer period of time than they actually were.

I've often wondered how such a thing can be so.  If October 31st fell on a Monday, mask-making day would have been on Friday the 28th.  That means Guy Fawkes Night would have been on the following Saturday, and mask-making day would have occurred on Friday the 4th - a whole week later with a Saturday and Sunday in between.  Well, weekends obviously seemed far longer to us as kids back then than they do now, but not all mask-making afternoons were partitioned by a full weekend, so the seemingly elongated interval between the two events is not fully accounted for by such an explanation.

We'll just have to put it down to that same mysterious phenomenon which makes all our yesterdays, in retrospect, seem better, brighter and longer than they really were.  Don't we all feel that the summers of our childhoods were gloriously sunny for months on end, and that every Christmas morn we woke to find a deep carpet of snow spread before us beyond our bedroom windows?

I doubt I'm alone in preferring to recall some things as they seemed to be, as opposed to how they actually were.  ("I think, therefore it was" - as someone surely must have said.)

Anyway, seeing as how it's Hallowe'en tonight, I thought I'd dust down and share this old-but-true tale with all you Criv-ites to put you in the mood.  Are you alone?  Are you sure you're alone?  Perhaps you'd better check first before we proceed.  Ready?  Good, then I'll begin.

Art by STEVE DITKO, copyright MARVEL COMICS

Not long after my family had moved into our new house back in 1972, a curious thing happened.  My brother came downstairs into the living-room one night and claimed he'd just seen an elderly lady in white on the stairway outside his room.  My parents pooh-poohed the notion, but, shortly after, my bed was moved from my front room on the grounds that it was damp (the room, not the bed) into my brother's room, which we then shared for a few months (again, the room, not the bed).  I suspect it was more to do with my brother being scared to be alone than it was with the risk of me catching pneumonia, but I grant it could've been a combination of both.

Some indeterminate time afterwards (a year or two perhaps), my brother again came into the living-room with a concerned look on his face and called us upstairs, saying that someone was walking around in the attic.  We all trooped up to my brother's room and, sure enough, there was a sound of creaking boards - as if someone was walking from one end of the attic and back again.  My father got out the stepladder and tentatively poked the top of his head a few inches into the hatch opening, but he was in no mad rush (nor were we) to more thoroughly explore the vast confines of its black interiors, so we put the noise down to some not entirely convincing 'rational' explanation and retired downstairs again.  

Some years later, we moved house, and four years after that, we moved back again - with the exception of my brother, who'd acquired his own flat in the meantime.  Now, I don't believe in ghosts, but the couple with whom we exchanged houses in order to return to our former abode, told me that one night while lying in bed, a ghostly apparition had drifted through the wall from my brother's old room into theirs, then floated right over their bed and melted through the window on the other side.  They were a young couple and a bit flaky, so I put their 'experience' down to having partaken of a combination of too much alcohol and weed.

But here's where it gets strange (as you doubtless anticipated).  A few years after having moved back, I was lying in my bed one night in the small hours when I suddenly became aware of a wizened old woman in white shuffling towards my bedside.  She stopped and stooped, lowering her crinkled face towards mine as if scrutinizing it intently.  For a moment I was paralysed, but then, with a growl, I sat bolt upright in bed to confront the ancient figure, who immediately retreated (still facing me) into the far corner of the room before fading into nothingness.

I sat stunned for a moment, not quite sure what had happened.  Had I seen a ghost, the very one my brother had claimed to have seen so many years before?  Or had I only been dreaming and suddenly awoken - with the figure in my dream somehow still visible before me, like some swiftly-diminishing after-image?

Who can say for sure?  I still don't believe in ghosts, but that was certainly a moment which gave me pause for thought.  Anyone else got any similar experiences?  Feel free to share.  

BABE Of The DAY - LINDA THORSON...

LINDA, get off the ruddy car - I've

 just washed the bleedin' thing!  Bah!

FIGHTING AMERICAN - SENSATIONAL SUPERHERO OR COPYCAT CLONE?

Images copyright TITAN COMICS

Let me say from the start that I'm a fan of the SIMON & KIRBY team - for the most part anyway.  However, I'm slightly puzzled by the esteem in which some of their comics are held, because not all of them were winners.  FIGHTING AMERICAN is one of those that didn't overly impress me when MARVEL released a hardcover collection back in the '90s, mainly because S&K failed to explore the interesting premise of one man's mind in another man's body (his brother's).  It's done and then it's over with, and aside from setting up the 'revenge' angle motivation of the hero, is never exploited in the way that it should've been.

There's some nice artwork in the original 7 issue series, but once it switched to 'satire' (as S&K later described it), it lost any promise it might've had.  In fact, 'satire' is too high-falutin' a word - 'comedy' is a better fit.  Trouble is, all that did was give the impression that JACK & JOE weren't taking the character too seriously, and if they weren't, then why should the readers?  It's been said that distribution problems led to the failure of the title (and that may well have been a factor), but I suspect the main reason was simply that the strip was too lightweight to win the affection and loyalty of comicbook buyers.

We also have to remember that, essentially, FA wasn't much more than a CAPTAIN AMERICA clone, and as the good Captain himself wasn't doing too well at the time, it was probably a tad optimistic of the creators of both strips to imagine that a mere copycat character would do any better.  To me, Fighting American (and also BOYS' RANCH) are two comicbooks that initially showed potential, but never quite delivered.  Those who read the mags back in the day might disagree, but that's to be expected.  After all, the comics people read as kids represent their childhood to them, which is precious, so obviously they're going to view them in quite a different way to the rest of us.

I should perhaps emphasise (given the vehemently negative way in which any observations or criticisms emanating from me are viewed by a small band of detractors), that I'm not saying Fighting American and Boys' Ranch were bad comics - they were perfectly competent and professional, entertaining even (to a degree) - but they just weren't out-and-out knockouts, despite the way history sometimes appears to have been 'rewritten' to suggest otherwise.

Which brings us to TITAN COMICS' new title, resurrecting the hero for a contemporary audience.  Writer GORDON RENNIE kicks off by transporting, via time travel, FA and SPEEDBOY from the '50s to modern-day America, thereby increasing the already blatant similarities to Captain America.  Just like STEVE ROGERS, NELSON FLAGG is now also a man 'out of his time', in a 'world he never made', and it'll be interesting to see if the comic travels along similar lines to its Marvel rival.  DUKE MIGHTEN's art is a little caricaturish in places, and his faces on Fighting American are downright ugly at times, but his action sequences are effective and his sense of storytelling is clear.

It's interesting to see that letterer SIMON BOWLAND gets a cover credit, but as he uses computer fonts I'm not convinced it's justified (you can bet the Anti-Robson League Quartet will put that down to sour grapes on my part).  However, the lettering is competently executed, its placement doesn't obscure anything vital, and it does just exactly what lettering should do, no more, no less.  There's a mistake that the editor should have caught and corrected (seeing as how the letterer missed it), but those 'in the know' will be aware of my assessment of that particular individual's 'ability' and (more importantly) character, so there's no need to go into that here.

In conclusion, the comic isn't a bad read and shows promise, though I'm not sure that Fighting American as a hero is a big enough attraction for me to continue with the series.  However, I'm certainly not going to try and talk you out of giving it a try if you're so inclined, and it's definitely an intriguing plot line that should engage your interest.  One thing the creative team should do in the future if the comic proves popular is explore the psychological aspects of having one man's brain in another man's body.  What's it like to look in the mirror and see the reflection of your dead brother staring back at you?  What's it like to look at 'your' hands as you perform some task, and not recognise them as the hands you grew up with?  What happened to Nelson Flagg's own body?  Was it disposed of, or does it live on, in suspended animation, in case Nelson's mind should ever need returned to it?

There's potential in those unexplored questions, and I hope the creative team decide to eventually delve into them and forge some interesting stories around them.

******

(Just this very moment occurred to me dept:)  Ooh, this is a good one.  What if Nelson's mind wasn't actually transferred into his brother's body, only a simulation of Nelson's brain patterns?  In effect, Fighting American is only a second-generation copy of the original.  After the transfer, Nelson was revived and then kept a secret prisoner, so as not to give Fighting American an identity crisis - it was thought better that he believed he actually was Nelson, not an artificial simulation.  Eventually, the real Nelson was brainwashed into forgetting who he was, given a new name and released, and relocated by the government to where he and FA were never likely to meet (just in case).  Now, in modern-day America, Nelson, an old man and with his memory returned, sees that the simulacrum in the body of his brother is back - what happens next?  (Hey, I'll expect a credit, guys!  And a cheque wouldn't hurt either.)

     

Spot the lettering mistake 

The DECLINE Of TV CENTURY 21...?

Images copyright relevant owner

What's significant about this FIREBALL XL5 page from TV CENTURY #21 #105, Criv-ite chums?  It's the first time that The DALEKS hadn't featured on the back cover, their strip having ended the week before, with issue #104.  To be honest, I thought that TV21 was never quite as good as it had been with The Daleks, and it was perhaps around the same time (or the year after) that original editor ALAN FENNELL left the comic for pastures new.

MIKE NOBLE drew the Fireball page, as well as 2 interior pages of ZERO X (the first instalment of the strip I believe), so that was a full 3 pages in one issue, no mean feat considering how detailed his artwork was.  Again, to be honest, I never warmed to Zero X, despite the great artwork, seeing as it just seemed like a reworked, inferior version of Fireball XL5, which I much preferred.  Hard to believe though, considering how polished a magazine TV21 yet was, that this was probably the beginning of its decline, though regular, committed readers were probably unaware of that fact at the time.

What's your view, frantic ones?  Do you think the comic was still a force to be reckoned with on the newsagents' counters, or were things for you never quite the same again?  Feel free to record your views for posterity in our recently much-neglected comments section.

BABE Of The DAY - JORDAN CARVER...

JORDAN CARVER really shouldn't sunbathe in

the middle of the road - she's liable to cause an accident.

And I don't just mean in my trousers.  (No, I don't know

 what I mean either.  I'll have to ask a grown-up.) 

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN...

It's funny the things we remember and the things we forget.  I remember buying this paperback from JOHN MENZIES in my local town centre, either in 1974 or '75.  I can't say with certainty precisely which year, because I no longer recall if I bought it prior to seeing the movie or afterwards.  My local cinema usually got the 'big' movies several weeks after the Glasgow cinemas, so I suspect it would've been 1975 before myself and one of my pals trotted along to see it, returning again not long after to repeat the experience.  I remember also that I treated my parents to a viewing of it, though I'm unsure whether it was on either of the same days that my friend and I attended.  (If it was, it would've been on the second occasion.)  I repeated this treat for them in 1985 (at the same cinema) when ROGER MOORE's final 007 film, VIEW TO A KILL, was screened.  Three years later, that cinema began the process of being converted into a Bingo hall, which it's now been for quite a while longer than it was a cinema.

The scans you're looking at are of the actual book I bought back then.  I've just finished re-reading it, 42 years after I first read it back in the mid '70s.  Although I've looked after it, I'm slightly disconcerted to see that in the first and last few pages, some discolouration has set in along the edges.  I hate it when this happens, but must accept it as part of the aging process that all things succumb to over time.  It's no great consolation, but the book has probably withstood the passing of the years better than I have.  The story bears little more than a superficial resemblance to that of the movie of course, but it's a cracking read and, if you're a BOND fan, I heartily recommend it to you.  Funnily enough, although I'd forgotten, a Glaswegian by the name of Mr. ROBSON, otherwise known as 'The HARD MAN', makes a brief appearance in the first chapter.  (Any of my friends reading this will be laughing at the very idea.)

It's strange but comforting to have re-read the story on my bed in the same room of the same house I first experienced it back in the day.  Not the same bed, but in the same corner of the room where my original bed was once situated.  (If you want to keep score, my current bed in this room is the fourth, although I once had another bed in another room of the house.)  Regarding the movie, I thought it was a belter when it first came out, but it isn't generally regarded as one of Roger's best nowadays.  I think one of the reasons for this is because, at SCARAMANGA's remote island hideaway, the lone technician working in the reactor plant (or whatever it is) detracts from the impression of the usual 'big budget' scale associated with Bond films, though I think it was intended to suggest that Scaramanga's solar-powered technology was low-maintenance.  Regardless, it's still an entertaining film, though LIVE & LET DIE was better.

Anyway, it was nice to revisit the '70s for a while, though on returning to the present, I find myself quite saddened by the realisation that Sir Roger Moore is no longer with us.  However, for most of us, he's only a DVD or a Sunday afternoon repeat away, so his Bond will always be around.       

The SIGN Of The BAT... (Updated)

BATMAN copyright DC COMICS

I've shown this MARX TOYS TWISTABLE BATMAN before on the blog, but I thought I'd let you see him with his new Bat-emblem.  See, in the early or mid-'90s when I first acquired this replacement for the original ones I'd had as a kid (that's right, I had more than one, though not all at the same time), he came without his utility belt, Bat-a-rang, and Bat-sign.  He still had his original cape with copyright label attached, but it was a little the worse-for-wear.  So I promptly made him a new cape (using the original as a template), new utility belt, and new Bat-a-rang.

His original cape was a darker blue than his mask, boots, and gloves, so I used a darker blue for the replacement.  Eventually, I made another one that was closer to his blue plastic parts, but still just slightly darker.  I created the Bat-a-rang from a piece of perspex, the belt out of felt (hey, a poem), and I photocopied the Bat-emblem from the official one at the time ('90s) used on merchandise.  Later on, I replaced it with one copied from the '60s AURORA Batman model kit, and last night I made one copied from ADAM WEST's Batman costume.  Sure, I could've copied the original Marx one (got a photo of it in a book), but West is best (hey, another poem), so that's what I've gone with.

These figures are quite hard to come by in any condition and command a pretty penny when they occasionally turn up, so I'm extremely glad to have one.  He's been a work in progress over the years, but at last I'm satisfied with his overall appearance.  (However, if there's anyone out there with a spare original emblem, belt and Bat-a-rang, get in touch.)  Below is a photo of someone else's toy with the original emblem and belt, followed by an earlier photo of the above figure with the first emblem I made.  And, following my response to TC in the comments section, I dug out my BATMAN COLLECTED book by CHIP KIDD, and the final pic below comes from his esteemed and fairly comprehensive publication.

BABE Of The DAY - MICHELLE KEEGAN...

MICHELLE KEEGAN should

be a BOND GIRL, don't you think?

So competition time: Think up a typical

Bond girl name for Michelle and give

us all a laugh.  Keep it clean now.

COUNTDOWN TO TV ACTION...

Copyright relevant owner

COUNTDOWN TO TV ACTION is a splendid volume, published by BEAR ALLEY BOOKS (in 2014), and is sure to delight all fans of this iconic comic from the early '70s.  The amount of research author STEVE HOLLAND puts into his work is astonishing, and this tome is packed with facts and figures.  In fact, perhaps it has far too many facts and figures, as I felt disinclined to read all the lists contained in the back of the book.  However, it's good to know it's all there and that if I ever need to know who drew a strip and what colour of trousers he was wearing on the day he drew it, I know where to find that info.

I jest of course, but sometimes it felt that some aspects the book were included more to pad out the contents to an acceptable length than because they really needed to be there.  However, that's the minor quibble of a pedant, so don't let it put you off buying this excellent softcover edition and reliving the heady days of your youth if you read this comic during its 132 issue run.  It would've been nice if at least some of the illustrations were in colour, but even that absent aspect doesn't really detract too much from what a worthy addition to your bookshelf this tome would be.

You can order copies here, and with Christmas fast-approaching, now might be the time to grab a copy - either for yourself, or for a friend or relative who remembers Countdown/TV Action with fond affection.   

TARKAN #1 - COMPLETE FIRST ISSUE...

Images copyright relevant owners

Several posts back, I showed you the cover of TARKAN #1 and a few interior pages, but have now decided to go the full hog and let you all read the complete 1st issue.  Normally I'd crop the margin off each page and present them singly, but this time I've decided to try something different.  I thought it might increase the sensation of reading an actual comic if I featured the pages as if the actual mag were in your hands, so here it is as nature intended - two pages at a time.  You can let me know in the comments section if you prefer this style of presentation or my usual way of doing things.  Remember that the left-hand page above is the back cover, and should be read last after you've read the rest of the mag.  Now, forward...!

******

(You'll notice that the dialogue on page 15 suggests the opposite of what's actually implied in the pictures, but obviously things had to be toned down from the original as the publishers wouldn't want to lose younger readers by incurring the wrath of their parents with blatantly salacious content.)