CAN YOU SPOT THE CLUE WITH ZIP NOLAN?

Copyright REBELLION

I'd be 'LION' to you (ho-ho) if I said the following ZIP NOLAN strip is the pinnacle of perfect reproduction, 'cos it certainly isn't.  However, I've tried to compensate for the faint line work by digitally enhancing a few spots where it was particularly bad, but there's a limit to what I can do short of printing out the pages and drawing over the 'ghostie' parts.  This is the way it appeared in the 1980 Lion Holiday Special, so they must've used an extremely poor source for these reprinted pages - obviously they'd have been much sharper when they were first published in the weekly periodical.  Anyway, it's either these scans or you don't get to read them at all I'm afraid, so you'll have to be thankful for small mercies.  

WOW! PART EIGHT Of The TITANS COVER COMPARISONS - FANTASTIC FOUR #95...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

And here we go again with another entry in our cover comparison series, this time FANTASTIC FOUR #95 and The TITANS #38.  This one actually works quite well, with no obvious drawback to the different dimensions of the new version.  At least, that's what I think - you may have another opinion entirely.  Tell you what, why don't you share it with the rest of us?  Go on - you know you want to.

BABE Of The DAY - JULIE EGE...

Well, when in Rome, do as the romans

do.  Budge up, JULIE, and make room for

 me on that couch.  I could do with a kip.

KID KLASSICS: MORE LOOPY LAPSES In LOGIC...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS.  Cover art JACK KIRBY

Over on Amiable Al's MARVEL In The SILVER AGE blog, the debonair host talks about a certain romance artist's one-off superhero tale back in the '60s.  It reminded me that I'd once turned my attention to that very issue (back in 2011) and it occurs to me that now would be the perfect time to resurrect my post for another outing.  Be sure to jump over to MITSA (by clicking this link) and read that post too, as it's extremely detailed and interesting.

******

To many (if not all) mighty MARVEL readers, by far the worst THOR story ever drawn was most likely JOURNEY Into MYSTERY #90's 'The CARBON COPY MAN!' (March '63), illustrated by AL HARTLEY.  Apparently Al was mainly a romance artist who was pinch-hitting for KIRBY, who drew almost everything else that Marvel was publishing at that time, superhero-wise.  (With the exception of SPIDER-MAN.)

It probably is the worst Thor adventure ever to appear, but for reasons other than just the art - like the plot for example.  Basically, it's a re-working of FANTASTIC FOUR #2's 'The SKRULLS From OUTER SPACE' storyline, but without the hypnotism angle at the end.  (The Skrulls transformed themselves into cows, and were then hypnotized by REED RICHARDS to prevent them from thinking of changing back to Skrulls again.)

A bunch of evil aliens from the planet XARTA land on Earth and impersonate key figures in government, with the intention of making foolish laws which will throw citizens into a state of confusion and panic.  (Isn't that what most politicians do anyway?)  Apparently this will soften up the planet enough to leave it vulnerable to invasion.  They've chosen America as the first stage in the pursuance of this plan, with the intention of conquering the rest of the world when the good ol' U.S. of A. has fallen.  (Always pays to get in a bit of practice first.)



A perfect duplicate?  Betcha he can't turn into THOR though, huh?

Thor eventually defeats the aliens in combat, then commands them to transform into trees, on the grounds that, as the Xartans take on all the traits of whatever they impersonate, and as trees can't think, the idea of changing can never occur to them. Er, how's that again?

Firstly, Thor couldn't possibly know whether this was true or not, and secondly, on what system of logic is he basing his assumption?  For example, if Xartans take on ALL the traits of whatever they impersonate, they surely wouldn't have been able to change back from human form (regardless of whether the idea could occur to them) - because humans CAN'T DO THAT.

See, that's the fly in the ointment - taking on ALL the traits of whoever or whatever they impersonate.  They've already demonstrated that they DON'T.  They merely mimic the outward physical appearance of whatever form they adopt, not the intellectual or mental limitations of that form - so they should be able to change back to Xartans any time they wanted, whatever shape they happened to be.

Gosh!  Some of those classic tales from yesteryear sure don't stand up to scrutiny.  (Or am I just being too pernickety?)  But what the heck!  They were fun.

For more Loopy Lapses In Logic, click here.

The TITANS COVER COMPARISONS PART SEVEN - FANTASTIC FOUR #94...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Anybody tired of this series yet or do you still want to see more?  While you're making up your minds, take a look at FANTASTIC FOUR #94, then compare it with The TITANS #37 - whaddya think, frantic ones, does the copy cut the mustard?  (Right now you're probably thinking "Hah, Kid has made a mistake - it's 'cut muster' or 'pass muster' - though the definite article [that's the word 'the'] is sometimes also included.")  Actually, you're misinformed - 'cut the mustard' is a legitimate expression in its own right, and, contrary to what used to be believed, does not derive from the 'muster' saying.  (So who said this blog isn't educational and informative?)

Right, English lesson now over, back to the comics.  Let's hear your views on just how well (or not) you think the copyist has done.  You never know, he might be reading this and appreciate your observations.

REMEMBERING The COVER Of The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL #2...

Image copyright MARVEL COMICS

So why the cover of The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL #2 at this moment in time?  It's another one that came down from the wall (in the early hours of this morning) after being there for almost 30 years.  It was faded, rippled, discoloured, and decayed, and the time had come to replace it.  Surprisingly, the area of wallpaper behind the cover was bright and new, revealing my suspicion that the page's condition was caused by dampness coming through the wall to be mistaken.  The effects of entropy had been caused from inside my room, and I realise now that it's probably down to me not opening my window often enough.  That's because the room is the coldest in the house, being an end one at the front which catches Caledonia's inclement elements more severely than the others.

Anyway, it's now been replaced with a bright new doppelganger, freshly printed out specifically for the purpose of filling the space on the wall.  I've printed it on card, so hopefully it'll last longer than its predecessor, which was given a traditional 'Viking funeral' after its many years of loyal service.  So all that remains for me to say is...

"Make Mine Marvel!"

CRIKEY! PART SIX Of The TITANS COVER COMPARISONS - FANTASTIC FOUR #93...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Once again, Happy New Year to all you cavortin' Criv-ites.  2018, eh?  Seems like only last week to me that it was 1968.  Anyway, here we are with yet another in our series of cover comparisons, this time FANTASTIC FOUR #93 and The TITANS #35.  There's no doubt that the landscape format restricted the impact of the cover artwork, but it's a valiant attempt to emulate JACK KIRBY - even if it isn't quite in the same class.

When you think about it, the landscape idea was a strange one in that it used up more material than a standard weekly comic, wasn't entirely popular with newsagents, and as I said, restricted what could be done with the cover image.  On the plus side though, it gave readers value for money, and its difference probably generated more attention than a standard comic.  (For a while at least.)

Did you buy The Titans back in the day?  If so, what did you think of MARVEL's 'sideways' comic?  Do tell.

BABE Of The DAY - IMOGEN HASSALL...

Here's the lovely-looking IMOGEN

HASSALL looking, er - lovely.  So, does

exactly what it says on the tin then.  (No, I

don't know what I'm talking about either.

Let's just pretend that we do though.)

OBSERVATIONS ON 'COINCIDENCE'...

"Hur, hur!  Fooled 'em all!"

It's annoying that I have to start the New Year still addressing this topic, but I'm simply not prepared to let someone whom I've conclusively demonstrated on past occasions to be a liar get away with his latest disingenuous shenanigans unchallenged.

The facts: This individual recently published a post about how time-consuming scanning comics is and highlighted the fact that all his scans (with the exception of supplied publicity material) are from his own collection.  He has often been quite vociferous in his condemnation of people using scans that aren't theirs.  (And to be fair, if that's how he feels, he's entitled to say so.)  Not long after this, I received a sarcastic 'anonymous' comment to my blog, insinuating that the images I use are not mine, and that I am exploiting not only the hard work of others, but also benefitting from the money they spend on old comics.  Coincidence?  Maybe.

I publish a post about DOCTOR WHO, expressing my belief that the character's recent gender change is not only down to a desperate BBC attempt to be controversial in order to court publicity, but is also motivated by misandry and a feminist agenda.  He then publishes a 'tweet' taking a pop at grumpy old men who use 'phases' (phrases obviously) like 'misandry' and 'feminist agenda' in regard to Doctor Who changing gender.  Coincidence?  Unlikely.

I have on numerous occasions mentioned on my blog that the only two weekly comics to survive from the once vast selection during the (now gone) comic industry's heyday are The BEANO and 2000 A.D.  Not long after his above tweet, he takes another pop at 'grumpy gits' who say that there aren't any British comics apart from The Beano and 2000 A.D.  Incidentally, I have on quite a few occasions humorously described myself as a 'grumpy old git' on my blog.  Coincidence? Don't be silly.

He denies that his comments were in any way about me, although he now concedes that given our past online 'clashes' (all of which were instigated by him), he 'supposes' he can see why I'd think they might have been. And you can bet your entire collection of 1950s EAGLE comics that he knew I would when he made them.  Given that he was openly mocking the very opinions for which I and my blog are well-known, it would be remarkable if the likelihood of such a reaction had never occurred to him.

"But why would he want to stir things up again now?" you ask.  Well, it so happens that he's releasing one of his self-published comics this very month.  Or could the fact that he might benefit from an increased dose of attention and publicity be just... coincidence?  That's a hell of a lot of a coincidences.  And it's a 'coincidence' I actually predicted on this blog the last time he did this sort of thing when he had a comic to sell.

As GOLDFINGER said in the book of the same name: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence.  The third time it's enemy action."  Yet still he sadly shakes his head as if a great injustice has been heaped upon him by a nasty, grumpy, paranoid 'troll' - while his sycophantic fans, desperate to bathe in the reflected (but faded) Beano glory of a contributor, lap up his every word and nod in eager acceptance of his protestations of innocence.  Not a thinking brain between the lot of them it would seem.

Right, done and dusted.  Anyone who can't (or won't) see the truth simply doesn't want to see it. That's why MICHAEL JACKSON fans still think he was a saint.

Coming next: A post about comics or nostalgia - or maybe even both!

MORE MOWSER ANYONE? THAT MEANS YOU TOO, VICAR... (AT LAST! THE DRUGS ARE KICKIN' IN.)

Image copyright relevant owner

What can I say about MOWSER that I haven't said already?  Loads probably, but even if there weren't, I wouldn't let that stop me.  Mowser was based on MAUSER, the cat of the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough, to whom artist REG PARLETT was distantly related.  He used to spend his weekends at their posh pile, and the humorous antics of their cat inspired him to suggest an idea for a new strip to his FLEETWAY editors, who jumped at the chance and, lo - Mowser was born.

Everything I've just written above on the origins of Mowser is, of course, complete invention on my part, but it sounds so good that it ought to be true, don't you think?

The TITANS COVER COMPARISONS PART FIVE - FANTASTIC FOUR #91...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Still along for the ride, amigos?  Then let's not waste a second, as we peruse and compare the covers of FANTASTIC FOUR #91 and The TITANS #34.  It's clear that one inspired the other, but rather than being a slavish copy, the latter pays tribute to the former while still having something new about it. Not much point in asking you which version you prefer I suppose, as I guess your answer will be pretty obvious.  However, if you'd like to surprise me, feel entirely free.  The above issue of FF was the second in a four-part tale, considered by many as one of the best sagas of the MARVEL AGE of comics - and I'm one of them.

AND NOW A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR...

A HAPPY 2018 TO ALL CRIV-ITES. 

(And don't let the b*st*rds grind you down.)

LION 1980 HOLIDAY SPECIAL...

Copyright REBELLION

Here's a ZIP NOLAN tale and a MOWSER page from the 1980 LION Holiday Special.  Betcha you'd all love to see the ROBOT ARCHIE and The SPIDER confrontation, but I'm holding off on that for the moment.  After all, you need something to look forward to.  Incidentally, this Lion Special only had 64 pages, which was 16 short of the 80 page 1974 Special, which itself was 16 fewer than the year before in '73.  (I can't say precisely which year the page count dropped from 80 to 64 as I don't have the '75 - '79 issues.)  Page numbers went down and prices went up, which is, I suppose, why Holiday Specials eventually faded from the scene.  

THE BRAINLESS BULLY (Updated AGAIN)...

I received a comment the other day to one of my posts from last week.  This is what it said: 'Thank you for all your hard work scanning comics like this.  It must take you AGES and cost you so much money out of your own hard earned cash to buy the old comics to show us.'  (You can read my response here.)

As you can see, it positively drips of sarcasm and insinuates the very opposite of its apparent meaning.  My suspicions were immediately aroused as to who'd be so obsessed with me that they'd go to the bother of submitting such a comment, and I've now had those suspicions confirmed.  I've just received screen grabs from a blog, wherein the writer goes on about how much hard work is involved in scanning and how he mainly uses only comics from his own personal collection, and a Twitter account by the same writer, wherein he takes a pop at me.  Let's look at what he Twitters on about, shall we?

The first comment is in direct response to my recent post on DOCTOR WHO (in which he actually quotes me, so no doubt then as to who he's taking a dig at), and the second distorts my claim that the only two surviving weekly comics from the time this country had a vibrant comics industry are The BEANO and 2000 A.D.  Here we see the tedious, infantile carping that this arrogant individual is prone to in regard to myself.  He's done this before of course, not only on his own blog and Twitter accounts, but also on other people's.  Sometimes he's had second thoughts and removed the posts (if not to hide his 'aggression', then at least his smug, pompous, supercilious self-righteousness), but he just can't seem to leave well enough alone.

I'm advised that he's also recently introduced a new character into one of his strips who is supposed to be a mickey-take of people who share my views on comics (that'll be the vast majority then), but I confess to being more than generous in my view - he's likely got a particular individual in mind.  As for his pejorative use of the word 'grandad', I believe he's the same age as myself, so he's surely insulting himself here as well.

Anyway, nice to know that I'm so much in his thoughts at this time of year, but for the record, I've got a life and I'd bet it's a grand sight better than his.  Were I tempted to be offended by his ad hominem attacks, I'd take consolation from the fact that I'm not bald and obese, and have actually had girlfriends (real ones, not inflatable ones like his) from time to time.  That's probably the true root of his 'attitude'.

As for New Year resolutions, I don't have to make any - my life's perfectly fine as it is.  Anyway, have a great time when it comes, readers, and wishing you all a 2018 that is pillock-free.

******

1st Update: Within a very short time of me publishing this post (and running true to form) this individual tweeted the following comment:

"I should have known that as soon as I posted those tweets about grumpy gits, one paranoid individual would take it personally on his blog.  Pitiful and annoying.  Give it a rest and drop the grudge." 

Is anyone apart from a few lick-spittle sycophants actually fooled by his disingenuous, well-practised, wide-eyed 'innocent victim' routine?  It's obvious from his comments (wherein he quotes the actual content of one of my posts, remember) that he actually did know (as I usually respond to such remarks), and precisely who he was (primarily) taking a pot-shot at.

The number of times he's done this (he has an established history of doing so) are far too many to be down to simple coincidence - or any alleged paranoia on my part (despite his absurd suggestion of such).  H'mm, must be trying to drum up more attention for himself.  Pathetic.  If anyone's got a grudge, it's him, the sad pillock.

******

2nd Update: Ah, it's clear to me now - he's got one of his self-published thingies coming out soon.  Does anyone else see a pattern emerging here?  He did the same thing last time when he published several 'anonymous' comments on his blog and then tried to suggest they were all from me - by 'tweaking' things I'd said about self-publishing on my own blog.  The timing's a dead giveaway.  Or are we really expected to believe that it's mere coincidence? 

MOWSER STRIKES AGAIN...

Image copyright relevant owner

Here we go again with yet another episode of MOWSER's long-running feud with JAMES the butler.  Impeccably drawn by REG PARLETT, I wish some of today's lesser cartoonists would take a leaf out of his book when it comes to composition and storytelling.  A deceptively-simple style, it never fails to raise a laugh on the visual aspects alone, even if the basic plot wasn't always as outrageously funny as Reg made it appear.  (Though most plots were pretty darn funny.)

Incidentally, this is a resized reprint with some panels 'extended' by a lesser hand, so try and ignore those parts.

BLIMEY! PART FOUR Of The TITANS COVER COMPARISONS - FANTASTIC FOUR #90...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

You're all loving this series so far, I hope!  I know I am!  The above FANTASTIC FOUR issue (#90), was the first instalment of a four-part adventure, and one of the classic tales of the '60s.  A few years later, it was reprinted in The TITANS (#33), and the cover was redrawn to suit the different page size of the UK 'landscape' format.  I'm lucky enough to have both versions in my immense collection of comics, which is why I can show you them here.  Got a preference, frantic ones?  Then say which and why in the comments section. 

EVERYBODY LOVES A BIT OF PUSS, EH? IT'S MOWSER...

Image copyright relevant owner

Reprinted (and resized) from a weekly issue of LION, this MOWSER strip appeared in the 1973 LION & THUNDER Holiday Special.  As usual, the art was by the phenomenally-talented REG PARLETT, who had a gift for making every single panel look funny.  This was due to the expressions and body language of the characters, as well as the way the scenes were composed.  One of Britain's best artists, and one of our country's funniest strips - what a combination!

CRIVENS! IS THERE NO END TO THIS TITANS COVER COMPARISONS SERIES? PART THREE - FANTASTIC FOUR #89...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

And again.  Is there no stopping me?  Nah, this is too much fun!  Submitted for all you Crivs' contemplative consideration and comparison, FANTASTIC FOUR #89 and The TITANS #32.  Y'know, I reckon that with a tighter inking job on the redrawn versions, they'd have been almost as good as the originals, despite the alterations necessitated by the different page dimensions.  What do you think, frantic ones?

Incidentally, I received an 'anonymous' comment recently from someone who seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the images that other people use on their blogs - this blog in particular.  (You can see the comment here.)  So, just to be clear, all covers shown in this series so far have been from comics in my own collection.  So there, 'Mr. Anonymous'.  (You'd think someone would have better things to do with their time.)  

PART TWO Of The TITANS COVER COMPARISONS - FANTASTIC FOUR #86...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Might as well strike while the iron is hot I suppose, so here's the second instalment in our new series of The TITANS covers, compared to the originals they were copied from.  Above is The FANTASTIC FOUR #86, below is The Titans #29 - what do you think, Criv-ites, does it manage to replicate the KIRBY/SINNOTT magic?  Or is it nothing more than a pale imitation which fails to score with you?  Let us all know in the comments section. 

The TITANS COVER COMPARISONS - FANTASTIC FOUR #84...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

When MARVEL UK published The TITANS weekly back in the mid-'70s, because of the landscape format, some covers (and splash pages) were redrawn to fit the different dimensions of the page.  I thought it would be fun to compare the original covers with their new versions (usually drawn by LARRY LIEBER), so here's the first in a short series.  Any comments, you know where they go.

LION & THUNDER HOLIDAY SPECIAL 1973...

Images copyright relevant owner

With the arrival this morning of the 1973 LION & THUNDER Holiday Special, I now have the full set of three and can turn my sights to filling other gaps in my collection.  Truth to tell, I'm not even sure I had this Special back in the day - or if I was even still buying the weekly - as nothing about it (with the possible exception of the cover) seems familiar to me.  Still, I've now got the three Specials, the three THUNDER Annuals, and most of the 22 issues of the weekly comic before it was merged with LION.  (I plan on acquiring the few missing issues before too long.)

Never mind all that though - not when you can now settle back and enjoy a ZIP NOLAN tale and a MOWSER escapade.  Don't let me hold you back.

BABE Of The DAY - ANNA BOR...

ANNA BOR has just set herself

the impossible task of climbing that

big rock behind her, but backwards.

She'll never do it, of course, though I

must admit it'll be fun to watch.

TOYBOX TREASURES Of The PAST: RED BOX SPECIAL AGENT 707's WEAPON SET ATTACHE CASE... (Updated)

A couple or so posts back I showed you the JAMES BOND 007 secret agent set and mentioned the REDBOX 707 knock-off - well, here it is.  As I said, not exactly the same as the LONE STAR set, but not completely without its own appeal.  Incidentally, I still have the box for this - saw it just a few weeks back, but have now forgotten where I put it.  When I discover it again, I'll scan it and add it to this post.  (Update: Now done.)  Apparently this set first appeared in the 1960s, but I bought this one in the late '80s or early '90s - from ARGOS of all places.  I think it's a superb wee set, and am gutted that I'm now too old to play with it.  Mind you, that can be said for a lot of things about me these days.  (Just remember, you're responsible for your own innuendo.)

And below is the version from the 1960s.  Did you have either of these sets when you were a kiddie?  Tell all.

And as promised, here's the box for the one I have.  Don't you wish you owned this great Special Agent Set?  Betcha do!