|
|
Reviews and commentary by Tony Isabella
"America's Most Beloved Comic-Book Writer & Columnist"
Current TOT >>
TOT Archives |
About Tony |
Message Board
TONY'S ONLINE TIPS
for Friday, September 2, 2005
CENTENNIAL COVERS hold a fascination for me and, for today's example of the theme, we have FAMOUS FUNNIES #100 [November, 1942], the first American comic book to reach that milestone. Its cover features 11 of the newspaper comic strip characters then appearing therein, but the only one I recognized right off was Buck Rogers. Identified by the names on the back of their chairs are Chief Wahoo (who doesn't seem *quite* as racist as the Cleveland Indians symbol of the same name), Scorchy Smith, and Fearless Flint the Flint Man. The lady in red is the occasionally invisible Scarlet O'Neill, but I'm not certain about the other party animals.
I'm guessing the Native American woman is a cast member from the Chief Wahoo strip...and that the big dog is Clifford McBride's Napoleon. Other characters appearing in FAMOUS FUNNIES around this time would have included Dickie Dare, Oaky Dokes, and Roy Powers, but I'm pretty none of them are the monkey. As always, I gleefully and gratefully accept any enlightenment my readers can offer me in this matter.
The OFFICIAL OVERSTREET COMIC BOOK PRICE GUIDE, as opposed to all those unofficial Overstreet comic book price guides that must be out there, opines that a near-mint condition copy of this issue would command a surprisingly low price of $175. There didn't seem to be any ongoing auctions or recently completed sales of the issue on eBay, but, running a web-search, I found that METROPOLIS COMICS [www.metropoliscomics.com] has two copies for sale.
They have a near-mint [9.2] copy of the issue for which they are asking $275 and a very fine copy [8.5] which is going for $500. The premium price on the lesser-condition copy is because it comes from the legendary Edgar Church/Mile High Collection.
Many members of the loyal legions of TOT readers are enjoying the heck out of these CENTENNIAL COVERS, so look for more examples to appear here on a fairly regular basis.
******
COMICS IN THE COMICS
This BIZARRO panel by Dan Piraro [July 11] might look familiar to you...because I ran it in the August 18 edition of this column, along with the cover of WONDER WOMAN #165 [October, 1966] wherein the Amazon Princess battled the Paper-Man.
I was struck by the similarities between Piraro's Origami Man and Wonder Woman's tragic foe. The Paper-Man was a mousy employee at a paper company who fell into a vat of chemicals and became the two-dimensional villain you see above.
Within hours of that column posting, I began receiving e-mails from readers pointing out an even more similar DC Comics villain, a creature psychically created from washi, a hand-made paper sometimes used in making origami.
THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD #178 [September, 1981] cover-featured "Paperchase," a Batman/Creeper team-up written by Alan Brennert and drawn by Jim Aparo. The cover itself was by Rich Buckler [pencils] with inks by editor Dick Giordano.
Brennert's story was as timely then - just two years after the loathsome Jerry Falwell founded his so-called "Moral Majority" - as today, warning against the dangers of broadcast bigotry disguised as morality. Clayton Wesley rails against moral decay...
Moral laxity in the media...the assault on the family unit in the name of "equal rights"...too long have a handful of freaks and malcontents subverted the traditional values the majority of Americans cherish!
...acting as a psychic focus for the bigots who listen to his show and, with them, creating a murderous mind-monster who strikes out actual criminals and welfare mothers with equally deadly force. When the unsuspecting Wesley realizes what he has done, his tearful insistence that he is not a murderer shatters the connections and destroys the monster. Sadly, the story gives us no indication that Wesley will now reject his creed of bigotry and does leave us with the fear that those who empowered his intolerance will, sooner or later, find another focus for hatred within them.
That got heavy, didn't it?
Not to fear. We'll have more jocular editions of COMICS IN THE COMICS coming your way soon.
******
GODZILLA IN THE COMICS
I love Godzilla. Yes, it's an old joke. I don't care. It's still funny. I love Godzilla.
This is MOTHER GOOSE AND GRIMM by Mike Peters and this strip appeared on August 18. Did I mention I love Godzilla?
******
TONY POLLS
This is the last of the three TONY POLLS questions we posted last week:
AQUAMAN was a recent topic of discussion in TOT. How would you "grade" your interest in this character?
Near-Mint.....7.64%
Fine.....15.92%
Very Good.....15.92%
Good.....19.75%
Fair.....27.39%
Poor.....13.38%
I'm beginning to understand the lack of respect most civilians and comics readers have for Aquaman. My own interest in him would fall into the GOOD category.
I enjoyed many of the Aquaman stories which ran in ADVENTURE COMICS. I thought the first of his SHOWCASE try-outs was terrific. When Aquaman got his own title, Bob Haney and Nick Cardy could be counted on to provide stories that were always readable and, from time to time, very good. But the only time I really got into the character was during the time when he was edited by Dick Giordano, written by Steve Skeates, and drawn by Jim Aparo. So, overall, I had to vote just plain GOOD.
Which is how I felt about the character when I was offered the chance to write him in 1977.
Things were less than peachy-keen between DC and myself when I quit my editorial position with the company and moved back to my hometown of Cleveland, but we were both trying to make the distance work for our mutual benefit. That it didn't was, well, really more DC's fault than my own, but I wasn't blameless.
During this "trying to make it work" period, I was offered the Aquaman gig - he would be moving from ADVENTURE COMICS to his own title - and accepted it. Unfortunately, things got worse between DC and myself and we parted company before I had even discussed my first issue with editor Paul Levitz. But that's not the point of this little remembrance.
I accepted the Aquaman assignment for one major reason: I was pissed that Aquababy had been killed off. I thought it was a cheap and cruel story development and, rightly or wrongly, I believed it was done because parenthood was not considered a "hip" thing for a super-hero. Carl Barks had shown us just how many good stories you could get out of a parent/child relationship in his wonderful UNCLE SCROOGE and DONALD DUCK stories. I saw no reason why good stories, albeit probably not as hilarious, couldn't be derived from the same relationship in super-hero comics.
Digression. In my original series plan for Marvel's IT, THE LIVING COLOSSUS, Bob O'Brien was married to his actress-girlfriend with two teen or nearly-teen children. Anyone in the family could have projected their consciousness into the Colossus and controlled it. Alas, we went in a different and more traditional super-heroic direction. End of digression.
I wanted to write AQUAMAN just so I could bring Aquababy back to life. The kid was the product of a marriage between the mixed-species Aquaman and an other-dimensional queen. We only thought he was dead. He was actually going through a metamorphosis.
While the revived Aquababy would still have been a very young child, his mental development would be that of a child in his early teens. Moreover, he would be a genius. I'm talking Reed Richards in Huggies here.
This would freak out the Atlanteans big-time. These were not, as I saw them, the most forward-thinking of people. I mean, they used to boot children out of their city just for having purple eyes or some such. A baby who came back from the dead and was now much smarter than they were, well, that would have to be the work of the devil or their undersea equivalent thereof.
Aquaman would put his family first. He'd renounce his throne, leave Atlantis, and shortly thereafter become a nautical power unto himself. While the stories would always revolve around Aquaman and his family, I also planned to have him put together and lead a team of adventurers and heroes.
Aquaman's new team would be like unto an oceanic Blackhawks. I figured it would include Aqualad, Dolphin (who had, at the time, appeared in but one issue of SHOWCASE), a couple of mer-people from the Lori Lemaris version of Atlantis, at least one of the nearly-forgotten Sea Devils, and other characters to be announced later. I planned to create some new heroes and pick E. Nelson Bridwell's brain for any existing DC characters who might well fit into these demented plans of mine.
I figured Aquaman's activities would annoy and anger a whole bunch of people. His former subjects. Some of the surface world's governments if he opposed their interests. Maybe even some of his Justice League buddies. Lots of possibilities.
That's as far as I got with my plans. I never worked out any plots, never wrote even one page of script. I left DC and didn't write for them again for several years. I rarely read any Aquaman comic books after that.
I wish this mini-memoir has a more interesting ending, but it doesn't. But it does give you some idea of what I would have done with Aquaman in 1977.
That brings us to the conclusion of another TOT. Thanks for spending a part of your day with me.
I'm taking Labor Day off, but I'll be back on Tuesday with a new column and new TONY POLLS questions. See you then.
Tony Isabella
<< 09/01/2005 | 09/02/2005 | 09/06/2005 >>
Discuss this column with me at my Message Board. Also, read Heroes and Villains: Real and Imagined.
Recent Columns:
| NEWEST | Finale (06/22/2010) |
| 06/17/2010 | I review Siege |
| 06/16/2010 | Linda Gold 1949-2010 |
| 06/15/2010 | Everett True Tuesday! |
| 06/14/2010 | I review The Amazing Adventures of Nate Banks #1: Secret Identity Crisis, Secret Identity Crisis: Comic Books and the Unmasking of Cold War America and The Walking Dead Volume 2: Miles Behind Us. |
| Archives >> |
Current TOT >>
TOT Archives |
About Tony |
Message Board
|
|
THE "TONY" SCALE
ZERO: Burn your money before buying any comic receiving this rating. It doesn't *necessarily* mean there's absolutely nothing of value here - though it *could* - but whatever value it might possess shrinks into insignificance before its overall awfulness.
ONE: Buy something else. Maybe I found something which wasn't completely dreadful in the item, but not enough for me to recommend it when there are better comics available. I only want what's best for you, my children.
TWO: Basic judgment call. I found some value, but not enough to recommend it. My review should give you enough info to decide if you want to take a chance on it. Are you feeling lucky today, punk? Well, are you?
THREE: This denotes something I find perfectly respectable. There are better books out there, but I wouldn't regret buying this item. Based on my review, you should be able to determine if it's of interest to you. Let the Force guide you.
FOUR: I recommend anything earning this rating. Unless you don't like the genre, subject matter, or past work of the creators, I believe you'll enjoy this item. Isn't it uncanny how I can look right into your soul that way?
FIVE: Anything getting this rating is among the best comicdom has to offer. You should buy/read this, even if the genre/subject matter doesn't appeal to you. It's for your own good. Me, I live for comics and books this good...but not in a pathetic "Comic-Book Guy" sort of way.
Please send material you would like me to review to:
Tony's Online Tips
840 Damon Drive
Medina, OH 44256
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
