Some of us never "outgrow" comic books (...and thank goodness for that)...
And, with that rather tenuous introduction, we present out latest Separated at Mirth entry: WORLD'S FINEST COMICS #159 (DC Comics, Cover Date: June, 1966), cover by classic Superman artists Curt Swan and George Klein ...
...And DONALD DUCK ADVENTURES #23 (Gladstone Series II, Cover Date: December, 1993), cover by the great Don Rosa.
But, Joe... (you may find yourself asking), I see the "Separation" but, with our respective heroes facing such huge and overpowering adversaries, "Where's the Mirth?"
To this, I offer that each issue's adversaries are just SOOOO BIG, that even the standard comic book cover image space cannot contain them!
...An unusual, if not outright mirthful, use of the requisite issue title logo!
Gotta love this side-by-side!
Of speculative interest: We know from previous comments, that Don Rosa read the Mort Weisinger-era Superman comics of which WORLD'S FINEST #159 is one - edited by Old Unca Mort himself.
So, it's possible that Rosa could even have (consciously or otherwise) been influenced by that cover, when creating his own for DONALD DUCK ADVENTURES #23.
Regardless of who may have influenced whom, we leave you with WORLD'S FINEST COMICS #159 and DONALD DUCK ADVENTURES #23... Separated at Mirth!
Though ya gotta wonder why the LAND OF THE GIANTS comic never tried that stunt!
...It would have been a natural!
8 comments:
I've got to say, I'm not a fan of this approach at all. The end result just looks unprofessional to me. Sometimes, of course, some overlap between a character and the title is inevitable, but for a character's face to be entirely obscured by the title is regrettable. Swan, Klein, and Rosa would have done better to just reduce the proportions of all the characters so they could all be clearly seen below the title, in my opinion. That, perhaps in combination with making the title a bit smaller, although in fairness I'm not sure the size of the title is something that cover artists have any say in.
Frankly, between this cover SNAFU and the one you discussed in your previous post, I'm more willing to forgive Charlton. At least they had the excuse of being a small publisher, not a major one like DC or Disney. And at least in Charlton's case, we can joke about Charlton being a "cut below" the competition, as Scarecrow showed us.
Sergio:
I can understand your opinion on this, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.
To me, it’s not “unprofessional” in the same way as so many of Charlton’s oddities tended to be, but more of an intentional attempt to “bring something different” to the covers. Perhaps a forerunner of the many “cover stunts” that plagued the nineties era of comics.
And, with regard to the nineties, I say “plagued” due to the excessive proliferation of such stunts and gimmicks vs. more of a “one (or two?) off” thing. To my knowledge, there were only these two examples of characters looming so large that their faces were obscured by the book’s title logo – though I can’t imagine there were no others! Still far from as many as it would take to turn me against the stunt as being “overdone”.
The title logo, publisher logo, cover copy, UPC codes, and the like are things cover artists have little or (more likely) no control over. They work around it as all of us work around the fixed, immovable objects of whatever particular kind exist to block whatever kind of work we may do. In my case it was “fixed or immovable” people! Probably so for many of us!
I’d expect that, in the case of a creator-owned book, this *could* be done as needed, but not in most mainstream comics where the cover must convey certain information to the consumer.
Bottom line is that I like it done twice (over the entirety of my collection), but would think more along your lines if there were six or seven more to “plague” me!
You know what? I'm gonna take back my description of this as "unprofessional." That was an unduly harsh and deeply unfair assessment on my part. These covers may not be my favorites, but "unprofessional?" As the current occupant of the White House would say, "Come on, man..." I confess that I was in a grouchy mood when I wrote that comment, and I guess some of that carried over into my choice of words.
Taking another look at the covers, I can see their appeal. In both cases, the eyes peering through the title give the cover a mysterious air. And the fact that the giant enemy is partially obscured by the title reinforces their large size relative to our heroes, and the enormity of the challenge facing said heroes.
Indeed, the longer I contemplate the covers, the less sense my original comment makes to me.
Thanks for clarifying how rare this is. Knowing now that this is not common, I can better appreciate it when it does happen. If it were overused, then the novelty of the approach would wear off fast. For some reason, I wrote my initial comment under the presumption that this approach was fairly common.
Since neither adversary is a title character, it is actually appropriate for their faces to be obscured by the title. If not, the villain would dominate the cover. As it is, the respective heroes are given a "fighting chance" at holding their own in a contentious scene. However, as Sergio suggests, it is not a highly aesthetic approach, nor one that could ever be considered a best practice for cover design. But as I said, in both of these instances it is almost necessary for the face to be somewhat hidden. It's not as if the titles were "World's Biggest" or "The Adventures of Olaf the Viking". Those would be different matters.
And thanks, Sergio, for quoting me. It makes me feel honored, like I have truly "arrived" as a commenter. Not that my words are all that, but it's nice to be recognized.
Sergio:
First, sorry about the long time it’s taken to post your comment and my reply, as well as being out of general communication with everyone as of late. Suddenly, there were way too many things to do around the house, and the relentless heat did its share of will-sapping too.
It’s okay to be in a “grouchy mood” with all this heat. And glad to see your reevaluation… If there’s one thing I can say about reading/enjoying/reviewing comics is that it can be a constant reevaluation process. It certainly is for me! Witness how I have reevaluated Charlton over the years!
Scarecrow:
Ditto on “that communication thing”!
You "arrived" a LONG time ago as a commenter! You’re just too humble to appreciate it sometimes. At least that’s how I see it.
The great gag of "World's Biggest" is just one more reason why!
Joe:
Another great post. Art isn’t created in a vacuum and as such I always enjoy the connections you notice sorting through your longbox; even though I don’t always have time to post a comment. That said, I HAD to comment on this post as DDA#23 holds a special place in my heart. Not only does it have a spectacular Don Rosa cover but a few years back he signed it for me at my local comic con. And man what a great cover to have signed! His signature’s right on the sword. Rosa was a gracious fella and I was able to have a fairly long conversation with him as no one else was waiting in line. He was especially gracious as I was visibly tired. That morning I had a long cross country practice but I was determined to meet him. By the time I hauled rear to downtown I was exhausted and dehydrated.
Anyways, as for the “World’s Finest” cover, I actually prefer it despite my nostalgia for DDA#23. The checker box on top of the issue really enhances the gag as not only is the giant’s face being obscured but his head’s hitting the “ceiling”. After reading your post and Sergio’s initial comment detailing his dislike of the cover I realized a crucial element of why I liked these covers. Both covers create a sense of mystery regarding the giant while also being funny. Generally the type of stories I enjoy effectively combine elements that are silly and serious without going too far in either direction. Some may view the cover gag as leaning too far in the silly direction but to me it’s right in that sweet spot that makes me love the work of Carl Barks, Floyd Gottfredson and Don Rosa. These cartoonists had a serious side as they wrote truly compelling characters; there’s a reason that Don Rosa remarked that Donald and Co feel like real people to him. At the same time tho they didn’t forget that they were writing cartoon mice and ducks and made sure to include humor.
I feel that the folks that tried to make Superman movies over the last decade have forgotten or are ashamed that there is something inherently silly about superheroes (I mean Supes’ a grown man fighting crime in spandex and a cape; that’s a lil silly) and as such they refuse to have any fun with him. Even worse, they seem to think that characters can only be taken seriously if things are constantly super dark and serious when Disney Comics and (more relevant to this) the DCAU cartoons of the 90s and 2000s are proof that’s not true. Superman the animated series understood that what makes Superman a compelling character is that he has this incredible power but he holds himself up to a high moral code; and that’s not an easy thing to do. Zack Synder’s Superman films recognize that struggle but come to the horrific conclusion that living up to those standards just aren’t worth it. I have no idea if other writers are doing a better job with the Superman character in comics (I’ve heard good things about the recent Red White and Blue and Jimmy Olsen miniseries) or in TV (some people really like that Superman and Lois show) but I haven’t had the time to check any of it out. Apparently Clark has children in the comics and now his son is Superman. From the headlines I’ve seen it sounds like the new Superman is including different perspectives to explore what makes Superman a compelling character. Maybe I oughta check the book out to see if the writing does these new ideas justice. While I have no idea if the new Superman comics are good there is one thing I do know: I would LOVE to see Don Rosa write a Superman comic. As you pointed out Don Rosa is a huge classic Superman fan and I bet he would be able to hit that sweet spot of serious and funny with Superman just like he did with Unca $crooge.
Ryan:
My own experience has been that Don Rosa is very kind and generous with his fans. Your comments reaffirm this yet again.
“I feel that the folks that tried to make Superman movies over the last decade have forgotten or are ashamed that there is something inherently silly about superheroes (I mean Supes’ a grown man fighting crime in spandex and a cape; that’s a lil silly) and as such they refuse to have any fun with him. Even worse, they seem to think that characters can only be taken seriously if things are constantly super dark and serious when Disney Comics and (more relevant to this) the DCAU cartoons of the 90s and 2000s are proof that’s not true.”
Okay, Ryan… fess up! Have you been reading my mind, or my private diaries?
It was exactly the relentless “super dark and serious” vibe that finally saw me walk away from mainstream DC Comics at some point in the ‘00s! There was no exact date or moment when I slammed my fist into my palm, jumped up, and declared “I’M OUTTA HERE!!!”. Instead, it was a more gradual pairing down in response to the total confusion of continuity that was “The New 52”, and “that unfortunate thing concerning the characters of Sue Dibney and Doctor Light”.
Outside of Lobo and the “Batman-That-Teams-Up-With-Scooby-Doo” in the wonderful BATMAN AND SCOOBY-DOO MYSTERIES TITLE, I don’t even know who’s who in DC anymore. (I liked it better when there were only GREEN Lanterns – and not every color of the rainbow!) Not to be left out, I view Marvel as even WORSE in this regard – and exited when the “Todd McFarlanes and Rob Liefelds” became more important than the stories themselves. At least DC held my interest for well over a decade longer – closer to two! And did so by putting characters and story first!
But, as is so often the case, when “one door shuts” (contemporary DC) another opens wide – and that has been the opportunity to use those funds I would have spent weekly on “New DC Comics” to acquire virtually all the Silver and Bronze Age DC Comics that I didn’t pick up in the ‘80s and ‘90s… when they were much cheaper. (Having an good accumulated head-start also helped!) Even discovering and enjoying “new (to me) things” I hadn’t read before like THE SPECTRE (‘60s and ‘80s series), THE PHANTOM STRANGER (1969 series – Amazing stuff, there!), and the original run of STRANGE ADVENTURES that introduced Deadman! I am currently at various points in all three, moving thought them in fits and starts, but having a great time doing so!
Don Rosa, being, as I mentioned, a fan of the Silver Age Superman comics edited by Mort Weisinger, would probably do a nice recreation of that memorable era! Why, he’d probably be able to pull all sorts of “Weisinger-Era Superman facts and legends” together into some sort of cohesive biography of the character!
…Hmmm, now where have I seen that done BEFORE?
Post a Comment