Why be "All Wet" when April showers come your way, to bring the flowers that bloom in May?
Reach for your umbrella... and, if you misplaced it, you can always reach for a Prehistoric Bird, or a Vampire Bat!
As in THE FLINTSTONES # 38 (Gold Key Comics, Cover Date: February, 1967)...
...And its "Matching-Number Mirth-Separation Mate" THE LITTLE MONSTERS # 38 (Gold Key Comics, Cover Date: February, 1977)!
Bird-wings, bat-wings, who cares... as long as you stay safe, warm, and dry!
Bonus original cover image!
The cover illustration for THE FLINTSTONES # 38 was reprinted from THE FLINTSTONES # 4 (Dell Comics, Cover Date: March-April, 1962). (Art by Harvey Eisenberg!)
But, we kinda like having the link of "living-creature-umbrella" AND respective issues numbered 38... AND being TEN YEARS APART in cover date (February, 1967 and 1977)!
There you have THE FLINTSTONES # 38 and THE LITTLE MONSTERS # 38... Separated At Mirth (...and by a few million years) - yet oddly united by issue number and cover date!
19 comments:
I think I actually remember that Flintstones #4 cover from my childhood! Did they ever use a pterosaur umbrella on the show? It's interesting how this cover is, as you put it, a prehistoric bird, with a bird head, not a pterosaur head. To be friendlier?
It no surrrprrrise that rrridiculous rrreprrresentative of Consorrrtium of Brrrown Prrrehistorrric Birrrds iz stupidly placid about horrrrrible situation, da? But loyal memberrr Guild of Violet Vampirrre Bats not so easily subdued! Even if have bad cold as shiny rrred nose is indicating. We send morrre rrrepresentatives to comic publisherrrs. We rrrevenge! Da!
"The Little Monsters" always struck me as very Hanna-Barbera-esque. Even when they were a backup feature in "The Three Stooges" they looked like they could have been right at home with Mr. & Mrs. J. Evil Scientist or The Gruesomes. There was a sharp cleanness about their design. They were spooky-looking yet not off-putting--cute in their own weird way. And, though it's been a long time since I've read a "Little Monsters" comic book story, the stories were quite engaging if I recall correctly. (Another character that could have come from H-B was "Professor Tom Foolery" who graced the text pages of "The Lucy Show" comic book.) Most of the time Orvie and Annie appear to have been drawn by our friend Pete. "Flintstones" #38 arrived on the stands shortly after the TV series had wrapped up its prime-time run. It was the first reprint book of the comic book series, featuring that well-known imprint "Reprinted By Popular Demand" which was widely used by Gold Key (and which as a kid I really didn't "get"). Interesting that the issues preceding were "The Man Called Flintstone" feature film adaptation (#36) and "The Bedrock Ice Capades" (#37). From this point forward, with rare exceptions, most issues of "The Flintstones" offered reprints of earlier stories. Interesting that Fred, Wilma, Orvie and Annie come up with similar solutions to the problem of keeping dry while walking in the rain. I wonder how the animals performing the sheltering service felt about it?
The Bonus Cover image isn't showing up in this post.
Wow, Deb! That never happened before! I got it fixed by importing the image from GCD again, and uploading it a second time.
Thanks for the heads-up!
To the Rest of You…
I wondered if all that “Zombie stuff” in the previous post scared you all away, or sumpthin’!
I *did* do a second such “Home Film Group Session” last Thursday night, and have written the film up for the group. …And, as I learned from the great Irwin Allen, never throw anything away that you can use again! So it, too, will be repurposed for the Blog – meaning that Peter Cushing and some killer cats will be in your future!
But, for now, I think we REALLY needed some “Separated At Mirth”, so let’s get to those comments!
Elaine:
“Did they ever use a pterosaur umbrella on the show?”
Not that I can remember. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to recall an occasion where it even rained!
Rain is a funny thing on TV shows, and perhaps even more so in animation where you must actually animate the rain. Unless someone writes a plot where rain somehow figures into it… IT JUST NEVER RAINS! It rained once on THE JETSONS, just so Superintendent Henry Orbit could show how he can raise the apartment tower to a height ABOVE the rain clouds with the touch of a button.
I’ve always called that particular phenomenon “The Bright Spring Day Default”, because almost every comic, cartoon, TV show, etc. that you can think of might as well take place on a non-rainy spring day – unless, of course, it is a seasonal-specific tale.
Guild of the Violet Vampire Bats, eh?
By appropriating their gang-colors (Pardon me: “Secret Society colors”) you guys must be driving “The Horde of the Violet Hare” absolutely… er, um… Bats!
Scarecrow:
The Little Monsters is another of those forgotten gems of comic-dom that simply doesn’t get its due.
Unsurprisingly, I second everything you say about them. You could look at any of those covers – especially the early ones – and not distinguish them from contemporary Hanna-Barbera comics. Their look was certainly born of that school.
But, why wouldn’t it be, considering that the main artists on the feature were Pete Alvarado (as you note), John Carey, and Phil De Lara – all of whom were mainstays of Gold Key’s various Hanna-Barbera titles.
They were fun-spooky without becoming “too cute” like the Harvey characters were!
And, furthering the “Hanna-Barbera connection”, aside from Vic Lockman (who pretty much found his way into every Gold Key title at some point) many of those earlier stories were written by Michael Maltese – who most likely created the “J. Evil Scientist Family” for his H-B TV cartoons.
For instance, read issue # 2, and every story is by Maltese, and familiar “Maltese-ian” dialogue or story elements are on display. So, it had a Hanna-Barbera look AND a Hanna-Barbera feel!
Oh, and Vic Lockman created a recurring villain for the Monsters – a ghoul with the wonderful name of “Eerie McFearsin" (Fear Sin, get it?), who coveted their castle, and was jealous of their generally content monster-family-way-of-being.
I never read the Lucy comic, so I’m not familiar with the character.
"Reprinted By Popular Demand" only served to tell me the story was not new… which you could easily tell by the art style anyway. Otherwise, I had no idea who was requesting these, unless it was editor Chase Craig “requesting them” to save money on new stories.
Later in the run, in the last year or so running up to the end of the Gold Key series, THE FLINTSTONES was all new, or virtually all new, but with some really bad art that was only surpassed in its “badness” by the Charlton issues that followed.
As for “how the animals performing the sheltering service felt about it”, their reactions probably ranged from “It’s a living!” (or in the vampire bat’s case “dying!”), to “I heard of ‘the wind beneath my wings’… but the ‘rain above ‘em’? Sheesh!”
Ve svear ve is neverrr having hearrrd Horrrde of Silly Rrrabbits; iz you surrre not hallucination induced by rrridiculous Easterrrr trrraditions?
“Is a living?” Dat iz disgusting merrrrcenarrry attitood not worrrthy memberrr ourrr noble Brrrutopian Guild! Change plans: no rrrevenge comic publisherrrs. We banish umbrrrella bat now. Ha.
Peterrr Cushing? Wait moment. We not surrre we okay wid plan. We rrread Peterrr Cushing kill vampirrres lotsa movies, da?
Never mind the bat (it looks goofy and fluffy, even angry as it seems), the scariest thing about the “Little Monsters” is the way their Frankenstein-style electrodes are flesh-colored, making them look like bizarre organic extrusions. Ew.
Achille:
Some of the stories indicate that the “Monster Family” (“Monster” is their proper surname) are not creatures of flesh with protruding electrodes, also of flesh, but artificial creatures who were created in a lab by a mad scientist – whom they often visit for “tune-ups” and to discuss their problems as if he were a psychologist as well.
They are impervious to lots of physical damage, also indicating the are not made from flesh. Yet, they are not made of metal either, or they would be robots or androids. Probably some new miracle substance!
Violet Vampire Bats:
“ Ve svear ve is neverrr having hearrrd Horrrde of Silly Rrrabbits; iz you surrre not hallucination induced by rrridiculous Easterrrr trrraditions?”
Ya know… After four weeks of self-quarantine, the rabbits COULD very well be a hallucination… Or, maybe YOU BATS are! …Maybe even this BLOG is! …At this point, I’m not even sure about the world outside! Maybe it’s all just one vast movie set!
And, yes, Peter Cushing HAS killed his share of vampires, and I suspect he’d not be a bit apologetic about that if he were still with us.
But the film I will eventually be discussing is about killer CATS, not BATS, so you may cheer Mr. Cushing on to your heart’s content! Unless you’re somehow aligned with some “secret society of killer cats”, in which this film may hit closer to home than you’d expect.
Joe, I've recently become aware of LITTLE MONSTERS, a charming series created by Chase Craig for Western. It's astonishing how it reflects the "monster culture" of the 1960s, coming as it did almost simultaneously with THE ADDAMS FAMILY and THE MUNSTERS in 1964. Supposedly THE MUNSTERS was born of Bob Clampett's fertile imagination. I wonder if LITTLE MONSTERS might have had similar origins? Friendly monster families seemed to be an idea whose time had come!
I am wondering if your and your commenters knowledge of who wrote and drew what for Gold Key/Western and Dell is based solely on your personal expertise, or if there is a source for creator credits for Western titles that you have? The GCD has ? for most Western creator credits, including LITTLE MONSTERS, which you plainly identify as having been written by Michael Maltese and Vic Lockman and drawn by Pete Alvarado, John Carey, and Phil DeLara. How you know this stuff? Please helps someone who is just learning about this trove of great cartoon storytelling to find out "who's who"! Other than diving into your blog archives, is there an online source that compiles creator information about Western and Dell original cartoon and licensed properties?
Thanks so much for your entertaining and enlightening posts. I look forward to spending many fruitful hours exploring your archives!
Hello, “Unknown” (…May I call you “Unk” for short?)
Seriously… Thank you for the kind words!
Given the cover date for the first issue of LITTLE MONSTERS (relative to when it would actually have gone on sale), I’d say it just barely squeaked ahead of the TV debuts of both THE ADDAMS FAMILY and THE MUNSTERS in 1964. …And, considering the production lead time it would have taken to produce that first issue – from concept to newsstand – I’d reckon that Chase Craig and his team were probably not yet aware of the “monster families” coming to TV that fall back when the book was first conceived.
If anything, my guess is that THE LITTLE MONSTERS was more likely derived from the “J. Evil Scientist Family” that Michael Maltese occasionally used in his early Hanna-Barbera cartoons. Perhaps not as much the first issue, but certainly the second one strongly resembled a Hanna-Barbera Gold Key comic of the period – and the writing sure read like it was Maltese!
But, of course, the “J. Evil Scientist Family” and The Little Monsters (and anything else that might have been in that vein) harkened back to the magazine cartooning of Charles Addams. If there were friendly/kooky monster families before that, I wouldn’t know.
As far as credits go, I can only speak for my own experience – which started a very long time ago with THIS BOOK! But, from about 1980/1981-on, I have made a dedicated study of these comics and the people behind them that continues to this day. Even in 2020, I find there are still many more new things to learn! “The Archeology of Newsprint”, I like to call it!
The Dell and Gold Key artists tended to have individualistic styles that differed widely from one another… unlike the folks who drew Superman in the Silver Age (Curt Swan excepted as a true standout), or especially the modern Italian Disney comic artists who (with few exceptions like Casty) who all seem to draw in a loose and sloppy “lookalike” style when compared with the greats like Carl Barks and Paul Murry.
Meaning, once you learn to positively identify Pete Alvarado, John Carey, and Phil DeLara from listed sources, you can identify their work in non-listed sources! Writing is a bit harder to discern. I’ve always been more “in-tune” with it than most, and have identified many different patterns to base my credits upon. Unlike the concrete visuals of art, I have no real tips other than get to know the “feel” of different writers as I have over 3-4 decades, and let ‘er rip!
As for my accumulation of data, it has many sources. First, from Mark Evanier, with whom I had a lengthy and very valuable mail correspondence in the 1980s. I applied those lessons to as many different comics, and writing and art styles, as I could – identifying patterns and styles as I went. The great Alberto Becattini, whose recent books are a MUST READ, was (and is presently) another prime influence. And, there were those persons who actually worked on the books, whom I either got to know personally, or corresponded with, who also contributed immeasurably to my knowledge base! Alas, they are all no longer with us – but I keep their knowledge alive as best I can.
I do that with this Blog – and with my many contributions to GCD. And the best way to learn would be as I did… gather some facts, identifications of styles and patterns, etc. and apply them to that which you see in the comics themselves. At first, you may be as often wrong as you are right but, with time, analysis, and the proper amount of dedication, you’ll be “knowing more” and “wondering less”.
This Blog and GCD – and Inducks for the Disney stuff – are some of the best places to begin that journey.
…And, you can always ask me! Send a comment with your e-mail address and real name (which I will not print) and, to the best of my ability, I will assist. That goes for anyone reading this.
LOL, I just realized the TRUE title for this series is "Gold Key Being Lazy!"!
Recently, I've picked up a few of the Dell/early Gold Key issues of the Flintstones at my local comic store, and those things are great. I'm hooked - now I gotta track down Dell Giant #48 (the first issue with the Flintstones in the comics, you know!).
Austin:
That Dell Giant #48 is SOOOO worth it!
Oddly, I managed to not acquire a copy until mid-1990s, but spent an entire joyous afternoon reading it!
It was on the expensive side back then, and I’d expect it to be more so now. If you find it to be too costly, there is also this alternative that reprints much (but not all) of it! Though that’s not entirely inexpensive either… But, lower grade reading copies of either one can be found. Good luck.
Joe,
SHIT, I'M IN LUCK! The ever wonderful Doug Sulipa has got a 2.5 copy (not bad, I say!) for $25. Asking for a scan of the copy now.
I picked up a 4.5 of the 1st printing of Flintstones, Bigger and Boulder today. As the Australlian Open got boring, I pulled out the issue and started to read. OH MY GOSH. The stories were...unreal. It was great!!!!! If Gold Key could turn out a decent giant-size Flintstones issue, then Dell definitely can!
By the way, do you have Facebook? If you do, shoot me a friend request...I'm the guy with the Tom from The Zoot Cat in his profile picture.
Austin:
YES, that’s a very good price for that book! And I know you will enjoy it!
Post a Comment