Archive | Technology RSS feed for this section

The Saturday Comics: Marvel Photo Covers

12 May

May 12, 2012

As I’ve shown over the past weeks, back in the 1980’s it was good to be Marvel. From Generic Comic Books to weird Fumetti comics to a No-Prize book that consisted of nothing but reprinted panels, anything Marvel put out sold. Why? Well, their fans are called Marvel Zombies for a reason. And this phenomena was not just an 80’s thing; the 90’s brought, among other things, NFL Superpro.

However, I have saved the best  for last. These are comics with photo covers, regular issues of their series and not some odd one-off special. Nowadays I guess this would be called “value added.” Although they achieved varying degrees of success, they at least showed potential.

 

This is the best of the bunch, and it really works for me. Nicely composed, realistic, and it even reflects the interior story. Of all these issues this is the only one that remains in my collection. Like the rest of these it isn’t particularly valuable.

This is my favorite because it fails on a couple of levels. First, they (I believe) highlighted the webs on Spidey’s suit- compare it to the cover above- and it just stands out badly. Next, the guy in the Cap suit is too earnest, too obviously posed.  And lastly, look at their feet. The are clearly not on the roof, they have been inserted into that background. I had this comic once but somehow over the years it disappeared.

I never owned this but I do recall seeing it on the stands. Does Spider-Woman look sultry or slutty? That’s the story of this cover in a nutshell. Plus The Wasp’s wings look like cardboard..

I don’t think I ever saw this issue until I started to research this post. It is the worst of the lot. The concept is not bad but the execution is terrible. A back-lit woman holding her hands in front of a pair of spotlights just doesn’t cut it.

You have to give Marvel credit for trying. In the 1980’s they were big and bad and, for better or worse, pushing the boundaries of what their fans would buy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Imponderable #45: Tampa Florida & The Vatican

11 May

May 11, 2012

A pair of related stories today, making up one Imponderable.

The first story concerns the Republican National Convention. I’m putting politics aside so please, look at this from the perspective of it as a gathering of high-ranking government officials including one who may be President next year.

Of course security is high. There are threats from all angles here so logically there is a ban on weapons. Is it a stretch to call sticks, rocks, and bottles weapons? Not at all, there is more than ample legal justification. But what can’t be banned? Guns. Actual weapons. If you are a licensed gun owner you can walk right in with your sidearm. Does this make sense? Does the license somehow imply that the gun owner will not be likely to go over the edge due to a hot button political topic? I’d like to see some studies on that. Gun ownership does not require a psychological exam. This is a case were a group has some special status under the law due to nothing special about them. I am not coming out pro or anti guns, but I am against someone getting special status under the law for nothing. And in this case it is really the gun that has the special status. A law says that the rights of gun owners may not be restricted. Is it a right to carry a gun into an anti-weapon zone? What is the legitimate use of that weapon there? On the other hand if a man is thirsty and he wants to carry a Snapple into the zone it will be taken away from him. Does that make sense?

Then we have the case of the Vatican Cardinal. Has he ever shot anyone? Does the article even imply he has? He has given up hunting and simply enjoys repairing guns. And don’t try to smear him as a hunter, he also went to shooting ranges, places where no one gets hurt and you can exercise your skill at firing guns. That’s called marksmanship and in the Olympics you get a medal for that.

What this all comes down to is that it is the gun, not the person, is the focus of the issue. Assuming he  is unlicensed in Florida, that Vatican Cardinal could not carry a gun into the area around the National convention while some yahoo from Pensacola who filled out the right forms could stroll right in. We are so focused on making everyone equal that we are making everyone “special,” which therefore makes them unequal by definition. I can’t get near a Presidential candidate with a stick but if I have a licensed gun I can stride right over.

Why are we so obsessed with protecting the rights of guns and not the rights of people?

The question is Imponderable.

And I am not interested in any civil rights or Consitutional arguments. Let’s use common sense here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →