|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2022 12:49:10 GMT -5
Even as a kid, I got the idea of symbolic covers (even though I had no doubt not heard of the word “symbolic”). I got the idea behind exaggeration, however I articulated it. I realised, for instance, that a dead superhero on the cover wasn’t a final death; I got that even before I read the story. I knew that by the end of the story, the hero would been alive, brought back from the dead, a trick would be revealed, etc. I have no issue with that, whatsoever. But what about misleading comic covers? Can we think of any examples? That cover had me thinking we’d get a Doctor Doom/Doctor Octopus team-up. But if I remember rightly, there wasn’t a team-up between the two, merely Spidey battling them both at different times. I thought that was misleading. Then there’s this UK comic (1989): When I saw this on the shelves as a kid, I expected it’d be an adaptation of the TV show. Great. Inside will be a Bixby/Ferrigno-Verse tale. Fantastic. Instead, the interior is a reprint of The Incredible Hulk #340. I was so looking forward to seeing a Bixby/Ferrigno-Verse tale. At the time, UK terrestrial channel ITV were repeating the TV series on Saturdays, so I guess Marvel UK cynically just thought they’d attract kids (and their parents) based on that; I guess they thought most parents and kids wouldn’t even look inside. A reprint of The Incredible Hulk #340 was rather random. I actually was not a fan of comics slapping a TV/film picture on the front cover, I think some Marvel UK comics did the same with the live-action Spidey series. It’s cynical, I know. But they don’t realise us kids expected a TV tie-in or adaptation, not simply a photo of the TV series on the cover.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jun 29, 2022 13:39:54 GMT -5
I found out years later that Byrne intended the text to read something like "warning, this scene does not appear in this comic" but someone else down the line put in what is there. Diablo never faces Sasquatch and Aurora but only appears in the flashback origin of this issue's villain. I don't think it bothered me, but it does count as a misleading cover as published!
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jun 29, 2022 13:56:13 GMT -5
If you know the story, you know why this is misleading... I first read it here: (in the 70s, there was an article in The Comic Reader called something like "Comic book blurbs and what they really mean." They pointed out that "Not a hoax! Not a dream! Not an imaginary story!" meant "a hoax, a dream, or an imaginary story.)
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jun 29, 2022 14:30:59 GMT -5
Little Ish Kabbible saw this cover on the newstand and thought "This is going to be the greatest comic ever". Rushed home, read it and got punished for cursing like a sailor
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 29, 2022 14:43:22 GMT -5
This one fell under "shady, but legal..." The copy doesn't say "Earth-2 Superman," deliberately hides the S-symbol, doesn't give Supes the grey temples, makes Lois look young, etc. The onlt clu is the Daily star builing, in the lower right. If you had read the revived All-Star or the JLA/JSA crossovers, you might pick up on that; but, if you were the target audience, You were being hoodwinked. For all you knew, there might be a Daily Star in Earth-1 Metropolis, which was a rival to the Daily Planet. You would assume it was just a building. Now, at least the issue actually delivers a "real" Superman wedding, even if they deliberately tried to mislead you as to which one. They also kept it permanent, which was another plus. Still, that's like the carnival barker telling you to come see the bearded woman and you pay your nickel, enter the tent and she has a few hairs on her chin. Still within the basic definition, but hardly what was offered.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Jun 29, 2022 14:52:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2022 14:54:37 GMT -5
Great covers so far, guys. codystarbuck, I am glad you highlighted your cover. I don’t own that comic, nor did I buy it. But that Daily Star building doesn’t catch your eye; the rest of the cover does. I would have felt cheated. (I probably avoid the words “Daily Star” as the UK has a paper called that - and what a lousy paper it is)
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 29, 2022 15:23:24 GMT -5
Great covers so far, guys. codystarbuck , I am glad you highlighted your cover. I don’t own that comic, nor did I buy it. But that Daily Star building doesn’t catch your eye; the rest of the cover does. I would have felt cheated. (I probably avoid the words “Daily Star” as the UK has a paper called that - and what a lousy paper it is) Yeah; but, if it was The Sun, Lois would have her @#%s out on page 3!
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Jun 29, 2022 15:37:15 GMT -5
Great covers so far, guys. codystarbuck , I am glad you highlighted your cover. I don’t own that comic, nor did I buy it. But that Daily Star building doesn’t catch your eye; the rest of the cover does. I would have felt cheated. (I probably avoid the words “Daily Star” as the UK has a paper called that - and what a lousy paper it is) Yeah; but, if it was The Sun, Lois would have her @#%s out on page 3!
"Lois Lane, Page 3 Girl"... sounds like a great title for an underground comic!
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jun 29, 2022 16:55:46 GMT -5
A significant percentage of the covers of SUB-MARINER COMICS in the 1940's symbolically depicted Namor as a giant devastating the Japanese Navy: I've got to assume that a equally significant percentage of the series' young readers were convinced that the Sub-Mariner could grow to giant-size, but only used that power on the covers...or maybe in issues that they had missed?
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Jun 29, 2022 17:12:50 GMT -5
You better believe I was sorely disappointed when I didn't get a story where the Spidey Bros. and Matchstick fought a giant Venom Claus.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jun 29, 2022 18:56:07 GMT -5
This one came out shortly after my seventh birthday, and it sure confused me. On the inside, all the characters were the same size and the woman on the right was wearing red.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jun 29, 2022 23:11:01 GMT -5
This one fell under "shady, but legal..." The copy doesn't say "Earth-2 Superman," deliberately hides the S-symbol, doesn't give Supes the grey temples, makes Lois look young, etc. The onlt clu is the Daily star builing, in the lower right. If you had read the revived All-Star or the JLA/JSA crossovers, you might pick up on that; but, if you were the target audience, You were being hoodwinked. For all you knew, there might be a Daily Star in Earth-1 Metropolis, which was a rival to the Daily Planet. You would assume it was just a building. Now, at least the issue actually delivers a "real" Superman wedding, even if they deliberately tried to mislead you as to which one. They also kept it permanent, which was another plus. Still, that's like the carnival barker telling you to come see the bearded woman and you pay your nickel, enter the tent and she has a few hairs on her chin. Still within the basic definition, but hardly what was offered. I'm also thinking that the inset of the cover of Action Comics #1 was also supposed to be a clue of sorts. Like, "Oh, hey, it's this Superman that gets married, not the other one."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2022 6:57:02 GMT -5
There’s this one: This is one of my favourite Superman stories ever, and I am not here to criticise it. Suffice to say, though, when I first saw it on the shelves, I presumed the Joker had turned Superman into a “Joker” (of sorts).
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 30, 2022 16:07:26 GMT -5
The Avengers #59 (December, 1968). The issue featured a misleading cover in that the flashback to Yellowjacket's "defeat" of Goliath was merely Pym spinning a tale for the sake of the other Avengers, so the cover--great as it is--suggests a kind of conflict that never happened.
|
|