Yeah, this.

I worked as a printer and a print finisher for roughly 10 years in the 1990s, and I can tell you that, for the most part, the colours in those reprints are roughly the same as they were in the originals, but it's the cheap, porous nature of newsprint that makes the colours look more muted in the originals. The question is, I suppose, whether the colours in modern reprints -- which are printed on higher quality paper (and in a lot of instances glossier paper too) -- should accurately reflect the original experience of reading these comics on newsprint?

That's probably very much a personal choice for old, long-term readers like us. But for newer readers, I think the brighter colours of modern reprints look more like the comics that they've been reading since the late '90s or thereabouts. Anyway, one thing is for sure, the colouring of the Marvel reprints since the '90s doesn't seem to have hurt sales, so you have to assume that most readers or collectors like it.

Myself, I'm sort of ambivalent about it all. I grew up with newsprint comics in the late '70s and 1980s, so I naturally really like reading comics like that, with their more muted colours. There's a nostalgia factor in that and I also like the historical authenticity of seeing the way that the colours look in old comics, but that's the armchair historian in me talking. However, I also own a good few Masterworks, Omnibuses, and Epic collections, and I'm perfectly happy to read old comics in those, even with their much brighter colours. I guess it's just not that big an issue for me either way.


EDIT: Edited to say that speaking as someone who makes his living from writing, recording, and playing music, as well as being an avid record collector, analogue "warmth" is absolutely a real thing. I love digital formats like CD too, but there is definitely some music -- almost always pre-digital era music -- that absolutely sounds much better on a decent vinyl pressing played on a decent record player/hi-fi set up. Plus, as supercat points out, if we're talking about guitar amps, it's definitely preferrable to use tube-powered amplifiers, rather than ones with solid-state circuitry. Same goes for tube-driven hi-fi amplifiers, actually.

A couple of classic John Romita covers right there! Love them both. The 1970s Marvel Tales replacements are OK, but not really in the same league.

Also, there's a nice bit of misdirection on the cover of ASM #52, with the caption reading "To Die a Hero"; the viewer is led to believe that the caption refers to Spider-Man, who is pictured in a deadly situation, but, of course, the person who dies a hero in this issue is Frederick Foswell.





I find it unintentionally hilarious that the Kingpin has a scale model of New York City on his desk for the sole purpose of smashing it to ram home his desire to dominate the city's underworld to his henchmen. Only in comics!!





I agree that this glimpse of J. Jonah Jameson genuinely working as an anti-crime crusader with a strong moral compass is something kinda new in Spider-Man comics. Of course, we'll see more of this in subsequent years, but his attitude towards the Kingpin's attempts to take over the criminal underworld is definitely another layer of realistic characterisation for him.




You know, I can absolutely suspend disbelief enough to accept that the Kingpin is freakishly strong and that his hulking size is largely due to his intensely muscly physique – plus, I know that John Romita has said many times in interviews that he deliberately wanted Kingpin to appear dangerous and not like a fat man. But the truth is, Romita draws him exactly like a fat man! The Kingpin even has wobbling jowls and a bulging gut above his groin – you only get those things if you're overweight, not from being mostly made of muscle.

Don't get me wrong, the fact that the Kingpin's depiction is so at odds with what we are repeatedly told about him doesn't bother me at all. But I find it strange that an artist as skilled as Romita simply draws him as morbidly obese.





I'm a big fan of Joe "Robbie" Roberston. He'll show himself to be a man of integrity and wisdom as the series progresses, and he is always nice to Peter Parker too, which makes him the perfect foil for Jameson. He's a fantastic addition to the supporting cast.





Which is ridiculous! I mean, it doesn't really bother me, but a regular human like the Kingpin should NOT be able to hold his own against Spider-Man – even if he is "all muscle". I mean, obviously the Kingpin's disintegrator cane is dangerous, and I think it's fine if the tie-pin gas gun knocks Peter out…but the scenes where the Kingpin gives Spider-Man trouble in hand-to-hand combat are nonsensical.

This might be the earliest indication that Spider-Man's strength levels will tend to fluctuate in the comic depending on who he's fighting and what the story demands. As I say, Peter's fluctuating strength doesn't spoil my enjoyment of these comics at all, but it is ridiculous that the Kingpin gives Spidey any trouble at all, when you think about it.





I really love these scenes – the danger to Peter and Jameson is really palpable. As you say, it's a very Sixties-style trap and is the kind of thing readers would've seen in countless TV shows and films around that time, but that doesn't make it any less gripping. Spidey's eventual escape from the Kingpin's watery deathtrap is also really cool.

But, what the hell must the Kingpin's water bill be like?!





The Kingpin doesn't need to unmask Spider-Man: such a cheap act would be beneath the mighty criminal overlord. Spider-Man's identity is utterly insignificant to the Kingpin, given that he will soon be dead anyway.

In reality, of course, yeah…it's done either to not overly complicate the plot or because it never occurred to Stan or John.





Having Foswell die a hero and having Jonah laud him as such in the pages of the Daily Bugle is a very satisfying conclusion to his character arc. Foswell has been an interesting character, what with his alter-ego Patch, how he started off as a criminal, then JJJ giving him a second chance (which he eventually betrayed), only to redeem himself at the end. It's been really compelling stuff for long-time readers to follow.

It's also notable that Ned Leeds takes Foswell's place at the Daily Bugle and becomes the newspaper's new crime reporter.



Overall, these are two fantastic issues. Theres so much to enjoy: we have a great new villain in the shape of the Kingpin (though we had glimpsed him in issue #50); Foswell returns to crime and eventually achieves redemption; we see Spidey fighting to save JJJ's life, even though he knows that Jameson will never change his mind about him; and there are some great soap opera moments with the supporting cast, what with Flash Thompson being back from Vietnam, and Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane taking pot-shots at each other. Incidentally, it's interesting that MJ refers to Gwen's feelings for Peter being rather obvious, even if her de facto boyfriend Harry Osborn is utterly oblivious to it.

These two issues really are peak Stan Lee – and I say that because, even though Romita would've had some input on the plot, the dialogue itself is just fantastic throughout. Romita's artwork is superb too though, with the scenes where Spider-Man and the Kingpin are brawling in issue #51 and the sequence in the subterranean water trap in issue #52 both being wonderfully drawn. Simply put, these are two of the best issues of Amazing Spider-Man from the 1960s.

Well put. This is my feeling exacty.

The co-option of the Punisher's skull symbol by the American far right is news to me, but it does kinda make sense. I also tend to agree with you that Conway saying that these radicals have missed the point is disingenuous.

As I've always understood it, the Punisher was directly inspired by The Executioner paperbacks and vigilante-style movie characters like Harry Callaghan from Dirty Harry (himself a cop) or Charles Bronson's character from Death Wish. All these characters see "the system" as corrupt and due process and the rule of law as unnecessary inconveniences to obtaining justice, just as the Punisher does. Given that the American far-right also have problems with "the system" and often want to take the law into their own hands, I don't think that they are misinterpreting the character at all -- I think they have understood the character perfectly, just confused fiction with real life.

I'm sure that Conway is uncomfortable with his creation being co-opted by the far-right in this way, but to say that these people have misunderstood the character is laughable.

One distinction to perhaps make though (and remember that this is the first I'm hearing about this) is the question of whether police officers who also display the Punisher's skull symbol are really far-right? Your post seems to conflate the far-right with these officers. While some cops undoubtedly have far-right views, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of these officers just display the Punisher's skull symbol because they think it's cool or makes them look badass, rather than because they are actually members of the far-right.




I like the Punisher fine. I think that his early '70s to mid-80s appearances in Amazing Spider-Man and Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-Man (and Frank Miller's Daredevil to a point) were great fun. He's not a massive favourite of mine, but I felt that he worked well in the Spidey books due to the tension between Peter Parker and Frank Castle -- who both wanted to stop crime but had very different methods of doing it. That made for some engaging and, at times, thought-provoking comics.

Once the Punisher became a huge breakout star and got "Rambo-fied" in the late '80s and '90s, he was much, much less interesting. I have very little interest in this action-hero "Rambo" version of the character or the later unrelentingly bleak, grim and gritty version from the MAX books and beyond (it's just not my cup of tea). But as an interesting foil for Spider-Man in the Bronze Age, I thought he was a good character.

Congratulations on reaching this first target in your review threads, jtrw2024. It's been really fun to follow along with you. The pace with which you've raced through this issues has been very impressive (and a little hard to keep up with on occasion ). It's doubly impressive, given that your reviews are so in-depth and enjoyable to read.




Bear in mind that the late '70s copies of Marvel Tales feature edited stories. At some point during this period, Marvel reduced the number of story pages in their comics to 17 or 18, I believe. So, when they reprinted older issues they needed to edit them down. That's not quite as bad as it sounds though because the omissions were very skilfully handled: editors utilised panel cropping, relocation of speech balloons, reduced panel size and other "tricks" to keep as much of the original issue as possible, rather than just chopping out whole pages of a comic. So, you don't really miss any "story", but if you are looking for historical accuracy, the late '70s Marvel Tales reprints are doctored. Myself, I never noticed the omissions in these late '70s reprints until someone here in the forum mentioned it a few years back.





One question I have is, will you be reviewing supplementary comics like Marvel Super-Heroes #14 or Spectacular Spider-Man Magazine #1 and #2, all of which came out in 1968? Or is this review thread just for reviews of Amazing Spider-Man and the attendant annuals?

I notice that you have already chosen not to review things like Spidey's appearances in Daredevil #16 and #17, of example, so I'm guessing the answer will be you won't be reviewing those supplementary comics?

Hey tartanphantom, further to our conversation about regional British accents during yesterday's Zoom meeting, I just stumbled across this map on Reddit...




My accent would be South East English, but I do get a touch of the old, seldom heard nowadays traditional Buckinghamshire "ooh-arr" accent creeping in when I get angry and annoyed!