I think any kid who has ever read comic books has fallen into the trap of the nefarious COMIC BOOK MAIL IN AD'S.
Even I have fallen victim. As a kid I had seen scissors based on Daffy Duck and Sylvester the Cat. Two of my favorite Looney Tune characters. So my Grandmother had sent away for some.
When they arrived, not only were they the most crappiest renderings of the characters but the scissors were completely useless to cut with. I think I gave myself blisters trying to cut something.
And I'm not alone. My buddy Andy Fish has mentioned on his own blog being duped by an ad for a life size Frankenstein's Monster. So imagine his horror thinking that this life sized version of Karloff's creature would be arriving in a crate, only to find it being delivered in a tube.
Instead of a larger than life replica, he had actually ordered a six foot tall poster of the monster. WITH A DOPEY GRIN!!
There are a lot of ads which make me just shake my head and think, "Did people actually fall for this??" The Polaris Nuclear Sub which two kids can ride in and the Sea Monkey's usually tops my list.
But sometimes I come across old ad's and I think to myself: "HOW DID THEY GET AWAY WITH THIS???" The ad above is one of them. Even though this ad was printed in the 1970's and the rules were a bit less stringent than they are now. Still!! This seems more suited for Playboy than the latest issue of Billy the Kid.
Especially if you consider who the target audience of most comics books back then. Young boys either just about to or had already hit puberty.
Then again I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by an ad like that in comic books. I'm reminded of Marvel's decision that it seemed like a great idea to "sex up" Invisible Woman of the Fantastic Four's costume in the 1990's.
For those of you who were either very young or not born yet. This was a time in comic books when the most important accessory on a female superheroes costume was a painful looking wedgie.
But it still makes me shake my head that they were able to get away with selling what is technically a blow up doll!! I can't imagine a parent entering their son's room and finding the doll on the floor with her wig a mess, her clothing in disarray and Jr. sitting on his bed with a deer in the headlights look gripping the deflating doll saying: "This is not what you think."
Has anyone ever bought this? That's my question? If you have, please leave a post on this blog. You will not be laughed at since we've all bought something crappy out of a comic book at one time or another.
But given the history of false advertisement in these ads, I am very curious what these things actually looked like when you got them.
7 comments:
I think that Invisible Girl panel is by my old pal and good buddy Paul Ryan!
There's a great book out called MAIL ORDER MYSTERIES which is about this very subject complete with pictures of the AD and then a picture of what you actually GET. It'll be on my bookshelf for life!
Okay, I'll admit. It's not nearly as bad as either the Azrael Batman or the Scarlet Spider costumes.
And let's not forget Wonder Woman's "Hell bent for leather" look around the same time.
But considering the character's history, even at the time it just seems a bit over the top.
To be fair to Invisible Woman and Paul Ryan (who still does the most kick ass version of the Phantom) it wasn't nearly as over the top as some of the costumes worn by some of the superheroes appearing in Image Comics at the time.
Again, I have to remember it was the 90's.
I may have to pick that book up when it comes out. See that both of us have dealt with our own sad realities when it comes to comic book ads.
May it be grinning Frankenstein's Monsters or cartoon scissors that look like they were produced the same way you make a fudgesicle.
No Paul is as guilty as anyone for drawing this travesty. Like ANY woman would design a costume like that for herself?
It's always boggled my mind when superheroines have suits with their boobs popping out and high heels-- neither of which would be very practical.
Darwyn Cooke got it right with Catwoman when he redesigned her with the full leather suit and goggles, then of course other artists decided that she should wear said catsuit half unzipped.
Yeah, that's sensible.
No Paul is as guilty as anyone for drawing this travesty. Like ANY woman would design a costume like that for herself?
It's always boggled my mind when superheroines have suits with their boobs popping out and high heels-- neither of which would be very practical.
Darwyn Cooke got it right with Catwoman when he redesigned her with the full leather suit and goggles, then of course other artists decided that she should wear said catsuit half unzipped.
Yeah, that's sensible.
I had forgotten Darwyn Cooke had redesigned her suit. It was a great design.
Yeah I know what you mean. I can't imagine any of those costumes are comfortable in zero degree temperature. If you were kicking bad guy's ass in a Baywatch type atmosphere maybe. But still not with the heels.
thanks 4 this post (and the whole blog for that matter)
it took me back to my wonderful comic book addicted youth
and this post makes me suddenly realize whence my attraction for tall athletic looking women originated
To be fair, Sue was under the influence of Malice at this point in the book.
So no, she would never have designed that suit for herself.
Post a Comment