So anyway, I decided to run my mouth off a bit about the Captain America: Brave New World film over there on the Blueskies. Here’s the thread, but I’ll repost all the entries right here:
As the new Captain America movie slowly crawls toward almost breaking even, I’m guessing that it just plain costs too much to make superhero movies for them to be profitable now, at least in most cases, and at this scale.
These movies are budgeted to have to make within a spitting distance of a billion dollars to be considered profitable, and that only happens if the films become cultural phenomenons.
FANTASTIC FOUR will be the big test this year for Marvel, but if that underperforms that just means no more FF films. The *real* test will be the new Avengers movies, and if they fail that’s what will cause Disney to rethink the whole superhero movie thing.
They might give it another shot with a new X-Men movie, and I think Spider-Man abd Deadool movies will likely continue to be profitable, but the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole will either be abandoned or *greatly* de-emphasized.
Or they can just start putting Deadpool into every new Marvel movie. THE AVENGERS STARRING DEADPOOL would do okay, I think.
Now, the DC movies are a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. No telling how that new Superman movie will do.
There had been a lot of stories going back and forth about just how expensive this movie ended up being, once the cost of the extended reshoots were factored in. However, the only seemingly verified budget I could find was $180 million, with reports of wild ballooning costs due to the reshoots being declared as unreliable.
The movie’s momentum is slowing, and the linked report there says it may end up with a total of $450 million in the box office. Said report also claims the break-even point for the film, factoring in the promotions budget, is about $425 million. And all that is assuming the reshoots ‘n’ such are all incliuded in that $180 million budget, and didn’t tack on another $100 mill or so as is rumored.
Now, why do I care? I mean, I’m not absolutely invested in the success or failure of this film, beyond wanting all superhero movies to be good and popular so that I can maybe sell more comics. I just find this…interesting, from a cultural standpoint, as to how the Marvel movie machine went from “unstoppable juggernaut” to “kind of a crapshoot” as far as their movies go. And this isn’t saying anything about the quality of the films…I enjoyed The Marvels, for example, and I’m sure Captain America: Brave New World is fine.
Assuming all the numbers are right, BNW making $25 million over the break-even point doesn’t seem like enough of a return on the investment. Though, as my old pal William pointed out somewhere in the original thread, who knows what that $25 mill will look like after the studio accountants rejigger everything.
Point being, I don’t think I said anything incorrect in my Bluesky thread. According to Box Office Mojo, as I write this the film is just shy of taking in $290 million. It’s not quite broken even yet, but it seems like it’s gonna get there eventually.
But these huge budgets do present a problem. Some of these films have enormous budgets, and as I said in that thread above, they’re budgeted so that close to a billion dollar box office is needed to make it all worthwhile. And that’s not a guarantee anymore, especially in this pandemic and/or streaming era.
I did get a little pushback on my comments here, like this statement someone made:
First off, I did specifically mention Deadpool as being one of the franchises that can, and does, make a lot of money. It’s not a typical “Marvel Cinematic Universe” movie, though, so its not quite the successful example this writer thinks it is.
The statement that BNW is “breaking even in its second week” is, as shown above, incorrect, which presents the general public’s misunderstanding of film budgeting. Not that I’m any kind of expert, but the cost to bring a movie to the marketplace is more than the actual outlay of cash to make the film. There’s also the advertising budget, which can be (but not always) as high as the actual production budget itself. Plus, in this specific case, there are the reshoots, which nobody seems quite sure how much that added to the budget, if anything. Only making back the production budget means the film lost money.
The concluding statement that implies that I’m saying “no one goes to these movies” is a non sequitur, since that’s not an argument I’m making. A box office take of hundreds of millions of dollars means people are seeing these films, there is still a lot of interest in superhero movies. My point is that the films themselves are too expensive, that even those millions of dollars in ticket sales are either barely enough or not enough to cover costs. As stated, to get that coveted billion dollar box office, a movie has to be more than a blockbuster, it has to be a cultural phenomenon, something special. And entry #40 or whatever in the Ongoing Marvel Cinematic Universe isn’t enough anymore, in and of itself, to give it that extra push.
In my thread above, I didn’t mention Thunderbolts, simply because I feel like that movie may be a non-starter. Again, I’m sure it’s perfectly fine, but we’re probably going to see the same slow crawl to almost breaking even, even with its smaller (relatively speaking) budget.
Fantastic Four could go either way…people might be excited to see a proper version of this superhero team on the big screen, or the general public may say “fool us three or four times, shame on us” and not bother. Frankly, I’m leaning more toward the former, but a quick Googling of the budget (perhaps as high as $250 million) means were looking at probably a half-billion break-even point.
Again, as I said above, even if all these movies underperform, that’s not the end of Marvel movies. It might be the end of these particular franchises, but Marvel still has their Avengers movies coming with the Hail Mary stunt casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Doctor Doom. If those films don’t do well, then it may just be Deadpool and Spider-Man movies from here on out. Honestly, I do think these new Avengers flicks will do fine. And we have the eventual X-Men movies to look forward to.
What’s the answer? I had a few responses noting the amount of excess and bloat on the productions ballooned their costs, and that other studios have achieved plenty in their effects-laden action films on much smaller budgets. I mean, yeah, sure, but I don’t know how possible that would be with Marvel at this point. If costs are cut, it’ll be on the production teams and not the actors, I suspect, and God knows the production teams don’t need their resources cut.
I’m not an expert on any of this (“yeah, no kidding,” says the person who actually works in Hollywood reading my post), but I just find it all…well, almost unworldly. Talking about hundreds of millions of dollars like this is almost like talking about magical fairies or UFOs for all the ability I have to relate to this stuff. But, as someone who owns a comic book store, I have a vested interest in what’s going on with these films, how the public is reacting to them, how excited folks who actually come into my store are about them, that sort of thing.
In the last entry in the Bluesky thread, I mention the coming Superman movie, and…well, that may be a topic for another time. A lot of pressure on that one to succeed, since that may indicate whether or not we get more DC movies in this cinematic universe. Here’s hoping we’re not going to see more Warner Bros. tax write-offs.
So pal Nat has published via About Comics the complete Dalgoda Omnibus:
Featuring all the comics by Jan Strnad and Dennis Fujitake and others, starring your favorite space dog. Also includes images of promotional artwork, retailer posters and signs, and mag covers. Of note…I helped a very tiny bit with this publication, providing a scan of a magazine cover for the book’s art gallery. I’m thanked in there and everything.
So anyway, if you want copies, they’re out there for sale…and I’ll have ’em for sale at my shop, too. If I run out, I’ll just give pal Nat a ring-a-ding and get some more!
(I wrote a bit about Dalgoda here as part of my Final ’80s Countdown series on fave indie comics.)
• • •
Okay, I was maybe a little too harsh on my assessment of Marvel Saga, that company’s attempt at retelling the history of their shared universe via panels and sequences from their long history of publications, with additional text filling in the gaps. Like so:
A couple of you in the comments there expressed your appreciation of that project, which made me rethink my opinions on it. I may have come at it from a retailer perspective, looking at unsold copies sitting in a bin and so forth.
But I forgot what it’s like to be a fan, new to all this nonsense, not having immediate access to Everything That’s Come Before in the comics you were just starting to read. It reminds me a bit of a certain Mr. Roynaldo Thomas and his work at DC Comics in the early 1980s, particularly this series:
…where I, a kid who didn’t have a full run of every Golden Age superhero comic ever printed, could learn about DC’s past characters in stories set in a time from which they originally came into existence. And then there was the America Vs. The Justice Society mini, with its copious footnotes detailing the decades-past stories referenced during the main plot.
I devoured this stuff. I loved learning about DC’s Golden Age via these new comics. As it turns out, I find them somewhat hard to read now…just kinda overly dense and clunky in a way I don’t have patience for. Which isn’t to say I don’t still have positive feelings towards those comics and how they helped fill in some comic knowledge gaps when I was a young and eager fan.
And so, there’s Marvel Saga, presenting the breadth of the Marvel Universe, a relatively stable and consistent setting compared to DC’s own superhero setting which had at that time (and several times since) been recently reset. Plus, this particular format (previously used for the Super-Villain Classics retelling the story of Galactus) made a recent appearance in the similarly-purposed History of the Marvel Universe from just a few years ago:
I take back my initial dismissal of Marvel Saga and acknowledge its use as a guide through the company’s continuity, especially for those folks who could use the introduction or the refresher. There can be a steep learning curve for folks trying to get a handle on a superhero universe’s fictional setting, and books like this help. Sure they could use Wikipedia, but it’s more fun through the comics themselves.
Sorry pals, part 3 of the look at the October 85 Bud Plant catalog’s retailer tip sheet will have to wait ’til Monday. Which is okay, as there are a few titles in this next batch that I want to ask my former boss Ralph about anyway.
So no big post today, but take a gander at this sharp-looking Red Sonja cover by Mary Wilshire and Walt Simonson:
Boy, that just leaps out at you, right? I’ve seen the later “homage” cover by the current publisher of Red Sonja stuff, where they pull back the camera to make sure you get the breasts in the pic. But the original is perfect as is.
Sorry, didn’t have time to do a proper post last night, so please enjoy this stack of West Coast Avengers that I’m supposed to be pricing at the shop today. Enjoy!
Just in case you ever thought comments on old posts ever got past me…nope, they sure don’t! Here’s Reader Pete with a comment on my relatively recent video game post:
“I know I’m a few weeks late to comment on this post, but reading this reminded of the Questprobe game and tie-in comics from Marvel in the mid-80’s. I had the Hulk and Thing/Human Torch games for my Commodore 64 which I remember formatted like a ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ book. I bought the Hulk and Spider-Man comics as back issues later on, but could never find the Thing/Human Torch one. It seemed like comics & video games would have been a much more natural partnership but that didn’t seem to develop until years later.”
The Questprobe computer games were illustrated “interactive fiction,” where the player would read text and type in commands of the “GO NORTH” and “TAKE AXE” variety, accompanies with still digital drawings.
There were programmed by Scott Adams — no, not that one, but rather this gentleman. And I suggest looking at that Wikipedia page to see the pic of Mr. Adams from 1982, which is literally the greatest.
Now, despite my affinity for computer and video gaming and (surprise) comics in the mid-’80s, I didn’t acquire these games. I’m not even sure I ever saw them for sale in the wild, and I regularly haunted the game software shelves at any store that stocked this sort of thing.
I was aware of the games, absolutely, as I definitely bought at least the first issue of Marvel’s tie-in Questprobe comic book series. (And according to the Grand Comics Database entry linked there, the look of the antagonist in this series was designed after Adams himself — again, reference that photo from Adams’ Wikipedia page.
Adams worked with John Byrne to put together a plan for the overall series of games, and of course the related comics, for a run of about a dozen installments. Only three games came out, due to the game company shutting down, which also ended the related comic book series. However, a comic based on the unreleased fourth game was created, and eventually released in issue #33 of Marvel’s Island of Misfit Stories, Marvel Fanfare.
And because the late writer Mark Gruenwald forgot nothing, some of this Questprobe stuff would turn up in his run of Quasar.
A couple of additional points: despite missing the games during their initial release window, I did sample one or two of them via emulation decades later. Which, unfortunately, is probably not the way to try them out given how very dated they feel now. As I recall, even the text interface seemed relatively primitive compared to the more complex commands available in, say, the contemporary Infocom games.
The Questprobe games had the affectation of the user prompt being, like, “SPIDER-MAN I WANT YOU TO” after which you would type in the command, like you’re controlling the character from afar. Here’s a playthrough of the Spider-Man game to show you what I mean:
The other point I wanted to make is that reader Pete (remember Pete? This is a post about Pete) said he couldn’t find the third issue of the run, feaeturing the Thing and the Human Torch:
And this is an issue we fans probably shouldn’t miss, as it features the excellent artwork of noted Thing artist (from the self-titled series and from many Marvel Two-in-Ones) Ron Wilson. I just checked, and this issue is not included in the recent The Thing Omnibus, almost certainly due to licensing issues, so folks, keep your peepers peeled for that lost gem.EDIT: Ignore all that, it is in the Omnibus, somehow I missed it when scanning the covers on the book’s back cover.
In my more nostalgic moods I might say that superhero video games never got any better than the Atari 2600 Superman from 1979. The best games? Maybe the recent Spider-Man games…maybe the Batman Arkham series. Many would swear by, say, the X-Men arcade game, or the various LEGO games.
These Questprobe games were an interesting attempt at moving superheroes into the then-burgeoning home computer market, but producing them as essentially text adventures with some pictures seemed to miss the point a little. I mean, yes, comic books themselves are pictures with some text, but if you’re handed a game, when you think “superheroes” you probably don’t want to spend hours guessing what noun-verb combination is the correct one to get you to the next guessing of a noun-verb combination.
Superheroes imply action, and in a video game market that means directly moving characters onscreen as per your controller interface. And with the release of the recent Batman virtual reality game, the games are coming closer and closer to actually just straight up living out the world are presented in comic books, with fewer apparent steps of remove.
In making some slight attempt to arrange the “to be read” piles at home, I put aside a bunch of recently acquired fanzines ‘n’ prozines, inside one of which I found this article:
This comics from Comics Feature #6 in 1980, and I figured this would be a good article to pick out given that there’s a brand new Dazzler series out on the shelves this week.
What really caught my eye was the phrasing of the headline, referring to comic book specialty stores as “fan shops.” Comic stores were still relatively new, mostly beginning to crop up in the ’70s (though there were certain some examples prior to that). I know most of us just call ’em “comic shops” or “comic book stores” now, even if the actual comic book sections are a minor afterthought to the shelves and shelves of Pokemon and Magic the Gathering product.
“Direct sales outlet” is another term used in the article that feels a bit dated, describing the nature of the different distribution between comic shops and newsstands that was on folks’ minds then, but not so much now. We’re primarily reminded of it on today’s new comics with the “direct sales” slug present on UPC codes.
Seeing “fan shop” reminds me of a common criticism of comic stores, as those of a particularly…unpleasant nature are referred to negatively as “clubhouse.” It wouldn’t surprise me to see someone referring to some unwelcoming shop or ‘nother on social media as “fan shop (derogatory),” as the popular phrasing goes with you young folks nowadays.
That’s mostly all I wanted to mention about this article, but I suppose I should note that theh print run on this Dazzler #1 was “a quarter of a million copies,” and even that was noted as being slightly less than a typical Marvel first issue, due to the “restricted” circulation. There are comic publishers who would strangle their mom’s favorite goat to get a print run that high on anything today.
Also interesting is that, while the first issue was comic shop only, it started getting newsstand distribution with the second issue. Sorry, kids with no “fan shops” in your area, you’ll never get to see Dazzler’s exciting origin!
So there’s been some discourse online about editorial denial about specific events/characterizations both explicit and otherwise heavily implied in recent X-Men comics, specifically regarding Jean Grey, Wolverine, and Cyclops. I haven’t read an X-book in probably a decade-and-a-half, so I can’t speak to specifics, but it’s pretty clear the creative teams had one intention with the characters’ particular romantic triangle, and the highers-up are giving the ol’ “noooope” to the whole deal.
This put me in mind of other editorial decrees that seemed…oiut of place to me. This was a discussion on Bluesky, which started with my post here, and I fully acknowledge the contributions others made there with their replies in informing my blog entry here.
I’m going to address the second example I gave there first, in that it’s stated that the Hulk has never purposefully killed. Okay, I don’t know for sure that this was an editorial demand, but here in Incredible Hulk #110 (November 2007) by Greg Pak, Carlo Pagulayan and Jeffrey Huet, Hulk’s Really Smart Pal Amadeus Cho explains what’s going on:
He continues:
“How many times have you fought the military? How many tanks and helicopters have you smashed?
“And not a single soldier has died.
“Yesterday you brought down the Sentry’s Eyrie. You smashed the top of the Baxter Building.
“You pulverized all these heroes…
“…And yet you haven’t killed a single soul.”
Hulk brings up some examples where he has killed, but Cho counters these were instances of self-defense against other killers, as opposed to slaughter of innocents during mindless rampages. Basically, so long as the normal Bruce Banner/Hulk dynamic is in place, Banner is somehow running numbers/probabilities in the background, exerting some subtle influence to prevent Hulk from murdering people.
There is the caveat that Cho slips in there about “as long as your brain hasn’t been tampered with,” allowing for an “out” for examples of Hulk killing, like, say, during instances of Banner being entirely subsumed by the Hulk’s personality, or removed entirely.
This is all fine with me, to be honest. It feels counterintuitive, that there were no casualties during one of Hulk’s destructive rampages, but This Is Superhero Comics. This isn’t any worse or stranger than super-battles always demolishing abandoned buildings, for example, or like the Flash clearing the area of civilians before the rest of the Justice League fights the Shaggy Man or whatever. It’s not as much fun if you realize thousands of people got slaughtered because the Avengers didn’t get to the scene on time.
For some reason this puts me in mind of the events from Miracleman #15 (the Eclipse Comics numbering, from 1988) by Alan Moore and John Totleben. This is like the exact opposite of the “thank goodness these buildings are empty!” kind of explanation for why every superhero battle isn’t the equivalent of multiple 9/11s. In this issue, Miracleman has his final(?) battle with former sidekick-turned-evil Kid Miracleman, and it’s just mayhem and slaughter all over the place, and it’s not all done by the bad guy:
It works here in context because the superbeings have been presented as above normal human concerns, uncaring about mortal lives, and that when these “gods” battle it’s humanity that pays the price. It’s a theme of the book.
The theme of the Hulk is “man vs. himself,” Banner having to cope with the monster that lives within in. The additional guilt of “and that monster kills a lot of people” would have made it an entirely different book.
Another thing this all brings to mind is Wolverine, where, as I recall, an edict was put down by then editor-in-chief Jim Shooter that the ol’ Canucklehead has never killed anyone. You know, despite this happening in X-Men #133 (May 1980) by Chris Claremont, John Byrne and Terry Austin:
…which was later retroactively explained that these guys Wolverine was fighting were just “injured” and came back as cyborgs or whatnot. Look, I’m not a big X-Men reader, I don’t know the details, but this clearly is a case of obvious intent being subverted by editorial edict. I mean, I get it, the X-Men are heroes, you don’t want ’em killing folks left and right, but this was clearly to show how dangerous Wolverine could be when not kept in check. It’s characterization, it’s a plot element adding tension to the proceedings. It’s a reminder that he’s not just a tough-talking bloke that hangs out at the X-Mansion, he is literally One Savage Dude.
Anyway, you can get into a whole thing just on X-Men comics alone. Jean Grey had to die because as Dark Phoenix she killed millions of beings, that sort of business. She got better, obviously, and I’m pretty sure they’re less shy about letting Wolvie off baddies now.
Should note that Amadeus Cho, in that Incredible Hulk #110 I excerpted above, goes on to tell Hulk that Captain America probably killed a few Nazis during WWII, because, well, it was WWII. Hate to tell you this Mr. Cho, but Cap did a little more than that:
I mean, holy crap. Though to be fair, maybe Bucky did ’em all in.
So I spotted on the back of the newest Marvel Previews an add for the forthcoming Star Wars comic book Ahsoka, starring the character who came to prominence in animation and recently jumped into live action portrayed by Rosario Dawson. A “fan-favorite” in the classic sense, as folks do seem to genuinely like the character, and at least at my shop toys and comics based on her usually do quite well.
The text of the ad reads “Ahsoka Tano gets her her own miniseries adaptation” and I groaned a little bit, as I realized it’s not new stories, but comic book retellings of the story from the recent Disney+ TV show. Now my immediate response was of course mature and reasoned…posting a meme to Bluesky:
…and informing said response was the rather lackluster response I’ve had at the shop to other recent Star Wars comic book adaptations of other media. The recent Obi-Wan barely sells for me, I’ve had folks drop Thrawn because it’s adapting a novel, even The Mandalorian, the strongest selling of the bunch, has begun to flag. I’ve had multiple folks express their disappointment that they were just getting retellings of stories they’ve already enjoyed.
Way back in Ye Olden Tymes, before VCRs and various forms of disc players, a comic book adaptation of a movie was one of the few ways to relive the experience at your convenience. And TV shows…well, there weren’t many direct adaptations of TV episodes in comics, mostly focusing on new stories, but it was still a way to relive a program outside of its normal broadcast times, back in the days before you could pick up (or download) complete season sets.
While some of these were…utilitarian, shall we say, several did have some artistic merit and were completely enjoyable on their own terms. I still think Marvel’s Time Bandits comic is a classic, for example, and I enjoy looking at it even though I have the Criterion Blu-ray of the film just on the shelf over there. Evan Dorkin’s version of Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey is another great movie-to-comic translation, with Dorkin’s wild cartooning creating an adaptation that arguably surpasses the source material.
Archie Goodwin and Walt Simonson’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien. Hook, featuring work by Charles Vess and Gray Morrow, among many others. The absolute infamous madness of the adaptation of Steven Spielberg’s 1941 by Steve Bissette and Rick Veitch. The beautiful Jerry Ordway art on the comic for the first Tim Burton Batman film.
I could keep going. I have a soft spot for many of the Star Trek movie comics DC produced (even with the occasional storytelling glitch).
But in this modern age, where everything is just a click away (legally or otherwise), the desire to relive cinematic experiences in funnybook form just isn’t there like it used to be. Even doing new stories based on films and TV isn’t quite the draw it used to be…but it seems for folks attracted to certain properties, if they had a choice, they’d want their comics to be new material rather than rehashing stories they’ve already experienced.
I’m not saying there isn’t an audience now for comics like Obi-Wan and Ahsoka. In fact, I expect Ahsoka #1 to sell quite well, just by virtue of being a Big First Issue for the popular character. I’m expecting a big dropoff on #2, however, as readers realize it’s just stories from the TV show, and as speculators stick with thier #1s and eschew later installments.
In addition, there will be the folks who don’t care it’s an adaptation, and want to enjoy a comic book version of the show. And there’s the simple fact that not everyone has Disney+, and this is their access to these particular adventures.
Now, I realize Marvel may have its hands tied in regards to what they can and can’t do with their licensed properties. I have no idea. All I know is the majority of my customers, when they hear “adaptation,” decide the comic is not for them, no matter how expertly it is artistically executed. While I’ll still sell copies, the number I’ll sell has been capped off.
I really do wish the. best for the creative team on this new Ahsoka comic. I hope it does well, not just for their sakes, but for my own store as well. Selling more comics is preferable to selling fewer, after all. And if Ahsoka does well, enough, maybe a follow-up with all-new stories will be in the offing. One can only hope.
Bryan says in response to my assertion that Venom made his first “on-panel” appearance in Amazing Spider-Man #300:
“I’m too lazy to go look, but doesn’t ASM 299 end with a splash page of Venom?”
Bryan is indeed correct, and in issue #298 we get this bit of business at the end of the issue:
…and then in #299 we get this page and a half leading directly into the shocking events of the extra-sized next issue:
Now to be honest, in my mind I’d remembered Venom’s pre-300 appearance as being restricted to his face popping up in the bottom-of-the-page next issue blurb. I’d forgotten that his cameos in these previous two issues amounted to quite this much.
The Overstreet Price Guide refers to #298 as “1st app. Eddie Brock who becomes Venom, #299 notes “1st brief app. Venom with costume,” and #300 gets “1st full Venom app.” I mean, I guess getting Venom’s gloves in #298 isn’t enough for the “1st in costume” honor, but you can kinda see what sort of splitting of hairs is going on here. To be entirely strict about it, #299 should get the “first Venom” since it’s our first look at him in toto. But #300 is an anniversary issue, and it has that striking cover, and yes it is a full issue featuring Venom in action, and thus it’s the one that gets the most attention from collectors.
There’s precedent, of course, with Wolverine’s first appearances in Incredible Hulk issues in 1974. Issue #180 is the actual first appearance, with the ol’ Canucklehead popping up on the last page in this two-panel sequence:
But again, #181 was the full-length in-story appearance of Wolvie, and had a kick-ass cover showing him in action, thus making this the most in-demand issue of the run. (Wolverine also appears in the opening pages of #182, and as we all know, was never seen again.)
So, yes, my statement of “first on-panel appearance” for Venom was incorrect, as he clearly shows up “on-panel” prior to #300. But like I said, I thought his only visual representation was in a blurb, not in-story, so I genuinely remembered #300 as The First One. And as far as collectibility and value goes, #300 is the most important one selling for many times the cost of the other two comics, with “first full issue appearance” and “first full appearance” being usually just shortened to “first apperance.” And those other two comics are generally just “cameo appearances” as far as the back issue market goes.
And the people pushing the house ads for Incredible Hulk #181 that were in earlier Marvel comics as the actual first appearance? GET OUTTA HERE WITH THAT NONSENSE
So last time we were talking about that scene in Fantastic Four #274 (1985), in which the alien symbiote that had been Spider-Man’s costume is freed from the lab where it had been contained. Here is a better look at the page in question (as drawn by John Byrne, Al Gordon and apparently Dan Adkins):
It was brought up in the comments that it was a little weird that this important moment in Spider-Man’s history happens in a Fantastic Four comic, but commenter “S” reminds us that the scene did appear in Amazing Spider-Man #261 (February 1985) by Tom Defalco, Ron Frenz and Joe Rubinstein:
Slightly embarrassing in that I read this Spider-Man comic and should have remembered, though I think I can be forgiven since it’s probably been close to forty years since I’ve done so.
S also mentions this drone incursion was possibly sent by the Kristoff version of Doctor Doom (remember that period?), which is confirmed by this panel from Fantastic Four #278 (May 1985) by Byrne and Jerry Ordway:
As we see in the Spider-Man page, “Doom’s” plan didn’t explicitly involve “freeing the alien symbiote,” but somehow that critter managed to attract the probe into investigating further. Hence, the release of the symbiote putting it well on its way to Venom-ness, and leading into the release just a couple of months later of Web of Spider-Man #1, where said symbiote plays a part.
So there you go. Hopefully these couple of posts sucked all the Venom out of my blood and it’s no longer in my system, and I can finally move on to different topics. Like the Spider-Man villain Carnage, I could probably do a couple of weeks on him.
