Peter Parker, the Spectacular Spider-Man Annual 4 (November 1984)

62249.jpg
Well, I’ve finally found something Bill Mantlo can write–little old ladies.

This issue is mostly about Aunt May and her mysterious behavior. Turns out her pre-Ben Parker boyfriend is back and sending her love letters and causing these very distracting walks down memory lane. Of course, New York’s in different shape than it used to be, so Peter and Nathan are freaking out. Spidey follows her, things get resolved.

It’s funny how well Mantlo writes May’s stuff, given how he overwrites the rest of the issue (and inexplicably retells Spider-Man’s origin). He doesn’t take any time to make Nathan sympathetic–he seems like a nasty old man–and Peter’s barely present.

The art’s fine, with some nice detail on the thirties New York panels.

Oddly, there’s the implication May never truly loved Ben Parker.

The Black Cat backup is moronic and infantile, though Randall’s art is decent.

CREDITS

Memory Lane!; writer, Bill Mantlo; pencillers, Kerry Gammill and Sal Buscema; inker, Carlos Garzon. Cat and Mouse; writer, Bob DeNatale; artist, Ron Randall. Colorist, George Roussos; letterer, Janice Chiang; editor, Danny Fingeroth; publisher, Marvel Comics.

Blade Runner (1982) #2

Br2

There are some real problems this issue–Goodwin’s got to adapt the stuff without Deckard (who in his adaptation isn’t just not a replicant, but is also a lot more the Deckard from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) and it’s just a mess. The way Goodwin structures it–the noir with Deckard and Rachel–it just doesn’t work for following the rogue replicants. Wait, aren’t they all rogue?

Anyway, Goodwin pulls it together for the conclusion, with a beautifully narrated sequence. Did Goodwin do any detective comics? I’d love to read them.

The stuff with Deckard and Rachel is a lot different from the movie and, if it weren’t for the structure, I’d argue Blade Runner the comic is a completely different animal.

Goodwin ends it with a postscript, a little line about blade runners. I googled the line. He wrote it himself… makes for a lovely comic book.

Blade Runner (1982) #1

Br1

After the first few pages, I think I decided Blade Runner is best comic adaptation of a movie I’ve ever read. Goodwin has a fairly complex and lengthy story to adapt here (especially since the film is confusing, especially the version Goodwin would have been adapting) and he comes up with a genius way to do it.

He turns Blade Runner into a detective story. Sure, it’s a detective story, but there’s really not any of the classic staples of the genre throughout (i.e. narration). Narration is what Goodwin adds and makes it into a fantastic–for the most part–comic book.

It’s still too busy, because they’re trying to fit so much in–I don’t think I’ve ever seen such small lettering for standard narration, it’s tiny–but it works.

Williamson is sometimes gets very creative; these are ten or twelve panel pages.

It’s a rather solid comic book.

Blade Runner 2 (November 1982)

19700.jpg
There are some real problems this issue–Goodwin’s got to adapt the stuff without Deckard (who in his adaptation isn’t just not a replicant, but is also a lot more the Deckard from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) and it’s just a mess. The way Goodwin structures it–the noir with Deckard and Rachel–it just doesn’t work for following the rogue replicants. Wait, aren’t they all rogue?

Anyway, Goodwin pulls it together for the conclusion, with a beautifully narrated sequence. Did Goodwin do any detective comics? I’d love to read them.

The stuff with Deckard and Rachel is a lot different from the movie and, if it weren’t for the structure, I’d argue Blade Runner the comic is a completely different animal.

Goodwin ends it with a postscript, a little line about blade runners. I Googled the line. He wrote it himself… makes for a lovely comic book.

CREDITS

Writer, Archie Goodwin; pencillers, Al Williamson and Carlos Garzon; inkers, Williamson, Garzon, Dan Green and Ralph Reese; colorist, Marie Severin; letterer, Ed King; editor, Jim Salicrup; publisher, Marvel Comics.

Blade Runner 1 (October 1982)

19699.jpg
After the first few pages, I think I decided Blade Runner is best comic adaptation of a movie I’ve ever read. Goodwin has a fairly complex and lengthy story to adapt here (especially since the film is confusing, especially the version Goodwin would have been adapting) and he comes up with a genius way to do it.

He turns Blade Runner into a detective story. Sure, it’s a detective story, but there’s really not any of the classic staples of the genre throughout (i.e. narration). Narration is what Goodwin adds and makes it into a fantastic–for the most part–comic book.

It’s still too busy, because they’re trying to fit so much in–I don’t think I’ve ever seen such small lettering for standard narration, it’s tiny–but it works.

Williamson is sometimes gets very creative; these are ten or twelve panel pages.

It’s a rather solid comic book.

CREDITS

Writer, Archie Goodwin; artists, Al Williamson and Carlos Garzon; colorist, Marie Severin; letterer, Ed King; editor, Jim Salicrup; publisher, Marvel Comics.