Wednesday, 20 August 2014


Art by Neville Main

Bet you thought I'd forgot, but no sirree, not me, not ever.  Here
are the final pages which complete DOCTOR WHO's first ever comic
strip, first seen in TV COMIC #s 685-687, cover-dated January 23rd
to February 6th 1965, and as coloured for DOCTOR WHO CLASSIC
COMICS #2, published by MARVEL U.K. in 1993.

These tales were simple and unsophisticated, but TV Comic was a
children's periodical after all, and no doubt did what it was designed to
do - which was to entertain kids in their thousands.  Doctor Who jumped
ship over to COUNTDOWN/TV ACTION in 1971, before jumping back
on board TV Comic in '73, where he stayed for six more years.  In 1979,
he got his own comic when Marvel U.K. published DOCTOR WHO
WEEKLY, which, in monthly form, is still being published today.

But let us now return to an earlier era, when the Doctor was still
a white-haired mysterious stranger, whose history was unknown and
whose future was uncertain.  Nobody could have guessed he would
still be around today, over 50 years later.  Enjoy!

Tuesday, 19 August 2014


(That's all you need.)


Seeing as how you've all been particularly well-behaved recently,
here are the final two MIGHTY MOTH strips from the TV COMIC
Annual for 1968.  Artist (and writer) DICK MILLINGTON had a
pleasing style which served the strip well for the duration of its run, and
many a modern-day cartoonist could do worse than take a leaf out
of his book as to how to tell a story in a simple, straightforward,
effective and -just as importantly - funny way.

(I'm surprised that, in the final panel of the strip below, Mighty
 Moth didn't comment about dad's teeth looking even more like piano
keys now, but perhaps Dick was just avoiding the obvious joke.)


"Once more unto the breach, dear friends..."  For those who don't
like controversy, or are bored with having read about this subject before,
you can skip this post 'til one more suited to your tastes comes along. 


Regular readers may recall one of my SCHOOLTIME SCANDALS
posts (here), wherein I related the true tale of the time I found a paintbrush
in my schoolbag in art class one day.  In a nauseating CYRIL SWOT type at-
tempt to draw attention to my integrity, I informed the teacher of my discovery.
At the end of the lesson, more paintbrushes were found to be missing (found to
be missing - is that a contradiction in terms?) and the head art teacher was
sent for.  While informing him of the vanished brushes, the teacher said
"A brush has already been found in Gordon Robson's schoolbag!"

Now, strictly speaking this was true, but by not mentioning that it had
been  I who'd found and reported it, a falsehood was implied.  Whether it
had been inadvertent or otherwise, the suggestion was that I'd stolen a paint-
brush.  It may not have been her intention, but it was certainly the result.
At least for a few seconds until I interjected and explained the circum-
stances of the discovery to the head teacher.

So, what do you call someone who deliberately misstates a 'truth' (as in
something that is 'technically' true, but does not convey the actual, factual
circumstances involved) for the purpose of creating a negative impression
about someone with the intention of impugning their character?  Would you
regard that person as honest or honourable, or say that they had morals
and integrity - or simply describe them as a lying b*st*rd?

And so I return yet again to something I have referred to a few times be-
fore in previous posts.  Here's the READER'S DIGEST version:  I joined a
comics forum, which some members objected to from the start as, presumably,
they took issue with my forthright views on many of today's comics as expressed
on my own site.  A forum moderator, who was, hypocritically, a member of my
blog, was one of those not happy about me being allowed to join and wanted to
ban me from the off.  The site owner, who seems to be a decent and honour-
able man, advised me of this - and several facts - in a few email
communications between us.

He admitted that I was being baited by certain members and that it should
have been nipped in the bud from the start.  He admitted that it appeared that
one person in particular was being given 'inside info' about certain things by one
of the moderators.  He admitted that warnings given to me by the moderator
who wanted to ban me (when the owner was away for a few days and had
no knowledge of what was happening) should never have been issued.

Furthermore, when I resigned from the forum, the owner, who freely con-
cedes that his moderator banned me after I'd gone (on the stated grounds
that I'd 'left the forum') invited me to rejoin, and has since said that he never
wanted me banned and found my posts interesting and informative.  I can only
speculate as to why he allowed his moderator's knee-jerk, after-the-fact ban to
stand, but it seems to me that, as I'd left and declined to rejoin, he saw little
point in overriding his moderator's redundant action (after all, I was gone
anyway), imposed in nothing more than a petulant venting of spite.

Therefore, for a certain person, in his repeated attempts to malign me,
to simply claim that I was banned from this forum, and that he has an email
from the site owner confirming this, completely misrepresents the facts of the
case.  The site owner may have confirmed that his moderator banned me (after
I'd resigned, remember), but it was a ban that the same site owner didn't agree
with or instigate, otherwise he wouldn't have invited me to rejoin.  Bear that in
mind when you're reading the blatantly dishonest spin that a certain blogger
seeks to impose on events.  That's what I call "childish spite"!

Incidentally, it is not my intention to suggest for a moment that the
site owner was displaying any kind of bias in my favour;  as far as I can
tell he is completely impartial in the matter, but being an honourable man,
he was simply being frank and honest in response to points I'd raised
and questions I'd asked in our email discussion of events.

Right!  Hopefully this is the final time that I'll have to address this
particular matter, but time will tell - as it has a habit of doing.  I have
now irrefutably demonstrated that the blogger concerned has distorted
the truth in his version of events and now stands exposed as the wilful
manipulator of the facts that he is.  In short, a liar!


No point in padding this post out with pointless preamble that
you probably already know, so I'll just let the pulsating pictures
speak for themselves.  Worth a thousand words, remember? 

Monday, 18 August 2014


She rocked with ELVIS and FRED FLINTSTONE
(we are not worthy) and that sure as heck makes her one
red-hot babe in my book.  Stoop and stare in awe at the
amazing amazon known as -  ANN-MARGRET.
(Now where did I put my drool cup?)


strip which appeared in TV COMIC for just over a staggering 25 years,
from his first appearance in 1959 right up 'til his last one in the final issue
in '84.  I suspect that for quite a few years (and perhaps even longer), the
strips were reprints, but ol' MM is one of the longest-lasting characters
in British comics.  (Or at least he was up until 30 years ago.)   He's
certainly one of the best-remembered ones.

The above strip should serve to demonstrate why.
(Here's a clue - it's just plain funny!)  


JOHN BYRNE did his best, but THE THING's solo mag
failed to set the comicbook world on fire and fizzled out after 36
issues.  Perhaps if he'd drawn it himself as well as writing it, it may
have had a longer run, but there's no guarantee of that.  I continued to
buy it from start to finish, but apart from the occasional ish, there was
really nothing memorable about the series.  Having said that, it's still
worth looking back on as an example of what comics were like
back in the early to mid '80s, art-wise.

Anyway, enjoy this glimpse into yesterday and, if you like
what you see, be sure to come back for the sixth and final part -
coming soon, on this, the finest blog you're ever likely to read -
whenever you've absolutely nothing better to read, that is.

Sunday, 17 August 2014


As promised, here is the second part of COUNTDOWN #1 for
you to drool over.  If you caught part one, you now have the complete
issue of this collectors' item classic.  I could drone on and on, giving you
some background to the comic, but why bother?  If you're interested,
you can buy STEVE HOLLAND's new book, COUNTDOWN TO
TV ACTION, which you can read more about by clicking here.
(Better be quick 'though - it's a limited edition.)

Feel free to share any memories of Countdown/TV Action you
have if you bought the comic back in the day.  Which version did you
prefer - the GERRY ANDERSON orientated one, or the revamped,
wider-based TV adventure comic?  Let us all know.


When it comes to CATWOMAN,  I have to admit
to nursing divided loyalties with regard to whom I prefer
as the feline filly.  JULIE NEWMAR was magnificent in the
role, but I've a soft spot in my heart for the equally impressive
LEE MERIWETHER, who stepped into Miss Newmar's kitty-
cossie for the 1966 BATMAN movie.  You can see my problem,
Julie or Lee?  In a perfect world I could have both.  Hey, what
am I talking about?  I do have both - and so do you!  For the
moment 'though, you'll have to be content with just Lee.
The delectable Julie will be our babe at a later date.


I love MIGHTY MOTH.  Surely every right-thinking comics
reader feels the same in regard to the diminutive lepidopteran, who
appeared in the pages of TV COMIC for just over 25 years.  DICK
MILLINGTON created, wrote and drew the strip (which appeared
for the first time in issue #384, cover-dated June 14th 1959), and the
formula was pretty much the same as that of ODHAMS' (and later
IPC/FLEETWAY'sFRANKIE STEIN , in that 'dad' was
always trying to rid himself of his unwanted 'house guest'.

Anyway, in my efforts to share my comic strip treasures with
all you panting panelologists, here are another two Mighty Moth
escapades from the TV Comic Annual for 1968, to give you
a chuckle or three and lighten and brighten your day.