Talk:Motion Picture Funnies Weekly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unpublished?[edit]

How can it be unpublished when eight copies exist? Undistributed, perhaps. As I understand it, there's some debate as to whether the book was distributed or not. 24.176.0.225 06:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some samples were printed, but that's not the same as being published. For example, book reviewers will get bound galley copies of a book in advance of a book's publication.
I'm interested in reading more about possible distribution, since I've never run across any reference to that. It'd be exciting. Can you post a citation here? -- Tenebrae 15:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Auction Galleries' Director of Acquisitions says "This comic, originally intended to be given away at movie theaters in 1939 as a promotional vehicle but probably not actually distributed outside of a few advance copies......", meaning that to state emphatically that the book is unpublished is at best, confusing and at worst, misleading. It is likely that Motion Pictures was legally published, to theatre owners, but not very widely to the public at large.205.143.22.220 (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your supposition "it is likely" is disallowed speculation. Also, the source is not definitive — he or she uses the term "probably," and even at that says, "a few advance copies." Advance copies, such as book critics' review copies, don't constitute public distribution. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I think your edit works in that it keeps the facts while removing a term open to interpretation and which isn't critical to understanding, given the explanation in the rest of the sentence. I didn't change anything. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The case against MPFW[edit]

Jim Steranko, a well known comic artist at the time started his “History of the Comics”. It was originally intended for six volumes but only two were completed. Being in the industry, Steranko got to talk with a number of the famous names, including Bill Everett, creator of the Sub-Mariner.

Page 59 of the History of Comics #1(1970), Martin Goodman (publisher of Timely Comics) had contracted for a book (Marvel Comics #1) by an art service Everett was part of. Everett relates how the Sub-Mariner came to be, from a discussion over a drink at the Webster Bar with Carl Burgos who created the Human Torch. They were co-creations, with the two deciding to base their characters on opposites, fire and water for that same book. Also Namor would have an icy kingdom.

Everett said he drew it on a double tone board for special shading effects and that the colorists and engravers handled the effect poorly, with Namor‘s flesh coming out blue and green in underwater sequences. At no time does Everett talk of doing the story for a giveaway or doing it for a black and white magazine.

A lot is made of the fact that the story was originally 8 pages long but there is no reason why Goodman could not have asked Everett to extend it, if there were insufficient other pages for MC#1. Page 8 also has Namor at the start of a fight with the surface world. A continued story like this is hardly what you would expect in a giveaway that could be stopped at any time. Nor would you expect Everett’s best work up to that time, as he himself said, to be in a giveaway. It is dated 4/39. American comics came out 3-4 months before their cover date so MC#1 would have come out about June 1939, though dated October 1939. April artwork for a June issued comic magazine is normal.

The original story when MPFW first appeared was that it was a giveaway in shoe stores, that it had been given away, and only these copies remained. That has since changed. It appeared conveniently in 1974, a year after Everett’s death so Everett could not deny it. Being in black and white, it would be as easy for someone to produce as the forged copies of the B&W Eerie magazine # 1 which turned up a few years earlier (smudge on page 18). One issue of MPFW, incomplete was sold to Bob Overstreet at the time for the then princely sum of $2,000, and Overstreet has pushed it as genuine ever since. Obviously not a neutral party.(Cyberia3 (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've got History of Comics in front of me. Let me first say that paragraphs four and five above are original analysis, which is not allowed. There is much supposition there, such as "Nor would you expect Everett’s best work up to that time, as he himself said, to be in a giveaway." That's POV. (Also, Steranko says this in 'HoC, not Everett.) If you could point to a WP:RS making this case, we could cite that.
Everett does say that he and Burgos came up with their respective characters at the same time. Everett, however, was a severe alcoholic, and his memory of events occurring over 30 years earlier at that point may not be completely reliable.
It's not our place to "make a case," but to gather what has been reported. Accusing someone of forgery and fraud is a very serious charge, and I don't believe Wikipedia could publish such an accusation without incontrovertible proof. The fact that auction houses have sold this publication, and that no curators, art historians or buyers have made charges or filed suit, would suggest we cannot accuse Overstreet or anyone related to this of forgery and fraud. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a number of people who have come out against MPFW over the years including a good article from a real old timer I have somewhere that I was given about a decade ago, which is buried with thousands of other papers, so not readily available. However, with Overstreet and others pushing MPFW as genuine, including Marvel Comics themselves who are just artists and writers but not comic historians, such POV's are ignored. Does it matter whether it was Everett or Steranko who said it was his best work? If you was doing work for a giveaway comic that would probably end up as a throw away by uninterested movie goers, would you do your best work for it on special two-tone board, or barely adequate work on a cheap board since you would be paid the same rate? At what possible film would you give away irrelevant "kiddie's comics" (note the cover) to adults?

I worked with an alcoholic for almost three decades in two jobs. I saw him once drink 25 pints when someone tried to outdrink him and he appeared completely sober. His mind was as sharp as a razor. I also had an uncle who was an alcoholic. Don't confuse alcoholism with binge drinking. As to auction houses, what do many of them know? I was there when MPFW first appeared and it was said it was a giveaway in SHOE stores. Not cinemas. I do not drink. I was also there for Eerie #1. As to wikipedia not making a case, should it just blandly give one side of the story and not report any contentious issues? I have deliberately not put the information in the original article. (Cyberia3 (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I can appreciate your passion for wanting to do what you think is right. You did inspire additional research on my part, including new citations from prominent comics historians such as Les Daniels, Ron Goulart, and Denis Gifford. Steranko, incidentally is "historical consultant" on the Jerry Weist book I now cite, which devotes a page to MPFW.
Some points I'd like to address:
"a good article from a real old timer I have somewhere ... not readily available" is not a citation, much less a reliable source.
"blandly give one side of the story and not report any contentious issues": If by "blandly" you mean neutral, yes. And equally yes, Wikipedia reports contentious issues, but as Wikipedia simply aggregates what has been reported in reliable-source publications, and does not publish contributors' own original research — including one's own theories and conclusions — then it would only report those contentious issues if they can be footnoted to reliable-source citations.
Having had close family dealings with alcoholism and addiction, I don't think we want to debate the issue of what it can do a person's mind, your anecdotal exception noted.
And again, I would note that accusations of forgery and fraud and extremely serious, and unless supported by authoritative newspaper or magazine accounts or public court documents or the like, it would be irresponsible to make them. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of Les Daniels Comix (1971) somewhere. I cannot recall any mention of MPFW. No one ever mentioned it till it suddenly appeared. The book was good for the time but had very little information in it. As to Ron Goulart how is he an expert on old comics? Denis Gifford knows/knew something about British comics but very little on American comics. He collected old oddments and I sold him some 1930's comics about 1975 including Comics on Parade 1-4. Before I got rid of them, I had an almost complete collection of Marvel Comics from Jan 1940 (I did not have MC 1 or MMC 2) going through the Timely-Atlas-Marvel years so I have some idea of what I am talking about.

Bill Everett was very active in Alcoholics Anonymous in 1971, in an article by someone who knew him well. [1] and next page. This article says Bill Everett created Sub-Mariner AFTER Burgos created the Human Torch, for a publisher who was obviously Goodman, with MC#1. [2] But again, no mention of MPFW. (Cyberia3 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Alter Ego #11[edit]

This issue had an interview of Bill Everett by Roy Thomas. Frank Torpey, a manager of Funnies Incorporated (Where Everett worked at the time) and a friend of Martin Goodman persuaded him to get into comics. Everett, Burgos and others came up with a package of stories (especially created) for the first issue and Goodman bought them for what would be Marvel Comics #1. Everett says Burgos' Human Torch came first then as a natural adversary to flame, he produced a character at home in water. There is no mention whatsoever of MPFW or of the Sub-Mariner strip being "second hand".(130.255.24.127 (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Motion Picture Funnies Weekly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

So, the lede says "and only a handful of sample copies of issue #1 were printed", but that seems like original research. Sources in the body say that there are eight or nine existing copies, but I don't think we have anything actually saying only a handful were printed—they could have printed exactly eight, or they could have printed substantially more and then just thrown them away, or shown them to theater operators who threw them away. We have no way of establishing it either way without reliable sourcces. --(UTC) tronvillain (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, neither of the cited sources technically say "unpublished." Marvel: Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics says "Early in 1939 a bizarre character called The Sub-Mariner, part man and part fish, had been feature in the black-and-white Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, a failed promotional theater giveaway that Funnies, Inc. had produced.", while the Scoop newsletter says "This sort of information would never have been published on the actual giveaways - leading to the theory that Motion Picture Funnies Weekly #1 may never have made it to the giveaway point" and "Thus, the plan to make Motion Picture Funnies Weekly a regular part of children's movie-going experience may have been foiled before it even took off." But it seems like unjustified synthesis to go from those sources to "was never published." Maybe "presumably never published" or "sources speculate that it was never actually published"? Looking at the indicia of the comic, it says "Published weekly by First Funnies" and "Cover and entire contents copyrighted 1939 by First Funnies Inc." --tronvillain (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motion_Picture_Funnies_Weekly&oldid=1204084298"