Do you feel ASM #96-98 are underappreciated for their historical significance?

[Unca Ben]

MusterMark is right.

OP: To answer your original question:

They have historical significance in several ways, and SHOULD be appreciated more.

Bronty is right.

Haven't read the thread but to me the premise is flawed: There's no such as thing as an overlooked issue of ASM

I feel like ...

[dgillock]

Was wondering what other boardies felt about the importance and historical significance of this classic Lee/Romita/Kane drug story arc beginning with Spidey #96. From my understanding, it was the first ever Marvel super-hero issue to depict drug abuse. They also preceded the famous Neal Adams GL drug stories. These non-approved Code issues were the impetus for the revision of the CCA which then soon allowed the introduction of well-known titles such as Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf by Night, and too many more to list.

Do you feel this story arc and Stan Lee's refusal to submit to the Code was important to the history of Marvel Comics? Btw, they were some really cool covers:

 

 

From what I recall Marvel's intent to publish the drug series caused or greatly contributed to the 1971 revision that ultimately lightened up on the depiction of drug use and allowing werewolves, vampires, Frankenstein Monsters and ghouls to be used again. (No zombies or torture yet, though).

 

As mosconi pointed out, this would certainly have an impact on the BA with the introduction of many hitherto forbidden characters such as Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf by Night etc.

 

Word is Stan/Marvel had submitted the storyline to the CCA and it was rejected. But that was the impetus for the CCA to start making revisions to its rules .Now the interesting thing is the original 1971 revision to the CCA occurred in late January 1971, well before the newsstand appearance of any of these books. But there were other revisions in 1971. One set of 1971 code revisions did allow for the depiction of drugs under a very extensive set guidelines not unlike the current PL/HOS Rules.

 

Since the code went through other revisions in 1971, it is unclear exactly what month in 1971 the drug usage guidelines were added. I'd love to see some very specific timelines with the dates each revision was published and exactly what changes were made with each revision.

That would be interesting

 

If you have a copy of Overstreet #34 around, check out the the article "Comic Book Ages: Defining Eras" and the section called "Codifying the Ages". I worked on this article with Arnold Blumberg and J.C. Vaughn and wrote the draft for that section of the article. It gives a pretty specific breakdown on the code revisions. The second revision allowing for drugs "understanding that narcotics addiction shall not be portrayed except as a vicious habit" was ratified on April 15th 1971.

 

I don't have a digital copy available, unfortunately, or I would just post the relevant text.

 

Thanks very much for that info. I don't have a 34 but hopefully someone who has one can transcribe the code revision breakdowns. Seeing the April 15th ratification does lend more support to the impact of these ASMs.

 

The 2nd revision in April was indeed a direct result of Lee's decision to put out ASM #96-98 without CCA approval. I would have to dig out my original research material, but there were actually contemporaneous newspaper articles discussing the 1971 changes to the CCA. If I remember correctly, Infantino even stated that the had the GL drug stories ready to go but they decided to hold them back when it was determined that they would be rejected by the CCA. Once the CCA was revised the second time, he put them out, as opposed to them being executed after the fact, which is interesting to consider.

 

Again, I would have to dig out my notes (and it was 12 years ago, so who knows where they are), but the first 1971 revision happened in the 2nd half of January as you pointed out earlier. Mostly had to do with restrictions on portraying "monsters" and the way law-enforcement was portrayed if I remember correctly. Right after that is when you see the explosion of monster titles -- Werewolf by Night, Tomb of Dracula, Frankenstein, all of which would have been prohibited by the original code as ratified in October 1954.

 

I will poke around at home and see what I can dig out as far as the source material goes. I know I still have it, just need to figure out where...

[PovertyRow]

Was wondering what other boardies felt about the importance and historical significance of this classic Lee/Romita/Kane drug story arc beginning with Spidey #96. From my understanding, it was the first ever Marvel super-hero issue to depict drug abuse. They also preceded the famous Neal Adams GL drug stories. These non-approved Code issues were the impetus for the revision of the CCA which then soon allowed the introduction of well-known titles such as Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf by Night, and too many more to list.

Do you feel this story arc and Stan Lee's refusal to submit to the Code was important to the history of Marvel Comics? Btw, they were some really cool covers:

 

 

From what I recall Marvel's intent to publish the drug series caused or greatly contributed to the 1971 revision that ultimately lightened up on the depiction of drug use and allowing werewolves, vampires, Frankenstein Monsters and ghouls to be used again. (No zombies or torture yet, though).

 

As mosconi pointed out, this would certainly have an impact on the BA with the introduction of many hitherto forbidden characters such as Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf by Night etc.

 

Word is Stan/Marvel had submitted the storyline to the CCA and it was rejected. But that was the impetus for the CCA to start making revisions to its rules .Now the interesting thing is the original 1971 revision to the CCA occurred in late January 1971, well before the newsstand appearance of any of these books. But there were other revisions in 1971. One set of 1971 code revisions did allow for the depiction of drugs under a very extensive set guidelines not unlike the current PL/HOS Rules.

 

Since the code went through other revisions in 1971, it is unclear exactly what month in 1971 the drug usage guidelines were added. I'd love to see some very specific timelines with the dates each revision was published and exactly what changes were made with each revision.

That would be interesting

 

If you have a copy of Overstreet #34 around, check out the the article "Comic Book Ages: Defining Eras" and the section called "Codifying the Ages". I worked on this article with Arnold Blumberg and J.C. Vaughn and wrote the draft for that section of the article. It gives a pretty specific breakdown on the code revisions. The second revision allowing for drugs "understanding that narcotics addiction shall not be portrayed except as a vicious habit" was ratified on April 15th 1971.

 

I don't have a digital copy available, unfortunately, or I would just post the relevant text.

 

Thanks very much for that info. I don't have a 34 but hopefully someone who has one can transcribe the code revision breakdowns. Seeing the April 15th ratification does lend more support to the impact of these ASMs.

 

The 2nd revision in April was indeed a direct result of Lee's decision to put out ASM #96-98 without CCA approval. I would have to dig out my original research material, but there were actually contemporaneous newspaper articles discussing the 1971 changes to the CCA. If I remember correctly, Infantino even stated that the had the GL drug stories ready to go but they decided to hold them back when it was determined that they would be rejected by the CCA. Once the CCA was revised the second time, he put them out, as opposed to them being executed after the fact, which is interesting to consider.

 

Again, I would have to dig out my notes (and it was 12 years ago, so who knows where they are), but the first 1971 revision happened in the 2nd half of January as you pointed out earlier. Mostly had to do with restrictions on portraying "monsters" and the way law-enforcement was portrayed if I remember correctly. Right after that is when you see the explosion of monster titles -- Werewolf by Night, Tomb of Dracula, Frankenstein, all of which would have been prohibited by the original code as ratified in October 1954.

 

I will poke around at home and see what I can dig out as far as the source material goes. I know I still have it, just need to figure out where...

 

Thanks again. Very interesting to know the date of the revision allowing drug depiction. I became fascinated by the original code early on in my collecting and find the 70s revisions equally fascinating.

 

In reading the past replies here I would say those three ASMs do tend to be unappreciated by some. Some answers seemed related to appreciating the quality of the stories rather than appreciating the actual impact on comic book history these books had by way of forcing multiple code revisions, which opened up the BA to many many new characters and titles. In addition to the more obvious supernatural creatures, characters along the line of the Punisher, Ghost Rider and other anti-hero type characters would either have not been created or greatly altered.

 

 

[Jaylam]

I remember this book being fairly prized and sought after by collectors in the 70's and 80's, selling for a premium and it still holds a value about 50% higher than other Spider-Man issues from about the same time, but it seems it hasn't held up as well as say Spider-Man #101, which seems to be gaining more traction as time goes on and is commanding pretty solid prices far better than that of #96 in comparable grades.

[Toe Knee]

Undervalued and under appreciated for sure. This story still holds up pretty well

 

 

[boomtown]

Was just going through my copy to refresh my memory & this popped out. Assuming whoever I bought it from clipped it & I never noticed it.

 

[Jaylam]

Excellent news clip. People today would be wise to heed Peter Parker's advice. I've seen so many lives ruined and lives lost because of drug abuse.

[mosconi]

Thanks for posting it

[PovertyRow]

Indeed, Boomtown, thanks for posting that article! Much appreciated.

[kav]

I don't think he could win a fight against 100 super villains either.

Hell the sinister six almost doomed his spoon.

100-no way.

[AKA Rick]

Personally, I like the GL/GA Drug Issues better. Maybe because I like Neal Adams artwork a lot more than Gil Kane's, and enjoyed that overall story arc too.

 

However these are great stories, but not really relevant nor historical, just memorable.

 

It may have been edgy for that era of the CCA, but now the CCA has been abolished and so far off the radar, it's like watching an old TV series VS shows of today and what the FTC allow to be said in terms of profanity or sexual innuendo. The shock value has been greatly tempered to near irrelevance. The issues are more meaningful to collectors who are of that era that remember how controversial it was at the time, with a lot of those readers now in their 60's, it's becoming a fading memory and less significant.

 

[PovertyRow]

Personally, I like the GL/GA Drug Issues better. Maybe because I like Neal Adams artwork a lot more than Gil Kane's, and enjoyed that overall story arc too.

 

However these are great stories, but not really relevant nor historical, just memorable.

 

It may have been edgy for that era of the CCA, but now the CCA has been abolished and so far off the radar, it's like watching an old TV series VS shows of today and what the FTC allow to be said in terms of profanity or sexual innuendo. The shock value has been greatly tempered to near irrelevance. The issues are more meaningful to collectors who are of that era that remember how controversial it was at the time, with a lot of those readers now in their 60's, it's becoming a fading memory and less significant.

 

I have alluded to it before but this is a perception I don't understand. The question is not how good the stories are. Nor how relevant they are to today. Nor how shocking/unshocking they are today. The question is the significance of those three ASMs. And those three ASMs played a pivotal role in reshaping mainstream comic books from 1971 on, and were a major contributor to defining the Bronze and later Ages.

 

Now here's an interesting question: without the code revisions spurred by these three ASM's, would Wolverine have been allowed? The original code read:

 

Part A section 8: No unique or unusual methods of concealing weapons shall be shown.

 

The revised code stated: 8. No unique or unusual methods of concealing weapons shall be

shown, except where such concealment could not possible be duplicated.

 

Certainly food for

[mosconi]

Personally, I like the GL/GA Drug Issues better. Maybe because I like Neal Adams artwork a lot more than Gil Kane's, and enjoyed that overall story arc too.

 

However these are great stories, but not really relevant nor historical, just memorable.

 

It may have been edgy for that era of the CCA, but now the CCA has been abolished and so far off the radar, it's like watching an old TV series VS shows of today and what the FTC allow to be said in terms of profanity or sexual innuendo. The shock value has been greatly tempered to near irrelevance. The issues are more meaningful to collectors who are of that era that remember how controversial it was at the time, with a lot of those readers now in their 60's, it's becoming a fading memory and less significant.

 

I have alluded to it before but this is a perception I don't understand. The question is not how good the stories are. Nor how relevant they are to today. Nor how shocking/unshocking they are today. The question is the significance of those three ASMs. And those three ASMs played a pivotal role in reshaping mainstream comic books from 1971 on, and were a major contributor to defining the Bronze and later Ages.

 

Now here's an interesting question: without the code revisions spurred by these three ASM's, would Wolverine have been allowed? The original code read:

 

Part A section 8: No unique or unusual methods of concealing weapons shall be shown.

 

The revised code stated: 8. No unique or unusual methods of concealing weapons shall be

shown, except where such concealment could not possible be duplicated.

 

Certainly food for

Excellent point and a great question to ponder

[Juswuh]

In an era of "relevant" comics for an older readership the Code was bound to be challenged by somebody. The Spidey drug issues just happened to be the first.

[PovertyRow]

As I have said, definitely underappreciated.

[MusterMark]

In an era of "relevant" comics for an older readership the Code was bound to be challenged by somebody. The Spidey drug issues just happened to be the first.

 

And for THAT reason alone (even though there are more reasons actually), the books should be appreciated and valued more.

 

 

[mosconi]

Personally, I like the GL/GA Drug Issues better. Maybe because I like Neal Adams artwork a lot more than Gil Kane's, and enjoyed that overall story arc too.

 

However these are great stories, but not really relevant nor historical, just memorable.

 

It may have been edgy for that era of the CCA, but now the CCA has been abolished and so far off the radar, it's like watching an old TV series VS shows of today and what the FTC allow to be said in terms of profanity or sexual innuendo. The shock value has been greatly tempered to near irrelevance. The issues are more meaningful to collectors who are of that era that remember how controversial it was at the time, with a lot of those readers now in their 60's, it's becoming a fading memory and less significant.

 

I have alluded to it before but this is a perception I don't understand. The question is not how good the stories are. Nor how relevant they are to today. Nor how shocking/unshocking they are today. The question is the significance of those three ASMs. And those three ASMs played a pivotal role in reshaping mainstream comic books from 1971 on, and were a major contributor to defining the Bronze and later Ages.

 

Now here's an interesting question: without the code revisions spurred by these three ASM's, would Wolverine have been allowed? The original code read:

 

Part A section 8: No unique or unusual methods of concealing weapons shall be shown.

 

The revised code stated: 8. No unique or unusual methods of concealing weapons shall be

shown, except where such concealment could not possible be duplicated.

 

Certainly food for

To further expand on this interesting question posed by ThatPovGuy, if the Code had not been revised and Wolverine not been allowed in 1974, would the new X-Men have been as popular and successful, or even survived in its second reincarnation? Without Wolverine, would an X-Men movie still have been made in 2000, whose success initiated the Marvel cinematic explosion and has us where we are today? Just more food for thought