We're all familiar with Peter Parker taking pictures of himself in action as Spider-Man in order to eke out a living:



It's hard to believe that Peter got many good pictures from this set-up--what are the odds the fight stays in front of the camera? Etc.--but J. Jonah Jameson seemed pleased (sort of).

Ah, but that was with primitive 1966 technology. And what most people don't know is, Peter was not the first to use the shtick. Let's take the Wayback Machine to 1940...

Yup, the Fox was playing the "take pictures as a super-hero and sell them as a photographer" game two decades before Peter Parker came up with the scam.

But without webbing, and 1940s-era cameras, how did the Fox get his pictures?

Good gosh.

Yup, he wore that gear under his costume.

Even allowing for artistic license, that bulky gear had to be a noticeable bulge under his costume, right? And how big a hole (or holes) did he have--he had to allow the lens and the flash to "see" out!

Well, one way to get away with it, is to turn off the lights!



Uhh...maybe he's where the flash is?!? Just sayin'...

At least Paul wasn't as unethical as Peter Parker--he, as the Fox, usually gave the pictures he took to another reporter, Ruth Ransom, rather than try to claim the credit/money for himself.

Ahh, cranky newspaper editors...

From Amazing Spider-Man #42 (1966) and Blue Ribbon Comics #6 (1940)

Look, we all need to calm down a little bit about the renumbering of comics a little bit.

Yes, it can be annoying. We're about to get the 3rd Superman #1 of the past 7 years. This month saw the fifth variation of Thor #1 that Jason Aaron has scripted in the past few years (which is not nearly as annoying as the fact hat the same goddamn storyline is still going on, and the "Malekith takes on the Ten Worlds war" plot will seemingly last through the next 5 Thor #1's...).

But what's hard to take is the "oh, think of the children" laments we get from some quarters, bemoaning that it's impossible to direct people to the correct comics now.

Please. That's why we have volume numbers and dates. It's not as if librarians are put out because each issue of Time or The Economist or Sports Illustrated doesn't have a specific issue number, or  that each Spenser novel doesn't have the correct reading order printed on the spine, and the world goes sailing on happily.

It's also the case that many of us grew up in an impressive golden age of stability, of little if any renumbering, that was really an anomaly of comics history. Whether to play fast and loose with postal regulations or to trick newsstand owners into keeping their books displayed, comic book numbering has been more of an art than a science for as long as they've existed.

Let's take a look at a Fox title, for example, in the height of the Golden Age. 1945 saw the debut of Krazy Life #1:

Well, apparently, Krazy wasn't hilarious enough, so it was followed, not by Krazy Life #2, but by Nuttylife #2 (yes, just one word):

And yes, Nuttylife #2 was the issue was where Cosmo Cat got the Big Bad Wolf to commit suicide, as he shrugged and walked away.

Apparently neither Krazy nor Nutty satisfied Fox, as issue #3 was suddenly:

Wotalife indeed!!

Wotalife lasted from #3-#12, until with #13, the title suddenly transmogrified into:

Oh, Phantom Lady!!

Well, we had stability for 11 whole issues, until suddenly, with #24, as Phantom Lady was gone, and...

...romance was in!!

My Secret Love lasted from #24 through #30, until...

...issue #31 was one last attempt at funny animals!! And that was all she wrote.

31 issues over 6 years with 6 different titles and three different genres. And that history is not particularly convoluted compared to other books of the day.

So, yeah, Marvel should stop it with the damn renumberings/relaunches. It is annoying as all get-out. But it's not as if it's anything new or transgressive. It's the way the industry has always been! And somehow we'll muddle through.

So this is a thing:


In my civilian identity, I manage a liquor store. So I can assure you that this is a for real, actual product, actually sitting on my actual shelf.

Mike's Harder is a higher-alcohol spin-off from the Mike's Hard Lemonade brand. There's lot of different flavors and sizes...But don't worry, drinkers of fruity concoctions that hide the taste of your alcohol, Deadpool has you covered--this page shows you all 8 varieties, and all 8 Deadpool cans!!,

At least these guys know their comic book audience--"collectible series"?? I guess we're lucky there isn't a special "blank can" variant...Of course, they may be jumping the gun a bit, as the movie is 3 1/2 months away from release...

This particular bit of merchandising has me of two minds--maybe even three or 4 minds.

My first instinctive reaction is, "OMG, Marvel is putting their super-heroes on alcohol? WTF!?!"

Of course, with the state of Deadpool/X-Men rights, it may not have even been Marvel's decision. And given the sting from the flop of the Fantastic Four film, I can see Fox trying anything and everything to publicize their next attempt at a Marvel movie. If only they had thought to plaster the FF all over, oh, I don't know, Redd's Apple Ale packages!

But I'm still back to "OMG, Marvel is putting their super-heroes on alcohol? WTF!?!"

And yes, Deadpool probably isn't technically a super-hero...he's an anti-hero! There's a difference between putting Spider-Man on your Budweiser, and putting a murderous mercenary scumbag on Mike's Harder. And the Deadpool movie is R-rated, so it's not for the kiddies.

Then again, Deadpool regularly meets and teams-up with Spider-Man, Captain America, Wolverine...hell, he's an Avenger now!!

The again again, as we're so often reminded, comic books aren't for kiddies anymore, as the average age for readers is now somewhere north of John McCain. And it's not like our comics haven't shown Wolverine drinking plenty of beer over the years, or are MCU films haven't had our heroes (and Stan!) drinking.

I won't lie, my feelings are really mixed here. I'm no teatotaler. I will gladly take your money in exchange for alcoholic beverages. And I get really upset with irrational nanny-state regulation that restrict what we can see and drink in the name of "think about the children!"

At the same time, I have to admit that the thought of plastering portraits of the heroes of my youth onto alcohol containers has me feeling vaguely queasy, especially if this turns out to be not just a one-time deal. Maybe it's just me, but I don't relish seeing Superman in Miller High Life commercials, or Captain America pitching Jack Daniels. It just feels...off to me, you know? Or is it just me? Will the 2020 version of Hostess ads have our heroes throwing delicious liquor at bad guys to get them to desist?

And I also know, from long experience in the business, that this is the type of marketing that almost certainly will attract the attention of the nanny-state and the teatotalers, and cause some uproar, if not outright calls for some form of regulation--because they will see Deadpool as "comics" and comics are for kids and OMG we must act now because anything that might ever give the message to kids that drinking might not be evil must be stamped out immediately! And it could end up being a negative for Fox/Marvel in the long run.

So, anyway, I'm approximately nowhere on this issue, with no firm feelings on it...not exactly upset, but  feeling somewhat hesitant about the whole enterprise? I don't think it's evil, but is some kind of line being crossed? Is this OK with everyone, or will it lead to some type of Wertham-like backlash? Are there some types of super-hero marketing that, maybe, should be out-of-bounds? And what's next? Superman-Cialis commercials (Clark and Diana in adjoining bathtubs, narrator intoning "even after you've lost your super-powers, you don't have to lose your power in bed!)?!?

That's all I got. I'm confused. I throw this one out to the masses for discussion.

So, I'm digging (figuratively) through my collection of digitized comics from Fox Comics, trying to figure out what to read next. And I have soooo many choices. Should I start with...


Or perhaps I should peruse...


Nah, I don't want any run of the mill jungle folks. I want rank!! I want to know their place in the teeming jungle hierarchy!! And I want some kind of weird trade dress on all my jungle comics!

So how about...


After just one issue, though, Tegra changed her name (and her hair color...you know how empresses are) to...


Do you have anything else in a Z?


But this is all very generic. I'd love to know what specific jungle I'm adventuring in. What do you have, Fox?


[Fun fact: Jo-Jo somehow had two consecutive issue #7s, but they seemed to have made up for that by skipping issue #13! Then, with issue #31, the series changed to My Desire: Intimate Confessions. Then two issues later they renumbered, going from issue #32 to issue #3 (!). With issue #5, it again morphed, this time into Murder Incorporated...which immediately went from issue #5 to issue #1 the next month. Next time I'm grumbling while trying to file my seemingly randomly numbered Hercs or Captain Americas, I'll try to remember how good we actually have it now...]

Anyway, kings, princes, empresses...c'mon, Fox, do you have anyone with some REAL rank??


Or...


Or...


I'm guessing she was pretty popular...and I'm guessing that Goddess outranks King, prince and Empress.

So many choices. But you know what? I've finally decided that I want a little Hollywood in my jungle comics:


That's an awful lot of jungle comics, is all I'm sayin'. But then again, that ain't so different than having dozens of heroes in New York City or Gotham...

One of the best things about heroes with a poor fashion sense? They can get better.

Take poor Paul Patton, "former all-around athlete at Penn State." Apparently he wasn't good enough an athlete, all-around or not, to make it in the bigs in any sport. So, naturally, he winds up as a newspaper photographer.

Sadly, Paul wasn't an all-around photographer. He never got good pictures, and while on assignment in West Virginia, he allowed star reporter/potential girlfriend Ruth Ransom to get kidnapped by the Klan (I guess with a name like Ransom, she should have seen that one coming, eh?).

But Paul has a solution to both problems--become a super-hero with a camera in his costume!! First he invents a new kind of camera...

The designs the costume around said camera...

...and straps himself in!

You know, it's only 1940, but Paul sorts kicks Peter Parker's ass here in the "take pictures of yourself doing super-heroics" category.

So, surely this brilliant scheme is accompanied by a dazzling costume for The Fox. Right, Paul? Right??

You have got to be kidding me!!!

No, he's serious.

Even by the laxer Archie hero standards...that's a sucky costume.

Seriously, he looks like an escaped mascot from a college football game, or a refugee from a children's television show. It would be considered crappy even if it were a Halloween costume!!

And that mask!!

But even the most serious sins of all, fashion sins, can be redeemed. It took a few months, but eventually Paul managed to come with with something a wee bit sleeker and dynamic looking:

But even in that tight costume...


...he still had the camera going!!

Call the Pulitzers...AND Mr. Blackwell!!

Before is from Blue Ribbon Comics #4 (1940). After is from Blue Ribbon Comics #18 (1941).