Feb 10, 2011

Comics' Biggest Boners: Stan Lee in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

Welcome to the first edition of Comics' Biggest Boners, in which we showcase some of the biggest goofs and gaffes in comics!Click here for the archive!

And now, your host, 1950s Joker!

I got the idea for this feature from a gift I got over Christmas, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN OMNIBUS! We all know about Peter Parker, the Amazing Spider-Man! This is the second panel (the first on the second page) of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #1, our titular hero's second appearance ever, by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko:

However, back in the day, they'd run two stories in one issue. The second story in that one shows Spider-Man trying to join the Fantastic Four. Also done by Lee and Ditko, this story is notorious because of the fact that Stan Lee screws up Peter Parker's name not once:

But twice:

Yes, in two instances on the same page, Stan Lee mistakenly calls Peter Parker "Peter Palmer"! Here are the captions zoomed in.

That's pretty funny, huh?

You can read the story in the reprints below! I know for a fact that the Omnibus preserves the boner, but I'm not sure about the Marvel Masterworks edition. If anyone has it, feel free to tell me what the deal is.


Marc said...

The Peter Palmer gaffe always makes me laugh. I would imagine it's in the most recent Marvel Masterworks editions, since the Omnibus uses the same remasterings as the MMWs do. It was probably changed for the original printing, though, since I know they changed tons of other stuff (like erasing the dots in Spider-Man's eyes when he unmasks the burglar in AF #15, for example).

Duy Tano said...

The eyes are to me one of the biggest missteps Ditko ever took. The panel is SO powerful without it. With it, it just takes you out of the story. It's the one flaw in a perfect origin story.

Kid said...

Depends what printings you refer to. The 1st printings of the Masterworks editions corrected the mistakes, the current run of softcover Masterworks preserves them. However, in some cases they had to recreate the errors from corrected sources when uncorrected proofs were not available.

For example, in TALES OF SUSPENSE #44, the word "pharaoh" was originally misspelled as "pharoah". It was corrected in most subsequent reprintings, including the 1st edition of the Masterworks volume. However, when it came time for the Omnibus edition and the current softcover Masterworks to be printed, uncorrected proofs of the story were not to hand, so the corrections were relettered in their original, misspelled form. Trouble is they missed one on the splash page in IM's thought balloon.

Kid said...

Same goes for SPIDER-MAN #1. Originally the name was not always hyphenated, except when there was a line break which required it. For most ('though not all) reprintings, SPIDERMAN'S name was altered to feature the hyphen. For recent Omnibus and Masterworks reprintings, it has been obviously "restored" to one word, but there are one or two examples which have been overlooked.

In FF #19, the same goes as TOS #44 for the word "pharaoh". However, the softcover Masterworks presentation seems to be a different "restored mistake" version from the Omnibus one.

Here's a little tip for you. The Omnibus edition of FF #1, despite claiming to contain "the highest quality reproduction ever", only has a superior printing of issue 1 over previous reprintings - most of the subsequent early issues are still printed from the inferior 1st printings of the Masterworks editions, featuring extremely clumsy touch-ups of SUE STORM'S inked invisibility outline. However, the soft-covered Masterworks volume does actually contain far superior, apparently un-retouched presentations of the first 10 issues. That's the one to go for if you want faithful reprintings of those classic tales.

Duy Tano said...

Hey, thanks for the insight, Kid! I don't like "corrected" versions - I think it's best to preserve history as much as possible, and I'm glad my OMNIBUS does that.

Kid said...

I agree, but sometimes when a corrected page is altered back to an uncorrected one, it's done with less skill than the initial correction, drawing more attention to it as a result.

Unknown said...

Never knew about this one - too funny!

The Control Voice said...

Peter Palmer is used consistently in all three mentions of the wallcrawler’s “civilian” name in Amazing Spider-Man #1’s second story, as reproduced in Essential Spider-Man Vol. 1. The two stories in the issue had different letterers. While blame for the error probably still lies with Lee, curiously, in the credits for the second story, the name of its letterer, John Duffy, is also written incorrectly (as John Duffi)—assumedly, by the letterer himself.

Unknown said...

I just got the Epic Collection for the Amazing Spiderman and the mistake is in there as well.

Duy Tano said...

At this point the mistake is part of the charm of the original series.

Unknown said...

I just read Amazing Spider-Man 01 (1963), it is the same "PETER PALMER"

Post a Comment

All comments on The Comics Cube need approval (mostly because of spam) and no anonymous comments are allowed. Please leave your name if you wish to leave a comment. Thanks!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.