Black Hole Oddity

A few years ago, I took a look at the comic strip that Jack Kirby did based on the 1979 movie The Black Hole. As part of some background, I looked a bit into the comic book adaptations of the movie, done by other creators. What struck me as interesting is that there were three different releases... but no one could seem to conclusively identify if they were different adaptations or just reprints of the same story. I found conflicting information from generally reliable sources. So I finally got around to tracking down some copies of at least two of the titles for myself. This gets a bit odd though.

The first version that was published was the 48-page Walt Disney Showcase #54 from Gold Key. Although the issue itself has no credits listed, Mary Carey and Dan Spiegle are generally believed to be the creative team behind it. The story follows the plot of the movie, with a change in the ending to allow for a ongoing series. The characters don't look at all like the actors, likely due to a rights issue, but they're all recognizable enough.

It was only a couple months later, though, that they put out a comic titled The Black Hole (this one published under the Whitman banner). It's the exact same story and art, but split across two 24-page issues. The story was clearly designed for this format in the first place, since the page that becomes the opening splash of #2 has a lot of dead space at the top when it's published in Showcase #54. It's evident in looking at BLack Hole #2, that space was in fact designed to leave room for the chapter title. The third and fourth issues of the series pick up after the events of the movie and send the characters on entirely new adventures.

Now, here's the odd part: these two publications -- while using the exact same art and script -- have two different letterers. Whereas the dedicated title has traditional hand lettering, Showcase #54 is entirely typewritten. Not someone using a Leroy Lettering guide or something that looks mechanical, this is a font from a typesetter on display. No bold anywhere but emphasis is done with italics, and the captions are ALL CAPS. I haven't gone through and compared each and every word balloon, but they seem to have identical scripts throughout.

But to make things even more strange, the actual word balloons are the same in both version. The outer edges of each word balloon with their associated tails are identical in both issues. Normally, this would be handled by the person doing the lettering, but I can't see a typesetter doing that kind of thing. Did Spiegle draw and ink the balloons in place with just rough lettering done in pencil? I can't think of another plausible scenario. I presume the typesetting was done as a time-saving measure to try to get the book out closer to the movie release, but why put in the effort to completely re-letter the entire story just a couple months later? I would expect the publishers and editors would have felt the typed version was suitable enough. It wasn't like the movie was a massive hit and they wanted to do a 'prestige' version of the comic or anything; why not just keep the original lettering in place for the reprint?

Golden Press put out an adaptation as well, although I have conflicting information on whether or not it is a reprint of these first two instances and, if so, which version of the lettering it uses. I'm trying to track down a copy to check for myself.

I understand how/why Disney wanted to push The Black Hole as the next Star Wars. The movie was kind of a bust, though -- it has all the hallmarks of a "too many cooks" situation if you asked me -- so all of the comics and toys and coloring books and everything wound up collecting dust on store shelves. The more I look into this attempt at a media franchise, though, the more confused and messy the whole thing looks.

Related Items craft history