THE GHOST-WHO-WALKS (OR: YOU'RE TOO OLD FOR PHARAOH TALES)...

The PHANTOM copyright KING FEATURES SYNDICATE, Inc 

Comics creators who contributed to CHARLTON COMICS

were allowed a freedom that wasn't offered by other comicbook

companies.  Charlton were reputed to pay the lowest page rates in

the business, but writers felt compensated by the lack of editorial

interference that was par for the course at MARVEL and DC

(and doubtless other comics publishing companies as well).

So, good for the writers and maybe even the artists, but that

didn't always necessarily translate into a superior product for the

readers. Case in point:  The PHANTOM #32, published in 1969.

The plot involves a fake Pharaoh Phantom who seeks to usurp the

position of the true 'Ghost-Who-Walks'.  Strangely 'though, the

other Phantom is in Egypt, not Bengali, where the genuine

Phantom has his jungle kingdom.

It's an entertaining enough little tale.  A royal sarcophagus is

discovered during an excavation in Egypt's Valley Of Kings.

The lid is pried open and a mummified figure is exposed, who soon

magically unravels and is revealed as The Pharaoh Phantom, who

declares the real Phantom to be an imposter.  By use of seemingly

supernatural means, the fake performs impressive displays of

power that puts the genuine article deep in the shade.

As you can see in the accompanying pages, he's eventually

exposed as the fraud he is, but - wait a minute - no explanation

is ever given as to how he managed to plant himself in that sealed

sarcophagus in a closed burial chamber to begin with.  His magical

images from the past are shown to be the result of a projector on a

screen, but just how did he manage to create these filmed images?

A huge budget would surely be required, and if they were merely

extracted from a movie, it would be obvious. I'm sure that most

readers would've liked to know how he accomplished it, and

have found the story more rewarding as a result.

STAN LEE, I'm sure, wouldn't have let this story pass with-

out these aspects being explained, but whoever edited this issue

obviously thought such things unimportant.  I disagree.  Creative

freedom is all very well, but it's no excuse for laziness.  The readers

deserve better, and had Charlton insisted that their writers put in a

little more effort (and paid them better), the company might yet be

around today.  Verdict?  Charlton produced lightweight enter-

taining comics, but they could have done far better.

Got a view on the matter?  The comments section awaits.

Posted in: Cartoons