McLintock! 60th anniversary
Forum rules
* Nothing involving children!
* Be nice.
* Please keep to the forum subject. If you have an idea for a new forum, please send a PM to web-ed.
* Nothing involving children!
* Be nice.
* Please keep to the forum subject. If you have an idea for a new forum, please send a PM to web-ed.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3345
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
- Contact:
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Well it's been more than three years since the last post on this thread, but I've finally got the comic-book version of the spanking from McLintock! posted. Of course there's a link under "Weekly Updates" but just in case a new CSR reader starts following this McLintock! thread here I wanted them to be able to find the comic-book version over on the main site.
-- Web-Ed
-
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:49 pm
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Anyway, the second and more famous spanking in the movie (John Wayne/Maureen O'Hara) is not even in the paperback! Even though it's on the cover of the book! That's right. After she is dunked in the water trough G.W. grabs her and they go home. What a let down. I imagine that the comic book is a product of viewing dailies of the movie or of a final draft of the screenplay.
-
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:49 pm
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Phil S.
Last edited by Sweetspot on Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:49 pm
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Phil S.
Last edited by Sweetspot on Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3345
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
- Contact:
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Wow - this is great stuff, Phil - thanks!
As to the shovel, I would never have guessed that anyone would have preserved it as movie memorabilia, but now that I think about it, I believe most spankos would rather own this shovel than Judy Garland's ruby slippers from The Wizard of Oz or the sled from Citizen Kane . It does testify as to just how memorable most spanking scenes are; they tend to be the most-remembered moments in the plays and films in which they appear. (Which do you remember better from the move version of Kiss Me Kate: the dance scene with Bob Fosse to the music of "From this Moment On" or the spanking scene?)
The collectible cards are most interesting also. Such cards were occasionally put out - I remember a set from Planet of the Apes which I believe was put out by Topps bubble gum (I bought a couple of packages back in 1968 or 69) - but I didn't know about the ones from McLintock!. Naturally the spankings had to be included! I separated those two out and have reproduced them below:
The caption reads, "A Good Spanking"
This caption is hard to read, and I can't help seeing it as "One Sore Butt!" but I don't think that's correct .
As to the shovel, I would never have guessed that anyone would have preserved it as movie memorabilia, but now that I think about it, I believe most spankos would rather own this shovel than Judy Garland's ruby slippers from The Wizard of Oz or the sled from Citizen Kane . It does testify as to just how memorable most spanking scenes are; they tend to be the most-remembered moments in the plays and films in which they appear. (Which do you remember better from the move version of Kiss Me Kate: the dance scene with Bob Fosse to the music of "From this Moment On" or the spanking scene?)
The collectible cards are most interesting also. Such cards were occasionally put out - I remember a set from Planet of the Apes which I believe was put out by Topps bubble gum (I bought a couple of packages back in 1968 or 69) - but I didn't know about the ones from McLintock!. Naturally the spankings had to be included! I separated those two out and have reproduced them below:
The caption reads, "A Good Spanking"
This caption is hard to read, and I can't help seeing it as "One Sore Butt!" but I don't think that's correct .
-- Web-Ed
- overbarrel49
- Posts: 3149
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:51 am
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Hi Phil,
I really like the display with the coal shovel and the photo of the spanking. I agree with web-ed about most of us wanting this more than the ruby slippers . I would love to have this hanging on a wall in my house Of course, my wife might have other ideas . The cards are an interesting find too. I had no idea either the display or the cards existed. Thanks for sharing these with us . Phil O
I really like the display with the coal shovel and the photo of the spanking. I agree with web-ed about most of us wanting this more than the ruby slippers . I would love to have this hanging on a wall in my house Of course, my wife might have other ideas . The cards are an interesting find too. I had no idea either the display or the cards existed. Thanks for sharing these with us . Phil O
- daneldorado
- Posts: 455
- Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:03 pm
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Of course I am glad (sort of) that someone posted that comic strip depicting the main spanking scene from "McLintock!" (1963). But in my humble opinion, the drawings do not do the scene justice; maybe just the opposite.
Consider: In the original film, Katie McLintock gets her very public spanking while clad only in her underwear, and this is one of the scene's most attractive attributes. In the comic strip, Katie is wearing a full-length dress or nightie. The tantalizing frisson of the movie version is completely missing here.
Also, please note that at no time, in any of the comic's panels, do we get to see the "frying pan" and its eventual target (Katie's butt) together in the same panel. What in the hell was going on in the artist's mind? You would think that a panel depicting "contact" would be one of the most important parts of the comic strip... and yet, he left it out; probably by design. Oh, and a frying pan is surely too big for this task. The small coal shovel used in the spankings in the movie is actually a little too large also, but we accept it because it's all we've got.
There is absolutely NOTHING "sexy" about the spanking shown in the comic panels. But those of us who saw the scene in the film itself were thrilled by the action on screen. I was young the first time I saw it, and I could not think of that scene without developing a boner for at least a week afterwards.
I wonder, WHY did the artist produce such a wimpy version of this originally very sexy scene? Was he (or she) under orders to "tone it down?" I don't get it.
But thanks for posting it.
Cheers,
Dan
Consider: In the original film, Katie McLintock gets her very public spanking while clad only in her underwear, and this is one of the scene's most attractive attributes. In the comic strip, Katie is wearing a full-length dress or nightie. The tantalizing frisson of the movie version is completely missing here.
Also, please note that at no time, in any of the comic's panels, do we get to see the "frying pan" and its eventual target (Katie's butt) together in the same panel. What in the hell was going on in the artist's mind? You would think that a panel depicting "contact" would be one of the most important parts of the comic strip... and yet, he left it out; probably by design. Oh, and a frying pan is surely too big for this task. The small coal shovel used in the spankings in the movie is actually a little too large also, but we accept it because it's all we've got.
There is absolutely NOTHING "sexy" about the spanking shown in the comic panels. But those of us who saw the scene in the film itself were thrilled by the action on screen. I was young the first time I saw it, and I could not think of that scene without developing a boner for at least a week afterwards.
I wonder, WHY did the artist produce such a wimpy version of this originally very sexy scene? Was he (or she) under orders to "tone it down?" I don't get it.
But thanks for posting it.
Cheers,
Dan
-
- Posts: 7211
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:57 pm
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
I think that was exactly it. Remember, this was during the "comics code" era, and I'm sure the artist was under tremendous pressure to "tone it down". Plus, I think they selected an artist that may not have been one of their best. The characters don't look like the actors, the way they would've if Mort Drucker of MAD had drawn them.daneldorado wrote:There is absolutely NOTHING "sexy" about the spanking shown in the comic panels. But those of us who saw the scene in the film itself were thrilled by the action on screen. I was young the first time I saw it, and I could not think of that scene without developing a boner for at least a week afterwards.
I wonder, WHY did the artist produce such a wimpy version of this originally very sexy scene? Was he (or she) under orders to "tone it down?" I don't get it.
It has long been my contention that the scene in the movie would've been even sexier than it already was if it had not been for that stupid shovel... but that was probably the very reason they put it in there... to appease some censor. I can imagine there being negotiations between the writer and the censor. "Alright then... How's this? We get to keep the spanking... we get to keep Maureen in her skivvies... but the Duke's hand won't come in contact with her backside! We'll use something ridiculous... something to keep it all slapstick... like a... fireplace shovel! Will that work?"
-
- Posts: 7211
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:57 pm
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Great find!Sweetspot wrote:This is an item I found on eBay but did not purchase. It appears to be a complete set of collectible cards telling the story of McLintock! in still photography. Each card is listed as being one of 45 although the actual number of cards turns out to be well over 50. This was a collectible tie-in to the movie and features an image of both of the spankings.
I'd like to know if they had some useful information on the backs.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3345
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
- Contact:
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
I appreciate everyone's comments on the McLintock! comic update. There was general agreement about certain things, and dissatisfaction with the way the artist rendered the scene. Why did he do it that way?
One seemingly probable reason is indeed the Comics Code, as B00m mentioned: 1964 was in what I call the "dead zone" of 1956-1965, in which only a few non-parental, non-robot M/F spankings appeared because the "Code Ladies" didn't like them. I'll mention this again during February, but none of the four romance comic spankings I've located this past year came from the Dead Zone but were all pre-1956. There's only one problem with this theory: like their business partner Dell Comics, Gold Key/Whitman never displayed the code seal on their books, from which we can deduce they never submitted them for Code approval! (Take a look at the cover of McLintock! - no Code seal). They were one of the few publishers who managed to get their books distributed without having to go through the Code.
No seal of the CCA here!
How they got away with it is an interesting question. Perhaps the parent company, Dell, had enough clout with the distributors to force them to carry the books anyway, or perhaps the distributors were satisfied that the licensors (the companies who owned the source material on which the comics were based) wouldn't allow anything allegedly harmful to children, although I find this latter theory rather tenuous.
So if it wasn't the code, and it wasn't the licensor (a guess on my part - would John Wayne's production company have insisted on watering down the spanking? I don't think so), we come back to the writer, who may have tried to tone things down for his own reasons, and and the artist, whom I believe to have been Mike Sekowsky.
I never liked Sekowsky's art much, although he was fairly well-regarded among his peers from what I can tell. I thought he was o.k. with humor because his work was so strange anatomically, but it was never sexy, so his drawings of Dumb Bunny (in The Inferior Five), Wonder Woman (various titles) and Supergirl (in Adventure Comics) always disappointed me. I suppose I should produce some examples here for everyone to look at, but perhaps there's really no point: Sekowsky was definitely not a "Good Girl" artist, and if you wanted a sexy spanking scene he was certainly not the first guy to come to mind.
One seemingly probable reason is indeed the Comics Code, as B00m mentioned: 1964 was in what I call the "dead zone" of 1956-1965, in which only a few non-parental, non-robot M/F spankings appeared because the "Code Ladies" didn't like them. I'll mention this again during February, but none of the four romance comic spankings I've located this past year came from the Dead Zone but were all pre-1956. There's only one problem with this theory: like their business partner Dell Comics, Gold Key/Whitman never displayed the code seal on their books, from which we can deduce they never submitted them for Code approval! (Take a look at the cover of McLintock! - no Code seal). They were one of the few publishers who managed to get their books distributed without having to go through the Code.
No seal of the CCA here!
How they got away with it is an interesting question. Perhaps the parent company, Dell, had enough clout with the distributors to force them to carry the books anyway, or perhaps the distributors were satisfied that the licensors (the companies who owned the source material on which the comics were based) wouldn't allow anything allegedly harmful to children, although I find this latter theory rather tenuous.
So if it wasn't the code, and it wasn't the licensor (a guess on my part - would John Wayne's production company have insisted on watering down the spanking? I don't think so), we come back to the writer, who may have tried to tone things down for his own reasons, and and the artist, whom I believe to have been Mike Sekowsky.
I never liked Sekowsky's art much, although he was fairly well-regarded among his peers from what I can tell. I thought he was o.k. with humor because his work was so strange anatomically, but it was never sexy, so his drawings of Dumb Bunny (in The Inferior Five), Wonder Woman (various titles) and Supergirl (in Adventure Comics) always disappointed me. I suppose I should produce some examples here for everyone to look at, but perhaps there's really no point: Sekowsky was definitely not a "Good Girl" artist, and if you wanted a sexy spanking scene he was certainly not the first guy to come to mind.
-- Web-Ed
- overbarrel49
- Posts: 3149
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:51 am
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Hi web-ed,
Interesting speculation. You've spent a long time studying these things so I always enjoy your musings about such things. Even when you don't have all the information you need to be certain, you can certainly make a web-ed-ucated guess . Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this . Phil O
Interesting speculation. You've spent a long time studying these things so I always enjoy your musings about such things. Even when you don't have all the information you need to be certain, you can certainly make a web-ed-ucated guess . Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this . Phil O
-
- Posts: 2135
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:12 am
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
If the movie was remade would Katy be wearing anything?
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3345
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
- Contact:
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
If you were the producer, Phil the director, and me the writer, probably not!willjohn wrote:If the movie was remade would Katy be wearing anything?
-- Web-Ed
-
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 7:22 pm
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
OUCH!!! that coal Shovel landing on bare bottom
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3345
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
- Contact:
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
OUCH!! indeed, Butch - heh hehbutch wrote:OUCH!!! that coal Shovel landing on bare bottom
-- Web-Ed
-
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:49 pm
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Whoever mounted that display really had an appreciation for its ultimate purpose. Notice how the word spanking is prominently used in the synopsis. Notice too that the shovel is mounted with its back to the viewer. Normally an item like this would be shown scoop-side forward. But someone knew which side of the shovel was of particular interest to the public.
Phil S.
Phil S.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3345
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
- Contact:
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Here's another version of the movie poster B00m used to start this thread back in 2013. This one was provided to me by Lucas (thanks, Lucas!) and, interestingly enough, has some "stinging effect" lines radiating from the affected area of Maureen O'Hara's anatomy not seen in B00m's version. It has languished in my mailbox for three years and I just got to it today.
-- Web-Ed
-
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 7:22 pm
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Great find only thing the poster gave away the most exciting part of the movie don`t know why back in the olden days movies with spanking always feature the spanking on their posters it like going to see a who done it and they show the killer on the poster
-
- Posts: 7211
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:57 pm
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
Great find, Web-ed! I like the "rays" that some artist added to the picture"
McLintock! was a movie that "spoilers" couldn't spoil. A week before it was released, the promotional campaign featured posters, newspaper ads, TV commercials, and theatrical trailers that all featured tantalizing images of Maureen O'Hara getting spanked on the seat of her pantaloons. No chance of a surprise finale... but not every film needs a surprise. This one didn't
Instead of "spoiling" it, the knowledge of what was going to eventually happen to Katherine helped to build anticipation for the moment when she would finally get her "comeuppance". I remember the first time I ever saw McLintock! Every spiteful thing she said or did throughout the movie, was just one more thing I knew she'd have to answer for in the end.
Now Psycho is a different story. Somebody told me the ending before I saw it. I have always resented that!
McLintock! was a movie that "spoilers" couldn't spoil. A week before it was released, the promotional campaign featured posters, newspaper ads, TV commercials, and theatrical trailers that all featured tantalizing images of Maureen O'Hara getting spanked on the seat of her pantaloons. No chance of a surprise finale... but not every film needs a surprise. This one didn't
Instead of "spoiling" it, the knowledge of what was going to eventually happen to Katherine helped to build anticipation for the moment when she would finally get her "comeuppance". I remember the first time I ever saw McLintock! Every spiteful thing she said or did throughout the movie, was just one more thing I knew she'd have to answer for in the end.
Now Psycho is a different story. Somebody told me the ending before I saw it. I have always resented that!
-
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:07 am
Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary
To address the hypothetical remake issue, maybe have Kate in undergarments women would have worn in 1963 A panty girdle perhaps, and I believe bikini panties were around then. Or pantyhose(the shovel would have rendered a pair of them seatless).
Or a 1963 swimsuit perhaps. Of course if someone really wanted to update- a thong; or nothing at all..
Or a 1963 swimsuit perhaps. Of course if someone really wanted to update- a thong; or nothing at all..