McLintock! 60th anniversary

Movies, Television, and Video, excepting Animation
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.
web-ed
Site Admin
Posts: 3341
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Contact:

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by web-ed »

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
Sweetspot
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:49 pm

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by Sweetspot »

McLintockpaperbackcover.jpg
McLintockpaperbackcover.jpg (25.72 KiB) Viewed 6554 times
This is the cover of the 1964 tie-in paperback book of the movie McLintock. I believe that the book was based on an earlier draft of James Edward Grant's screenplay. The first spanking that takes place in both book and movie is between Stephanie Powers and Patrick Wayne (with an assist from John Wayne). In the movie the implement used for the spanking is a blacksmith (coal) shovel. In the book Becky is spanked with the chess board!. This reminds me of the old joke: Mrs. - "My husband loves ping-pong and last night he spanked me with one of his ping-pong paddles." Her friend - "You need to get him to take up a new hobby, I suggest checkers."
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.
Sweetspot
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:49 pm

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by Sweetspot »

McLintock!-cf.collectorsweekly.com-stories.jpg
McLintock!-cf.collectorsweekly.com-stories.jpg (369.11 KiB) Viewed 6554 times
Could this possibly be the real-deal!!! As far as I can tell, as of four months ago, this famous "Blacksmith Shovel" was located in a shop in Princeton, NJ. cf.collectorsweekly.com-stories. It bears a strong resemblance to the shovel in the photo. It seems to be in pristine condition. The reflection on the glass case seems to indicate that there is a spotlight being used to illuminate the display. I wonder how much this would sell for? Can you imagine bringing this to a spanking party? There's not a female bottom (spanko) in the states that wouldn't want to be spanked with this iconic shovel and receive the famous 11 whacks just like Maureen did. I wonder if it was an actual shovel or a movie prop fabricated in 1963? Seen this way it doesn't look quite as formidable as it does in the movie, more akin to the back of a hard hairbrush or perhaps a paddle.
Phil S.
Last edited by Sweetspot on Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sweetspot
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:49 pm

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by Sweetspot »

s-l1600_LI.jpg
s-l1600_LI.jpg (3.28 MiB) Viewed 6551 times
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 don't know if there is further information on the back of the cards - you know like stats on the back of a baseball trading card - but I find the photos to be very interesting. In particular look at the photos that show the prelude to the famous fight in the mud hole between settlers, ranchers and anyone else interested in brawling and general mayhem. The young woman on the horse with "young Ben Sage" (Edward Faulkner) is Millie Jones played by Kari Noven, it's her father who is about to have a confrontation with G.W. McLintock. Jones (no first name known) is played by popular character actor Leo Gordon. What brings G.W. and his "staff" to the scene is that a general alarm has gone out that the settlers, lead by Jones, are about to lynch Running Buffalo (John Stanley). Jones believes that Running Buffalo is somehow to blame for the fact that his daughter has gone missing. Right on cue, Millie and young Ben show up giving the lame excuse that while on a little sightseeing excursion their horse threw a shoe (the 1800s equivalent of "we had a flat tire"). Running Buffalo is off the hook, so to speak. Here's the important part - Jones tells Millie to get off the horse and heads her towards home informing her, "I'LL TEND TO YOU LATER" That can only mean one thing in the late 1800s and only one thing to anyone reading this rant - Millie is going to get a spanking! Before he spanks her though, Jones will have a lot of cleaning up to do because G.W. has not taken kindly to the fact that Jones has pointed and poked a rifle at his belly. Punches are thrown and eventually most of the cast ends up at the bottom of the mud hole. Jones takes his anger out on young Ben with a thunderous punch to his jaw - Millie will be experiencing thunderous blows of a different kind soon enough. As Running Buffalo proclaims it's a "great party but no whiskey we go home" A good time is had by all even, seemingly, by Katherine who suffers the first of many indignities. I consider Millie Jones to receive the third but alas the "missing spanking" of the movie McLintock! I have always thought a short story would be a good way to tell the story of the lost spanking of McLintock!
Phil S.
Last edited by Sweetspot on Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
web-ed
Site Admin
Posts: 3341
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Contact:

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by web-ed »

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 :lol: . 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:

Image
The caption reads, "A Good Spanking"

Image
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 :D .
-- Web-Ed
User avatar
overbarrel49
Posts: 3149
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:51 am

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by overbarrel49 »

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 :lol: . I would love to have this hanging on a wall in my house :D Of course, my wife might have other ideas :lol: . The cards are an interesting find too. I had no idea either the display or the cards existed. Thanks for sharing these with us :D . Phil O
User avatar
daneldorado
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by daneldorado »

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
hugob00m
Posts: 7209
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by hugob00m »

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.
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.

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?"
hugob00m
Posts: 7209
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by hugob00m »

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.
Great find!

I'd like to know if they had some useful information on the backs.
web-ed
Site Admin
Posts: 3341
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Contact:

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by web-ed »

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.

Image
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
User avatar
overbarrel49
Posts: 3149
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:51 am

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by overbarrel49 »

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 :D . Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this :D . Phil O
willjohn
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:12 am

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by willjohn »

If the movie was remade would Katy be wearing anything?
web-ed
Site Admin
Posts: 3341
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Contact:

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by web-ed »

willjohn wrote:If the movie was remade would Katy be wearing anything?
If you were the producer, Phil the director, and me the writer, probably not! :lol:
-- Web-Ed
butch46163@yahoo.com
Posts: 1439
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 7:22 pm

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by butch46163@yahoo.com »

OUCH!!! that coal Shovel landing on bare bottom :shock:
web-ed
Site Admin
Posts: 3341
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Contact:

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by web-ed »

butch wrote:OUCH!!! that coal Shovel landing on bare bottom
OUCH!! indeed, Butch - heh heh :twisted:
-- Web-Ed
Sweetspot
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:49 pm

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by Sweetspot »

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.
web-ed
Site Admin
Posts: 3341
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Contact:

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by web-ed »

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. :roll:

Image
-- Web-Ed
butch46163@yahoo.com
Posts: 1439
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 7:22 pm

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by butch46163@yahoo.com »

Great find 8-) 8-) 8-) only thing the poster gave away the most exciting part of the movie :x 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 :shock: :x :x
hugob00m
Posts: 7209
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by hugob00m »

Great find, Web-ed! I like the "rays" that some artist added to the picture" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

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!
Tanner
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:07 am

Re: McLintock! 60th anniversary

Post by Tanner »

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..
Post Reply