Moonstone Forums

After reading the entire discussion, including Mike Bullock's explanation, I'm still of the opinion that tigers have no place in the jungles of Africa. If they were pets or imported and explained as such, I would buy into the premise but it wasn't developed at all so it's simply too big a leap for me. Here's hoping we don't see Henry from Amazing Animals dropping by in the near future LOL.

It's not my explanation, it's Mr. Falk's explanation. He put tigers in Bangalla just the same as Stan Lee put radioactive spiders in Manhattan. While neither might seem plausible, both are part of the mythos they inhabit and as such, can't merely be swept under the rug because a reader perceives them as out of place.

Towards the end of his life, Mr. Falk really wanted to ramp up The Phantom's ability to interact with animals otherwise considered as wild creatures. This story gives a nod to that wish from a man who gave so many nods to those of us who wanted great entertainment.

I'm not opposed to tigers at all. But here's a couple of things to consider, Mike et al. First off, you speak of Falk and the Edgmont timeline as elements everyone who has read The Phantom is familiar with. But Moonstone's Phantom is 12 issues old and I recall nothing in that run about shipwrecked tigers etc. So hopefully you see my point. Sure, I'll buy into The Phantom into talking to animals because he's a fictional character and can be anything our imaginations wish him to be. But simply parachuting tigers into the African jungle without explanation, when we know, in reality, that they exist elsewhere is a leap. My first question when I saw them was, where did they come from? Had you explained it, I would have said 'Ok, tigers prowl in Phantom's Africa. Cool.' Instead, I was puzzled and wondering if you had done your homework because it stood out as much as the wrongly colored shirts of the thugs. As for Stan Lee - you brought him up, not me - he didn't put radioactive spiders to Spider-Man. It was a common spider that accidently became radioactive in a science lab. I wasn't asking how it became radioactive because it was clearly explained and totally plausible. But the implausible "pride" of tigers inspired by the Discovery Channel show you watched was not explained at all, leaving me wondering how and why tigers were there in the first place. I commend you for wanting to pay homage to Falk. He was a genius like Stan. But keep in mind, as much as you want to draw from 70 years of comic books, for many of us, The Phantom is only 12 issues old. Regards and good luck!

Thanks for the well thought out response.

So, for the sake of discussion, let me make sure I get this straight.

1) You're perfectly fine accepting the fact that there's a guy in a purple bodysuit who rides a white horse and has a grey wolf as a pet, who lives in a cave shaped like a giant skull, running around in a fictional jungle in a fictional country dispensing justice.

However

2) When you read a radio broadcast on page one that states "Bangalla is well known for its rather large population of tigers", you're puzzled...

Thanks for illustrating where the story and your imagination diverge. It always fascinates me where exactly people draw the line on what they're willing to suspend disbelief for and where they aren't.

Funny story: After issue one of Lions, Tigers and Bears came out, I had a guy tell me that he loved the story, loved the concept, loved the characters and the whole idea of the Stuffed Animal Kingdom, but he couldn't get past the fact that the small stuffed animals could possibly fit in the box Jack Lawrence drew on page four. This bothered him so much that he said he wouldn't buy any future issues. (picture of said box: http://www.runemasterstudios.com/images/...ft_800.jpg )

So, he could suspend disbelief for stuffed animals coming to life, accept without reservation that stuffed animals come from another world where they're engaged in a war with closet monsters known as the Beasties, feel right at home reading about a little boy who finds himself propelled into that war, but drew the line at the fact that four toys could fit into a box.

On the one hand, yes there are no tigers in Africa. However, there is also no such African nation as Bangalla, no such person as The Phantom, no member of the UN is married to a costumed vigilante, there is no skull cave or band of pygmies called the Bandar and no wolf walking alongside said costumed fellow while he rides his white stallion. You can accept all that as fact, however, you draw the line at something as mundane as there being tigers in a jungle.

As for the 70 years, I'm sure there will be many who don't get all the references to established lore, but hopefully, once you've read some or all of the Falk tales, it'll make everything that much more rich.

I'd love to hear your take on other stories you've read where something like this takes you out of the tale, as I do find it fascinating dissecting what some people discern as a "deal breaker" when it comes to suspension of disbelief. I once knew a guy who wouldn't watch Star Wars because of the sound effects in the space ship battles. "There's no sound in space, that's stupid!" he would vehemently assert every time the subject came up. Yet, he loved the lightsabers, Jedi Knights, Sith lords, X-wings, TIE Fighters, Death Star etc...


On a side note: as for Egmont, neither I nor any other Moonstone writer, expects anyone to have any knowledge of their stories. I actually only own one Egmont story and merely have it because it's reprinted in a Frew Annual. Egmont has it's own continuity that pays no attention to anything other than Falk's tales. Just as Marvel, DC, Moonstone and everyone else who's created Phantom tales.