|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 20, 2015 18:58:23 GMT -5
I believe #17 is as far as I've ever read of the original X-Men run by Lee and Kirby. I think it's Kirby's last issue, correct? I remember skipping ahead and reading the Roy Thomas and Neal Adams issues, then going straight to Giant-Sized #1 and X-Men #94. From that point I read every Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne issue and stopped at Paul Smith's last issue. I know that early X-Men is spotty in the 60's, but I'm looking forward to covering what I missed in my review thread. I get the feeling that I've underrated the early X-Men stories a bit.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 20, 2015 20:26:09 GMT -5
Yes, it's the last one that has Kirby doing layouts... I suspect the cool layout elements were his (since it's a bit similar to the Juggernaut attack a few issues before)
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 21, 2015 4:00:38 GMT -5
The Toth issue is what kills me. Why couldn't have done the pencils AND the inks?! What could have been...
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 21, 2015 7:47:12 GMT -5
X-Men #17 was the first issue of the title I ever owned. Still have that copy, bought used in '67.
Cei-U! I summon the flashback!
|
|
|
Post by paulie on Jul 21, 2015 11:35:27 GMT -5
I believe #17 is as far as I've ever read of the original X-Men run by Lee and Kirby. I think it's Kirby's last issue, correct? I remember skipping ahead and reading the Roy Thomas and Neal Adams issues, then going straight to Giant-Sized #1 and X-Men #94. From that point I read every Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne issue and stopped at Paul Smith's last issue. I know that early X-Men is spotty in the 60's, but I'm looking forward to covering what I missed in my review thread. I get the feeling that I've underrated the early X-Men stories a bit. Spotty is an understatement. #20-55, even with those two Steranko issues and Dan Adkins doing his best Wally Wood impression, are painful.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 21, 2015 12:02:39 GMT -5
Yup. Even though I generally like the work of Thomas, Drake, Roth, Heck, Tuska, Smith and Steranko, none of them were doing their best work (well, maybe Roth) in that long stretch between Lee/Kirby and Thomas/Adams. I blame the characters. The concept was always sound but the original five were bland, vanilla ciphers, a Kirby kid gang brought up in the suburbs instead of the slums. The X-Men was never going to be a bestseller until they either jazzed them up (blue furry Beast, Phoenix) or brought in more colorful personalities (Havok and Polaris were on the fast track to full membership when the book was cancelled, plus Banshee and Sunfire were created by Roy with an eye to eventually making them X-Men). I never felt the series clicked until Giant-Size #1.
Cei-U! I summon the mutant madness!
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 21, 2015 12:15:35 GMT -5
One thing that doing this thread has brought to my attention is the X-Men really weren't very good at superheroing. There are constant issues with their powers not being up to task, and they lose...alot. I think that's why the Brotherhood is so interesting, they're actually successful .
|
|
|
Post by paulie on Jul 21, 2015 12:21:17 GMT -5
Yup. Even though I generally like the work of Thomas, Drake, Roth, Heck, Tuska, Smith and Steranko, none of them were doing their best work (well, maybe Roth) in that long stretch between Lee/Kirby and Thomas/Adams. I blame the characters. The concept was always sound but the original five were bland, vanilla ciphers, a Kirby kid gang brought up in the suburbs instead of the slums. The X-Men was never going to be a bestseller until they either jazzed them up (blue furry Beast, Phoenix) or brought in more colorful personalities (Havok and Polaris were on the fast track to full membership when the book was cancelled, plus Banshee and Sunfire were created by Roy with an eye to eventually making them X-Men). I never felt the series clicked until Giant-Size #1. Cei-U! I summon the mutant madness! Well said. Totally agree. #56-66 are compelling reads and it seemed like the series was on the cusp of something... We ended up waiting 5 years for it to happen mind you...
|
|
|
Post by paulie on Jul 21, 2015 12:25:59 GMT -5
Yes, it's the last one that has Kirby doing layouts... I suspect the cool layout elements were his (since it's a bit similar to the Juggernaut attack a few issues before) There are quite a few full panels by Kirby in this issue and at least two splash pages. I wonder if he went back over Werner's work or if Kirby just ended up completing a lot of the panels out of sheer inertia? With a February cover date it is certainly reasonable to assume the King may have done a little more heavy lifting during the start of the holiday season.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 21, 2015 19:34:50 GMT -5
Yup. Even though I generally like the work of Thomas, Drake, Roth, Heck, Tuska, Smith and Steranko, none of them were doing their best work (well, maybe Roth) in that long stretch between Lee/Kirby and Thomas/Adams. I blame the characters. The concept was always sound but the original five were bland, vanilla ciphers, a Kirby kid gang brought up in the suburbs instead of the slums. The X-Men was never going to be a bestseller until they either jazzed them up (blue furry Beast, Phoenix) or brought in more colorful personalities (Havok and Polaris were on the fast track to full membership when the book was cancelled, plus Banshee and Sunfire were created by Roy with an eye to eventually making them X-Men). I never felt the series clicked until Giant-Size #1. Cei-U! I summon the mutant madness! Some pretty good villains and antagonists, though - the Juggernaut, the Stranger, Magneto (always a good visual design even before Claremont added a little moral ambiguity), .... even the rest of the Brotherhood were more interesting than the X-Men themselves, for the most part. And Professor X was always a good concept - no surprise he was one of the main hold-overs from the originals to the new Wein/Claremont X-Men.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 21, 2015 19:45:23 GMT -5
Yup. Even though I generally like the work of Thomas, Drake, Roth, Heck, Tuska, Smith and Steranko, none of them were doing their best work (well, maybe Roth) in that long stretch between Lee/Kirby and Thomas/Adams. I blame the characters. The concept was always sound but the original five were bland, vanilla ciphers, a Kirby kid gang brought up in the suburbs instead of the slums. The X-Men was never going to be a bestseller until they either jazzed them up (blue furry Beast, Phoenix) or brought in more colorful personalities (Havok and Polaris were on the fast track to full membership when the book was cancelled, plus Banshee and Sunfire were created by Roy with an eye to eventually making them X-Men). I never felt the series clicked until Giant-Size #1. Cei-U! I summon the mutant madness! I agree about the original X-Men being somewhat bland. For me, the X-Men became the X-Men when Storm, Nightcrawler, Colossus and Wolverine joined the team. Those (along with Cyclops and Kitty Pryde) are my X-Men. Beyond the fact that I think they were more interesting characters, I liked the international flavor they brought to the mix. Beast certainly became a truly great character later on, and as you said, Phoenix made Jean a fascinating character as well. Cyclops actually benefited from the presence of Wolverine, in my humble opinion. I think having a anti-hero so diametrically opposed to his straight-laced persona helped him develop.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 21, 2015 22:12:38 GMT -5
I pretty much agree with that... Iceman and Angel have never really been interesting... and Cyclops works alot better with characters like Wolverine (and later Gambit) to play off of.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 22, 2015 0:53:29 GMT -5
Yeah, I was going to mention that Iceman and Angel were the two characters from the original cast that I cared about the least. Cyclops was interesting because he was so uptight and standoffish, and of course pining to show his affections to Jean. Hank was funny AND brainy, a rare combination. Bobby and Warren were more or less generic, well adjusted, white teens without much for a reader to latch on to.
|
|
|
Post by paulie on Jul 22, 2015 9:52:18 GMT -5
Yeah, I was going to mention that Iceman and Angel were the two characters from the original cast that I cared about the least. Cyclops was interesting because he was so uptight and standoffish, and of course pining to show his affections to Jean. Hank was funny AND brainy, a rare combination. Bobby and Warren were more or less generic, well adjusted, white teens without much for a reader to latch on to. Scott was probably the most interesting character from the get-go. With the exception of #8, I can't recall Hank getting too many 'moments'. I could go on but it would be beating a dead horse.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 22, 2015 12:01:03 GMT -5
Hank really gets more interesting later... at first he's not very interesting, other than the fact that he talks alot. It's not until he's Blue and Furry that he really blossoms, IMO.
|
|