shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,427
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 1, 2015 12:33:16 GMT -5
We've had many conversation here discussing whether or not Stan Lee deserves all of the credit and attention he receives, but those arguing against tend to champion Jack Kirby and, to a lesser extent, Steve Ditko, as the persons to whom Stan owed much of his success.
But what about Roy Thomas?
Most of the reason Stan is a legend today is because his characters and creations survived and thrive to this day, but who deserves credit for that? It seems to me that Roy Thomas was the one who not only succeeded Stan as both a writer and editor, keeping things running at Marvel but, more importantly, oversaw the transition of his creations into a more Bronze Age approach to storytelling, filled with denser continuity, starker internal characterization, and larger overall scope in and across titles.
Thomas may not have created anything on the level of Lee, but without his involvement, I'm not sure Lee's creations would still be around and have the potency that they enjoy today.
Now, granted, I am NOT a Marvel expert. I grew up on DC and never paid much attention to Marvel beyond the X-men until recently, so I'm willing to be convinced I'm dead wrong on this one, but it seems to me that Thomas deserves some of the rock star status Lee currently enjoys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2015 12:39:58 GMT -5
I like Roy's work (well most of it), but crediting him for Marvel's success feels a little off to me. The best analogy I can come up with is this-pick a great rock band, one of the original members leaves and is replaced. The band goes on...touring making new music, etc. Then all the other originals leave and only the first replacement is left, but he gets more replacements, still uses the classic rock band's name and plays their songs-is he responsible for the greatness of the original band? He's carrying on the name, maybe the legacy, but is he responsible for it? Would the original body of work be less if he hadn't?
So yes, credit to Roy for his contributions, and he has done very good stuff, but he's a flag bearer not a foundation piece, at least when it comes to making super-hero comics. If you want to talk about his contributions to comic scholarship and fandom, then no he probably doesn't get enough credit for that.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 1, 2015 12:49:29 GMT -5
I agree, although I wouldn't put Roy on the level of Stan. He expanded Marvel's line in interesting new directions, brought in two licensed properties that often outsold Marvel properties in Conan and Star Wars, and had the stomach to subvert the Comics Code with a b&w line. If nothing else, Roy's acquisition of the Star Warslicense is credited with saving Marvel at a moment of extreme financial difficulty. He was often an incredible writer, especially on Conan, and while the industry was still in more of a "who you know" mode during his tenure, he did have a good eye for talent.
However, he never sold himself like Stan, and as a result, I don't think he's ever been as intrinsically linked with Marvel as Stan is. Also, the '70s were seen as an era of decline for Marvel after the industry-changing success of the '60s, although I'd argue that the books were every bit as good and certain books were just as ground-breaking. The negative aspect to Roy's influence is that he pretty much championed a continuity first approach to comics, which over time has lead to some very cranky fans and creators adverse to any change to their favorite characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 1, 2015 12:55:01 GMT -5
I would agree with you, both on the importance of Roy's contribution and on his not getting enough credit for it.
Roy had a great quality for the time: he took comics seriously. Seriously, but not fanatically. He might have been a fan, but didn't treat comics the way a stereotypical fanboy would; he handled continuity as a historian, not as a zealot. When he edited books, continuity was an added bonus, a way to enhance stories; it wasn't a hindrance the way it's become since. And continuity,like it or not, was a big part of what made the Marvel universe unique in the 60s.
He also had an eye for interesting new concepts. He brought a lot of diversity to the Marvel line, either directly or indirectly.
I think he understood better than many others what made the early Marvel universe click, and used that understanding to make it even better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 1, 2015 13:34:13 GMT -5
That's a good point about Conan and the Horror books - He definitely took the Marvel line in interesting new directions genre-wise.
And he might have cemented the idea of continuity as a serious idea. Like it was pretty clear that Stan just thought of the shared universe thing as a marketing tool, but Roy actually cared about it. That's pretty important to how mainstream comics (and superhero movies!) are marketed and sold today.
|
|
|
|
Post by benday-dot on Nov 1, 2015 14:18:18 GMT -5
Roy was as admirable of an editor as he was a writer. I like the early 70's period at Marvel over which he presided as EIC. it was actually only about 3 years in which he held the post (1972-74), but it was a period of great creative freedom. Roy may have been the custodian of continuity, but within a generous framework he allowed Marvel's writers and artists a great deal of autonomy to do their own thing. Everything I've read of the players in Marvel's bullpen in that still young bronze age period is that they regarded it as a sort of halcyon age, or the last period of time in which making comics was still a lot of fun. A really liberal time. Those creating under Roy's editorship mostly speak highly and fondly of those days. After he stepped aside in 1974 things began to show the signs of future decay.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 1, 2015 15:08:04 GMT -5
I don't think it would be possible for Roy to get enough credit. I firmly believe he was the best thing to ever happen to Marvel. And come to think of it, his eighties work for DC amounted to some of the best material they ever put out IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2015 15:53:24 GMT -5
I love this thread. Not sure I have much to contribute, but Roy Thomas is, and always will be, one of my most favorite comic book writers in all of ever.
He is the reason Namor is one of my most favorite comic characters. It was HIS writing that originally made me fascinated with the character, and I went from there. Though, I DO adore Stan Lee's Namor. He's just slightly harsher a character (but hilarious as Hell) when Stan wrote him.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Nov 1, 2015 16:18:05 GMT -5
So yes, credit to Roy for his contributions, and he has done very good stuff, but he's a flag bearer not a foundation piece, at least when it comes to making super-hero comics."
I don't know about this one, Roy Thomas did a whole lot of the world building of the Marvel Universe. He was the guy that really tied a ton of the threads together and then in the early 70s he co-created a bunch of characters and started series for other writers to take over. This isn't even counting that Thomas having luck with the Conan licensing led to them getting Star Wars which by all accounts might have saved the company in the late 70s. I'd say as a writer, he's really second only to Stan Lee in importance in the history of the company. I definitely wouldn't say everything was great as like any of the comic book writers with a long box or two in their pen, some of them were great, some were ok and some were some deadline specials.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 1, 2015 17:52:02 GMT -5
So yes, credit to Roy for his contributions, and he has done very good stuff, but he's a flag bearer not a foundation piece, at least when it comes to making super-hero comics." I give him a higher status than that. He is the #2 writer of all time behind Stan in the pantheon of good writers in the MU history. There's also the fact that he carried the vision and passion that Stan Lee created on to the future . This is not to be minimized in any way because Marvell Comics could have gone out of business shortly after without him. That's what happened to Valiant. Shooter was the brains of the outfit and without him, It sank quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Nov 1, 2015 17:57:04 GMT -5
So yes, credit to Roy for his contributions, and he has done very good stuff, but he's a flag bearer not a foundation piece, at least when it comes to making super-hero comics. -M I probably should have used the quote function on my earlier post, fyi. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,614 
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 1, 2015 19:26:50 GMT -5
I agree with most of what's being said praising Roy in this thread. My own feeling is that he was a huge help in steering Marvel successfully from the Silver Age into the Bronze. I also love his love of continuity and comic book history: it never failed to enhance and improve the stuff he worked on. Also, he was basically entirely responsible for Marvel's original Star Wars series existing and he created Jaxxon, the green, 6' tall space-rabbit I have as my avatar, so he'll always be something of a comic book God to me personally.
So no, Roy doesn't get anywhere the respect or credit that he should do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 1, 2015 20:31:17 GMT -5
So yes, credit to Roy for his contributions, and he has done very good stuff, but he's a flag bearer not a foundation piece, at least when it comes to making super-hero comics." I give him a higher status than that. He is the #2 writer of all time behind Stan in the pantheon of good writers in the MU history. There's also the fact that he carried the vision and passion that Stan Lee created on to the future . This is not to be minimized in any way because Marvell Comics could have gone out of business shortly after without him. That's what happened to Valiant. Shooter was the brains of the outfit and without him, It sank quickly. Yeah, I think Roy and Archie Goodwin would be the only possible internal hires who could take over the Editor In Chief Spot and keep Marvel afloat. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 1, 2015 20:33:51 GMT -5
I think one of the reasons that Roy is slightly under-rated is that he (purposefully) didn't CREATE a lot of characters for Marvel or DC. He preferred to revamp Golden Age characters, like the Vision - He didn't want to give up the rights to his best ideas!
And he never really did too much independent/creator owned work. So it's entirely possible we never saw a lot of his best stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2015 21:27:09 GMT -5
I think one of the reasons that Roy is slightly under-rated is that he (purposefully) didn't CREATE a lot of characters for Marvel or DC. He preferred to revamp Golden Age characters, like the Vision - He didn't want to give up the rights to his best ideas! And he never really did too much independent/creator owned work. So it's entirely possible we never saw a lot of his best stuff. So he was a really good cover band essentially riffing on the works of others and doing extended jam versions of their stuff.  That's my point, he was a caretaker not really a builder when it came to his writing contributions-even the stuff he "added" to Marvel that everyone praises i.e. Conan and Star Wars were building off the creations of others, putting on a fresh coat of paint and making it "Marvel" but what defines Marvel comes from Steve and Jack and Stan and the guys laying the foundations. He did an excellent job of building on what they did, redecorating it, adding accessories to it, making it all neat and presentable, but at the core of all he did were the blueprints and foundations of Lee, Kirby, Ditko (and when you get to DC, Gardner Fox). Most of the original stuff he did add (like Arak at DC) hasn't resonated and survived like the stuff from Fox, Lee, Kirby, Ditko, et. al. Maybe it wasn't his best stuff because he didn't innovate like Stan, Jack and Steve, but that's the freaking point-they did and deserve all the credit they get, Roy managed and polished, and refined, but he didn't innovate and lay the foundations for what his grown and thrived, which is why he doesn't get mentioned in the same breath with them. Roy's done a lot of great stuff, some of it very important, but not in the scope, scale and legacy of what Kirby and Ditko did with Stan. -M |
|
