|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 21, 2020 0:00:05 GMT -5
No, with punches, in tried and true superhero comics fashion! Silent Knight was a medieval adventure, not a superhero tale. So; swords and lances, in true Walter Scott fashion.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 21, 2020 0:32:05 GMT -5
Side-note: I freaking love '50s Knight comics. Silent Knight, Maneely's Black Knight, that EC one I forget the name of... Probably my favorite short-lived mini-genre.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 21, 2020 1:17:43 GMT -5
"But did you ever read any gladiator comics Billy?" Sorry, couldn't resist. E.C.'s Valor was one of those 'New Direction' titles like Aces High and Piracy that didn't get to stay around long enough.
|
|
|
Post by nerdygirl905 on Feb 21, 2020 5:44:25 GMT -5
No, with punches, in tried and true superhero comics fashion! Silent Knight was a medieval adventure, not a superhero tale. So; swords and lances, in true Walter Scott fashion. And if he really needs to do it, he gets his secret identity. Cue confused Brian Kent, medieval dude in the 21th Century.
|
|
|
Post by nerdygirl905 on Feb 23, 2020 9:53:35 GMT -5
I don’t like how the new Dial H comics keep complicating the origin. I think they should just make it an alien weapon that landed on Earth and that’s all.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 23, 2020 18:49:11 GMT -5
Stan Lee’s writing when describing anything science-related is almost unbearable.
“This invisibility device turns light into energy... and everyone knows you can’t see energy”.
Wait... WHAT?
There! I said it.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 23, 2020 19:24:50 GMT -5
It was the 60’s when comics were written for 10 year olds.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 23, 2020 21:04:35 GMT -5
It was the 60’s when comics were written for 10 year olds. Now, you can't entirely blame it on the era. John Broome and Gardner Fox were writing to the same 10 year-olds and used more accurate science (not everything, obviously). I think you can point more to Stan's interests not laying in science. Kirby would push things to extremes; but, he had a lot of basic scientific underpinnings correct.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 23, 2020 21:17:38 GMT -5
It was the 60’s when comics were written for 10 year olds. Now, you can't entirely blame it on the era. John Broome and Gardner Fox were writing to the same 10 year-olds and used more accurate science (not everything, obviously). I think you can point more to Stan's interests not laying in science. Kirby would push things to extremes; but, he had a lot of basic scientific underpinnings correct. Right now is where I'm expecting Slam_Bradley to burst in and say it's all crap.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 23, 2020 21:41:22 GMT -5
I find Stan's terrible grasp of science to be hilarious. I get that he was trying to make Kirby's contraptions and Reed Richards procedures sound impressive, so you can't fault him from trying. He probably should have tried to get some of the basics down, but it can't be denied that a whole generation of scientists became interested in science, in part, because their imaginations were sparked by 60's Marvel comics. It's interesting that most of the early Marvel heroes were men of science: Bruce Banner, Peter Parker, Reed Richards, Hank Pym, Tony Stark, etc. Regardless of the technical accuracy, I've always thought that worldview was impressive and "progressive" in the positive sense of the word.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Feb 23, 2020 22:35:48 GMT -5
So, another reason to ignore the captions/speech/thought balloons and go by Kirby's illustrations alone when reading their Fantastic Four run?
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 23, 2020 22:55:56 GMT -5
it can't be denied that a whole generation of scientists became interested in science, in part, because their imaginations were sparked by 60's Marvel comics. Um... I am going to deny that I think. I've read or heard people cite Star Trek countless times, Dan Dare, Tom Swift... but I don't think I've ever heard '60s Marvel comics cited as an inspiration for an astronaut even. I'm not saying there are absolutely no such claims made by actual scientists or science writers or general spacefolk... but I can't recall running across any. The biggest gaffe is that Iron Man was "transistor powered" I think well into the '70s. Marvel was kind of the monster heroes company whereas the DC's scientist heroes were named things like Ray Palmer, an editor of a science-fiction magazine! Editor Julius Schwartz was an agent for various sf authors and DC had people like Edmond Hamilton, Virgil Finlay and Gardner Fox getting assignments. I haven't really read of people citing DC comics as inspirational that way either but I might believe it more if there was a claim Tommy Tomorrow or Adam Strange, or some device made by Batman in his cave, sparked some kind of interest. In all of comics the only certain example I can think of, and I actually had this comic, was a Donald Duck/Scrooge short circa 1949-50 (Walt Disney's Comics & Stories) where they raised a sunken ship by loading it with ping-pong balls. That story actually did inspire someone who later used the principle to raise an actual entire sunken wreck. About as scientific as The Fantastic Four got was the psuedo-sciencey anti-matter concept to have the negative zone, and I'm 99% sure this was a Jack Kirby contribution. Old hat in pulp sf like alternate realities and timelines, but something newish for superhero comics (and still around last I'd looked).
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 24, 2020 0:21:49 GMT -5
Science heroes go back to the pulps, but they were very big in the 50s and 60s, with the space race, martian invasion films, and the like. Far cry from today.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,597
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 24, 2020 2:58:38 GMT -5
Stan Lee’s writing when describing anything science-related is almost unbearable. “This invisibility device turns light into energy... and everyone knows you can’t see energy”. Wait... WHAT? There! I said it. Now, now...don't get all grumpy just because you don't understand all that complex scientific jargon.
|
|
|
Post by nerdygirl905 on Feb 24, 2020 6:25:19 GMT -5
Stan Lee’s writing when describing anything science-related is almost unbearable. “This invisibility device turns light into energy... and everyone knows you can’t see energy”. Wait... WHAT? There! I said it. “You can’t see energy”. Stan. Please, explain every instance of energy balls and shooting energy then.
|
|