|
|
Post by tarkintino on Apr 30, 2021 16:13:06 GMT -5
But I'm coming round to the idea of reading the Williamson Star Wars, in spite of my continuing preference that he'd worked on something else. That's an interesting statement. Not fan of SW or just Williamson working on the book? Wein (or perhaps with Williamson's input) changed Luke's TESB costume to that darker, khaki color from the film's version which was light gray/tan--  --even when the costume was dirty (thanks to Dagobah) as seen in the Carbon Freezing Chamber image, it was clearly never that khaki color, nor were the boots a solid, military and/or riding style...or white. With the boatload of photo references LFL provided Marvel/Williamson by that time in Marvel's involvement with the franchise, the costume inaccuracies should not have been a factor. |
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on May 1, 2021 10:32:45 GMT -5
Star Wars #47Cover dated: May 1981 Issue title: Droid World!Script: Archie Goodwin Artwork: Carmine Infantino (breakdowns)/Gene Day (finished art & inks) Colours: Glynis Wein Letters: Rick Parker Cover art: Frank Miller (pencils)/James Sherman (inks) Overall rating: 6½ out of 10  Plot summary: The Rebel Alliance has managed to capture a new model of Imperial warbot, which they intend to get a full schematic of, in order to develop effective counter attack strategies for future battles against the machines. However, during the process of making a holographic scan of the Imperial weapon, R2-D2 and C-3PO accidentally cause the warbot's insides to become damaged and fused beyond repair. Desperate to make amends for this, the two droids volunteer to travel to a near-mythical, droid populated space station known as Kligson's moon or Droid World to ask for the assistance of the master mechanic Kligson in repairing the warbot. Upon locating Droid World, Kligson agrees to repair the unit for the Rebels, but R2 and 3PO must accompany the machine to observe the operation, since Kligson insists on keeping the warbot for himself after it is repaired. However, another droid on Kligson's moon – an experimental Imperial droid trooper, designated Z-X3 – plans to use the Rebel's damaged machine to repair his own warbot and lead a revolt against Kligson, claiming Droid World for the Empire. Kligson, however, has anticipated this and, in fact, has only invited the Rebel droids onto Droid World in order to lure Z-X3 and his mutinous followers into the open. As Z-X3 attempts to take over Droid World, a tremendous battle ensues, with droid pitted against droid for control of the space station. Finally, forces loyal to Kiligson triumph and R2 and 3PO return to the Rebel Alliance with the schematics of the warbot, while Kligson moves his space station from its current orbit to a secret location where the Empire cannot trouble it. Comments: Star Wars #47 is a pretty tightly scripted, action-packed comic and, like other recent issues, is a done-in-one, stand alone adventure. This time, however, the storyline focuses in on the droids R2-D2 and C-3PO, rather than the usual trio of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia. I must say that it's a welcome change of pace to finally have an issue of Star Wars featuring the two droids as the heroes of their own adventure. On some level, the pair are arguably the two most important characters in the Star Wars films, but it feels as if they've been somewhat sidelined at times in this series. The issue opens in dramatic fashion, with a striking splash page by Carmine Infantino of R2 and 3PO being pursued by an armoured battle tank, crewed by droids loyal to the insurrectionary Imperial droid trooper Z-X3. This throws the reader directly into the action and it's not until the fourth page of the story that we get an explanation, in the form of a flashback, of how the droids ended up in this predicament. Star Wars #47 also sees the return of Gene Day on inks, which gives the artwork the look of the pre- Empire Strikes Back comics that Infantino worked on. On occasion, I've been quite negative about Infantino's artwork in this series, but he does an excellent job here of creating the Droid World environment, with its varied array of familiar and foreign droid types. This kind of "world building", for want of a better term, is something that Infantino excels at, as we saw in the earlier Doomworld and Wheel story arcs (in issues #11—15 and #18—23, respectively). Also, the design for the prototype Imperial droid trooper Z-X3 is kinda cool, in that his head looks reminiscent of an Imperial stormtrooper's helmet. Pity he's coloured a rather unthreatening shade of cerise though! Actually, the colouring here is a lot bolder than most of Glynis Wein's recent work, with the bright golds, reds, cerises, blues and greens that she assigns to the various different types of droid reminding me of the colouring in DC's old Metal Men comic. Something else I want to make mention of is the panel of Luke Skywalker on the penultimate page of this story, which looks uncannily like actor Mark Hamill. As we know, thanks to comics writer and historian Glenn Greenberg, the book's new editor, Louise Jones, was trying to make the comic more visually faithful to the movies and this is clearly a result of that. However, I wonder why only this single panel received this treatment, while the other, more Infantino-esque depictions of Luke from earlier in the issue were left as they were? I'd also like to know who inked this panel because it doesn't look like Day's work to me...  While I'm talking about the artwork, I feel as if I should probably make mention of the fact that the cover of this issue was pencilled by comics legend Frank Miller. It's really not one of my favourite covers from the series, to be honest, and it would also be Miller's one and only contribution to Marvel's Star Wars series, but I feel as if I should make note of it. As for Archie Goodwin's writing, this is a well scripted tale, with a rather interesting and unusual narrative structure. There's some nice use of in-series continuity too, with Goodwin having Z-X3 tell R2 and 3PO that he was designed by Tagge Industries (with the Tagge family having been major antagonists in the earlier, pre- Empire Strikes Back issues of the series). All in all though, I wouldn't say that this was one of Goodwin's best issues and I've always found it to be a little duller than was usual for the series. Maybe it's because the droids on their own aren't engaging enough characters to support a whole issue? I dunno, but I also feel as if Kligson himself wasn't really developed enough and, as a result, he comes across as rather two-dimensional. That's a shame, because Kligson is clearly no friend of the "organics" whose Clone Wars have left him with a cyborg body and yet he's fascinated by R2 and 3PO's friendship with their master. Goodwin had examined this type of unusual droid—organic relationship before, with Senator Greyshade and his droid assistant Master-Com, and in the thought-provoking Captain Valance stories. Here though, the potential to re-examine that subject is unfortunately squandered. Another slight grumble I have about Goodwin's plot is why are R2 and 3PO even needed in order to scan the Rebel Alliance's captured warbot? Couldn't any R2 unit have done a holographic scan of the machine? Why the hell did the Rebels specifically need Luke and his droids to do it? Yes, I know that it's just a plot device to get the droids involved in the storyline and that this is comics, where you're not really supposed to ask questions like that, but still, it bugs me. I find it interesting that Goodwin has Kligson describe himself as "more machine than man", which is coincidentally exactly how Obi-Wan Kenobi will later describe Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi. Moments like this in the Star Wars comic just go to show what an excellent grasp Goodwin had of writing in George Lucas's universe. As an aside, despite my personal misgivings about Goodwin's plot, this story was deemed strong enough to be adapted by Buena Vista Records (Rainbow Communications Ltd. in the UK) into a book-and-record set entitled Star Wars: The Further Adventures – Droid World in 1983...  These book-and-record sets were marketed at younger children, who could read along with the recordings to help improve their reading skills (R2-D2 even provides a helpful series of bleeps to indicate when it is time to turn the page). I had this set as a kid and I really enjoyed listening to it. As such, I probably have a nostalgic connection to the "Droid World!" story that makes me hold it in much higher regard than it really deserves, in all honesty. If you're interested, you can listen to the Star Wars: The Further Adventures – Droid World record on YouTube below... Continuity issues: None. Favourite panel:  Favourite quote: "Of course, you and Artoo have a knack for getting into trouble on your own. Still...what could happen to two droids on a world of droids?" – Luke Skywalker naively concludes that C-3PO and R2-D2 will be safe among their own kind on Droid World. I thought that this was a fun issue. I enjoyed it overall. The art was once again really good. Two excellent Infantino issues in a row! I’m also a big fan of the droids. To me personally, they can carry a story, and I think they did pretty well here. Threepio had some funny lines, and the Laurel and Hardy chemistry was there in this issue, giving it a bit of the feel from the movies. I do agree, Confessor, that Kligson was not a very well fleshed out character, and that of course hurts this story. I also feel like this droid revolt, and especially the final battle (which really only lasted one panel) were rushed. This really needed several more pages to develop more. I agree that the cover is not that great, but then again, I’m not a fan of Frank Miller’s art anyway. And oh, I would love to have that book-and-record set! Then again, I don’t have a record player. I used to have an Escape From the Planet of the Apes book-and-record set as a kid, though. The part about Luke and Artoo being needed to scan the war droid didn’t bother me at all. Artoo obviously has done this sort of thing before, and of course, where Artoo goes, Luke goes. Sometimes obvious plot devices both me, but this one didn’t. It was pretty easy for me to overlook. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,218 
|
Post by Confessor on May 1, 2021 13:33:55 GMT -5
The art was really good in this one. Chewie has never looked better! Lando looked good, in most panels, too. I wonder if there’s a lot of Tom Palmer influence here, or maybe, as Confessor suspects, the high art quality in the TESB adaptation caused Infantino to raise his game. I think it's a bit of both, but mostly it's Tom Palmer embellishing the hell out of Infantino's art. Since the subject of sales figures came up earlier, allow me to present an opposing view. As I think I noted in my review of SW #46, the comic's new editor, Louise Jones, was determined to make sure the artwork looked more visually faithful to the movies – and that's exactly why Palmer was brought in to ink and embellish Infantino. The fact that this was Jones's stated goal means that she was dissatisfied with what had gone before -- i.e. Carmine Infantino's run. *Myself, I'm convinced that the ugly, angular nature of Infantino's art and his inaccurate depictions of the various pieces of SW tech, hurt sales of the comic in the late '70s. If you take a look online at comichron.com, Star Wars's sales were declining right from the 1979-1980 period. This has always struck me as odd because the popularity of SW as a pop culture phenomenon grew throughout the early '80s, reaching fever pitch in 1982 and 1983, in the run up to and release of ROTJ. You would expect the SW comic's sales to do the same, but its sales were declining from 1980 at least -- but likely they were declining from 1979 (it's impossible to be sure, because we have no sales figures for 1978). Some circumstantial evidence in favour of how Infantino's art hurt the book's sales can be found on the letters pages. It was not uncommon to see reader's letters from later on in the run saying that they'd dropped the book because they disliked Infantino's art, but they had recently come back and were pleased to see that the artwork had improved with the likes of Walt Simonson and Ron Frenz. This was also the case on the letters pages in the British Star Wars Monthly and Return of the Jedi Weekly, by the way, so it wasn't just an American thing. We only have to look at the followers of this thread: the majority of us are not really fans of Infantino's artwork, with the exception of one super-fan, of course.  And although I realise that artistic merit is entirely subjective, I think that the opinion of most of us regarding Infantino's art is fairly representative of the opinions of SW comic fandom as a whole -- and I think that was as true back in the day as it is now. In a nutshell, I think that the comic's sales probably peaked in 1978, in the wake of the tremendous success of the first SW film. But just as huge numbers of new readers were coming on board in late '77 and throughout 1978, Infantino started on the book (his first issue hit stands in Feb 1978). As a result, I think the book struggled to retain some of those new readers and sales began to slip...and for some reason they never recovered. Now, obviously I can't categorically prove that Infantino's art hurt sales of the comic, but taking into account the available sales figures, Louise Jones's stated disatisfaction with the art in the comic, Lucasfilm's own dislike of Infantino's art, and the anecdotal evidence present on the letter's pages, that's what my gut tells me. Your mileage may vary. * = I realise that Michael Golden's one-shot and Al Williamson's ESB adaptation were published in the months before Louise Jones came on board, but given that neither artist was the comic's regular penciller, and given that Williamson had done the adaptation at George Lucas's specific request, she clearly wasn't thinking of either of them when she made that editorial edict. She was thinking of the series' regular artist, Carmine Infantino. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,218
|
Post by Confessor on May 1, 2021 14:04:40 GMT -5
This story didn’t feel too Star Warsy to me, but was interesting nonetheless. However, I felt that Lando was acting a bit out of character. Too gung-ho for the rebellion and for fighting, perhaps too quickly after events of TESB. Lando doesn’t strike me as the type to idolize a warrior. I agree that it’s great to see Lando & Chewie team up on an adventure, but it looks like we disagree on Lando’s characterization here. The part early on where they landed on that world and Lando was trying to think of a way to make a fortune out of it, and Chewie angrily reminded him that they are trying to save Han was very good, and in character for both, but later on, as I said, I thought Lando’s tough guy, warlike mentality didn’t feel right. Sure, he’s probably changed since getting hosed by Vader in TESB, but this just seemed a bridge too far for me. For that matter, Chewie seemed to forget all about Han once he discovered another wookieee there, but I guess I’ll give him a break, since he might not have seen another of his kind in years. Yeah, I've come to realise from comments in this thread that a fair few people feel like you do -- wildfire2099 for one. Myself, I still feel as if Lando's characterisation is pretty spot on, for the most part. I mean, it's pretty clear that Lando had thrown in his lot with the Rebellion by the end of ESB and was also experiencing guilt over selling Han out. That, along with the fact that the Empire had screwed up his nice little mining operation on Cloud City, certainly gives him enough motivation to join the Rebels, I think. As for idolizing a warrior, I think the films -- ROTJ especially -- make it clear that, at heart, Lando is something of an idealist. So, the idea that he may've once idolised a Rebel leader in his youth isn't that far fetched. Furthermore, I think DeMatteis gets the relationship between Lando and Chewie spot on too -- the Wookiee clearly doesn't wholly trust his new partner in this comic, which, considering the events of the ESB, is absolutely as it should be. So, I think DeMatteis gets it just about right. But I know that I'm seemingly in the minority on this. Very interesting facts about DeMatties’s issues with Lucasfilm! I think I like the original ending better. I didn’t love either ending, to be honest, but the original ending did fit the rest of the story better, as you (Confessor) said. However, didn’t the original ending also have Lando leave the Star Destroyers stuck in that dimension? I can’t really tell from just that last page shown in the post. Yes, Lando still leaves the Imperials entombed and powerless in an alternate dimension. Cold, perhaps...but I guess they are fighting a war, after all. However, this brings up one of the real problems I have with this story. Captain Plikk was willing to use up their ships’ power, leaving them stranded in that other dimension, for the “glory” of destroying Lando and Cody Sunn-Childe. However, what glory can there possibly be, when you know you’ll be stuck in that other dimension, and thus nobody in the Empire (or anywhere else, for that matter) will ever know what you accomplished?? That really didn’t make sense to me. That sort of sacrifice would have made more sense from a desire to be selfless and sacrifice yourself from the greater good, rather than something somebody would do for glory. I think the implication is that Plikk isn't all that much of a well-balanced or well-adjusted individual. She allows her personal pride to cloud her judgement and her pursuit of victory to supersede her survival instinct. To be honest, that's a fairly well worn trope in war stories by this point. I agree that it doesn't make a whole lotta sense, but there it is. Edit: I'll post some comments in response to your post about my review of Star Wars #47 tomorrow, dbutler69. I gotta go pick my wife up now. |
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on May 1, 2021 14:48:47 GMT -5
The art was really good in this one. Chewie has never looked better! Lando looked good, in most panels, too. I wonder if there’s a lot of Tom Palmer influence here, or maybe, as Confessor suspects, the high art quality in the TESB adaptation caused Infantino to raise his game. I think it's a bit of both, but mostly it's Tom Palmer embellishing the hell out of Infantino's art. Since the subject of sales figures came up earlier, allow me to present an opposing view. As I think I noted in my review of SW #46, the comic's new editor, Louise Jones, was determined to make sure the artwork looked more visually faithful to the movies – and that's exactly why Palmer was brought in to ink and embellish Infantino. The fact that this was Jones's stated goal means that she was dissatisfied with what had gone before -- i.e. Carmine Infantino's run. *Myself, I'm convinced that the ugly, angular nature of Infantino's art and his inaccurate depictions of the various pieces of SW tech, hurt sales of the comic in the late '70s. If you take a look online at comichron.com, Star Wars's sales were declining right from the 1979-1980 period. This has always struck me as odd because the popularity of SW as a pop culture phenomenon grew throughout the early '80s, reaching fever pitch in 1982 and 1983, in the run up to and release of ROTJ. You would expect the SW comic's sales to do the same, but its sales were declining from 1980 at least -- but likely they were declining from 1979 (it's impossible to be sure, because we have no sales figures for 1978). Some circumstantial evidence in favour of how Infantino's art hurt the book's sales can be found on the letters pages. It was not uncommon to see reader's letters from later on in the run saying that they'd dropped the book because they disliked Infantino's art, but they had recently come back and were pleased to see that the artwork had improved with the likes of Walt Simonson and Ron Frenz. This was also the case on the letters pages in the British Star Wars Monthly and Return of the Jedi Weekly, by the way, so it wasn't just an American thing. We only have to look at the followers of this thread: the majority of us are not really fans of Infantino's artwork, with the exception of one super-fan, of course. And although I realise that artistic merit is entirely subjective, I think that the opinion of most of us regarding Infantino's art is fairly representative of the opinions of SW comic fandom as a whole -- and I think that was as true back in the day as it is now. In a nutshell, I think that the comic's sales probably peaked in 1978, in the wake of the tremendous success of the first SW film. But just as huge numbers of new readers were coming on board in late '77 and throughout 1978, Infantino started on the book (his first issue hit stands in Feb 1978). As a result, I think the book struggled to retain some of those new readers and sales began to slip...and for some reason they never recovered. Now, obviously I can't categorically prove that Infantino's art hurt sales of the comic, but taking into account the available sales figures, Louise Jones's stated disatisfaction with the art in the comic, Lucasfilm's own dislike of Infantino's art, and the anecdotal evidence present on the letter's pages, that's what my gut tells me. Your mileage may vary. * = I realise that Michael Golden's one-shot and Al Williamson's ESB adaptation were published in the months before Louise Jones came on board, but given that neither artist was the comic's regular penciller, and given that Williamson had done the adaptation at George Lucas's specific request, she clearly wasn't thinking of either of them when she made that editorial edict. She was thinking of the series' regular artist, Carmine Infantino. Well, I can tell you that I, for one, was never a regular collector of Star Wars back then, mainly due to Infantino's art. I guess I should have check back again around mid-1980 but by then I had pretty much tune the series out (though I definitely remember buying the Return of the Jedi adaptation) so I think Louise Jones probably had the right idea, but unfortunately I missed out, but hopefully other caught on. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 1, 2021 14:53:01 GMT -5
I think the increasingly lower sales after 1978 are due to the absence of Jaxxon.  |
|
|
|
Post by lordyam on May 1, 2021 16:35:29 GMT -5
One aspect of the Star Wars saga that always irked me was how long it took to train a Jedi. I'd assume that like a martial art, it would take several years to just get the basics, then several more years to become proficient. When Yoda told Ben's ghost that Luke was too old to begin training, I supposed that it was easier to mold a young person into the Jedi way, or that said training could take one or two decades... And in The Phantom Menace, when baby Anakin was brought before the council, he, too, was said to be already too old to begin training. However, after just a few days with Obi-Wan, a few years of training with no teacher at all and something like one week with Yoda, Luke was almost ready to face Darth Vader. I get that Yoda could have used Luke's age as an excuse because he didn't feel comfortable training Anakin's kid at first, fearing he'd turn evil like his dad. But the council strikes me as a bunch of elitist snobs who want to maintain the illusion that their training is way harder than it actually is! Anyway... I found the comics' depiction of Luke's journey very well handled. That he had reached a point where he could use telekinesis in TESB didn't strike me as odd in any way. I wouldn't say that. Vader's toying with Luke; once Luke actually gets a few hits in Vader stops playing around and wipes the floor with Luke. The entire point of the Council is that while they meant well they ironically fell into the same trap as Anakin. They got too attached. In the Jedi's case they got used to their cushy status and so focused more on maintaining the status quo rather than doing what was right. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,218
|
Post by Confessor on May 1, 2021 18:37:37 GMT -5
I think the increasingly lower sales after 1978 are due to the absence of Jaxxon. Well, I didn't like to say but...yeah. It's pretty much obvious.  |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 1, 2021 19:01:40 GMT -5
One aspect of the Star Wars saga that always irked me was how long it took to train a Jedi. I'd assume that like a martial art, it would take several years to just get the basics, then several more years to become proficient. When Yoda told Ben's ghost that Luke was too old to begin training, I supposed that it was easier to mold a young person into the Jedi way, or that said training could take one or two decades... And in The Phantom Menace, when baby Anakin was brought before the council, he, too, was said to be already too old to begin training. However, after just a few days with Obi-Wan, a few years of training with no teacher at all and something like one week with Yoda, Luke was almost ready to face Darth Vader. I get that Yoda could have used Luke's age as an excuse because he didn't feel comfortable training Anakin's kid at first, fearing he'd turn evil like his dad. But the council strikes me as a bunch of elitist snobs who want to maintain the illusion that their training is way harder than it actually is! Anyway... I found the comics' depiction of Luke's journey very well handled. That he had reached a point where he could use telekinesis in TESB didn't strike me as odd in any way. (...) Ah, but just a few months later, Luke won the rematch against Vader without one minute of extra tutoring. He was a rookie when he first faced Vader, but he had already received all the training he required. All he needed, apparently, was to get a little experience and a little self-confidence. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 1, 2021 20:56:08 GMT -5
Numbers do not lie and are not altered by extremely subjective complaints about one of the greatest of all comic book talents. Again: Yes, 1979 was the continuing Infantino period, and yes, according to Miller, it was likely Marvel's second best-seller. Some can complain until doomsday, but that does not change the undeniable facts that readers were enjoying and most importantly spending their money on what was published at that time. They did not drop the title, but made it the best selling title right after Marvel's flagship titles. That was an incredible feat / statement for a licensed property of that era. The Infantino Star Wars was a major success, which snuffs out any idea that his work hurt the title (just the opposite), and as Miller added: Yep-- "after that" saw declining sales year after year--and that responsibility fell on the shoulders of every creative team who worked on the title until its end, and that includes Williamson, Palmer, Duffy, Simonson, Martin, et al. Some can try, but there's no spinning that. What's telling about that decline is as follows: as the remaining two Star Wars movies were among the most significant pop culture events in 1980 and 1983 (and the highest grossing films of those years), the comic's sales continued its downslide, so all of the creatives (including any who-- in theory--may not have appreciated the previous era) working on it quite obviously could not keep the interest of the large number of readers that once had the title as the likely second best-seller for Marvel. That was the era of one of the industry's true legends, Carmine Infantino, and it was a grand period for capturing the sci-fantasy of the original movie.
It always brings a smile to know Infantino was a central talent at the title's peak of success, adding yet another great chapter in a historic career.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 1, 2021 21:07:34 GMT -5
..and SW #47....that was a horrible cover. How that was accepted is anyone's guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on May 1, 2021 22:39:26 GMT -5
Can't blame the dropping sales on Infantino when it's more likely due to the movies AFTER the original Star Wars. That 1st movie was so unique, so incredible and so inspiring that it captured the immediate attention and imagination of millions of people across the world. Everyone latched onto the comic book as it was the ONLY available source providing MORE of the movie experience. That initial peak of curious and hungry for more readers had to drop off. It was only going to decline in sales as the continuing movies came out and people became more exposed to the SW mythos.
While I enjoy both Empire and Jedi I feel they both went in different directions away from the original. Lucas was creating a universe that became an uncontrollable beast taking on a life of it's own. Look at all the conflicting choices and changes as he tried to recapture the lightning in the bottle of the original. Star Wars as a one and done, stand alone EPIC is one of the greatest film's ever done. Recreating that fresh, new organic chemical reaction is impossible for any sequels and prequels.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 1, 2021 23:22:25 GMT -5
Can't blame the dropping sales on Infantino when it's more likely due to the movies AFTER the original Star Wars. True, and the numbers certainly support that... While there were other SW items produced at the same time, such as Splinter of the Mind's Eye, the Star Wars poster magazine series (which REALLY fed into character and history speculation as well as behind the scenes articles) the Han Solo novels (two of the three published in 1979), children's storybooks, etc., the fact that Marvel's comic shot to the #2 slot of all of their titles, and remained there for some time meant it was capturing that special feeling the original film introduced in 1977. That science-fantasy environment and unique characterization was so authentic that fans made the title a major hit for Marvel. That did not happen into 1980 and up to its cancellation in Septenber of 1986. Something was no longer touching audience imagination for sales to start dropping year after year while two additional SW movies dominated movie theatres. ...and I think you may have uncovered part of the reason: That is so true--I was there to see the trilogy in theatres as they were originally released and enjoyed them all, bought quite a large haul of merchandise, etc., but the original film was and remains that "one for the ages" production that cannot be replicated. Lucas was on a seriously strong creative ascendancy from American Graffiti to Star Wars (both sharing some character themes as well), and was the filmmaker at his absolute best. The heart and unique qualities of the 1977 film were not going to be easily recaptured in other mediums (e.g., the Han Solo novels were not at all good at understanding the characters), but the Marvel comic did that--and succeeded at it. "Star Wars fever" was not going to sustain and then increase sales; no adaptation works that way, so it could only be the level and kind of creative output--Infantino an obviously major player in that--that shot it one step below the publisher's flagship king. It was said creative output that--when it left the title--acted as likely evidence of why the title's sales was on an unstoppable decline every year after, no matter who was brought to work on the book. The fault for Marvel's Star Wars' decline is clear to see. |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on May 1, 2021 23:38:22 GMT -5
IMO Lucas was trapped in falling into his own rabbit hole (giant green bunny sized) in feeling like he needed to "connect" all the characters and plots. If Star Wars is truly the middle chapter of a long cliff hanger serial as he intended, then there is so much more that could transpire and be told.
Leia should NOT be Luke's sister, she is part of the classic romantic triangle that has been in myth and stories forever like Arthur/Gwen/Lancelot.
Vader should NOT be Anakin, Luke's father but instead be the totally evil menace that has to be defeated before the Rebels can confront the ULTIMATE evil of the Emperor.
Han should remain the good hearted money seeking mercenary bad boy that has the curiosity of Leia's thoughts but it is Luke who is her true hero and has her heart.
Artoo/Threepio should remain comedic foils in the story essentially squires to Luke the Jedi in training helping but not connected as essential pieces to the ENTIRE plotline of prequels and sequels.
Kenobi is better off as the failed crazy mystical Merlin like hermit who failed in his entrusted duty to protect and train young Skywalker and gives up his life to redeem himself and pass his power to Luke than as a master of the Jedi council.
Leia should be the plucky, determined and skilled princess that leads the rebellion in eventually defeating the evil Empire.
Empire took a turn in changing ALL the possibilities and imaginations os the Star Wars concepts. Going from fun fantasy mythology to dark science fiction in an attempt to explain EVERYTHING. Lucas forgot he was essentially making a western or knights in outer space. In ye olden days it was as simple as the good guys versus the bad guys and the good guys win. He made things more complicated and convoluted than they need be.
Goodwin and Infantino captured the exuberance and FUN aspects of the original movie in comic book form.
My own thoughts of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by huladollar on May 2, 2021 0:24:02 GMT -5
Yes, 1979 was the continuing Infantino period, and yes, according to Miller, it was likely Marvel's second best-seller. Some can complain until doomsday, but that does not change the undeniable facts that readers were enjoying and most importantly spending their money on what was published at that time. They did not drop the title, but made it the best selling title right after Marvel's flagship titles. That was an incredible feat / statement for a licensed property of that era. The Infantino Star Wars was a major success, which snuffs out any idea that his work hurt the title (just the opposite) [snip...] ...none of which changes the fact that his Star Wars art sure is goofy looking. Obviously, all of this is subjective. Looking at the comments here on this board, it's clear that a majority of the commenters feel one way, to a greater or lesser degree, about Infantino's work, and one person feels very strongly the opposite way. Who knows if that reflects the Star Wars comic book readership at large some 40 years ago. Speaking personally, back in the day, I would have bought the Greater Los Angeles Area Residential Phone Book Directory if somebody slapped the words "Star Wars" on the cover, so the quality of the writing or the art of any particular published work wouldn't have made much difference to me. I do remember reading the Infantino era comics and thinking, "Too bad it's impossible for anyone to draw these characters like they look in the movies," and my proof of that (to my twelve-year-old self) was that the characters didn't look like they did in the movies, and if it were possible to do so, Marvel (and Lucasfilm behind them) would have hired someone who could. Then the Empire adaptation came out, and I thought, "Wow, you can draw these people just like the movies!" and the Simonson/Palmer era that started a few issues after the end of the adaptation just confirmed that. (Man, do I love the Simonson/Palmer era issues. Ron Frenz, too!) So, whatever. I know, Confessor, you got sick of this topic the first time it was litigated here on this board. I'll just share that, in my humble opinion, sales numbers for a phenomena like Star Wars are not an actual gauge of the quality of the work; I would have preferred a different artist during the Archie Goodwin years; and I'm glad there are people who enjoy the work of whoever was doing whatever at the time. Also, the amount of time Rey spent (or didn't spend) learning to become a Jedi is ludicrous. |
|
And although I realise that artistic merit is entirely subjective, I think that the opinion of most of us regarding Infantino's art is fairly representative of the opinions of SW comic fandom as a whole -- and I think that was as true back in the day as it is now. 
