|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Dec 17, 2015 13:12:50 GMT -5
Yeah, Roy was a high school teacher before he worked for Marvel.
And, for what it's worth, I really liked Jerry Seigel's late '60s stuff for Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Dec 17, 2015 16:02:31 GMT -5
I guess when you have storytellers of the caliber of Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko you don't need that many additional writers. I think it might have been a simple case of the older writers not getting Stan's new spin on superheroes. Roy Thomas, being a passionate fan in his early 20's, obviously got it from the beginning. Funny thing about Roy Thomas is that I sometimes view him as a child prodigy, like Jim Shooter, but he was already 21 when FF #1 hit the stands. I think this is a very insightful post. Stan told a story about how he tried to convince Goodman that he Stan had a good new approach on comics. Goodman was supposedly skeptical and Stan claimed that he would make a success of an unpopular genre with his approach, and so FURY & HOWLING COMMANDOS was born. I take this with a grain of salt because I think war comics had made a comeback of sorts at DC. At very least, Sergeant Rock was popular, even if war comics weren't as popular as in the early 1950s. But even if the story isn't gospel truth, it illustrates something of the way Stan thought about his new approach-- which, I rush to add, was not ONLY his, any more than it was solely the creation of Jack or Steve. He surely had no idea that "the approach" would yield what it's yielded today; I'm sure that for the most part it was a way of keeping the trains running on time, maybe getting a little personal credit from his employer.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Dec 17, 2015 20:10:33 GMT -5
Yes, I think the success of Marvel had as much to do with the presentation as the content. Early on, particularly from 1961-63, there wasn't that much difference between Marvel and DC outside of Spider-Man and the FF (thanks mainly to the style of writing of those older writers). Of course, DC's revitalization of their own superhero characters a few years early certainly helped to create an environment where something new like the Marvel Universe could take hold. It's astonishing how many great concepts were created at Marvel AND DC from 1956-1963. I think Marvel separates itself in 1964 (Actually I think the debut of Avengers and X-Men in the same month was the technical "starting point" thematically.) and I think this is when the Marvel Universe becomes the Marvel Universe.
I'm now caught up to where I was before my two month hiatus. I'm off for nine straight days starting tomorrow thanks to scheduled vacation and holiday time (yay!) and I'm planning to review as many as I can. The fact that we're at the debut of Doctor Strange, close to the start of the classic Lee/Kirby Thor run, the return of the Hulk, etc., always boosts my enthusiasm.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Dec 31, 2015 0:39:53 GMT -5
Amazing Spider-Man #3
Story Title: “Spider-Man Versus Doctor Octopus” Cover Date: July, 1963 CreditsScript: Stan Lee Pencils: Steve Ditko Inks: Steve Ditko Colors: Stan Goldberg Letters: Artie Simek (cover); John Duffy (interiors) Cover Art: Steve Ditko Synopsis: When an experiment goes wrong, Otto Octavius gains control of his robotic arms and decides to take over an atomic facility. After Doctor Octopus easily defeats Spider-Man, Peter Parker is emboldened by a speech from the Human Torch, which gives him the confidence he needs to defeat the villain. Character Appearances: Spider-Man [Peter Parker]; Doctor Octopus [Otto Octavius] (Introduction; Origin); Human Torch [Johnny Storm]; Charlie (Burglar); J Jonah Jameson; May Parker; Flash Thompson; Liz Allen Comments: This classic issue is one of my favorite Marvel Age issues so far. What elevates this issue beyond your typical villainous introduction is that the hero, in this case Spider-Man, quite simply gets his ass handed to him in his first confrontation with Doctor Octopus. I’m sure this was a shock to readers of the time who had grown up reading stories where heroes rarely lost a fight, only suffering minor set-backs before they finally got their hands on the villains and summarily trounced them. Spider-Man’s humbling is foreshowed clearly in the opening scene where we see that he’s getting big-headed, and even a tad arrogant, easily dispatching run-of-the-mill crooks and thugs. It was a bit goofy that the Torch had a cameo, but couldn’t use his power because he’d been using it too much and had to wait to build up strength, and unintentionally provided the motivation for Parker to stop feeling sorry for himself and defeat Doc Ock. I don’t have a problem with in theory, I just felt that it was a little clunky in the way that it was handled. Overall, I think it was the only weak aspect of another was great issue. I particularly like that Spider-Man used his knowledge of chemistry, and a bit of strategy, to take out Ock. Characterizations like this only make Spider-Man a richer character and I commend Lee and Ditko for being so bold and nuanced in their storytelling. The clear star of this issue, creatively, was Steve Ditko. I love the way he depicts Octavius in the opening scenes and the combat between Spider-Man and Ock at the end was very inventive. Octavius himself is a great example of how Marvel villains had more depth than what comics readers had seen up until this time. As a sufferer of brain damage, this put a sympathetic spin on Octavius and prevented him from being nothing more than an interesting visual. Character Development: We get to see Peter handle his first loss and how he was able to bounce back from it. It makes sense that a 15-year-old kid would easily get overconfident and would eventually run into situation that forced him to learn a bit of humility. Personal Rating: 8. Simply a fantastic issue all around with very little that I can be overly critical about. Great art and writing from Stan and Steve and a true early classic. Historical Rating: 9. I debated a bit on whether or not it deserved a 10, historically, but I feel that a solid 9 is about right. I could easily see someone giving it a 10, but Ock, as important as he is, just falls short of the Green Goblin in importance in my view.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 4, 2016 19:16:21 GMT -5
Okay, I've had some distractions lately, but most of it was of my own making. I'm going to be doing at least one review a day from now on or I'm going to bash my head against the fireplace. Kidding. If I DON'T do one review a day, I'd like the moderators to take some kind of action against me to get me motivated; change my avatar to something insulting, etc. I stopped playing video games so I could pick up my reading on all fronts! I have zero excuses now! Arrrgh.
(Sorry for the slight meltdown.)
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 5, 2016 10:30:39 GMT -5
Fantastic Four #16 Story Title: “The Micro-World of Doctor Doom!” Cover Date: July, 1963 CreditsScript: Stan Lee Pencils: Jack Kirby Inks: Dick Ayers Colors: Stan Goldberg Letters: Artie Simek Cover Art: Jack Kirby (pencils); Dick Ayers (inks) Synopsis: The Fantastic Four experience random episodes where they shrink down in size. After one such episode is accompanied by a menacing threat from a mysterious voice, the FF decide to enlist the aid of Ant-Man. Ant-Man gives the FF his shrinking formula to aid them if it happens again. Next, a girl’s voice begins warning the FF about Doctor Doom. Reed decides to use the formula to go after Doom (who had shrunk down seemingly to nothingness in a previous issue) and the group shrink down to a micro-world where Doom has used his cunning and scientific genius to take control. Doom manages to subdue and capture the FF, but after Ant-Man follows and aids them, they manage to defeat Doom and liberate the micro-world kingdom. Doom escapes back to Earth and the FF and Ant-Man follow. Character Appearances: The Fantastic Four [the Human Torch [Johnny Storm]; Mr. Fantastic [Reed Richard]; the Invisible Girl [Sue Storm]; the Thing [Ben Grimm]]; Ant-Man [Hank Pym]; Doctor Doom [Victor Von Doom]; the Warriors of Tok (introduction); Alicia Masters; King Pearla (introduction); Princess Pearla (introduction); Molly Margaret McSnide (introduction) The Wasp [Janet Van Dyne] (cameo) Comments: This was a clever way of bringing back Doctor Doom. I’m surprised Doom didn’t manage take the FF out, seeing as how goofy everyone was acting. The shrinking episodes had been going on prior to the start of the story, with each member admitting that they basically felt too “embarrassed” to mention it before. I’ve come to the realization that these silly aspects of the Silver Age are as entertaining to me as an older reader as the stuff that’s generally remembered. This issue features the debut of what will eventually be known as the Microverse in the Marvel Universe. Obviously this is before creators would explain stuff like the Pym-Barrier and how the Microverse is actually a separate universe accessible only by crossing that barrier. Sue insinuates that the world would "fit on the head of a pin" which leads me to believe that Stan and Jack hadn't thought it all through just yet. They even go so far as to show us that the micro-world was just one of many, situated in space, just like Earth. Character Development: We find out that Alicia prefers Ben as the Thing and this makes Ben want to retain his monstrous form. This is a plot point that will get a lot of mileage in the years to come. Interestingly, Doom’s characterization still hasn’t solidified seeing as how he intended to marry the princess and seemed to actually care about profit in his plan to sell the FF to the Tok. Personal Rating: 6. I enjoyed the issue overall, but it all felt a bit disjointed. Ant-Man’s cameo seemed forced as did the mid-issue scene where Reed bursts into Alicia’s apartment to force Ben to drink yet another of his “cures.” Historical Rating: 8. This issue is important for more than the introduction of the Microverse. It was the first issue of the Marvel Age that wasn’t a “one and done.” The introduction of the multi-part story would be surprisingly controversial among readers, as seen in the letter pages of the day.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 5, 2016 10:37:04 GMT -5
It's interesting to me that Reed turned to Ant-Man when he himself invented a shrinking gas back in #7. The effect of that gas was irreversible, though, so maybe Reed felt he had no time to suss that out.
Cei-U! I summon the idle musings!
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 5, 2016 10:46:52 GMT -5
Reed does mention that he could come up with a formula himself, but it would take time. Of course this didn't stop him from taking time out to cook up another batch of Thing-Be-Gone and walk (I assume) all the way to Alicia's apartment! It's hilarious how nonchalant they FF were in this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jan 5, 2016 17:34:49 GMT -5
I think it might have been a simple case of the older writers not getting Stan's new spin on superheroes. Roy Thomas, being a passionate fan in his early 20's, obviously got it from the beginning. Funny thing about Roy Thomas is that I sometimes view him as a child prodigy, like Jim Shooter, but he was already 21 when FF #1 hit the stands. The difference between Roy and Shooter though is that Roy is actually liked across the board, Shooter isn't. A lot of what Shooter did at Marvel seemed a bit uncouth, I'll admit, but I do think that he truly had the best interests of the company at heart
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 5, 2016 19:46:59 GMT -5
I think Shooter was a damn fine EIC from 1978-1983. I think his contribution to The Dark Phoenix Saga, for instance, improved that story. Unfortunately, Secret Wars I was a warning sign that his ego was beginning to run amok. He didn't have the mentality or the temperament to be Stan Lee. I'm still convinced that The Beyonder was intended to be his allegorical statement to the comics industry. Plus, John Byrne claimed that those Beyond jumpsuits were what Shooter thought was "cool" in terms of fashion. That alone is the most disturbing aspect of Shooter to me...
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 6, 2016 3:00:27 GMT -5
Journey Into Mystery #94 Story Title: “Thor and Loki Attack the Human Race!” Cover Date: July, 1963 CreditsScript: Stan Lee (plot); Robert Bernstein (script) Pencils: Joe Sinnott Inks: Joe Sinnott Colors: Stan Goldberg Letters: Sam Rosen Cover Art: Jack Kirby (pencils); Dick Ayers (inks) Synopsis: Loki uses his magic to cause Thor's hammer to hit his head, turning him evil. Thor frees Loki, and the two terrorize Earth until the other Asgardians arrange for another blow to the head to reverse the change. Character Appearances: Thor [Doctor Donald Blake]; Loki; Heimdall; Odin Comments: More so than anything Bernstein’s has written in JIM so far, this one read the most like a Silver Age Superman story. Some of Thor and Loki’s feats were egregiously over-the-top: causing buildings to come to life thousands of miles away, causing massive earthquakes, toppling buildings with a finger, etc. The ending was the kicker, with Odin and the gods of Asgard pulling a “Scooby Doo” on Loki, reveling themselves to be fake United Nations delegates. As bad as this story was, I enjoyed Joe Sinnott’s penciling. He wasn’t a good fit for Thor, but the quality of the work was top notch for the era. I do take issue in how he drew Mjolnir to look like a croquet mallet, though. That always bugged me. Character Development: Odin is still far from the take no BS or backtalk patriarch of the upcoming Lee/Kirby run. He allows Thor to bitchslap/shove him without reducing him to a smoldering pile of ash. Sure, Odin realized Loki had tampered with his personality, but I just don’t see Odin letting that slide regardless. Personal Rating: 3. Ugh. Nuff Said. Two more issues of “R. Bern’s” dreck and we finally get to the beginning of the definitive Thor run! Historical Rating: 4. Below average early Silver Age Thor story that doesn’t introduce anything new and retreads the basic plot of…like every other Thor issue so far?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,712
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 6, 2016 13:27:15 GMT -5
I think it might have been a simple case of the older writers not getting Stan's new spin on superheroes. Roy Thomas, being a passionate fan in his early 20's, obviously got it from the beginning. Funny thing about Roy Thomas is that I sometimes view him as a child prodigy, like Jim Shooter, but he was already 21 when FF #1 hit the stands. The difference between Roy and Shooter though is that Roy is actually liked across the board, Shooter isn't. A lot of what Shooter did at Marvel seemed a bit uncouth, I'll admit, but I do think that he truly had the best interests of the company at heart A lot of the smartest people I know remind me of Shooter. They make their mark at a young age, develop extreme confidence in themselves, bulldoze over people that they perceive as knowing less than them who get in the way of their vision, and continually prioritize their vision over fostering relationships, eventually completely and totally alienating themselves even if, much of the time, they were right. Shooter wasn't always right, but I think he had more positive ideas as an EIC than anyone who came before him or after. If he'd prioritized people skills and effective leadership, showing respect for those who had ideas and opinions of their own that didn't always coincide with his, he could have transformed the industry even more than he did.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jan 6, 2016 13:51:05 GMT -5
Shooter wasn't always right, but I think he had more positive ideas as an EIC than anyone who came before him or after. If he'd prioritized people skills and effective leadership, showing respect for those who had ideas and opinions of their own that didn't always coincide with his, he could have transformed the industry even more than he did. His reputation as EIC might also be tarnished by comparison to what Kahn, Giordano, and Levitz were doing at DC around the same time. I think DC seemed much more creator-friendly and forward thinking while Shooter looked like he was just trying to get the trains to run on time. (That last part may be a bit hyperbolic.) One thing I always remember: Frank Miller once said that he learned more about telling a story from Shooter than anyone else. And while you can fault him on the stories he chooses to tell, can't argue with his ability to tell them (at least the last time I looked, which may have been like 2003).
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 6, 2016 13:58:41 GMT -5
Yeah, that Thor issue was not good. It wasn't bad enough to be 'so bad it's good', it was just kinda bad.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 6, 2016 17:33:59 GMT -5
Shooter wasn't always right, but I think he had more positive ideas as an EIC than anyone who came before him or after. If he'd prioritized people skills and effective leadership, showing respect for those who had ideas and opinions of their own that didn't always coincide with his, he could have transformed the industry even more than he did. His reputation as EIC might also be tarnished by comparison to what Kahn, Giordano, and Levitz were doing at DC around the same time. I think DC seemed much more creator-friendly and forward thinking while Shooter looked like he was just trying to get the trains to run on time. (That last part may be a bit hyperbolic.) One thing I always remember: Frank Miller once said that he learned more about telling a story from Shooter than anyone else. And while you can fault him on the stories he chooses to tell, can't argue with his ability to tell them (at least the last time I looked, which may have been like 2003). I can attest to this. I learned more about sequential storytelling in 20 minutes with Shooter--going panel-by-panel over the Kirby Human Torch story in Strange Tales #114--than I did in four years as an art major. His grasp of the medium was both broad and deep. Cei-U! I summon the personal history!
|
|