|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 18, 2021 13:13:39 GMT -5
I remember him killing and sacrificing his childhood love to gain demonic powers to defeat the FF. It was ghastly. But he’s done similar things in his history. The real lie was that he was written as noble. See, that's what I'm genuinely curious about - I have an idea of what sort of threshold Doom won't cross and this felt like it went beyond that. I fully agree. Doom would lie, murder and torture his own hirelings or subjects without any remorse, because he saw them as mere pawns. He'd do the same to his enemies, because, well, they're his enemies. Let's be honest: Doom never cared for his fellow Latverians except insofar as they were "his" people, and that only he was allowed to hurt them... but he did show genuine and indefectible loyalty to a few things and a few people: his given word, for one, his mother, and very arguably the two Valerias (his teenage girlfriend and his goddaughter). Even his turning Kritoff into a version of himself can be seen as a twisted act of affection, since to the egomaniacal Doom no fate could be better than for the boy to become Viktor 2.0. The threshold I saw for Doom is that he would never turn onto his own or go back on his word, even though "his own" turns out to be a very select group of individuals. In that story arc, Doom finds his old flame (who wasn't dead after all, but in hiding) and proceeds to genuinely win her heart back... probably never actually lying (I'd have to re-read the dialogue) but certainly using words that he knows will be misinterpreted. In an act of amazing callousness, he then betrays her to a bunch of demons and turns her very skin into a magical armor. To compound his ignominy, he also (retroactively) turned his goddaughter into his familiar spirit. That, to me, was really crossing a line he hadn't crossed before: turning on his own, reneging on his word. As I said before, I don't think it's actually out of character; it's just a major turning point into Doom's career. It's as if Batman were to finally shoot the Joker to prevent him from hurting an innocent; it would be unusual and a major development, for sure, and it would have big consequences down the line, but I can't say I would be overly surprised; the guy might just have finally been pushed too far. (It would not be as insane a twist as, say, Cyclops abandoning his family. Curse you, X-Factor #1!).
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jun 18, 2021 14:06:54 GMT -5
I remember The Fantastic Four also making visible to Latverians the abattoirs in which Doom had been torturing and killing his own citizens and thinking to myself "this doesn't feel right". I think that was what I objected to the most. He would do almost anything to his enemies, but I believed he really cared about his own people.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2021 13:48:27 GMT -5
Has anyone here read the 80's revival of "The Fly" published by Red Circle/Archie, and if so is it worth checking out? I always liked the original version, and I noticed Steve Ditko also did the art on some of the stories in this version so it got my curiosity up (not that the back issues cost a lot, but if it's considered pretty bad might hold off).
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jun 22, 2021 16:33:17 GMT -5
Has anyone here read the 80's revival of "The Fly" published by Red Circle/Archie, and if so is it worth checking out? I always liked the original version, and I noticed Steve Ditko also did the art on some of the stories in this version so it got my curiosity up (not that the back issues cost a lot, but if it's considered pretty bad might hold off). I think it's well worth checking out. Ditko appears in almost every issue, and is the plotter for a good chunk of the run, and it's "good" Ditko, relatively mainstream adventure material. While some issues have somewhat more sophisticated inking, it doesn't overwhelm Ditko's style. (I remember one Valiant issue of MAGNUS. Valiant was putting their credits at the end of the comic, and I was shocked when I got to the final page and found that Ditko was credited as penciler, since his style had been almost completely obliterated from the book! I think a big part of that was also due to Jim Shooter's layout edicts, which helped readability, maybe, but turned so many books into "stage plays on paper", relying on boring, medium range shots.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2021 16:52:54 GMT -5
Has anyone here read the 80's revival of "The Fly" published by Red Circle/Archie, and if so is it worth checking out? I always liked the original version, and I noticed Steve Ditko also did the art on some of the stories in this version so it got my curiosity up (not that the back issues cost a lot, but if it's considered pretty bad might hold off). I think it's well worth checking out. Ditko appears in almost every issue, and is the plotter for a good chunk of the run, and it's "good" Ditko, relatively mainstream adventure material. While some issues have somewhat more sophisticated inking, it doesn't overwhelm Ditko's style. (I remember one Valiant issue of MAGNUS. Valiant was putting their credits at the end of the comic, and I was shocked when I got to the final page and found that Ditko was credited as penciler, since his style had been almost completely obliterated from the book! I think a big part of that was also due to Jim Shooter's layout edicts, which helped readability, maybe, but turned so many books into "stage plays on paper", relying on boring, medium range shots.) Thank you, that's a really helpful overview including thoughts on how Ditko's art held up here. Going to go ahead and take the plunge and grab the first few issues, thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 22, 2021 22:35:39 GMT -5
The bulk of the Red Circle material is average superhero stuff, from a story standpoint. Jack C Harris, who was a writer & editor at DC, did some stories for it and he usually did a decent job. I had the whole line and it was decent material, though not a lot that really rivalled the best of DC or Marvel. The stuff I thought was the best was mostly reprints from the 60s attempt at reviving the MLJ heroes, or from the earlier stuff, like Simon & Kirby's Private Strong and The Fly, to the Neal Adams Black Hood story. Alex Toth did some nice work on The Fox and both The original Shield and Lancelot Strong comics were decent. They did two issues of The Comet, with Carmine Infantino, but his art was in decline by then. The Mighty Crusaders book was pretty good; but, MLJ/Archie/Red Circle really lacked good villains.
Rich Buckler oversaw the revival, at the start, but then quit/got fired, depending on who you believe. The line got some art, both story, cover and pin-up, from some notable talent. However, it was lost in the glut that came with the Direct Market expansion, especially as DC & Marvel started cranking out reprint specials (Manhunter, Kree-Skrull War, Micronauts, etc...) to push the new indie publishers off the stands. First, Eclipse, and Pacific offered more sophisticated material, as did the indies that sprung up in the wake of the Turtles. Buckler moves on to Solson (working for Gary Brodsky, son of Sol, hence the name of the company) and just churns out awful crap.
It's funny; Archie reprinted and collected some of that, but not The Fly, since they don't own it or Lancelot Strong, as Joe Simon maintained the trademarks and copyrights. They own Fly Girl, who was created separately, as a sidekick to the Fly, in non-Simon stories.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 23, 2021 5:09:13 GMT -5
The bulk of the Red Circle material is average superhero stuff, from a story standpoint. Jack C Harris, who was a writer & editor at DC, did some stories for it and he usually did a decent job. I had the whole line and it was decent material, though not a lot that really rivalled the best of DC or Marvel. The stuff I thought was the best was mostly reprints from the 60s attempt at reviving the MLJ heroes, or from the earlier stuff, like Simon & Kirby's Private Strong and The Fly, to the Neal Adams Black Hood story. Alex Toth did some nice work on The Fox and both The original Shield and Lancelot Strong comics were decent. They did two issues of The Comet, with Carmine Infantino, but his art was in decline by then. The Mighty Crusaders book was pretty good; but, MLJ/Archie/Red Circle really lacked good villains. Rich Buckler oversaw the revival, at the start, but then quit/got fired, depending on who you believe. The line got some art, both story, cover and pin-up, from some notable talent. However, it was lost in the glut that came with the Direct Market expansion, especially as DC & Marvel started cranking out reprint specials (Manhunter, Kree-Skrull War, Micronauts, etc...) to push the new indie publishers off the stands. First, Eclipse, and Pacific offered more sophisticated material, as did the indies that sprung up in the wake of the Turtles. Buckler moves on to Solson (working for Gary Brodsky, son of Sol, hence the name of the company) and just churns out awful crap. It's funny; Archie reprinted and collected some of that, but not The Fly, since they don't own it or Lancelot Strong, as Joe Simon maintained the trademarks and copyrights. They own Fly Girl, who was created separately, as a sidekick to the Fly, in non-Simon stories. Man, I really liked that version and it's the only one that I've kept. I had the silver age goofy Crusaders books and just gave them away but the Buckler art made the Crusaders book look and feel like a Marvel title.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 23, 2021 5:25:08 GMT -5
I started seeing the term " Copper age" applied to comics for books from 1984-1991. Is this a thing, or is it just made up? I always thought it was :
Golden Silver Bronze Modern
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2021 5:49:28 GMT -5
The bulk of the Red Circle material is average superhero stuff, from a story standpoint. Jack C Harris, who was a writer & editor at DC, did some stories for it and he usually did a decent job. I had the whole line and it was decent material, though not a lot that really rivalled the best of DC or Marvel. The stuff I thought was the best was mostly reprints from the 60s attempt at reviving the MLJ heroes, or from the earlier stuff, like Simon & Kirby's Private Strong and The Fly, to the Neal Adams Black Hood story. Alex Toth did some nice work on The Fox and both The original Shield and Lancelot Strong comics were decent. They did two issues of The Comet, with Carmine Infantino, but his art was in decline by then. The Mighty Crusaders book was pretty good; but, MLJ/Archie/Red Circle really lacked good villains. Rich Buckler oversaw the revival, at the start, but then quit/got fired, depending on who you believe. The line got some art, both story, cover and pin-up, from some notable talent. However, it was lost in the glut that came with the Direct Market expansion, especially as DC & Marvel started cranking out reprint specials (Manhunter, Kree-Skrull War, Micronauts, etc...) to push the new indie publishers off the stands. First, Eclipse, and Pacific offered more sophisticated material, as did the indies that sprung up in the wake of the Turtles. Buckler moves on to Solson (working for Gary Brodsky, son of Sol, hence the name of the company) and just churns out awful crap. It's funny; Archie reprinted and collected some of that, but not The Fly, since they don't own it or Lancelot Strong, as Joe Simon maintained the trademarks and copyrights. They own Fly Girl, who was created separately, as a sidekick to the Fly, in non-Simon stories. Appreciate all the additional background, and it's interesting now reflecting back on that time for me. I actually DO remember these titles coming out, but they looked too generic super-hero to me and I didn't have an historical appreciation of the characters yet. My tastes were already changing from traditional Marvel/DC super-hero fare because of stuff like Cerebus, Dreadstar, Camelot 3000, Nexus, Badger, later Alien Legion, Miracleman, etc. Really good Big Two stuff like Legion, Teen Titans, what New Mutants was turning into with Sienkiewicz on board still grabbed me, but I was rapidly moving away from the more light-hearted standard Bronze Age super-hero fare I gobbled up just a few years prior. Now I'm at a point in life where I'm actually enjoying the simpler stuff more again, and knowing the creators you mentioned who were involved with the Red Circle line, curious to explore a bit. Again, very helpful overview of the line and I appreciate it. By the way, I remember buying new that reprint of the Kree-Skrull War you mentioned, that was my introduction to that storyline! Very slick editions, I still have those and the Micronauts ones.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2021 6:02:37 GMT -5
I started seeing the term " Copper age" applied to comics for books from 1984-1991. Is this a thing, or is it just made up? I always thought it was : Golden Silver Bronze Modern To me the ages were always exactly what you said. I had seen the "Copper Age" thrown out there, but never understood the need for it. However, with the new comic book inventory software I was using this year which lets you fully customize things including "ages", I decided to adopt "Copper" to represent comic books from 86-90 in my collection. The reason was mostly because of DC...Crisis and immediate post-Crisis titles no longer felt like the Bronze Age to me from continuity/storytelling standpoints (plus stuff like Dark Knight and Watchmen). But the art style of say Byrne's Superman still DID feel very Bronze Age, so I decided "Copper" was a bridge between Bronze and Modern for me. I've also adopted "Atomic Age" for 50's era prior to DC's Silver Age launch. For me primarily Superman/Batman stuff from that time that doesn't quite feel "Golden", but clearly isn't Silver yet either. I'm a nerd...I overthink these things.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 23, 2021 6:20:45 GMT -5
You may want to check this:
|
|
|
Post by Bronze age andy on Jun 23, 2021 6:29:52 GMT -5
It doesn't seem right that most "eras" are 10 to 15 years long but the "Modern Age" in most reckonings is around 30 years and climbing.
Now, where the split in the modern age would be...I haven't the faintest.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2021 6:37:52 GMT -5
It doesn't seem right that most "eras" are 10 to 15 years long but the "Modern Age" in most reckonings is around 30 years and climbing. Now, where the split in the modern age would be...I haven't the faintest. I've pondered this as well, and likewise can't come up with a substantial splitting point. I can point to different events, trends, art styles, etc., but none of them seem nearly as substantial as what differentiated Golden, Silver, Bronze (even though I mentioned Copper and Atomic above, they still don't feel like major ages to me but more "transitional" concepts). The only things that majorly stand out to me in a comic book from 2021 versus 1991...digital coloring (and that was already starting later in the 90's) and the modern "Archie face" look a number of artists use for super-heroes. I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but at the same time I don't think comic books have evolved at nearly the pace they used to.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jun 23, 2021 7:40:53 GMT -5
You may want to check this: I like this for the most part. I don;t like using "movie age" for the latest because 1) it's too superhero-centric, and 2) doesn;t reflect other things going on in types of books being produced and changes in markets/distribution. It doesn't seem right that most "eras" are 10 to 15 years long but the "Modern Age" in most reckonings is around 30 years and climbing. Now, where the split in the modern age would be...I haven't the faintest. I've pondered this as well, and likewise can't come up with a substantial splitting point. I can point to different events, trends, art styles, etc., but none of them seem nearly as substantial as what differentiated Golden, Silver, Bronze (even though I mentioned Copper and Atomic above, they still don't feel like major ages to me but more "transitional" concepts). The only things that majorly stand out to me in a comic book from 2021 versus 1991...digital coloring (and that was already starting later in the 90's) and the modern "Archie face" look a number of artists use for super-heroes. I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but at the same time I don't think comic books have evolved at nearly the pace they used to. Again, that seems to focus on just a segment of the market--there's a lot that happened in the past 10-20 years that I don;t pretend to have a handle on, mainly driven by a more segmented comics audience and how they perceive, seek out, and consume comics.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2021 7:45:22 GMT -5
I started seeing the term " Copper age" applied to comics for books from 1984-1991. Is this a thing, or is it just made up? I always thought it was : Golden Silver Bronze Modern If you're just now starting to hear it, you haven't been paying attention. People have been using Copper Age for at least the last 10-15 yeas. People were using it in 2012 when I got back into comics after a 5 year hiatus, though I didn't hear it before I started that hiatus, so I put its start somewhere in that 5 year period, though it could have been around before that and I hadn't noticed. It's a term that started as an attempt to quantify the era of comics starting in the 80s that felt different than the Bronze Age (books like TMNT, Miller's Ronin, the seismic shifts of '86 at DC with Dark Knight, Watchmen, etc. that was in line with the Gold/Silver/Bronze metallic theme and wasn't just the generic "Modern" which always has to be revisited whenever it sticks around too long and stops making sense. -M
|
|