|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 9:26:53 GMT -5
Tales of Suspense #95 "A Time to Die - A Time to Live" Writer: Stan Lee Art: Jack Kirby (pencils) and Joe Sinnott (inks) Cover Date: November 1967 My ThoughtsAfter a number of good issues in a row, there had to be some kind of letdown, and this issue was it. Just bad all around. It starts with the stupid framing device of the Gunner story, which only served to show Cap fighting harder than usual because of his being down about Agent Thirteen. Gunner and his goons are no match for Cap and only serve as human punching bags so we can be taken into flashback to see the genesis of Steve's frustration, much of which is of his own causing. I get that he probably hasn't gotten laid since the 1940's (if ever), but having him talking out loud in a public restaurant about marrying someone he only knows by her SHIELD designation is the height of desperation and is frankly pretty pathetic. Speaking of the Agent Thirteen issue, she knows his secret identity but hasn't gotten around to telling him hers? Something doesn't seem right there. I do like the fact, however, that while most of Stan's female love interests (Karen Page, Sue Storm, Jane Foster) would be swooning over their hunky crushes bringing up marriage to them, she has an important job other than hostage or victim and knows that she has an obligation to SHIELD due to her skills, so she doesn't get all jelly-kneed over his rambling incoherence. That said, Nick Fury is an absolute dick here, so her devotion to SHIELD may be misplaced. She's already worried about possibly being the cause for Steve quitting as Cap, and he kicks her while she's down, telling her to "tell him something he doesn't know". His comments about her being a "lovesick, torch-carrying female" and being no use to SHIELD in one breath, then telling her how much SHIELD needs her, then telling her that as soon as he can spare her, he'll let her go to Cap, is some serious emotional whiplash. Lastly, I have to say that Kirby's art in this issue is not up to his usual level. Two panels in particular bothered me:  I can't tell if Cap has punched them on his way through the door or if we are to assume that's he's just bolted through and the two idiot guars have shot each other. With his arms going backwards and his fists nowhere near where they would even touch the men, the shooting explanation makes more sense, but then what are the two bright impact glows around his fists? Just a poorly staged panel from a story-telling perspective.  C'mon, Jack, you know how to draw a realistic looking gun, so what the hell is the thing this low-level street thug holding here? My Grade: F
A dud from start to finish, especially coming on the heels of the really good two-part A.I.M./MODOK story. You can't win them all, and this one definitely goes in the loss column. When, you are a kid and enjoying Comics in a general sense of the word - I remember those panels that you've mentioned and did not think about how bad Jack Kirby drew them back then. But, when you are an Adult and see these things for yourself - you can comment on how bad it was. I read this book as a kid and I was fascinated by it and I thought it was a decent story and I didn't expect your reviews - art-wise being this bad. Nice review Captain and thanks for taking the time to point out the flaws of this book. I didn't see this coming. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on May 22, 2017 16:19:27 GMT -5
When, you are a kid and enjoying Comics in a general sense of the word - I remember those panels that you've mentioned and did not think about how bad Jack Kirby drew them back then. But, when you are an Adult and see these things for yourself - you can comment on how bad it was. I read this book as a kid and I was fascinated by it and I thought it was a decent story and I didn't expect your reviews - art-wise being this bad. Nice review Captain and thanks for taking the time to point out the flaws of this book. I didn't see this coming. A big part of these books is that I didn't grow up in the '60s, so I don't have the nostalgia factor working against me when I read and review these issues. The sense of wonder and the feeling of freshness because these are things I'd never seen before isn't present, so I tend to look at them through the jaded eyes of a person who has read a lot of comics in his lifetime and can see the warts and flaws for what they are rather than having a warm and fuzzy spot in my heart for the simplicity and goofiness of the stories. It's why I have such a hard time putting up with the Silly Silver Age Science. Slam Bradley rightly calls it out in his review thread, in that Stan threw out things like "magnetism", "radiation", and "transistors" because they sounded sciencey, but they were being used as a catch-all for a way to have things happen that Stan couldn't actually explain with real science. Don't get me wrong, as I don't blame Stan for this; he was doing the best he could with what he had in terms of education and intellect, but 50 years later, after all of the advancements in science that have taken place, those things seem less charming and more ridiculous. Thanks for reading, and I appreciate the feedback. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on May 22, 2017 18:07:43 GMT -5
Silly as it was, Stan's Silver Age Science came across as a lot more plausible than what DC was publishing at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 23, 2017 9:18:29 GMT -5
Silly as it was, Stan's Silver Age Science came across as a lot more plausible than what DC was publishing at the same time. I actually don't agree with this. Stan's magnetism, radiation and transistors just come across as magic. DC's science was equally hokey, but you had writers and editors who had worked in and grown up in science fiction circles and the science came across as more convincing to me. Now if you want to talk characterization that's a different kettle of transistors. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on May 23, 2017 11:21:42 GMT -5
Silly as it was, Stan's Silver Age Science came across as a lot more plausible than what DC was publishing at the same time. I actually don't agree with this. Stan's magnetism, radiation and transistors just come across as magic. DC's science was equally hokey, but you had writers and editors who had worked in and grown up in science fiction circles and the science came across as more convincing to me. Now if you want to talk characterization that's a different kettle of transistors. Different strokes, I guess. DC's silly science was hokey enough to take my mind off the story. Stan's silly science fit right in to the story flow for me. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 24, 2017 10:32:24 GMT -5
I actually don't agree with this. Stan's magnetism, radiation and transistors just come across as magic. DC's science was equally hokey, but you had writers and editors who had worked in and grown up in science fiction circles and the science came across as more convincing to me. Now if you want to talk characterization that's a different kettle of transistors. Different strokes, I guess. DC's silly science was hokey enough to take my mind off the story. Stan's silly science fit right in to the story flow for me. I think the difference is DC writers often tried to base things on real science, and often would toss in a real life fact or two so the kid reading it 'learned something'. I agree that could sometimes take you out of the story, but I suspect the idea was they were trying to be able to say they had a bit of education in them. Stan's 'magic'(transistors, radiation, etc) stuff just was.. it did flow just fine, as long as either you don't think about it, or your a kid and don't know better. As adults that know who silly it is, I think we have to just take it as it is and try not to think about it too hard to really enjoy the stories. |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on May 24, 2017 11:15:12 GMT -5
I don't require my comic book/movie/television/novel science fiction to be completely factual/actual/real. Has everyone forgotten comic books are fantasy/escapism and not real? Cartoon science, comic book science and science fiction novels in general used to be fun, exciting and speculative without being so concerned with the real life working aspects of it. I don't need the actual mechanics of knowing how Star Trek's transporter would actually work since it was only a plot device to avoid expensive effect shots and to get the characters from the ship to planet side quickly. Do we really need every little bit explained for us to enjoy or believe in it? No overthinking it all please.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 24, 2017 14:31:21 GMT -5
I don't require my comic book/movie/television/novel science fiction to be completely factual/actual/real. Has everyone forgotten comic books are fantasy/escapism and not real? Cartoon science, comic book science and science fiction novels in general used to be fun, exciting and speculative without being so concerned with the real life working aspects of it. I don't need the actual mechanics of knowing how Star Trek's transporter would actually work since it was only a plot device to avoid expensive effect shots and to get the characters from the ship to planet side quickly. Do we really need every little bit explained for us to enjoy or believe in it? No overthinking it all please. But we DO know how transporters work... they turn you into energy and zip you somewhere else.. see, that's the difference. That's a sci-fi item that HAS an explanation... it's not real, but it has enough basis in what science we do know that it's plausible. That's very different than 'because radiation' or 'super special transistors!'. I think those are simply too different types of fiction... one is simply telling a story in a fantastic setting, or perhaps using that setting to make a social commentary without getting in trouble, and the other is speculating on the bounds of science, and the impact of that science on society. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on May 24, 2017 15:02:49 GMT -5
I don't require my comic book/movie/television/novel science fiction to be completely factual/actual/real. Has everyone forgotten comic books are fantasy/escapism and not real? Cartoon science, comic book science and science fiction novels in general used to be fun, exciting and speculative without being so concerned with the real life working aspects of it. I don't need the actual mechanics of knowing how Star Trek's transporter would actually work since it was only a plot device to avoid expensive effect shots and to get the characters from the ship to planet side quickly. Do we really need every little bit explained for us to enjoy or believe in it? No overthinking it all please. I get what you're saying, but the problem is that there are no rules with Marvel Silver Age Science. Things work because Stan wrote that they do, without any sort of explanation. Radiation, magnetism, hypnosis, transistors; they all do what Stan wants them to do in whatever situation he wants to use them, without any grounding in actual science. I explore a couple of these situations in significant detail in a couple of upcoming reviews, looking at exactly how far off Stan is with his writing. The need for rules is critical to maintain internal consistency, so once something is established, it stays that way going forward, rather than using magnetism to do 75 different things across the entire line of books because the situation called for something to be "sciencey" and Stan had used radiation last month to explain why something happened. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 25, 2017 8:50:50 GMT -5
I don't require my comic book/movie/television/novel science fiction to be completely factual/actual/real. Has everyone forgotten comic books are fantasy/escapism and not real? Cartoon science, comic book science and science fiction novels in general used to be fun, exciting and speculative without being so concerned with the real life working aspects of it. I don't need the actual mechanics of knowing how Star Trek's transporter would actually work since it was only a plot device to avoid expensive effect shots and to get the characters from the ship to planet side quickly. Do we really need every little bit explained for us to enjoy or believe in it? No overthinking it all please. Exactly. I've noticed that there's a sort of obsession with completely imaginary fiction tech being explained as if it were real. You have the early Star Trek fans to thank for that, as their interest led to the creation of "technical manuals" and the sort of (frankly) silly belief that if it can be explained, it can be realized. In truth, it does not matter how writers have tried to explain Star Trek's transporters, Phasers or warp drive, because it is pure fiction that the writers of the 60s would never see any real world counterpart to (for reference), and now, writers of the early 21st century also live without, meaning it was--to be sure--created for budgetary concerns, not some exploration of "what could be" in the future. To that end, comic books are in the same position--the tech used is largely fantasy, and personally, I've never needed it to be explained as if it were absolutely real. No matter what terms Fox, Lee or anyone else ever used (or misused) during the Silver Age, the basic intent behind the tech/gadgets were explained well enough that the reader easily understood why it all worked. Its merely a fanciful support for the story, not the story. As much as I loved The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe series from the 80s, I thought the attempt to explain gadgets (e.g. Spider-Man's web shooters) was pointless, as it was not remotely applicable to real science and engineering, and ultimately came off as the kind of technobabble Star Trek: The Next Generation was routinely criticized for abusing. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 25, 2017 9:01:55 GMT -5
You're right on the one hand, but on the other, we have hand held computers, voice activated research devices, cell phones, VR, etc. So while it's true SOME things are like that, others have certainly inspired future engineers and scientists, which is really, really cool.
ST:TNGs technobabble only got annoying (IMO) when they did the time travel/alternate universe stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 25, 2017 11:37:00 GMT -5
I don't require my comic book/movie/television/novel science fiction to be completely factual/actual/real. Has everyone forgotten comic books are fantasy/escapism and not real? Cartoon science, comic book science and science fiction novels in general used to be fun, exciting and speculative without being so concerned with the real life working aspects of it. I don't need the actual mechanics of knowing how Star Trek's transporter would actually work since it was only a plot device to avoid expensive effect shots and to get the characters from the ship to planet side quickly. Do we really need every little bit explained for us to enjoy or believe in it? No overthinking it all please. I don't require it either. But don't call it science when it's clearly fantasy. I'm not asking for the actual science or tech-plans for any of this stuff. But any fifth grader who didn't sleep through science period knows that "magnetism" doesn't work all the wonders in the universe. I'm fine with Spidey's web-shooter. I don't need to know how it works. I'm okay with "unstable molecules" which are clearly just a macguffin. But I'm not okay with magnetism as magic. One of the reasons that I'm fairly brutal about "Marvel science" in my reviews is that Marvel Zombies have for ages gone on and on about how much more realistic and different what Marvel was doing compared to what DC was doing. Overall, at least in the early issues, the difference was pretty minuscule. The science was as bad or worse, the plots were mostly worse, the tropes were largely the same. The only real difference was that the Marvel characters whined a lot more. I'm not looking for high levels of realism. Super-heroes are inherently silly and unrealistic. But attempts to make them more realistic just make them look sillier. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on May 25, 2017 14:30:34 GMT -5
I don't require my comic book/movie/television/novel science fiction to be completely factual/actual/real. Has everyone forgotten comic books are fantasy/escapism and not real? Cartoon science, comic book science and science fiction novels in general used to be fun, exciting and speculative without being so concerned with the real life working aspects of it. I don't need the actual mechanics of knowing how Star Trek's transporter would actually work since it was only a plot device to avoid expensive effect shots and to get the characters from the ship to planet side quickly. Do we really need every little bit explained for us to enjoy or believe in it? No overthinking it all please. Exactly. I've noticed that there's a sort of obsession with completely imaginary fiction tech being explained as if it were real. You have the early Star Trek fans to thank for that, as their interest led to the creation of "technical manuals" and the sort of (frankly) silly belief that if it can be explained, it can be realized. In truth, it does not matter how writers have tried to explain Star Trek's transporters, Phasers or warp drive, because it is pure fiction that the writers of the 60s would never see any real world counterpart to (for reference), and now, writers of the early 21st century also live without, meaning it was--to be sure--created for budgetary concerns, not some exploration of "what could be" in the future. To that end, comic books are in the same position--the tech used is largely fantasy, and personally, I've never needed it to be explained as if it were absolutely real. No matter what terms Fox, Lee or anyone else ever used (or misused) during the Silver Age, the basic intent behind the tech/gadgets were explained well enough that the reader easily understood why it all worked. Its merely a fanciful support for the story, not the story. As much as I loved The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe series from the 80s, I thought the attempt to explain gadgets (e.g. Spider-Man's web shooters) was pointless, as it was not remotely applicable to real science and engineering, and ultimately came off as the kind of technobabble Star Trek: The Next Generation was routinely criticized for abusing. I see your point to an extent. I'm certainly guilty of piling on Stan when he writes about things like a "solar gun" (from ToS #86) that "eats through solid steel in a fraction of a second" because things just don't work that way in the real world. Should I be a little more forgiving, in that I could accept that some terrorist group has created a weapon like this and that Stan doesn't give us a detailed explanation of how a handheld gun generates sufficient heat so as to perform the event he says it does? Maybe I could be, in that this is a fantasy world and if I accept stretching men, invisible women, and teenagers with the proportional strength of a spider, then why could a weapon like that not exist? At the same time, however, I have to raise the related questions, such as if the "solar ray" can generate that kind of heat, which has to be tremendous, how is it that Cap casually dodges the beams without any kind of injuries? Steel melts at 2500 degrees Fahrenheit, so anything in close proximity to a concentrated beam of energy (for lack of any other term) at that temperature, particularly something as fragile as human flesh or cloth, would be burned to a crisp. Also, at the very least, I want to know what the terrorists are using to generate that kind of energy in a hand-held instrument that has no external power source attached. There has to be some kind of science behind it, at least in part, or else it just comes off as silly and half-baked. Moreover, "magnetism" was discovered in ancient Greece, "radiation", in its various forms, was discovered starting in 1800, and "transistor" technology started developing in the early 1900's. The world, even in 1965, understood how these things worked, so for Stan to use them as a catch-all for "sciencey" stuff is just laziness on his part, particularly when he uses them in a way that is flat-out scientifically wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 25, 2017 19:45:36 GMT -5
Exactly. I've noticed that there's a sort of obsession with completely imaginary fiction tech being explained as if it were real. You have the early Star Trek fans to thank for that, as their interest led to the creation of "technical manuals" and the sort of (frankly) silly belief that if it can be explained, it can be realized. In truth, it does not matter how writers have tried to explain Star Trek's transporters, Phasers or warp drive, because it is pure fiction that the writers of the 60s would never see any real world counterpart to (for reference), and now, writers of the early 21st century also live without, meaning it was--to be sure--created for budgetary concerns, not some exploration of "what could be" in the future. To that end, comic books are in the same position--the tech used is largely fantasy, and personally, I've never needed it to be explained as if it were absolutely real. No matter what terms Fox, Lee or anyone else ever used (or misused) during the Silver Age, the basic intent behind the tech/gadgets were explained well enough that the reader easily understood why it all worked. Its merely a fanciful support for the story, not the story. As much as I loved The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe series from the 80s, I thought the attempt to explain gadgets (e.g. Spider-Man's web shooters) was pointless, as it was not remotely applicable to real science and engineering, and ultimately came off as the kind of technobabble Star Trek: The Next Generation was routinely criticized for abusing. I see your point to an extent. I'm certainly guilty of piling on Stan when he writes about things like a "solar gun" (from ToS #86) that "eats through solid steel in a fraction of a second" because things just don't work that way in the real world. Should I be a little more forgiving, in that I could accept that some terrorist group has created a weapon like this and that Stan doesn't give us a detailed explanation of how a handheld gun generates sufficient heat so as to perform the event he says it does? Maybe I could be, in that this is a fantasy world and if I accept stretching men, invisible women, and teenagers with the proportional strength of a spider, then why could a weapon like that not exist? At the same time, however, I have to raise the related questions, such as if the "solar ray" can generate that kind of heat, which has to be tremendous, how is it that Cap casually dodges the beams without any kind of injuries? Steel melts at 2500 degrees Fahrenheit, so anything in close proximity to a concentrated beam of energy (for lack of any other term) at that temperature, particularly something as fragile as human flesh or cloth, would be burned to a crisp. Also, at the very least, I want to know what the terrorists are using to generate that kind of energy in a hand-held instrument that has no external power source attached. There has to be some kind of science behind it, at least in part, or else it just comes off as silly and half-baked. Moreover, "magnetism" was discovered in ancient Greece, "radiation", in its various forms, was discovered starting in 1800, and "transistor" technology started developing in the early 1900's. The world, even in 1965, understood how these things worked, so for Stan to use them as a catch-all for "sciencey" stuff is just laziness on his part, particularly when he uses them in a way that is flat-out scientifically wrong. One additional thing we should remember: history is overflowing with general labels or names that end up becoming colloquial terms. For example, in the early days of TV, the medium was commonly referred to as "video," despite the fact video was specifically a term for a image-capturing format. Similarly, "film" once had a specific meaning, but over the decades became the loose term not only for emulsion film, but video, digital formats and an entire industry. On that note, certain terms such as "radiation" can be that kind of catch-all you referred to, since a certain kind of fictional radiation, its effects and properties all fall under the loose term "radiation," and the reader will know where this particular element comes from. The early Silver Age tech was a mix of sci-fi films, books and generalizing terms which allowed the creators to convey the general category of energy or physical objects. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on May 27, 2017 12:00:42 GMT -5
Tales of Suspense #96 "To Be Reborn!" Writer: Stan Lee Art: Jack Kirby (pencils) and Joe Sinnott (inks) Cover Date: December 1967 SynopsisThe story opens with a police lineup featuring three men in Captain America uniforms, one of whom has his arm in a sling. They each describe why they are dressed this way as Steve Rogers and a group of police officers look on. One of the cops tells Steve that the underworld is looking to take him out, which puts these impostors at greater risk than expected. Elsewhere in the city, a nattily-dressed man called the Sniper is demonstrating his ability with a gun to a mob boss for the Syndicate, the organization that has put the hit out on Captain America. The Sniper says that while the other hitmen have failed, he doesn't make mistakes and the job will be done. On a rooftop across town, another Captain America wannabe dodges bullets from two attackers revealing that he was hired to do promotional work for a judo studio. As he has some skills, he eludes capture, only to be clipped by a bullet while fleeing, which knocks him from the roof, although he manages to catch a ledge on the way down, hanging on for his life. Just across the way, Steve Rogers sees these events unfold and feels compelled to take action. He leaps from that building's roof to catch the fake Cap just as he loses his grip, catching his own foot on an aerial wire to keep them from plummeting to the ground below. However, the Sniper has set up shop nearby and shoots at his defenseless targets just as the wire snaps; Steve and the other man are saved from their fall when Steve bounces off of a flagpole, careening onto another rooftop. The Sniper once again takes aim at them, but he is distracted when Steve Rogers appears in the same window he just was seen in. Confused, the Sniper fires at the Steve in the window, but before he can turn his attention to the Steve on the rooftop, Nick Fury and Dum Dum Dugan burst into the room, apprehending him and mentioning the use of a Steve Rogers LMD as bait. Back on the rooftop, Steve and "Cap" are found by the original two goons, but Steve dispatches them quickly. Nick and Dum Dum show up to cart the attackers away, and as they talk, Steve decides there is nothing else he can do but return to what he was born to do, and that is be Captain America. My ThoughtsThis issue is the very definition of "pedestrian", as nothing of note or import happens in it. The Sniper is a cipher, having no discernible personality (other than his arrogance, maybe) or motivation outside of doing a job for The Syndicate. As for them, why do they want to take out Captain America? Other than his dealings with Gunner Gates in the previous issue, Cap has not bothered with organized crime much, so their vendetta seems rather random. As well, there are just far too many coincidences in this issue to be believable. The Cap impostor just happens to be on a rooftop (what he is doing up there is a mystery, since he's supposed to be doing promo work for a judo studio) that is near to where Steve lives/is hanging out, which happens to be near to where the Sniper has decided to make camp. How does The Syndicate know where Steve was going to be, and if they do, why wait until he jumps off his roof to shoot at him? Why did SHIELD have a Steve Rogers (rather than a Captain America) LMD? How did they find the Sniper so quickly in such a big city? Too many questions. With Steve quitting just last issue, then 10 pages later decides he was born to do this, it seems like Stan and Jack were just killing time with this story, particularly as the next issue starts a multiple-part story that flows into the start of Cap's solo title. On the plus side, it looks like Jack remembered how to draw a realistic-looking gun this month...  ...except he forgot that wasn't the gun he drew for this guy just a couple of pages earlier:  My Grade: DNot quite as bad as the last issue, this one had nothing memorable about it, either good or bad. It's a "I read it once for the review but will never do so again" story.
|
|
