|
Post by Cei-U! on May 29, 2021 4:17:28 GMT -5
Nobody's perfect. Take a writer you think very highly of, someone you consider one of your favorite writers, and tell of something they wrote that didn't exactly work out so well. I'll start. Steve EnglehartHis retcon of the Falcon's origins, turning him into a former street hustler named Snap (Captain America #186) was a terrible idea! He sort of ruined a good character. I like to pretend that this never, ever happened. By the way, supposedly, didn't mean for this origin to stick, but was off the book before he had a chance to undo it, or whatever it is he had planned, then the next writer wasn't on the book long enough to do anything about it, then the next writer was Jack Kirby, who pretty much ignored Marvel continuity in his run, anyway. This is the right answer. Maybe Englehart was intoxicated by how well his brilliant retcon of the 1950s Captain America went, but the Falcon retcon was an embarrassing mistake. I think he may have thought Sam was too stereotypical as a sidekick. Too happy. But the opposite was the case. The original Sam Wilson had self-respect. Snap was degrading caricature. I may be misremembering, but I'd swear I read an interview with Englehart where he said that, had he not been taken off the book, he would've eventually revealed that the Snap persona was created by the Red Skull with the Cosmic Cube to undermine Cap's faith in Sam and destroy his usefulness s a partner. That would've made that whole plotline more palatable for me. As it is...
Cei-U! I summon the fail!
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on May 29, 2021 11:17:32 GMT -5
Not really a favorite writer, but at a time when he was on a roll with Neal Adams, I kind of find some of Denny O' Neil's writing when paired up with other artists to be less than exemplary. This might sound natural - "Well next to Neal Adams, everyone is going to pale in comparison" - but it's hard to reconcile his "Joker's Five Way Revenge" from Batman 251 with his "This One'll Kill You, Batman!" from Batman 260 which boasts a tale where-in Batman's been drugged with a concoction designed to make him laugh himself to death after being exposed to one too many bad jokes. Joker: A karate-chop in the liver for you, Batman! Batman: Hey -- that gives me -- chopped liver! Ha Ha Ha... Joker -- you're too much! O'Neil's first Joker story after " Five Way Revenge" and compare the denouement of that issue - Batman's battle with a shark - with this one where he defeats his foe by "concentrat[ing] on the funniest scenes from all The Marx Brothers pictures!" I wanted to make it clear that Batman was not in the habit of making cheesy one-liners during this period.
That's the problem though, in this tale he does. As you pointed out, it makes complete sense within the context of the story, but anything could make sense if the writer wants it to. It makes sense for this piece to end with "That was no ladde I saw you with - that was my wife" and it certainly is a Joker tactic to get people to laugh themselves to death. I'll even add that it's a great touch that the worse the joke the closer to death the victim gets, but it nevertheless is still a yarn with bad quip after bad quip after bad quip. I mean, if The Joker had taken a bunch of hostages and demanded that Batman run around in a chicken outfit or something it would make sense and it would be a Joker thing to do, but it would still be a strange follow-up to "Five Way Revenge" and for 1975.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on May 29, 2021 11:35:16 GMT -5
This is the right answer. Maybe Englehart was intoxicated by how well his brilliant retcon of the 1950s Captain America went, but the Falcon retcon was an embarrassing mistake. I think he may have thought Sam was too stereotypical as a sidekick. Too happy. But the opposite was the case. The original Sam Wilson had self-respect. Snap was degrading caricature. I may be misremembering, but I'd swear I read an interview with Englehart where he said that, had he not been taken off the book, he would've eventually revealed that the Snap persona was created by the Red Skull with the Cosmic Cube to undermine Cap's faith in Sam and destroy his usefulness s a partner. That would've made that whole plotline more palatable for me. As it is...
Cei-U! I summon the fail!
If that was the case, it would've been better if Englehart would've been allowed to complete it. It wouldn't have been such a mess. It seems plausible leaving Snap as the true Sam seems below the quality of story Englehart would tell.
|
|
|
Post by String on May 29, 2021 11:52:03 GMT -5
Jim Shooter writing a comic where Hank Pym is an abusive husband. Going on 40 years now. I would go a step further and say Shooter also making Pym overall mentally unstable/fragile. The creation of Ultron, the initial appearance of Yellowjacket, to me, these looked like events that Hank suffered through yet he recovered and simply moved on. It seems like Shooter (in Avengers #161) was the first to link the dots in all these scenarios by having Hank suffer severe mental issues/distress and thus changed the entire perception of his character since. For Hank Pym under Thomas seems like a wholly different type of character/hero to me than the Pym I've been accustomed to reading since the 80s.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on May 29, 2021 13:16:48 GMT -5
I may be misremembering, but I'd swear I read an interview with Englehart where he said that, had he not been taken off the book, he would've eventually revealed that the Snap persona was created by the Red Skull with the Cosmic Cube to undermine Cap's faith in Sam and destroy his usefulness as a partner. That would've made that whole plotline more palatable for me. As it is... I've long loved most (NOT ALL!) of Englehart's work. But his descriptions of what happened back when KEEPS CHANGING over the years. I hate to say it, but after hanging out at his website a few years ago, I find myself coming to the conclusion that he may be the 2nd or 3rd LEAST-reliable source of info for things that went on decades ago. I've seen him tell COMPLETELY-conflicting stories. (Where he winds up contradicting things HE said himself years earlier.)
Maybe it is too much L.S.D. (as my former comics-shop owner described).
I had forgotten this, but on looking back, apparently, Steve Englehart decided to leave CAPTAIN AMERICA when he did (right in the middle of a storyline!) specifically so he could try and make SUPER-VILLAIN TEAM-UP into something coherent and readable, which it never was before he got on the book (and never was again after he left). It's still jaw-dropping that he should drop off a book he did so much good work on, to tackle such a misbegotten title that, frankly, never should have existed in the first place.
One funny aspect of his SVTU was his creating The Shroud-- a blatent swipe of Batman-- mere months before getting on DETECTIVE COMICS. Just as he did a Squardon Supreme story-- mere months before he got on JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA.
Frankly, it's not the first time he did something "off" on C.A. I had very little knowledge about it at the time it came out (just when I started reading the book regular), but his 4-part Yellow Claw story now really bothers the HELL out of me, because of what it's a sequel to. A story that-- I now firmly believe-- was the victim of EDITORIAL INTERFERENCE and TAMPERING.
But that's how it goes. Since it was the "editor" who SCREWED over the earlier story... what he did, became "official". A shame. Had Englehart had more GUTS, he might have "fixed" the problem... instead of compounding it.
One more problem that happens when you work on "corporate-owned" characters, instead of your own.
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on May 29, 2021 16:00:10 GMT -5
I had forgotten this, but on looking back, apparently, Steve Englehart decided to leave CAPTAIN AMERICA when he did (right in the middle of a storyline!) specifically so he could try and make SUPER-VILLAIN TEAM-UP into something coherent and readable, which it never was before he got on the book (and never was again after he left). It's still jaw-dropping that he should drop off a book he did so much good work on, to tackle such a misbegotten title that, frankly, never should have existed in the first place. The ten month gap between Captain America #186 and Super-Villain Team Up #5 suggests you might be mistaken here. On Englehart's website, he says he dropped Captain America because he was offered a monthly black and white Thor magazine with John Buscema on art. This was shelved, but a cropped and coloured version of the story intended for the first issue was published as Thor Annual #5, and a black and white Thor story by Len Wein and Jim Starlin turned up later in Marvel Preview #10. Englehart says he wrote only one issue of Skull the Slayer because SVTU became available. I find Englehart's scripting tends to be more reliable than his memory, but the cover dates of Skull #4 and SVTU #5 do fit with his account.
|
|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on Jun 3, 2021 11:53:13 GMT -5
I think it was John Byrne who had Alicia and Thing's relationship end and have Alicia and Johnny Storm to become an item, and shortly after Byrne left, the two became married. I thought it was a huge mistake at the time.
Years later, after taking a long break from reading comics, I come to find out the person Johnny married was NOT Alicia Masters, but a Skrull impersonating her!
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 3, 2021 12:31:26 GMT -5
I think it was John Byrne who had Alicia and Thing's relationship end and have Alicia and Johnny Storm to become an item, and shortly after Byrne left, the two became married. I thought it was a huge mistake at the time. Years later, after taking a long break from reading comics, I come to find out the person Johnny married was NOT Alicia Masters, but a Skrull impersonating her! SO much better.
|
|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on Jun 3, 2021 13:28:20 GMT -5
I think it was John Byrne who had Alicia and Thing's relationship end and have Alicia and Johnny Storm to become an item, and shortly after Byrne left, the two became married. I thought it was a huge mistake at the time. Years later, after taking a long break from reading comics, I come to find out the person Johnny married was NOT Alicia Masters, but a Skrull impersonating her! SO much better. Yeah, I thought it was a pretty weak resolution to an already weak idea.
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Jackson on Jun 3, 2021 18:14:17 GMT -5
At the time I thought the Skrull explanation was as good a way as any to reverse an ill conceived idea like Johnny and Alicia getting together. The Skrull's go back to #2 as an FF adversary and it made sense they would try to infiltrate them with a spy. Mind you I've only read the reveal issue and nothing else from that time, which I probably should some day since I've always been a big FF fan AND DeFalco fan (I know, not a popular opinion with a lot of folks here 🙂)
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jun 8, 2021 17:36:48 GMT -5
I think it was John Byrne who had Alicia and Thing's relationship end and have Alicia and Johnny Storm to become an item, and shortly after Byrne left, the two became married. I thought it was a huge mistake at the time. Years later, after taking a long break from reading comics, I come to find out the person Johnny married was NOT Alicia Masters, but a Skrull impersonating her! I hated the Johnny/Alicia thing as a kid, but when I reread the run as an adult it made a lot more sense to me.
But the marriage was probably a bad idea (I don't remember those issues at all.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2021 7:36:03 GMT -5
I agree with so many examples that have been mentioned! Byrne has been mentioned a number of times and I thought I'd add some comments. He's always going to be one of my favorites, both as a writer and artist. His FF, particularly the earlier part, is second only to the Lee/Kirby/Sinnott years for me personally. I appreciated that he tried to push boundaries at times, and sometimes it worked brilliantly, but sometimes it was a big swing and a miss in my opinion.
-Alicia and Johnny. Interesting attempt at a twist, but no, Ben and Alicia were not just an ordinary couple. Alicia gave Ben a sense of his humanity still, and despite all his insecurities about it and his gruff persona, it's part of what gave Ben so much warmth. Similarly it made the character of Alicia so compelling that she could "see" into a person's true character, and the attempt to break up that romance felt like a hack move for shock value versus a tragic but clever change of events.
-Vision and Scarlet Witch. Honestly the same thing. The whole concept of an android being more than just a machine, and the romance that developed between them...it was so unique and thought-provoking, and I think they should have lived happily ever after. One of my favorite stories about them was actually What If? #38 from '83 that explored what would happen when the Scarlet Witch reached an advanced old age but the Vision was still the same. Sweetest story ever, and also an example of brilliant story-telling. I compare that to what Byrne did to destroy everything, and it is quite the stark contrast.
-Alpha Flight. I know Byrne wasn't as much into this series, but I thought it got off to a really great start. Killing Guardian so early on really deflated that early momentum.
Perhaps not as egregious in the long run but things that made me go "hmmm"...the Superman/Big Barda "infamous issue" (too creepy for me!), the Sue Storm "Malice" storyline, and this is more of an art comment, but his take on Sue's hair during his FF run!
Bottom line...Byrne could always flip from brilliant to frustrating for me. At times he was making great comic book history, at other times he seemed to have such weird hate for certain characters and comic book history and seemed to have more of an axe to grind than a good story to tell.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2021 8:12:24 GMT -5
Keith Giffen. Not his writing but his art style. When he changed it and it became more abstract. Well, his problem is that he didn't seem to define his own style. at the start, he was a Kirby clone, with bits and pieces of Adams (and/or Buscema) and then he came back slicker and a bit more unique, then just turned into a Jose Munoz clone. He wasn't as directly derivative of Munoz, after several years, but he also didn't seem to leave it behind, either. When Giffen started on his classic Legion run with Levitz, I absolutely loved his style. He quickly joined my favorites at that time like Byrne and Perez. When he did the Munoz thing, obviously that got him into a lot of hot water, but also really did not work for me for the main Legion title, and I was so glad when Steve Lightle took over. Though at the same time, while not good to be so directly copying Munoz of course, I loved it in his off-beat titles like the Legion of Substitute-Heroes special and Ambush Bug. Also, back to his pre-Munoz slicker style, I think Larry Mahlstedt's inking had more to do with it than I realized at the time. Larry really brought Greg LaRocque's pencils to life later on as well, I think he's a very underrated inker.
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Jun 9, 2021 8:23:21 GMT -5
I think it was John Byrne who had Alicia and Thing's relationship end and have Alicia and Johnny Storm to become an item, and shortly after Byrne left, the two became married. I thought it was a huge mistake at the time. Years later, after taking a long break from reading comics, I come to find out the person Johnny married was NOT Alicia Masters, but a Skrull impersonating her! I hated the Johnny/Alicia thing as a kid, but when I reread the run as an adult it made a lot more sense to me.
But the marriage was probably a bad idea (I don't remember those issues at all.)
One of the (many) odd things about comic book fans is that they seem to demand that a character remains with whoever was the first love interest in the book. A handful of people marry their high school sweethearts but, for the vast majority of us, that is not how our significant relationships work.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2021 8:39:03 GMT -5
I hated the Johnny/Alicia thing as a kid, but when I reread the run as an adult it made a lot more sense to me.
But the marriage was probably a bad idea (I don't remember those issues at all.)
One of the (many) odd things about comic book fans is that they seem to demand that a character remains with whoever was the first love interest in the book. A handful of people marry their high school sweethearts but, for the vast majority of us, that is not how our significant relationships work. I think that gets a little bit at the heart of different reasons people enjoy comic books. Some might like writing that reflects more the "real world", but others like imagining a world that might be a little more idyllic, and for example you meet and fall in love with your soul mate and live happily ever after. It's what level of escapism calls out to you. And a quick edit to that comment...if I look myself in the mirror, "One of the (many) odd things about comic book fans is that they seem to demand that a character remains with whoever was the first love interest in the book."...I also totally resemble that remark!
|
|