|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 6, 2007 14:17:22 GMT -5
Sal never looked better than during this short stint. He is another one of the oldies-but-goodies who has declined in latter years.
But not the way Don Heck did.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 13, 2007 19:38:14 GMT -5
And by the way, if I could get back to the above-mentioned Back Issue Spider-Man Wedding roundtable for a second... if you haven't found the issue yet, do take the time to scout it up and read that interview. Shooter just comes off as such a jerk!! I read the interview the other day and you're right...he does not come across well. He's defensive and sarcastic ("And so my legend grows" "Cranky? Me?"). It's too bad he's so bitter, as he is a talented writer and as others have mentioned, he revitalized Marvel. (But I concede he is probably jerk in many respects; for one thing, he made it very difficult for Kirby to reclaim his original artwork). Thanks for pointing out the Back Issue interview, dlw, it was certainly interesting reading. And as an old time LSH fan, I am looking forward to his forthcoming stint on that book. I will never forget that great 2-part epic LSH story (Adventure #359-#360), when the Legionnaires were "outlaws"...it contained every member up to that point...one of the first LSH stories I ever read.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 14, 2007 12:45:16 GMT -5
And, if you haven't already, head over to the Shooter thread for some growing discussion!!
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 14, 2007 15:18:44 GMT -5
Regarding GS Avengers 2, I really liked the story, the art not that much (was it Don Heck? - and inked by whom?) The art is credited to Heck and Werner Roth (inks by Colletta). Heck probably did the layouts and Roth finished up (this was the same approach taken by that same team on some X-Men issues around that time, too). IMO, the resulting art from the Heck-Roth team was never very pleasing. Also, this Annual has that great, justly-famous cover by Buscema (plus a few JB panels from #56 in the story itself). Oops, I meant Annual 2 - yes the one with like you said the great Big John cover featuring the classic team vs. the (then) new Avengers, not GS 2.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 14, 2007 18:10:43 GMT -5
Don't worry, von Bek, I knew exactly what issue you were referring to because you mentioned the Watcher..and yes, that ending was confusing!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 16, 2007 22:29:53 GMT -5
BTW, in this thread I have referred to the 1960s-early 70s issues as "annuals" (and they did come out once a year), but Marvel called them by different names (I'll use 3 titles for examples): Annual1963: FF#1; 1964: FF #2, Spidey #1 Special King Size Annual1965: FF #3, Spidey #2 King-Size Special 1966-71: FF #4-#9, Spidey #3-#8, Avengers #1-#4 Special1972: Avengers #5 King-Size Special Issue1793: FF #10, Spidey #9 So the Avengers annuals in 1967 and 1968 are really "King Size Specials"...but in the Essentials' table of contents, these issues are titled "Annual #1" and "Annual #2." Now, this is nowhere near as confusing as DC's Giants, with their numbering system and multiple flavors of Giants (Super DC Giants, etc.)..but that is a topic for another day...
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 17, 2007 10:45:13 GMT -5
Interesting to look through the covers on the link below. Some of Marvel's Giant-Size issues contained new material, while most titles served mainly as reprint compendiums. For example, all issues of GS Defenders and Master of Kung Fu contained new stories; GS Spider-Man did in the first five issues but was a reprint title for issue #6. www.comic-covers.com/Marvel/MarvelF-J/GiantSize/index.html
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Sept 17, 2007 19:04:46 GMT -5
BTW, in this thread I have referred to the 1960s-early 70s issues as "annuals" (and they did come out once a year), but Marvel called them by different names (I'll use 3 titles for examples): Annual1963: FF#1; 1964: FF #2, Spidey #1 Special King Size Annual1965: FF #3, Spidey #2 King-Size Special 1966-71: FF #4-#9, Spidey #3-#8, Avengers #1-#4 Special1972: Avengers #5 King-Size Special Issue1793: FF #10, Spidey #9 So the Avengers annuals in 1967 and 1968 are really "King Size Specials"...but in the Essentials' table of contents, these issues are titled "Annual #1" and "Annual #2." The issues you cite have all been retroactively referred to as “annuals” for years, by Marvel and others. Usually I consider the “true, official” title of a comic to be the title given in the indicia (that legalistic fine-print blurb inside the comic that gives the copyright details, the publisher’s address, publication frequency, postal subscription information, etc.)—this helps me decide whether a series is really The Avengers or The Mighty Avengers, for instance. By the time I started reading lots of Marvel in the ’80s, the “annual” terminology had been largely settled on both in the indicias and on the covers. But as I started acquiring Silver Age issues, I was surprised that issues I had over and over seen referred to as “annuals” were not “annuals” or even “specials” according to their own indicias. For example, the original New Avengers-vs.-Old Avengers story— —is simply The Avengers Vol. 1, No. 2; and the original Human Torch’s first “modern” reappearance— —took place in Fantastic Four Vol. 1, No. 4! Although I catalog them as such in my own collection (taking care to distinguish them from the same-numbered issues in their parent series—not that I have those, yet), in ordinary discussion I refer to them as Avengers Annual and Fantastic Four Annual issues, as I imagine most comics enthusiasts would.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 17, 2007 21:50:28 GMT -5
Man, those are some great covers!!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 21, 2007 8:37:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 24, 2007 19:17:32 GMT -5
But as I started acquiring Silver Age issues, I was surprised that issues I had over and over seen referred to as “annuals” were not “annuals” or even “specials” according to their own indicias. Y'know, Phantom, in my never-ending quest for the truth, I had originally checked the indicias, too. I agree this did not serve to clarify anything...instead, it raised more questions in my mind. I think this may have something to do with the distribution deal Marvel was under at the time. Pre-1968, Marvel books were distributed by a distributor owned by National (DC). The deal had been brokered in the late '50s, before Marvel's explosion. Contractually, under this deal Marvel could only publish X number of books per month. You couldn't have a new Thor book, for instance; but you could plop Thor into an existing title, Journey Into Mystery (and then rename it at some point, but maintain JIM's numbering). Anyway, I'm guessing Marvel's jumbo issues were included in the parent book's normal run because of the limited amount of book slots available. The plus-size issues could could not be designated as separate books, so, you couldn't have a book officially titled "Avengers Annual"--because that would be an additional book. Per the indicia, the Avengers title is published monthly, except in September, when it is "semi-monthly"...so 2 September Avengers issues, one regular-sized and one giant-sized. But for marketing/cover display purposes--to help Marvel books stand out on a newsstand--the covers were emblazoned with "Special" or "King-Size Special" or "King-Size Special Issue!" Really, would anyone expect less from Stan and company, who gave us not just the Hulk but the Incredible Hulk...not just Spider-Man but the Amazing Spider-Man...not to mention the World's Greatest Comic Magazine? Merry Marvel marketing at its mightiest! In mid-1968, the old deal expired and Marvel entered into a new deal (with a new distributor, not owned by DC). At this point--and this is pure conjecture on my part--Marvel may have decided it was not worth changing the status quo when it came to characterizing their Annuals/Specials/King Sizes etc. Also, since the new deal resulted in the ability to publish more books,after years of sharing the split books Iron Man, Subby, and Nick Fury got their own books; and the split books were renamed for Cap, Hulk and Strange. This expansion was a double-edged sword for Marvel; due to the increased number of books, in '69 the much-loved original-material Annuals (well, loved by me at least) had to resort to reprint material...there just wasn't enough Bullpen to go around- -i.e., create new material for Annuals- -at this point! EDIT: DC's 1960s response to merry Marvel's marketing savvy? The fabled "go go checks."
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 24, 2007 19:41:36 GMT -5
Hmmm...interesting that the first Silver Age appearances of Golden Age giants Namor, Cap, and the original Torch all occur in issue #4 of FF, Avengers and FF Annual, respectively. And yes, I know there was a prior SA Cap appearance in Strange Tales, but that was a faux Cap! EDIT: In keeping with the 4 motif, the Fantastic Four was Marvel's first new Silver Age title. Okay, I guess that's stretching things…just thought I'd mention it, true believers...
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 25, 2007 9:17:51 GMT -5
Hmmm...interesting that the first Silver Age appearances of Golden Age giants Namor, Cap, and the original Torch all occur in issue #4 of FF, Avengers and FF Annual, respectively. And yes, I know there was a prior SA Cap appearance in Strange Tales, but that was a faux Cap! EDIT: In keeping with the 4 motif, the Fantastic Four was Marvel's first new Silver Age title. Okay, I guess that's stretching things…just thought I'd mention it, true believers... And Cap´s Kooky Quartet debuted in Avengers 16 (4X4=16)
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Sept 25, 2007 9:50:21 GMT -5
Considering the title of this thread I thought it might be of interest that there was a documentary about Steve Ditko on British television last week. It was made by Johnathan Ross and featured interviews with Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Stan Lee, John Romita Sr and Joe Quesada. It'll probably end up somewhere on the internet eventually so people outside the UK will probably be able to see it.
Stan comes over pretty well, but he clearly has very restrictive ideas about the term 'creator'. Ditko was clearly a nutter, but undeniably brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 25, 2007 9:59:18 GMT -5
Considering the title of this thread I thought it might be of interest that there was a documentary about Steve Ditko on British television last week. It was made by Johnathan Ross and featured interviews with Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Stan Lee, John Romita Sr and Joe Quesada. It'll probably end up somewhere on the internet eventually so people outside the UK will probably be able to see it. Stan comes over pretty well, but he clearly has very restrictive ideas about the term 'creator'. Ditko was clearly a nutter, but undeniably brilliant. I was reading an article yesterday about Ditko´s Creeper, and the author mentions that the reason Ditko left Spiderman could be because Stan wanted Norman Osbourn to be the Green Goblin. Ditko created Osbourn to be a kind of mentor to Peter Parker (based in his 'Objectivisms' beliefs) and was horrified that Stan planned to turn him into a villain. Had Ditko stayed on the book we would have had a veeery different Peter Parker. P.S.: Thanks for the tip, crimsoncowl, maybe we can find the documentary on Youtube.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Sept 25, 2007 10:48:45 GMT -5
Yeah, everyone interviewed seems to have a different opinion about why Ditko left Marvel at the height of his success.
Seeing Alan Moore give a rendition of the VU's 'Sister Ray' with new lyrics about Steve Ditko is a televisual moment I won't forget in a hurry!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 25, 2007 14:20:19 GMT -5
Yes, von Bek, I've seen the story about Norman Osborn before. While I like those early Spidey issues with Ditko's quirky art, I've always felt that whatever rift there was between he and Stan turned out to be our (readers/collectors/fans) gain. John Romita just went on to become the definitive Spider-Man artist of the rest of the decade and for many of all time.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 25, 2007 14:29:52 GMT -5
While I like those early Spidey issues with Ditko's quirky art, I've always felt that whatever rift there was between he and Stan turned out to be our (readers/collectors/fans) gain. John Romita just went on to become the definitive Spider-Man artist of the rest of the decade and for many of all time. Yep, Romita gave us the definitive Spidey, Peter Parker, Mary Jane, Aunt May, J.J.Jameson, etc. Besides, having Spiderman as a Randist/Objectivist hero (like so many created by Ditko) would be really weird. I doubt the character would have continued to be successful that way.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 25, 2007 15:42:03 GMT -5
Hmmm...interesting that the first Silver Age appearances of Golden Age giants Namor, Cap, and the original Torch all occur in issue #4 of FF, Avengers and FF Annual, respectively. And yes, I know there was a prior SA Cap appearance in Strange Tales, but that was a faux Cap! EDIT: In keeping with the 4 motif, the Fantastic Four was Marvel's first new Silver Age title. Okay, I guess that's stretching things…just thought I'd mention it, true believers... And Cap´s Kooky Quartet debuted in Avengers 16 (4X4=16) And let's not forget that, even though the X-Men met Magneto in #1, they didn't meet the rest of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants (All 4 of them including Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch) until issue #4. Maybe this all explains why the majority of Marvel's limited series used be 4 issues long.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 25, 2007 21:47:48 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this, dlw; fantastic essay! The author's point is exactly right: the Legion was an interesting, provocative series even prior to Shooter's arrival. Edmond Hamilton’s story in #342 was quite a shocking tale for the time both in its subject matter and treatment. There are no easy answers in this story. IMO both Hamilton and E. Nelson Bridwell were very underrated. Hamilton was responsible for some great LSH stories/developments, many of which were not commonly seen in mainstream books in the 60s, including the death and resurrection of Lightning Lad, the death of one of Triplicate Girl's selves, Lightning Lad (yes, him again) losing an arm, Bouncing Boy losing his powers, etc. Hamilton managed to impart a feeling of an ongoing novel to the LSH, instead of isolated short stories. This quality was perpetuated by Shooter. And from what I've read, Hamilton graciously showed Shooter the ropes even when it was obvious Shooter was going to take over the bulk of the scripting for the series. Because the series took place in the future, and there was a large cast of characters (none of whom were household names in the 60s, except of course for the Supes), I think Weisinger and his LSH writers felt they could take chances when it came to dealing with characters and storylines. Of course at times a greater power (read: DC executives) would step in and veto their ideas, such with Adventure #350-#351 (a story by Bridwell, as I mentioned in a recent post about Color Kid, in the “Useless Powers” thread...more details there). But for the most part, the Silver Age LSH series was a series in which anything could happen...and this was years before such a description could be applied to books like Claremont's X-Men.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 26, 2007 14:43:34 GMT -5
I came to the Legion during the Cockrum and Grell years, and what a wonderful world it was! I have very fond memories of that time with all of the cool (back then!) costumes, the relationships, and the awesome art. Of course, my collecting suffered in those times from shoddy distribution, much as it did for Marvels of the day.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 26, 2007 19:25:46 GMT -5
I came to the Legion during the Cockrum and Grell years, and what a wonderful world it was! I've heard nothing but good things about that run. I'm going to have to pick up some back issues and/or the Legion Archives editions. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I have not read a single LSH story or issue from that time...I dropped the LSH shortly after its disastrous, short-lived move to Action Comics. Just recently I discovered that Shooter left the series (and comics in general, for a while) during that time, too. Makes sense to me now why the Action stories were inconsistent, quality-wise.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 26, 2007 20:55:39 GMT -5
I've heard nothing but good things about that run. I'm going to have to pick up some back issues and/or the Legion Archives editions. You'll be needing Legion Archives #'s 11 and 12. You can probably pick the two of them up from www.instocktrades.com for $60-70. Highly recommended!!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 26, 2007 23:30:30 GMT -5
The Grell run was when I started reading Legion too- I was able to get some of the Cockrum issues at around that same time as well. It was the first DC series I ever bought - and I hid it from my brother, who was a staunch Marvel-only man!
I wouldn't say those books have aged well - there's a strong swinging 70's vibe to them - but there's some great art, fun stories, and of course, good (Wildfire, Dawnstar) and bad (Cosmic Boy) costume designs. I seem to recall some speculation in the letters pages about what exactly was holding Cosmic Boy's top up - iron particles in the lining?!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 27, 2007 7:32:56 GMT -5
I find it funny, looking back on the way Cockrum and Grell drew the Legion guys and gals, how influential 1970's hairstyles (and disco outfits) were -- even though the kids were living in the 30th Century! Just goes to show you that what they say is true -- hang on to whatever clothes you have, because they'll eventually come back in style!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 27, 2007 10:00:08 GMT -5
yeah, who could forget the 'elephant bells' on Phantom Girl??! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 28, 2007 10:59:19 GMT -5
You know I've been wanting to talk about some of the artists of the Bronze Age but have been hesitant to do it here. What do all of you think? Expand this topic to discuss these artists, or should I start a Bronze Age Artists thread?
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 28, 2007 11:55:23 GMT -5
You know I've been wanting to talk about some of the artists of the Bronze Age but have been hesitant to do it here. What do all of you think? Expand this topic to discuss these artists, or should I start a Bronze Age Artists thread? It's up to you, Tana. My vote is to defer your judgment! (Personally, I don't have a problem with expanding this thread to include artists/creators of the SA/BA and even the Golden Age.) Also, thanks for starting this thread. This is my favorite thread and I like that it is so open-ended and ongoing. I know I will always find something interesting to read here.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 28, 2007 11:57:39 GMT -5
There's so much overlap between the "Ages", I say we just do it here! Why separate what Big John did when his Thor work runs across both periods?
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 28, 2007 13:22:12 GMT -5
You know I've been wanting to talk about some of the artists of the Bronze Age but have been hesitant to do it here. What do all of you think? Expand this topic to discuss these artists, or should I start a Bronze Age Artists thread? Errr... aren´t we already talking about BA artists in this topic? I would say Big John and Neal Adams are BA artist. And, like Doug said, is difficult to define exactly when the SA ended/the BA began. But maybe we should rename the thread Silver and Bronze Age artists.
|
|