|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 7, 2013 16:07:18 GMT -5
Hmm, CC, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Most of the examples you mention are valid (although I think Busiek made wonders with Warbird), but the crucial point is that each of those instancies comes from a different writer, whereas with Byrne we have several cases, debatable as they might be, of women being badly mistreated and/or falling over to the dark side. So much so that, if you type "john byrne misogynist" on Google, you get some 64.000 hits, including at least a published paper www2.stetson.edu/inkwell/mharrison-paper.pdfI didn't read each and every page, but the fandom looks reasonably split on the subject. Personally, I do believe he is misogynist and, considering there is only so much you can depict on mainstream comic books, I'd say there is enough evidence. But then, I've always despised Byrne as a writer (except for his Captain America run), so I might be biased.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 8, 2013 8:53:39 GMT -5
Probably. Actually, I've given many more examples by Chris Claremont (and could provide many more). I'm sure I could so with other writers too if I were to put my mind to it. In what way is characters being manipulated/brianwashed into 'going to the dark side' misogyny? This is a common pop cultural motif, hardly exclusive to Byrne and one that is closely tied to fantasies revolving around metamorphosis that are an integral part of the appeal of superheroes. Furthermore they are nearly always empowering when female characters are used. These discussions accusing him of portraying women as helpless (probably more a sign of chauvinism as women in peril are traditionally considered more sympathetic than men in peril) seem to overlook that these portrayals of women temporarily going bad are consistently characterized by them wiping the floor with their male colleagues (Dark Phoenix, Malice, Dark Scarlet Witch -the pattern is the same for all of these). I think you could, at most, say that they are sexist in the sense that they pander to a particular type of male fantasy but misogyny is way off the mark. Is Ghostbusters misogynistic when Sigourney Weaver turns to the Dark Side? What about Legend when Mia Sara does (although she turns out to be faking it)? What about the women who become vessels for the ultimate evil in John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness? Faith going bad in Buffy. When Buffy's body gets taken over by Faith? When Buffy becomes a vampire in a weirdo parallel world scenario? River Tam going psycho in Serenity (and once in Firefly too)? Fred in Angel becoming possessed by a godlike being and turning on the gang? The reborn Darla being turned into a vampire again? Whisky having an evil personality uploaded into her in the finale of Dollhouse? November being programmed as a merciless assassin in Dollhouse? Echo programmed to attack Paul Ballard? Is Joss Whedon a misogynist then since he's used that trick way more times than Byrne? Really? Terminator Cameron being damaged and going temporarily bad in the Sarah Connor Chronicles? Lana Lang being possessed by an evil witch in Smallville? Lois being possessed by Zod's wife in Smallville? Chloe Sullivan being corrupted by Brainiac? Kara appearing to be evil (but actually Brainiac in disguise) etc, etc etc It's especially prevalent in comics. Storm going bad briefly after being trapped by Doom and Arcade, Storm possessed by Emma Frost, Storm becoming the pawn of Loki, the Wasp being controlled by the Prism of Power, Wanda possessed by Chthon, Raven in Teen Titans as a recurring issue (not to mention Terra), the Lady Liberators, Polaris many times, Karen Page, Mockingbird controlled by the Phantom Rider, Elektra corrupted by the Hand, Firestar manipulated by the Hellfire Club, Karma becoming the host for Amahl Farouk, Moondragon becoming a megalomaniac and taking over a planet (and being pretty dodgy in her time with the Defenders too), Madelyne Pryor as the Goblin Queen, Mary Marvel after getting Black Adam's power, etc etc etc What about with men? Well, obviously it's been one of the most common things to do with Superman both in comics and on the screen, whether it be due to Red Kryptonite or whatever. Whedon had Angel go bad every so often on a regular basis. What about Byrne? Collossus brainwashed by Arcade, The Thing mind controlled by Karisma, Sasquatch going feral in Alpha Flight, Superman possessed by that guy in the wheelchair (but hey that's probably just because Byrne hates cripples too!). That paper is actually in defence of Byrne's portrayal of Sue storm as Malice. It expresses interest and discusses the content surveys made by others regarding his supposed misogyny, but has no knowledge ofthe context as the author states that they aren't familiar with his work outside the FF. I just don't see the charge holding any water. It seems absurd to level at a writer who's actually gone out of his way to address 'women's issues' in comics on several occasions. His development of Sue Storm and Heather Hudson are famous. Am I right in thinking that She-Hulk, which he launched and was quite clearly a pet project of his, was the only ongoing solo superheroine title on Marvel's books at the time? If you were to accuse him of being a chauvinist I think I'd probably be on board with that. Sexist? Yeah, I guess so but most people are in one way or another. I think there are some questionable depictions of sexuality and sexual themed topics in his work which is a bit creepy might be seen to add a sting to the charge. But misogyny? No, I just don't see it. And by the same token I've always been a fan. You've got to make your own mind up in the end. Byrne's managed to make himsel;f a lot of enemies and I can't help but feel that this particular charge has a lot to do with people having an axe to grind. The idea is that an Inhuman person was transformed by the Terrigen Mists into a giant dog. Afterwards, the other Inhumans treat him as a dog instead of a person-turned-into-a-dog. It's shocking and demeaning behaviour being suggested here by this idea, one I'm thankful that PAD tried to right. I see, nothing to do with misogyny then. I thought it made sense. There are all kinds of arguments around this. I always thought the point was that Lockjaw had never spoken and so no one (including the Inhumans) knew that he still had a 'human' intellect. Even if they did Inhuman cibvilization is hardly politically correct with absolute rule by a royal family and a slave race of Alpha Primitives. Lockjaw was always well treated anyway. He turned into a dog, maybe a very smart dog, but still a dog and treating him as such since his wants and needs are likely to be determined by his physiology and biochemistry is arguably appropriate. If I were to criticize Byrne for this it would be for a very different reason. Lockjaw loses much of his mystique this way and its the enigmatic quality which is essential to the character. Anyway, here's some very entertaining thoughts about Lockjaw and this question: zak-site.com/Great-American-Novel/lockjaw.htmlzak-site.com/Great-American-Novel/lockjaw_talks.html Not true. She was a perfectly strong character as Binary. I think it was perfectly reasonable in terms of character development that Carol might become an alcoholic considering the traumas she'd undergone. It was perfectly reasonable that an alcoholic might be a liability to the team. Binary was way too powerful and if you wanted to use Carol in the Avengers it was necessary to dial her powers down a bit. However, these were entirely the wrong decision and simply saddled her with yet more baggage and made her look rubbish -ultimately a betrayal of everything the character was meant to stand for (as was Avengers 200). Busiek also didn't just reduce her powers to an acceptable level. He made her look weak. I wouldn't suggest for a moment that Busiek was being a misogynist, or many of the cases I cited (Alan Moore is probably the most fiercely intense battler for women in comics amongst male authors -Halo Jones remains one of my all time favourite comic strips, as I mentioned Claremont is renowned for his portrayals of strong women -even if he did go totally bats in his last few years on his first X-Men run). My point was that there are many examples, some sexist, some misogynistic, but many not, where similar things to what Byre has done appeared and that context is necessary to understanding rather than bald accusations. I really hate that. It was pointless. He could have paralysed anyone for much the same effect. It didn't have to be Batgirl, which was just for shock value and to announce 'I am an auteur', I can do whatever I want. Like Gruenwald said -everybody is someone's favourite, someone's hero. Don't kill them off or trash them just for cheap thrills. Moore's a brilliant writer but Killing Joke is far from his best and that particular sequence I really don't approve of. Well, technically Shooter made her chairman and I actually prefer her under his pen. Stern had a tendency to make her a bit too bossy and she come across sounding like Mrs Thatcher a bit too often for my liking. I like how Shooter had her remain a girly girl and wrapped all the other Avengers around her fingers with a much lighter touch. Girl Power ahead of its time. And that's a case in point. The Wasp using her 'feminine wiles' (her real superpower) and making a fool of Magneto. You should also bear in mind that this was part of a process which had been developing for a while in which Magneto was to be seen in a much more positive light and Claremont had actually intended him to become head of the School for Gifted Youngsters permanently (Xavier was to have been written out entirely. I believe it was the resurrection of Jean Grey against his will that made him change his mind about this and many of his long term plans). Anyway, the episode makes an excellent contrast with the dreadful prospect of the masterful Maggie taking in hand the powerless ingenue Rogue that Claremont inflicted upon us a few years later. Epic post. Sorry. I haven't even got to HB's stuff yet... There were some interesting questions there though and I'm enjoying looking at this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 8, 2013 12:35:19 GMT -5
OK then. I dunno, if a comparison w/ Bendis doesn't work (which is a valid point due to the scale of damage that Bendis was able to do-- Byrne never quite had that level of freedom or opportunity, I'll admit), I'd still stand by the observation that Byrne set a clear precedent as a creator "star" who demanded unprecedented creative freedom. Serving his own particular vision- to the detriment of other creators' visions, I daresay- was unfortunately also a self-serving mode of operating. I daresay Bendis saw that, took it very much took to heart and enlarged upon it (although, of course, that's just pure conjecture). Byrne's got a huge ego and has becopme increasingly incapable of accepting criticism, but I think you're talking chalk and cheese with this comparison. Byrne's strength isn't serving his own creative vision, it's his deep and abiding love for the characters that he grew up reading about -especially the Lee, Kirby and Ditko stuff. That's why his Marvel stuff is so much better than his own creator owned books and why, great as many of his runs are, he actually created very few memorable characters. His characterizations of established characters are justly famous though. His aims are never really to change the characters but to get back to the essence of what he regards as their classic version -often with cunning rationalizations in order to update them for a more modern readership. Sure, there's no extended grief sequence but to say that nobody cared is unfair. Hank is clearly shown to care even if he's not grief stricken and the outrage, which is universal, is intended to be for the Vision not just for having their security breached. It is an expression of their concern for him. The thing is he's not actually dead. The whole story puts the question about the true nature of the Vision and its something that should always be at the heart of presentations of him as a character. The bit with the Black panther saying that the Vision is just how he remembers him is both great and greatly disturbing. The thing is that for most of them the Vision appears to be just how he's always been for most of his existence -at least on the surface. Considering how unsettling most of them found the 'happy' Vision it might well be a relief for them (and it certainly was for me -I much prefer this version to the one from immediately prior to Visionquest). But the question is there for all of them. If you can erase his memory and all that is left is a robot then was the Vision ever really alive. I think there was huge room for developing storylines here. Sadly I don't think it was ever capitalized upon. I agree up to a point that she does seem a bit thoughtless regarding the Vision here but the point is surely that she is being sensitive towards Simon. Of course it turns out to be horribly misjudged advice. I think there's something being done here deliberately. Wanda's view of the Vision is utterly different to everyone else's -and she's justifiably upset by this. The thing is, with the exception of the 'brotherly love' thing which I'll deal with a little later, I don't think that anyone other than Wanda and Jocasta had ever really been that close with the Vision. Until he became the chipper, warm and friendly Vision (which generally just freaked people out) he was always alienated and distanced from the others -often a situation of his own making but true nonetheless. Most of the Avengers don't know that the Vision is actually drastically different to what he has ever been (not just what he'd recently been) because he had always previously bottled up his feelings and kept his distance. Wasn't he actually the one who stormed off in a huff, leaving the Avengers for an extended period, when he discovered that Wanda wasn't interested and preferred an android over him? Well,I thought that they were furious and their powerlessness and the futility of their posturing in the situation was brilliant. The great thing about it was that the government(s) was right -they were entirely justified in what they did and for them to let the Vision get away with what he'd done would've been insane. From their perspective all they did was wipe the memory of a robot. It made the Avengers position hopeless. Ah, but that's where we really differ. To my mind and I'm sure to Byrne's too it was the renditions of the characters during Engelhart's run that were the pod people. From the moment Byrne took over this book it was like having a bunch of old friends back who'd been taken from you -and in a really exciting and daring story. Wonder Man above all was the ultimate pod person under Engelhart. He was just such a git! The things you've talked about with self-actualization are spot on in my view. Simon is turned into this smug, self-satisfied egomaniac who is just utterly repellent and insincere (and the costume? Hair dye? A mullet?). The thing with the Vision and Simon in WCA and also in The Vision and Scarlet Witch mini never rings true. Its handled as Engelhart does everything at this time with people grinning constantly and having situations 'fixed' without any sense of satisfying development in a bizarre domestic soap opera that even looks like its been shot on a cheap, wobbly set. Why does Wonder Man feel like the Vision is a brother to him? They've actually come to blows over the sense of rivalry between them in the past. He's not his brother, he's a copy and that's essentially having your privacy and the most intimate, personal aspects of your identity violated. Simon already has a real brother and a very tortuous relationship with him. Why would he want another brother? The thing with the Vision never came across as anything other than utterly phony. Yes, Simon is selfish about it initially -but he does come around. The Vision then turns him down -and quite rightly IMO. The Vision should seek to be himself and not a copy. I think there was huge potential for the Vision exploring how an artificial intelligence can develop and how experiences and processing data could develop into complex feelings and individuality. The Vision was a pod person and gets an interesting new direction with lots of promise. Simon was a pod person and he gets made much more like himself immediately. He's insecure, flawed and introspective not shallow and egotistical in a way that had never been convincing. Could he have taken time developing Simon from the slimy movie star type back into himself -yes, probably, but thank god he didn't. A single comic more of him like that would've been too much. There'd already been far too many. My problem isn't with Clint and Bobbi's marriage. I don't care about that at all to be honest and I was delighted with how Byrne handled them. I was never convinced by the marriage but it was what they used that to do to Hawk that drove me nuts, turning him into a lukewarm shadow of himself. Whiney Hawkeye and his girlfriend and their domestics. How embarrasing is issue 37 (this issue is the manifesto for Hawkeye never being team leader)? They're supposed to be the world's greatest and most professional super team -not The Bold and and the Beautiful. That's the thing. During Engelhart's run Mockingbird is entirely defined by being Hawkeye's girlfriend. As soon as Byrne arrives she becomes a real character. She's a ruthless spy capable of being ice cold, she has her own life and other competing (and perfectly valid) loyalties. She's Mockingbird in her own right, not just the GF. And Clint? He's immediately himself again. Chip on his shoulder, sense of being overlooked, hot tempered and a genuine tough guy. As soon as he takes a swing at USAgent you know he's back for real. It doesn't bother me one way or another if they're together -I always saw the marriage as wish fulfilment for a fan favourite. I liked that when I was a kid and was happy for the character but I soon realised that they were using that to kill the character in the worst way. There's no need for Hawkeye to become a middle-class bastion of moderation and good behaviour just because he's married. He can still be Hawkeye -they just need to write him that way. You can have Hawk transform into this boring character, it can make sense, but why would you want to? The GLA were obviously intended as a bit of a joke (though oddly they seem like a bit of a dry run for Next Men -the guy whose power is to just keep getting killed over and over again is particularly hilarious) and Hawkeye storming off with them was a good way to indicate his obstinacy and independence. There was evidently some dark secret about them to be revealed but they also provided a place for Hawk to sulk whilst he was being proved right about USAgent and could ultimately be recalled to the fold. The point wasn't to have the Torch in the WCA, it was to have him back for Marvel's 50th and have him appear in various titles. The highlight was Byrne having him in Namor 12 for a reunion with Subby and Cap (and Spitfire too). Started by Shooter in Avengers 217 (quite possibly Hank's finest hour) and continued by Stern surely? JB clearly had a lot of respect for Hank Pym, and Hank subtly took on the role of team leader after Hawkeye left. Mind you, he completely ignored the ongoing Hank sub-plot where they'd just recovered his mutated wife, and he and Jan sort of had a rush-to-recapture-relationship. Probably wise. What could you really do with the horribly mutated ex wife in the attic storyline? I quite liked this guise. I'd actually like him to become Ant Man again using the Dr Pym costume and the Ant Man helmet (which they actually did in issue 57 I think). Regarding Wanda's kids. It's a really extreme move and I can understand why Engelhart took offence. I don't know if it was the right thing to do, but in the long run I think it was probably the better thing to do -if that distinction makes any sense to you. One thing I'd say in its favour is that it did make sense. A robot and a woman can't have kids -Wanda's power can't manipulate a probability of zero. She can make anything that is possible, no matter how unlikely, happen but she can't (or shouldn't) make the impossible happen. As for not respecting prior continuity? As far as Wondy and the Vision are concerned I'm so glad he didn't. They were being portrayed so badly that they desperately needed to be set to rights. I think that with Wanda's portrayal people actually are underestimating Byrne in regards to his respect for continuity. The volatile, fiery Scarlet Witch who stormed into tirades about 'humans' had only ever been the version of her as depicted by Steve Engelhart and was completely at odds with how everyone one else had portrayed her. I've absolutely no doubt that Byrne favours the gentle and graceful version of Wanda that Stan had created but with this storyline he successfully incorporates the Engelhart version as a repressed side of her personality that only emerges when she's under severe emotional strain. In that regard, it's actually a very respectful portrayal and probably the most inclusive and complete there has ever been of Wanda, making sense of prior disparities. Oh, regarding the Tigra continuity thing I think you're being a bit mean spirited (well, we can all get that way when we're on a roll). Byrne could easily have just had the issue dealt with as a No Prize on the letters page as it's a simple continuity error that was easy to make, something of zero significance. He actually chose to make fun of himself and hold his hands up and take responsibility. These, after all, were the days before he became convinced that everyone was out to get him and became incapable of acknowledging mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 8, 2013 16:48:31 GMT -5
CC - I wish I had time for a more in-depth, quote-by-quote reply, but I doubt that will ever happen, so I'll keep it general. It looks like a lot of your love for Byrne is because he moved the characters in a way you liked, which is fair enough really, as there would be no good stories without character evolution. However, my complaint is that, to do so, he completely ignored, undid and/or glossed over previous versions of those same characters.
Now, you may think Simon, Vision, Wanda and so on were all "pods" before Byrne came, but those versions of the characters had been the result of a gradual development and change from one author to the other. They all had, to some extent, respected who had come before and built on their predecessors' work. One may dislike the end result, like you do, but there's no denying it had been a gradual, step by step, process.
Byrne almost always preferred the quick way, saying a certain character had "always" been feeling/thinking/behaving in some way, although it was never showed, only because he obviously didn't like the current depiction. It's like what he did with Sandman: decades of stories thrown away on a wim. That sort of disrespect has nothing to do with the end result, and it's exactly what Bendis has been guilty of.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 9, 2013 10:19:26 GMT -5
CC - I wish I had time for a more in-depth, quote-by-quote reply, but I doubt that will ever happen, so I'll keep it general. It looks like a lot of your love for Byrne is because he moved the characters in a way you liked, which is fair enough really, as there would be no good stories without character evolution. However, my complaint is that, to do so, he completely ignored, undid and/or glossed over previous versions of those same characters. Now, you may think Simon, Vision, Wanda and so on were all "pods" before Byrne came, but those versions of the characters had been the result of a gradual development and change from one author to the other. They all had, to some extent, respected who had come before and built on their predecessors' work. One may dislike the end result, like you do, but there's no denying it had been a gradual, step by step, process. Byrne almost always preferred the quick way, saying a certain character had "always" been feeling/thinking/behaving in some way, although it was never showed, only because he obviously didn't like the current depiction. It's like what he did with Sandman: decades of stories thrown away on a wim. That sort of disrespect has nothing to do with the end result, and it's exactly what Bendis has been guilty of. That's a good argument and I can respect it. I agree that all the relevant characters had experienced a plausible and reasonable character development -with the exception of Wonder Man (I'm dare say that a case could be made for it having a basis in Simon's psychological underpinnings though as Engelhart's pretty good on that front). Naturally I don't really agree though. All of the relevant character developments in question had occurred under the stranglehold of three writers in the immediately preceding years, namely Mark Gruenwald, Roger Stern and Steve Engelhart. These guys had changed a number of these characters quite drastically to suit their own vision. In fairness, the only bit that Stern-O is responsible for is the Stepford Wife version of The Vision. Also, it's questionable whether he intended to keep him that way as Stern always depicted the grinning Vision as very unsettling to those around him and just being a bit off. Engelhart evidently embraced this version though in the V&SW miniseries. It's true that Byrne takes a wrecking ball to the elements he doesn't like but for the most part these are all founded on logical premises (even if does have to go to rather extreme lengths in the case of the kids) and whilst he may not respect the work of those who went before him he does, with a handful of exceptions, respect the demands of the narrative. The exceptions are Wonder Man, the Wasp's advice to Simon, and Hank and Jan's rekindled romance. With Wondy he has just ignored it. Does anyone actually like what Engelhart did with Simon in WCA though? HB has a good point about the whole brotherly love thing but the fact remains that Engelhart's portrayal was so freakish and phony that it doesn't even register with me. I really have no problem with it -Simon just snaps out of whatever he was on and gets back to being himself. Thank god. The Wasp's advice scene? I think HB's in the right about this. Some kind of exposition, thought bubble or whatever would've been wise to indicate that Jan wasn't entirely dismissive of the Vision's feelings, marriage and very existence here. I think the scene works well in its primary purpose of providing some kind of sympathy and moral support for Simon's perspective and buried feelings but misfires in failing to take in the wider picture of Jan and The Vision. Jan and Hank? It's typical Byrne nostalgia. Dramatically it works perfectly for me. In that sense glossing over the awkwardness of the reconciliation is an ideal choice because they still feel like they should naturally be together. Let's open the hornets' nest now. Can Jan and Hank really get back together with their history? Yes of course they can, we all know that an episode of domestic violence doesn't necessarily mean that people stop loving each other. Nonetheless, and I am no advocate of political correctness in comics, the issues at stake simply shouldn't have been glossed over. If you want them back together then you really should address the problems, not brush them under the carpet. So, dramatically I think it works very well, but morally I think it was the wrong way to go about telling that story. In the final analysis I actually think it was the wrong story to tell anyway, just because I feel that the characters had moved on and needed to keep going their separate ways. As characters they had both become established in their own right and no longer needed each other. Okay guys, I have a cheeky challenge for you. Under Byrne we have a Hawkeye who, with the collapse of his marriage, being undermined by more natural leaders in the form of both Jan and Hank, and the arbitrary imposition of a total bozo on the team, reemerges as the hot tempered, put upon fly in the ointment that we've always loved. My challenge for you is to try and describe his character under the previous management, but do so in terms that aren't dependent upon how he has changed from earlier depictions. So 'newfound confidence' and 'mellowed' merely show that he's not got the character traits that he previously had. I want to know what character traits he actually has in this period because as far as I can see he doesn't seem to have any (and the same appears to be largely true of the Stepford Wife version of Hank. I suppose that you can at least say that Stepford Wondy has a distinctive personality -however objectionable). He's gone from being an Everyman figure to being nobody. Anyway, Shiryu, I do understand and appreciate your argument. You are of course right that I am influenced by the fact that I just happen to like many of the developments in question, but I don't think it's accurate to suppose that I'm actually an uncritical eye. The only things he actually glossed over were Wondy and the Jan & Hank thing. Surely the Engelhart version of Simon was unforgivable though? With the other question I think Byrne made the wrong decision but I can see and understand, even if I don't fully approve of it, the reasoning behind his choices. I don't think the parallel with Bendis is at all accurate though. Byrne's choices are based on what he thinks the characters should be and this is invariably grounded in the characters' pasts and prior depictions. The plots he devises are subject to this. Character comes first. For Bendid the plots are something to which the characters are subject and he twists them to conform to his schemes.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Jun 10, 2013 12:46:04 GMT -5
That is one major reason why I hate those mega events. They've ruined more than one long term story by forcing all of the writers to she-horn that silliness into their own mags. I wonder if that book about the inner workings of Marvel that came out last year (I forget the name) would shed any light on this Byrne WCA issue? Oh, would that be Sean Howe's MARVEL COMICS: THE UNTOLD STORY--? Over on dlw66's Bronze Age Babies blog several of us read it and had a bit of a discussion. HB yup, that's the one. I usually read that blog, too. Though I didn't participate in that particular discussion (as I haven't read the book) Bronze Age Babies is indeed what made me think of that.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 13, 2013 13:24:32 GMT -5
As I've often been very scathing of his work, and since this thread is a good example of that, I wanted to say something about Al Milgrom.
I liked a short story he drew and inked in one of the Annuals but I've always scorned his other Avengers work. Like HB said, 'chugging along in the style of Worlds' Finest c. 1958'.
His Guardians work is okay to be fair, but certainly doesn't excite me.
However, I was recently rereading the Kitty Pryde and Wolverine miniseries, and Milgrom is the artist. I have to say I think the art is pretty good here, so I have to eat my words. It's not my favourite thing ever or anything like that but, still, much better than I've given him credit for. He inks himself here as well, which is perhaps significant. The layouts are quite inventive too.
Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my table as they're just serving the alphabet soup.
Delicious.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 15, 2013 21:42:52 GMT -5
As I've often been very scathing of his work, and since this thread is a good example of that, I wanted to say something about Al Milgrom. I liked a short story he drew and inked in one of the Annuals but I've always scorned his other Avengers work. Like HB said, 'chugging along in the style of Worlds' Finest c. 1958'. His Guardians work is okay to be fair, but certainly doesn't excite me. However, I was recently rereading the Kitty Pryde and Wolverine miniseries, and Milgrom is the artist. I have to say I think the art is pretty good here, so I have to eat my words. It's not my favourite thing ever or anything like that but, still, much better than I've given him credit for. He inks himself here as well, which is perhaps significant. The layouts are quite inventive too. Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my table as they're just serving the alphabet soup. Delicious. I haven't read the Kitty/Wolverine miniseries since originally buying it off the stands, but what you're saying still rings very true. I remember being consistently surprised w/ Al's artwork on this-- he really stretched his own boundaries and achieved a level of noir moodiness that I would never have thought him capable of. Now, it was a kind of strange series. . . and has a whole weird sequence of Kitty being-- what is it?-- emotionally regressed/brainwashed?-- so she can be "re-built" as a true ninja or something. I don't blame Al for this-- it was part of the stupid "make everyone a ninja, too" craze that was throttling up at the time. But I do definitely remember sticking with the series and thinking it was a heck of a lot better than I would ever have expected. And honestly, I always wanted ol' Al to succeed. He just seemed like such an endearing underdog, y'know? HB
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 16, 2013 4:12:19 GMT -5
it was part of the stupid "make everyone a ninja, too" craze that was throttling up at the time. But I do definitely remember sticking with the series and thinking it was a heck of a lot better than I would ever have expected. Yeah, Claremont was obsessed with Japanese culture at this time and overdid it in this instance. I think there was another motivation in that they realised that Kitty's powers had absolutely no offensive capability (unless she started crippling or murdering people by unphasing them inside solid objects -which wasn't really an option) so they wanted to give her an edge. I guess they felt that it didn't work, didn't suit the character, because I don't recall her ninja training (such that she was better than Wolverine!) ever being mentioned again.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 16, 2013 9:49:15 GMT -5
Sorry for the double post.
Visiting this thread again had me thinking about Wonder Man once more. I've certainly never had a problem with Byrne 'fixing' Simon after the horrific way Engelhart handled him and whilst I can understand why some would favour an arc in which he gradually changed back into himself and it was all explained -frankly I really am relieved they didn't waste time doing that and just 'brought him back' immediately. I'm quite happy viewing Engelhart's Wonder Man as an aberration.
However, it did trouble me that I hadn't registered the disconnect wherein, as HB rightly observed, the burgeoning rapport between Simon and the Vision had seemingly been completely ignored.
Then it came back to me. I'm not sure it had been ignored. My impression, back in the day, of Wonder Man's behaviour in the aftermath of Visionquest was that Simon hadn't really been that interested in the Vision when he got all buddy-buddy with him, but had actually been rather creepily been using that as a way to spend more time around Wanda. As Engelhart's Wonder Man had been behaving like such a creep this seemed to make sense.
Was this what Byrne intended? Difficult to say, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Anyway, it all came flooding back to me so I thought I'd post it up as its certainly germaine to what we were discussing.
Anyway, what do people here feel about Engelhart's Wonder Man? There seems to have been something of a polite silence about it (well, apart from me that is). Did you find it as horrifying as I did or was it what you'd always wanted to see the character become?
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 16, 2013 11:19:44 GMT -5
Sorry for the double post. Visiting this thread again had me thinking about Wonder Man once more. I've certainly never had a problem with Byrne 'fixing' Simon after the horrific way Engelhart handled him and whilst I can understand why some would favour an arc in which he gradually changed back into himself and it was all explained -frankly I really am relieved they didn't waste time doing that and just 'brought him back' immediately. I'm quite happy viewing Engelhart's Wonder Man as an aberration. However, it did trouble me that I hadn't registered the disconnect wherein, as HB rightly observed, the burgeoning rapport between Simon and the Vision had seemingly been completely ignored. Then it came back to me. I'm not sure it had been ignored. My impression, back in the day, of Wonder Man's behaviour in the aftermath of Visionquest was that Simon hadn't really been that interested in the Vision when he got all buddy-buddy with him, but had actually been rather creepily been using that as a way to spend more time around Wanda. As Engelhart's Wonder Man had been behaving like such a creep this seemed to make sense. Was this what Byrne intended? Difficult to say, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Anyway, it all came flooding back to me so I thought I'd post it up as its certainly germaine to what we were discussing. Anyway, what do people here feel about Engelhart's Wonder Man? There seems to have been something of a polite silence about it (well, apart from me that is). Did you find it as horrifying as I did or was it what you'd always wanted to see the character become? Well, it's tricky, CC-- as it's almost the inverse of my take on Byrne. For all of its seeming-inconsistency, I liked what Englehart did with Simon over the course of his WCA run (or was trying to do), I just don't think he was executing it well at all. The culprit, again, is his almost unbearably one-dimensional, overly-direct, clumsy dialog and script. But Simon as a person, and his progression in the run, was unusually recognizable to me as a "type" (for lack of a better word) of person that tends to gravitate to theater. There's a low self-esteem issue that is compounded by an unfocused need for achievement and external validation. Sometimes that hurdle is overcome (or side-stepped) a bit later on by an almost delusional self-confidence and self-belief that readily becomes arrogance. There's also a tendency to 'way over-commit to new "life-fixing" gimmicks or fads or paths-- and then cast them aside when the fix isn't quick or fulfilling enough. This is all Simon, and pretty much how his arc ran in Englehart's hands-- really, about as flawed an Everyman as might actually exist in comics. Not an innately heroic guy, but more like any of the rest of us-- generally wanting to do the right thing, and be accepted, and find that something that will give him a life he can be content with. That's why I've always felt for him, because he does his best to be a superhero when he is clearly not a super-heroic guy by nature. This also fits with his fully & sincerely embracing his relationship with the Vision. Personally, I don't buy that there was anything manipulative or insincere going on with that. There are plenty of instances where he's shown thinking (or, ugh, speaking aloud) to himself about how much this whole new family dynamic means to him. The wild over-enthusiasm he exhibits fits right in with the "this will fix my life" aspect of that personality-- but there's no doubt in my mind that it's sincere and that the relationship would survive Simon's growing beyond that initial adrenaline rush. Honestly, Simon's enthusiasm may have read as a little less weird- or been tempered- if it had been played against Vision's original, understated (but true and deep) personality. With both of them channeling that amped-up fraternal devotion, they came off a bit like the Stepford Brothers or something. But still, I like what it was once I got past how it was being done. (Boy, there's a ringing endorsement. . . hoo-boy ) HB
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 16, 2013 15:08:27 GMT -5
Well, it's tricky, CC-- as it's almost the inverse of my take on Byrne. For all of its seeming-inconsistency, I liked what Englehart did with Simon over the course of his WCA run (or was trying to do), I just don't think he was executing it well at all. The culprit, again, is his almost unbearably one-dimensional, overly-direct, clumsy dialog and script. But Simon as a person, and his progression in the run, was unusually recognizable to me as a "type" (for lack of a better word) of person that tends to gravitate to theater. There's a low self-esteem issue that is compounded by an unfocused need for achievement and external validation. Sometimes that hurdle is overcome (or side-stepped) a bit later on by an almost delusional self-confidence and self-belief that readily becomes arrogance. There's also a tendency to 'way over-commit to new "life-fixing" gimmicks or fads or paths-- and then cast them aside when the fix isn't quick or fulfilling enough. This is all Simon, and pretty much how his arc ran in Englehart's hands-- really, about as flawed an Everyman as might actually exist in comics. Not an innately heroic guy, but more like any of the rest of us-- generally wanting to do the right thing, and be accepted, and find that something that will give him a life he can be content with. That's why I've always felt for him, because he does his best to be a superhero when he is clearly not a super-heroic guy by nature. Yes I tend to agree, and I think that's an accurate assessment. As I mentioned earlier in connection with this, one of Engelhart's real strengths are the psychological underpinnings of things and he really does think these things through. I think you're spot on with what he was trying to do and there's a sense of Simon's insecurities provoking a bout of overcompensating, even though the causes of his behaviour aren't spelled out explicitly. Whilst I think that's accurate, and even a plausible piece of character development (in concept, if not in execution), I'm not a fan of it. For me the things that Engelhart (and to my mind Gruenwald is 'guilty' to some extent too) did with Simon, Hawkeye, the Vision and to a lesser extent Hank just sucked the poetry out of those characters. That something is plausible doesn't make it the only plausible choice and it can still be the wrong one. For me, it was very much the wrong way to go. Well, I'm sure Engelhart didn't intend it to be seen that way. I think that can be viewed as self-delusion if you adopt the view that he was really doing it to be around Wanda more. He's trying to kid himself that he isn't just being a creep -it's self-justification. On a level that he is trying to deny, he really thinks that if he spends enough time around her, showing himself to be 'a success' with his dyed hair and possibly a string of girlfriends, she won't be able to help herself be impressed by him. This is someone who doesn't have a firm grip on reality at this time and whose ego is creating a false shell of bluster that belies how fragile his confidence really is. Anyway, I think you can see it that way but if you're committed to viewing it as genuine 'brotherly love' and like it that way then you're unlikely to accept that option. For me he seemed like a phony -so the idea that he was fooling himself whilst compulsively pursuing a selfish agenda was easy to buy into.
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Jun 19, 2013 21:54:59 GMT -5
All this WCA talk has convinced me to dig out what issues I do have to re-read.
A few thoughts on #1 -
Once again, Al Milgrom (with able assistance from Joe Sinnott) delivers quality art. I am a Milgrom fan and while there is no Lee pizazz here, Milgrom's art is solid and straightforward, his action scenes quite stirring. Always enjoy seeing his work.
I've never been that big of a Tigra fan, but here, she's decent, voicing her concerns over being a worthy Avenger, her fears over what her burgeoning condition means for her humanity and confides in Mockingbird those fears. While Simon may feel inadequate and need to prove himself, Tigra isn't that far behind him so I thought Englehart handled her well here.
Something I found interesting was everyone's reaction to Ultron-12's appearance. In this more modern Bendis-ized Avengers era, such an appearance would have been immediately followed by all hands on deck to handle the situation. Here though, Hawkeye calmly argues to Janet that his team can handle the problem. It's quite refreshing to see that every so often.
A hidden surprise was the letters page at issue's end. There, Gruenwald (still loved and still missed) explains the origins of the WCA. I didn't know this but because this issue's release was pushed ahead by a few weeks, this was actually the first appearance of Tony in his Silver Centurion armor rather than the traditional Iron Man #200.
Plus, I forgot that this storyline carried over into the second Vision and Scarlet Witch mini-series which for some reason now lost to time, I never got.
Best part? The price tag of $1.25. Back then, that did seem like an extra bit of change but you got a satisfying entertaining comic for it. Man, how times change.......
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 21, 2013 9:17:22 GMT -5
All this WCA talk has convinced me to dig out what issues I do have to re-read. A few thoughts on #1 - Once again, Al Milgrom (with able assistance from Joe Sinnott) delivers quality art. I am a Milgrom fan and while there is no Lee pizazz here, Milgrom's art is solid and straightforward, his action scenes quite stirring. Always enjoy seeing his work. BTW, Marv--TOTALLY giving you an exalt for standing up once again for oft-denigrated Al Milgrom, there. Even as one of his louder critics, I still readily bow to the simple fact that all of our tastes are going to be different, and no amount of long-winded, analytical, strongly-opined criticism can ever get past a simple response of, "But I really like it-- it completely works, and brings the story to life for me." I mean, what, someone's going to try to argue that, no, you don't like it? Ha-! Very effective debate tactic, that. (Hmm, perfect opportunity to yet again give a quick bit o' love to the bomber jackets. . . ;D ) HB
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Jun 24, 2013 7:31:41 GMT -5
(Hmm, perfect opportunity to yet again give a quick bit o' love to the bomber jackets. . . ;D ) HB I say thee nay!!
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jul 27, 2013 13:03:39 GMT -5
Gosh- Fell away from this enjoyably contentious thread for awhile-- but I have since grabbed a few more issues off of the stack, and am now in the early stages of the Roy Thomas/Dave Ross run (post-Byrne). It's. . . not great stuff at this point. The "big" foe at the moment is an upgraded Night Shift team, which still seems to be an unfathomably inane threat for any Avengers-level squad-- and as we go into the fourth issue of the arc, the Avengers are, of course, completely on the ropes and just about done in.
Roy's doing okay with trying to stabilize the character development, but his plotting/scripting facility really seems to be about 15 years or more behind the times at that point. Not a lot better than Englehart's, I'd have to say. And Dave Ross' art (as well as the fill-in guys before him, other than Paul Ryan) is woefully sub-par. This would have been the early nineties, I think, and the artistic stables were not chock-full, IIRC. Most of the brilliant first generation had finally been put to pasture, and the young guns coming up were the Liefelds, Larsons, and such.
I know for a fact that I never read most of the rest of the run of the book-- it just arrived in the mail, got opened, and went into the pile to eventually be put away.
HB
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on May 18, 2015 21:23:39 GMT -5
Marvel just released a new reprinting in TPB of Bryne's Vision Quest story from WCA #42-50. Searching through my Collection of Stuff (COS), I only had #42-44 so I've never read the whole story.
Judging by the still insightful comments that I've read here concerning Bryne's work, I'm looking forward to reading this whole story.
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on May 30, 2015 13:28:34 GMT -5
Okay, I'm about halfway through reading this trade and I can see both sides of the argument concerning the dismantling of the Vision.
I can see your point HB, throughout this, Wanda is the ONLY one to be truly taking this act seriously. She's distraught, emotional, shocked, anxious, all of the above while Hank seems to be treating all of this like his latest lab project. Clint seems more distressed over Bobbi's involvement with this action than the actual action itself and all this seemingly does to Simon is dredge up buried feelings and resentment over Wanda and the Vision. (Jan just seems preoccupied with acting as if she's still in charge, which is strange I admit).
But I think this highlights an underlying perception of the others, Wanda is the only one reacting as if someone has actually died. Her husband was kidnapped, violated, mutilated, and quite possibly, literally gone. Yet Hank and the others react as if the Vision is just another machine to repair, rebuild, restructure. Put the pieces back together in the right order and all will be well. Does this appear like they consider the Vision to be an 'actual' person or have an 'actual' personality?
Maybe I've read too many comics and watch too much sci-fi, but I have faults with the premise that simply reprinting Simon's brain patterns will solve the problem. Yes, his patterns may have formed the basis for the Vision's mind and personality but it was Vision's later experiences that helped form him into the hero he was, into the person who fell in love and married Wanda. How was Hank planning on recreating that? The assumption appeared to be that, simply replicate Simon's brain patterns and we'll instantly have the Vision that we've worked with and known all these years back. That kind of logic is a stretch to me.
What makes this story inherently difficult, I think, is that the group had no chance to stop this. Maybe their reactions would have been different had there been a chance to save the Vision from being dismantled but it's all aftermath instead. And it was unsettling how Hank and the others meekly accepted this, offering up gov't excuses and techno-babble to cover up the fact that they failed a fellow teammate (man, this story has been exposition HEAVY so far). It's also a disturbing sign of gov't influence on the group, this action against the Vision and their forcing of USAgent onto the team.
So, while you may have a sense of mis-characterization in this arc, I think it highlights an unsettling perception that the team had about the Vision.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 31, 2015 7:53:05 GMT -5
Okay, Maybe I've read too many comics and watch too much sci-fi, but I have faults with the premise that simply reprinting Simon's brain patterns will solve the problem. Yes, his patterns may have formed the basis for the Vision's mind and personality but it was Vision's later experiences that helped form him into the hero he was, into the person who fell in love and married Wanda. How was Hank planning on recreating that? The assumption appeared to be that, simply replicate Simon's brain patterns and we'll instantly have the Vision that we've worked with and known all these years back. That kind of logic is a stretch to me. I agree. I've always thought this story offered an opportunity to go deeper with the Vision and its one that no writer ever took up. I love Roy Thomas's original storyline with the Vision but for all the talk about is he/isn't he a real boy his brooding persona and deep passions always made it obvious where the answer lay. There was never any question that the Vision was a true person who was unappreciated and feels maligned because of his artificial nature and his deeply reserved and introverted personality(indeed part of the point is that its only Wanda, and later Mantis and Jocasta, who truly appreciate him. I think this event opened the door to a more directly sci-fi approach where we could have seen his personality and character formed by experience from a blank slate and have him develop more complex emotional responses from a state where such things were initially beyond him. In that sense I think that showing the 'brain patterns' to be little more than window dressing would've been essential. A more in depth and genuinely questioning approach to the nature of an android and artificial intelligence would've added greatly to the character in my opinion. In any event I think it was a story opportunity that subsequent writers really failed to pick up on (seeing as they even failed to take advantage of the open goal presented by having the mentally disturbed US Agent foisted on the team I suppose one shouldn't be surprised). On a separate issue I remember having a discussion about Hawkeye's character changes during this run. The view was expressed that Hawk had been mellowed steadily over the years as a fully realised character progression and that Byrne had undone this overnight on a whim. On reflection I'm not convinced by this argument. As far as I can see Hawkeye was changed instantaneously by Mark Grunewald in the original Hawkeye miniseries and that version was used through the WCA mini and Engelhart's run. The key factor that can be seen in this is Hawkeye's marriage which had just ended immediately prior to Byrne's run. In that sense Hawk's return to something far more recognizable as his fiery original character makes plenty of sense. Added to that I can't help but feel that Hawkeye was never a convincing team leader so the usurpation of his role by someone like the Wasp who excelled at it always made sense and, again, was an excellent opportunity for drama. Having someone who isn't that natural a leader undermined and insecure around those who are is actually a good and worthwhile story. I do accept that Byrne certainly did a number on Wanda at this time and having a triple whammy with the Vision dismantled, the kids go up in a puff of smoke, and then get possessed by That Which Endures, all leading to Darker Than Scarlet smacks of a character being forced down a path to suit a writer's predelictions. There are many examples of this sort of thing I object to in comics but this isn't one of them (but I can understand why others would -it is obviously contrived). I think Wanda really needed shaking up as a character (the Vision too)and this approach really got back to the heart of the character as presented by Roy Thomas whilst adding more troubling depths to her psychology. This run also showed Wanda's powers to be under appreciated and potentially far more powerful than they were generally portrayed as (and this always made sense to me -quite possibly the first Avengers comic I ever read was 171 where Wanda was the only one that could really harm Ultron). Also, her powers had always been shown to be greatly affected by her emotional state so depicting that as unstable beneath the surface of her repressed and traditionally feminine gentleness was an effective approach IMO.
|
|