|
Post by owene on May 29, 2010 4:31:20 GMT -5
As my re-introduction to the Marvel Universe I've been trying to work my way through Roger Stern's work on various titles (I haven't gotten to avengers yet), while I've long considered him one of my favourite writers I'm not sure how much of his work I've read in long runs before, and having forgotten a lot of what comes next it all feels fresh.
I've been really impressed by how he motivated his villains (and to a lesser extent his heroes). I dont think many of his issues are particularly splashy, with a few exceptions they rarely stand out as landmarks for the feature characters but they often do feel like landmarks for villains and supporting characters, often ones who had been around for decades with little impact.
Often the hero is just kind of used as an anchor, the reason you are picking up the book. The characterisation and growth in a particular issue happens to the villains. He had a real knack for taking pre-existing 'classic' but quite generic villains and making them seem a lot deeper at the end of a story. Often a story where they had had their butts kicked just as badly as in their previous 20 identikit appearances.
There are obviously exceptions to what I said about the feature characters, I think his Dr Strange run (which I haven't gotten to yet) did for the Doctor himself what his spider-Man issues did for the Vulture or his work on a number of titles did for Mr Hyde. Just by writing consistent character based stories he did contribute a lot to the personalities of spider-Man, or the Hulk, or Cap (not to mention a bunch of avengers) but he seemed to realise that if you were going to write a whole bunch of issues of a character's book most of the real growth would have to be in the supporting cast or the villains.
On the titles I've read so far at least the stories are quite short and you can pick up each one (or each pair of issues) and know where you are from the start, he uses these characters in what I consider their classic forms (in fact in Spider-Man he seems determined to get away from the ESU Debbie Whitman, Marcy Kane type stuff added in the 70s and get back to Aunt May and the Bugle) but gives them stories that still have a begining middle and end with character growth for somebody. So the next issue can be read without having read that one but something still seeming to have happened. Which might have it's dramatic flaws but is classic Marvel episodic storytelling.
I also like that there seems to be some thought gone into how people having powers would impact the real world. His Marvel books aren't astro-City and he wasn't into it to the same extent as Gruenwald but his books do read like twenty years of superpowered people running around have had an impact on people's attitudes and on how New York does things. Similarly he seems to think about how the science works for a lot of his characters without it bogging down the stories.
So a level of realism and a clear love of the potential of existing characters particularly the villains (and when we get to the Avengers, the underused heroes of the MU).
What would you guys consider his strengths?
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 29, 2010 6:45:03 GMT -5
As my re-introduction to the Marvel Universe I've been trying to work my way through Roger Stern's work on various titles (I haven't gotten to avengers yet), while I've long considered him one of my favourite writers I'm not sure how much of his work I've read in long runs before, and having forgotten a lot of what comes next it all feels fresh. So a level of realism and a clear love of the potential of existing characters particularly the villains (and when we get to the Avengers, the underused heroes of the MU). What would you guys consider his strengths? My goodness you're up early! (Well, or up late, depending. . . ) While I haven't had the opportunity to do a broader examination of Stern's work, I would submit (as I have elsewhere around here) that his stint on the Hulk, while clearly well-intentioned, did not work for me at all. I believe he came across a character that he simply couldn't get an intuitive handle on, and relied entirely on developing a new supporting cast, situational plot arcs, and a bevy of long stories that focused as much on the guest stars as they did the Hulk. I'm not sure sure I'd agree with the idea that giving the lion's share of character development and depth over to the villains and supporting cast is ultimately a recipe for success, since naturally you're buying a book titled "The Hulk" and not "The Locust". That being said, even as I was reading his run, it struck me that he had a fine knack for breathing life into even one-panel bystanders, and as you said, giving the bad guys an unusual amount of dimensionality. Comic book dialog needs to give the illusion of reality & naturalism even though it's peculiarly stylized-- and that's a hard tightrope to negotiate. And I think he's particularly gifted with that skill set. The 17-page story-lengths of the time were very much a hindrance for him, though, as it sort of forced an artificial plot decompression. Not enough story could get told at one go. So a medium-length story involving some west coast organized crime cartel (The Committee?), or the Tyrannus/Gold Bug/fountain of youth tale, became months-long yarns that weren't grand enough to support the time commitment or, ultimately, sustained interest. But it's kinda hard to fault Stern for that-- I think he was dealing with the cards he was dealt. And hey-- loved him on the Avengers-- no question. HB
|
|
|
Post by owene on May 29, 2010 11:47:11 GMT -5
i know what you mean about the Hulk issues, I think the page length combined with their being a slightly different expectation of the Hulk's title from most Marvel books (I mean in that period he was always going to be wandering and smashing for a big chunk of those 17 pages and it's only really the support who get much growth) means that Stern possibly let the title character become overshadowed a little. I'm not sure anyone else really made the Hulk himself that interesting prior to Peter David, and he arguably did so by totally changing the character.
My comment about developing villains perhaps applies more in his spider-man work which i'm currently reading. when you are on issue 230something of one of three spider-titles you probably aren't going to be able to shake up Peter Parker every issue but you can certainly add a lot of depth to the Cobra or Vulture.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 29, 2010 14:42:11 GMT -5
What I've always liked about Stern, besides his characterizations, ideas and storytelling, it's how he highlights the moral strength of his characters in the face of odds even bigger than usual. His heroes are not always stoic, they have moments of depression and fear, before hardening their resolve and emerging triumphant.
Besides the Avengers "Under Siege" issues, especially the hospital scenes with Wasp and Scott Lang, I remember the Spider-Man vs Juggernaut two-part story (ASM 229-230), when Peter is afraid at first, but then turns around and fights his hardest, never giving up no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 29, 2010 23:48:14 GMT -5
As my re-introduction to the Marvel Universe I've been trying to work my way through Roger Stern's work on various titles (I haven't gotten to avengers yet), while I've long considered him one of my favourite writers I'm not sure how much of his work I've read in long runs before, and having forgotten a lot of what comes next it all feels fresh. So a level of realism and a clear love of the potential of existing characters particularly the villains (and when we get to the Avengers, the underused heroes of the MU). What would you guys consider his strengths? My goodness you're up early! (Well, or up late, depending. . . ) While I haven't had the opportunity to do a broader examination of Stern's work, I would submit (as I have elsewhere around here) that his stint on the Hulk, while clearly well-intentioned, did not work for me at all. I believe he came across a character that he simply couldn't get an intuitive handle on, and relied entirely on developing a new supporting cast, situational plot arcs, and a bevy of long stories that focused as much on the guest stars as they did the Hulk. I'm not sure sure I'd agree with the idea that giving the lion's share of character development and depth over to the villains and supporting cast is ultimately a recipe for success, since naturally you're buying a book titled "The Hulk" and not "The Locust". That being said, even as I was reading his run, it struck me that he had a fine knack for breathing life into even one-panel bystanders, and as you said, giving the bad guys an unusual amount of dimensionality. Comic book dialog needs to give the illusion of reality & naturalism even though it's peculiarly stylized-- and that's a hard tightrope to negotiate. And I think he's particularly gifted with that skill set. The 17-page story-lengths of the time were very much a hindrance for him, though, as it sort of forced an artificial plot decompression. Not enough story could get told at one go. So a medium-length story involving some west coast organized crime cartel (The Committee?), or the Tyrannus/Gold Bug/fountain of youth tale, became months-long yarns that weren't grand enough to support the time commitment or, ultimately, sustained interest. But it's kinda hard to fault Stern for that-- I think he was dealing with the cards he was dealt. And hey-- loved him on the Avengers-- no question. HB In fairness to Rog, who do you think HAD a good run on Hulk? My problem with the Hulk is he's kind of annoying in his own way. As long as he gets mad enough, he'll just win the fight. In its own way it's just as limiting as Superman's power levels in the 1950s. Since Superman could do anything, there was no suspense and to me that was the hallmark of Hulk stories for decades and sadly has returned, especially with Rulk and World War Hulk. It was just a matter of getting mad and then he'd win. Every hero in the MU coming at Hulk would lead to"grrr, I'm just getting madder, so nobody can stop me." Not even Moondragon, who could just shut down your mind? Sersi, who could change you into bunny slippers? Dr. Strange who could send you to another dimension? If hundreds of heroes can't stop him and they can beat every bad guy, then the message is Hulk is essentially unstoppable. No suspense. Peter David did the only thing that even made a modicum of sense and took that unstoppability away. Hulk was weaker and could be hurt, there were times when he couldn't become and Banner had to rely on his wits (which is fine because he's exceptionally smart). The Hulk may be an interesting comment on rage and abuse in an abstract sort of way, but as a concrete character he just doesn't seem to work in his classic "Hulk is strongest one there is"- unless he's essentially portrayed as a villain in which case being strongest works because it gives heroes a real challenge. There are tons of people who like the character, but it seems only when the Hulk's in these big events where he's the antagonist or written by Peter David that the character's ever sold well on a regular basis...
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 30, 2010 8:34:24 GMT -5
[ In fairness to Rog, who do you think HAD a good run on Hulk? My problem with the Hulk is he's kind of annoying in his own way. As long as he gets mad enough, he'll just win the fight. In its own way it's just as limiting as Superman's power levels in the 1950s. Since Superman could do anything, there was no suspense and to me that was the hallmark of Hulk stories for decades and sadly has returned, especially with Rulk and World War Hulk. It was just a matter of getting mad and then he'd win. Every hero in the MU coming at Hulk would lead to"grrr, I'm just getting madder, so nobody can stop me." Not even Moondragon, who could just shut down your mind? Sersi, who could change you into bunny slippers? Dr. Strange who could send you to another dimension? If hundreds of heroes can't stop him and they can beat every bad guy, then the message is Hulk is essentially unstoppable. No suspense. Peter David did the only thing that even made a modicum of sense and took that unstoppability away. Hulk was weaker and could be hurt, there were times when he couldn't become and Banner had to rely on his wits (which is fine because he's exceptionally smart). The Hulk may be an interesting comment on rage and abuse in an abstract sort of way, but as a concrete character he just doesn't seem to work in his classic "Hulk is strongest one there is"- unless he's essentially portrayed as a villain in which case being strongest works because it gives heroes a real challenge. There are tons of people who like the character, but it seems only when the Hulk's in these big events where he's the antagonist or written by Peter David that the character's ever sold well on a regular basis... Hey hey hey hey HEY now, FF-! Don't . . . don't get me angry, 'cause. . . (ah heck, you know the lines from here. . . ) Heh-heh-- Seriously, though-- good runs on the Hulk? Absolutely: Roy Thomas, Archie Goodwin, Steve Englehart, and the majority of Len Wein's run. This spanned from the late 60's to the late 70's. Roy's run in particular was silver-age at its best, IMO. And what these writers focused on was introducing that version of the Hulk's character model (childlike, heart on his sleeve, extremely short-tempered, generally looking for a peaceful existence and/or acceptance. . . but sadly possessed of hopeless, dangerous physical power) into situations where he was perpetually denied his simple desires for one reason or another. I know this will cause some to choke on their coffee, but the whole "Hulk Smash You All", savage, mindless, perpetual-destruction-for-its-own-sake, violence-obsessed dynamo. . . never really existed in his own book. It's kind of a myth I think, perpetuated by the fact that his early guest appearances in other books tended to fall more into that realm. Be that as it may, though, even the Childlike Behemoth Searching For Happiness scenario can only be explored so far- especially w/ such a limited supporting cast. And also in Roger's defense, I'll admit that he'd inherited a title that needed a serious shift in direction. The direction he took was to revamp the supporting cast (a process started by the previous writer, in fact), and to create a MUCH darker-natured Hulk than we'd seen before. But that also made him a much less sympathetic central character-- and thus considerably less interesting. And from there he just never got quite back on track. Bill Mantlo, John Byrne, Al Milgrom-- all tried new or retro directions w/ limited (or no!) success-- and then Peter David, who was without a doubt the best writer the title ever had. The strength thing has been inconsistent over the years-- but it's never made him as invincible as you may be remembering. Knockout gas has been used on him a zillion times; he's fallen to overwhelming numbers, to severe cold, even to overwhelming strength. He's been captured plenty of times. Generally, the hubris of others is as invaluable to his prevailing over them as is his own might. And, hey!- according to Marvel at the time, the Hulk through the 70's was one of their top five sellers! Oh, I know it's all tied to commercialism & marketing & what-not-- but it was certainly holding its own before the 80's took their toll. Geeze, look at me-- I need to go cold-turkey on Hulk-talk in other threads. I think I've crossed the line into ridiculousness. . . Okay, thanks FF--- out for now-- HB
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 30, 2010 10:39:04 GMT -5
Didn't the Hulk television series run in the seventies too? I suppose that could have also contributed to push the sales up.
I've never read more than 2 or 3 Hulk stories in his own book, but what HB says is interesting, as Marvel characters often appear somewhat stereotyped when guest-starring in other books. For example, Spider-Man is often portrayed as somewhat less level-headed, more prone to panic and generally not as competent when he guest stars somewhere else. I can only remember a very few appearances where he was true to himself (the wonderful graphic novel with the Living Monolith, some bits of Secret Wars and a few more). So it's not surprising that they did the same with Hulk.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 30, 2010 11:16:09 GMT -5
Didn't the Hulk television series run in the seventies too? I suppose that could have also contributed to push the sales up. Oh, without a doubt, and Marvel fully & shamelessly exploited that success. But the TV show (1978-1982), in fact coincided very closely w/ Stern's run on the book (very late '77, I believe, till '81 or '82). And again I think that may have worked against him, as there sure seemed to be a tendency for stories & plots to more closely resemble the formula for the show, rather than vice-versa (It was a dead-ringer for David Jansen's THE FUGITIVE, in fact). Even as a doofy teenager I had an almost palpable sense of the editorial pressure that Roger must have been laboring under. And, hey, writing is a mercurial endeavor. Not every character or scenario is going to click, regardless of the writer's abilities. It's not a reflection of talent at all--- it's a reality of working in a creative field. HB
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 31, 2010 10:15:31 GMT -5
[ In fairness to Rog, who do you think HAD a good run on Hulk? My problem with the Hulk is he's kind of annoying in his own way. As long as he gets mad enough, he'll just win the fight. In its own way it's just as limiting as Superman's power levels in the 1950s. Since Superman could do anything, there was no suspense and to me that was the hallmark of Hulk stories for decades and sadly has returned, especially with Rulk and World War Hulk. It was just a matter of getting mad and then he'd win. Every hero in the MU coming at Hulk would lead to"grrr, I'm just getting madder, so nobody can stop me." Not even Moondragon, who could just shut down your mind? Sersi, who could change you into bunny slippers? Dr. Strange who could send you to another dimension? If hundreds of heroes can't stop him and they can beat every bad guy, then the message is Hulk is essentially unstoppable. No suspense. Peter David did the only thing that even made a modicum of sense and took that unstoppability away. Hulk was weaker and could be hurt, there were times when he couldn't become and Banner had to rely on his wits (which is fine because he's exceptionally smart). The Hulk may be an interesting comment on rage and abuse in an abstract sort of way, but as a concrete character he just doesn't seem to work in his classic "Hulk is strongest one there is"- unless he's essentially portrayed as a villain in which case being strongest works because it gives heroes a real challenge. There are tons of people who like the character, but it seems only when the Hulk's in these big events where he's the antagonist or written by Peter David that the character's ever sold well on a regular basis... Hey hey hey hey HEY now, FF-! Don't . . . don't get me angry, 'cause. . . (ah heck, you know the lines from here. . . ) Heh-heh-- Seriously, though-- good runs on the Hulk? Absolutely: Roy Thomas, Archie Goodwin, Steve Englehart, and the majority of Len Wein's run. This spanned from the late 60's to the late 70's. Roy's run in particular was silver-age at its best, IMO. And what these writers focused on was introducing that version of the Hulk's character model (childlike, heart on his sleeve, extremely short-tempered, generally looking for a peaceful existence and/or acceptance. . . but sadly possessed of hopeless, dangerous physical power) into situations where he was perpetually denied his simple desires for one reason or another. I know this will cause some to choke on their coffee, but the whole "Hulk Smash You All", savage, mindless, perpetual-destruction-for-its-own-sake, violence-obsessed dynamo. . . never really existed in his own book. It's kind of a myth I think, perpetuated by the fact that his early guest appearances in other books tended to fall more into that realm. Be that as it may, though, even the Childlike Behemoth Searching For Happiness scenario can only be explored so far- especially w/ such a limited supporting cast. And also in Roger's defense, I'll admit that he'd inherited a title that needed a serious shift in direction. The direction he took was to revamp the supporting cast (a process started by the previous writer, in fact), and to create a MUCH darker-natured Hulk than we'd seen before. But that also made him a much less sympathetic central character-- and thus considerably less interesting. And from there he just never got quite back on track. Bill Mantlo, John Byrne, Al Milgrom-- all tried new or retro directions w/ limited (or no!) success-- and then Peter David, who was without a doubt the best writer the title ever had. The strength thing has been inconsistent over the years-- but it's never made him as invincible as you may be remembering. Knockout gas has been used on him a zillion times; he's fallen to overwhelming numbers, to severe cold, even to overwhelming strength. He's been captured plenty of times. Generally, the hubris of others is as invaluable to his prevailing over them as is his own might. And, hey!- according to Marvel at the time, the Hulk through the 70's was one of their top five sellers! Oh, I know it's all tied to commercialism & marketing & what-not-- but it was certainly holding its own before the 80's took their toll. Geeze, look at me-- I need to go cold-turkey on Hulk-talk in other threads. I think I've crossed the line into ridiculousness. . . Okay, thanks FF--- out for now-- HB Any discussion on here is good discussion. I wouldn't worry about derailing a thread at all. In any case I'll take your word on the Hulk's sales. I seem to recall the book was one of Marvel's perennial underachievers, like Cap, Daredevil and Doctor Strange but I'm certainly not the biggest fan of the Hulk in that era. I will however take you to task on the plotlines of the Hulk. While it's true he would get knocked out and taken captive, the end result was almost universally the same. In round two, the Hulk would just get mad and break everything or outslug everyone. Due to the character's limitations it was really the only way to end most of the storylines. Yes there are some good ones out there, especially when the Hulk would get to Jarella's world, but I think old Hulky suffered from an ad nauseum cycle of Thunderbolt Ross and Hulkbuster stories. And while you're right that the Hulk was likely portrayed with less sympathy in other books, it wasn't entirely out of character. None of this appearances seemed to contradict anything that has appeared before. I was actually much more of a Defenders fan than the main Hulk title and even to his friends he was always as much a hindrance as help to them (you could literally see Nighthawk flinch every time he asked the Hulk for something, and Dr. Strange was always frustrated). In fact, I did a google search trying to find other good Hulk stories and it seems going by the very fickle web, only parts of PAD's run and Planet Hulk have inspired fandom to really write with love and passion about Hulk stories. I would write more and perhaps I'll edit, but the wife is telling me we should go out and enjoy the memorial day festivities...
|
|
|
Post by owene on May 31, 2010 10:47:25 GMT -5
There certainly seems to be a formula to the 70s Hulks that I have read.
Hulk (or sometimes Banner) wanders around and meets someone who treats him quite kindly.
Said Kindly stranger gets wrapped up in the affairs of an existing Marvel villain.
Hulk helps his new friend out by smashing a lot of stuff and the ensuing chaos either spoils the friendship or means he has to run off into the wilderness.
Meanwhile for 2 pages somewhere in the middle Ross and Samson and/or Nick Fury talk about what a threat the Hulk is.
I mean I know almost all super hero comics are quite formulaic and I have definitely enjoyed some of the issues but the Fugitive style plots of the TV series definitely have their roots in the comic book.
I've been trying to expand my Beginners Guide to the Avengers onto other series, just writing entries on everything I read (the essentials and Marvels general tpb mania makes it really easy to read extended runs of titles I'd only read spottily in back issues in the past) and the Hulk entries take a lot less time than most titles.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 1, 2010 20:57:58 GMT -5
Ohhhhhhh you guys, you guys--
Okay, okay, okay, okay-- I can't make an inspired defense on some of those historical formulaic constrictions (although I'd still maintain that they don't differ significantly from the restrictions of any superhero title. I mean, they're ALL going to return after the intitial setback and prevail, right-? Or nearly always?). The read-through I've nattered on about elsethread has certainly pounded them home. However, it's the soap-opera subplot that is by far the grossest offender there. The endless, unmoving, repetitive Thunderbolt Ross/Betty/Glenn Talbot dynamic that didn't change a whisker until issue #150 was mind-numbing and, I believe, detrimental to the book. And it's roughly the silver age-ish period that I would defend, regardless. From issue #109 to about #182 (1968-ish to 1974-ish). After that, I still enjoy the book, but it's more a case of loving it in spite of its flaws.
And-- ohhh, here's son of HB needing to get on the computer again. As you gracefully admit yourself, FF-- our family comes first!
HB
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 2, 2010 0:35:51 GMT -5
Ohhhhhhh you guys, you guys-- Okay, okay, okay, okay-- I can't make an inspired defense on some of those historical formulaic constrictions (although I'd still maintain that they don't differ significantly from the restrictions of any superhero title. I mean, they're ALL going to return after the intitial setback and prevail, right-? Or nearly always?). The read-through I've nattered on about elsethread has certainly pounded them home. However, it's the soap-opera subplot that is by far the grossest offender there. The endless, unmoving, repetitive Thunderbolt Ross/Betty/Glenn Talbot dynamic that didn't change a whisker until issue #150 was mind-numbing and, I believe, detrimental to the book. And it's roughly the silver age-ish period that I would defend, regardless. From issue #109 to about #182 (1968-ish to 1974-ish). After that, I still enjoy the book, but it's more a case of loving it in spite of its flaws. And-- ohhh, here's son of HB needing to get on the computer again. As you gracefully admit yourself, FF-- our family comes first! HB Not my intent to pick on old Hulkie. My only problem is that if you take a Cap or a Spidey story from that era, yeah they might outslug the bad guy, to finish the issue but they're just as likely to out-think the baddie du jour or lose for winning (i.e. spidey unable to get another punch in but the baddie realizes he has to get away before the cops get there, so it's a default win...) And with the Hulk, it's established canon that as long as he can get mad enough, his strength just has no upper limit. So even if it is written differently, it almost shouldn't be, because it's such a simple go to crutch and pretty logical given the character. And as such, it's an easy out. Even Thor was constantly fighting foes whose power he couldn't match, but as for Greenskin it was almost always a matter of when he would get stronger than his opponent and not if he could win. But like I said when i was a young'un he wasn't my fave so maybe I didn't look at those stories with a compassionate eye. Interestingly enough for me, the best Hulk stories are emotional ones, where his strength simply takes a back seat to his inability to be happy...
|
|
|
Post by owene on Jun 2, 2010 3:21:43 GMT -5
And with the Hulk, it's established canon that as long as he can get mad enough, his strength just has no upper limit. So even if it is written differently, it almost shouldn't be, because it's such a simple go to crutch and pretty logical given the character. Case in point I was reading Stern's Leader story yesterday, Stern has the Leader invent these gloves that turn back physical force so that whenever the Hulk hits him he gets hurt. which is a decent enough setup and about the only way you can have a weedy guy like the Leader stand up to the Hulk. So Hulk gets angry at the situation, gets stronger, and is just too much for the gloves and they break. No need for any kind of inspired solution, things going badly for the Hulk actually serve to give him the strength he needs to just power through the problem. I actually enjoyed the storyline and would happily say that slightly disappointing ending was down to Stern rather than the character but I honestly don't think I've seen that kind of cop out ending from Stern anywhere else in the MU (this is admittedly quite early in his career) On the other hand I'm really enjoying the Moonstone arc that i've gotten to now and have enjoyed the run as a whole.
|
|