|
Post by humanbelly on Feb 12, 2013 8:37:05 GMT -5
Steve Rogers, Clint Barton, Johnny Storm, Hank Pym, Jim Hammond, Don Blake-- and that's just off the top of my head. Many of us may recall that in the Avengers, circa several issues around #'s 56 through 61 or so, Hank suddenly had red hair (!), and one would assume it was to help distinguish him from fellow-members Steve and Clint, since there was a lot of informal mask-free time being depicted. I think this also was a factor in the late 80's "Heroes for Hire" reboot-- although I can't remember who all was in that at the time.
Man, this is hard to believe, but eugenics were recently in the news here in the DC Metro (in Northern Virginia, specifically) area, as reparations are going to be paid to survivors of Viginia's program. It was active until 1979. That's right, 1979. There were two state-mandated sterilizations performed that year. It's astonishing how long willful ignorance and bureaucratic, institutional evil can survive if not directly and forcefully challenged.
HB
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Feb 12, 2013 22:10:43 GMT -5
Hm, it never occurred to me that Kirby would use his own personal experiences about shell-shock to influence Cap's re-appearance in the present. But Lee's melodrama took hold of it and ran wild.
Awhile back, I read Essential Cap Vol. 1 and while I found the initial story about the Red Skull's return interesting, Steve's continual droning about being a 'man-out-of-time' began to grate on my nerves. Now toss in his 'mental enhancement', then really, he should have adjusted more quickly. But you lose any drama doing that, so in a sense, I can't blame Lee for mining that plot point for all it was worth.
I never knew about his 'mental enhancement' either. I find that similar to Superman, in that both characters may be highly intelligent, but in this visual medium, such facets are oft overlooked for the more physical capabilities.
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Feb 13, 2013 5:46:43 GMT -5
Cap's origin has been retold and redacted several times since 1941, so I'm pretty sure the original origin is no longer "canon", and even if it is, nobody but me tends to think that his brain is enhanced. By the time of Captain America #109 (Lee/Kirby, Jan 1969), we have added in the "Vita rays" bombardment (gotta get radioactivity into the origin somehow, as it was the Marvel leitmotif of the time), and no mention of mental enhancement. Just for fun, I've got scans of a few of the re-tellings of the origin: Lee/Kirby from the 60's; Thomas/Robbins from Invaders, 70's Shortened Englehart Buscema, late 70's: Cap 215 (80's?) Aaand so on. I'll spare you every single re-telling ever... Interesting to note that the Thomas and Englehart versions are closest to the original at least in terms of mentioning the mental enhancement. Now, if anyone in the current Marvel regime cared much about continuity or consistency, they might have a position on this. As far as I can tell, the current version is without any mental enhancement, and it's never used as a plot or story point.
|
|
|
Post by wundagoreborn on Feb 13, 2013 7:09:19 GMT -5
Add me to the list of those who never gave thought to Cap's mental enhancement. It really helps me with his super-strategist ability. I've often thought "yes, given some time, a smart & experienced strategist could figure out that battle plan after considering everything at play. But who could do it instantly like Cap just did?"
A guy with an enhanced brain, that's who. Makes much more sense now. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Feb 13, 2013 13:12:42 GMT -5
Wow, pretty amazing how much the dialogue is in synch throughout these different re-tellings.
Thomas and Englehart's versions both use the phrase of 'terror to spies and saboteurs' and 'the strength and the will to safeguard our shores'. Although both were done in the 70s, so there may be more contuinity there.
But the 80s example quotes parts of Kirby's 60s re-telling, like the potency of the serum and 'if we erred, Rogers will be dead within seconds'.
That's pretty darn good.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Feb 13, 2013 21:41:08 GMT -5
Nice sequence of comparative scans there, Toms-- thanks so much for taking the trouble. It's a great way to examine the evolution- or morphing- of one of Marvel's cornerstone moments. I also thought it was neat that, a) Erskine's appearance was largely the same from Issue #1--- until that one from #215, where he looks like a parody of a mad scientist, and b) the look, dialog and tone of observers up in the booth are suprisingly consistent-- down to including a female member-!
Cap #215, there, is from 1977. The sort of odd art is the product of George Tuska and Pablo Marcos (not a team I'd normally think of putting together). And I have to say, having never ever been a fan of Robbins, it was a very pleasant surprise to see how nice that sequence from the Invaders looks. Stylized, yes, but I can certainly see how it attracted such a devoted core of fans.
HB
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Feb 14, 2013 8:09:45 GMT -5
Nice sequence of comparative scans there, Toms-- thanks so much for taking the trouble. It's a great way to examine the evolution- or morphing- of one of Marvel's cornerstone moments. I also thought it was neat that, a) Erskine's appearance was largely the same from Issue #1--- until that one from #215, where he looks like a parody of a mad scientist, and b) the look, dialog and tone of observers up in the booth are suprisingly consistent-- down to including a female member-! Thanks, it was pretty easy to just google "Captain America origin" on an image search and then copy paste any pages that turned up. I was a bit surprised by how little things changed in terms of the origin, what was said, who was there etc. I'd originally had it in my head that there had been more changes, for some reason. Even the recent Cap movie was pretty true to the origin (save for Howard Stark and the mummy case "vita ray" device). Cap #215, there, is from 1977. The sort of odd art is the product of George Tuska and Pablo Marcos (not a team I'd normally think of putting together). And I have to say, having never ever been a fan of Robbins, it was a very pleasant surprise to see how nice that sequence from the Invaders looks. Stylized, yes, but I can certainly see how it attracted such a devoted core of fans. HB Yeah, Robbins seems to have his Kirby on in that page. The figures are relatively un-rubbery and un-contorted there, and Vinnie Colletta is bringing the page a generic Bronze-age Marvel House Style. You can see Robbins has basically used Kirby's page above as a reference point, with an almost panel for panel translation. I remember the switch from Sal Buscema to Frank Robbins in Cap's book was so jarring and unpleasant for me. Now I look at it, and while he's still not a favourite, I don't hate it anymore. I guess there has not been a Marvel House Art Style for so many decades now that other styles in their books no longer look "wrong" to me. Plus I'm no longer a callow youth.... If we only learn one thing from all these pages, it's that when a super-soldier is created, there has to be a LOT of lines radiating out from somebody! Clearly that visual trope started some time between 1941 and 1967, 'cos it's not there in the original. My money is on Kirby being the originator of this particular visual tic. It's probably derived from the effect of a figure in front of a bright light source, but has gradually morphed into visual shorthand for "Look! Important! Dramatic!" Unless somebody in the room switched on a spotlight to better examine Cap's enhanced physique...
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Feb 14, 2013 21:15:23 GMT -5
[ It's probably derived from the effect of a figure in front of a bright light source, but has gradually morphed into visual shorthand for "Look! Important! Dramatic!" Unless somebody in the room switched on a spotlight to better examine Cap's enhanced physique... Liiiiiiiike maybe that woman in the observation booth-? ;D HB
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Jun 4, 2013 22:28:51 GMT -5
OK, finally getting around to reading Van's ASSEMBLED book Vol. 1, very interesting, but a comment from the essay on the Stan and Jack Era struck my fancy.
That, during this early phase of the book and group, that the Hulk was the main star of the title. Now, under today's perceptions, I find this statement strange. What about Thor? Iron Man? Ant-Man and Wasp never seemed to me like big selling characters (although I later read that Ant-Man's first appearance predates FF #1. Hm, very interesting) But the Hulk?
And I'm not putting the Hulk down, mind you. I think it's safe to say that for quite a few decades, Hulk along with Spider-Man and probably Cap were Marvel's most well-known figures amongst the general non-comic reading audience.
But to think that Hulk was the most popular of these characters at that particular time, perhaps being the best-seller of the original roster (forgive my lapse of knowledge but did he even have his own title at that time?) therefore worthy of being the main star of the title, it's a notion that I find odd and strangely fun to grapple with...if that makes sense.
So would you all agree with this sentiment?
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Jun 5, 2013 7:57:04 GMT -5
I'm a little surprised that Hulk would be considered the headliner, but not totally shocked. I know that Ant-Man came before the FF, but I still think he was a pretty minor character. The Hulk did some before the other, non Ant-Man Avengers, I think, and he did actually have his own title, for 6 issues, anyway, before Avengers #1, so even though we think of Iron Man and Thor as the big draws in the Avengers now, I could see that it's quite possible that things were different in 1963. Let's not forget, Superman (and Archie) dominates comic book sales in the 60's. Probably at least 5 of the 10 bestselling titles of the 60's were Superman related. That seems hard to imagine now, as he's clearly second fiddle to Batman, even just at DC, but times and popular opinions change.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 5, 2013 17:30:03 GMT -5
The Hulk's original comic was cancelled in March of '63, and that would only have happened if it wasn't selling. The others books were still going so I'd presume that they were selling and would be seen as 'bigger' at the time. He started co-starring with Giant Man in 'Astonish' from October '64.
I wasn't around at the time but I'd always assumed that the Hulk's popularity, which Stan has often spoken of in regard to the letters he'd get from college students, really blossomed as he stalked from title to title as a guest star in the intervening period.
Maybe what the essay meant was that the Hulk was the star or main attraction precisely because he was the one who didn't have his own title and thus this was the only place that you could see him?
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 5, 2013 18:40:19 GMT -5
OK, finally getting around to reading Van's ASSEMBLED book Vol. 1, very interesting, but a comment from the essay on the Stan and Jack Era struck my fancy. That, during this early phase of the book and group, that the Hulk was the main star of the title. Now, under today's perceptions, I find this statement strange. What about Thor? Iron Man? Ant-Man and Wasp never seemed to me like big selling characters (although I later read that Ant-Man's first appearance predates FF #1. Hm, very interesting) But the Hulk? And I'm not putting the Hulk down, mind you. I think it's safe to say that for quite a few decades, Hulk along with Spider-Man and probably Cap were Marvel's most well-known figures amongst the general non-comic reading audience. But to think that Hulk was the most popular of these characters at that particular time, perhaps being the best-seller of the original roster (forgive my lapse of knowledge but did he even have his own title at that time?) therefore worthy of being the main star of the title, it's a notion that I find odd and strangely fun to grapple with...if that makes sense. So would you all agree with this sentiment? Good topic. . . and solid responses from Ultron & Crimson C, thanks guys. This is really the kind of stuff that Sharkar totally rules at, with her twin superpowers of Spock-like memory and laser-like vision for detail. . . but she does like to see us break our lazy habits and check into these details on our own, so (*oof*) let me hoist my e-belly, here, and see what's sort-of what, eh-? The Ant-Man Predates FF claim is one I've heard a lot, and assumed to be true. . . but that very, very first appearance (as a scientist only, not a superhero at all) in Tales to Astonish #27 is cover-dated January 1962. FF #1 is cover-dated November 1961. So, while they could conceivably have spent a bit of simultaneous time on those old newstands and spinner racks, it seems like the FF clearly win the precedence race by a couple of short months. And we didn't see Dr Pym again until Astonish #33, so he wasn't continuing to make an impact. Hulk's initial cancellation, IIRC, was not just sluggish sales, but also schedule/distribution problems (the whole thing where Marvel was using DC's distributor, or something), and they were strictly limited on how many books they could physically produce in a month. Also, Goodman sounds like he may have had a tendency to be trigger-happy when it came to 86-ing books that he didn't have faith in-- and lord knows the Hulk was about as unconventional a property as could be found at the time. ALSO, in spite of Stan's affection for it (and belief in the character and concept), the book CLEARLY had trouble trying to figure out what it wanted to be in those six issues. The Hulk's look kept changing, his transformations were inconsistent, he couldn't settle on whether to operate as a regular hero or an angry monster, etc, etc-- and that certainly couldn't have helped sales. But Stan has said that the completely unexpected mail from college students started immediately upon the book's cancellation. It would have been a good bet that sales were on the cusp of a big surge, and he was savvy enough to see that there was a whole new market to be tested with this character. And he himself was extremely fond of the Hulk, of course, and was loath to let him languish (O, good alliteration, that-!). So, by the time the Avengers rolled around, after a bajillion guest-appearances, cameos, and mentions in other Marvel books, there may indeed have been a perception on Stan's part that this was a very popular leading-character who happened to be w/out a book of his own. To my mind, calling him the leading character in the Avengers is certainly a stretch, although he does provide a continous source of conflict for the short time he was there. Then he quits at the end of issue #2, but he remains a presence through issue #5, and he's on the corner box through #6 (!). And then it seems like every eighth issue or so an adventure would begin with the group "deciding" they needed to go out to "bring the Hulk in" or something-- and would then generally get sidetracked by Kang or Count Nefaria or someone. Other than Annual #2, though, I don't think we ever saw the Hulk in the book again until issue #100. (Happy to be corrected, natch-) (Ooh, and it does occur to me that they all appeared in HIS book circa Avengers 68-ish. . . partly to see if they might "add some muscle" to the team.) So, you know what? Even if Stan's original intention was to make the Hulk the star of the title, my hunch is that it started writing itself (as they say) pretty early on, and despite his best efforts he simply couldn't make it happen. And then he saw ol' Cap just layin' on the shelf, and that was pretty much it. . . HB, w/ the loquacious op/ed. . .
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Jun 6, 2013 8:11:34 GMT -5
Yes, Marvel was using DC's dictributor and thus limited on the number of titles they could sell. That's why virtually all of the solo heroes appeared in anthology titles such as Tales of Suspense, Journey into Mystery, and Tales to Astonish, rather than a title bearing their own name. This way, they could squeeze two superhero stories (such as Iron Man and Captain America sharing Tales of Suspense) into one comic. I also think that the cover of FF#1 looks more like a monster mag than a superhero comic (notice no costumes) because MArvel, at that time, didn't want to let DC know that they were horning in on their superhero comic monopoly.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jun 10, 2013 10:36:18 GMT -5
...although I later read that Ant-Man's first appearance predates FF #1. I know that Ant-Man came before the FF, but I still think he was a pretty minor character. The Ant-Man Predates FF claim is one I've heard a lot, and assumed to be true. . . Hank definitely did not predate the FF so I'm a bit--er-- astonished that there's "information" out there indicating he did. On the other hand Dr. Droom did appear before the FF, by 4-5 months (he was dusted off and resurrected much later on as Dr. Druid).
|
|