|
Post by Shiryu on Jan 30, 2014 8:13:20 GMT -5
This is pretty cool, Shir. Both of our first offerings have a definite Avengers connection w/out actually being Avengers books. We're a clever lot-! One can take the Avengers away from the readers, but not the readers away from the Avengers PS: I did track down and read Hulk #128 btw. Thunderation!
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Jan 30, 2014 16:56:38 GMT -5
This is pretty cool, Shir. Both of our first offerings have a definite Avengers connection w/out actually being Avengers books. We're a clever lot-! One can take the Avengers away from the readers, but not the readers away from the Avengers PS: I did track down and read Hulk #128 btw. Thunderation! Okay, I wasn't sure what Hulk #128 was about, but I checked out the cover (thanks, Cover Browser) ...wow! And what a great avengers line-up.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jan 30, 2014 20:18:16 GMT -5
This is pretty cool, Shir. Both of our first offerings have a definite Avengers connection w/out actually being Avengers books. We're a clever lot-! One can take the Avengers away from the readers, but not the readers away from the Avengers PS: I did track down and read Hulk #128 btw. Thunderation! Ha-! "Thunderation" just sums it up perfectly, Shir. Nice bit of a clever reference, there. (Non-Hulkophiles are just a-scratchin' their heads, I am sure.) (Man, we're going to end up doing that issue someday, one way or another, I bet. . . ) HB
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jan 31, 2014 12:11:16 GMT -5
"Thunderation!" LOL-- good one, Shiryu (as HB said). Oh man, I remember buying that Hulk issue. I was visiting my grandmother and she gave me a dollar and I bought these 3 comics--with enough left over to buy some candy ! I was not normally a Hulk reader, but since the Avengers were featured on Hulk #128's cover, I couldn't resist. For those who may not be familiar with Hulk #128, Wanda and Pietro had just returned to the Avengers in #75-6...so Hulk #128 was essentially the debut of the then-new core line-up: Wanda, Pietro, T'Challa, Vision, and Clint.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jan 31, 2014 19:01:03 GMT -5
"Thunderation!" LOL-- good one, Shiryu (as HB said). Oh man, I remember buying that Hulk issue. I was visiting my grandmother and she gave me a dollar and I bought these 3 comics--with enough left over to buy some candy ! I was not normally a Hulk reader, but since the Avengers were featured on Hulk #128's cover, I couldn't resist. For those who may not be familiar with Hulk #128, Wanda and Pietro had just returned to the Avengers in #75-6...so Hulk #128 was essentially the debut of the then-new core line-up: Wanda, Pietro, T'Challa, Vision, and Clint. That's an action-packed trio of comics you picked up there, Shar-! HOW COOL that you were picking up that issue of the Hulk off of the spinner-rack on a whim at pretty much the same time as your pal, wee HB, here, eh? The cover grabbed me as well, and I think my Mom was in an oddly indulgent (well- likely distracted-!) mood that day. But, boy-- y'got yer Buscema, yer Trimpe, and yer Kirby represented in their prime late-Silver/early-Bronze best. Nice! HB
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Feb 2, 2014 22:17:56 GMT -5
Okay, I read the FF issues (Thanks Shiryu) and the timing was interesting. Just a couple of weeks ago, I read the Heralds LS which revisited Frankie Raye. As I read it, I thought "I don't really remember the details of how Frankie became Nova anyway." I guess that's because I'd never actually read them. I knew it happened from later tales, just hadn't read the original.
It was a pretty good story. The Avengers weren't all that important and Spider-man and Daredevil were even less so, but I kind of like them all being there anyway. So often, big events occur that no one else in the city seems to notice. It seems more logical that any heroes in NY would be aware, even if they weren't key players in the events.
I thought that Frankie becoming the Herald to Galactus seemed a little forced and out of the blue. Having her just step up and say "I'll do it" was a tad convenient. I know I often criticize today's books because a story can take 8 issues to tell when 2 would suffice but I actually think this one was the opposite. I would have liked to have seen a little more soul searching on Frankie's part, a little more effort from the FF to stop her, and a little more convincing Galactus that she could do it. Maybe she could have had to prove herself in some way. It wouldn't go down on my list of the all-time great Marvel stories, but it was pretty good and I really enjoyed filling in this gap in my knowledge of the history of the MU.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Feb 3, 2014 8:09:23 GMT -5
I've read my FF's now. So...
Though the art was very good, I have to say, I liked the art on Byrne’s FF run better after he stopped doing the inking himself.
The scene with Reed’s mechanical Christmas tree was funny, and reminded me of my dad vs. my step-mom.
I can’t believe that anybody in NYC wouldn’t recognize the Thing (even a lumpy Thing) after all these years. That must be a pretty big rock all of these people are living under! I’ve always found it odd that Ben is afraid that if Alicia could see him, she’d dump him. She can obviously “see” him well enough to create an incredibly realistic sculpture of him, so she must have a pretty good idea of what he looks like, other than maybe now knowing what the color orange looks like. But hey, this is Marvel, and our heroes must be self pitying Hamlets.
Nice touch with Johnny recognizing the homeless shelter that he found Namor in.
Impressive displays of power by Terrax, tearing off the top two stories of the Baxter Building, not to mention putting Manhattan into orbit! So why does Terrax need the FF to kill Galactus instead of doing it himself, then? By the way, I would NOT want to live in NYC in the Marvel Universe. More dangerous than Beirut.
Also, an impressive punch by Ben. I’ve always loved those scenes of somebody being knocked through several buildings. It’s still a bit weird seeing the World Trade Center in old comics and movies. It’s stated here, just 30 years ago, that the population of the world is 4 billion. Now it’s over 7.1 billion. Exponential population growth, anyone?
You’ think Galacty would have given up on heralds by now. Interesting that Byrne has Galactus reveal that he was once a mortal man. Has that been retconned? Was this ever mentioned before? I seem to recall reading somewhere that Galactus was basically a force of nature, or something. Also that he’d been around in the previous universe. Byrne also humanizes Galactus, as he did to many of the FF’s foes during his run.
I like the way Frankie, who’s been charged with the safekeeping of Sue, leaves her laying unconscious atop the Baxter Building.
Why did Thor need a ride aboard the Quinjet? I love the fatuousness of Iron Man, stating something to the effect that Galactus had better beware the Avengers. I find it odd that DD groups Spidey in the low power level class along with himself, stating that they had better stay out of this fight because it’s out of their league, and Spidey agrees. Isn’t this the same Spider-Man that singlehandedly defeated Firelord?
It was shocking to see Galactus fall. Reed’s liberality got him into trouble, obviously, with the Trial of Reed Richards story to be born out of this conclusion. I like that Cap (in agreement) and Iron Man (in disagreement) are in character with their reactions. Reed friends with Galactus? Shudder. The epilogues see up two other future stories, with the “other” Dr. Doom and with Franklin’s powers.
The Thing must be a fan of really old movies to make the C.B. DeMille reference! I do love the 80’s fads appearing in this scene though, with the Rubik’s Cube, the Muppets, and Herbie.
Johny, is his typical hothead self, burning Reed in his desire to chase after Frankie. He’s also a bit of a drama queen at the end (“I don’t want to live” “I’ll always be alone”). Snap out of it. Man!
All in all, excellent art, good pacing and dialogue. An important story, not just for the fall of Galactus, but the future stories it sets up.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Feb 3, 2014 12:21:28 GMT -5
To me, in this story there's a lot of what was good - and some of what was bad - in comics in the 80s. Like SW said, it's the kind of story that, today, would be decompressed in a 8-issue arc, involving a lot of soul searching and arguint, but that originally was probably a little too compressed in essentially 2 and half issues. The decision to save Galactus is massive for the whole universe - he was dying of "natural causes", was responsible for the death of billions and had threaned Earth several times, and yet only Iron Man argues against saving him, only to be quickly overruled by Cap and Reed. Then, in mere minutes, Reed finds "at least 4 planets" he could feed on without killing anyone, and off Galactus goes. A few issues later, he will be destroying the throne world of the Skrull empire, so either those 4 planets weren't that good, or Galactus now needs a planet per month. Couldn't Reed have left him the machine he used? In fact, to revive him he feeds Galactus artificial energies, and the process does work, so there is a potential for alternative food sources for the big G, but it's never really elaborated upon. It's a pity, considering the second half of the last issue is basically devoted to something else completely and could have been used better.
Still, there is also a lot I like. The battle with Terrax is short but cool, especially the Thing punching him through several buildings, and the appearance of various other heroes reinforces the sense of shared world that's too often ignored because "so and so is away on a mission". My favourite scene is Iron Man's reaction to Thor creating an underwater storm to keep the sea away. Doctor Strange also came across really well, to make Galactus scream like that. He can be a big deus-ex character, but here it worked I think. However, I found DD and Spidey disappointing... there's no way they would have stayed out of the fight like that. To make matters worse, next panel we actually see Wasp contributing. Talking of disappointments, why is Susan breaking down like that?
On the plus side, the art is top notch. I'm not the biggest fun of JB's work (his Torch is too skinny for example), but everyone looks very expressive and there are some great power displays (Thor's storm, Terrax lifting a portion of NY, the Thing's punch).
I also liked the attempt to make Galactus feel genuinely sorry for all the people he has killed, just to remind readers he is not evil per se, but simply trying to survive, making in turn the decision to save him more understandable. On the other hand, Frankie's decision is indeed out of the blue. Previous stories had hinted that she was quite self-righteous, not as soft hearted as the FFs, but to leave everyone behind almost on a whim is a tad much... you can really feel for Jonnhy here. IIRC, Frankie as a character predated Byrne's tenure on the book, so it's possible he just wanted to get rid of her. I had a look on Wiki and she will be around for a while, before eventually dying off in space.
IIRC that hadn't happened yet. Spidey fights Firelord wearing his (homemade) black costume and Hercules and Starfox are Avengers, so it was after the Secret Wars, during Stern's stint as Avengers writer. This story takes place be a few years earlier (readers time).
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Feb 3, 2014 14:57:39 GMT -5
IIRC that hadn't happened yet. Spidey fights Firelord wearing his (homemade) black costume and Hercules and Starfox are Avengers, so it was after the Secret Wars, during Stern's stint as Avengers writer. This story takes place be a few years earlier (readers time). Yes, I know, but still, my point being that Spidey is not the lightweight that both he and DD make him out to be. That seemed to be a cheap way to keep him out of the action. I have to second (or third, I guess) the criticism of Spiderwasp & Shiryu that the ending was too quick and pat. However, I think that this was a recurring issue during Byrne's FF run. The multi-issue stories were great for the first 75% or so, but the endings were often too convenient and too quick.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Feb 4, 2014 21:53:32 GMT -5
Only a smidge of time right now-- maybe I can get a few thoughts in, though, eh?
Ultron, Galactus was indeed once a mortal man. He was a . . . scientist? explorer? both?. . . named Galen, and if I remember his long-ago one-shot correctly, he is the sole remaining survivor of the Universe that was the Universe before our Universe. Or something like that. He made it through- I don't know- the final black hole that swallowed it all before exploding back out as the birth of our own existence. But that process changed him into whatever he is now, exactly.
Shir, I do agree that this plotline does seem to swell up to a conclusion pretty quickly-- but I wonder if that has more to do with the original monthly pace by which this stories were told? I kind of feel like it does, and that maybe Byrne had a surprisingly good handle on how that pace could effect the mechanics of his storytelling.
Although it's kind of not fashionable to say so anymore, I LOVED Byrne's run on FF. It had it's flaws, sure-- some of which were brought to mind with this reading-- but it never, ever failed to keep me engaged and looking forward to the next issue. Byrne is a great, great visual story-teller-- adhering to the oldsters' rule of thumb that you should be able to follow a comic clearly even if the words aren't there. I'm also very, very fond of his clean, expressive style-- even with it's quirky flaws (like the inability to draw more than one kind of woman's face-- a long-standing, justified criticism). As a writer, he generally did a terrific job of balancing the long arc(s) against the short one(s), which gave his run a nice, cohesive, saga-like sweep. His dialog was at times uneven-- but he generally had a strong feel for characterization even when the words themselves might be a bit suspect (Reed using the word "whilst" in a pressure situation??). And finally, he's also one heck of a good cover artist.
You know what this whole 3-issue story felt like to me, kind of? A really good, blockbuster late-60's annual-- what with the guest-stars and major threat, and big-doin's for the team itself. The letters pages were still talking at length about how JB had really done a job of taking the book back to its roots, which I think contributes to that "Annual" sense of the story.
Oop-- aaaand gotta check out for now!
HB
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Feb 5, 2014 13:00:51 GMT -5
HB, do you know where that Galactus origin comes from? I do remember reading, somewhere, that Galactus had survived the previous universe, but I didn't remember that he was just a man in that universe, and I don't recall if that story came before or after this story.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed Byrne's run, too. I'd probably give the writing a B and the art a B+, though more like an A- when Gordon, Sinnott, and Ordway took over the inking chores. I still say too many of his stories have a great buildup but an ending which was too abrupt and perhaps a bit too easy, for lack of a better word.
As far as Byrne getting the FF back to its roots, I actually got that feel during his brief run-before-the-run, that is, issues #220-221, which occurred about 10 issues before his real run started. In that story, they return to being explorers, exploring just for the sake of exploring. Byrne also makes it clear how respected the FF are around the world. And yes, you're sorta right, this story did have a bit of that late 60's Annual feel to it, now that you mention it.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Feb 5, 2014 18:24:08 GMT -5
HB, do you know where that Galactus origin comes from? I do remember reading, somewhere, that Galactus had survived the previous universe, but I didn't remember that he was just a man in that universe, and I don't recall if that story came before or after this story. I did a bit of checking, and the story is sort of both. GALACTUS: THE ORIGIN was a one-shot published in 1983, shortly after the story we're discussing. It was by & large a re-print of the original edited-together Lee/Kirby telling of Galactus' history (from FF, I think), but this was also then edited and supplemented and somewhat retconned a bit by Byrne, Gruenwald and a couple of other folks to make Galactus' history fit in more comfortably with the stories being told with him at the time-- and possibly to make him a little more plausible given the then-current theories of how the cosmos actually work (science-stuff, that is--). HB
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Feb 5, 2014 18:58:11 GMT -5
Although it's kind of not fashionable to say so anymore, I LOVED Byrne's run on FF. It had it's flaws, sure-- some of which were brought to mind with this reading-- but it never, ever failed to keep me engaged and looking forward to the next issue. Byrne is a great, great visual story-teller-- adhering to the oldsters' rule of thumb that you should be able to follow a comic clearly even if the words aren't there. I'm also very, very fond of his clean, expressive style-- even with it's quirky flaws (like the inability to draw more than one kind of woman's face-- a long-standing, justified criticism). As a writer, he generally did a terrific job of balancing the long arc(s) against the short one(s), which gave his run a nice, cohesive, saga-like sweep. His dialog was at times uneven-- but he generally had a strong feel for characterization even when the words themselves might be a bit suspect (Reed using the word "whilst" in a pressure situation??). And finally, he's also one heck of a good cover artist. I'm on the fence on Byrne's run on the FF. Up until a couple of months ago, I had very good memories of it as he was there when I started reading the FFs and the X-Men. Then over Christmas I purchased the X-Men and FF by John Byrne Omnibuses, and found the second rather disappointing. There are some really great stories there, but they all revolve around Doc Doom - of whom Byrne had an excellent grasp - and Galactus or related characters. Thrown in the mix there were a lot of rather meaningless filler issues (anyone remembers the native "shadow creatures" that made people die of fear?). What I do like about him is that he is great at conveying the sense of someone's power. Iron Man easily carries two cars by the side windows (kind of impossible, but who cares), Wasp gets inside Galactus' eye slits, Terrax lifts an entire portion of the city and so on. He doesn't need to describe it, he just shows it. IIRC it was from Thor. The Thunderer did meet Galactus twice in his early years, during the search for Ego the Living Planet (there was a time when Thor went into space almost as often as the FF) and learned his origin. Byrne then reworked it in the aforementioned special and in the Galactus/Darkseid crossover "The Hunger", showing Big G's attack on Apokolips (has anyone read that? One of the best crossovers IMO).
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Feb 6, 2014 9:51:36 GMT -5
Although it's kind of not fashionable to say so anymore, I LOVED Byrne's run on FF. It had it's flaws, sure-- some of which were brought to mind with this reading-- but it never, ever failed to keep me engaged and looking forward to the next issue. Byrne is a great, great visual story-teller-- adhering to the oldsters' rule of thumb that you should be able to follow a comic clearly even if the words aren't there. I'm also very, very fond of his clean, expressive style-- even with it's quirky flaws (like the inability to draw more than one kind of woman's face-- a long-standing, justified criticism). As a writer, he generally did a terrific job of balancing the long arc(s) against the short one(s), which gave his run a nice, cohesive, saga-like sweep. His dialog was at times uneven-- but he generally had a strong feel for characterization even when the words themselves might be a bit suspect (Reed using the word "whilst" in a pressure situation??). And finally, he's also one heck of a good cover artist. I'm on the fence on Byrne's run on the FF. Up until a couple of months ago, I had very good memories of it as he was there when I started reading the FFs and the X-Men. Then over Christmas I purchased the X-Men and FF by John Byrne Omnibuses, and found the second rather disappointing. There are some really great stories there, but they all revolve around Doc Doom - of whom Byrne had an excellent grasp - and Galactus or related characters. Thrown in the mix there were a lot of rather meaningless filler issues (anyone remembers the native "shadow creatures" that made people die of fear?). What I do like about him is that he is great at conveying the sense of someone's power. Iron Man easily carries two cars by the side windows (kind of impossible, but who cares), Wasp gets inside Galactus' eye slits, Terrax lifts an entire portion of the city and so on. He doesn't need to describe it, he just shows it. IIRC it was from Thor. The Thunderer did meet Galactus twice in his early years, during the search for Ego the Living Planet (there was a time when Thor went into space almost as often as the FF) and learned his origin. Byrne then reworked it in the aforementioned special and in the Galactus/Darkseid crossover "The Hunger", showing Big G's attack on Apokolips (has anyone read that? One of the best crossovers IMO). Wow, thanks for the research, HB (Shiryu too)!
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Feb 6, 2014 11:58:40 GMT -5
Hey, y'know-- I'm sure that this has been brought up somewhere, somewhen, by somebody before. . . but I just now picked up on it: Is there a more-than-passing similarity between Frankie Ray, here, and Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix? It seems so obvious now to me that SURELY it's been discussed, right?
The flaming red hair. The flame-based powers. The power upgrade from darn-mighty to cosmic. The heartbroken lover left behind. But more disturbingly, the- *gulp*- casual willingness to sacrifice entire other worlds to satisfy one's personal agenda. (I mean, I know it's more complex than that, but still. . . )
Can't believe I missed that all these years.
I mean, that one panel-- the one callous phrase, really-- completely changes the perception of Frankie's character. She could well be a bad-guy waiting to happen, and doesn't even know it yet. I did come away from the story this time thinking, "Johnny, you poor sap, you have no idea of the bullet you dodged here. . . "
HB
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Feb 7, 2014 10:57:28 GMT -5
Hey, HB, now that you mention it, you're right. Of course, that's not the only Dark Phoenix ripoff. Claremont did an issue with "Dark Storm" a couple of years after Byrne left the X-Men, and then there is Sue's Malice personality, which Byrne also created. No sense in reinventing the wheel, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Feb 8, 2014 23:53:17 GMT -5
Y'know, getting back to the Ethics for SuperHeroes angle. . . (because this has never stopped bothering me about this story). . . Reed's (and Byrne's, I suppose) decision to save the dying Galactus simply doesn't hold up well at all under anything but the most superficial scrutiny we see here. . . which is then sort of justified further during the Trial of Reed Richards.
Galactus was dying of starvation. He was starving because the FF & friends prevented him from, well, eating them (and the rest of the earth)-- basically, he was dying due to their successful acts of self-defense, even though they hadn't actively committed an act to murder him directly. Oddly enough, this seems to be a proper application of the much-maligned stand-your-ground law. The only argument given for saving him is that he is a sentient being. Given Galactus' history, every hero present knows that once those four "nearby" uninhabited worlds are consumed, Galactus will go right ahead and feed on another inhabited one, likely killing billions of other "sentient" beings at the first necessary opportunity. In fact, IIRC, Reed admits to more or less understanding this during his trial-- his defense being pretty much that Galactus is a force of nature. . . a herd-thinner, as it were. And good ol' humanitarian Reed, for some unfathomable reason, surrenders to that idea, and directly chooses to save the life of the sentient singleton Galactus over the lives of an absolutely certain untold billions of his future victims.
He is a predator, and even if he's not evil in his soul, the destruction he wreaks is. People (and Galactus is indeed a "people") do not prey on one another, regardless of their status. It is inherently an evil act. Were it not, were he not, Galactus would have sacraficed himself long, long ago rather than sustain himself at so great a cost. Man, I would.
I think of turned my thinking around 180 degrees on how I think Reed handled things here. Not fooled by the charm anymore.
HB
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Feb 9, 2014 11:46:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Feb 9, 2014 16:10:03 GMT -5
HUGE exalt on this (if we still had 'em), Shir. Just a wonderful law-school type exercise! Man, those comments do go down the dry, legal minutiea route, don't they? Yet still fascinating-- almost script-worthy. It does look like my assesment of Reed's legal culpability was misguided, at best. He'd've got off, he would. HB
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Feb 10, 2014 8:47:11 GMT -5
Very interesting link, Shir!
I also have a problem that virtually nobody question's Reed about saving Galactus. Regardless of whether it was right or wrong, I'd expect a much lengthier and more heated debate. That could almost be a full issue itself.
I remember the Trial of Reed Richards, and I never did understand how saving Galactus was good for the universe, regardless of whether or not he's a force of nature". I guess we're just supposed to take Reed's/Byrne's word for it.
Still, an entertaining pair of stories.
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Feb 10, 2014 9:39:02 GMT -5
Very interesting link, Shir! I also have a problem that virtually nobody question's Reed about saving Galactus. Regardless of whether it was right or wrong, I'd expect a much lengthier and more heated debate. That could almost be a full issue itself. I remember the Trial of Reed Richards, and I never did understand how saving Galactus was good for the universe, regardless of whether or not he's a force of nature". I guess we're just supposed to take Reed's/Byrne's word for it. Still, an entertaining pair of stories. From what I recall of the Trial, for the overall 'grand destiny' of the Universe, Galactus is a needed aspect for that destiny to be achieved. I guess in a 'only-the-strong-survive' type role by weeding out the weaker races. (That's what, 4, 5 times that Earth has repelled Galactus?)
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Feb 10, 2014 19:05:04 GMT -5
Very interesting link, Shir! I also have a problem that virtually nobody question's Reed about saving Galactus. Regardless of whether it was right or wrong, I'd expect a much lengthier and more heated debate. That could almost be a full issue itself. I remember the Trial of Reed Richards, and I never did understand how saving Galactus was good for the universe, regardless of whether or not he's a force of nature". I guess we're just supposed to take Reed's/Byrne's word for it. Still, an entertaining pair of stories. From what I recall of the Trial, for the overall 'grand destiny' of the Universe, Galactus is a needed aspect for that destiny to be achieved. I guess in a 'only-the-strong-survive' type role by weeding out the weaker races. (That's what, 4, 5 times that Earth has repelled Galactus?) That's right, that's right-- I do remember now what bothered me so much about all of this. The whole "weed out the weaker races as a natural function of the universe" really didn't sit well with me at all back then, and as an older, more experienced (wiser?) individual now, I find it nothing short of repellant. . . and really have to take Mr. Byrne to task for it. The resolution of Byrne's plot hinges on the readers (and the entirety of sentient life in the story) accepting what he presents as a fundamental "truth" of the (Marvel) universe-- that it's okay and necessary for Galactus to go around eating planets and killing trillions of people, 'cause really, that's gonna be better for the universe in the long run. Gets rid of the deadwood, so to speak. This, quite frankly, is a point of view that is absolutely chilling in its callousness and arrogance, and reflects just horribly on John Byrne himself. My hope is that he simply didn't think through the ugly implications he was making-- as I'd prefer to chalk it up to carelessness, rather than to the workings of a mind that would see this as a viable justification for (there's no other word for it) serial genocide. The "Natural Force" defense is inane, because Galactus is a sentient, free-willed being-- he's not a tornado or comet or black hole that wreaks havoc on a purely local level. He's an extraordinarily powerful, god-like being that sustains himself on the life essence of those less-powerful than him. The only. . . ONLY. . . relevant factor in determining whether an entire race is "worthy" of survival is if they happen to have the physical might (or perhaps extreme cleverness) to fend him off. That's it. It has nothing to do with their potential or their spiritual life or whether they're good, bad, or in-between, or to what point their society has evolved. It's a completely arbitrary and definitely false justification. . . and to my mind is a particularly vile form of evil, as it justifies its actions w/ a false, self-serving premise that provides an inarguable excuse for these enormous crimes. Why does it bother me so much? Well, take it out of the macro setting of the "Universe", and shrink it down to the more manageable setting of "the Earth"-- and then use the identical (and some implied) phrases ("Weak races need to be weeded out", "It's for the greater good of the country/empire/planet", "Galactus (God) is beyond the concerns of such creatures", "The needs of the powerful One outweigh the needs of the less-powerful Many", "It's nothing personal", etc, etc, etc) and use them to explain the genocides and massacres and enslavements of black Africans, of Native Americans, of the indiginous peoples of South & Central America, of the European Jews during the Holocaust (and throughout history), of the Rwandans, and on and on. I mean, intended or not, this is a direct metaphor for those atrocities, and JB pretty much says in so many words: "It's okay, it's just the natural order of things." "HB, for heaven's sake, it's only a comic book." Nope-- nope, don't buy that argument at all. When presenting ideas an any literary format, the author has a responsibility to those he's speaking to. Especially when that writer is clearly nurturing aspirations for expanding the ideas being bandied about in his chosen format, and is looking to elevate them. The ideas being communicated are the meat of any format. . . of any method of artistic expression. Trying to hide behind an "Oh, I didn't mean nothin' by it. . . it's only a comic, anyhow. . . just kidding around" type of disclaimer is simply unacceptable. BOY! I did not realize until I started writing here how strong I truly felt! Golly. . . HB
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Feb 10, 2014 21:39:03 GMT -5
That's right, that's right-- I do remember now what bothered me so much about all of this. The whole "weed out the weaker races as a natural function of the universe" really didn't sit well with me at all back then, and as an older, more experienced (wiser?) individual now, I find it nothing short of repellant. . . and really have to take Mr. Byrne to task for it. The resolution of Byrne's plot hinges on the readers (and the entirety of sentient life in the story) accepting what he presents as a fundamental "truth" of the (Marvel) universe-- that it's okay and necessary for Galactus to go around eating planets and killing trillions of people, 'cause really, that's gonna be better for the universe in the long run. Gets rid of the deadwood, so to speak. This, quite frankly, is a point of view that is absolutely chilling in its callousness and arrogance, and reflects just horribly on John Byrne himself. My hope is that he simply didn't think through the ugly implications he was making-- as I'd prefer to chalk it up to carelessness, rather than to the workings of a mind that would see this as a viable justification for (there's no other word for it) serial genocide. The "Natural Force" defense is inane, because Galactus is a sentient, free-willed being-- he's not a tornado or comet or black hole that wreaks havoc on a purely local level. He's an extraordinarily powerful, god-like being that sustains himself on the life essence of those less-powerful than him. The only. . . ONLY. . . relevant factor in determining whether an entire race is "worthy" of survival is if they happen to have the physical might (or perhaps extreme cleverness) to fend him off. That's it. It has nothing to do with their potential or their spiritual life or whether they're good, bad, or in-between, or to what point their society has evolved. It's a completely arbitrary and definitely false justification. . . and to my mind is a particularly vile form of evil, as it justifies its actions w/ a false, self-serving premise that provides an inarguable excuse for these enormous crimes. Why does it bother me so much? Well, take it out of the macro setting of the "Universe", and shrink it down to the more manageable setting of "the Earth"-- and then use the identical (and some implied) phrases ("Weak races need to be weeded out", "It's for the greater good of the country/empire/planet", "Galactus (God) is beyond the concerns of such creatures", "The needs of the powerful One outweigh the needs of the less-powerful Many", "It's nothing personal", etc, etc, etc) and use them to explain the genocides and massacres and enslavements of black Africans, of Native Americans, of the indiginous peoples of South & Central America, of the European Jews during the Holocaust (and throughout history), of the Rwandans, and on and on. I mean, intended or not, this is a direct metaphor for those atrocities, and JB pretty much says in so many words: "It's okay, it's just the natural order of things." "HB, for heaven's sake, it's only a comic book." Nope-- nope, don't buy that argument at all. When presenting ideas an any literary format, the author has a responsibility to those he's speaking to. Especially when that writer is clearly nurturing aspirations for expanding the ideas being bandied about in his chosen format, and is looking to elevate them. The ideas being communicated are the meat of any format. . . of any method of artistic expression. Trying to hide behind an "Oh, I didn't mean nothin' by it. . . it's only a comic, anyhow. . . just kidding around" type of disclaimer is simply unacceptable. BOY! I did not realize until I started writing here how strong I truly felt! Golly. . . HB It does strongly sound like social Darwinism, doesn't it? As a "man of science" I have to admit Byrne's point - whilst certainly awful - isn't entirely wrong... one of the first things we were said in college was "take out war and disease, and humankind won't last a hundred years". However, the big but is that Galactus can't be considered under a Darwinian light, as neither does he "judge" races based on potential, culture, power, goodness or any other meter, nor can he be stopped by conventional means. Worlds can't evolve to avoid or overcome him anymore than men could evolve to overcome the sun going nova. Once it happens, that's it. Also, going back to more in-story reasons, the universe already has its appointed judges: don't the Celestials check, double-check, triple-check worlds and then decide on their destiny? It seems a far fairer method to keep life under control than simply letting Galactus loose.
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Feb 10, 2014 23:08:38 GMT -5
From what I recall of the Trial, for the overall 'grand destiny' of the Universe, Galactus is a needed aspect for that destiny to be achieved. I guess in a 'only-the-strong-survive' type role by weeding out the weaker races. (That's what, 4, 5 times that Earth has repelled Galactus?) That's right, that's right-- I do remember now what bothered me so much about all of this. The whole "weed out the weaker races as a natural function of the universe" really didn't sit well with me at all back then, and as an older, more experienced (wiser?) individual now, I find it nothing short of repellant. . . and really have to take Mr. Byrne to task for it. The resolution of Byrne's plot hinges on the readers (and the entirety of sentient life in the story) accepting what he presents as a fundamental "truth" of the (Marvel) universe-- that it's okay and necessary for Galactus to go around eating planets and killing trillions of people, 'cause really, that's gonna be better for the universe in the long run. Gets rid of the deadwood, so to speak. This, quite frankly, is a point of view that is absolutely chilling in its callousness and arrogance, and reflects just horribly on John Byrne himself. My hope is that he simply didn't think through the ugly implications he was making-- as I'd prefer to chalk it up to carelessness, rather than to the workings of a mind that would see this as a viable justification for (there's no other word for it) serial genocide. The "Natural Force" defense is inane, because Galactus is a sentient, free-willed being-- he's not a tornado or comet or black hole that wreaks havoc on a purely local level. He's an extraordinarily powerful, god-like being that sustains himself on the life essence of those less-powerful than him. The only. . . ONLY. . . relevant factor in determining whether an entire race is "worthy" of survival is if they happen to have the physical might (or perhaps extreme cleverness) to fend him off. That's it. It has nothing to do with their potential or their spiritual life or whether they're good, bad, or in-between, or to what point their society has evolved. It's a completely arbitrary and definitely false justification. . . and to my mind is a particularly vile form of evil, as it justifies its actions w/ a false, self-serving premise that provides an inarguable excuse for these enormous crimes. Why does it bother me so much? Well, take it out of the macro setting of the "Universe", and shrink it down to the more manageable setting of "the Earth"-- and then use the identical (and some implied) phrases ("Weak races need to be weeded out", "It's for the greater good of the country/empire/planet", "Galactus (God) is beyond the concerns of such creatures", "The needs of the powerful One outweigh the needs of the less-powerful Many", "It's nothing personal", etc, etc, etc) and use them to explain the genocides and massacres and enslavements of black Africans, of Native Americans, of the indiginous peoples of South & Central America, of the European Jews during the Holocaust (and throughout history), of the Rwandans, and on and on. I mean, intended or not, this is a direct metaphor for those atrocities, and JB pretty much says in so many words: "It's okay, it's just the natural order of things." "HB, for heaven's sake, it's only a comic book." Nope-- nope, don't buy that argument at all. When presenting ideas an any literary format, the author has a responsibility to those he's speaking to. Especially when that writer is clearly nurturing aspirations for expanding the ideas being bandied about in his chosen format, and is looking to elevate them. The ideas being communicated are the meat of any format. . . of any method of artistic expression. Trying to hide behind an "Oh, I didn't mean nothin' by it. . . it's only a comic, anyhow. . . just kidding around" type of disclaimer is simply unacceptable. BOY! I did not realize until I started writing here how strong I truly felt! Golly. . . HB Some excellent points raised there. To be fair though, let's play devil's advocate for a second. If you go by Bryne's reasoning, then Galactus' actions help strengthen the surviving races of the universe. His actions can lead to the destruction of populated worlds. However as seen earlier in his FF run, some races can survive that destruction. Galactus devours the Skrull Homeworld yet the Skrull race survives due to their technological advancement. How the Skrull adapted to this loss (and other races able to achieve the same effect) could be viewed as some form of 'cosmic' evolution brought about by Galactus. After skimming through the FF issue in question, it's Eternity that offers up this view by allowing everyone present to 'see' the 'Cosmic Truth' in which Galactus is a needed part of the cosmos. Everyone will eventually forget this specific truth but will understand at their heart the need for him. Byrne doesn't spell out this mandate, it's more implied but I think he deserves credit for even tackling the issue, by expanding on the original idea by Lee and Kirby. Galactus is a cosmic force that destroys planets and lives. What if you had the chance to kill him? Should you? No because the Universe needs him. Why does the Universe need him? Because....... Now Byrne offers up his own solution to that question, one that can reflect upon the atrocities of humanity but delivered in a way that doesn't signify that. I think you're right, it shouldn't matter if it's in a comic or not, but to a youngster, I can see where the deeper meanings could be overlooked in this issue's reading. I certainly don't recall having any such reflections upon first reading it many moons ago. So I think Byrne deserves some credit for the deft handling of this material (not to mention putting himself into the whole issue). Is it the right answer? The proper answer? Maybe, maybe not. You can agree or disagree with his results but I admire his attempt to answer some deeper questions about one of the more original characters of the MU (and to my knowledge, this motivation for his existence has not been retconned yet but I could be mistaken). For the record, I missed this latest club reading due to work being hectic lately and I could've sworn that I had these FF issues in my collection but my run started off with #245. Darn my poor memory......
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Feb 11, 2014 6:47:11 GMT -5
For the record, I missed this latest club reading due to work being hectic lately and I could've sworn that I had these FF issues in my collection but my run started off with #245. Darn my poor memory...... Well, we still have some 4 or 5 days on this reading, and you do have them now BTW, next in the picking line is Wundagoreborn.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Feb 11, 2014 7:38:34 GMT -5
From what I recall of the Trial, for the overall 'grand destiny' of the Universe, Galactus is a needed aspect for that destiny to be achieved. I guess in a 'only-the-strong-survive' type role by weeding out the weaker races. (That's what, 4, 5 times that Earth has repelled Galactus?) That explanation sounds like a bit of a cop-out by Byrne, but then, how else could one justify saving the life of Galactus?
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Feb 11, 2014 7:43:07 GMT -5
So, I guess any planet that Galactus happens upon that hasn't yet developed advanced technology doesn't deserve to survive? I'm glad he didn't find earth in, say, 1935 or thereabouts.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Feb 11, 2014 13:49:08 GMT -5
I enjoyed re-reading FF #242-244--great choice, Shiryu! Lots of interesting discussion here. Some thoughts: I prefer Byrne's writing to his art, and I agree with those who have mentioned the art here would be better served by an inker other than Byrne himself. I agree with Shiryu about Johnny's skinniness--not a good look for Mr. Storm. And to me, Reed and Sue are off, too. Their costumes sometimes seem weirdly baggy or something. I do like Byrne's Frankie visuals, though--I think she's different looking enough from most of his other females of the time, and better looking. Fwiw, over the years Byrne has maintained that any Phoenix similarity was not deliberate or conscious on his part. Make of that what you will. My impression when I read these stories for the first time a few years ago was that Frankie never gelled with the team in quite the same way as Crystal or Medusa or even Wyatt had. Frankie questioned Reed's authority a couple of times and IMO, she never seemed head-over-heels in love with Johnny. So since I was re-reading this arc courtesy of the handy-dandy Fantastic Four Visionaries John Byrne collections, I took the liberty of checking some of the preceding FF issues. Byrne really does lay the groundwork for Frankie's eventual move to Galactus. She had not appeared in a couple of years until he brought her back in FF #232 (his first issue as the FF's regular penciler & writer) and when she discovers she has torch powers (FF #238), she exults that she's now "free"...that she'd "been living in darkness...now there's sunlight everywhere", etc.. And she tries to soar into space--"Higher! I've got to get higher!"...Icarus anyone? In #240 when she's left behind (the others go visit the Inhumans), she even thinks "Being a super hero isn't half of what it's cracked up to be! Where's the pomp and circumstance? The cosmic grandeur?" So Byrne was clearly setting it up; he brought her back and a year later (in real time) she became Galactus's herald. I wasn't crazy about Byrne using the device of having #244's story presented as a fait accompli (Reed and Sue relating the events after the fact to Frankie's roommate). But that's Byrne for you; he tries things out, takes creative chances, experiments, etc.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Feb 12, 2014 10:50:27 GMT -5
I wasn't crazy about Byrne using the device of having #244's story presented as a fait accompli (Reed and Sue relating the events after the fact to Frankie's roommate). But that's Byrne for you; he tries things out, takes creative chances, experiments, etc. I'm generally not fond of this literary device, as you basically know what's going to happen ahead of time, and it removes much of the dramatic tension.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Feb 12, 2014 18:53:02 GMT -5
I wasn't crazy about Byrne using the device of having #244's story presented as a fait accompli (Reed and Sue relating the events after the fact to Frankie's roommate). But that's Byrne for you; he tries things out, takes creative chances, experiments, etc. I'm generally not fond of this literary device, as you basically know what's going to happen ahead of time, and it removes much of the dramatic tension. It's been used a LOT in movies through the years, and maybe film lends itself to that. I remember hearing or reading that a major distinction between live plays and film as story-telling mediums is that plays are inherently in-the-moment (you witness the events), whereas films are inherently a depiction of past events that are now being shared with the audience. 'Course, I'm not sure where the heck comic books fit into that framework-- it's clearly depicting a past event, but much of it is being created for the "first" time in the mind of the reader (movement, sound, etc). Anyhoo-- movies off the top of my head that use this device? SUNSET BOULEVARD (which still manages a huge twist at the very end!), DOA, and BLOOD SIMPLE (hmm, a lot of film noir). Oh! CITIZEN KANE, of course. And, wow, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, now that I think of it (film opens w/ him falling of his bicycle and getting killed. . . and then we're all at his funeral). I suppose the thinking is that its the journey that's compelling, as opposed to the destination. But my thinking is, why sacrifice one in an effort to heighten the other? However, I do think that JB did handle the device just fine for the most part. I really did feel like Julie was functioning as our proxy, and I surrendered easily to taking it all in through her eyes. In a way, the FF came across as much more "human" than they often do-- far more real than the usual melodramatic angst-fest that comics can gravitate toward. HB
|
|