Avengers Hall of Fame

[dlw66]

Boredyesterday suggested on another thread that there be an Avengers Hall of Fame for writers and artists. I think that is a great idea. Van, you open to this??

As with any hall of fame, entry has to be clearly defined and not-too-easy to obtain. Only a limited number of people should be honored each year. Consideration should be based on contributions that have had a

1) Lasting significance to the Avengers
2) Lasting significance to the Marvel Universe
3) Lasting memory as a watershed event in Avengers history
4) Lasting significance due to the creation of a character who has become important in the Avengers mythos

Etc., etc., etc. I'm just thinking off the top of my head. Anyone want to amend, delete, add to the above criteria?

[Bored Yesterday]

I agree with the above pretty much. In adddition to the lasting significance criteria, the creators should be notable for producing entertaining and well crafted Avengers stories, whether or not they shook up continuity.

The nominations process should rely on specific bodies of work as examples of a nominee's eligibility.

Someone, like Van, I guess, should define the mechanism for nominations and deliberations. I suppose that membership in the site would be a requirement for voting and discussion on the topic. Or maybe you'd even have to be a Jarvis Head -- that's up to the Hall sponsors.

[Shiryu]

I also pretty much agree with those posted by Dlw.
I would also add something like "Lasting development of an Avengers character"

[dlw66]

I like that lasting development idea -- it allows a little for flux, but also for the lasting effects of a character (I am thinking primarily of the Vision here).

I would suggest an initial class of 5 creators, and just as preliminary talk, I'd throw out the following names, who in my opinion defined the Avengers in their beginning:

Stan Lee
Jack Kirby
Don Heck
Roy Thomas
John Buscema

Discuss.

[Van Plexico]

If you mean, in terms of having it as "officially proclaimed by the members of the AvengersAssemble.us Message Board," with me then listing it in a place of honor on the AA site... why, sure! Sounds cool.

We used to give out the Jarvis Awards on AA, but it hasn't happened in a few years now, and my efforts to revive it haven't resulted in anything, yet. This might be a good way to get it going again-- have a few categories for Jarvis Awards (ie annual awards-- best issue, writer of the year, etc), plus a few "Hall of Fame" spots.

Thoughts?

[Bored Yesterday]

I'm so glad to hear this. Van has responded to the clamoring of Avengers fans.

I agree that Stan and Jack should be nominated for the first round of inductees. All the other folks are definate contenders as well. I always think of Tom Palmer too, who did something over a hundred issues as inker.

Who created Jarvis?

[dlw66]

I think there is an opportunity for some cool research here -- possibly some extensions of Van's "questions with" series. Roy Thomas is very good about responding to e-mail, and I am sure guys like Mark Waid and Kurt Busiek, who together probably know everything there is to know about comics, would be willing to chip in with "who created which character" information. Mark Evanier would have insights into Kirby, etc.

Let's keep brainstorming some ideas -- this looks like a cool project shaping up!!

[Shiryu]

I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with the Jarvis Head stuff, so I'm not understanding the point.
Are we supposed to find out who, for example, created Jarvis and then post it here ? And would that add credit to, for example, Stan and Jack if they did it ?

[Bored Yesterday]

Wikipedia attributes him to Stan Lee and Don Heck. Well, they're already shoe-ins. I was just saying, that if it happened to be some other hack with no other distinguishing career points, that Jarvis alone was enough of a contribution to the Avengers mythos that he ought to be in the Hall.

So, if Van or other AA authorities want to turn this into a real Hall of Fame -- I would welcome them to take it over and do it right. Otherwise, we can just yack it up and make a good thread out of the possibilities.

So, since we're back in make believe land -- talking sheer speculation, my lineup for the Avengers Hall of Fame:

Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Don Heck, Roy Thomas, John Buscema, Steve Englehart, George Perez, Jim Shooter, John Byrne, Roger Stern, Tom Palmer, and Kurt Busiek.

[Van Plexico]

To clarify what I was saying:

If there's a consensus here to hold some sort of vote (maybe annually) to name members to an Avengers Hall of Fame (which is what got us started discussing this), then what I could do is incorporate that into the now-defunct Jarvis Awards that the AA! site used to name (because I wanted to revive that, anyway).

www.avengersassemble.us/jaward99.html
[Let me note-- I didn't write this! And I don't recall who did.]

So: I would set something up so folks could vote, and we would have various categories for the past year, plus a few Hall of Fame spots to give out each year.

Folks here (plus other AA site folks) could vote, and at the end of the voting, I'd list the winners for each year on a special page on the site.

And speaking of the Jarvis-Heads (I didn't, but Shiryu mentioned them)-- coincidentally, I have been renovating that page today:

www.avengersassemble.net/jheads.html

Now that this AA! Message Board has become a success, I can envision folks from here eventually earning their way into the ranks of the J-Hs, by great contributions here or to the AA! site. More on this later!

[Shiryu]

Ok, now I get it (I think).

[dlw66]

While I have no problem whatsoever with the names listed above, I think the Hall should have a limitation of an initial class of 5 creators, 1 issue/storyline/event, and perhaps one other category. After the initial class, I would say not more than two creators get in each year. It wouldn't really be a Hall of Fame if everyone who ever worked on the team got in all at once. I think, too, that there should be a certain percentage of votes earned in order to get in, as well as a system for annual nominations.

[von Bek]

I agree with dlw66 that not everyone who worked with the team should be in the Hall of Fame (after all the Avengers have 40 years of history behind them!).
Stan Lee and Jack Kirby IMHO shouldn´t not be a part of it, and before you start to throw silver age reprints at me, let me explain.
If I had to choose (as we do in order to make it a real Hall of Fame) I would say Roy Thomas and John Buscema were more important to the Avengers mythos than Lee and Kirby.
Yeah Lee and Kirby created the whole Marel Universe, but the idea of putting the A heroes together on a team wasn´t that innovative to begin with (DC already done that twice, with the JSA in the 40´s and the JLA in the 60´s) and Cap´s Kooky Quartet was more of an attempt to make Captain America interesting again, turning the Avengers in (kinda) his supporting cast.
Don´t get me wrong, the Lee/Kirby stories were great, but Thomas was the one that redefined the team as something totally new, with addititions who became essential to the Avengers (Hercules, Black Panther, the Vision) and creating new identities to long time Avengers (Yellowjacket and Goliath II).
Jim Shooter is another one who "modernized" the Avengers, in both his runs.
And John Byrne with his late 80´s run, especially in WCA.

[dlw66]

vonbek's points about Stan and Jack are well-taken. As with other Silver Age titles as Marvel started to expand, Stan and Jack often got a title "off the ground" and then pulled back. However, as the FF and Spidey were different from any DC counterparts of the time due to the various Marvel characteristics we've come to know and love, I would say the early Avengers and their mannerisms set the tone for what we've all enjoyed over the past 43 years. The Space Phantom story where the Avengers "distrust" the Hulk, the Hulk/Sub-Mariner team-up in #3, the revival of Cap in #4 which later earned Cap "Founder status", the first battle against the Masters of Evil (superteam vs. superteam) -- all of these stories are Stan and Jack and laid the foundations for the Avengers. This is why, to me, Stan and Jack have to be in the inaugural class.

I would say that early issues that should be considered if we are going to have a story or story arc category in the Hall are #4 with the aforementioned revival of Captain America and #16, the choosing of the second team. While the line-ups of other superteams have changed often through the years, for the Avengers it was often an event. I think this feeling was captured very well by Busiek/Ross in Marvels, and also in the Earth's Mightiest Heroes mini-series.

[Van Plexico]

This is all good stuff, folks. I'm mulling it all over and will set something "official" up in a few days. (Right in the middle of doing final exams at the moment.)

I will basically pull together some basic, yearly categories for the standard Jarvis Awards (pretty much what was used in past years, I suppose), and then we can establish criteria for maybe five initial HOF inductees, and maybe a max of 2 per year thereafter, as suggested (with a threshold percentage vote required of anyone to get in).

Then, I will set something up to tabulate votes, and open the voting both to members of this forum and to the Jarvis-Heads who aren't here at the moment.

Finally, I'll post the results prominently on the AA site.

In the meantime, continue the conversation-- it's fascinating and surely helpful to most folks as they think about whom they'll vote for.

[imperiusrex]

This all sounds good to me. I'm especially interested to see who makes the ballot. I wonder if for example, the Al Milgrom association is weakening Roger Stern's case. Rog's wonderful run is hampered by Al's art. Not to offend Milgrom fans, but it's fairly well known that Al was often pressed to complete issues under tight deadlines, resulting in some of his work not being his best...

[The Night Phantom]

imperiusrex said:

I wonder if for example, the Al Milgrom association is weakening Roger Stern's case. Rog's wonderful run is hampered by Al's art.

On the other hand, Stern’s run is also associated with Buscema and Palmer’s art (#255–287 for this trio, I believe)? That was the art team when I first read Avengers, and it’s the art team I most associate with Stern’s run, even now that I’ve read all of Stern’s issues. And I remember Buscema and Palmer’s work (both with Stern and after) quite fondly. For my money, the Stern–Buscema–Palmer run remains Avengers par excellence.

I’ve been reading this thread but not thinking much about my picks for a Hall of Fame. I tend to have a hard time picking favorites! (It does help when I’m allowed to cite more than one, but even then choosing can be a chore!) However, I think that for an inaugural ballot, I might be more likely to vote for earlier contributors, and that tendency would be (for me) the biggest problem for Stern’s candidacy. However, once my propensity toward earlier contributors was satisfied (perhaps at the second annual vote, or perhaps even at the inaugural vote if I could vote for multiple writers), Stern would have a pretty good chance with me. Although my enjoyment of a comic certainly is affected by the artwork, I tend to be much more focused on the writing, which tends to stand out more in my memory. (But neither will I deny that the artwork can either weaken or enhance my nostalgia for the writing...so, you certainly do raise a valid point!)

[dlw66]

I am thinking mainly of something like our Baseball Hall of Fame when I think of this for the Avengers. I think the key thing about creators, storylines, etc. getting in is not necessarily the issue of when they go in, but that they go in. There are some great baseball players who didn't make it in on their first ballot. I don't think when they get in that their career is diminished because they didn't make it first time -- who else was up then?

For example, Tom Palmer's name has been brought up. You might ask yourself where John Buscema (in regard to the Avengers) would be without Palmer? Tom will get in -- but I don't think he makes the inaugural class. Second class, third class? Probably, along with maybe Stern, Busiek, Perez, Englehart, etc. See? If we make this special, if we limit the entries, some guys are going to have to wait. Assume those are the next five guys in, and assume we're only going to take two at a time. Tough choice! But that's the beauty of something like this.

Van -- I know some of us have hidden our e-mails. Do you have access to them even when they aren't seen on our profile page? I'm just thinking, too, that in order to make this EXTRA special, we need to really have a good turn-out of the 70+ members on these boards. I know when some of us post polls that those might not be interesting to most folks, but I think this is a cause we can joyfully rally around. I'm thinking if folks got an e-mail poll, they might be more inclined to respond, and it would keep the voting for the most part confidential (not that we know each other by anything other than screen name/profile anyway...).

Thoughts?

[The Night Phantom]

admin said:

I will basically pull together some basic, yearly categories for the standard Jarvis Awards (pretty much what was used in past years, I suppose), and then we can establish criteria for maybe five initial HOF inductees, and maybe a max of 2 per year thereafter, as suggested (with a threshold percentage vote required of anyone to get in).

Even with such limits, it seems like after a few years or so we’d have honored the most truly deserving, and then the ballots would turn to also-rans. (Or possibly I’m underestimating the number of high-quality contributors over the years?) To prevent easy entry by nominees who win simply because no one better is eligible anymore, maybe some sort of “none of the above” option should be available on the ballot.

Gosh, I wish had that option in governmental elections.

[Bored Yesterday]

There really aren't that many greats to consider. And at the current rate, it will be awhile before Marvel gives us some new candidates (Ooh, it's hard to pass up those jabs).

If ya'll want to stretch it out, there could be fewer initial nominees and fewer annual inductees, like 3 charter members and 1 admitted each year thereafter.

The nominations process is key. The nomination should include a short summary of the individual's qualifying work. Then it should be opened for discussion for some set period. Then the vote happens. Once the nominations process is set, this thing will practically take care of itself.

Well, then after the members are selected, they need to be honored in some way

[Van Plexico]

Good thought, having "None of the Above."

If I forget to include it, please remind me.

[dlw66]

I think, if we agree to include the story/story arc category, that creators with not a large body of Avengers work (Jim Starlin comes to mind) can be recognized, this in a way keeping creator recognition going after the major writers/artists/inkers/editors are in.

[dlw66]

Does there need to be a category for creators who influenced the Avengers but in other books first?

For example, Kirby was questioned before. However, his co-creation of characters like the Black Panther and Hercules, both of whom have gone on to significant careers with the Avengers is noteworthy in itself. Starlin similarly for creating Thanos. I suppose for those of you with a bent toward New Avengers, John Romita's creation of Wolverine is noteworthy (although he'll never be among the first 25+ Avengers I'd ever think of).

[von Bek]

Good points, dlw66.

Let me also add that a category for editors who influenced the Avengers might be a good idea.

[dlw66]

I agree on editors, and that's where people like Roy Thomas can be helpful to us if we decide to do a little research here. Roy could tell how certain stories were hammered out before they saw the light of day -- from that, we'd glean information on not only particular people's contributions in terms of creation of new characters, character development, etc., but also about who was really steering the creative process. Newer guys like Tom Brevoort would, I would think, help us, too.

[dlw66]

Voting is open for the Hall -- who ya got?

Since we could only vote for three, I chose Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and John Buscema.

Although Don Heck was the first artist after Kirby, I chose Buscema because I believe he still holds the record for most Avengers issues pencilled.

I chose Buscema over Roy Thomas simply because comics are a visual medium. While that certainly does not diminish the need for a quality story (see New Avengers complaints elsewhere on these boards), for me Buscema's art has defined the team in two different eras.

[Shiryu]

In the end I decided for Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Jim Shooter. The first two are the "origin" of the Avengers, the third did quite a good job in his run, resulting in memorable events.
Of course there are many more deserving a vote, but, having only three to choose, I go for them.

[Bored Yesterday]

Voting? Oh goodness -- I don't want miss my chance. Teach me not to monitor these threads more closely.

I vote for Stan Lee for writing the formative stories.

I vote Steve Englehart for his contribution to the mythology of Kang, Scarlet Witch, Vision, the Beast, and the Avengers of the 1970s. His work was at once an essential outgrowth from the work or Roy Thomas and an update of the team that allowed folks like Jim Shooter to do their good work.

I vote for John Buscema. His gave us the Vision in issue 57. His artwork over so many issues in the 1960s and 1980s deserves special recognition.


So many great creators have worked on this title. It's tough to limit it. I have motivation to return and vote next year. Now, if not many people are voting, maybe this could be re-posted as a "survey" thread.

[dlw66]

Make sure you e-mail your votes to Van -- see "Jarvis Awards" elsewhere on these boards!