steed
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 215
|
Post by steed on Jan 12, 2007 14:56:30 GMT -5
I go with Yellowjacket. It seems to be a part of his life when he was at peace with himself and was considerred one of the MU lead scientist.
And I mean the YJ prior to him becoming a wife beater. I think that killed the character because no matter how great someone writes Pym now, sooner or later someone else has to bring up the wife beater bit. If Hank saves the universe and cures cancer there will always be someone saying "Yeah, but he beats his wife."
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 17, 2007 9:39:01 GMT -5
Looking at Pym's shrinking powers:
In comparison to the Atom, one has to wonder how the Atom could ever be defeated. After reading Identity Crisis, and seeing how the murder was committed, and then also taking into account how his subatomic size capabilities could play havoc with any type of machinery -- Pym is substantially less powerful (and to the benefit of storytelling, I'd say).
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Jan 17, 2007 10:01:27 GMT -5
That's kind of the difference between Marvel and DC in the silver age. What do you do with shrinkingi power? DC, with the Atom, took the reader on some "way out' outlandish tours of subatomic worlds and quantum reality. Marvel gave us a guy who had to fear ants and, as pointed out earlier in this thread, evil anteaters!
Earlier, when I voted, I voted for Giant Man, but I have only recently finished reading the "Goliath" era from issue numbers 28 through 60 or so. I like the Goliath bit a whole lot. Yellow Jacket, even though he was my favoruite when I was a kid, now that I've read a wider sample of PYm's appearances -- just lacks some of the iconic presence of Goliath.
Personality wise, he has been much more well adjusted as Yellow Jacket, during these early appearances, than when he was Goliath. As Goliath, he was always grouchy and arguing with Hawkeye. Hawkeye had a big mouth, for sure, but he was more of a joker. Goliath was just grumpy until he became Yellow Jacket.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 17, 2007 10:14:56 GMT -5
I thought Pym gave the Kooky Quartet another voice of reason; Casey is playing that up in the first few issues of EMH II (new issue today!). One of the things I noticed right away in #28 was the way Hank was taken aback at Hawkeye's brashness and disrespect toward Cap. Good call on DC/Marvel in the Silver Age. Marvel, though, didn't have as many super-gorillas !
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jan 17, 2007 11:59:50 GMT -5
That's kind of the difference between Marvel and DC in the silver age. What do you do with shrinkingi power? DC, with the Atom, took the reader on some "way out' outlandish tours of subatomic worlds and quantum reality. Marvel gave us a guy who had to fear ants and, as pointed out earlier in this thread, evil anteaters! Didn't Hank travel to Sub-Atomica back in FF #16? As for Marvel vs. DC: I've always thought that Marvel was more creative in its depiction of fairly standard powers than DC was. Now, this may be due to the fact that the only book I read regularly was Adventure when it featured the Legion of Super-Heroes...so basically, I was comparing Marvel heroes to the LSH. And I realize the Legion is a special case, because essentially each member was originally designed to have one specific power. But I remember being struck by the differences in how DC and Marvel depicted powers in the 60s, such as: Cosmic Boy had magnetic powers, but he just magnetized or repelled things; he certainly didn't have Magneto's seemingly unlimited scope of abilities (even in the early X-Men stories he could do things like leave his body, affect the iron in someone else's blood, etc.). Phantom Girl just walked through walls. She never materialized inside a person, like the Vision did. Saturn Girl just read minds and occasionally used mind-control. Compare this to Professor X, who seemed to be able to do anything and everything with his telepathic mental powers. Invisible Kid just turned invisible. He could not manipulate invisible force and create force fields and make others invisible, like Sue could. (There was a story in which Brainiac 5 thought he was dying, so in his will Brainy bequeathed his force field belt to Invisible Kid. Hmmm, wonder why? ) I really need to brush up on my DC history. I have the Showcase volumes for GL and the JLA, and I know there will be Hawkman and Aquaman editions published this year; and based on Bored and dlw's description of his Silver Age exploits, I'd love to see an Atom edition, too.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 17, 2007 12:39:00 GMT -5
I was just reading the interview with Shooter in The Legion Companion and he remarks how lame he felt some of the Legionaires were, that even when Marvel started to kick DC's butt in the market the company continued to write for an 8-year old audience that was slowly ceasing to exist. He specifically cited Bouncing Boy (in a way mirroring the Beast in his original incarnation?), and how the character needed a personality to go with his somewhat silly power.
I have a hard time reading the early Silver Age DC stuff -- it is just so juvenile and shallow. Even the early Marvel stuff (that I have a hard time reading), say FF 1-40, Spidey 1-38, all of the Ant-Man/Giant-Man stuff, etc. pales in a lame-o-meter comparison to the DC output of the same period. And when you stop and think that DC had a five year lead on the Silver Age, it just continues to confound how slow they were to meet Marvel's challenge. It wasn't until Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams started shaking things up with GL/GA and Batman that DC became (IMO) creatively viable and challenging to Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 17, 2007 14:21:54 GMT -5
I have a hard time reading the early Silver Age DC stuff -- it is just so juvenile and shallow. Even the early Marvel stuff (that I have a hard time reading), say FF 1-40, Spidey 1-38, all of the Ant-Man/Giant-Man stuff, etc. pales in a lame-o-meter comparison to the DC output of the same period. And when you stop and think that DC had a five year lead on the Silver Age, it just continues to confound how slow they were to meet Marvel's challenge. It wasn't until Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams started shaking things up with GL/GA and Batman that DC became (IMO) creatively viable and challenging to Marvel. Wow, I was just talking to my boyfriend about this the other day. I too have a really hard time reading silver age DC, but not so with silver age Marvel. I have been reading early Avengers from the DVD ROM I got at Christmas, and while the stories are dated, you can see that Marvel was doing something different. The stories were rooted in our reality, and the characters had distinct personalities. Hawkeye was different than say Captain America or Giant-Man. By comparison, when I read a silver age DC book, say Justice League, the dialogue from the heroes is interchangeable; Green Lantern sounds exactly like Batman or Atom. They are all the same. Their concept of a hero allowed for no variation, no quirks or idiosyncracies. Just a 'guy in a white hat' mentality. It may be popular for people to put down those early Marvels as being corny or silly but in their time they were ground-breaking, and laid the foundation for what modern comics have become.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 17, 2007 14:27:57 GMT -5
It may be popular for people to put down those early Marvels as being corny or silly but in their time they were ground-breaking, and laid the foundation for what modern comics have become. My landmarks for the titles I cited above tend to correspond with the art. Kirby wasn't the Kirby I know and love on the classic FF until Joe Sinnott arrived. Likewise, Ditko Spidey is only OK -- it really started to rev when Romita arrived. See, back to the writers vs. artists thread -- I am just very much attached to the visual side of comics... Agreed on the interchangeable dialogue in DC's. That is one of the comments Shooter made when discussing the Legion before he took over.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jan 17, 2007 16:25:35 GMT -5
[quote author=dlw66 board=classicavengers thread=1164209016 post=1169062077 Agreed on the interchangeable dialogue in DC's. That is one of the comments Shooter made when discussing the Legion before he took over.[/quote] Yes, Denny O'Neil said the same thing when he took over the JLA in the late 60s, too...(basically, what tananile said). I started out buying DC (because of the Batman TV show; dlw, your son has good taste! ) in 1966...but boy, when I started reading Marvel in late 1967, DC was history! As I've probably mentioned previously, upon reading a few issues of Marvel (FF and Avengers), it was so apparent that Marvel books were a breed apart--they contained history, characterization, etc., as well as action. Once I started buying Marvel, I stopped reading DC (except for the Legion). I like to say that Marvel comics resembled an ongoing, multi-layered novel, while each DC book was a self-contained short story. You could miss a year's worth of Superman issues, for example, then pick one up and immediately know what was happening (as you said, it's probably because DC continued to cater to children and did not understand that its audience was maturing!). With Marvel, there was a truly serialistic nature to the books; things unfolded as they do in life (not exactly, but you get the picture...). There was continuity: in the Avengers, Cap would be absent because of events in his own strip. And look at Rick Jones! So, because I deserted DC so abruptly back then, I'm enjoying reading the Showcase volumes now. Not that I'm hoping to find any realism or characterization, but for simple escapism and as an interesting historical document of sorts. Plus I like some of the artists (Kane on GL, Cardy on the Teen Titans). And occasionally, Gardner Fox or someone did write a good sci fi tale. But character or story development in a Silver Age DC? Fuhgeddaboudit!!! At least, not until the end of the 60s, then all of a sudden characters started calling each other by their real names, characters became "relevant" (not just GL and GA, but Wonder Woman, the Titans, and others). As for the Marvel SA art: whenever I think of the SA, in mind's eye I see the work of Kirby/Sinnott, Romita, and to a lesser extent, John Buscema. (People like Adams and Steranko are in categories of their own.) Not to denigrate all the other talented, interesting, hard-working artists of that time or earlier, but the maturation of K/S, JR and JB established Marvel's visual "tone" and raised the bar for later artists.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 20, 2007 17:06:43 GMT -5
Some great names in that post: Kane, Cardy, Kirby, Romita, Buscema, Adams, Steranko... I'm not sure modern artists engender that kind of awe, although I think (depending on their longevity) artists like Land, Pacheco, Morales, and Hitch could.
Any opinions on Gene Colan? I feel he was great on Daredevil and Tomb of Dracula. I didn't very much care for any of his DC work, and don't really like his work on Captain America or his fill-ins on Avengers.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 20, 2007 21:56:15 GMT -5
I'm sure you guys may already know about this, but there's a really nice book out there called "The Silver Age of Comic Book Art" by Arlen Schumer. While I found the layout to be a bit jumbled at times, it does a nice job covering many of the artists we all discuss here, like Gene Colan, Kane, Kirby, Steranko, etc. Definitely worth having for silver age fans.
Regarding Colan, I always thought his art was best suited to 'moody' work like Dracula or Dr. Strange.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 21, 2007 14:22:41 GMT -5
I have that book -- it's a nice resource, and is treasured in my library. Ditto on the lay-out; my biggest problem with the book is that there is not an entry for John Buscema. I never understand why he is not included among the Silver Age giants!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jan 21, 2007 16:49:55 GMT -5
While there is no Buscema section in the book (as for Kirby, Colan, Kane, Adams et al), there are 4 full pages devoted to Buscema, at (nearly) the very end of the book. It includes the cover of Avengers #58 and that issue's famous last panel of the Vision; and John's Silver Surfer work (forget about those SS stories, the art--my God, it is primer for anatomical artistic perfection...). There's another book I like called "Silver Age: The second Generation of Comic Book Artists", by Daniel Herman (I bought it off Amazon)...it's very informative, lots on all the usual suspects but-- but Buscema is barely mentioned in this book!! It's worse than in the Schumer book. Head-scratchingly strange that Buscema (in these 2 books, at least) is not considered a major contributor of the Silver Age. Well, at least the Buscema Visionaries book has just been released. Any opinions on Gene Colan? I feel he was great on Daredevil and Tomb of Dracula. I didn't very much care for any of his DC work, and don't really like his work on Captain America or his fill-ins on Avengers. I was not impressed at all when I first came across Colan's work, which was (for me) Avengers #63-#65...it was too "messy" looking, scratchy, dark, etc. The characters' faces all looked unfinished. I remember being shocked and annoyed when I saw #63 (except for the powerful cover)--Where was Buscema??? It took me a while to appreciate Colan. I think he was better suited for non-mainstream projects. His Tomb of Dracula work is fantastic--that was a fascinating, ambitious series, excellent work by all involved. I bought some old issues of Astonish and now I can appreciate his work (Sub-Mariner). In retrospect, I also like his work in some of those old Cap stories. In particular, that several-panel sequence depicting Cap walking and thinking... Colan was always very experimenting with panel shapes though he didn't get the press for it that Adams and Steranko did. Also, according to many interviews, Colan was not mindful of pacing, so he'd often have to cram in important information in the last couple of pages--used to drive Stan and the writers wild.
|
|
daned
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 87
|
Post by daned on Jan 21, 2007 21:41:54 GMT -5
If I could bring this thread back to its point:
I went for Dr Pym. I thought the concept worked well, because it tied into his personality, his strength and his history. When he took up that identity he made the point that he was a scientist first and foremost, and all his other IDs were a response to his insecurities amongst his super-powered colleagues.
While at times his powers veered a little too close to Courageous Cart territory, I thought the reasoning was flawless. When he went back to Giant Man without any explanation, I think something died.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 21, 2007 22:30:32 GMT -5
Hey daned is right, we totally high jacked this thread!
I have set up a silver age artists thread in general.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 22, 2007 8:41:23 GMT -5
Thanks, tananile! I went back up the line and re-read to see where we got off-topic. It wasn't a hard tangent to get to, but thanks for giving us a rightful place for discussion!
daned hits the comics editorial nail on the head -- change for the sake of change, leaving the readers in limbo!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 22, 2007 15:12:10 GMT -5
For those of you reading, enjoying, posting here: There is a branch discussion going on within the EMH II thread. Check it out!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 29, 2007 8:41:49 GMT -5
Over the weekend I re-read Avengers #28-33, the issues when Hank not only returns to the team, but gets stuck at a height of 10 feet. Good stuff! A lot of Stan Lee angst, but plenty of action as well. I'd forgotten that there was a "temporary line-up change" due to the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver seemingly being de-powered -- as was typical of this era, Stan left a lot of dangling plotlines as well as stuck stuff in seemingly out of the blue.
This short run of issues was significant due to the calming of Hawkeye's plans to "usurp the throne" of Cap's chairmanship; one might even see the foundations of the great respect that Hawkeye would in later years show Cap. It's also worth noting that we see Hank struggle with some emotional issues that might be seen as a precursor to the events of #59-60 (currently being "updated" in EMH II). Hank was often referred to as "the most powerful Avenger", etc. in these books.
Jan is played as somewhat weak, but that was typical for Stan's women in this period.
Worth a second look if you have the Essentials, the DVD-ROM, or even the "real thing"!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Feb 11, 2007 21:33:26 GMT -5
It's also worth noting that we see Hank struggle with some emotional issues that might be seen as a precursor to the events of #59-60 (currently being "updated" in EMH II). Jan is played as somewhat weak, but that was typical for Stan's women in this period. Re-reading these issues, and others from that time, it's a wonder Hank didn't break down prior to #59 (though #14 was an early indication). He was constantly being bombarded with rays (usually in an effort to restore his size to normal or to regain his powers); so, in addition to his size-changing his body was being subjected to a lot of punishment. Cases in point: in #35, an "experimental molecular space transformer"; in #46, a new "reducing ray"; in #51, both a "vibrotron" and a "stim-o-lator" and so on. A few months prior to #59, there was also the recent trauma of time travel (in #56 and Avengers Annual #2). In that Annual, when Hank comes face to face with "himself", he does not handle it well. Cap even remarks that Hank is starting to "break". Makes you appreciate how resilient Jan is (apparently getting doused by the reducing rays in #46 did not adversely affect her and she seemed to handle meeting her old self in the Annual with far more composure than Hank did). And, in hindsight, Roy's device of the two literal Hanks in that Annual is an interesting foreshadowing of the mental split in #59/60.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Feb 12, 2007 10:00:41 GMT -5
In the issues around the early #30's, Hank is often very testy -- he picks fights with Hawkeye on a few occasions and seems ready to rumble with the villain at hand every issue. This is in contrast to the Hank Pym that returned to the team in #28 and was obsessed with Jan's safety, then went immediately into self-pity and withdrawal (even from Jan) upon losing his growth powers.
I had completely forgotten that he regained his growth powers in issue #35. I just read that book last night. Now, of course, I can't remember why on the cover of #51 they proclaim the return of Goliath's growing powers... I may cheat and go straight for that issue today instead of letting it unravel as I re-read these classic stories from the DVD-ROM ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 20, 2007 9:37:10 GMT -5
For me it's Dr. Pym. The first series I really started collecting seriously was West Coast Avengers. I always thought that him pulling stuff out of his red jump suit was corny, but it's what I first really associated him with.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 28, 2008 13:20:17 GMT -5
We now know, thanks to Secret Invasion #1, that Hank Pym is a skrull. We don't however, know when this replacement occurred. So here's a question for all you Pymophiles:
What would you think if it was stated that Pym has been a skrull since before the period where he had his breakdown and slapped the Wasp? Would you be for or against re-writing history so that Hank never physically hurt Jan?Would this improve the character for you, or harm him?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 28, 2008 13:45:51 GMT -5
What would you think if it was stated that Pym has been a skrull since before the period where he had his breakdown and slapped the Wasp? Would you be for or against re-writing history so that Hank never physically hurt Jan?Would this improve the character for you, or harm him? While I can appreciate the incredible planning that has gone on at Marvel over the past few years to create these recent mega-events, I on the other hand deplore these mega-events as vehicles to rewrite my entire childhood and adult years. Quesada and his cohorts must have deep-seeded regrets that they were not in on the creation of the original Marvel Universe, to the point that they feel they must do all of this history-stomping in the name of rewriting it in their own image. So, even though I don't like what that single Pym-slap has done to the character through the years, I do wish some writer would just redeem ol' Hank in current Marvel continuity and put the entire event to rest. It's in everyone's mind -- saying it was a Skrull doesn't necessarily make it go away.
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Apr 28, 2008 19:55:49 GMT -5
I put a vote in for Yellowjacket, mostly because its one of the greatest costumes ever, and also cuz I think the Court Martial of Yellowjacket story is one of the best of that period (one of my favorite eras, early 80's) along with Iron Man's alcoholism, and introduction of the Morlocks in X-men.
I think the Skrull Hank Pym was first seen emerging from beneath the sheets in Avengers III #71!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Apr 28, 2008 20:13:27 GMT -5
I'm with DLW. I don't like the rewriting that goes back to my childhood either. I know the Skrull invasion was supposed to have started with the Kree/Skrull war but I really hate the idea that I've been reading about fakes that long. I do like the idea, however, that the Pym who behaved abominably out of character during Civil War and since was a Skrull. I never thought Hank Pym should have allowed the coverup of MVPs death in the Initiative. As far as redemption for the slap, I think Busiek dealt with that well in vol. III. I'd rather it be revealed that all those characters who have been hating on Hank since shortly before Disassembled be revealed as Skrulls. I don't have any problem with revealing that things weren't really what they appeared to be when it's what was planned when it was written. If Bendis has really been planting the seeds since New Avengers, that's fine. Going back to someone else's work and saying "That never really happened that way" just seems disrespectful to me. Also, I felt bad for Jan that her husband hit her. It doesn't make me feel less bad for her if it was a Skrull. As a matter of fact, knowing that she was sleeping with a Skrull and thought it was her husband makes me feel even worse for her. Of course, if it happens to turn out that Hfawkeye was a Skrull, she may have slept with more than one of them. Maybe she should be wearing a "Go Green" t-shirt.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 29, 2008 11:59:40 GMT -5
I probably lean the same direction DLW and Spiderwasp do on this issue. But I could see Marvel thinking that this Skrull situation is a way to un-do or fix things that have happened in the past that they now wish they hadn't done. They already have a precedent for such behavior with the "One More Day" storyline. The Skrull thing might make a bit more sense than that but it still feels like a cheap way out.
Now if they only go back and change things in the recent past, that were actually part of Bendis' plan, that would not bother me. But going back 5, 10, 20 years is too much.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 29, 2008 12:07:32 GMT -5
Now if they only go back and change things in the recent past, that were actually part of Bendis' plan, that would not bother me. But going back 5, 10, 20 years is too much. Agreed. I think to go back into the Silver or Bronze Ages is presumptious and smacks of cooking in someone else's kitchen, uninvited. Were the stories back then perfect? Certainly not. But they were the foundations of what we have today. And to change for change's sake smacks of a lack of creativity on the part of today's creators. I also think it denegrates the creators who came before. To think that undoing one event does not have a backwards ripple effect is foolhardy. To sound biblical for a moment, the Silver and Bronze Ages did a lot of "begat-ing" -- one story begat another story which begat that character which begat that storyline which begat that innovation, etc. You can't just undo this or that -- it's a universe, after all.
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Apr 29, 2008 14:31:58 GMT -5
IMO, Marvel has not had a successful "mega-event" since Secret Wars 1. SW1 was handled the best way, with the titles involved all entering into the event in the same month, then each title dealing with the consequences from SW1 in the following months,ie She-Hulk replacing Thing, Spidey's black costume, the return of the missing Avengers.... The way mega-events are handled now is just to get all the money they possibly can, nevermind the quality. Didn't they learn from Secret Wars 2? Too many writers, and a good storyline (not that SW2 was good at all) will become diluted and weak. Civil War and Secret Invasion are mega-events that I can appreciate, but tying in almost the entire Marvel Universe, and producing spin-off series is just an attempt to get your money. The books Bendis writes, I can understand. Mighty Av, New Av., yes I can see the connection. Even Ms. Marvel and the Initiative, OK. But SI: Runaways/NA, SI:FF, etc....How can these other writers all be on the same page, when writers like Jason Aaron, Paul Cornell, Roberto Aguirre Sacasa, Yost, Peter David, Kevin Grevioux, even a Skrull:one-shot by John Rhett Thomas? Who are half these guys? I realize BMB can fill these guys in on the story, but it's another 7 months til the conclusion. Does he trust them to handle his "mega-event" with high standards and quality? Does BMB even know what is going on in all these spin-offs and cross-overs? Does he even care, as long as Marvel keeps selling, selling, selling this dreck? Sorry, but the only thing "mega" about recent Marvel events is the Mega-Bucks they want you to spend on sub-par art and stories.
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Apr 29, 2008 17:15:16 GMT -5
The Runaways/Young Avengers makes as much sense as New Avengers, Mighty Avengers, Avengers: The Intiative, and Ms. Marvel -- seeing as how their teams have Skrulls as members.
It would really surprise me if we saw events completely re-written, but I'm sure I covered that elsewhere.
|
|
Doctor Bong
Reservist Avenger
Master of belly dancing (no, really...)!
Posts: 167
|
Post by Doctor Bong on May 2, 2008 19:19:31 GMT -5
It would be as bad to learn that Pym hasn't really been Pym since before slapping Jan as when they told us that Peter Parker had been a clone for a good part of his career as Spider-Man. The only difference being, of course, that Hank is nowhere nearly as popular as Spidey.
|
|