|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 9, 2014 14:56:41 GMT -5
I sometimes wonder if Strange Tales #101 was penciled and the artists had just gotten a basic plot and there was no idea there would be a "secret identity" angle until the art was completed. So the dialogue had to be written to convey some ideas that the artists didn't know about, and the end result was pretty clumsy.
Sometimes the secret identity angle is barely mentioned (and I think it's completely ignored in the adventure where he travels to the Fifth Dimension and meets blue people). But there is one story (the first Paste-Pot Pete, I think) where he's at the bank while it's being robbed and the manner by which he protects his identity is kind of intricate and the artists must have known he was trying to protect his own identity, despite Dick Ayers' protests.
Also keep in mind: Strange Tales #101 came out within a month of Amazing Fantasy #15. Since the first issue of Spider-Man didn't show up until early the next year, most if not all of the "secret identity" issues of Strange Tales were published before Spider-Man's second appearance.
So maybe ... Somebody liked the idea of a teenager with a secret identity, and when it didn't work for Johnny (because in the long run, he looked kind of delusional), some of those ideas might have been transferred to a Spider-Man strip.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 9, 2014 15:04:59 GMT -5
It should be noted that those early Torch stories (and Thor and Ant-Man and Iron Man stories) were not written "Marvel style." As he explained at a Comic Con panel a decade or so back, Larry Lieber always wrote full scripts for those series, as did Robert Bernstein and Ernie Hart. That's one of the reasons Kirby's art seems so constricted in these early series: he's following Lieber's panel breakdowns. It's no coincidence that the art on Thor became so much more dynamic after Stan took over scripting and let Kirby lay the stories out his way.
Cei-U!
I summon the often overlooked factoid!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 9, 2014 15:07:40 GMT -5
Huh. Well then why is Strange Tales #101 such a mess? It's a glorious mess, I love it to pieces. But it's still a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 9, 2014 15:52:59 GMT -5
You keep on trying to fit it in to your wild little theories. I can see I'm annoying you. Sorry. I enjoy following your logic and seeing where it leads, but not if it bugs you. I won't push the debate any further. You don't annoy me at all, Buddy. No problems at all. I find your point of view...odd...but non-offending. I think it's cool you're soooo deeply into the FF. I don't understand it...but differences are what make the world go around. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 9, 2014 19:24:18 GMT -5
I have to side with Slam on this one. Interpretations and extrapolations are all well and good (and, of course, fun) but, speaking as someone who's coming to take his role as a comics historian a lot more seriously than his role as a comics fan, all that really counts is what's on the page. The Strange Tales Torch stories are clearly meant to take place after the Fantastic Four first donned their uniforms in FF #3 (in fact, if you go by costume details, they must take place after #6 when the collars narrow). To argue otherwise is to say that the creators of these stories are lying to us. I'm not crazy about that line of thinking. Cei-U! I summon the should-be obvious! I think it's a bit of both... I certainly haven't analyzed the FF to the extent Tolworthy has, so I believe him if he says there is ample plot evidence to place Strange tales between FF #2 and FF #3... after all, as Cei-U has pointed out frequently in the Earth-2 thread, costume variations are often just different artists doing their own thing, or simply not checking the issue before. My impression, though, is that Marvel was more careful about that sort of thing... leading me to perhaps believe that the artist in Strange Tales used the new costume on purpose, but perhaps it's because simply he opened the current FF issue and copied it? I'd be inclined to go with story cues more than visual ones as far as placing one story in relation to another... unless there's some other source (interview, later story, etc) that specifies which is 'correct' |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 9, 2014 19:54:10 GMT -5
I have to side with Slam on this one. Interpretations and extrapolations are all well and good (and, of course, fun) but, speaking as someone who's coming to take his role as a comics historian a lot more seriously than his role as a comics fan, all that really counts is what's on the page. The Strange Tales Torch stories are clearly meant to take place after the Fantastic Four first donned their uniforms in FF #3 (in fact, if you go by costume details, they must take place after #6 when the collars narrow). To argue otherwise is to say that the creators of these stories are lying to us. I'm not crazy about that line of thinking. Cei-U! I summon the should-be obvious! I think it's a bit of both... I certainly haven't analyzed the FF to the extent Tolworthy has, so I believe him if he says there is ample plot evidence to place Strange tales between FF #2 and FF #3... after all, as Cei-U has pointed out frequently in the Earth-2 thread, costume variations are often just different artists doing their own thing, or simply not checking the issue before. My impression, though, is that Marvel was more careful about that sort of thing... leading me to perhaps believe that the artist in Strange Tales used the new costume on purpose, but perhaps it's because simply he opened the current FF issue and copied it? I'd be inclined to go with story cues more than visual ones as far as placing one story in relation to another... unless there's some other source (interview, later story, etc) that specifies which is 'correct' The thing is it's the same artist on both titles: Jack Kirby. You can hardly claim he was unfamiliar with the characters. And Tolworthy's "ample plot evidence" is based on a single line of dialogue from Strange Tales #102 that, in my opinion, is trumped by all those other details, like the costumes, that indicate Lee and Kirby intended those early Strange Tales stories to occur as they fall between the contemporaneous issues of Fantastic Four. (This should in no way be taken as a putdown of Tolworthy's work. His website is fascinating and thought-provoking, but his approach is too subjective for my historian' sensibilities.) Cei-U! I summon a pin for the angels to dance on! |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 9, 2014 21:04:44 GMT -5
Just wanted to add that it is precisely Slam's unblinking approach to these reviews, untainted by nostalgia or misplaced reverence, that makes this thread such a delight to read.
Cei-U!
I summon the kudos!
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 9, 2014 22:00:55 GMT -5
It should be noted that those early Torch stories (and Thor and Ant-Man and Iron Man stories) were not written "Marvel style." As he explained at a Comic Con panel a decade or so back, Larry Lieber always wrote full scripts for those series, as did Robert Bernstein and Ernie Hart. That's one of the reasons Kirby's art seems so constricted in these early series: he's following Lieber's panel breakdowns. It's no coincidence that the art on Thor became so much more dynamic after Stan took over scripting and let Kirby lay the stories out his way. Cei-U! I summon the often overlooked factoid! Okay. I didn't know that and always wondered. That is...interesting. And definitely effects how I'll be looking at Tales to Astonish 36 (read tonight, but probably not to be written up tonight). It leads me to believe Stan was almost completely hands off in editing Leiber. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 10, 2014 7:31:25 GMT -5
Is there any specific reason why they didn't include the Thing in Strange Tales from the beginning?.They had the right idea adding him later, unfortunately Lee and Kirby weren't telling the stories, so it was doomed to failure. The whole Sue/Johnny dynamic was just dull and awkward.* Having the Thing there from the beginning would have made far more sense.
*I'm also of the opinion that having Johnny and Sue lead a separate life in a house in the suburbs was the main inspiration for Grant Morrison's wacked-out incest theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 10, 2014 8:16:30 GMT -5
They knew from past experience that the Torch could carry a title by himself. The Thing was still an unproven quantity who hadn't yet developed the loveable persona we associate with Ben Grimm at the time they launched the Strange Tales series. That, and poor sales on the Hulk book may have soured publisher Martin Goodman on spotlighting another monster character.
Cei-U!
I summon the idle speculation!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 10, 2014 9:24:44 GMT -5
I'm sure that was it. Once the Thing was basically fully developed, they seem to make the change. The Thing, at least to me, is one of the strongest leads in comics given his pathos, sense of humor and likability.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 10, 2014 12:33:31 GMT -5
Just wanted to add that it is precisely Slam's unblinking approach to these reviews, untainted by nostalgia or misplaced reverence, that makes this thread such a delight to read. Cei-U! I summon the kudos! Cei-U hit it on the head as to why I'm enjoying Slams' reviews. I'll take this over birthday notices for singin' cowpokes anyday. It does make me wonder that if I was an adult checking out those very early Marvel titles which ones would I continue to follow.Amazing Spider-Man-absolutely. Fantastic Four-most probably. Strange Tales?-I'm not to sure about that one.Dr Strange would have rescued that title for me if I made it up to #110. But Thor,Iron Man and Ant-Man could be doubtful. They got really bad before getting better.I'd probably be fulfilled by getting the Avengers instead |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 10, 2014 12:41:13 GMT -5
The surprising thing for me was how mediocre the Avengers was for the most part. It started strong, but once Kirby starts doing layouts the quality takes a big dive. Don Heck has grown on me over the years; he's a good artists, just not the best fit for the genre. It's really not until Roy Thomas and John Buscema that the title really takes off for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 10, 2014 13:16:23 GMT -5
The surprising thing for me was how mediocre the Avengers was for the most part. It started strong, but once Kirby starts doing layouts the quality takes a big dive. Don Heck has grown on me over the years; he's a good artists, just not the best fit for the genre. It's really not until Roy Thomas and John Buscema that the title really takes off for me. I have to dissagree , I loved the Don Heck era. That's where you see Stans writing shine with the kooky quartet and the soap opera elements. Hawkeye becomes the fan favorite under that creative team. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 10, 2014 13:34:35 GMT -5
It does pick up when the kooky quartet era starts, but those issues just before that were surprisingly weak the first time I read them. Still, my favorite Avengers era are the John Buscema years. The thing about Don Heck is that his non-action scenes were his best. He was great at drawing Tony Stark in his role as a socialite.
|
|
