|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 1, 2015 22:24:50 GMT -5
I think one of the reasons that Roy is slightly under-rated is that he (purposefully) didn't CREATE a lot of characters for Marvel or DC. He preferred to revamp Golden Age characters, like the Vision - He didn't want to give up the rights to his best ideas! And he never really did too much independent/creator owned work. So it's entirely possible we never saw a lot of his best stuff. So he was a really good cover band essentially riffing on the works of others and doing extended jam versions of their stuff.  That's my point, he was a caretaker not really a builder when it came to his writing contributions-even the stuff he "added" to Marvel that everyone praises i.e. Conan and Star Wars were building off the creations of others, putting on a fresh coat of paint and making it "Marvel" but what defines Marvel comes from Steve and Jack and Stan and the guys laying the foundations. He did an excellent job of building on what they did, redecorating it, adding accessories to it, making it all neat and presentable, but at the core of all he did were the blueprints and foundations of Lee, Kirby, Ditko (and when you get to DC, Gardner Fox). Most of the original stuff he did add (like Arak at DC) hasn't resonated and survived like the stuff from Fox, Lee, Kirby, Ditko, et. al. Maybe it wasn't his best stuff because he didn't innovate like Stan, Jack and Steve, but that's the freaking point-they did and deserve all the credit they get, Roy managed and polished, and refined, but he didn't innovate and lay the foundations for what his grown and thrived, which is why he doesn't get mentioned in the same breath with them. Roy's done a lot of great stuff, some of it very important, but not in the scope, scale and legacy of what Kirby and Ditko did with Stan. -M I think your point is well taken as far as creating characters, but still, where would modern comics be without the Kree-Skrull War? It's not so much the "who" of the story that Roy innovated, but the how of the story, which shouldn't be underestimated. Keith Richards has always described his contribution with other Rolling Stones guitarists as "an ancient form of weaving", and I think that's where Roy comes in as a creator-- he was one of the best synthesizers of material that the medium has ever seen, and his originality gets lost in the package. He's part of a package, and that package is wonderful. The package may seem common, but when Roy was in his heyday, it was anything but. Roy was inventing longterm storytelling in an era when everyone thought the average fan/kids' attention span was a month. I don't think he gets enough credit for that innovation. Perhaps you can point to things like Ditko/Lee's "Eternity Saga" in Dr Strange, but I'd still it's Roy who made it commonplace. He laid the foundation for Bronze Age storytelling, although I will concede that other creators did it better. Now, don't get me wrong: Roy is not a true innovator as far as comics storytelling, but he is someone who broadened what comics could be. I find him far more significant as an editor than a creator, but one might argue that's true of Harvey Kurtzman or Archie Goodwin, too. I do think we sell him short when we only focus on his creative credits, and a lot of that hinges on a prejudice that editors aren't creators in their own right. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2015 22:29:14 GMT -5
So he was a really good cover band essentially riffing on the works of others and doing extended jam versions of their stuff. That's my point, he was a caretaker not really a builder when it came to his writing contributions-even the stuff he "added" to Marvel that everyone praises i.e. Conan and Star Wars were building off the creations of others, putting on a fresh coat of paint and making it "Marvel" but what defines Marvel comes from Steve and Jack and Stan and the guys laying the foundations. He did an excellent job of building on what they did, redecorating it, adding accessories to it, making it all neat and presentable, but at the core of all he did were the blueprints and foundations of Lee, Kirby, Ditko (and when you get to DC, Gardner Fox). Most of the original stuff he did add (like Arak at DC) hasn't resonated and survived like the stuff from Fox, Lee, Kirby, Ditko, et. al. Maybe it wasn't his best stuff because he didn't innovate like Stan, Jack and Steve, but that's the freaking point-they did and deserve all the credit they get, Roy managed and polished, and refined, but he didn't innovate and lay the foundations for what his grown and thrived, which is why he doesn't get mentioned in the same breath with them. Roy's done a lot of great stuff, some of it very important, but not in the scope, scale and legacy of what Kirby and Ditko did with Stan. -M I think your point is well taken as far as creating characters, but still, where would modern comics be before the Kree-Skrull War? Keith Richards has always described his contribution with other Rolling Stones guitarists as "an ancient form of weaving", and I think that's where Roy comes in as a creator-- he was one of the best synthesizers of material that the medium has ever seen, and his originality gets lost in the package. He's part of a package, amd that package is wonderful. Roy was inventing longterm storytelling in an era when everyone thought the average fan/kids' attention span was a month. I don't think he gets enough credit for that innovation. Perhaps you can point to things like Ditko/Lee's "Eternity Saga" in Dr Strange, but I'd still it's Roy who made it commonplace. He laid the foundation for Bronze Age storytelling, although I will concede that other creators did it better. but to your point (and your mention of Keith Richards) if Ron Wood went out touring with a bunch of other musicians as "The Rolling Stones" and Jagger and Richards weren't a part of it, even if he officially had permission of Mick and Keith to be the Stones, and Wood's band played all the classics no one would say yes, this is what the Stones are all about, even though Wood had contributed to a bunch of the Stones greatest stuff and been with the band a long time bringing a lot to the table that wouldn't have been there without him, no one equates Wood with Mick and Keith as to what made the Stones the Stones. They give him credit for what he did bring to the table, but no one is going to confuse his contributions with what made it all possible in the first place. And Roy Thomas is very much Ron Wood in this case. -M |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 1, 2015 22:40:48 GMT -5
I think your point is well taken as far as creating characters, but still, where would modern comics be before the Kree-Skrull War? Keith Richards has always described his contribution with other Rolling Stones guitarists as "an ancient form of weaving", and I think that's where Roy comes in as a creator-- he was one of the best synthesizers of material that the medium has ever seen, and his originality gets lost in the package. He's part of a package, amd that package is wonderful. Roy was inventing longterm storytelling in an era when everyone thought the average fan/kids' attention span was a month. I don't think he gets enough credit for that innovation. Perhaps you can point to things like Ditko/Lee's "Eternity Saga" in Dr Strange, but I'd still it's Roy who made it commonplace. He laid the foundation for Bronze Age storytelling, although I will concede that other creators did it better. but to your point (and your mention of Keith Richards) if Ron Wood went out touring with a bunch of other musicians as "The Rolling Stones" and Jagger and Richards weren't a part of it, even if he officially had permission of Mick and Keith to be the Stones, and Wood's band played all the classics no one would say yes, this is what the Stones are all about, even though Wood had contributed to a bunch of the Stones greatest stuff and been with the band a long time bringing a lot to the table that wouldn't have been there without him, no one equates Wood with Mick and Keith as to what made the Stones the Stones. They give him credit for what he did bring to the table, but no one is going to confuse his contributions with what made it all possible in the first place. And Roy Thomas is very much Ron Wood in this case. -M I added a lot to my initial post which I think elucidates my post a bit more clearly. One of points that I added that you didn't get a chance to address is the "how vs who" dicotomy, which I think is essential in evaluating Roy's contribution to the medium. No one is going to say that Roy was the most inventive of storytellers, but he did redefine "how" comics stories could be told. He rejected that condescending "well, it's kid's stuff and they'll forget by next month" style of crafting stories, and his stance led to a sea-change in how comics were told. Again, not the innovator as these things had been tried before, but the guy who cemented that this was the way to go. He's the guy who made it work and made it standard. |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Nov 1, 2015 22:46:29 GMT -5
His extended work on Conan alone solidifies him as an all-time great.
Plus arguably the greatest run in Avengers history under his belt, the revival of the X-Men, the creation/co-creation of a host of characters (Man-Thing, Vision, Ultron, Werewolf by Night, Black Knight, Morbius, Doc Samson, Iron Fist, Adam Warlock, Ghost Rider...the list goes on).
I'd say he's definitely underrated.
I've always felt Thomas and Big John should be just as revered as Lee and Kirby.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 1, 2015 22:54:18 GMT -5
His extended work on Conan alone solidifies him as an all-time great. Plus arguably the greatest run in Avengers history under his belt, the revival of the X-Men, the creation/co-creation of a host of characters (Man-Thing, Vision, Ultron, Werewolf by Night, Black Knight, Morbius, Doc Samson, Iron Fist, Adam Warlock, Ghost Rider...the list goes on). I'd say he's definitely underrated. I've always felt Thomas and Big John should be just as revered as Lee and Kirby. I don't think anyone would argue that he's not an all-time great. It's where he belongs in the pantheon that's the sticking point. He's not Stan Lee or Jack Kirby or Joe Kubert or Harvey Kurtzman or Alan Moore or Frank Miller or Dave Sim, but he's someone who filled in those gaps. He's an important figure in the history of comics, to be sure, but he's not really someone who defined what comics could be. Still, he changed the form and fought for the evolution of comics, so I think that he deserves more credit than he gets. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 1, 2015 23:01:50 GMT -5
I think there's a difference between being a creative force (like Kirby) and an administrative/editorial force (like Karen Berger). Roy Thomas is the very rare talent that was both. One could agree Lee was as well, but really he was more just a great talent and shameless self-promoter. Roy Thomas promoted the Marvel Universe as a whole, and seems to have put his whole soul into it. I'm not sure we ever have a Marvel or DC universe without him. He took Stan's vague notion that it's cool to have Spiderman swing by the Baxter building and took it to the next level.
I'll grant I'm looking at it very much from a fan perspective, and a relatively recent fan at that, but to me, Roy Thomas is the father of modern comics. The fact that he was a pretty darn good writer too is icing in the cake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 1, 2015 23:08:28 GMT -5
I take exception to the idea that Roy did not create new characters. As the editor for Marvel comics, he was very well involved with new creations. Without doing any research and relying on memories from many interviews, Roy was involved with the formulation of Killraven, Werewolf by Night and especially the All New Xmen. He was the one with the idea of revitalizing that team with new members in the form of an international brigade. The early 70s at Marvel under Roy's editorship saw a tremendous amount of expansion with new concepts and characters. He worked with the writers in developing these new strips. Sometimes Roy himself would write the first issue and then hand it off. Being the writer for Conan and overseeing the Marvel lineup masked the fact of how involved he was with new creations
|
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Nov 1, 2015 23:17:22 GMT -5
His extended work on Conan alone solidifies him as an all-time great. Plus arguably the greatest run in Avengers history under his belt, the revival of the X-Men, the creation/co-creation of a host of characters (Man-Thing, Vision, Ultron, Werewolf by Night, Black Knight, Morbius, Doc Samson, Iron Fist, Adam Warlock, Ghost Rider...the list goes on). I'd say he's definitely underrated. I've always felt Thomas and Big John should be just as revered as Lee and Kirby. I don't think anyone would argue that he's not an all-time great. It's where he belongs in the pantheon that's the sticking point. He's not Stan Lee or Jack Kirby or Joe Kubert or Harvey Kurtzman or Alan Moore or Frank Miller or Dave Sim, but he's someone who filled in those gaps. He's an important figure in the history of comics, to be sure, but he's not really someone who defined what comics could be. Still, he changed the form and fought for the evolution of comics, so I think that he deserves more credit than he gets. I think Roy Thomas was the main guy to bridge the gap between the more light-hearted and goofy Stan Lee era and the more gritty Alan Moore/Frank Miller era. In my personal opinion, he's the best overall comic writer of the 70's. I think as just an overall innovator...you'd be hard pressed to think of any other guys besides Stan Lee and Jack Kirby who created as many everlasting, popular characters in the world of comics. Especially as it pertains to the Marvel universe. |
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Nov 2, 2015 3:26:13 GMT -5
I think comics grew up because of him.
Which begs the question of how long they would have prevailed as juvenile reading. Would the 60s style of DC and the purple prose of Lee lasted another 4 decades?
Would they have sunken into obscurity?
Or would other creators driven renewed interest?
Giordano? Berger? O'Neil? Goodwin? Levitz?
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 2, 2015 7:12:26 GMT -5
His extended work on Conan alone solidifies him as an all-time great. Plus arguably the greatest run in Avengers history under his belt, the revival of the X-Men, the creation/co-creation of a host of characters (Man-Thing, Vision, Ultron, Werewolf by Night, Black Knight, Morbius, Doc Samson, Iron Fist, Adam Warlock, Ghost Rider...the list goes on). I'd say he's definitely underrated. I've always felt Thomas and Big John should be just as revered as Lee and Kirby. I don't think anyone would argue that he's not an all-time great. It's where he belongs in the pantheon that's the sticking point. He's not Stan Lee or Jack Kirby or Joe Kubert or Harvey Kurtzman or Alan Moore or Frank Miller or Dave Sim, but he's someone who filled in those gaps. He's an important figure in the history of comics, to be sure, but he's not really someone who defined what comics could be. Still, he changed the form and fought for the evolution of comics, so I think that he deserves more credit than he gets. Maybe he took and fulfilled a thankless job because no fame or recognition doesn't negate how well someone does the job. It's blatantly clear Stan Lee likes his stardom. Perhaps Mr Thomas didn't. And the work that he did as a writer and editor speaks for itself without the fireworks. Not that it's a bad thing for his fans to wish it for him and discuss it. I'm wondering more in the context of at the time he was working for Marvel if the were the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 2, 2015 7:21:47 GMT -5
His extended work on Conan alone solidifies him as an all-time great. Plus arguably the greatest run in Avengers history under his belt, the revival of the X-Men, the creation/co-creation of a host of characters (Man-Thing, Vision, Ultron, Werewolf by Night, Black Knight, Morbius, Doc Samson, Iron Fist, Adam Warlock, Ghost Rider...the list goes on). I'd say he's definitely underrated. I've always felt Thomas and Big John should be just as revered as Lee and Kirby. I can't like this comment enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Nov 3, 2015 19:10:29 GMT -5
His extended work on Conan alone solidifies him as an all-time great. Plus arguably the greatest run in Avengers history under his belt, the revival of the X-Men, the creation/co-creation of a host of characters (Man-Thing, Vision, Ultron, Werewolf by Night, Black Knight, Morbius, Doc Samson, Iron Fist, Adam Warlock, Ghost Rider...the list goes on). I'd say he's definitely underrated. I've always felt Thomas and Big John should be just as revered as Lee and Kirby. Now dont get me wrong, I think that Roy is one of the greatest things to happen to comics, however how do you compare the creation of the Marvel U with the FF, Spidey, Hulk, and X-Men(among others obviously) with Roys run on 2 titles and the gift of the B and C graders like you list above. All okay characters sure, but not even close to being in the same league, not then and certainly not 40 years later. He is underrated, or his influence is, but in terms of sheer creation, well Stan or Jack he aint. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 3, 2015 19:17:27 GMT -5
The Vision was the hottest character in the late 60's - early 70's. And while he didn't create Conan, he did a Bill Finger and added the important things that comic fans know him for, today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Nov 3, 2015 19:22:45 GMT -5
Yeah no argument here man, I loved both of them in the 70s.
BUT he didnt create them, he just used them well.
What he did do is virtually create the Fantasy genre for comics, with a template of what worked in the excellent Conan series.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 3, 2015 19:24:25 GMT -5
Yeah no argument here man, I loved both of them in the 70s. BUT he didnt create them, he just used them well. What he did do is virtually create the Fantasy genre for comics, with a template of what worked in the excellent Conan series. [br He did create the Vision. |
|
