|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Nov 3, 2015 19:26:00 GMT -5
It is hard to argue against the influence of John Buscema as well. THE style to define a publisher post Kirby, for the next 15 or so years. Thats a huge legacy as well, but in terms of creation...
|
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Nov 3, 2015 19:28:19 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. Well, that version wasnt it  I was under the impression there was a 40s Vision that was his inspiration. Sorry if I got it wrong man, Im not trying to piss you off. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Nov 3, 2015 20:26:33 GMT -5
The 1940s Vision is an entirely different character than the '60s version despite their superficial resemblance: different origin, different powers, different modus operandi, no ties between them whatsoever. So yeah, Aarkus may have been an inspiration but "our" Vision is 100% the co-creation of Thomas and Buscema.
Cei-U!
I summon the straight skinny!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2015 20:45:51 GMT -5
The 1940s Vision is an entirely different character than the '60s version despite their superficial resemblance: different origin, different powers, different modus operandi, no ties between them whatsoever. So yeah, Aarkus may have been an inspiration but "our" Vision is 100% the co-creation of Thomas and Buscema. Cei-U! I summon the straight skinny! Of course most of my friends in the 70s and 80s who read comics thought he was a blatant Mr. Spock rip off/riff-the non-human or part human struggling with things like human emotion and acceptance in a world where he didn't fit. When Next Gen hit, they called Data the love child of Vision and Spock. When I first started frequenting a lcs in the mid80s and was asked who my favorite character was and answered Vision had been as a kid, I got, oh the Mr. Spock wannabe as a response too from the guys who worked in the shop, so it wasn't a unique feeling to my small group of friends. I haven't looked up the debut of Trek vs. Avengers 57 though, so it could be off but it was there in fandom. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Nov 3, 2015 21:00:30 GMT -5
Star Trek debuted two years before Avengers #57 but, really, Vision owes more to Otto Binder's Adam Link stories of the '30s than he does to Spock.
Cei-U!
I summon the seminal influence!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2015 21:08:22 GMT -5
Star Trek debuted two years before Avengers #57 but, really, Vision owes more to Otto Binder's Adam Link stories of the '30s than he does to Spock. Cei-U! I summon the seminal influence! Nobody ever claimed things popularly believed/felt by fandom had any basis in accuracy  -M |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 3, 2015 23:26:00 GMT -5
I don't know how much recognition he gets but I've never gotten the impression he's been overlooked by fans. I think he was very important to the second, post-Stan wave of Marvel writers, while from a personal perspective his Avengers was one of my favourite series as a very young fan and his role a little later in bringing the REH characters to Marvel resulted some more of my favourite comics.
But his legacy is a bit tainted for me by his treatment of Crystal, a character that has never recovered from the changes he introduced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 4, 2015 6:40:08 GMT -5
but "our" Vision is 100% the co-creation of Thomas and Buscema. Cei-U! I summon the straight skinny! Thanks for saying that Kurt. Some people think Buscema never created anything. I'm Looking at you mrp. |
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Nov 4, 2015 7:40:14 GMT -5
I've always felt that Roy was largely responsible for bringing Marvel into the Bronze Age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Nov 4, 2015 12:56:14 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. Oh, no. Of course not. I don't think you can really compare the creation of an Iron Fist, Vision or Ghost Rider to the creations of Hulk, Spider-Man or the FF. But IMO, Roy Thomas and John Buscema as a creative writer/artist team were every bit as great as Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. If anything, I give the bulk of the credit of that tag team to Kirby. Stan Lee was (and still is) a master promoter and the iconic spokesman for the comics medium, but almost everyone will tell you that Jack Kirby was the main innovator and master talent in that relationship. And most would tell you that Ditko was the real master hand behind Spider-Man. As much as I appreciate Stan Lee, I still think a guy like Roy Thomas is easily the more talented writer. And as much as I love Kirby and his amazing contributions to comics which can really never be rivaled...I still give Big John the edge as just a pure overall artist. I don't know, that guys art has always just struck a chord with me. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 5, 2015 5:56:40 GMT -5
Warmonger said:
And as much as I love Kirby and his amazing contributions to comics which can really never be rivaled...I still give Big John the edge as just a pure overall artist. I don't know, that guys art has always just struck a chord with me.
I totally agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Nov 5, 2015 12:12:43 GMT -5
My viewpoint is would be that Marvel was like a kingdom or a family business. Stan/Jack/Steve being the king/father and Roy being the prince/successor. Stan & Jack & Steve built up the kingdom/business to hand down to the prince/successor who would be expected to expand and improve on what he was left. Which he did a pretty good job of. Add that to the role of comic historian he's taken on since, and I think he deserves all the credit he can get.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 5, 2015 12:27:15 GMT -5
Well no matter how good a creation is, the stewarts of said creation, after the creator is gone (for whatever reason), make a huge difference in it remaining entertaining. Granted there wouldn't be a lot of characters without Mr Lee or Mr Kirby in Marvel, but they also wouldn't have the legacy that they have as entertaining characters without great stewarts as Mr Thomas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 5, 2015 18:27:44 GMT -5
The 1940s Vision is an entirely different character than the '60s version despite their superficial resemblance: different origin, different powers, different modus operandi, no ties between them whatsoever. So yeah, Aarkus may have been an inspiration but "our" Vision is 100% the co-creation of Thomas and Buscema. Cei-U! I summon the straight skinny! If I remember correctly, it wasn't supposed to be a different character. Roy wanted to revive the '40s Simon/Kirby character, maybe with a few slight modifications. But Stan wanted an android. And they still have some strong visual similarities! |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 5, 2015 19:45:37 GMT -5
Jim Starlin tells a story of Roy's contribution to the Look of Thanos. He originally wanted to base Thanos' look on Metron but Roy told him to beef him up to the way he looks today.
|
|
