|
Post by chadwilliam on Dec 12, 2015 12:24:11 GMT -5
I'm glad that DC doesn't have the right to use the title Captain Marvel on their comics. Yes, I realize that Fawcett wouldn't even have had a Captain Marvel without Superman, but DC helping to force them out of business and then swooping in and taking their property so as to make inferior stories featuring their version of the character doesn't sit right with me.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Dec 12, 2015 13:20:16 GMT -5
My gripe is that Darkseids face looks like a jigsaw puzzle. Ben Grimm wants some words with you. You sound like your from Yancy Street
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Dec 12, 2015 19:21:08 GMT -5
Kurt Busiek Edition: Marvels is terrible. One of the greatest things about the '60s Stan Lee super-books was the attention paid to the setting - the relationship between the superfolks and the city of New York (and it's people) was complex, nuanced, often very funny, and really gave real world verisimilitude to the books. Conversely, Marvel's "Gosh, Beaver, aren't superheroes golly-gosh neat-o!" moralizing was a gross simplification and a total misunderstanding of what Lee/Kirby/Ditko et. al were trying to do, and actually weakens Golden/Silver Age Marvel if read as part of continuity. Busiek's best work was Dracula: In the Company of Monsters for Boom. It's almost the polar opposite of Marvels - a smart, multi-layered story about power and greed and ambition vs. morality and what it means to do good, what it means to be human. But as far as I can tell I'm the only one who read it.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 12, 2015 19:35:46 GMT -5
Kurt Busiek Edition: Marvels is terrible. One of the greatest things about the '60s Stan Lee super-books was the attention paid to the setting - the relationship between the superfolks and the city of New York (and it's people) was complex, nuanced, often very funny, and really gave real world verisimilitude to the books. Conversely, Marvel's "Gosh, Beaver, aren't superheroes golly-gosh neat-o!" moralizing was a gross simplification and a total misunderstanding of what Lee/Kirby/Ditko et. al were trying to do, and actually weakens Golden/Silver Age Marvel if read as part of continuity. Busiek's best work was Dracula: In the Company of Monsters for Boom. It's almost the polar opposite of Marvels - a smart, multi-layered story about power and greed and ambition vs. morality and what it means to do good, what it means to be human. But as far as I can tell I'm the only one who read it. I will give you that it's way overrated. It's a retelling of the Marvel Silver/Bronze age with painted pages. Meh.
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Dec 12, 2015 20:11:19 GMT -5
Kurt Busiek Edition: Marvels is terrible. Conversely, Marvel's "Gosh, Beaver, aren't superheroes golly-gosh neat-o!" moralizing was a gross simplification and a total misunderstanding of what Lee/Kirby/Ditko et. al were trying to do, and actually weakens Golden/Silver Age Marvel if read as part of continuity. That would probably explain why it's my favorite story in the history of Marvel Comics.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 12, 2015 20:20:08 GMT -5
Has anybody mentioned Terry Long yet? If not, I'll do it. Terry Long. No. Just, no. I read Teen Titans for a short time - around issues #20 to #30 - and I remember how the story would come to a crashing halt whenever Terry Long wandered in. Great art, and the stories were very exciting, and I could see what the fuss was about. (And I loved the Brotherhood of Evil! The Brain! Monsieur Mallah! Plasmus! Madame Rouge! Warp!) But Terry Long made me cringe. And then they started playing up Deathstroke, who is also horrible. And then along came Terra. Puke. It was a perfect storm of terrible characters. It was so easy to just stop at that point. There. I said it. I agree with a lot of what you said but I disagree about Deathstroke. He was a great Character and It was always awesome when he appeared.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 12, 2015 20:57:37 GMT -5
Kurt Busiek Edition: Marvels is terrible. One of the greatest things about the '60s Stan Lee super-books was the attention paid to the setting - the relationship between the superfolks and the city of New York (and it's people) was complex, nuanced, often very funny, and really gave real world verisimilitude to the books. Conversely, Marvel's "Gosh, Beaver, aren't superheroes golly-gosh neat-o!" moralizing was a gross simplification and a total misunderstanding of what Lee/Kirby/Ditko et. al were trying to do, and actually weakens Golden/Silver Age Marvel if read as part of continuity. Busiek's best work was Dracula: In the Company of Monsters for Boom. It's almost the polar opposite of Marvels - a smart, multi-layered story about power and greed and ambition vs. morality and what it means to do good, what it means to be human. But as far as I can tell I'm the only one who read it. Haven't read either: Marvels because I feel much the same about the whole idea as you do; and Dracula: In the Company of Monsters because the artwork didn't grab me, IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2015 21:11:13 GMT -5
Hated long-hair Superman. He was not supposed to look like Rambo. Who came up with this stupid look anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Dec 12, 2015 21:16:17 GMT -5
Hated long-hair Superman. He was not supposed to look like Rambo. Who came up with this stupid look anyway? I don't understand why DC wanted to keep the look around after he came back to life.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Dec 12, 2015 21:28:39 GMT -5
Kurt Busiek Edition: Marvels is terrible. One of the greatest things about the '60s Stan Lee super-books was the attention paid to the setting - the relationship between the superfolks and the city of New York (and it's people) was complex, nuanced, often very funny, and really gave real world verisimilitude to the books. Conversely, Marvel's "Gosh, Beaver, aren't superheroes golly-gosh neat-o!" moralizing was a gross simplification and a total misunderstanding of what Lee/Kirby/Ditko et. al were trying to do, and actually weakens Golden/Silver Age Marvel if read as part of continuity. I could not possibly disagree more. Cei-U! Nuff said!
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Dec 12, 2015 21:49:06 GMT -5
Kurt Busiek Edition: Marvels is terrible. One of the greatest things about the '60s Stan Lee super-books was the attention paid to the setting - the relationship between the superfolks and the city of New York (and it's people) was complex, nuanced, often very funny, and really gave real world verisimilitude to the books. Conversely, Marvel's "Gosh, Beaver, aren't superheroes golly-gosh neat-o!" moralizing was a gross simplification and a total misunderstanding of what Lee/Kirby/Ditko et. al were trying to do, and actually weakens Golden/Silver Age Marvel if read as part of continuity. Busiek's best work was Dracula: In the Company of Monsters for Boom. It's almost the polar opposite of Marvels - a smart, multi-layered story about power and greed and ambition vs. morality and what it means to do good, what it means to be human. But as far as I can tell I'm the only one who read it. I really like Marvels
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Dec 12, 2015 21:52:13 GMT -5
Hated long-hair Superman. He was not supposed to look like Rambo. Who came up with this stupid look anyway? I dimly recall some sort of Samson justification for the look, but the truth is probably as simple as that it was a WWF/Billy Ray Cyrus inspiration.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 13, 2015 13:39:11 GMT -5
It wouldn't matter if the Shazam Captain Marvel was being written by Alan Moore with art by Neal Adams, I still would think the character is hopelessly lame.
There. said it.
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Dec 13, 2015 14:51:34 GMT -5
It wouldn't matter if the Shazam Captain Marvel was being written by Alan Moore with art by Neal Adams, I still would think the character is hopelessly lame. There. said it. Done by that team it would be mate, the appeal of the character is in his naievite and the childlike joy in the adventures he has. A world where a walking talking tiger, and a malevolent worm are part of the cast has NO place for standard hero stuff, let alone the grim and gritty of the past 30 - 40 years. Love both those creators, but NO. DCs insistance on shoe-horning Shazam into their standard universe shows an utter lack of understanding of who he is, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by realjla on Dec 13, 2015 16:15:59 GMT -5
Totally agree about Captain Marvel's place in the Post-Crisis DCU. He's better off as a 1940s character, but he and the supporting cast(including all the other Fawcett heroes) belong in their own world. The Justice Society had their own 'whimsical' adventures once in a while, but not enough that the Marvels would have fit in with DC's Golden Age crowd.
|
|