|
Post by Hoosier X on Sept 12, 2017 20:11:53 GMT -5
The First Steranko S.H.I.E.L.D. story! Although Jaunty Jim is still doing his best Kirby imitation, it's still good stuff. Nick Fury has been captured by Hydra, and he seems determined to cut off all their heads, just to see how many take their place. He manages to steal one of their planes, but little does he know that it's been fitted with the Overkill Horn which, once the plane reaches maximum speed, will 'splode all the world's nukes, thus allowing Hydra to take over what's left of the world, I guess. There's also a Doctor Strange story. Boy, that sure turned into unreadable shite after Ditko left, didn't it?
Here's me in June with a somewhat more positive assessment of post-Ditko Doctor Strange.
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Sept 12, 2017 20:13:13 GMT -5
I'm glad you enjoyed them. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 20:20:45 GMT -5
There's a real nadir after Ditko left, nobody seemed to know what to actually do with Doc and creative teams were swapped in and out. There was some nice art by Everett and Severin, but the stories were pedestrian at best, and at worse...
When Roy Thomas came on board, the book became readable again, and there was some consistency to the series, but no one still seemed to know waht to do with the book, going for the masked super-hero angle for a lack of a better direction.
Gardner Fox took a step in the right direction making it pulpy Lovecraftian stuff in Marvel Premiere which Starlin picked up and then handed off to Englehart who finally got a handle on the character and started giving the seires direction and focus again with Brunner, until editorial mucked things up partway through the occult history of america storyline. After that there were some good runs, but none that captured the sense of knowing what to do with the character that Ditko and Englehart had. Stern's run was probably the best at putting the character through all the paces the status quo provided, and it was a very good read, but it was still moving pieces around on the board to come back to where we started rather than truly moving the book and the character forward as Ditko and Englehart had.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Sept 12, 2017 20:27:47 GMT -5
You can agree to disagree with me. But I think Zom is going to be a little less cooperative. I AM ZOM!!!! YOU WILL AGREE TO AGREE THAT STRANGE TALES IS ALWAYS AWESOME OR I WILL BLAST YOU WITH MY WEIRD FIRE-SPOUTING HAND-STUMPS!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 20:29:40 GMT -5
You can agree to disagree with me. But I think Zom is going to be a little less cooperative. I AM ZOM!!!! YOU WILL AGREE TO AGREE THAT STRANGE TALES IS ALWAYS AWESOME OR I WILL BLAST YOU WITH MY WEIRD FIRE-SPOUTING HAND-STUMPS!!!! Zom always reminded me of a refugee from Nightmare's dimension that Nightmare kicked out because no one would actually dream something that silly looking. -M
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Sept 12, 2017 20:37:50 GMT -5
As someone who has actually read post-Ditko Dr. Strange with my own eyes, I will have to respectfully disagree with any general characterization that it was "shite" or "pedestrian." Hey, Ditko's Dr. Strange is just about my favorite thing EVER in all comicdom. But post-Ditko Dr. Strange was breathless, non-stop, chaotic King Hell capers. And a heckuva fun read with lotsa random weird dudes and GREAT ART!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 20:47:28 GMT -5
As someone who has actually read post-Ditko Dr. Strange with my own eyes, I will have to respectfully disagree with any general characterization that it was "shite" or "pedestrian." Hey, Ditko's Dr. Strange is just about my favorite thing EVER in all comicdom. But post-Ditko Dr. Strange was breathless, non-stop, chaotic King Hell capers. And a heckuva fun read with lotsa random weird dudes and GREAT ART! The art was great, but the stories were just that, random and chaotic because they were treading water and doing so poorly. If you took Doc out and put in Mandrake or Superman or Thor or...whoever and swapped out one random menace for another, no one would have noticed because it wouldn't have affected the stories at all. That's not good storytelling or good Doc Strange comics. It may be fun and random the first time you encounter it, but it got old real fast. As a change of pace story one of these might have worked, but as a steady diet, it got tiresome real fast. Oh look another wacky random menace with wacky random way to defeat them. Can't he just say Myxlplyx backwards and be done with it. Schtick and gimmicks don't work for me for the long term no matter how pretty the art. It's great that you like them, I think they make a great guilty pleasure if you like that sort of thing (different strokes for everyone and variety is the spice of life and all), but they're not good stories in the sense of traditional storytelling standards. -M
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Sept 12, 2017 22:04:41 GMT -5
As someone who has actually read post-Ditko Dr. Strange with my own eyes, I will have to respectfully disagree with any general characterization that it was "shite" or "pedestrian." Hey, Ditko's Dr. Strange is just about my favorite thing EVER in all comicdom. But post-Ditko Dr. Strange was breathless, non-stop, chaotic King Hell capers. And a heckuva fun read with lotsa random weird dudes and GREAT ART! The art was great, but the stories were just that, random and chaotic because they were treading water and doing so poorly. If you took Doc out and put in Mandrake or Superman or Thor or...whoever and swapped out one random menace for another, no one would have noticed because it wouldn't have affected the stories at all. That's not good storytelling or good Doc Strange comics. It may be fun and random the first time you encounter it, but it got old real fast. As a change of pace story one of these might have worked, but as a steady diet, it got tiresome real fast. Oh look another wacky random menace with wacky random way to defeat them. Can't he just say Myxlplyx backwards and be done with it. Schtick and gimmicks don't work for me for the long term no matter how pretty the art. It's great that you like them, I think they make a great guilty pleasure if you like that sort of thing (different strokes for everyone and variety is the spice of life and all), but they're not good stories in the sense of traditional storytelling standards. -M I've read some of them over and over, and I really have to disagree that you could just drop in Mandrake or Superman or whoever. It's OK that they don't appeal to you. But just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it's bad storytelling or that it's pedestrian or that it's "shite."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 22:16:56 GMT -5
The art was great, but the stories were just that, random and chaotic because they were treading water and doing so poorly. If you took Doc out and put in Mandrake or Superman or Thor or...whoever and swapped out one random menace for another, no one would have noticed because it wouldn't have affected the stories at all. That's not good storytelling or good Doc Strange comics. It may be fun and random the first time you encounter it, but it got old real fast. As a change of pace story one of these might have worked, but as a steady diet, it got tiresome real fast. Oh look another wacky random menace with wacky random way to defeat them. Can't he just say Myxlplyx backwards and be done with it. Schtick and gimmicks don't work for me for the long term no matter how pretty the art. It's great that you like them, I think they make a great guilty pleasure if you like that sort of thing (different strokes for everyone and variety is the spice of life and all), but they're not good stories in the sense of traditional storytelling standards. -M I've read some of them over and over, and I really have to disagree that you could just drop in Mandrake or Superman or whoever. It's OK that they don't appeal to you. But just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it's bad storytelling or that it's pedestrian or that it's "shite." Basic accepted standard of good story telling (regardless of medium) :character meets obstacle creating conflict, in overcoming the obstacle through conflict the character undergoes a fundamental change and growth as a consequence of the conflict revealing the thematic nature of the story and something unique about the character. There's no consequence for the character for any of the conflicts in these tales post-Ditko (beyond "oh the world/universe/dimension will be destroyed if I fail" which is not about Strange and a role that can be filled by any super-powered character), no growth or change of character (something that was central to the Ditko run) and no thematic underpinning to the stories (also something at the core of the Ditko stories). They're not about anything, they're just plot events and the characters are puppets being moved through the events of the plot without ever really being affected by it except in the most superficial way possible. And when the plot is resolved, the character is fundamentally the same as when it started, as if the story itself never happened because the plot was inconsequential to the character and the same result would have happened for any character using his powers under duress to overcome the obstacle. Plot is not story. These may be tightly plotted (in some cases, but in others really there's barely even a plot connecting the sequence of events) with great art, but they lack fundamental elements of good storytelling. I actually like some of them quite a bit, but they are not examples of good storytelling. -M
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Sept 12, 2017 23:22:47 GMT -5
I've read some of them over and over, and I really have to disagree that you could just drop in Mandrake or Superman or whoever. It's OK that they don't appeal to you. But just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it's bad storytelling or that it's pedestrian or that it's "shite." Basic accepted standard of good story telling (regardless of medium) :character meets obstacle creating conflict, in overcoming the obstacle through conflict the character undergoes a fundamental change and growth as a consequence of the conflict revealing the thematic nature of the story and something unique about the character. There's no consequence for the character for any of the conflicts in these tales post-Ditko (beyond "oh the world/universe/dimension will be destroyed if I fail" which is not about Strange and a role that can be filled by any super-powered character), no growth or change of character (something that was central to the Ditko run) and no thematic underpinning to the stories (also something at the core of the Ditko stories). They're not about anything, they're just plot events and the characters are puppets being moved through the events of the plot without ever really being affected by it except in the most superficial way possible. And when the plot is resolved, the character is fundamentally the same as when it started, as if the story itself never happened because the plot was inconsequential to the character and the same result would have happened for any character using his powers under duress to overcome the obstacle. Plot is not story. These may be tightly plotted (in some cases, but in others really there's barely even a plot connecting the sequence of events) with great art, but they lack fundamental elements of good storytelling. I actually like some of them quite a bit, but they are not examples of good storytelling. -M Well, I mentioned before that I've read them, and I disagree with you. I think I'll stick with my own initial opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Sept 13, 2017 0:24:21 GMT -5
I read the next issue of Captain America (#104) and the next Sub-Mariner (#5) and they are both AWESOME SILVER AGE CLASSICS! The Red Skull and the Exiles! And Cap has a piece of nuclear tape on his neck that if it's removed, Washington D.C. will explode! And he fights the Exiles all at once! Gruning! (He has a whip!) Krushki! (A bare-chested, hairy Russian wrestler dude!) Iron Hand Hauptmann, the Butcher of Bavaria! General Ching! (I couldn't figure out what his gimmick is. Maybe he's very inscrutable?) Baldini and his perilous handkerchief! And Cadavus, the Monarch of the Murder Chair! Cap wins with the help of SHIELD and Agent 13, but the Red Skull and the Exiles escape. John Buscema and Frank Giacoia really pull out all the stops! The first appearance of Tiger Shark, Dr. Dorcas and Diane Arliss! And Dorma and Namor are reunited ... for about one panel! I've been wanting to read this since I was about 12 ... and it did not disappoint!
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Sept 13, 2017 8:25:14 GMT -5
I just read Amazing Adventures (1970 series) #5-9. Part 1 of #5-8 is an Inhumans story with part 2 being Black Widow, then #9 is just the Inhumans. As far as the Inhumans stories, #5-6 are Roy Thomas and Neal Adams, and those are great, especially the art. #7-8 are Gerry Conway and Neal Adams, and those are still good, but not quite as good. Then #9 is Gerry Conway and Mike Sekowskie, and that one is prettty bad., Weird artwork and Magneto acting out of character. No wonder they switched this series to starring the Beast with the very next issue. The Black Widow stories are OK, but not all that great. No wonder she got pushed aside in #9 for an all-Inhumans issue. There's one more Inhumans issue, also by Conway & Sekowsky, then the Beast gets his fur in issue #11. The Inhumans story from AA #10 continues in Avengers #95. Yup, I read AA #10 last night. Not really an improvement over #9, IMHO. I'll have to dig out Avengers #95.
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Sept 13, 2017 8:26:26 GMT -5
Then #9 is Gerry Conway and Mike Sekowskie, and that one is prettty bad., Weird artwork and Magneto acting out of character. No wonder they switched this series to starring the Beast with the very next issue. As Rob mentioned, #10 is also INhumans. But if you thought #9 was bad, boy howdy. #10 is one of the worst Marvel comics of the Bronze Age. It's so bad! And as far as Magneto acting out of character, well, you ain't seen nothing yet. Truly terrible. Yup, I found that out last night. Ewww
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 9:35:11 GMT -5
Basic accepted standard of good story telling (regardless of medium) :character meets obstacle creating conflict, in overcoming the obstacle through conflict the character undergoes a fundamental change and growth as a consequence of the conflict revealing the thematic nature of the story and something unique about the character. There's no consequence for the character for any of the conflicts in these tales post-Ditko (beyond "oh the world/universe/dimension will be destroyed if I fail" which is not about Strange and a role that can be filled by any super-powered character), no growth or change of character (something that was central to the Ditko run) and no thematic underpinning to the stories (also something at the core of the Ditko stories). They're not about anything, they're just plot events and the characters are puppets being moved through the events of the plot without ever really being affected by it except in the most superficial way possible. And when the plot is resolved, the character is fundamentally the same as when it started, as if the story itself never happened because the plot was inconsequential to the character and the same result would have happened for any character using his powers under duress to overcome the obstacle. Plot is not story. These may be tightly plotted (in some cases, but in others really there's barely even a plot connecting the sequence of events) with great art, but they lack fundamental elements of good storytelling. I actually like some of them quite a bit, but they are not examples of good storytelling. -M Well, I mentioned before that I've read them, and I disagree with you. I think I'll stick with my own initial opinion. I've read them too, multiple times. Let me ask you this-what is your objective standard of a good story? (and by objective I mean whether you like it or not is not a factor in determining the quality of the story, it's something anyone can use and apply when looking at the story not just you). If your only standard to whether a story is good or not is whether you like it or enjoyed it, it is a standard that is irrelevant to every creature in the universe that is not you and valid only for you, and Spike's I don't like it is shite is just as valid because it is based on the standard of what he likes and doesn't like. I do not practice the hubris of equating my tastes with standards of quality. Whether or not I like a story is irrelevant as to whether it is a good story or not I like a lot of good stories. I like a lot of stories that are objectively bad, doesn't change that I like them, but the fact I like them doesn't magically make them good stories. If your only standard is I like it therefore it's good, there really is nothing to discuss and I cannot disagree with you without commenting on your tastes rather than the work itself because that is the only standard you are using, and that makes it personal which is something I would rather avoid. I prefer to discuss the work itself and that is prety much the standard which we are supposed to adhere to when talking comics here. -M
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Sept 13, 2017 12:18:13 GMT -5
Well, I mentioned before that I've read them, and I disagree with you. I think I'll stick with my own initial opinion. I've read them too, multiple times. Let me ask you this-what is your objective standard of a good story? (and by objective I mean whether you like it or not is not a factor in determining the quality of the story, it's something anyone can use and apply when looking at the story not just you). If your only standard to whether a story is good or not is whether you like it or enjoyed it, it is a standard that is irrelevant to every creature in the universe that is not you and valid only for you, and Spike's I don't like it is shite is just as valid because it is based on the standard of what he likes and doesn't like. I do not practice the hubris of equating my tastes with standards of quality. Whether or not I like a story is irrelevant as to whether it is a good story or not I like a lot of good stories. I like a lot of stories that are objectively bad, doesn't change that I like them, but the fact I like them doesn't magically make them good stories. If your only standard is I like it therefore it's good, there really is nothing to discuss and I cannot disagree with you without commenting on your tastes rather than the work itself because that is the only standard you are using, and that makes it personal which is something I would rather avoid. I prefer to discuss the work itself and that is prety much the standard which we are supposed to adhere to when talking comics here. -M I personally think it's OK just to agree to disagree. And I have no inclination to spend any time at all justifying my tastes or examining my standards. Your own general statements about how post-Ditko Strange Tales fails to meet some universal standard for good storytelling are not as objective as you seem to think. But I really have no desire to get into it any deeper. So you can declare victory on this one. No hard feelings.
|
|