|
Post by badwolf on May 13, 2021 16:13:02 GMT -5
I picked up this collection last week and am working through it. A collection of Trots and Bonnie is long overdue and a lot of it is "the type of thing that you couldn't get away with today."
It was always a favorite of mine. In the 70s, it was pretty rare for underground cartoonists to appear at NYC cons, but in '75, the Air Pirates were there to raise money for their suit against Disney. Shary Flenniken insisted on looking through the book of my artwork that I had with me, which had a lot of Dailinan drawings and sketches in it. So this was the sketch I got from her: She remembered me a year later when I got this: (Yes, I spent the day of our nation's bicentennial at a comic show.) My copy just arrived today! I've been dying to read these strips as I had a vague memory of reading some as a kid. Not sure where or how though. For years I remembered the name as "Bonnie & Trots" (which I still think sounds better).
Those sketches are great, even though I don't get the jokes!
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 13, 2021 16:18:21 GMT -5
And let's get one thing straight here: NOBODY ever wrote more UNBEARABLY AWFUL dialogue in comics than ROY THOMAS. Outside of when he's doing adaptations of "classic" stories by people like Robert E. Howard and others, his stuff is PAINFUL to read. Roy could be bad, but Steve Englehart was worse.
On a related note, I'm plowing through the Defenders Omnibus. Mostly I'm enjoying it, but I'm at the Avengers/Defenders clash right now and it still sucks. (I read it a few years back in the Premiere hardcover.) Everyone in the story is an idiot!
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on May 13, 2021 16:23:57 GMT -5
Roy could be bad, but Steve Englehart was worse.
On a related note, I'm plowing through the Defenders Omnibus. Mostly I'm enjoying it, but I'm at the Avengers/Defenders clash right now and it still sucks. (I read it a few years back in the Premiere hardcover.) Everyone in the story is an idiot!
"Marvel Team-Up" ON STEROIDS.
...where every hero in the Marvel Universe is an IDIOT (especially Spider-Man).
A few years back, when I was finally able to read the entire early run of AVENGERS in the ESSENTIAL books, Thomas was TERRIBLE when he started, with both his stories and dialogue being awful. When John Buscema replaced Don Heck (something that was supposed to be temporary), it got more bizarre, as it looked and fgelt as if every character had been replaced by someone with a different personality. when George Klein arrived on inks, oddly enough, Thomas' worst aspects seemed to get toned down under control for awhile. His awkward stories got worse later, but by the end of his run, both his storioes and his dialogue had become totally insufferable. I remember what a pleasant shock it was when Englehart took over. Even at the start, at a point where it felt like he hadn't figured out what he was doing yet, his dialogue was a MASSIVE improvement.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 13, 2021 16:33:51 GMT -5
Roy could be bad, but Steve Englehart was worse.
On a related note, I'm plowing through the Defenders Omnibus. Mostly I'm enjoying it, but I'm at the Avengers/Defenders clash right now and it still sucks. (I read it a few years back in the Premiere hardcover.) Everyone in the story is an idiot!
"Marvel Team-Up" ON STEROIDS.
...where every hero in the Marvel Universe is an IDIOT (especially Spider-Man).
A few years back, when I was finally able to read the entire early run of AVENGERS in the ESSENTIAL books, Thomas was TERRIBLE when he started, with both his stories and dialogue being awful. When John Buscema replaced Don Heck (something that was supposed to be temporary), it got more bizarre, as it looked and felt as if every character had been replaced by someone with a different personality. when George Klein arrived on inks, oddly enough, Thomas' worst aspects seemed to get toned down under control for awhile. His awkward stories got worse later, but by the end of his run, both his stories and his dialogue had become totally insufferable. I remember what a pleasant shock it was when Englehart took over. Even at the start, at a point where it felt like he hadn't figured out what he was doing yet, his dialogue was a MASSIVE improvement.
The worst Roy Thomas I ever read was that Hulk issue that was plotted by Harlan Ellison, where he (Roy) tried to awkwardly force in as many references to Ellison stories as he could.
I've read a little of the Thomas/Buscema Avengers and remember them as being good. And I just re-read a Sub-Mariner story they did that was rather moving. I used to see him as a poor man's Stan Lee but I just read in one of the text pieces that that kind of writing was a sort of "house style" for Marvel at the time, so I guess I can't blame him too much. I really do find Englehart worse on this series (Defenders) though. I know it's among his earliest work, but he sure didn't improve by the time he got West Coast Avengers!
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Jackson on May 13, 2021 17:13:33 GMT -5
Funny, I find Englehart one of the better Marvel writers of the 70s. Not perfect by any means (see his terrible retcon of the Falcon's origin at the end of his Cap run) but I prefer him to Thomas and also Gerber actually. Wolfman is usually very good on Tomb, free from a lot of the usual superhero tropes. Haven't read much else besides his Spidey many years ago and wasn't crazy about it. Wein hasn't impressed me with a lot of his work but I also haven't read as much of him as the others. Moench is a big blind spot for me though
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on May 13, 2021 20:55:53 GMT -5
There was a stretch in the early 70s where Englehart could seem to do no wrong (screwing with The Falcon's origin notwithstanding). I'm not sure he was really that "good"... he just managed to be better than anyone else at the time. And he struck me as the only writer at Marvel in that period who managed decent work, no matter WHO the artist was or HOW BAD the art might be. (Jim Starlin said he could not read Englehart's AVENGERS, because the art was so terrible.) But when Gerry Conway ran him off, something must have snapped, as he decided to quit Marvel and comics in general... after a one-year stop at DC. He did STELLAR work at DC for a year, but when he returned to comics several years later, he wasn't the same guy. Working for 3 different publishers simultaneously (Marvel, DC and Eclipse), the quality of his work became ERRATIC in the extreme. Still capable of brilliance... but in between a lot of unreadable dreck.
Len Wein was mostly capable of brilliance in very short spurts. he'd get on something, do his thing, then quit real fast. But when he got on Spider-Man for 3 years, it always seemed to me he wenmt in with ONE story to tell, which he took 3 years to tell, and everything along the way was just 3rd-rate filler. I found he did his best work as an editor when he went to DC.
My single favorite Wein story was the issue of POWER MAN featuring "Steeplejack"... the one where Luke comes up with his "professional" name. It's just so FUNNY.
"Super...? nope, been used before. The Ace of Spades? Nah-- too ethnic. The Avenging...?"
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 13, 2021 21:47:36 GMT -5
I prpbably would pick Gerber as my favourite comics writer of the 70s but Englehart would be very close. I think he deliberately used a different style on his superhero books and the melodramatic tone of the dialogue was a tribute to 60s superhero comics, while the content, as opposed to the manner, was very much of the 70s, in a good way. Doctor Strange had a totally different feel to the dialogue and captions. I think there was underlying intelligence and willingness to explore new directions in almost all his 70s work. I haven't read anything of his 80s return to Marvel and what I've heard about it doesn't tempt me - but then neither does much else produced by Marvel in the 80s or later.
If it wasn't for Tomb of Dracula, I would put Wein and Wolfman at abouut the same level - competent, enjoyable, but not of the first rank. More like Claremont - solid superhero writers, but not much more than that. But Wolfman produced at least one masterpiece in ToD that can stand with the best of its era. It might be argued that Wein created Swamp Thing but while I have no serious problems with of Wein's writing on that book it was really the Wrightson artwork that made it special for me.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on May 14, 2021 5:54:52 GMT -5
I always remember the day I was at my comics shop in Pennsauken, I'm pretty sure Dave Cockrum was a guest there, and a group of young fans were discussing which writer was "WORSE" -- Len or Marv. Marv "won".
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 14, 2021 7:05:24 GMT -5
Even though I’m done with The Fantastic Four for now, I’m still reading Spider-Man. I read the three-part Doctor Octopus arc where Captain Stacy is killed (#88 to #90) and then the next few issues, where everybody thinks Spidey is a murderer, including Gwen! He tangles with Sam Bullitt, a corrupt ex-cop running for DA, Iceman and the Prowler.
I’m up to #93.
I really love this run! I guess it’s from about #80 to #105. In the late 1970s, I read Marvel Tales when these issues were reprinted. I’ve been carrying these issues around and reading them from time to time ever since.
Poor Peter! Something awful happens almost every issue! Captain Stacy dies. Gwen hates Spidey! Electro burns his costume! Aunt May has an attack when she finds a web dummy in Peter’s bed! The Prowler tries to get him! Harry has a drug addiction! The Green Goblin returns! He tells everybody that he’s Spider-Man at one point! He grows four extra arms!
It’s just one headache after another!
On the bright side ... Gil Kane!
|
|
|
Post by MDG on May 14, 2021 9:35:07 GMT -5
I finished up Kirby's run on The Eternals. Ultimately, this feels like a real missed opportunity. If there had been the option to do this as a limited series with a definite end in mind, it could have given him a chance to explore many ideas he introduced and been more satisfying dramatically. It feels like he was shaken (or compelled) by sales to focus on action--esp the two "fake hulk" issues--and lost his way. Also probably didn;t help that the covers had a different assortment of unfamiliar characters just about each issue.
Did Archie Goodwin ever talk in-depth about his role on the book?
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 14, 2021 11:05:13 GMT -5
Incredible Hulk annual #7, 9 and 10
I have very few issues of Hulk. I once loaned my collection to the kid brother of a friend, who managed to lose them all. Never saw them again. The issues I have were found later, like these three.
Annual #7 is in fact a fairly recent acquisition; I had seen it back in 1978, when the friend who introduced me to John Byrne showed me his copy. Already back then I was amazed by Byrne's distinctive way of rendering technology, and his Adams-esque approach to superhero comics. I still love the art in that book; Young John Byrne holds as much appeal to me as Young Barry Smith, both full of enthusiasm and trying stuff just for fun. The plot doesn't make much sense, when one stops to think about it, (and no sense at all if one stops to think about it long enough) but it's a fun issue, full of the kind of superheroic shenanigans I wanted in my comics in the '70s. I liked how the evil sentinel in the issue *thinks* it contains the mind of an old villain, and is dismayed to learn that no, he's just a copy of said bad guy's memory and motivations. Holy existential crisis, Batman!!!
It's also funny to be reintroduced to dated concepts such as Iceman having a secret identity to protect. Ah, the innocence of those early days... The Marvel universe was barely more than a dozen years old.
Annual #9 I bought upon publication and one I doubt I reread very often. A few eeeevil businessmen are bored with their life of leisure, spent playing chess, cards and board games. They were all bad asses, way back then, and have grown soft... They want the real thing! The most dangerous game! They want to hunt... the Hulk!
They will do so in the most inept fashion imaginable (tough believable, after a fashion; after all, why should all villains be competent?) They draw Hulk to certain places in New York that happen to have some nebulous connection to the game of chess (for no reason whatsoever, except for the "game" theme of the issue), and then try to kill him by... shooting guns or throwing bombs. A detective who's our point of view character understands the chess clues, finds who the bad guys are and manages to convince Hulk not to crush their leader. The script by Doug Moench feels as if it was at least co-plotted by artist Steve Ditko, due to its simplistic manicheism (every eeeeevil businessman here is also an ex-nazi collaborator, something that has no impact on the plot, but nazis are evil). The art by Ditko will not take you back to Hulk #6, that's for sure.
Annual #10 has noticeably good art by a young Rick Leonardi. Hulk wanders on the site of a nuclear missile silo, where the military decides it's a good idea to shoot at him using General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcons with 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary machine cannons and Raytheon AIM-9 sidewinder missiles (I swear, the info dump is strong with this one. My guess is that Bill Mantlo, the issue's writer, was a F-16 fan).
As the explosions shake the ground, a deranged soldier in the silo believes that the Russians are attacking, and decides to trigger Armaggedon. Since his CO doesn't agree, our man shoots him. "A-ha", shall we think, having seen countless movies where people want to launch nukes, "but don't we need two keys to be turned simultaneously by two different people for that to work"? (I have no ides if that's true, but it's certainly something we've seen in films often enough, and that is used here). No problem! Our man has secretly rewired the missile's control panels, so that he can launch on his own!
Holy moley... that's pretty darn funny... to circumvent a possible plot hole, we rely on a MASSIVELY bigger one. Also, the science is often all over the place in this issue. At one point Hulk jumps after the missile (which got launched, of course) and is seen gaining on it. Now not only is it hard to accept that Hulk can put himself in orbit just by jumping; we're also asked to believe that he can accelerate while going straight up?
Captain Universe is in the issue too (he's actually Banner, in a nice schizoid way), and the story is pretty much how he tries to get through the Hulk to stop the missile. A missile he could simply destroy with a power blast. Later on, after the missile launched and is on the way to blow up Moscow, Captain Universe causes it to detonate in the stratosphere... and then manually removes protons from the released radionuclides to turn them to harmless lead. It looks as if Captain Universe has the power of Element Lad, too.
As Rhodey said in Iron Man 2; "next time, lead with that". Turning the missile to a mass of lighter elements (like, say, helium!) right at the start of the story would have solved a lot of problems.
Not an unpleasant story overall, especially thanks to the art, but one with too many "aw, come ON!" moments for my taste!
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 14, 2021 11:54:59 GMT -5
Funny, I find Englehart one of the better Marvel writers of the 70s. Not perfect by any means (see his terrible retcon of the Falcon's origin at the end of his Cap run) but I prefer him to Thomas and also Gerber actually. Wolfman is usually very good on Tomb, free from a lot of the usual superhero tropes. Haven't read much else besides his Spidey many years ago and wasn't crazy about it. Wein hasn't impressed me with a lot of his work but I also haven't read as much of him as the others. Moench is a big blind spot for me though I would say Moench is my favorite, and still is up there to this day.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 14, 2021 12:06:47 GMT -5
Incredible Hulk annual #7, 9 and 10 Ohhh this is some great stuff!
#7 is one of my all-time favorite "desert island" comics. It was one of the first I remember getting and I think I remember where and when I got it. Great story that was my first introduction to anything X-related. It really gave me a glimpse into how rich and complex the Marvel Universe was. (I did not know who the Blob was, so I could only speculate... I can remember being disappointed when it turned out to just be some fat guy.) And the Hulk has never looked better, including other Byrne renditions. The only thing I never understood was how the "vagrant" became the Sentinel.
#9 Despite my loathing of Ditko's art I've always loved this one too. I really like the chess motif that plays out through the story.
#10 I haven't re-read as much as the others, but I enjoyed it. You are probably right about the plot holes but I don't remember being bothered by them as a kid.
|
|
|
Post by The Cheat on May 14, 2021 13:21:36 GMT -5
I finished up Kirby's run on The Eternals. Ultimately, this feels like a real missed opportunity. If there had been the option to do this as a limited series with a definite end in mind, it could have given him a chance to explore many ideas he introduced and been more satisfying dramatically. It feels like he was shaken (or compelled) by sales to focus on action--esp the two "fake hulk" issues--and lost his way. Also probably didn;t help that the covers had a different assortment of unfamiliar characters just about each issue. I agree. I also got the sense he was constrained by trying not to repeat himself with what he'd just done in New Gods. I feel it might have been better if he'd kept the New Gods stuff private as a "first draft" and then combined the best ideas/concepts with those in Eternals for a final, more refined grand epic.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 14, 2021 23:02:12 GMT -5
I finished up Kirby's run on The Eternals. Ultimately, this feels like a real missed opportunity. If there had been the option to do this as a limited series with a definite end in mind, it could have given him a chance to explore many ideas he introduced and been more satisfying dramatically. It feels like he was shaken (or compelled) by sales to focus on action--esp the two "fake hulk" issues--and lost his way. Also probably didn;t help that the covers had a different assortment of unfamiliar characters just about each issue. I agree. I also got the sense he was constrained by trying not to repeat himself with what he'd just done in New Gods. I feel it might have been better if he'd kept the New Gods stuff private as a "first draft" and then combined the best ideas/concepts with those in Eternals for a final, more refined grand epic.
Everyone's entitled to their own view but I think the idea that the Eternals was just a rehash of the same ideas Kirby had already played around with in the New Gods is a mistaken one and has done a lot of harm in that it's prevented readers and creators alike from appreciating what the Marvel series was all about: too many people see it as an inferior imitation of Kirby's own previous work, whereas it's actually an entirely different animal in every way.
Just to take one example - one that should be obvious but apparently isn't - the New Gods is very much about Good vs Evil, freedom vs tyranny; while the Eternals is very much not - hence the absence, so puzzling to so many, of any compelling villain to match the New Gods' Darkseid, and the repeated failed efforts of later Eternals writers to fill that void, as they see it.
But the differences don't end there, that's just the beginning. In its own, very different way, the Eternals is as great a masterpiece as the New Gods, incomplete though they are. As MDG sad, I think the relative falling off of the last 6 issues or so had to do with the pressure Kirby felt to make the series more conventional - more action-oriented, more Ikaris-centred, more MU-connected. The grand experiment was compromised - though there is still much of interest in those last few issues, in spite of their flaws.
|
|