|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 15:33:18 GMT -5
I agree. Fleisher was probably told Aquaman would be taking over the book so he changed direction to write a conclusion to his run. Umm wouldn't the contents of The Wrath Of The Spectre #4 challenge this theory? Not really. I think these stories were supposed to be published as #439-441. Remember the Ernie Chan art for two issues? I think it was to allow Aparo time to draw the 2 part conclusion instead. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,456
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 29, 2014 15:36:24 GMT -5
I would skip these stories. Yes. They're worth reading if only to convince you that the series didn't end before it's time. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 15:49:35 GMT -5
I would skip these stories. Yes. They're worth reading if only to convince you that the series didn't end before it's time. I will always wonder if the series went down in quality because of editorial changes at the last minute that caused Fleisher to redo some of his stories such as Earl being suddenly dropped from the series.
OR did Carley have a much bigger impact on the tone of the stories than we thought? I notice when Carley stopped assisting Fleisher the stories suffered.
I'm curious to other's thoughts on the change in direction at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 17:30:44 GMT -5
Thanks for the comments. I had fun doing this quick recap of one of my favorite runs. I bought this back in the 70's because of the beautiful Aparo covers...
Every year I re-read this series in mid Oct!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,456
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 29, 2014 18:49:17 GMT -5
I'm curious to other's thoughts on the change in direction at the end. I may have my timetable wrong (I'm too lazy to check right now), but It had always been my understanding that the Ellison "bugf*ck" comment had been made in the middle of the run, and that Fleischer had claimed the comment had caused him psychological damage and affected his ability to write the series. Or did I make all of that up? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 18:53:04 GMT -5
I'm curious to other's thoughts on the change in direction at the end. I may have my timetable wrong (I'm too lazy to check right now), but It had always been my understanding that the Ellison "bugf*ck" comment had been made in the middle of the run, and that Fleischer had claimed the comment had caused him psychological damage and affected his ability to write the series. Or did I make all of that up? According to Wikipedia the Ellison comments were in 1979 - 4 years after the run ended... |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 29, 2014 18:53:22 GMT -5
I'm curious to other's thoughts on the change in direction at the end. I may have my timetable wrong (I'm too lazy to check right now), but It had always been my understanding that the Ellison "bugf*ck" comment had been made in the middle of the run, and that Fleischer had claimed the comment had caused him psychological damage and affected his ability to write the series. Or did I make all of that up? The Comics Journal didn't exist at the time of Fleisher's Spectre run |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,456
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 29, 2014 18:56:55 GMT -5
I guess I made that up, then  |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 29, 2014 21:55:10 GMT -5
The lawsuit between Fleischer and Ellison really bothers me - Ellison was clearly a fan of Fleischer's work and spoke only with the greatest of enthusiasm for what he acheieved. I still don't see how Fleischer could have taken such offense (or such offense to the level that he decided to) when the spirit of what Ellison is saying rings through loud and clear. It may have had something to do with criticism Fleischer was hearing from other quarters. I've heard that this series was controversial but outside of Ellison's comments, I haven't heard of anyone really commenting on what Fleischer was doing as the stories were being published... ...until I came across this: Jim Shooter has/had his own blog in which he generally relates memories of working for Marvel. In 2011, he recounted watching a panel at the 1980 San Diego Comic Convention headed by Mark Evanier, Marv Wolfman, Scott Shaw, Len Wein, B Kliban, and a woman whose name he couldn't recall. Evanier started by singling out and denouncing the works of Michael Fleisher, which he apparently found particularly immoral. Then he turned it over to the panelists.
Marv agreed that Fleischer’s stories were vile. Horror without the redeeming noble or positive qualities present in his Dracula stories.
...
The young woman wasn’t familiar with Fleisher’s work, as I recall, but spoke about the obligation comics creators had to provide good moral content and positive values in their work.
Everyone agreed with those sentiments and echoed them. Everyone condemned Fleischer as the worst example of what not to do.
Except Kliban, who sat there silently.
The audience seemed to be buying this crap. Some listeners raised their hands and made supportive comments, or told anecdotes about the horribleness that came from immoral comics, or joined in condemning Fleisher.
Finally, Evanier asked Kliban to comment.
“I think you’re all a bunch of Nazi book burners,” he said.
www.jimshooter.com/2011/08/some-marvel-tales-and-other-horror_24.html
So... does this really capture the spirit of the era? Was Fleischer's run so reviled even within the industry at the time (for a period extending at least until 1980)? If nothing else, it might help explain why Fleischer was less understanding of Ellison's comments than he should have been. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,456
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 30, 2014 12:23:25 GMT -5
The lawsuit between Fleischer and Ellison really bothers me - Ellison was clearly a fan of Fleischer's work and spoke only with the greatest of enthusiasm for what he acheieved. I still don't see how Fleischer could have taken such offense (or such offense to the level that he decided to) when the spirit of what Ellison is saying rings through loud and clear. It may have had something to do with criticism Fleischer was hearing from other quarters. I've heard that this series was controversial but outside of Ellison's comments, I haven't heard of anyone really commenting on what Fleischer was doing as the stories were being published... ...until I came across this: Jim Shooter has/had his own blog in which he generally relates memories of working for Marvel. In 2011, he recounted watching a panel at the 1980 San Diego Comic Convention headed by Mark Evanier, Marv Wolfman, Scott Shaw, Len Wein, B Kliban, and a woman whose name he couldn't recall. Evanier started by singling out and denouncing the works of Michael Fleisher, which he apparently found particularly immoral. Then he turned it over to the panelists.
Marv agreed that Fleischer’s stories were vile. Horror without the redeeming noble or positive qualities present in his Dracula stories.
...
The young woman wasn’t familiar with Fleisher’s work, as I recall, but spoke about the obligation comics creators had to provide good moral content and positive values in their work.
Everyone agreed with those sentiments and echoed them. Everyone condemned Fleischer as the worst example of what not to do.
Except Kliban, who sat there silently.
The audience seemed to be buying this crap. Some listeners raised their hands and made supportive comments, or told anecdotes about the horribleness that came from immoral comics, or joined in condemning Fleisher.
Finally, Evanier asked Kliban to comment.
“I think you’re all a bunch of Nazi book burners,” he said.
www.jimshooter.com/2011/08/some-marvel-tales-and-other-horror_24.html
So... does this really capture the spirit of the era? Was Fleischer's run so reviled even within the industry at the time (for a period extending at least until 1980)? If nothing else, it might help explain why Fleischer was less understanding of Ellison's comments than he should have been. Thanks much for relating this anecdote. I'd never heard it until now. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 30, 2014 12:24:21 GMT -5
I don't get the hostile reaction to these stories... Okay, perhaps the title was "adventure comics" and not "ghostly tales", but DC published plenty of mystery books at the same time that were filled with gruesome deaths and spectral revenge. The only difference I saw is that as far as ghosts go, the Spectre was a serial avenger.
I quite enjoyed that run.
|
|
Golddragon71
Full Member
Immortal avatar of the Dragon Race The Golden Dragon
Posts: 343
|
Post by Golddragon71 on Sept 30, 2014 12:48:58 GMT -5
This run was before my time as a comic fan. (I was only Two and a half years old when it ran in '74) I wouldn't really get to know Spectre as a character until after Zero Hour when I was introduced to him through his 0 issue.
That said, I've heard about this series and am interested in looking through it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 30, 2014 13:06:59 GMT -5
I don't get the hostile reaction to these stories... Okay, perhaps the title was "adventure comics" and not "ghostly tales", but DC published plenty of mystery books at the same time that were filled with gruesome deaths and spectral revenge. The only difference I saw is that as far as ghosts go, the Spectre was a serial avenger. I quite enjoyed that run. I think its because this was before the anti-heroes became popular. Wolverine was not going snikt yet, the Punisher was still an adversary against Spider-Man and others. The Spectre was considered a super-hero by the folks who read his Silver Age stories and his actions here took them off guard |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 13:20:15 GMT -5
I don't get the hostile reaction to these stories... Okay, perhaps the title was "adventure comics" and not "ghostly tales", but DC published plenty of mystery books at the same time that were filled with gruesome deaths and spectral revenge. The only difference I saw is that as far as ghosts go, the Spectre was a serial avenger. I quite enjoyed that run. After the first few years of the Golden Age heroes did NOT kill. The Spectre was considered a hero. So at that time it was a shock. Not only did the hero kill but he also killed in gruesome & sadistic ways. It was so different from other "clean cut" heroes at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Sept 30, 2014 14:18:16 GMT -5
I'd say another part of it was professional jealousy. There was a sense that Fleisher was "getting away with it" as far as the Comics Code. Fleisher was able to find a way around Code standards and reclaim some of the magic that EC Comics had, not just in Adventure Comics but also Jonah Hex. Joe Orlando, obviously, was a major part of this-- most of his books were attemtping to push comics in a more adult direction, something that would pay off in the more commercial end of comics over the next decade.
On the other hand, other aspects may have been Fleisher's inconsistant output and attitude towards the medium. Fleisher had quite a few great runs, but a lot of crap, too, particularly his stuff for Marvel in the late '70s and early '80s. He also made no bones about comics being something to pay the bills while he worked in other fields that he respected more. He's a PhD in Anthropology now, and refuses to talk about his days in comics, even though he is quite an important figure in their evolution, in my opinion.
I find it odd that Wolfman would make this comment as Night Force is essentially ToD without the heroic overtones or morality. Perhaps he reconsidered after this convention.
|
|
