|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 3, 2019 17:46:12 GMT -5
Marvel Fanfare #24-26   Creative Team Doug Moench-writer; Mike Ploog (24), Pat Broderick (25 & 26)-pencils; P Craig Russell (24), Brett Breeding (25), Ian Akin & Brian Garvey (26)-inks; Jim Novak (24), Rick Parker (25 & 26)-letters; Petra Scotese (24 & 26), Bob Sharen (25)-colors; Al Milgrom-edits all These three issues feature Weirdworld, Doug Moench's fantasy series, with Mike Ploog, that was disrupted by Ploog quitting Marvel, in a contract dispute, while producing a new story (later finished as Warriors of the Shadow realm, for Marvel Super Special). Ploog came back to do the first installment of this, with Broderick doing the rest. Synopsis: After a one page recap of the previous story, elves Tyndall and Velanna are wandering, wondering why everyone seems to hate them. they come across a new village and go to explore, when they encounter a reprobate, named Mud-Butt, who has been tossed out of an inn. They come to his aid and keep him from getting skewered and the misfits all join up. Turns out, Mud-Butt swiped something from local wizard, Lord Raven, and he has his Brides of Darkness (sounds like a euphemism for a prostitute) awaken some were-men and send them after Mud-Butt. Well, as these things transpire, they attack the inn, Mud-Butt goes on the run, and the elves follow, to help there new fried, leading to a fight in the marshes.  They survive; but, find out the have stumbled right into Lord Raven's land. The next issue finds them attacked by gargoyles and forced to take refuge inside Lord Raven's castle. Well, that leads to being attacked by Goblins and falling through doors into weird dimensions and what not. It turns out Mud-Butt stole half of something called Glorywand and now, a goblin is leading barbarians to get the other half, so Lord Raven has two sets of enemies. We then get the Brides of Darkness joining in and ending up with the elves, as they were stolen women from the village. Everyone comes together, there's all kinds of magic and fights and stuff and then Lord Raven faces down the little folks, about the stolen item. Mud-utt shows it, Lord Raven turns from scary to scared and Mud-Butt touches the bottom of what is a sword hilt and int turns into Thundarr's Sunsword and fries Lord raven. the gang escapes and everyone is happy. Thoughts: Plenty of elven fantasy fun here, with nothing terribly original, though quite entertaining. Moench keeps it light and the art is suitably cartoony. It looks rather like Elfquest, though Weirdworld (1976) came out before Elfquest (1978), though around a similar timeframe as Ralph Bakshi's Wizards (released in 1977, though production began in 1976 and came from a failed tv pitch, from the 60s). It's all within that whole Tolkien-knockoff fad running across the 70s, with Shannara and all of the rest of the Tolkien-wannabes. This stuff is at least in fun, which was more than you could say with a lot of that stuff. Meanwhile, we have some back-up stories. ElegyChrist Claremont, David Ross & Bob Wiacek Synopsis: Ben grimm and Nick Fury join Wonder Man, Jarvis, Beast, and DA Blake Tower at Avengers Mansion, for a poker game. they are interrupted by the arrival of Logan and Carol Danvers, aka Binary. Right after cleaning everyone out, carol learns of the death of Mar-Vell and flies off to view his grave, on Tian.  However, she is unable to grieve and returns to tell Logan that, although she has her memories, she has no emotional connection to her past. She has decided to go off to space to join the Starjammers. Thoughts: Interesting, if over-wrought coda to both binary and the Death of Captain Marvel. Carol did join the Starjammers, for a one-shot; but, eventually returned to Earth and became Ms marvel/Warbird/Captain Marvel. 25 has a Dave Sim portfolio!!!! and a Captain Universe tale of a young kid, a target of bullies, who is infused with the power and fights back, though the finale has him fight without the Enigma Force, inspiring others in the school to fight back. The place looks like a cross between Blackboard Jungle and High School High, before they get dumped into Battle Royale. 26 hasa Cap back-up about him saving a Caribbean immigrant woman from a nutjob, from that island (a sort of Haiti stand-in), with the help of her boyfriend. It's a rather slight tale, from Will Jungkuntz. The Binary/Carol Danvers back up is really the only substantive story, though the others are fine, for what they are. They are disposable stories, to fill space, while the carol one gives a bit of closure to her past, to move on with her future (before that was jettisoned to return her to the status quo).
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Apr 3, 2019 18:07:23 GMT -5
Ditko's artwork from this period is so sad. Do those Shadows have any connection to Mr. E, from his Marvel Spotlight/Captain Universe issues?
He would also draw a completely different Dragon Lord in an upcoming FF annual...who also would never appear again.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Apr 3, 2019 18:28:56 GMT -5
I wonder whether the Binary story was slated as back up in Classic X-Men.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 3, 2019 19:00:34 GMT -5
I wonder whether the Binary story was slated as back up in Classic X-Men.Doubtful; Classic X-Men wouldn't launch until the following year. It still wouldn't make sense to do that, as the Brood storyline wouldn't appear in Classic X-Men until 1992; so, even then, you'd be sitting on it for quite a while. My bet would be that Milgrom needed a back-up and either asked Claremont to come up with something and he just hit on this, or had this idea; but no good place for it. Based on what we got with Fanfare, it doesn't feel like Milgrom was being overwhelmed with pitches for stories. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 4, 2019 10:50:35 GMT -5
ps Re: Wizards, Weirdworld, Elfquest, etc. Bakshi's Wizards bore a lot of similarity to Vaughn Bode's work and Wally Wood's Wizard King; so, I'm not declaring any sources here. Tolkien didn't invent elves or what he called hobbits, either, as he was borrowing from folklore and myth.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Apr 4, 2019 11:43:32 GMT -5
I liked 3D Man fine when they came out, although I can see your point. On the other hand, it's certainly not worse than a ton of the other comics Marvel puts out, and the era at least gives it some novelty value. I didn't know this had been planned to be printed in 3D; that definitely would have made it more memorable.
I loved Weirdworld when it was drawn by Ploog. It was hardly original, but it was lovely and a pleasing, gently fantasy. Unfortunately when he bailed (for good reason - stupid Marvel!) it got turned over to Buscema for the epic conclusion; I don't know whether the storyline changed to accommodate his more traditional adventure style, but it became a more blatant LotR ripoff and a lot less interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 4, 2019 12:34:05 GMT -5
This stuff has a nice light tone, though a sense of drama, which works well. I got turned off of serious epic Tolkien-wannabe pretty fast, in my fantasy days. Actually, I got turned off of Tolkien pretty fast, during the slog through the Two Towers. Just ponderous, at times. I kind of side with Moorcock on his assessment of Tolkien, in his essay, Epic Pooh. He champions Mervyn Peake and I still haven't approached Gormenghast. He also praised Leiber's fafhrd and Gray Mouser over Conan and I wholeheartedly endorse that assessment. nothing wrong, per se, with Conan; but, he's not the most complex of characters. Fafhrd and Gray Mouser have more real personalities and there is wit to it, not endless slaughter and dread. Howard is great with atmosphere and plot; but, characterization, in Conan, wasn't a strong point. I always felt Solomon Kane was more interesting.
I kind of abandoned fantasy literature, after a while, as it was either Tolkien wannabe, Burroughs wannabee, or King Arthur pastiche, with some notable exceptions. Glen Cook's Black Company stuff was one that was different, as it is military fiction, disguised as epic fantasy. I could relate to that. Moorcock, himself, I kind of burnt out on, after Elric and some of the Von Beck and erekose stuff. Never did get around to Hawkmoon or Corum. I like Moorcock's proto-steampunk stuff better (the Nomad of the Time Streams trilogy), as well as his Metatemporal Detective (with his Sexton Blake pastiche, Sir Seaton Begg).
My current fantasy reading is stuff like Gaiman, Pratchett and Kim Newman. ll have a sense of humor, all know how to craft a sentence and all have some interesting insight into the world, from a different angle. Plus, newman isn't afraid of his genre roots and just revels in his influences. Pratchett is both laugh-out-loud funny and deeply insightful. I really miss cracking open a new work from him.
|
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Apr 4, 2019 18:06:43 GMT -5
I kind of abandoned fantasy literature, after a while, as it was either Tolkien wannabe, Burroughs wannabee, or King Arthur pastiche, with some notable exceptions. (...) If you mean Le Guin, I totally agree - none of her fantasy was wannabe or pastiche; even before I burned out on Tolkien (well, Lord of the Rings anyway), back when I was still in my teens, I realized that her Earthsea cycle - still a trilogy back then - is the far superior work. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Apr 4, 2019 18:17:28 GMT -5
I kind of side with Moorcock on his assessment of Tolkien, in his essay, Epic Pooh. He champions Mervyn Peake and I still haven't approached Gormenghast. Do give Gormenghast a try; it's unique and unforgettable. But stop after the first two books - Titus Groan and Gormenghast. The rest were completed from Peake's notes after his death and are much less interesting. The first two books may be unique in the fantasy genre in that nothing supernatural happens. There's no magic or sorcery, but life in Gormenghast Castle is grotesquely fascinating. Titus may be the title character but Steerpike is the most memorable. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 4, 2019 22:53:18 GMT -5
I kind of abandoned fantasy literature, after a while, as it was either Tolkien wannabe, Burroughs wannabee, or King Arthur pastiche, with some notable exceptions. (...) If you mean Le Guin, I totally agree - none of her fantasy was wannabe or pastiche; even before I burned out on Tolkien (well, Lord of the Rings anyway), back when I was still in my teens, I realized that her Earthsea cycle - still a trilogy back then - is the far superior work. Le Guin is a favorite and I like that her magic has rules. I don't care for most tales of magic and the supernatural; because the magic or other forces rarely have rules or a logic to them, that sets up the climax. her stuff did and Glen Cook followed her example, with true names being the source of power. I could never get into Dr Strange because there was rarely a progression of learning the secret to defeat the evil and applying it. it usually seemed to be something out of the blue or his powers were useless, until they weren't. Same thing for things like Ultraman; gets his but kicked by the monster until his alarm starts beeping, then he remembers his power beams and destroys the monster. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 4, 2019 22:55:21 GMT -5
I kind of side with Moorcock on his assessment of Tolkien, in his essay, Epic Pooh. He champions Mervyn Peake and I still haven't approached Gormenghast. Do give Gormenghast a try; it's unique and unforgettable. But stop after the first two books - Titus Groan and Gormenghast. The rest were completed from Peake's notes after his death and are much less interesting. The first two books may be unique in the fantasy genre in that nothing supernatural happens. There's no magic or sorcery, but life in Gormenghast Castle is grotesquely fascinating. Titus may be the title character but Steerpike is the most memorable. It's on my list. I only recently finished all of Pratchett's work and am rereading Moorcock's Metatemporal Detective, after finishing a short story anthology. |
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Apr 5, 2019 3:38:10 GMT -5
Peake's Gormenghast books are something I'd like to get to eventually, but man, I've just got so much other stuff to read (piles and piles).
Speaking of Le Guin, by the way, I'd also recommend her trilogy of YA books from the early/mid '00s, called Annals of the Western Shore (Gifts, Voices, Powers). They're set in an imaginary world somewhat similar to Earthsea, but there's not really any magic, although certain people have abilities that could be considered supernatural (seeing the future, communicating with animals, or scarier stuff, like being able to maim or kill someone just by looking at them).
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201 
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 5, 2019 5:49:08 GMT -5
Tolkien didn't invent elves or what he called hobbits, either, as he was borrowing from folklore and myth. No, but he did create them in the form that we know them today. In particular, Tolkienesque Elves are the way that Elves have been depicted by virtually every high fantasy writer ever since. Elves in European folklore are nothing like Tolkien's elves. Folkloric elves were much more like mischievous (or sometimes helpful) spirits, much like how they appear in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. They are not the graceful, human-like creatures of Middle-earth. This is the thing with Tolkien; it's almost impossible to over-estimate his influence, when it comes to high fantasy. He basically invented the entire literary genre and everyone else -- and I really do mean EVERYONE -- who has written high fantasy and sword & sorcery since has borrowed from him to a greater or lesser degree. I kind of side with Moorcock on his assessment of Tolkien, in his essay, Epic Pooh. Moorcock's criticism of Tolkien recently came up over in the Tolkien thread. Surfice it to say, I think he's talking out of his arse, and furthermore has misunderstood key parts of LOTRs. |
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Apr 5, 2019 11:54:46 GMT -5
My current fantasy reading is stuff like Gaiman, Pratchett and Kim Newman. ll have a sense of humor, all know how to craft a sentence and all have some interesting insight into the world, from a different angle. Plus, newman isn't afraid of his genre roots and just revels in his influences. Pratchett is both laugh-out-loud funny and deeply insightful. I really miss cracking open a new work from him.
I wish I connected more with Pratchett's humor, but I simply don't. I am fond of Gaiman and love Kim Newman's work, however.
Despite the rancidly overwrought conclusion to the series, I was fond of "depressing Donaldson" when his books came out in the 70s; they seemed more complex and contemporary and not slavishly imitative of Tolkien.
Le Guin is a favorite and I like that her magic has rules. I don't care for most tales of magic and the supernatural; because the magic or other forces rarely have rules or a logic to them, that sets up the climax. her stuff did and Glen Cook followed her example, with true names being the source of power. I could never get into Dr Strange because there was rarely a progression of learning the secret to defeat the evil and applying it. it usually seemed to be something out of the blue or his powers were useless, until they weren't.
I gravitated more to LeGuin's science fiction than her fantasy.
I completely agree re: Dr Strange. I can understand why it must have seemed revelatory and innovative in the 60s, but I'm a bit younger than that, and the complete arbitrariness of his spells always made the character uninspiring to me. That's another reason I loved Constantine; I had a sense of how his spells worked.
I recommend the Lovecraft pastiche Winters Tide by Ruthanna Emrys. It has its flaws but it's crystal clear about how its magic works and doesn't work in a manner I found refreshing (summarizing: magic works through drawing sigils, but sigil design is actually a mathematical function, so you have to work out extremely difficult geometric equations in order to achieve the goal you have in mind).
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 5, 2019 20:12:00 GMT -5
Tolkien didn't invent elves or what he called hobbits, either, as he was borrowing from folklore and myth. No, but he did create them in the form that we know them today. In particular, Tolkienesque Elves are the way that Elves have been depicted by virtually every high fantasy writer ever since. Elves in European folklore are nothing like Tolkien's elves. Folkloric elves were much more like mischievous (or sometimes helpful) spirits, much like how they appear in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. They are not the graceful, human-like creatures of Middle-earth. This is the thing with Tolkien; it's almost impossible to over-estimate his influence, when it comes to high fantasy. He basically invented the entire literary genre and everyone else -- and I really do mean EVERYONE -- who has written high fantasy and sword & sorcery since has borrowed from him to a greater or lesser degree. I kind of side with Moorcock on his assessment of Tolkien, in his essay, Epic Pooh. Moorcock's criticism of Tolkien recently came up over in the Tolkien thread. Surfice it to say, I think he's talking out of his arse, and furthermore has misunderstood key parts of LOTRs. Yeah, I know about the differences between folkloric elves and Tolkien. My point was that he drew on folkloric sources to creaft what he did, while those that followed copied his stuff. By the 70s, it was a cottage industry. Most of that stuff I couldn't get into, after having read Tolkien. He was light years ahead of most. My issues with Tolkien, and where I agree with Moorcock is that many of the characters are rather thinly sketched, especially Aragorn. I though Viggo Mortensen brought so much more to the character, through his performance, than was on the page. Many I didn't fid very relatable. It is a problem of things being so metaphorical in the work. I also have problems with the structure of the story. I know it was intended as one great work; but, Fellowship needed a bit of pruning, if you ask me, though I enjoy the bulk of it. Two Towers is where I grind almost to a halt. I don't think the two separate narratives really works well and thing alternating chapters would give a better sense of time for the entirety. I also find the Sam & frodo stuff rather ponderous, until they meet up with Faramir. The Rohan stuff is fine, once it gets going. The ents sequences don't do much for me, personally, though I get the purpose of them. I have no issues, per se with Return of the King, particularly as that is what got me to read the whole thing. I saw the Rankin-Bass animated adaptation, when it was first broadcast and then picked up the book in my school library. I then bought a paperback box set and read the whole thing and the Hobbit. The Hobbit, I feel, is his best work, with a story that is great from start to finish. I've tried some of the other stuff with little of it grabbing me, though I never did read his variation on Gawain and the Green Knight. I haven't read Moorcock's essay in ten years or more; but, I do recall feeling he was a bit harsh in some areas and agreed in others. The depth of the characters was one area; his view of the Shire and the Hobbits I disagreed with. Moorcock grew up in the city, I grew up in the country, so I relate more to that world than he seemed to. Now, within Wizardry and Wild Romance, I think he is spot on, in his criticism of Conan, vs Fafhrd and Gray Mouser and some of the others who were doing heroic fantasy in the pulps. Conan is great for mood and atmosphere; but, I found that reading more than one story, in succession, wore thin. The reverse was true with Leiber, as the characters were engaging and he changed things up quite a bit. |
|
