shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 24, 2018 7:05:54 GMT -5
I'd long been aware of this issue -- how the team's complacency at the close later got re-examined and called out -- but seriously, what the heck is up with this story? Even the cosmic rape bit aside, it is so utterly random, bizarre, and clumsy throughout, and it apparently took four people (including the EIC) to plot it. Is there a story behind the creation of this issue?  Also, minor side-note, but I love that "This comic book could be worth $2,500 to you" banner Marvel was running across its titles a month earlier. I'm wondering if there is any Marvel book released that month (perhaps CGCed) that's actually worth roughly that amount today. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 24, 2018 7:21:24 GMT -5
Found the following Jim Shooter quote about the story from comicsbeat: "I found my copy of Avengers #200. I read it. I agree with the consensus, it’s heinous. But, I don’t remember much about how it got that way. I am credited not only as Editor in Chief but as one of the co-plotters. However, I didn’t see anything in the book that jogged my memory. No bits that I remember suggesting. No corrections of the sort I might have made to a plot passed before me. But I did see many things I would have had changed if I’d seen the plot. For instance, leaving aside the Ms. Marvel mess for the nonce: Iron Man thinks it’s okay for the weird, mysterious child to be given a “laser torch” and electronic equipment so he can build a machine. What?! As the massive machine is being assembled, no one bothers to question what it is or does. What?! Trouble ensues. No kidding, really? Good grief. Shooter offers a few hypotheses about the story’s origin — a feud between Michelinie and Chris Claremont being one possible motivation — and hints that Jim Salicrup might know more — definitely something to remember next time The Beat sees him! There is perhaps some comfort all these years later in knowing that Shooter offers a flat-out apology: But, in those days, in any case, the buck stopped at my desk. I take full responsibility. I screwed up. My judgment failed, or maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention. Sorry. Avengers #200 is a travesty." |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Dec 24, 2018 8:02:09 GMT -5
I like a lot of things about Shooter but I'm not the only one to think his memory is somewhat forgiving.
Frankly, the whole time traveling incest thing sounds of Shooter at the time trying to be original and cutting edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 24, 2018 9:09:09 GMT -5
I read that the conclusion to the Ms Marcel is pregnant story was duplicated in a what if ? Issue around the same time so they quickly wrote another ending which happened to be the unfortunate story that is 200.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Dec 24, 2018 9:49:17 GMT -5
Reading bits from various interviews to the authors, it almost seems this comics book appeared out from thin air and they have no idea why their name were on it, since they remember almost nothing about it...
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 24, 2018 9:59:53 GMT -5
Reading bits from various interviews to the authors, it almost seems this comics book appeared out from thin air and they have no idea why their name were on it, since they remember almost nothing about it... Kinda' sounds like they got Ms. Marvelled. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2018 10:51:58 GMT -5
Shax, zaku is right on the nose. I had a dear friend of mine that ran a LCS and he retired from that business and according to him -- they hastily put together that issue and many fans of the Avengers were very disappointed in it.
It had a poor resale value it went down to .10 cents after 3 months and eventually a nickel ... I just could not believe it and that what he told me.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Dec 24, 2018 11:07:38 GMT -5
"The creator of universes is misunderstood and persecuted for trying to be creative, and he really did like that woman that he conned into sleeping with him" is too meta a plot not to have meaning beyond the page.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 24, 2018 12:01:02 GMT -5
I doubt anyone will ever admit the truth, because they have to admit to writing a rather vile concept and the egos involved are too great. Shooter is quick to take credit and slow to accept blame, though he shares a big crowd with those traits (especially Marvel, of the era).
I like Shooter as a writer, Michilinie, too; however, if you read enough of his stuff there is a definite thread of issues with women. Sometimes more overt, sometimes easily interpreted. I think there was some definite shock value at play here and I think there was also a last minute session to hammer something out for the 200th issue, after having resolved storylines. I suspect they had been so focused on what they had been doing, they lost sight of the 200th issue coming up and panic set in and you ended up with a story by committee, that got slapped together, without thought. I think they also felt it didn't matter, since Perez could sell it in the art. I also think the guys involved didn't see the misogyny in it, anymore than they saw it in their other comics. In doing reviews of the comics of the mid 70s, it is clear that the writers weren't as liberated as they professed, as the female character roles, even the superheroes, still had them as the weaker components of the team and often in the damsel mode. Claremont was one of the exceptions; but, even he had women suffering until rescued by a man. It's a dramatic cliche and found throughout storytelling; but, it was especially present in comics and Marvel was no exception.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Dec 24, 2018 12:19:02 GMT -5
In doing reviews of the comics of the mid 70s, it is clear that the writers weren't as liberated as they professed, as the female character roles, even the superheroes, still had them as the weaker components of the team and often in the damsel mode. Claremont was one of the exceptions; but, even he had women suffering until rescued by a man. It's a dramatic cliche and found throughout storytelling; but, it was especially present in comics and Marvel was no exception. Claremont tried to have it both ways, making women both the most powerful members but also the damsels. For instance, Rachel may be Phoenix, but that doesn't stop her from being dressed in fishnets, made docile, leashed with chain and collar, and offered to a man. Hey kids, comics!  |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 24, 2018 12:25:39 GMT -5
Shooter desperately needed an editor. Since he was the boss...he didn't get one. Who's going to tell the boss...your story is shit. And thus we get pages of excrement in an anniversary package.
|
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Dec 24, 2018 13:28:21 GMT -5
It didn't read like Michelinie who I really like most all the time. I was surprised Claremont's name wasn't on there so I guess I'd put a lot of it down to Shooter despite what he said later, reminded me of the great Korvac saga in various ways (as in not so great). Lovely cover art though, worth 50 cents right there. I liked Perez & Austin better than Byrne & Austin (I liked Wiacek or Rubinstein best on Byrne from that time, Dan Green also suited Byrne well).
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 24, 2018 14:08:58 GMT -5
I like Shooter as a writer, Michilinie, too; however, if you read enough of his stuff there is a definite thread of issues with women. Agreed. Much as I think very highly of Shooter, my one interaction with him online ended with him going off on me for questioning his usage of rape of as a minor plot point (exploring what it does to the boyfriend of the victim but never exploring what it does to the victim herself) in his Gold Key reboot of Dr. Solar. I can't say I've noticed the same with Michilinie, though I've yet to read his better remembered work with Iron Man. |
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Dec 24, 2018 14:27:18 GMT -5
Also, minor side-note, but I love that "This comic book could be worth $2,500 to you" banner Marvel was running across its titles a month earlier. I'm wondering if there is any Marvel book released that month (perhaps CGCed) that's actually worth roughly that amount today. X-Men #137, Marvel Team-Up #100 and Star Wars #39 are perhaps the priciest of Marvel's September 1980 output, but none of them is worth anything like $2500. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 24, 2018 14:32:42 GMT -5
Also, minor side-note, but I love that "This comic book could be worth $2,500 to you" banner Marvel was running across its titles a month earlier. I'm wondering if there is any Marvel book released that month (perhaps CGCed) that's actually worth roughly that amount today. X-Men #137, Marvel Team-Up #100 and Star Wars #39 are perhaps the priciest of Marvel's September 1980 output, but none of them is worth anything like $2500. Yup. Looks like even a signed and CGCed X-Men #137 is only halfway there. Too bad. In this age of back issue inflation, that would have been kinda' cool. |
|
