|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 9:41:21 GMT -5
There is a Byrne omnibus and a Golden Age omnibus coming in the fall. That's if you like to celebrate with unwieldy reading material that could be injurious to your lap.  I'm probably gonna grab that Byrne omnibus. I got all the Masterworks, but I haven't gotten around to reading them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 9:56:54 GMT -5
I hope you get it.
Needs, who's that in your avatar?
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jul 27, 2019 20:25:28 GMT -5
Ohhh, that's because every version of the Sub-Mariner not by Bill Everett is either (A) an offensively ignorant exercise in mischaracterization, or (B) was drawn with an equilateral triangle for a head. (I can not possibly communicate to y'all how disturbing the latter was.) So the real Sub-Mariner only lasted... 34 (ish?) non-consecutive years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 20:52:14 GMT -5
I think Sub-Mariner was successful during the 40's (& 50's) for a lot of different reasons. One was Bill Everett. His creator wrote and understood the appeal of Namor above all other writers. Plus during WW II super heroes were very popular especially the best ones like Namor. In the 50's he survived longer than Cap & Torch because of a possible TV series. And the ocean was an alien world just as mysterious as space.
Then the late 50's arrived and with it the space race. Throughout the 60's people were enamored with anything to do with space and even though there were some ocean based TV shows and books space overtook that aspect of adventure stories that continued into the 70's. So Namor became less popular and the writers did not seem to know how to find the qualities that could make him part of the Marvel method IE: a hero with flaws. The only other hero that Marvel brought into the 60's was Cap and they saddled him the guilt of Bucky's death. Namor? Atlantean royalty that was angry all the time.
Sure there were a few times Namor was written well and could have been more popular but he usually fell back into the same old clichés within a short time. I think Byrne had the best handle on him in modern times. Yes Namor was arrogant but he was also noble and worthy of respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 4:58:16 GMT -5
Ohhh, that's because every version of the Sub-Mariner not by Bill Everett is either (A) an offensively ignorant exercise in mischaracterization, or (B) was drawn with an equilateral triangle for a head. (I can not possibly communicate to y'all how disturbing the latter was.) So the real Sub-Mariner only lasted... 34 (ish?) non-consecutive years. Exploring other viewpoints is never a waste of time. As a fan of Byrne's Namor, I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on that run, if you consider that mischaracterisation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 4:59:01 GMT -5
I think Sub-Mariner was successful during the 40's (& 50's) for a lot of different reasons. One was Bill Everett. His creator wrote and understood the appeal of Namor above all other writers. Plus during WW II super heroes were very popular especially the best ones like Namor. In the 50's he survived longer than Cap & Torch because of a possible TV series. And the ocean was an alien world just as mysterious as space. Then the late 50's arrived and with it the space race. Throughout the 60's people were enamored with anything to do with space and even though there were some ocean based TV shows and books space overtook that aspect of adventure stories that continued into the 70's. So Namor became less popular and the writers did not seem to know how to find the qualities that could make him part of the Marvel method IE: a hero with flaws. The only other hero that Marvel brought into the 60's was Cap and they saddled him the guilt of Bucky's death. Namor? Atlantean royalty that was angry all the time. Sure there were a few times Namor was written well and could have been more popular but he usually fell back into the same old clichés within a short time. I think Byrne had the best handle on him in modern times. Yes Namor was arrogant but he was also noble and worthy of respect. That's an interesting perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 28, 2019 7:53:04 GMT -5
Sub-Mariner is one of my favorite characters but mrp is right that there is no sound business reason for Marvel to put out anything commemorating his 80th anniversary (which is also the Human Torch's anniversary, let's not forget). Nor is a Namor MCU movie likely, regardless of the licensing question, as the non-comics readers will surely shriek that Marvel is ripping off Aquaman. Like mecha, it makes me sad. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with repti that only Everett's version is any good (though I like it too, especially the pre-war material). Roy Thomas' run on the '60s title was awesome, as he used Subby to test his sword-&-sorcery chops. Add in some of John Buscema's best work (not to mention his brother Sal, Marie Severin, and my main man Gene Colan), and you've got one of the best comics of the late Sixties.
Of course, you can consider my book as sort of a commemoration if you like.
Cei-U!
I summon the galloping guppies!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 8:28:41 GMT -5
Oh yes, the Human Torch. I suspect a commemorative issue for him would sell even fewer copies than Subby, but it'd be nice to see.
Did you like the Byrne run?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 8:47:48 GMT -5
@taxidriver1980 I know your above post was directed at cei-u but I wanted to add some more thoughts. I LOVED Byrne's take on Namor. As I said a few posts ago Byrne really did a great job handling Namor in modern times. He was noble and regal and supremely confident.
As for the Human Torch I understand why Marvel didn't revive him back in the 60's but today I see so much potential. An android that could pass as human exploring humanity during a horrific point in history (WWII) and "waking up" later to discover a new world. Trying to find his place in the modern world BUT from an outsiders (android) viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 8:54:15 GMT -5
@taxidriver1980 I know your above post was directed at cei-u but I wanted to add some more thoughts. I LOVED Byrne's take on Namor. As I said a few posts ago Byrne really did a great job handling Namor in modern times. He was noble and regal and supremely confident. As for the Human Torch I understand why Marvel didn't revive him back in the 60's but today I see so much potential. An android that could pass as human exploring humanity during a horrific point in history (WWII) and "waking up" later to discover a new world. Trying to find his place in the modern world BUT from an outsiders (android) viewpoint. This is a separate topic, but one could ask that about every character. For example, I had little interest in the JSA. Can't explain why, just didn't. But I enjoyed Grant Morrison's interpretation. So does every character have potential? I can't get into Gambit. The character doesn't interest me. I have tried. But maybe one day someone will write a Gambit arc that will appeal to me. Favourite writers of mine (Nick Spencer, Scott Snyder, Tom King, Brian Michael Bendis) could one day write a Gambit mini-series - and surprise me! |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 28, 2019 9:16:58 GMT -5
Oh yes, the Human Torch. I suspect a commemorative issue for him would sell even fewer copies than Subby, but it'd be nice to see. Did you like the Byrne run? I've never read it. I was out of comics completely from 1986 through 1994 so I missed a lot of stuff both good and bad.
Cei-U! I summon the apostasy!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 9:59:10 GMT -5
I did like how Byrne made Namor a mogul. Quite a big change (much like his She-Hulk changes). Change can be good, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jul 28, 2019 10:33:17 GMT -5
Ohhh, that's because every version of the Sub-Mariner not by Bill Everett is either (A) an offensively ignorant exercise in mischaracterization, or (B) was drawn with an equilateral triangle for a head. (I can not possibly communicate to y'all how disturbing the latter was.) So the real Sub-Mariner only lasted... 34 (ish?) non-consecutive years. Exploring other viewpoints is never a waste of time. As a fan of Byrne's Namor, I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on that run, if you consider that mischaracterisation. Ok, so I read like two issues of Byrne's Namor. But it seemed to be more based in the Lee/Kirby version (arrogant, emo, prone to fits of rage) WHICH IS WRONG rather than the Everett version (sly, archly funny, capable of enjoying himself.) John Byrne has always been the most good-but-never-inspired-est of comic creators to me. The quality gulf between the best solo Byrne comics I've read (probably the formally inventive negative zone sequence in Fantastic Four) and the Everett Sub-Mariner is vast. I'll concede that the Roy Thomas version was pretty good, but I think that might have been written (partially) when Roy and Bill were roommates, so it still kind of counts as Bill Everett!! And I'll go to bat for the Peter Milligan/Esad Ribic mini from the oo's. which is a bad Sub-Mariner comic but just a great, great, horror comic. And I can't hate Super-Villain Team-Up (which teamed Doom and the Sub-Mariner for, like, 14 of it's 19 issues) because it has "Team-Up" in the title. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 10:42:06 GMT -5
Super-Villain Team-Up? Grrr!  I wasn't around when the book debuted, but I bought some copies as a kid. With a title like that, I expected each issue would have numerous scenarios, e.g. Kingpin/Green Goblin, Scorpion/Electro, Doctor Doom/Kraven, etc. Instead we got mainly Namor and Doom for almost all of the book's run. False advertising? The stories were good, but a book called that should have been called "Doctor Doom & Namor".
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 15:26:22 GMT -5
All it takes is a good writer to make a bad character interesting...
|
|
