|
Post by profh0011 on Feb 13, 2020 17:48:38 GMT -5
I think the Impossible Man story that Jack Kirby wrote in FF #11 was a fun novelty. As a one-off, it worked fine.
There was no need to bring him back.
I've always had the feeling that the editor personally disliked that story (just as he also went on at length for decades about hating teen sidekicks), and so made far too big a deal about readers allegedly writing in to complain.
A one-off comedy story in an otherwise "serious" series is a nice break. Doing a whole pile of them (as Bill DuBay did in VAMPIRELLA when he had her go to Hollywood) is the problem. So if anyone hates The Impossible Man... BLAME ROY THOMAS. He's the irrepressible "fanboy" obsessed with characters' early days who decided to bring him back.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 13, 2020 19:35:24 GMT -5
Chris Claremont seemed to like the Impossible Man as he used him in X-Men, Spider-Woman, and Excalibur.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 14, 2020 14:01:56 GMT -5
I think the Impossible Man story that Jack Kirby wrote in FF #11 was a fun novelty. As a one-off, it worked fine. There was no need to bring him back. I've always had the feeling that the editor personally disliked that story (just as he also went on at length for decades about hating teen sidekicks), and so made far too big a deal about readers allegedly writing in to complain. A one-off comedy story in an otherwise "serious" series is a nice break. Doing a whole pile of them (as Bill DuBay did in VAMPIRELLA when he had her go to Hollywood) is the problem. So if anyone hates The Impossible Man... BLAME ROY THOMAS. He's the irrepressible "fanboy" obsessed with characters' early days who decided to bring him back. I like the Impossible Man. Roy Thomas is the best! But it seems a little unfair to to target Roy if you're not a fan. The Lee/Kirby Fantastic Four is one of the two-or-three most important superhero comics runs and everything element of it was going to be dredged up and commented on at some point. (Except Tomazooma, poor thing, and maybe that random rich guy who's name I forget and can't google.)
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Feb 14, 2020 17:31:29 GMT -5
Gregory Gideon, who was both physically and personality-wise, based on Howard Hughes.
Gerry Conway (Roy's best bud) brought Gideon back for a 2-parter in FF #134-135 (May-Jun'73), art by John Buscema (layouts) and Joe Sinnott (finishes).
I'm basically saying, if you DON'T like that the Impossible Man came back, it was Roy & George Perez who brught him back. If you DO like him, they're the guys to thank. I could tell George had a HELL of a lot of fun doing that story.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Feb 15, 2020 0:00:46 GMT -5
Though Bat-Mite might not have been what Batman's creator had in mind back in 1939, he is what Finger had in mind in 1959. I much prefer a history which is rich in variety than one which simply beats to the tattoo of the same monotone drone year after year, decade after decade, which alas is the pattern Batman's fallen into since about 1986. Annoying suggests a character who is cloying in his attempts to be considered endearing or lovable or funny or whatever and this never fit Bat-Mite's profile. He was there to show up, throw things into chaos, and then disappear while Batman came up with inventive ways to deal with being thrown into a Salvador Dali painting - a means to an end rather than the main attraction. He wasn't zany or in your face, didn't have a catchphrase, wasn't crammed down our throats as he took up all the oxygen in the room or anything like that.
Furthermore, the fact that I've never read a Bat-Mite tale which tried to convince me that Batman as a character must be treated with the utmost seriousness so much so that to even have him smile or go five minutes without wincing at the memory of his parents' murder would be a desecration of all that he stands for is a point in his column.
To me, Bat-Mite is "fun" (yes, yes, another thing which Batman must never be) and not "annoying". That goes times ninty for Mr. Mxyztplk too.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 15, 2020 0:58:09 GMT -5
I did like that one Michael Golden drawn Bat-mite story in one of the last Batman Familys (or one of the first Detective/Batman Familys). Ace the Bat-hound is kind of cool to me as well. You don't want an Impossible Man or Howard The Duck showing up in the middle of a heavy Galactus story; you don't want Bat-mite in a Darkseid epic or The Killing Joke I guess either. Herbie The Robot need not come back again though, unless there is real demand... he wasn't really that cute, sort of a 7-Zark-7 anyway existing to fill a gap in a tv cartoon. There now, I've taken a strong position on that!
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 15, 2020 1:10:07 GMT -5
Though Bat-Mite might not have been what Batman's creator had in mind back in 1939, he is what Finger had in mind in 1959. ...and that shift toward the absurd--from Bat-mite to aliens, whimsical time-travel stories, etc., is what set in motion the elements which led to Batman nearly being a cancelled character/title only a few years later. Annoying is also that--a pest or a character who causes trouble. In other words, the lead characters would never invite that into their own lives, so it is annoying when it (character and actions) disrupts the natural order.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Feb 15, 2020 8:08:02 GMT -5
I did like that one Michael Golden drawn Bat-mite story in one of the last Batman Familys (or one of the first Detective/Batman Familys). Ace the Bat-hound is kind of cool to me as well. You don't want an Impossible Man or Howard The Duck showing up in the middle of a heavy Galactus story; you don't want Bat-mite in a Darkseid epic or The Killing Joke I guess either. Herbie The Robot need not come back again though, unless there is real demand... he wasn't really that cute, sort of a 7-Zark-7 anyway existing to fill a gap in a tv cartoon. There now, I've taken a strong position on that! My seven year old son is delighted by H.E.R.B.I.E.'s presence in Franklin Richards: Son of a Genius. Right now I can hear him in the other room pretending to be a Dalek.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Feb 15, 2020 8:25:52 GMT -5
the pattern Batman's fallen into since about 1986. I almost used to like Denny O'Neil's work. But by the early 1990s, I got to outright HATE it, and him, for his general attitude, and the way he had, in my view, DESTROYED what had once been my favorite costumed hero.
When it got to the point where I began to regularly refer to the main character as, "THAT B****** who's impersonating Bruce Wayne", it was time to stop buy and reading all new "Batman" comics. AND I DID.
When O'Neil appeared in the "Comic-Book Super-Heroes Unmasked" documentary, and had the NERVE to refer to comics writers & editors as "the custodians of modern mythology", I couldn't stop myself from hurling PROFANITIES at my TV screen.
What O'Neil repeatedly did to Hal Jordan over several decades was, if anything, even more pathological.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2020 8:51:10 GMT -5
What O'Neil repeatedly did to Hal Jordan over several decades was, if anything, even more pathological. O'Neil was undoubtedly instrumental in saving both Batman and GL-Jordan at the dawn of the 1970s. Both characters would've faded into states of irrelevance if O'Neil had not come along.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Feb 16, 2020 10:55:25 GMT -5
...except O'Neil didn't save Green Lantern. The book was cancelled during his run. I also think it's an exageration to say he saved Batman. Editor Julius Schwartz and writer Frank Robbins had already set the course for the return of the dark, brooding, Robinless Batman, but I certainly agree that his and Adams' stories were the highlight of that era.
Cei-U! I summon those halcyon days of yore!
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2020 13:32:23 GMT -5
...except O'Neil didn't save Green Lantern. The book was cancelled during his run. I also think it's an exageration to say he saved Batman. Editor Julius Schwartz and writer Frank Robbins had already set the course for the return of the dark, brooding, Robinless Batman, but I certainly agree that his and Adams' stories were the highlight of that era. Cei-U! I summon those halcyon days of yore! Regarding Batman: I've said many times that Robbins and Novick was the team to bring the darkness back to Batman, but their successors--O'Neil and Adams did it in a way that was far more revolutionary, hence the attention and adulation their work received, certainly transforming Batman into "that" serious character from "that" comic that turned heads. GL: He (and Adams) saved GL by making him a relevant character, instead of one who simply limped along in some drab title, and eventually vanish from publishing as was the case with many Golden Age characters. His GL books were among the best / most celebrated comics of the decade (even beyond comic fandom), so that elevated GL to a level of importance the character had not experienced since his exciting Silver Age debut/very early run. I mentioned this in another thread, but its timely to mention the following here: The Adams/O'Neil chapter (in the series), one the few truly "all important" / "all time" runs in the medium's history that lived up to its gargantuan reputation of being a near-perfect blend of story, art and message. In 19 72, the series was so phenomenal, that a few key issues were quickly reprinted as two novels published by Paperback Library-- Short list of contents: Paperback 1 reprints issues #76 ( "No Evil Shall Escape My Sight!"), #77 ( "Journey to Desolation!"), and "S.O.S. Green Lantern" (origin & 1st appearance of Hal Jordan/Silver Age Green Lantern) from Showcase #22. Paperback 2 reprints issues #78 ( "A Kind of Loving, a Way of Death!"), and #79 ( "Ulysses Star is Still Alive!"). Failed titles rarely--if ever--were quickly reprinted in the same publishing era, or in a different format. A little over a decade after the Adams/O'Neil run, DC reprinted their entire contribution to GL as seven Baxter Papered special editions (October, 1983 - April, 1984), with issue #1 featuring a two-page retrospective by O'Neil-- Of note, is O'Neil's recalling the impact of their issues-- "We had every reason to believe the series was a huge success: it was mentioned in hundreds of newspapers and magazines, it got us invited to universities and television shows, it brought in heaps of mail."Remember, this was the early 1970s, and at the time--if memory serves, comic book talents including (but not limited to) Bob Kane, Stan Lee, Kriby, Romita, Infantino and various MAD Magazine talents had appeared on TV, but it was extremely rare, especially after the mid 1960s "superhero boom" passed. So, for Adams & O'Neil to earn so much media attention (and I personally remember reading what must have been a Los Angeles Times article about them/GL), meant it was far more than a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 16, 2020 14:29:31 GMT -5
I talked briefly with Denny O'Neil circa the mid-'80s about that run of comics. He was sort of defending G.I.Joe comics with the tv interview I watched from the side and as it turned out was on his way out the Marvel door and into the DC door. Anyway, I thought he expressed some thoughts of the combination of superheroes and realistic or torn-from-the-headlines stories ('important' superhero comics?) by explaining that he was young and genuinely concerned, hoped to reach young readers while conceding my positing that maybe it was a bad influence on some comics that came after (this is during the death sales gimmicks of heroines as Dark Knight and Watchmen were the new things). I guess he might've meant that the other writers weren't up to it, and/or that he himself was better 'now' as a writer. Kind of a dodge, but after being grilled about the G.I.Joe comic understandable. I never pinned him down on whether super-powers and visually loud costumes actually fit with adult themes, it wandered to my saying why not science-fiction, westerns or romance or other genres more suited and he cited declining sales which I knew to be true (Time Warp/Mystery In Space, plus Jonah Hex and Sgt. Rock not selling in comic shops, sometimes not even carried in them). You all know what he did next back at DC again while I had stopped buying titles with Marvel or DC on the cover and not a lot else for very long anyway. Important superhero comics: are they more 'adult' than funny-animal sex comics? Are both decidedly niche and not-mainstream? Where can they go next from 'dealing' with fill-in-the blank concern or crisis of the day? Only more extreme unto disassembly of the concept of super people and their codenames and costumes? What is the purpose of a good superhero comic story? And I do like things like GL/GA by O'Neil, and Miller's initial Daredevil run, and Gerry Conway's Spider-Man... also 'There Is No Hope In Crime Alley' the Batman story. It can be done, but it seems kind of a sideline, an occasional shift of focus... otherwise the form can't support the weight, any more than it could survive with lightweight fantasy Impossible Man and puncturing camp parody of '50s Batman and '60s TV Batman. Stephen King wrote of a story as a motor and the writer a mechanic... it could apply to a genre, and what punctures it's tires or throws ball-bearings into it's moving parts. And motor need maintenance. Every time they've deliberately undermined and deconstructed a super character or group of them to say something 'important' or make 'history' (and collector sales) they have to do this re-set thing. While the super movies and tv series are working for more people than ever thought possible, the super comics are dwindling and dying away. Speedy shooting heroin on a comic cover... is that ground zero? Can we credit/blame young Denny O'Neil? Citizen Kane supposedly flopped at the box-office and was later celebrated and a huge success and influence. There's nothing wrong with it, and nothing I can see wrong with GL/GA... but there has been things adopted by later, perhaps lesser creators that did do things wrong. I guess it's there to try or to fall on your face if you're wrong... but all of one thing and nothing of another is an extreme. All dealing with Aids or religious intolerance or whatever becomes polemic, not entertainment. All rasping killer and psychopaths, or all ballooned up muscles and helium boobs, all explicit sex scenes and gory violence because they can... maybe just do some of everything, cover all bases, all ages, and make sure your message is clear so someone doesn't go to get one kind of book and suddenly get something they did not bargain for! I think there was a clear demarcation once between underground and general public. Wonder Warthog is still relevant, but the actual official Superman facing famine in Africa might not be capable of being half as realistic. Or... what I meant to say was Cei-U and tarkintino are both right.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 16, 2020 20:25:09 GMT -5
I very much doubt that Batman and Detective were on the verge of cancellation in the late 1950s or early 1960s. It's not hard to find some of the sales numbers for Batman and Detective in that era, and both comics are in the Top Ten or close to it most of the time for the years that are available. Up at the top for those years are Action and Superman and Superboy with titles like Adventure and Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen.
Yes, you can find comic book professionals talking about how bad Batman was doing, but I find it much easier to believe that they were exaggerating for whatever reason and that comic book fandom has exaggerated those exaggerations A LOT for a "flailing Batman" narrative that doesn't really make any sense or fit the facts that are available.
DC wasn't changing Batman around because it was on the verge of cancellation. They were trying to increase sales to make it into a Superman-style cash cow.
Bat-Mite was introduced in 1959 and appeared regularly for four or five years, including four appearances in World's Finest. If Bat-Mite had been a character who hurt sales, he wouldn't have kept appearing so much. If Batman or Detective Comics had been on the verge of cancellation in 1959, the "New Look" would have started a lot earlier than 1964. If Jack Schiff was trying to pump up Batman by aping Superman, Batwoman would have appeared AFTER Supergirl instead of having a first appearance three years earlier.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 16, 2020 20:31:17 GMT -5
|
|