|
Post by jason on Jul 31, 2024 15:00:29 GMT -5
When did Marvel Tales forego using recolored versions of the original issue's cover to doing original covers? Even though it was obviously to disguise the fact that they were reprints (see also Classic X-Men, Marvel Triple Action, etc), I kind of liked seeing the different covers (as long as they also showed the original cover for comparison's sake).
|
|
jtrw2024
Full Member
Posts: 185
Member is Online
|
Post by jtrw2024 on Jul 31, 2024 17:35:59 GMT -5
When did Marvel Tales forego using recolored versions of the original issue's cover to doing original covers? Even though it was obviously to disguise the fact that they were reprints (see also Classic X-Men, Marvel Triple Action, etc), I kind of liked seeing the different covers (as long as they also showed the original cover for comparison's sake). Even amongst the earlier issues from 1-136 there are a few brand new covers, and some repurposing of existing art to make them seem new. The whole stretch from Marvel Tales 137-190 reprinting Amazing Fantasy 15, Amazing Spider-man 1-50 and the first three annuals pretty much all use the original covers (with new colouring and other alterations to accommodate logos and UPC boxes, etc). After that there's a lot of new covers, with the occasional re-use of original covers from about Marvel Tales 191-208. Marvel Tales 209 until its final issue 291 are all new covers. When I get to issues which use new covers, I'll definitely comment on those, but I hope at some point to do a complete over-view of the different eras of Marvel Tales, whenever I get through the actual reviews
|
|
jtrw2024
Full Member
Posts: 185
Member is Online
|
Post by jtrw2024 on Jul 31, 2024 17:49:31 GMT -5
Jameson likely has more than one secretary or receptionist though. Maybe this is his receptionist in the Now! magazine offices, whereas Betty Brant works in the Daily Bugle offices? Of course, I'm almost positive that Stan wouldn't have known that he was going to introduce a regularly recurring secretary and future love interest of Peter's at this point I like the Vulture as a Spider-Man villain in this initial appearance. He seems like a genuine threat and quite a nasty, grumpy old man. On a related subject, it's interesting that almost all of Spider-Man's villains in the early part of the series – the Vulture, the Tinkerer, Doctor Octopus, Doctor Doom, and even J. Jonah Jameson – are old men or at least middle-aged. This is the '60s generation gap writ large! This is a representation of the old white men in authority who were always keeping the kids down, telling them to stop listening to rock 'n' roll or wasting their time with comics, and later on sending them to die in Vietnam. This is Stan Lee tapping directly into the feelings of young teenagers in the early-to-mid '60s and that's one of the reasons why Amazing Spider-Man resonated with them so much. ----- It's also kind of interesting that Spidey gets beaten quite often in these early issues – memorably so, in fact, by Doctor Octopus in ASM #3. And here, the Vulture dumps Spidey's semi-conscious body into a rooftop water tower and leaves him to drown. Again, I feel as if these defeats by the likes of the Vulture and Doc Ock are examples of Stan tapping into that familiar feeling among the readers of grumpy, disciplinarian older folks always having the upper hand and always seemingly "winning". The young readers of these comics would've known that feeling from their own life all too well, I think. ---- Really though, this is without doubt the most Amazing Adult Fantasy-esque story we get in these early issues of Amazing Spider-Man, with its thinly veiled "Reds under the bed" use of aliens. I think Lee and Ditko realised pretty quickly that using space aliens in a Spider-Man story wasn't really a good fit, given that Spidey is a much more down-to-earth, street level character than the likes of the Fantastic Four. But again, these were very early says in Spider-Man's development and they were just trying out lots of different stuff. I encountered this issue way after than some of the later Lee/Ditko stories, so by then I'd probably read so many Betty Brant stories that I just always assumed that was her, even though she wasn't named yet. I recall the message in Amazing Fantasy 15 promising more Spider-man stories, but I was never sure if any actual stories were in the works or ready to go. The Tinkerer story definitely seems the most like the earlier Amazing Fantasy stories before Spidey came along. If they didn't use this plot for a Spider-man story, I'm sure it could have been used for any number of other characters, or just a regular stand-alone type story. The way the Vulture story is structured, is very similar to the next issue, and a lot of issues following, which I'll talk a bit about in my next review either Thursday or Friday, (soon as I make some last minute adjustments and finish scanning some images)
|
|
jtrw2024
Full Member
Posts: 185
Member is Online
|
Post by jtrw2024 on Jul 31, 2024 18:02:30 GMT -5
Listen, we all know that these were co plotted by Stan and Steve. And depending on how much of the plot they discussed (until they stopped talking and Ditko did all the story) there is no way to know which of them thought of it or if theycame up with it together. We should say Stan and Steve when bringing up things that are introduced. There are plenty of times Stan saw something for the first time when the art was done and the stories were not intricate page by page synopses just roughed out for Steve to plot. All those ideas that are attributed to Stan were not his alone. Ditko was an equal creator in all of it. I knew going into this that the Stan and Steve partnership was a sensitive subject, which is why I made the decision to just copy the credits the way they're shown in the issues that I'm reviewing, and just comment on the finished product. I definitely don't have any particular knowledge about who actually did what beyond what I've read others discussing. I think it's pretty much agreed that these stories came about through some sort of collaboration between the two and I'm trying my best to just refer to both Lee and Ditko together when making reference to the creators. Obviously when talking about the art though, it's going to be pretty much Ditko. I did read somewhere though that Stan took credit for drawing the motion lines on a lot of the pages and that Steve hated those. Not sure if that's true or not. Is it safe to say if there's a panel where the motion lines look terrible it was probably Stan's fault?
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,016
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 31, 2024 18:03:44 GMT -5
As revealed in Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-Man #50, right? That's a great issue and it's also revealed in that comic that the Tinkerer was employed by the future Mysterio, Quentin Beck, to masquerade as an alien, with hired actors playing the other aliens. Ridiculous, obviously…but still a lot of fun. A quick correction here: It was the Tinkerer who hired Beck, not the other way around. It was SFX master Beck, however, who turned an ordinary helicopter into a "spaceship." Incidentally, Tinkerer apparently modeled his faux aliens after a real extraterrestrial race, some of whom Jim Starlin would depict in Captain Marvel as members of Thanos' army of renegades. How, when, and where Tink encountered this species remains a mystery. Cei-U! I summon the close encounter!
Top notch info there, as always, Kurt. Thanks for the correction.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Aug 1, 2024 2:42:24 GMT -5
(...) How, when, and where Tink encountered this species remains a mystery. Well, Roy Thomas really dropped the ball there...
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 1, 2024 9:15:30 GMT -5
As revealed in Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-Man #50, right? That's a great issue and it's also revealed in that comic that the Tinkerer was employed by the future Mysterio, Quentin Beck, to masquerade as an alien, with hired actors playing the other aliens. Ridiculous, obviously…but still a lot of fun.
Incidentally, Tinkerer apparently modeled his faux aliens after a real extraterrestrial race, some of whom Jim Starlin would depict in Captain Marvel as members of Thanos' army of renegades. How, when, and where Tink encountered this species remains a mystery.
Cei-U! I summon the close encounter!
You couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting either an alien invader or a Communist subversive in the MU at this point. It would be more surprising if he hadn't encountered an alien.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 1, 2024 11:50:16 GMT -5
Incidentally, Tinkerer apparently modeled his faux aliens after a real extraterrestrial race, some of whom Jim Starlin would depict in Captain Marvel as members of Thanos' army of renegades. How, when, and where Tink encountered this species remains a mystery.
Cei-U! I summon the close encounter!
You couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting either an alien invader or a Communist subversive in the MU at this point. It would be more surprising if he hadn't encountered an alien. There are no dead cats in the Marvel Universe; they all either come back to life or were a skrull and the original re-emerges from the spaceship!
|
|
|
Post by Calidore on Aug 1, 2024 12:52:54 GMT -5
This made me wonder, when did Batman lose the hyphen? The hyphen was gone as of Detective #29, his third appearance.
Cei-U! I summon the answer!
Huh, that soon. It's funny how Bat-Man looks awkward but Spider-Man doesn't. I wonder if there's a superhero name rule about one word vs. hyphenated word vs. two words.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 1, 2024 13:37:48 GMT -5
The hyphen was gone as of Detective #29, his third appearance. Cei-U! I summon the answer!
Huh, that soon. It's funny how Bat-Man looks awkward but Spider-Man doesn't. I wonder if there's a superhero name rule about one word vs. hyphenated word vs. two words. That is strange, then, there are the characters with the two part name, but its not hyphenated (e.g., Iron Man, Radioactive Man or Wonder Man). I guess its a very selective process about what kind of name needs the hyphenated treatment.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Aug 1, 2024 14:09:52 GMT -5
If you really want to confuse folks, you can use all three variants like Hourman/Hour-Man/Hour Man did in the Golden Age, sometimes in the same story.
Cei-U! I summon the lax labeling!
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Aug 1, 2024 17:23:41 GMT -5
Listen, we all know that these were co plotted by Stan and Steve. And depending on how much of the plot they discussed (until they stopped talking and Ditko did all the story) there is no way to know which of them thought of it or if theycame up with it together. We should say Stan and Steve when bringing up things that are introduced. There are plenty of times Stan saw something for the first time when the art was done and the stories were not intricate page by page synopses just roughed out for Steve to plot. All those ideas that are attributed to Stan were not his alone. Ditko was an equal creator in all of it. I knew going into this that the Stan and Steve partnership was a sensitive subject, which is why I made the decision to just copy the credits the way they're shown in the issues that I'm reviewing, and just comment on the finished product. I definitely don't have any particular knowledge about who actually did what beyond what I've read others discussing. I think it's pretty much agreed that these stories came about through some sort of collaboration between the two and I'm trying my best to just refer to both Lee and Ditko together when making reference to the creators. Obviously when talking about the art though, it's going to be pretty much Ditko. I did read somewhere though that Stan took credit for drawing the motion lines on a lot of the pages and that Steve hated those. Not sure if that's true or not. Is it safe to say if there's a panel where the motion lines look terrible it was probably Stan's fault? I understand just using the credits as they appear. Whether they were accurate or not. But I am talking about something different. When discussing the story or plot itself, it would be better to just say Stan and Steve.
You say things like this: It is far more likely that Steve was plotting these and HE decided that Spider-Man should suffer these defeats. But as we don't know, it is just as inaccurate to claim all these plot developments were Stan. Will you still describe the plots as things Stan is doing when we get to the mid-20s and Stan had no input on the plots? That is why I think saying "Stan and Steve" when talking about plot developments is a better way to go.
Not trying to hijack the thread, but for a group that cares about whether the Tinkerer was an alien or not, I would think who actually wrote what we read might also be factually correct.
|
|
jtrw2024
Full Member
Posts: 185
Member is Online
|
Post by jtrw2024 on Aug 1, 2024 17:38:40 GMT -5
I understand just using the credits as they appear. Whether they were accurate or not. But I am talking about something different. When discussing the story or plot itself, it would be better to just say Stan and Steve.
You say things like this: It is far more likely that Steve was plotting these and HE decided that Spider-Man should suffer these defeats. But as we don't know, it is just as inaccurate to claim all these plot developments were Stan. Will you still describe the plots as things Stan is doing when we get to the mid-20s and Stan had no input on the plots? That is why I think saying "Stan and Steve" when talking about plot developments is a better way to go.
Not trying to hijack the thread, but for a group that cares about whether the Tinkerer was an alien or not, I would think who actually wrote what we read might also be factually correct.
I don't think that was actually my comment you quoted above, but your point is noted all the same. It's definitely something I'm trying to keep in mind as I write these reviews.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Aug 1, 2024 18:46:45 GMT -5
Thanks jtrw2024, and sorry if I misrepresented what you were saying to make my point.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,016
|
Post by Confessor on Aug 2, 2024 8:00:53 GMT -5
When discussing the story or plot itself, it would be better to just say Stan and Steve. You say things like this: It is far more likely that Steve was plotting these and HE decided that Spider-Man should suffer these defeats. But as we don't know, it is just as inaccurate to claim all these plot developments were Stan. Will you still describe the plots as things Stan is doing when we get to the mid-20s and Stan had no input on the plots? That is why I think saying "Stan and Steve" when talking about plot developments is a better way to go. Not trying to hijack the thread, but for a group that cares about whether the Tinkerer was an alien or not, I would think who actually wrote what we read might also be factually correct. Yeah, that was me who wrote that bit you quoted. Your point is well taken and, as you know, I'm always perfectly prepared to admit that Stan Lee often took far too much credit for these things than he should've done. But a couple of points in my defence: if I attribute something to Stan alone, it's usually something to do with the dialogue, or it's from the first handful of appearances of Spider-Man when, in all likelihood, Stan was still producing a page or so of story notes for the artists (Stan has spoken about this being how he did things just prior to the adoption of the Marvel method on a number of occasions). I'm not entirely sure anyone knows exactly when the Marvel method began in earnest, but my gut tells me it was likely in 1963, as the number of titles that Stan was "scripting" grew. All that said, re-reading Amazing Fantasy #15 and Amazing Spider-Man #1 and #2 for this thread, there is sooooo much of Steve Ditko's characterisation in angry, young Peter Parker that he was obviously having some input on the so-called "scripts" as well. Also, we know that Ditko was the one who came up with Spidey's web-shooters and spider signal, for example, so yeah…he was definitely having a fair bit of input on the plot and characterisation, even in these earliest issues. On a related matter, author Sean Howe points out in his book Marvel Comics: The Untold Story that Lee was actually still having input into the Spider-Man stories that Ditko plotted even after the breakdown in communications between the two; he was still writing the dialogue for those comics and would, in fact, often use the dialogue to change certain plot elements or lessen some of Ditko's more extreme objectivism. So, it's not entirely correct to say that "Stan had no input on the plots" from ASM #25 onwards. But anyway, yes, I hear you on the attribution of the plots simply to Stan in these early issues. Hopefully I've explained my rationale for why I did that in a way that you will understand, even if you don't necessarily agree with me. Also, I hope that we can draw a line under this now and move on. I definitely do not want to hijack jtrw2024's excellent reviews by turning this into a rehash of the recently locked Stan Lee thread.
|
|