Marvel, Then and Now

[Shellhead]

In an ongoing thread in the Marvel Universe subforum here at CBR, there is a discussion about the quality of Marvel Comics in the 90's. One silver age fan, "Mark Wallace", made some bold assertions about the quality of Marvel comics over the years, which I thought would interest our Classic comic fans here.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=111512&page=3

[QUOTE=kad939]I've been reading alot on Marvel and DC over the past few months, trying to get myself up to speed with what was going on over the past decades. In my reading, i've always found (in passing) the 90's is referenced as a bad decade for marvel. So, I have a few questions to better understand the decade.
QUOTE]

"I've been collecting for over 40 years, and I've gotta tell ya, it goes back a lot further than the nineties.

"What basically happened with Marvel is that one guy (Lee), who knew how to write fun stories, teamed up with several guys who could turn his outlines into great comics (Kirby, Ditko, etc), and Marvel became THE comic company
(and remember I'm talking as someone who was there and watched it happen, rather than a retrospective "analyst" with no personal experience).

"In the years that followed Lee & Co's departure from creating the comics, fanboys like Thomas took over, and Nothing New was created -- fanboys just re-hash old stuff, and screw around with what's already there, rather than do anything creative (i.e. rather than act like writers/artists).

"So Marvel fell into the sht1 in the mid-late 60s, not the 90s -- and it stayed there almost totally (there are a few exceptional and genuinely creative Marvel comics from the period, but seen as a percentage, they're non-existent) until the late 90s, when a decision was made, somewhere, that fanboys weren't to run the show, any more -- and that genuine artists should be creating Marvel comics.


"And I'm absolutely amazed at how many people have put "the Infinity Glove" as one of the highlights (especially as I just yesterday finished soundly trashing it in my "Wal's History" series). It was Awful!

"The only "Infinity" story that was worth the paper was Abyss, which was beautifully crafted.

"My suggestion: Make the most of how Marvel is now. It has never been better -- and it won't last."

[scratchie]

This is wrong on so many levels that it's hardly worth rebutting.

Obviously there was plenty of "New" put out by Marvel in the 70s.

And to imply that the people writing and drawing comics today are somehow less "fanboys" than Roy Thomas, et al, is ludicrous. J Michael Whatsisname, Kevin Smith and Jonathan Lethem wouldn't be writing Marvel Comics if they weren't fanboys.

I certainly don't hold Roy Thomas's writing in very high esteem, and there may have been a noticeable drop in quality after Stan stopped writing in the 60s, but the 70s generation of fanboys (Gerber, Claremont, et al) certainly created plenty of work that stands up in its own right.

[Cei-U!]

I was there from the beginning too and I don't agree with him at all. The beauty of the Marvel Universe was how organic it always felt, how events seemed to happen because they happened, not because the scripter was ordered to build a plot around a cover image. I don't think Marvel lost its way until the bookkeeping mentality that dictated yearly company-wide crossovers and endless X-Men and Spidey spin-offs came to dominate editorial policy. They're still producing good comics but they rarely say "Marvel" to me the way they did pre-Secret Wars II.

Cei-U!
I summon my two-bits' worth!

[Slam_Bradley]

I certainly don't hold Roy Thomas's writing in very high esteem, and there may have been a noticeable drop in quality after Stan stopped writing in the 60s, but the 70s generation of fanboys (Gerber, Claremont, et al) certainly created plenty of work that stands up in its own right.


While I agree with most of what you said, I disagree with this. While not all of Roy the Boy's work was stellar, some of it was very good...better than Stan's. The Avengers took a definite upswing when Roy took over. His work on X-Men was better than anything Stan did on that book.

While Gerry Conway's Spider-Man never reached the sustained heights that Stan reached, at its best it was as good as Stan's and at it's worst, it wasn't any worse.

The idea (not yours, Scratchie) that there was nothing new is absurd. Look at Tomb of Dracula, Howard the Duck, Conan. There was a lot of innovation in the 70's.

[Shellhead]

I agree with you that the Infinity Gauntlet was over-rated, even though I liked most of Starlin's earlier work. But I disagree strongly with the assertion that Marvel created Nothing New in the 70's or later. Btw, I started collecting comics in 1970, so I remember the 70's pretty clearly, and I also went back and read the Marvel 60's material, through back issues and reprints. I find it difficult to believe that you were still reading Marvel comics in the 70's.

Here's a list of some decent Marvel creations in the 70's

Luke Cage, Hero for Hire
The Guardians of the Galaxy
Shang-Chi, Master of Kung-Fu
Iron Fist
Blade
Punisher
Wolverine
Thanos
Deathlok (arguably the first cyberpunk character)
Killraven
Nova

Most of these characters were fairly successful, and none of them were based directly on anything that Stan Lee ever wrote.

Some existing characters were taken in exciting new directions in the 70's and early 80's:

The New X-Men, especially with the Dark Phoenix Epic

Black Panther faced up to his responsiblities as King of Wakanda, in Panther's Rage.

The throwaway character Him became the messiah of Counter-Earth as Adam Warlock, and then Starlin took him to even greater heights in his battle with his own dark side, the Magus.

Daredevil transcended his roots as a Spider-man knock-off, to become one of the most mature and focused heroes in the Marvel stable.

The Defenders challenged the very concept of the superhero team.

And to be blunt about it, Stan didn't always deliver on the potential of his own creations. For example, if you tell me that Stan wrote the best X-Men stories ever, you will need to pardon my unrestrained laughter. His Daredevil was generally inconsequential, his Avengers were corny, and his Hulk was only a minor variation on Mr. Hyde. Most of Stan Lee's creations had great potential, but outside of Fantastic Four and Spider-man, his execution of these ideas was just adequate, and it took the work of later creators to really deliver on the initial promise.

Mark, you and I should take this discussion over to the Classic Comics subforum here at CBR. You will find some other fans there who are strong supporters of the Silver Age, as well as some well-informed fans with various other viewpoints. The majority of the people reading our posts in this thread probably started reading Marvel in the mid 80s or later.

[scratchie]

While I agree with most of what you said, I disagree with this. While not all of Roy the Boy's work was stellar, some of it was very good...better than Stan's. The Avengers took a definite upswing when Roy took over. His work on X-Men was better than anything Stan did on that book. I'll have to take a look at those. I thought his work in Essential Defenders was awful (he wrote one or two of the early Strange/Subby/Hulk crossovers).

While Gerry Conway's Spider-Man never reached the sustained heights that Stan reached, at its best it was as good as Stan's and at it's worst, it wasn't any worse. I love Conway's Spider-Man, as I've mentioned before. But then again, that's the Spider-Man that I read when I was 11 or 12 so it's hard to be objective about it. Still, I would never claim anything as idiotic as that it was the pinnacle of superhero comics and nothing that came after ever improved upon it.

[Roquefort Raider]

The article does make a good point on how fanboys rarely bring something new to the table, though.

Where the author is wrong, in my opinion, is to reduce the 1970s generation of fanboy-creators to strict comics fanboys. People like Thomas, Gerber et al. may have loved comics, but they also had a lot of interests outside of the comics field. They brought these other interests with them when crafting their stories, and it showed; nobody can say with a serious face that Wolfman's Tomb of Dracula, Moench's Master of kung fu, Thomas' Conan or Gerber's Howard the duck were retread of old Stan lee stories. I mean, come on.

In the case of the 90s, however, I'm not so sure. I may be too harsh on the people who worked on Marvel comics at the time, but too many of them seemed intent on imitating the "hot" stars of the moment. (Remember how every darn title in the late 80s- early 90s was deemed to be "hot"?)

Storywise, a lot of old themes were represented. It's as if everyone wanted to revive the stories they had enjoyed when they were kids (or worse... when they had created them way back when). Lots of old characters whose stories had come to a satisfactory end were brought back in the saddle (Thanos, Adam Warlock, etc.) and lots of downright stupid attempts at changing the Marvel Universe's status quo were initiated, and had to be undone (Teen Tony, Peter Parker the clone, The Crossing, not to mention the awful Heroes Reborn).

Marvel's great continuity, instead of being used as a solid and credible background for the creation of new stories, was mined for the smallest minutiae that could provide the excuse for some universe-shattering event. No wonder people nowadays don't like the C word... it's a case of overexposure.

Artwise, (and I apologize to fans of the semi-manga style so prevalent at the time) we got a lot of young artists who had obviously learned their art by copying recent Image comics (or the X-Men issues by Jim Lee) and had no clue as to what human anatomy is supposed to be. It's all well and nice to exaggerate and interpret the human form for dramatic purposes, but you can do it only if you know how to draw for real. Anything else, as one of Barry Windsor-Smith's old teacher once said, is not real drawing but make-believe.

I only mention Marvel here because I am less familiar with the DC universe... but I think DC was guilty of a similar trend, with the wholesale and pointless alteration of characters. Luckily, the 90s were Vertigo's golden days... that's something DC can be proud of. And appropriately enough, neither Preacher, the Sandman nor Hellblazer looked anything like a 90s Image Comic. The Vertigo creators clearly read more than comics.

[scratchie]

In the case of the 90s, however, I'm not so sure. I may be too harsh on the people who worked on Marvel comics at the time, but too many of them seemed intent on imitating the "hot" stars of the moment. (Remember how every darn title in the late 80s- early 90s was deemed to be "hot"?)That may well be -- I read virtually nothing by Marvel, DC or Image in the 90s -- but that's a far cry from saying "everything Marvel did from the mid-60s to late-90s is crap, because of those damn fanboys!", which is essentially what the original ranter said.

Making a distinction between "fanboys" and "genuine artists" is a false dichotomy anyway, since I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of comics professionals from the 60s to today started out as fans.

[shaxper]

I started reading Marvel in the '90s and, even from my biased viewpoint, the company was going down the tubes at this point. I'm still over-eager to trace 99% of the problems back to Spider-Man #1. That issue presented five new problems for the comic book world:

1. It set a new standard for artists and images recieving more attention than writers and story. Legendary Spider-Man writers had spent years fighting for creative control over a Spider-Man title and Todd McFarlane, who had never done any writing previously, gained complete control over a new and major Spider-Man title just because the fan boys loved his artwork.

2. It introduced variant covers, which still piss me off to this day. Who wants to buy two copies of an issue in order to have a complete run? Going along with this, Spider-Man #1 was the first to have a collectible second printing (because the print run was lower than that of the first print).

3. It introduced polybags, the worst incentive in comic book history.

4. It introduced dealer incentives, which created a generation in which the most collectible comics were the ones you couldn't buy off the shelves for cover price.

5. #2, #3, and #4, along with an overspeculative market, made Spider-Man #1 one of the first issues that collectors went out in droves to buy multiple copies of, therefore severely devaluing the issue's investment potential as supply severely exceeded long term demand.

The long term reprecussions of this issue (and all the ones that followed its lead) were an overly speculative market, tactless promotions that ate up collectors' money but provided little content, and disenfranchised collectors who got tired of the amount of money required to keep up with these over-hyped, under-written stories with no long term collectibility.

[Red Oak Kid]

Concerning the claim that the fan-boys, Thomas, Wolfman, etc, didn't create anything new has been fairly well rebutted by others. But there is a reason that there was not more new stuff created.

In the early 70s it began to dawn on them that you got nothing for creating a popular new character other than the page rate Marvel paid. They saw that Ditko and Kirby got nothing for the characters they had created, while Marvel made millions selling the rights to put Spider-man on kids' pajamas and Spiderman cartoons etc.

I remember reading at the time in various fanzines that there was a conscious decision on the part of creators at both Marvel and DC not to create any new characters unless they could retain part ownership. Marvel and DC said no way. This is what led to the explosion in independent publishers in the late 70s and early 80s. They only published the new characters, but the creators retained the ownership rights in many cases.

Atlas/Seaboard managed to lure many young writers and artists away from Marvel and DC with the promise of more creator owned properties and profit sharing. However the management soon broke that promise which is why most Atlas titles took a creative nosedive in the second and third issues.

If the writers and artists of the early 70s could have profited from any popular characters they created, I think there would have been more new stuff from Marvel and DC.

[Marc Spector]

While I agree with most of what you said, I disagree with this. While not all of Roy the Boy's work was stellar, some of it was very good...better than Stan's. The Avengers took a definite upswing when Roy took over. His work on X-Men was better than anything Stan did on that book.



Roy's writing on Conan was very good. I'd rather have Roy writing it than Stan.

[Hombre]

While Gerry Conway's Spider-Man never reached the sustained heights that Stan reached, at its best it was as good as Stan's and at it's worst, it wasn't any worse.



Gerry Conway also wrote long stretches on Iron Man, Daredevil and Thor. By the time he'd replaced Englehart on the Avengers he had mastered his craft completely. He ended his run, which had been high on action and intrigue, with #157, "A ghost of stone!", in which a statue, believing itself still imbued with the soul of the Black Knight, plows through the Avengers until it is confronted by the Vision, who, in exposing the living statue's delusion and watching it fall apart against his diamond form, feels that its illusion of life was not unlike his own, and perhaps he, too, was nothing more than a ghost of crumbling stone.

[Agentum]

In the end 70s New X-men came and they kept Marvel in business for a long time.
They are probably still the most popular book from Marvel.

But yes the Marvel way of thinking have them locked in now and they just publish more and more mutants and superhero comics.

You know how it is people always think the comics they had in their childhod was the best and if they was done that way today then yaddayaddayadda.

Nothing indicate that silverage comics would bring back the public comics had those days.

The writing style has changet a lot since the 60s, and why not many new big characters is created is that most variants have been done AND that the creators get nothing and the publisher everythingh in those big companys so why should you create something new?

My thinkings not an answer to the first post.

Marvel may have been bad in the 90s with the speculation on comic boom, but they were not alone and to use the artist as a creator was maybe not the best desision, but still there is people who likes all that, often those that read the books as kids.

And yes i think Marvel as well as DC is good now but i like superhero comics, DC is better if you want something else.
This may be the last comic era with paper books at least.

[hondobrode]

Yes, I too was surprised to read these comments from a guy that supposedly has been reading comics for 40 years or better and says that it was the mid 60's when it started to unravel ! Unbelieveable.

The 70's did have a lot of fresh stuff going on in Marvel's second wave (post-Stan) and I look back and applaud a lot of what came out of there. For years 70's Marvel Bullpen got dumped on in favor of the original Bullpen but people like Starlin, Moench, Englehart, Thomas, Wolfman, Wein, Conway, Gerber, and others that escape me at the moment, were putting out some cool new stuff while trying to keep the Stan-styled cash cows in motion.

A lot of stuff sucked in the 90's but it wasn't all the 90's, it was mostly the first part of the decade that was loaded with all the mainstream crap that Image influenced so heavily. I'm the biggest DC fan there is and a lot of their stuff sucked then too, with the exception of the previously mentioned Vertigo imprint, which still makes me smile to this day.

Marvel f*!@ed things up so badly that after the Image boys came in on Uncanny X-Men, I gave up in disgust, traded all of my X titles until I only kept Uncanny back to when I enjoyed and could remember what the heck happened (# 175 - the last Paul Smith issue) and kept the two BWS issues. Everything else went bye bye. I later bought and enjoyed PAD's X-Factor and didn't touch mutant comics again until Ultimate X-Men and Morrison's run, both of which I have really enjoyed. I dumped a ton of Spider-Man too back to Roger Stern's excellent run IIRC and didn't resume with the character until JMS.

Marvel screwed up these two characters so badly that I mostly gave up on Marvel and just waited for the day when sanity took over and they would find a way to scrape the barnacles off. I personally thought Heroes Reborn was a good idea and am amazed fandom did not embrace it, but am really glad the Ultimate line was created, as that's where most of my Marvel love is going now, with the exceptions of anything JMS, Cap, DD, Books of Doom and upcoming Moon Knight.

It's also mind numbingly stupid that Marvel doesn't do some non-superhero material the way Archie Goodwin put out more adult themed stuff with the original Epic imprint.

BTW, just thinking about it, I want Star-Lord back ! It doesn't get anymore 70's than that ! That was a great series, dammit.

For whatever it's worth, 5 of the 38 books (Ares, FF A Death in the Family, Haunt of Horror Edgar Allen Poe, Marvel Legacy 70's Handbook, and Moon Knight) I have just ordered from my subscription service are Marvel, which is the most it's been in years. One, Godland, is independent. The other 32 are DC/Vertigo/Wildstorm.

[spoon_jenkins]

"In the years that followed Lee & Co's departure from creating the comics, fanboys like Thomas took over, and Nothing New was created -- fanboys just re-hash old stuff, and screw around with what's already there, rather than do anything creative (i.e. rather than act like writers/artists).

"So Marvel fell into the sht1 in the mid-late 60s, not the 90s
Checking GCD, in the middle of the 1960s - cover date Jan. 1965 - Stan Lee had 17 stories published under that cover date. Some were multiple stories within the same issue. In 1969 dated issues, Stan was still doing work on ASM, DD, FF, Cap, Thor, Hulk, Silver Surfer, Dr. Strange and stories in obscure non-superhero titles like Chili and Tower of Shadows. He was still working on alot of these titles in 1970. So I think this account may be a little off.

Wallace's claims are a little ironic to me, because the late 70s to mid-late 80s are my favorite period, and around 1998 is when my interest in current Marvel comics really hit the skids. It seemed to me that gimmicks and "events" were getting too much attention relative to quality in that era.

There's a lot of directions to go in addressing this claim.

I agree with others praising Thomas's Avengers (although I actually prefer Lee to Thomas on X-Men in general) and Conway on Spider-Man.

There were so many good and great Marvel comics in the 1970s and 1980s.

It's also ironic that the supposed real writers today include a number of folks from TV and movies, while Conway (I guess one of the fanboys) has been doing a lot of TV for years and is a big shot producer/writer on Law & Order: CI.

[Reptisaurus!]

While I don't agree with this guy at all:

It certainly IS a debatable proposition that Mainstream comics peaked in the fifties, with the whole EC line and folks like Carl Barks an' the Stanley/Tripp combination at the top of their game.

[Cei-U!]

In 1969 dated issues, Stan was still doing work on ASM, DD, FF, Cap, Thor, Hulk, Silver Surfer, Dr. Strange and stories in obscure non-superhero titles like Chili and Tower of Shadows. He was still working on alot of these titles in 1970. So I think this account may be a little off.

Well, not as much as it looks. Stan stopped writing Daredevil after #50 (3/69) and Incredible Hulk #120 (10/69), never to return to either title. His only Doctor Strange writing credit in '69 was in #179, a reprint of Amazing Spider-Man Annual #2.

Wallace's claims are a little ironic to me, because the late 70s to mid-late 80s are my favorite period, and around 1998 is when my interest in current Marvel comics really hit the skids. It seemed to me that gimmicks and "events" were getting too much attention relative to quality in that era.

Make that '88 and I'd agree.

It's also ironic that the supposed real writers today include a number of folks from TV and movies, while Conway (I guess one of the fanboys) has been doing a lot of TV for years and is a big shot producer/writer on Law & Order: CI.

I don't know if Conway would agree but I always saw him as the last of the old school scripters who saw writing comics as a steady income for a professional writer rather than as a forum for his artistic genius or a chance to play self-indulgently with relics of his childhood.

Cei-U!
I summon the work ethic!

[spoon_jenkins]

Well, not as much as it looks. Stan stopped writing Daredevil after #50 (3/69) and Incredible Hulk #120 (10/69), never to return to either title. His only Doctor Strange writing credit in '69 was in #179, a reprint of Amazing Spider-Man Annual #2.
Oops, so the Doctor Strange doesn't really count. I think that DD and Hulk back up my point though, which is that it's hard to mark the decline from to the mid-late 1960s when Stan Lee left the writing chores because Stan was writing many titles almost at the end of the 60s. I saw that his DD and Hulk didn't reach the 70s.

I don't know if Conway would agree but I always saw him as the last of the old school scripters who saw writing comics as a steady income for a professional writer rather than as a forum for his artistic genius or a chance to play self-indulgently with relics of his childhood.

I'm not really familiar with Conway's background before becoming a comic pro. My point is more about questioning Wallace's contrast between 70s fanboy writers and today's supposedly talented writers. Thus, I was pointing out that several celebrated comics writers come over from TV/film (and others have pointed out, were big comics fans). Meanwhile, Conway, one of the more prolific writers of the 70s, is a success in TV. So I'm questioning the fanboy hack theory, because one of the big 70s writers is in the territory that producers the "real writers", he just took the reverse path.

Out of curiosity, who were the writers that who were prominent in fandom first. I know Roy Thomas was a fanzine guy, and Roger Stern too. Wein and Wolfman were pals from fandom, I think, right?

[dan bailey]

I'm not really familiar with Conway's background before becoming a comic pro.

i'm pretty sure he'd had at least one paperback sf novel published before his byline started showing up in comics.

[Mike Kuypers]

i'm pretty sure he'd had at least one paperback sf novel published before his byline started showing up in comics.

Midnight Dancers came out around the time his first comics work appeared (1971). His other SF novel was Mindship (1974). I read the latter and didn't think it was that good.

[Cei-U!]

Keep in mind Conway was only 17 when Midnight Dancers was published.

Cei-U!
I summon the boy wonder!

[Rob Allen]

Out of curiosity, who were the writers that who were prominent in fandom first. I know Roy Thomas was a fanzine guy, and Roger Stern too. Wein and Wolfman were pals from fandom, I think, right?
Yes, they were a team - Wolfman was the writer and Wein was the artist. :eek:

Paul Levitz was a prominent fanzine editor.

Tony Isabella and Tom Orzechowski first met in midwest fan circles; Tony's from Cleveland and Tom from Detroit. Tony later gave Tom his first job at Marvel.

And on another topic, my copy of Conway's Mindship lists the author as "Gerard F. Conway". Did the other novel say "Gerry"?

[dan bailey]

And on another topic, my copy of Conway's Mindship lists the author as "Gerard F. Conway". Did the other novel say "Gerry"?

nope -- gerard f conway, too.

he also apparently wrote several novels in the mid-'70s as "wallace moore."

[Reptisaurus!]

Out of curiosity, who were the writers that who were prominent in fandom first.

Don Rosa, the current "good" Duck Artist, had a long-running question and answer collumn in Rocket Blast Comic Collector in the seventies.

[Mike Kuypers]

Keep in mind Conway was only 17 when Midnight Dancers was published.

Cei-U!
I summon the boy wonder!

Wikipedia says 19, but that's still an accomplishment. He was 22 when Mindship was published.

[Mark Wallace]

Oops, so the Doctor Strange doesn't really count. I think that DD and Hulk back up my point though, which is that it's hard to mark the decline from to the mid-late 1960s when Stan Lee left the writing chores because Stan was writing many titles almost at the end of the 60s. I saw that his DD and Hulk didn't reach the 70s.


I'm not really familiar with Conway's background before becoming a comic pro. My point is more about questioning Wallace's contrast between 70s fanboy writers and today's supposedly talented writers. Thus, I was pointing out that several celebrated comics writers come over from TV/film (and others have pointed out, were big comics fans). Meanwhile, Conway, one of the more prolific writers of the 70s, is a success in TV. So I'm questioning the fanboy hack theory, because one of the big 70s writers is in the territory that producers the "real writers", he just took the reverse path.

Out of curiosity, who were the writers that who were prominent in fandom first. I know Roy Thomas was a fanzine guy, and Roger Stern too. Wein and Wolfman were pals from fandom, I think, right?


It never fails: I cause trouble wherever I go -- and I haven't even been here before!

The point about people coming over from TV or film is that at least in those media, they don't accept many people as writers unless they've at least got some accreditation -- i.e. they're either educated or experienced in the craft.

Marvel, throughout the fanboy era, got its "writers" from the staff canteen (where editors, caterers, and toilet cleaners were suddenly given writing tasks) (Ok, maybe not too many toilet cleaners, but you get my drift), or picked them up in comicon bars.

Hell of a way for a professional publishing company to operate!


Yes, everyone has his favourite era, usually because that's when he first started reading comics regularly, but liking something doesn't translate to it being quality work, innovative work, or professionally-produced work.

Where I originally posted my message (thanks, Shellhead, for getting me in trouble over here, too!), I was largely inspired to do so because so many people were citing the infinity glove (gauntlet, schmauntlet) as one of the highlights of the 90s.

Has anyone actually read the damned thing! I've been writing professionally for over 25 years, in all fields except comics, historical romance, and porn (and I would never, Ever, write historical romance!), so I've got a pretty fair idea of how it all works, and when I first read that story, I couldn't believe it was from the same guy who wrote the earlier Warlock/Thanos story.

The plot was a mess; the motivation of the characters was, shall we say, somewhat flawed; the characterisation and character interaction was appaling; it was as predictable as your mother-in-law's opinion; and the language use was almost pre-school.

I wish I could quote my WHoM pages, here, because I go into detail about it, but I save them as graphics, not text, and... well. I'll be honest, I can't be bothered to make that much effort.

(I'd insert a smiley, there, but I'm too lazy).


Anyway, let's take a different example of the outcomes of Marvel's fanboy policies.

Roger Stern (hired as a writer from the staff canteen) "wrote" (I use the word guardedly) the Avengers for five years.

Obviously, a lot of people started reading comics in that time, so they will be afficionados of his work, but the question is:

Q: Comics is a creative field of endeavour. What did Roger Stern create during his tenure with the Avengers?

And the answer is:

A: The female Captain Marvel, and Nebula.

And that's it.

In five years, he created only two characters -- whether good-guy, bad-guy, or support. (And CM only counts as a half credit, because she first appeared in a Spidey annual)

It took Lee, Kirby, Ditko, et al, less time than that to create just about everything in the Marvel universe.

Is Stern's work creative enough for you? Is fanboy work creative enough for you?

For thirty years, from the late 60s to the late 90s, all we were given was rehashed tripe -- fanboy-story ideas, which made this super-duper fight that super-duper (good or bad) because it would meet the fanboy requirements of being COOL! (remember to bounce up and down in your seat, as you shout that word).

So sure, there are people who like Stern's Avengers, because its what they cut their teeth on, but that doesn't mean that Stern's Avengers are any good at all.


Busiek.
A Total fanboy.
You can tell when he started reading comics, because everything he writes uses stuff from that era (1970-71).

However, Busiek is a skilled writer! He knows how to tell a story, and he tells it well. He knows how to write characters, and his character interactions are brilliant.

This means that his comics are worth reading (and owning), even if he didn't create anything much new.


Steranko.
Incredibly talented and creative comic artist, but he couldn't tell a story to save his life.

His comics are worth owning, too, because of the wonderfully creative artwork.


So I've never really asked for much from comic companies; just that they have at least one genuinely talented or skilled person on a book

But if you take the combination of untrained, unskilled, uncreative, and over-excitable over stupid ideas, you end up with a comic that's just not worth reading.

But skill and ability were not a consideration within Marvel, just enthusiasm (and am I the only one who's ever noted that the best artists, the best writers, are not noted for their "enthusiastic" behaviour!).


Well, I know none of us will ever agree with anyone else, on topics like this, because taste is everything, but I confess it's nice to toss in my tuppence-worth.

[Cei-U!]

The lady Captain Marvel was created by Jim Shooter and John Romita Jr, if memory serves, with Roger Stern providing her backstory. Aside from that, Mark, I'll just say that I disagree with pretty much everything you say, especially where Stern's Avengers run is concerned, but I appreciate you sharing your POV and encourage you to stick around.

Cei-U!

[The Wayner]

I've been writing professionally for over 25 years, in all fields except comics, historical romance, and porn (and I would never, Ever, write historical romance!)

Don't knock it. I still receive nice royalty checks on a historical romance that I wrote. ;)

And porn isn't a bad gig, either. Larry Flynt paid darned GOOD money back in the day. :cool:

[scratchie]

In five years, he created only two characters -- whether good-guy, bad-guy, or support. (And CM only counts as a half credit, because she first appeared in a Spidey annual)

It took Lee, Kirby, Ditko, et al, less time than that to create just about everything in the Marvel universe.Honestly, so what? Writing isn't a quantitative sport where you get points for how many new characters you create. Was the writing any good or not? I have no idea, but simply citing the number of new characters he created (or didn't create) is meaningless.

For thirty years, from the late 60s to the late 90s, all we were given was rehashed tripe And then you jump directly to here! After giving one example of one writer -- who may or may not be good, you don't actually say -- you make a blanket statement that's simply ludicrous. Marvel introduced dozens of new characters in the early 70s, so by your standard, that must have been a superlatively creative time.

Back in the world of reality, the 70s featured numerous creations that were not only new, but critically acclaimed and still popular. The Tomb of Dracula. The new X-Men. Howard the Duck.

There were qualitative changes as well, with Deathlok the Demolisher pre-figuring the "Dark & Gritty" anti-heroes to come, and Omega the Unknown indulging in superhero deconstruction, ten years before Watchmen.

So by any number of standards, the 70s were a creative period at Marvel, and for you to just write them off because Roger Stern didn't create a lot of new characters is absurd, if not downright bizarre.

This means that his comics are worth reading (and owning), even if he didn't create anything much new.So doesn't this make your citation of Stern's lack of originality even more meaningless? Again, you haven't provided a single critical statement as to why Stern's writing is poor, other than the fact that he didn't create a lot of new characters. Then you say that Busiek's writing is good, even though he didn't create a lot of new characters. So what was the point of mentioning Stern at all, and what justification do you have for choosing his work to represent "the late 60s to the late 90s"??

There may be an argument to make that Marvel produced almost nothing but crap for 30 years, but you sure ain't making it!

[Mark Wallace]

The lady Captain Marvel was created by Jim Shooter and John Romita Jr, if memory serves, with Roger Stern providing her backstory. Aside from that, Mark, I'll just say that I disagree with pretty much everything you say, especially where Stern's Avengers run is concerned, but I appreciate you sharing your POV and encourage you to stick around.

Cei-U!
Hmm.
Why do I not find it too incredibly strange that a guy with a mud-age handle and logo disagrees with my opinions?

Y'know, I think I might be turning psychic...

[Mark Wallace]

Honestly, so what? Writing isn't a quantitative sport where you get points for how many new characters you create. Was the writing any good or not? I have no idea, but simply citing the number of new characters he created (or didn't create) is meaningless.
(snip)
Whoa! Too heavy, Guy!

And I think I made it reasonably clear that I don't expect perfection -- just [creativity OR talent OR skill] AND the ability to write in coherent, accessible English.

Your reply reads more like a critique of the construction of my posting, than anything else. Good job I'm used to that kind of thing.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Please tone it down a notch, everyone. I don't want this to turn into a flamewar.

[Agentum]

HATE!!!!!!!!

And you know Captain Marvel is a Fawcett hero.
Marvel just keep that name alive just to keep the name rights, their Cap. Marvel has never been any good and they have probably losed money on his books :)

[dan bailey]

Hmm.
Why do I not find it too incredibly strange that a guy with a mud-age handle and logo disagrees with my opinions?


???? kurt's icon is his own artwork, is it not?

[Cei-U!]

???? kurt's icon is his own artwork, is it not?

But, dan, it's so much easier to judge people by superficialities!

Cei-U!
What does "mud-age" mean and should I be insulted?

[Jolly Mon]

But, dan, it's so much easier to judge people by superficialities!

Cei-U!
What does "mud-age" mean and should I be insulted?

I think "mud-age" means "ignore the guy who said it". :D

[Shellhead]

But, dan, it's so much easier to judge people by superficialities!

Cei-U!
What does "mud-age" mean and should I be insulted?

I'm guessing "mud age" is what Mr. Wallace calls the early golden age of comics.

[Reptisaurus!]

I'm guessing "mud age" is what Mr. Wallace calls the early golden age of comics.

And here I thought he was just stringing words together unintelligbly. Like Popcorn Amiable Cuisinart coquettishly. It's fun!

[scratchie]

And here I thought he was just stringing words together unintelligbly. Like Popcorn Amiable Cuisinart coquettishly. It's fun!How dare you pancake mango obsequious?!

[Roquefort Raider]

How dare you pancake mango obsequious?!

Please polish the platypus palimpsest. Word!

[Mark Wallace]

And here I thought he was just stringing words together unintelligbly. Like Popcorn Amiable Cuisinart coquettishly. It's fun!
Hmm. That's an idea for a new hobby, I suppose. How many times am I allowed to use the word "banana" in a single sentence?

I call the so-called "golden age" comics "mud-age" because I don't like the way you're expected to look back on them as if they were something wonderful. Most of them were pretty dreadful, and it's only nostalgia that gives them any value. I don't like giving the impression that I think they were wonderful, ergo I don't call them "golden".

How about "banana age"? Would that have a less derogatory effect? Bananas are even the right colour (more or less).

[scratchie]

I call the so-called "golden age" comics "mud-age" because I don't like the way you're expected to look back on them as if they were something wonderful. Most of them were pretty dreadful, and it's only nostalgia that gives them any value. I don't like giving the impression that I think they were wonderful, ergo I don't call them "golden".So in other words, the only comics that aren't total crap are the ones from when you first started reading comics. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Mark Wallace]

So in other words, the only comics that aren't total crap are the ones from when you first started reading comics. Thanks for clearing that up.
<*snicker*>

Good one! Ya got me, Lefty!

I just happen to be lucky to have started at about the time that Marvel brought the medium out of the doldrums. There'd hardly even been any super-duper comics, for the few years before then, but it all suddenly came to life.

Fun times.

[gentlesatirist]

...as well as music, movies, fiction, etc. is that the ones that we like when first exposed to any of those mediums are the ones that stick with us through most of our lives.

They enter our minds before we have any critical context to define them with or anything to compare them to. We just like them because we like them. This explains my ongoing fondness for comics of the mid-70s and pop/rock music of the late 80s/early 90s.

And I have to agree with Mark's assertion that not all Golden Age comics are wonderful just because they're old. A lot of the segments of All-Star Comics - almost all of which have received the full Archives treatment - were pretty abysmal, drawn by teenage artists during wartime shortages - yet they're lionized because they feature the JSA.

At the same time, I have a hard time using the word "mud" to describe any era that featured the art of Lou Fine, Mac Raboy, Alex Schomburg and others.


- FE
Wickliffe OH

[Cei-U!]

I love Golden Age super-hero comics. That's no secret. That doesn't mean I'm blind to their faults. The fact is I love them for their crudity. They're direct and raw, still dripping with afterbirth. It's fascinating to watch characters who have become familiar to the point of contempt defining themselves for the first time. If you approach these stories expecting the kind of sophistication, in both structure and content, that has become the norm in the decades since, of course you're going to be disappointed, just as you'd be disappointed if you approached Melies' A Trip to the Moon expecting, say, The Fifth Element or The Matrix. I make no apologies for my affection for this stuff nor should I have to.

Cei-U!
The defense rests!

[scratchie]

I'm not sure if Metropolis is really the right point of comparison, since that movie is considered an all-time classic, even by fans of "serious" films. It's more like comparing, say, Flash Gordon serials to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I have to say, I have no problem enjoying both.

[Cei-U!]

I'm not sure if Metropolis is really the right point of comparison, since that movie is considered an all-time classic, even by fans of "serious" films. It's more like comparing, say, Flash Gordon serials to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I have to say, I have no problem enjoying both.

I agree so I changed my analogy in the previous post.

Cei-U!
I summon the larceny!

[gentlesatirist]

...from Golden Age comics, but I like to see some basic understanding of how to draw a human figure. That and the ability to make the same character recognizable from panel to panel. A lot of GA comics don't even meet those low standards.

To be fair, no one expected comics in comic-book form to last 5 years, much less 70. They were looked at as a way to get a paycheck before landing a syndicated comic strip or illustration work in magazines or advertising. Comics were cheap and sold well, and that's the way many publishers treated the product. The fact that DC landed Kane/Finger and Siegel/Shuster and that Quality landed Eisner/Fine and that Fawcett snagged Beck/Raboy and that Kirby worked for these and more is more blind luck than anything, given the short-sighted nature of the business model.


- FE

[Mark Wallace]

At the same time, I have a hard time using the word "mud" to describe any era that featured the art of Lou Fine, Mac Raboy, Alex Schomburg and others.


Right.

"Banana age" it is, then.

My God! It's true! You can actually reach decisions by committee!

There's a first!

[Mark Wallace]

I love Golden Age super-hero comics. That's no secret. That doesn't mean I'm blind to their faults. The fact is I love them for their crudity. They're direct and raw, still dripping with afterbirth. It's fascinating to watch characters who have become familiar to the point of contempt defining themselves for the first time. If you approach these stories expecting the kind of sophistication, in both structure and content, that has become the norm in the decades since, of course you're going to be disappointed, just as you'd be disappointed if you approached Melies' A Trip to the Moon expecting, say, The Fifth Element or The Matrix. I make no apologies for my affection for this stuff nor should I have to.

Cei-U!
The defense rests!
I can't find a word I disagree with, there.

4/10

Must try harder.