When Marvel Lost its Sanity... Or Found It

[benday-dot]

Hi there... as I mentioned in my post on "What Classic Comics Have You Read Lately" I just finished reading Thor 168. As I said in that post the most obvious thing that distinguishes this issue (not necessarily for the better I hold) was its absence of Colletta inks. However there is something else, really quite extraordinary, that I found yielded up by this book in the course of my revisit. Apparently Stan Lee and the editorial powers of Marvel in the Summer of 1969 were up to something a hell of a lot more breathtaking than were Brian Adams and his pals, as recounted in their vapid nostalgic bleats.

Yes eight years after the issue of Fantastic Four 1 comes the stunning announcement in the September 1969 Stan Lee Soapbox that "we're abandoning our policy of continued stories!" From now on all Marvel comics would consist solely of one-shots. Concession would be made to the occasional "two-parter", but for the most part Marvel would begin a new tight and economical age of plot and script.

Three things strike about this amazing editorial shift:

1) How quickly it was abandoned. If it was continued for any appreciable length of time it would likely mark a more important watershed point in the still maturing Marvel Universe than do any of the bloated allegedly universe altering multi-crossover arcs that are the mainstay of today's biz.

2) That it purportedly came about through fan pressure. A good or bad thing, fan pressure I suspect might not be ideal to creative freedom, but does serve to suggest that titans might bend to popular pressure. From what I've read Marvel was a notorious bandwagon jumper back then... jumping on and off trends as they blew by Madison Avenue. Still an ear to the fans can be the mark of flexibilty.

3) In relation to my first point it seems like a hearkening back to an earlier era of comics when the one-shot was the rule rather than the exception. Today story arcs are written usually in expectation that 6,10 or 12 issues down the road they will redouble revenues through trade recyclings. I suspect the challenge to artists and writers to rise to the occasion in the restrictive limits of the one-shot would be as great as in the nausea inducing zillion title crossover runs.

I am by no means opposed to continued, and continuous, story arcs. That is actually how I buy most of my comics... by story rather than character. However, the whole Civil War, Annihilation, House of M, Crisis on Infinitie Earths spaghetti seems sometimes so damn depressing, when compared, say, to the pure line stylings of a classic Beck/Binder Captain Marvel or even to the more modern succinct brilliances of a Conan 24 ("Song of Red Sonja")

I guess I am sounding crusty, but I thought for those who haven't heard before of the short lived Marvel revolution of 1969 I'd bring it up here and see what others had to say... hmmm... one-shots or multi-part epics.

Here's my (very crooked) scan of the original insane/sane Soapbox.

[david r]

A more important moment in Marvel's history was the meeting in 1972 in which Stan Lee announced that the writers were to stop developing and maturing the characters. From now on, Marvel was to create the "illusion of growth".

All the characters were to essentially stay the way they were at that point. Evolving them beyond that would hurt their marketability as franchises, movies, cartoons, etc. I would say this was a big mistake on their part.

[Rob Imes]

I think the "no continued stories" policy lasted about a year, if we look at the comic which I'm most familiar with: Captain America. That comic had started out with a bunch of one-shot stories, then had a Steranko trilogy (interrupted by a Kirby filler issue), then had a long-running storyline where the Skull had the Cosmic Cube and The Falcon was introduced (#114-119).

After that, Cap was mainly a one-issue story comic for the next year or so. Cap and Falc split up on the first page of #120, and then Cap went through a series of one-issue stories similar to the pre-Steranko issues, where often the endings seemed to be piled onto the last page using smaller panels. Then there was a 2-parter involving a fake Bucky, a couple more stand-alone issues, then this was followed by a steady run of 2 or 3 parters that would run into each other, i.e., the ending of one would meld with the beginning of the next one.

Steve Englehart's debut on the series was a 4-parter (#153-156) so obviously it was not a big issue anymore, although he still wrote some standalone issues as well: #160 (introduction of Solaar), #163 (pacifism issue), #164 (Alan Weiss-drawn issue introducing Nightshade), etc.

[Mike Kuypers]

I suspect the complaints against continued stories came from fans who couldn't always find Marvel comics in their area and were frustrated by stories they couldn't finish. That wasn't a problem in my neighborhood, but I have heard others say the continued-story format put them off Marvel. Of course Marvel eventually came to dominate the market, so I image fans no longer worried about missing issues.

[Rob Allen]

I remember that month. That's when I stopped buying comics. It would be almost two years before I bought another one. The end of continued stories wasn't the only reason, but it was part of the reason. I'd been reading comic books regularly since 1963, Marvels exclusively since 1965, and it was increasingly clear that things weren't the same. Now, I realize that I was seeing the Silver Age end right in front of my eyes. And I didn't want it to end!!!

[scratchie]

A more important moment in Marvel's history was the meeting in 1972 in which Stan Lee announced that the writers were to stop developing and maturing the characters. From now on, Marvel was to create the "illusion of growth".Is this for real?

[DDM]

A more important moment in Marvel's history was the meeting in 1972 in which Stan Lee announced that the writers were to stop developing and maturing the characters. From now on, Marvel was to create the "illusion of growth".

All the characters were to essentially stay the way they were at that point. Evolving them beyond that would hurt their marketability as franchises, movies, cartoons, etc. I would say this was a big mistake on their part.

I take it Stan Lee peed in his pants when Chris Claremont & Dave Cockrum created Phoenix from Marvel Girl for The All New, All Different X-Men?

[Hombre]

I take it Stan Lee peed in his pants when Chris Claremont & Dave Cockrum created Phoenix from Marvel Girl for The All New, All Different X-Men?

I honestly believe the opposite of what David's surprising post implies has occurred during Marvel's bronze age.

[benday-dot]

Hmm... I have no knowledge of Marvel's little illumimati style meet of '72 in which a muzzle was placed on creativity, but in my own current reading of bronze age titles I have just hit Thor 183 (December 1970) and have come across the Stan Lee soapbox formally refuting the earlier one of September 1968 (see first post in this thread). The no continuous, one-shot storyline only policy proved unworkable. Obviously this was inevitable if Marvel was carry on with the pretense that creators enjoyed any sort of artistic freedom. As Lee writes, stories sometimes sort of write themselves and plotters must take them where they demand. Still what was happenning at Marvel in 1972 was a far cry from the tumescence of todays unweildy multi-tentacled storylines. Think the tightness of Panther's Rage versus the sprawl of Annihilation. I really don't care if one part of the Marvel Universe has little or no bearing on another. That kind of anal continuity is real bugaboo of mine.

Here's the second soapbox.

[Hombre]

Obviously this was inevitable if Marvel was carry on with the pretense that creators enjoyed any sort of artistic freedom.

Pretense by whom, and for what purposes? Marvel comics had a series of editors in chief, and eventually of associate editors, starting with Stan, evidently entrusted with maintaining an unified direction for their comics.

In 1970, Stan was just beginning to hand over the writing reins to others outside of his initial circle of collaborators, some of whom, such as Roy Thomas or Gerry Conway, were extremely young.

The heart of the matter, I think, is that Stan was in the business of selling comic books, directed mainly at young people, and which had a stigma historically attached to them, one which he fought to overcome, with hype and with substance, and that, by the time of his famous decision to publish the "drugs" story in Spider-Man, he had obviously helped to reduce considerably.

The stories themselves prove that creators did enjoy creative freedom within the limits imposed by such things as sales and reader response. The readers were responding well to what was becoming an ever more interesting and challenging Universe, all things considered. And the presence of editors in chief such as Stan and, after him, Roy, Len, Marv, Gerry, Archie and Jim, probably helped in steering Marvel in a direction that was consistent with its original spirit of wonderment, wackiness and insight into the human condition.

And for that I think we should be thankful, these characters and this universe didn't belong to any single creator, I think they still don't, and it's only fitting that they had to understand and be excited by the potential of the characters and the worlds that Stan, Jack, Steve, John, Don and the rest had created.

[benday-dot]

Originally posted by Hombre

Pretense by whom, and for what purposes? Marvel comics had a series of editors in chief, and eventually of associate editors, starting with Stan, evidently entrusted with maintaining an unified direction for their comics.

The heart of the matter, I think, is that Stan was in the business of selling comic books, directed mainly at young people, and which had a stigma historically attached to them, one which he fought to overcome, with hype and with substance, and that, by the time of his famous decision to publish the "drugs" story in Spider-Man, he had obviously helped to reduce considerably.

The stories themselves prove that creators did enjoy creative freedom within the limits imposed by such things as sales and reader response. ...steering Marvel in a direction that was consistent with its original spirit of wonderment, wackiness and insight into the human condition.

I don't disagree with your enthusiastic embrace of the world of Marvel Comics, in particular that world as it existed some 20-30 years ago. Personally, I much prefer the 1960's/70's version of the MU to its present day incarnation. I remember as a kid it made me so damn happy to follow those characters in their, to paraphrase your words, wacky and wonderful world. And yes in their own fashion, under their own constraints, the House of Ideas did take a peak into the human condition. These books had such a spirit and sparkle to them. God that newsprint makes me happy still. No doubt I love those books, that era. And this forum must have many kindred spirits.

Pretense by whom, and for what purposes?

Yes, maybe the word was harsh. But I'll stand by it only to spin it now to less sinister effect. I suggest no conspiratorial angle. I don't think the constraints under which Marvel's 70's creators laboured were imposed to any nefarious purpose. You mentioned the need to be beholden to sales and reader response (mostly youthful you rightly submit) when guiding the given editorial direction. The fact is nearly all mainstream comicbooks, and even more so those of the 1970's when the medium was still in its mid-adolesence, existed in the confines of a marketplace that pretty much precluded any notion of the truly experimental and avant-garde. Yes there was Gerber's satirical Defenders, Starlin's psych-pop Warlock and McGregor's eloquent Black Panther among other forays into the relatively unconventional, but these could hardly be considered akin to those expressions and possibilities of boldest artistic venture. I mean nothing in Marvel's era of relevancy can be considered truly revolutionary, shocking or daring. Luke Cage, is more blaxploitation, than groundbreaking. Those Spider-Man drug issues might have been a challenge of Stan Lee's, but really they were pretty shallow ventures, given the ubiquity of drug culture at the time. By way of contrast, think of what was happening in cinema in the 70's... American filmmakers, even in conservative Hollywood, were among a group of artists that were finally allowed to achieve the sort of breakout necessary to produce works of art that place that decade's achievments far ahead of what is happening today tinseltown. And to stick with the world of comics, the independent artists that in the 60's and 70's (and ever before and after) working in relative obscurity in the comic's underground enjoyed a degree of artistic freedom that I'm sure their above-ground colleagues must have at times envied.

Most artists by drive, my disposition, by vocation do not like constrainsts, other than those they impose upon themselves. As delightful as the 70's Marvel milieu was and remains, I don't think we can properly claim that it was any kind of unbridled hotbed of creative freedom. The creators did what they could, and maybe took things as far as they could, or wished to, but I'm sure the limits they confronted in their craft, working as they did for a mainstream, sales driven coorporation, must have caused them to, on more than one occasion, think upon such near or far potential embedded in the promise of the full flower of their artistic expression.After all they couldn't even own those beloved characters they laboured to create. That must have hurt. Steve Gerber, perhaps the most brilliant bloom in the Bullpen, left when he lost his cherished Howard.

So yeah that Marvel era was pretty darn breathtaking, but I think by no means the height of artistic freedom.

[Hombre]

By way of contrast, think of what was happening in cinema in the 70's... American filmmakers, even in conservative Hollywood, were among a group of artists that were finally allowed to achieve the sort of breakout necessary to produce works of art that place that decade's achievments far ahead of what is happening today tinseltown. And to stick with the world of comics, the independent artists that in the 60's and 70's (and ever before and after) working in relative obscurity in the comic's underground enjoyed a degree of artistic freedom that I'm sure their above-ground colleagues must have at times envied.



While I may look at the issue differently, the point you made regarding movies is one that I always make.

I mean that there is a particular connection between art and society that defines the tone of popular culture at any given era. So it is right and necessary to compare the comics of the 70s with the movies of the 70s directed by such folks as Scorsese, Altman, Cimino, Coppola, Forman, Ashby et al.

Where I disagree, is that these particular comics, the Marvel heroes, had to use the same language and imagery of those movies. In hindsight, I think the balance the creators involved struck between realism, symbolism and sheer fun and fantasy was a good one, and the comics themselves were what they were supposed to be.

To exemplify, we saw in 1991's Panther's Prey what kind of Black Panther comic Don McGregor would make without the constraints of making it suitable for all ages. I loved it, but I don't think Kirby's completely different take on the character back in the 70s had any less artistic merit or significance.

A point that I agree to disagree with, but disagree with nonetheless, is that in the 70s you had Gerber, you had McGregor, some would also rightfully add Claremont, and then only kids stuff.

We had a little debate about Dave Kraft, and my argument was this... yes Gerber did a great Defenders, but read, say, Defenders #48, and you'll see that at the time there was a common sensibility, one that many other creators from Steve Englehart to Len Wein shared, and that in my mind, Stan Lee had pioneered with such comics as his late 60s Spider Man run with John Romita Sr.

This is not to say the independent stuff was not great, I'll bet it was but I don't know much about it, it's all I can do to keep up with my Marvel hobby.

I'll say one thing though, not necessarily something that has artistic merit may be what you're looking for... I don't care for, say, comics with graphic sexual themes such as Robert Crumb's Fritz the Cat, no matter how intelligent or revolutionary. It's just rest and relaxation to me, so I definitely plead guilty of that.

[Hombre]

On the other hand... I agree that were many missed opportunities, regrettable decisions that if avoided would have made Marvel's legacy to us richer.

To the examples Benday cited, I would add my conviction that had McGregor been able to continue his Jungle Action run instead of being relieved of his duties in the middle of telling his Panther Vs. the Klan story, we would have had a real masterpiece on our hands to rival Gerber's Defenders, Claremont's X-Men or any other in scope.

I realize this, but looking back you have to weigh the good with the bad, and see the big picture. The big picture tells me that the Bullpen guys tried their best to put forward the best comics possible and some decisions just weren't up to them, and that the general direction of the titles was to tackle difficult subjects of social and political relevance, even though probably in some cases the time just wasn't right and some things didn't work out.

All in all, I'm grateful for the fact that, even though there could have been more, what did see the light was powerful, interesting, magical and generally a positive and edifying contribution to the lives of those who experienced it, from back when we were kids to the present day.

[david r]

I take it Stan Lee peed in his pants when Chris Claremont & Dave Cockrum created Phoenix from Marvel Girl for The All New, All Different X-Men?

That meeting in 1972 did happen. But naturally, as time went on, creators found ways around it. But look at most of the core characters (FF, Cap, Iron Man, Thor in the 80s, 90s) they are all "fixed" in their 1960s personae.

The only time characters were allowed to actually change and grow was when:

1) Marvel wanted a "Big Event" to spruce up fan interest. See: Spider-Man's wedding or Civil War.

2) The book is selling terrible numbers and no one is buying. That is what happened with Claremont/Cockrum and the "New X-Men". It was an unsuccesful title, so they had creative license to take chances and "grow" characters. Once it became a mega-hit, what happened to X-Men? It was "fixed" into permanent status by Marvel. A permanent status defined by 1991 "Jim Lee"-era X-Men. The recent "Decimation" silliness was another attempt to put the toys back in their Status Quo Box.

[david r]

As others have posted here, I much rather prefer the Marvel world of the 60s, 70s and 80s. It just "had something" which is lacking now.

I feel Marvel jumped the shark in circa 1991. It has lost something since then.

[benday-dot]

Originally posted by Hombre
All in all, I'm grateful for the fact that, even though there could have been more, what did see the light was powerful, interesting, magical and generally a positive and edifying contribution to the lives of those who experienced it, from back when we were kids to the present day.

Good words kind Hombre. I suspect myself of making much ado of nothing. Honestly, I couldn't agree with you more when you speak of the Marvel creators of the 70's striking that nice balance between realism and fun. In pointing out what I suspect was a comic book culture in the midst of growing pains, of creators being allowed to explore facets of their art the fans might not have been ready for in earlier era, but still, for all the reasons already mentioned, no doubt wishing for more, I do not fail to find myself nodding in assent as I read your words. I'm sure Gerber, who not ony had an eye to the age goneby (are not the Headmen the perfectly resurrected anachronism?), must also have have been able to achingly anticipate the coming era of Vertigo, Pacific and the independents, and so chafe a little more each day in the Bullpen as his artistic sensibilities matured. He did what he could. And for what more can we fans ask?

If what turned out was something less than the stuff unbridled freedom, and something more than too chaste exhalations then it turned out well indeed. I take these books for what they were and what they were you have stated excellently. I do not prefer Crumb or Pekar to Kirby or McGregor. I buy my comics for reasons similar to those you outlined... fun, escape, insight, a laugh, and all those inestimable virtues. I do absolutely adore all things Chris Ware, and have picked up the odd Eightball and Concrete, but to me these are a matter of same medium, different worlds. Ok... I think I'll read my rather worn copy of Defender's 32 now.

I enjoy your posts Hombre.

[benday-dot]

Originally posted by Hombre
We had a little debate about Dave Kraft, and my argument was this...

Sometimes in light of Gerber we are guilty of ignoring Kraft. Maybe by way of the discussion this is a non-sequitor, but Kraft did some great stuff on the Defenders. One move of his I lament, however, was his elimination of the Gerber elf. I would have prefered he not touch this most curious of comic book happenings. I think Gerber was onto a commentary free meditation on the nature of the random, both in comic books and life, and I would have loved for the elf to have been let vanish as mysteriously as he arrived. Having him get run down by a truck seemed only superficially in keeping with Gerber's notion of the random. More apt would be to simply let the whole thing just quietly slip away without a hint of Kraft's poetic justice or irony. After all, life is like that I think.

[scratchie]

Sometimes in light of Gerber we are guilty of ignoring Kraft. Maybe in light of the discussion this is a non-sequitor, but Kraft did some great stuff on the Defenders.He wrote a lot of crap, too. The "Defender for a Day" story was one of the stupidest, most unfunny things I've ever read in any medium. The Lunatik storyline had some interesting ideas but was very poorly executed. While Kraft didn't get to finish it himself, it appears that he was setting up the conclusion before he left Marvel (by writing another character called "Tyrk" in Marvel Premiere), and that conclusion (both the idea and the execution by Ed Hannigan) was pretty bad as well.

[Citizen V]

A more important moment in Marvel's history was the meeting in 1972 in which Stan Lee announced that the writers were to stop developing and maturing the characters. From now on, Marvel was to create the "illusion of growth".

All the characters were to essentially stay the way they were at that point. Evolving them beyond that would hurt their marketability as franchises, movies, cartoons, etc. I would say this was a big mistake on their part.

This was something that i did not know,now i understand why the characters dont change,and dont age.Its the Rubber Band Effect.

The Rubber Band Effect is when characters are kept young,and the timeline is shrunk.So Marvel keeps its characters "eternally young" but key events like World War II are still mentioned.If the RBE was not in effect,Reed Richards and Professor X would be around 70-80 years old.Spider-Man in his 60`s.

[david r]

This was something that i did not know,now i understand why the characters dont change,and dont age.Its the Rubber Band Effect.

The Rubber Band Effect is when characters are kept young,and the timeline is shrunk.So Marvel keeps its characters "eternally young" but key events like World War II are still mentioned.If the RBE was not in effect,Reed Richards and Professor X would be around 70-80 years old.Spider-Man in his 60`s.

Exactly, the characters never really evolve. We have the illusion of growth, but eventually, all the characters are sent back to "Point One". Look at what Marvel did with the X-Men last year, get rid of all the faceless mutants and devolve the mutant books back to the early 90s "status quo".

DC Comics is the same way. Sure, you get a "Death of Superman" or a "Knightfall", but they are all gimmicks. The characters ALWAYS make their way back to the "status quo Box" given time. I find it makes the books become stagnant.

[benday-dot]

[QUOTE=scratchie]He wrote a lot of crap, too. The "Defender for a Day" story was one of the stupidest, most unfunny things I've ever read in any medium.

To be honest I haven't yet read that arc in its entirety... Though I've heard its the stuff of legends, vile goat, or quirky delight depending on your POV. I was thinking of the earlier Scorpio run when I proposed shedding some of the light of kindness upon Kraft.

[benday-dot]

[QUOTE=david r]Exactly, the characters never really evolve. We have the illusion of growth, but eventually, all the characters are sent back to "Point One". Look at what Marvel did with the X-Men last year, get rid of all the faceless mutants and devolve the mutant books back to the early 90s "status quo".

Yeah this is not a indicator of the highest integrity. Killing off a character and then bringing him/her back later on in some fashion (Captain Marvel, Phoenix, Electra, Superman... though how do you really kill off the ultra-iconic Man of Steel) is not indicative of superior confidence or creative growth. But do you think it's as much due to a sterility and innate conservatism in the mindset of the fans who buy the books as much as it is to any unwillingness in writers and artists to shake things up? This goes way back... Conan Doyle tried to kill off Moriarty, but the buying public denied the move. Claremont, in having pretty much invented the Phoenix character, may have felt sure and confident in his decision to kill her off. Of course here again the fans would have none of it. Starlin hit gold with his original Thanos/cosmic cube saga... strikingly original and creative I thought. But when you got a good thing going I guess its hard to let it go. By milking the poor cow ad nauseum, it threatens to sour the original splendour. . No doubt this must be frustrating for those creators who are keener to explore new territory, rather than rehash the old.

[Hombre]

[QUOTE]

I was thinking of the earlier Scorpio run when I proposed shedding some of the light of kindness upon Kraft.

And I'm driving a stolen car
On a pitch black night
And I'm telling myself I'm gonna be alright
But I ride by night and I travel in fear
That in this darkness I will disappear

I'm reminded of the various antiheroes in Springsteen's songs when I think of "Who remembers Scorpio?".

I had recently set out to read a bunch of Defenders issues starting with Giant Size #3 and have a lot of fun reading them. And that I did. But by the time I got to that story Kraft wrote in collaboration with Slifer, Warner, McGregor and Keith Giffen, I was begun to be moved on a much more personal level.

I don't know if Marvel has ever had a more human character, let alone villain, than the the second Scorpio was... I have struggled with much of the issues Jake Fury has, and I could understand what he felt has he confronted his ultimate decision, with tears flowing down his face. In keeping with Marvel's tradition of beings who were "other than human", yet in many ways more human than most, it's the Nick Fury LMD who represents the uncertain hope that Jake's misguided life had not been a complete waste, that he had touched someone else's life, after all.

It is moments like Scorpio's holding of the stillborn Virgo's hand, his face shrouded in darkness, that keep me convinced that these comics had indeed been something special, and justify all our discussions and passion.

[Cei-U!]

Conan Doyle tried to kill off Moriarty, but the buying public denied the move.

It was Sherlock Holmes, not Moriarty, that Conan Doyle was forced by public demand to resurrect.

Claremont, in having pretty much invented the Phoenix character, may have felt sure and confident in his decision to kill her off.

Claremont and Byrne did *not* want to kill Phoenix and were forced to rewrite/redraw the last pages of X-Men #137. It was Jim Shooter who ordered her death, saying (rightfully, IMO) that her act of planetary genocide could not go unpunished. Nor was her return dictated by the fans. Jean Grey was brought back because somebody decided to reunite the original five X-Men for the spin-off title X-Factor. Many fans, including yours truly, stopped reading Marvel Comics when she was resurrected, convinced the company was no longer interested in artistic integrity.

Cei-U!
I summon the exceptions!

[david r]

Claremont and Byrne did *not* want to kill Phoenix and were forced to rewrite/redraw the last pages of X-Men #137. It was Jim Shooter who ordered her death, saying (rightfully, IMO) that her act of planetary genocide could not go unpunished. Nor was her return dictated by the fans. Jean Grey was brought back because somebody decided to reunite the original five X-Men for the spin-off title X-Factor. Many fans, including yours truly, stopped reading Marvel Comics when she was resurrected, convinced the company was no longer interested in artistic integrity.


This is interesting, because guess who greenlighted Jean Grey's return in 1986? Jim Shooter!

Kurt Busiek dreamed up the actual "coccoon" concept. But it was Shooter himself, the man who changed DPS for the better, who decided to cancel the death and resurrect Jean Grey.

[Cei-U!]

This is interesting, because guess who greenlighted Jean Grey's return in 1986? Jim Shooter!

Kurt Busiek dreamed up the actual "coccoon" concept. But it was Shooter himself, the man who changed DPS for the better, who decided to cancel the death and resurrect Jean Grey.

Consistency was never Shooter's long suit. Many of the decisions he made toward the end of his tenure as EIC were, in my opinion anyway, serious missteps (creatively, if not financially) that Marvel has never really recovered from.

Cei-U!
I summon the last days!

[Rob Imes]

He wrote a lot of crap, too. The "Defender for a Day" story was one of the stupidest, most unfunny things I've ever read in any medium.

That's odd, I really dug that three-parter -- especially the first one. Last week, at work, in fact I was just randomly thinking, and the line "Not even Thanos could down this bitter beverage!" popped into my head and I had to chuckle to myself.

"This is devil's brew! Er, no offense, Son of Satan!" :-)

[Tommy]

This is interesting, because guess who greenlighted Jean Grey's return in 1986? Jim Shooter!

Kurt Busiek dreamed up the actual "coccoon" concept. But it was Shooter himself, the man who changed DPS for the better, who decided to cancel the death and resurrect Jean Grey.
Jim was just following through with his original decree. He would only allow Jean Grey to be resurrected if she could be exonerated of destroying the planet. Hence why they went with the "Jean and Phoenix are two different beings" twist instead of just flat out resurrecting her.

[benday-dot]

It was Sherlock Holmes, not Moriarty, that Conan Doyle was forced by public demand to resurrect.

Funny thing was... I woke up this morning and it popped into my head... hey, last night, up way to late enjoying reading all the wise and wonderful comments other folks left on the CBR Classic comics forum, I'm pretty sure I made the snafu of putting in Moriarty's name instead of Holmes. Sure enough I did...

Yes! Of course if was Holmes who plunged to his not quite demise at Reichenbach Falls and not the evil genius M. Thanks for getting my back Cei-U.

And thanks to all for the illumination provided on the editorial conflict over the Dark Phoenix saga. That I did not know. Interesting stuff though. Kind of a variatiion on the "death of one person is a tragedy, death of a million a statistic" line. Bringing a dead person back cheapens the initial pathos somewhat I think, even it is a different incarnation that returns.

[MDG]

Claremont and Byrne did *not* want to kill Phoenix and were forced to rewrite/redraw the last pages of X-Men #137. It was Jim Shooter who ordered her death, saying (rightfully, IMO) that her act of planetary genocide could not go unpunished.
At a convention around the time, Bryne worwa t-shirt that said, "She'd dead and she's going to stay dead."

[Strannik]

As others have posted here, I much rather prefer the Marvel world of the 60s, 70s and 80s. It just "had something" which is lacking now.

I feel Marvel jumped the shark in circa 1991. It has lost something since then.

I don't know, mate. I wasn't even alive during 60s, 70s and a decent chunk of the 1980s. I didn't really get into comics until the early 2000s. My first Marvel U title was JMS's Amazing Spider-Man run. Personally, what impressed me right off the bat was how cohesive the universe seemed to be, as in Spider-Man could just stop by and visit Dr Strange, team up with Captain America, etc, and it all seemed so mundane, so normal. I thought it was rather cool. Bendis' Daredevil blew my mind. Ultimate titles intrigued me (though I didn't really get into Ultimate X-Men until the 4th arc or so). I was also intrigued by New X-Men. The whole non-costume thing turned me off at first, but the "leather" outfits eventually grew on me. Then, I discovered Sentinel and Runaways, which was a revelation in on itself. I didn't mind decompression. Sure, at times, it was rather obvious that the writers were stretching the story, but most writers seemed to be able to keep within the six-arc format and tell a good story.

Now, my local library has tons of Essentials and collections of 80s-era stories. To be honest, I found most of them lacking in comparison. The dialogue seemed, to put it charitably, over-expository. The show-don't-tell rule seemed to have been gleefully disregarded. The plots suffered from lapses in logic. At times, a need to wrap up the story before the issue was done was painfully self-evident. Same goes for, at times, a bizzare disconnect between the stories and the art. And good lord, the captions, the over-written captions. Now, that is not to say that all comics from the past were bad. That would be unfair. But, aside from a few shining exceptions, most works of those eras aren't really up to par. That said, I will be the first to admit that the comics of the 60s had this delightful what-can-we-think-of-next sort of spirit. But, overall, the stories had the feeling of wasted potential.

Perhaps it's different when you read those stories first-hand. Personally, when I read about all the older fans looking back fondly on the old days, I can't help but feel puzzled. But that's just me. ;)

[DDM]

This is interesting, because guess who greenlighted Jean Grey's return in 1986? Jim Shooter!

Kurt Busiek dreamed up the actual "coccoon" concept. But it was Shooter himself, the man who changed DPS for the better, who decided to cancel the death and resurrect Jean Grey.

Jim Shooter accepted the "Phoenix is Jean Grey" story published in Fantastic Four #286 because he thought it did not violate Jean Grey's honorable death in Uncanny X-Men #137; however, this idea only worked because Jean Grey is Marvel Girl for X-Factor. The Phoenix concept became muddled when Jean Grey became Phoenix in 1994's The Adventures of Cyclops & Phoenix #1-4 long after Jim Shooter left Marvel Comics. Long term, Shooter was too shortsighted to see the problems Jean Grey's resurrection brought if Jean Grey became Phoenix, again.

[benday-dot]

Originally posted by Strannik
Now, my local library has tons of Essentials and collections of 80s-era stories. To be honest, I found most of them lacking in comparison. The dialogue seemed, to put it charitably, over-expository. The show-don't-tell rule seemed to have been gleefully disregarded. The plots suffered from lapses in logic. At times, a need to wrap up the story before the issue was done was painfully self-evident. Same goes for, at times, a bizzare disconnect between the stories and the art. And good lord, the captions, the over-written captions. Now, that is not to say that all comics from the past were bad. That would be unfair. But, aside from a few shining exceptions, most works of those eras aren't really up to par. That said, I will be the first to admit that the comics of the 60s had this delightful what-can-we-think-of-next sort of spirit. But, overall, the stories had the feeling of wasted potential.

Perhaps it's different when you read those stories first-hand. Personally, when I read about all the older fans looking back fondly on the old days, I can't help but feel puzzled. But that's just me. ;)

I cant deny that for me its partly a case of nostalgia for the stuff I grew up with. To some nostalgia is a damnable refuge, a sort of wanking sterility. But I must say, I've given the new books a good go, and it seems I keep returning with much love to the old. Your criticisms are well put, and I suspect not without justice when it comes to pointing out some of the weakness inherent in what was a still growing medium. Still, for all the flaws apparent in the old-school books they possessed for me a winning formula.

Without wishing to appear a snivelling ninny, Wolverine's erect claws (I mention him because of his present day ubiquity) only go so far in turning me on. Cool yes, but sort of a kind with the pedestrian fake Playboy version of sexy versus that sweeter good-fun kind so characteristic of those plainly honest and unpretentious books of yore. I am not going to generalize because there is a lot of top drawer stuff being put out today, but so much of what I see indulges in proto-fascist fantasies. The books of the 60's and 70's had a gentleness-of-being and nobility to them that I find too often sorely lacking in the contempory "funny books." And yes... I just love newsprint production values, or lack of, if you will. The smell and the grit... the lack of gloss and the real drawerly presence. You just don't get the sense of someone like Kirby sitting at his board and smashing out the pure thing anymore. Not a lot of laughs these days.

The old books were a lot kinder I think.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

A more important moment in Marvel's history was the meeting in 1972 in which Stan Lee announced that the writers were to stop developing and maturing the characters. From now on, Marvel was to create the "illusion of growth".

All the characters were to essentially stay the way they were at that point. Evolving them beyond that would hurt their marketability as franchises, movies, cartoons, etc. I would say this was a big mistake on their part.

I understand that this was the reason Steve Ditko quit Spiderman. Ditko wanted Parker to continue maturing but Stan Lee said no.

[benday-dot]

I understand that this was the reason Steve Ditko quit Spiderman. Ditko wanted Parker to continue maturing but Stan Lee said no.

Ditko definitely had creative differences over the direction of Spider-Man, but he left the book in 1966... long before this alleged meeting was to have taken place.

[david r]

The 1960s were a period of growth and creative excitment. The writers and artists at Marvel let loose with their creativity and the result was the "Marvel Age".

It also was a financial boom for Marvel. Hence, Stan Lee's decision to stop any real growth and create the "illusion of growth". Marvel had found what worked, and they did not want to tinker with the characters or the concepts anymore.

Sure, characters have died or gotten married, etc. But essentially, the core Marvel universe has remained the same since the late 60s/early 70s. The FF are not dramatically different from their characterization 20-30 years ago. Captain America, Iron Man, etc. The only time any real "change" occurs is to make hype for a Big Event, or if the book is selling so badly that change is welcomed to raise sales (in the case of the "new X-Men" in the 1970s.)

[Strannik]

I can't deny that for me its partly a case of nostalgia for the stuff I grew up with. To some nostalgia is a damnable refuge, a sort of wanking sterility. But I must say, I've given the new books a good go, and it seems I keep returning with much love to the old. Your criticisms are well put, and I suspect not without justice when it comes to pointing out some of the weakness inherent in what was a still growing medium. Still, for all the flaws apparent in the old-school books they possessed for me a winning formula.

Without wishing to appear a snivelling ninny, Wolverine's erect claws (I mention him because of his present day ubiquity) only go so far in turning me on. Cool yes, but sort of a kind with the pedestrian fake Playboy version of sexy versus that sweeter good-fun kind so characteristic of those plainly honest and unpretentious books of yore. I am not going to generalize because there is a lot of top drawer stuff being put out today, but so much of what I see indulges in proto-fascist fantasies. The books of the 60's and 70's had a gentleness-of-being and nobility to them that I find too often sorely lacking in the contempory "funny books." And yes... I just love newsprint production values, or lack of, if you will. The smell and the grit... the lack of gloss and the real drawerly presence. You just don't get the sense of someone like Kirby sitting at his board and smashing out the pure thing anymore. Not a lot of laughs these days.

The old books were a lot kinder I think.

And here, I think, lies the perception gap between older fans and the younger fans (for the most part, anyway).

For myself, I must say that there is something appealing abou the gentle nobility you were describing, the sense that the heroes, despite their flaws, would always put the need of the larger populace about their own, which would ultimately inspire the admiration of the average populace. However, to me, this problem with this mindset is two-fold. One, I think it's the mistake to try to cast all superheroes in that mold. For example, it seems unnatural to portray heroes like Batman and Daredevil in that light. I think superhero universes work best when you have the inspiring, uplifting Superman to contrast against the more human, down-to-earth Batman. Two, this mentality assumes a degree of complience on the part of the average populace of the universes superheroes inhabit. I have always found it rather bizzare how Fantastic Four and Avengers were admired regardless of the property damage they inadvertably caused. I am not saying they should not be admired, but, at the same time, the populace should hold their heroes accountable for their mistakes. More often then not, the average populace failed to do that (Now, in all fairness, this was hardly universial. But, even in stories where Avengers were denounced, like the Skrull-Kree war, the public's denouncement of superheroes was treated as an artifically induced abbrasion rather then exercize of critical judgement).

To me, the major appeal of the current-day comics lies primary in their imagination and innovation. Now more then ever, creators seem to reach out and explore new ideas. The Runaways offer an amusing, yet poignant look into Marvel Universe supervillain dynamics and the universial struggle to grow up and mature. Livewires was a delightfully mad trip into the bizzare science fictional technology of Marvell Universe. NYX offered a refreshingly honest, poignant look at power and responsibilty. Channel Zero asked tough questions about the relationship between mass media and reality.Supreme Power, free from the industry's self-imposed restrictions, illuminated some of DCU's greatest heroes in a brand-new light. Wildcats 3.0 challenged the very notion of super-heroism, showing heroes who served humanity through technological innovation and advancement. Stormwatch examined used superheroism as metaphores for the complex political reality. Sleeper showed a truly frightening picture of supervillain underworld. The list goes on.

This is not about pretention. This is about exercising your imagination, exploring the concepts comic book fans have taken for granted for decades. I, for one, relish this madhouse of ideas, this feeling that sky is the limit and nothing is impossible. Sometimes it's fun. Sometimes it's sad. Sometimes it's frightening. Sometimes it's throught-provoking and poignant. In the end, this is what keeps me coming back to comics again and again and again.

Given that, it worries me that the Big Two seem to have shunned innovation, returning to the age-old status quo. My only hope is that this will not spell the complete end to innovation, that there will still be room for new, unusual, thought-provoking ideas. And if not... well, I guess I'll still have independant comics ;)

[algertman]

Lost it. When Jim Lee X-Men #1 hit.

[benday-dot]

Originally posted by Strannik
To me, the major appeal of the current-day comics lies primary in their imagination and innovation. Now more then ever, creators seem to reach out and explore new ideas.
This is not about pretention. This is about exercising your imagination, exploring the concepts comic book fans have taken for granted for decades. I, for one, relish this madhouse of ideas, this feeling that sky is the limit and nothing is impossible. Sometimes it's fun. Sometimes it's sad. Sometimes it's frightening. Sometimes it's throught-provoking and poignant. In the end, this is what keeps me coming back to comics again and again and again.


Lovely post Strannik... I can't argue not only the choices you make, but the potent reasons you put forth in making them.

Perhaps, for me it merely comes down to a matter of an aesthetical chioce. For instance, Brubaker's (whom you aptly quote) current run on Daredevil is a hell of a good thing. Gripping story and containing all the hallmarks of the sort of poignancy and complexity you eloquently underline.

So then why could I possibly prefer to the new thing some 60's or 70's story coming up almost as two dimensional as the pages upon which appear. Why should I prefer the admittedly shallow over the statedly profound. Good questions, those. Yes, there is the charm and nobility bit we have mutually admired. That is a big part of it I think. But there is more. It is unintellectual. It goes to an appeal to my innermost comic book psyche.

To unashamedly take the shallow over the profound goes skin deep. Yes, emotional, but physical beyond a doubt. At least as far as comic books are concerned I take the medium over the message. I take newsprint over gloss. Icon over realism. The elemental over the fleshed out. The light over the loaded.

Earlier postings will confirm my general agreement that comics definitely suffered on the creative side of things in the days of yore compared to the issue of today. And yet on a purely aesthetic basis, which is where I stand, my choice, looking further afield, is like prefering Giotto over David ... that is, if you know where I'm coming from in terms of painting... the pre-Raphaelities over the subsequent, technically accomplished masters. In historical terms the Age of Wonder, and the Medieval, over the Enlightenment.

I take the crudity of yesterday over the shine of today. Crusty and daft. But so.

Have a good one Strannik.

(And yet... lets take Alan Moore... now there's the best of the old and new!)