Something I thought I'd share from another board...

"False start"?  Sheesh.  I guess somebody must have been thinking of Marvel's CAPTAIN MAR-VELL.  That series was sabotaged, totally derailed, on the 2nd page of the 1st episode. All that big set up, alien race, spying mission, the fate of the human race hanging in the balance... all screwed over by a REALLY BAD SOAP-OPERA plot!  Laugh

This is one of the reason I think Arnold Drake was so under-rated. In his 1st episode on the series, he introduced the idea that Col. Yon-Rogg saw Mar-Vell as a MILITARY and POLITICAL rival... in addition to a ROMANTIC one. A guy who deliberately derails an important military spying mission because he can't control his sexual urges, should have been tossed out the first air-lock.  (Of course, Archie Goodwin later "revealed" that Yon-Rogg had been assigned to that mission specifically because they KNEW he'd screw things up because of his personal animosity with Mar-Vell. To me, that's really clever... when a writer can cover ANOTHER writer's STUPID blunder, and make it look like "it was always planned that way"... when you KNOW damn well it wasn't!!!  Go, Archie!)

Meanwhile,,, it's quite well-known (or, maybe it isn't?) that, just like Steve Ditko, Bill Everett, and Marie Severin, DAN ADKINS plotted his run of DR. STRANGE entirely on his own, and the variety of "writers" he worked with only filled in the word balloons afterward.  SEVERAL (but, strangely, not all) of his episodes are clearly credited that way. I wonder how Adkins got PLOT credit (and, one would hope, PAY) while 2 much more-established creators before him didn't?  (Ditko did, but the credit wasn't consistent, and apparently, he had to fight to get what he did.)

Roy Thomas, however, LIKED to write, LIKED to plot... and you know? It just occurs to me... It was reported that Dan Adkins switched from pencilling to inking because he found "layouts" (PLOTTING! PLOTTING!!!) "too difficult". Also, it seems he could make a LOT more money inking. He went from 1 DR. STRANGE a month to inking 3-4 books in the same amount of time. But it just crosses my mind... with Roy Thomas on DR. STRANGE, maybe Adkins figured, WHY continue to plot, Roy can do that now? Maybe there was even some conflict over what kinds of stories to do (Adkins' run clearly leaned heavily on science-fiction-- kinda ironic for a "sorcery" series).

See, this is sort of the reverse of Roy Thomas leaving SHIELD after only 2 episodes, because HE claimed, he had "no interest" in the series. Now, while that MAY be true, a more obvious reason is staring one in the face.  Roy's 1st episode was PLOTTED by Jack Kirby.  His 2nd episode was PLOTTED by Jim Steranko. What was there for Roy to do? He left, making way for Jim to plot, layout, pencil, DIALOGUE, ink and color the thing all by himself.

All this goes thru my mind because... I'm wondering... if there might not have been a similar conflict on STARHAWK.  By the way, I don't see what the "problem" with the character is, based on the single episode I've read. It's not the greatest thing I've ever seen, but it's far from the worst.  Can this "false start" business be total nonsense? If not, WHY didn't the character ever turn up?  The STARHAWK who later did turn up in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY had nothing to do with the earlier one.  Design, concept, everything, totally different.

The story I'd read a couple years ago was that Martin Goodman didn't like or have confidence in "science-fiction" books, and when he saw they were planning to do another one (so soon after the GUARDIANS issue), he just decided to nix it, and switch the format to reprints.  Easier and cheaper to do.

Views: 593

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have Marvel Super-Heroes #20 and have been aware of that house add for a long time. But I always assumed Starhawk was merely "folded in" to the already-introduced Guardians of the Galaxy when MSH went all-reprint. I had no idea all these pages had been produced for a Starhawk solo feature. Marvel has released two Premiere Hardcover editions featuring the Guardians of the Galaxy, and although the Starhawk house ad was reproduced in one, I really wish now they'd've included those unpublished Starhawk pages. But it sounds to me like maybe even today's Marvel editors didn't know they existed.

Thanks for the link!

You're welcome.

I've seen the pages some time before (I was surprised someone started a new thread to discuss this again).  But I hadn't seen the "about the cover" piece before.  The description for what was "wrong" about the direction for the character just seems so VAGUE, I can't help but feel there's something not totally honest about it.

Anyway, it got me thinking about various creators and how they work together-- or don't. I contnue to be amazed that, if you REALLY read the books, and pay attention, after awhile, certain things become very obvious that is in total contradiction to the "official company line".

I don't know, STARHAWK looked good to me. Much better than CAPTAIN MAR-VELL!

...Just to ask literally here , Henry , you feel that Arnold commited the stupid blunder ???????

Arnold came aboard 6 issues AFTER that. You should know that!

Roy Thomas talked about why the Starhawk story cancelled in this interview he conducted with Dan Adkins.

Wow, I slogged through that whole thing, just to learn that Martin Goodwin didn't like the three Rs on his covers...Robots, Rockets and Rayguns...and that's why he killed Marvel Super-Heroes...and our showcase for new concepts and strips, eh?

Luke Blanchard said:

Roy Thomas talked about why the Starhawk story cancelled in this interview he conducted with Dan Adkins.

I felt the first six installments of Capt Marvel under Gene Colan went well enough... somewhat of a soap opera, but through #4, they were tollerable.  With the arrival of Arnold Drake, the art just nosedived. .

Emerkeith Davyjack said:

...Just to ask literally here , Henry , you feel that Arnold commited the stupid blunder ???????

"With the arrival of Arnold Drake, the art just nosedived."

I felt that way at first. But I've read that entire run 3 times now (strange as that is), and have come to the conclusion that Arnold's writing and Don's visual storytelling were much better than what Roy & Gene were doing. Don just got HORRIBLE INKS for 3 issues in a row!!! It's like someone was trying to murder the book.

(Which is quite possible... I JUST thought of a good analogy-- BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES.  Nobody-- I mean nobody-- wanted to do that film.  Except the studio execs, who INSISTED.  In the case of CM, the only person who insisted the book exist at all was the guy in charge-- Martin Goodman.)

Then, Vince Coletta took over from John Tartaglione, and, incredibly, for the 2nd time in a row on the same book, Colletta was a huge improvement. Who'da guessed?

Of course, when you get to "Rebirth" everything just goes TO HELL and stays there for the next 5 issues. I had to read it at least twice before I realized, after page 4, there is no way in hell Drake wrote the rest of that issue, or the one that followed it, no matter what the credits said.  The plot and the writing style completely changed... and it was IDENTICAL to the 3 issues that followed, done by Gary Friedrich. Also, "Rebirth" contained the WORST art Dick Ayers did in all of 60's Marvel.  Even with Vince Colletta, the only explanation for how the art looked THAT bad is, the entire issue must have been a last-minute rush-job. My strong suspicion is, Arnold wrote stories for those last 2 issues, but whatever he wrote was NOT USED-- instead, replaced by an entirely different story by Friedrich and illustrated by Ayers. Which makes me wonder if there isn't an entire issue of Don Heck art laying around somewhere that never got published.)

But then Goodwin, Heck & Syd Shores just blew me away. I mean, best writing and art in the entire run. Made me dearly wish all 3 guys had been on the series from the beginning.

If CM #16 was the only issue of CM you ever bought, you'd actually be fooled into thinking it was a really good series.

"RT: We'd made a good start, and then [publisher Martin] Goodman saw the cover, and it had the "three R's" that he hated on it: rockets, robots, and rayguns. He said, "Those three things never sold comics for me," and he promptly cancelled Marvel Super-heroes, which hadn't been selling very well, anyway!"

Geez. So all that rigamaroll in the "About the cover" piece was B***S***!!!  There was nothing about the series or the character that was intrinsically wrong-- Martin Goodman just didn't wanna do sci-fi!!!   : )

Which is exactly the story I heard before...

Which is strange because sci-fi was very popular with the moon landing, Star Trek in syndication, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Planet of the Apes.

And what was Fantastic Four if not sci-fi?

Oddly enough, the 1969 Starhawk reminds me of a futuristic Phantom Eagle who also failed to make an impact.

I sense a certain deliberate blindness on some people's part about science-fiction back then.  Like how people seemed to think Irwin Allen's shows were better than Gene Roddenberry's because they looked slicker and more expensive. Or how the APES movies didn't seem "sci-fi", they were just about monkeys.  Or that nobody understood 2001 (which was Kubrick's intention, heh), ignoring the fact that until ABC ran it it KEPT being reissued to theatres over and over, about every 2 years. Or how much trouble they had re-launching the STAR TREK series, despite it becoming the BIGGEST syndication rerun bonanza anyone had ever seen by the mid-70's. I mean, you've just got executives who KEEP repeating the same nonsense over and over and over, even when they have evidence right in front of their faces to the contrary!!!  (This reminds me of something else, but... never mind.)  Until STAR WARS actually hit big-- and it hit HUGE-- "sci-fi" was considered poison!

And when I consider some of the sci-fi that came out in the 3 years following STAR WARS... it seems a lot of people still didn't "get it", or care to.  I honestly remember, it wasn't until THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK came out that I began to feel that-- yes-- maybe-- just maybe-- things will finally turn around.

"And what was Fantastic Four if not sci-fi?"

Most of the emphasis over the years has always been the superhero side, rather than the sci-fi side (apart from Jack Kirby, who kept having his concepts derailed).

"Oddly enough, the 1969 Starhawk reminds me of a futuristic Phantom Eagle who also failed to make an impact."

There is a bit of a similiarity with the helmet. Maybe Starhawk should have been snuck into some anthology book as a back-up.

...Actually , Henry , I never bought any issues of CAPTAIN MARVEL , the title , from #1 until #17 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Henry R. Kujawa said:

Arnold came aboard 6 issues AFTER that. You should know that!

Reply to Discussion



No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.









© 2021   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service