Last night I was flippping through Marvel 80 for 80. If tou are unfamiliar with it, it is a book, released in late 2019 for Marvel's 80th anniversary, which chooses a single comic book or story to represent the company for every year of its existance from 1939 through 2018. As I was reading, I discovered that, once I got to a certain point, I had something to say about most of Marvel's choices, but not enough to fill an entire discussion each. So I thought why not start a thread discussing each of Marvel's choices? Going forward, I will post one year at a time, slowing my roll enough to allow everyone who wants to comment the opportunity to do so before moving on. Again, these are Marvel's choices, not necessarilly mine. but what about you? Agree? Disagree? What are your thoughts on Marvel's choice? Which series/storyline might you choose instead?
Replies
I like your term "forced creativity". I believe that is what doomed so many comic book publishers that have entered the game since the "80's. As you mentioned Marvel Comics grew organically and were the product of just a small group of very creative people. It ain't likely to happen again.
Which reminds me of a comment John Lennon made when asked why he thought there hadn't been another Beatles like music phenomenon - his response, "the circus has left town but we still own the site."
I missed this thread when it started, seeing it for the first time today. I have been remiss in posting, so I’ll catch up today.
In the early-/mid-80s, X-Men was Marvel's most acclaimed super-hero title, not (IMO) always deservedly so. Looking back over the years, I think the Claremont/Byrne run was the highlight of the series, and the "Dark Phoenix Saga" was probably the highlight of that.
Agreed. Well, that one was easy.
Seriously, I was there for the Claremont/Byrne run and it was awesome. I had always been an X-Men fan, probably because they were such underdogs. (When they met the 1965 Avengers in The X-Men #9, it was comical to this reader how outmatched they were, even though it was played straight. When they met Spider-Man in The X-Men #35, I realized Spidey could whip the lot of them single-handedly.) It came as no surprise to me when The X-Men went reprint (and bi-monthly) with issue #67 in 1970, and I figured that would eventually be canceled and that would be that.
But then Giant-Size X-Men #1 happened, and I was very excited. Not only did it beef up the team’s power considerably – take that, 1965 Avengers! – but these new characters all seemed pretty interesting. Plus, they kept my favorite X-Man (Cyclops). Best of all, the art was terrific!
Weirdly, the concept continued in the formerly reprint The X-Men, whereas Giant-Size X-Men continued as a reprint book! Talk about a switcheroo! But I didn’t mind, because of the great work being done. It’s not often I realize in real time that what I’m reading is a high-water mark, but this time I knew. My only concern was that X-Men stayed bi-monthly like it had been as a reprint. And in those days, “bi-monthly” meant “soon to be canceled.”
Then something weird happened with The X-Men #108. I noticed on page two or three that the art had changed … but it was just as good. Who could possibly be as good as Dave Cockrum and mesh with Terry Austin just as well? I flipped back to the first-page credits, and it was my old friend John Byrne from “Rog 2000,” Doomsday +1 and Iron Fist! I knew he was good, but I didn’t know he was Dave Cockrum good! And even better, the book went monthly!
(Later I was to find out that X-Men was selling through the roof, but was being kept at bi-monthly status because Cockrum wasn’t fast enough to handle a monthly series. On his second stint on the book later on, when he tried to do it monthly, you could see the drop in quality in his work.)
Now with Byrne as a co-plotter and a monthly schedule, X-Men ramped up to some of the best comics I’d ever read live. And yes, the topper was Dark Phoenix Saga, which Claremont had been building to, probably since The X-Men #101. It ended tragically and magnificently, complete with a pseudo-Legion of Super-Heroes!
I have already said all I have to say about the John Byrne era on the "Post-Kirby Fantastic Four" thread (starting on page 15), but if you have anything to say about it, now's your chance.
All I have to say is that then and now, I think John Byrne’s Fantastic Four is the only run of the title aside from Stan and Jack’s to deserve the title “World’s Greatest Comic Magazine.” Then and now, those two runs are the only two runs of Fantastic Four I really consider required reading. (Although Waid & Weiringo’s run is pretty good.)
Obviously, whoever was writing Daredevil these days didn't have a clue how to write the (formerly) "happy-go-lucky" Daredevil. I gave it a pass.
I thought Daredevil to be Marvel’s weakest title since its inception. My brother’s first issue was #3, and I read it off the spinner rack out of conviction more than interest until Frank Miller came along. Suddenly, Daredevil was good. As I’ve said before, Daredevil seemed like a half-baked character, until Miller added whatever ingredients were missing. Suddenly Daredevil was fully baked.
Again, I don't have too much more to say about this classic run because I've already said it recently in Randy Jackson's discussion "Walt Simonson's Thor." Obviously, I agree with the placement of this run on the list for 1983. I'll have more to say about tomorrow's topic.
Agreed. This is Fantastic Four all over again. Like FF, Thor had been coasting for years on what Stan and Jack had done, and just wasn’t very good. Then Walt Simonson came along and did the second-greatest run in the book’s history, as Byrne did with Fantastic Four.
Here's something I've never told anyone before. About 20 years ago on this board, someone mentioned Secret Wars. Someone else immediately denounced it, and before I knew it, several others had joined in. Frankly, I was shocked.
I wouldn’t have been. I thought Secret Wars sucked when I read it in real time. It was clearly a book whose purpose was something other than to tell a good story, especially with Jim Shooter ham-handedly shoving introductions into the book as if we’re all brain-damaged children. (“I, Captain Phlegm, who has the power of super-sneezing, but am secretly crippled by severe asthma, am glad to battle these scoundrels, blackguards and ne’er-do-wells!”) When I saw the toys I put two and two together pretty quickly. It was made worse by taking one of my favorite artists, Mike Zeck, and reducing him to drivel he had to draw too quickly.
My cognitive disconnect comes from the fact that I was comparing Secret Wars to CoIE and I should have been comparing it to DC's Super Powers, the first series designed specifically to promote a line of toys (and I should have known better at the time as I was then an English major). Having said that, though, Secret Wars did begin a veritable "Age" of company-wide crossovers which, for good or ill, continues to this day.
Crossovers don’t inherently suck, so I’m OK with their invention. But yeah, Shooter and Zeck’s Secret Wars had the same purposes (and execution) as Kirby’s Super Powers, and both were terrible.
But sure, make it the face of 1985. It’s famous.
I first became aware of Bill Sienkiewicz during his Moon Knight run.
That was his first professional work, so that’s when we all became aware of him. And, boy, did we!
I was already reading New Mutants at the time, but would have followed him over in any case. I thought his talent was wasted on New Mutants, but his art did elevate that title to the A-list.
Agreed. His work on Moon Knight elevated the character beyond being a mere Batman clone, but I don’t think anything could have made New Mutants interesting to me in those days. Although the Fear Bear (or whatever) was a pretty good story. Anyway, I had grown out of caring about teenage angst, and I found most of the characters to be useless as superheroes, bordering on jokes.
A character who can blast-fly but can’t steer or stop – and talks like Li’l Abner? A First Nations girl whose power is to make people have scary thoughts? A half-werewolf? A nerd with super-translation powers? (Because, I guess, super-ventriloquism was already taken.) Seriously, were they high when they created these characters? Did somebody lose a bet? Give me Magik, and the rest can shuffle off to comic book limbo. (Not Marvel’s limbo, of course, because Magik has that one covered. She's awesome.)
New Mutants lives up to one of Captain Comics Rules, that when a writer has to create a whole bunch of characters at once, there will be one good one, and the rest will be lame.
But I agree you made an awesome choice of art, Jeff.
The image Marvel chose to illustrate this topic is an in-house teaser ad, but I chose the first issue of Star Brand, the only "New Universe" comic I bought.
Another good choice.
I remember being remarkably unenthusiasic about the whole concept,
You and me both, brother.
but I made two predictions about the whole endevour: 1) It would peter out within two years, and 2) It would end by being incorporated into the Marvel Universe proper. (Only one of those predictions would prove to be true.)
I hoped the whole thing would be canceled in two years. I was dutifully buying them, due to my Completist Disease condition, and I considered it money wasted.
Marvel was celebrating the 25th anniversary of Fantastic Four #1 in 1986, and Jim Shooter came up with the idea of launching an entirely new interconnected universe. The problem with that idea is that the Marvel Universe was launched a title at a time and was allowed to develop organically; the "New Universe" was what I call "forced creativity" (like the idea a couple of years later, in which each annual introduced a new character), eight titles launched within a two month period. It sounds like an idea a "suit" would come up with.
New Universe is another example of what I said above about the potential lameness of creating a whole bunch of characters at once, but it's also an example of CK's credo that "When people talk about making something more realistic, more often than not they're talking about taking all the fun out of it." New Universe touted itself as "the world outside your window," and I'm here to tell you, the world outside my window in 1986 was pretty damn boring. So was New Universe.
I bought Star Brand #1, read it, didn't care for it (too derivative of of DC's Green Lantern).
Same. And Star Brand, even though it was a tepid version of Green Lantern, was the best title in the line.
Fear Bear sounds as though it should be the archenemy of the Care Bears.
It’s not often I realize in real time that what I’m reading is a high-water mark, but this time I knew.
For that would probably have been Walt Simonson's Thor.
On his second stint on the book later on, when he tried to do it monthly, you could see the drop in quality in his work.
It never occurred to me before, but I'm sure that explains it.
"Frankly, I was shocked."
"I wouldn’t have been."
Oh, I know that (because, IIRC, you were the one who denounced it!).
That was his first professional work, so that’s when we all became aware of him.
Yes, but I meant the Moon Knight solo series specifically. I had read some of his previous "Moon Knight" work from the HULK! color magazine, but he was still in his "Neal Adams" phase and it didn't really make that big of an impression on me.
"I chose the first issue of Star Brand, the only 'New Universe' comic I bought."
"Another good choice."
The cover or buying only one "New Universe" comic? :P
I was dutifully buying them, due to my Completist Disease condition...
Because it was a "New Universe," my Complettist Disease condition didn't kick in.
1987 - "The Wedding":
By 1987, Stan Lee was far removed from the comic book side of Marvel, but he still wrote the daily comic strip. One day he found out that Mary Jane knew Peter's secret in the comic book version, and decided to make it so in the comic strip as well. Then, at the 1986 Chicago Comic Con, the enthusiastic response to a fan's question about Peter and MJ getting married led Stan Lee and Jim shooter to make plans for a simultaneous event in both book and strip. It must have been a slow news day, because I remember the wedding getting a certain amount of coverage in the mainstream media. The wedding took place in the strip on June 21, 1987 and in Spider-Man Annual #21. MJ's dress was designed by a professional fashion designer, and a live "ceremony" was staged in front of 45,000 fans at a Mets game with Stan Lee officiating. John Romita drew two covers for the occasion. Marvel chose the "Spider-Man" one for the book, but I personally bought the "Peter Parker" one. (It was he who was getting married, after all.)
I attribute these choices to "Marvel," but the book is written by Jess Harrold and John Rhett Thomas, and I sometimes question their personal knowledge of the subject matter. For example, in the text, they describe the cover I chose as "Peter in more appropriate dress, with a crowd of well-wishers." "A crowd of well-wishers"? Were they trying not to "confuse the casual fan"? The marriage lasted for 20 years (real time) before it was "annuled" in true comic book fashion, a decision which put me off Spider-Man for years after. According to Harrold and Thomas, "Right from the beginning, the idea of a married Spider-Man had been a source of controversy among fans and creators--sparking concerns that it 'aged' the character, who had first found fame as a teen hero," but I don't believe it. I would say, "Right from the beginning, the idea of a married Spider-Man had been a source of controversy among fans suits and creators," and I'm certain it was one suit/creator in particular: Joe Quesada (who also feared fans would find X-Men: Hidden Years "too confusing").
Fear Bear sounds as though it should be the archenemy of the Care Bears.
Bwah-ha-ha!
Oh, I know that (because, IIRC, you were the one who denounced it!).
At least I'm consistent. Well, this time.
Yes, but I meant the Moon Knight solo series specifically. I had read some of his previous "Moon Knight" work from the HULK! color magazine, but he was still in his "Neal Adams" phase and it didn't really make that big of an impression on me.
Point. He did start out as an Adams clone and emerge as a talent to be reckoned with until the ongoing Moon Knight series. Fun fact: There have been nine comic book with the title Moon Knight #1 (plus a facsimile edition of one of 'em).
John Romita drew two covers for the occasion. Marvel chose the "Spider-Man" one for the book, but I personally bought the "Peter Parker" one. (It was he who was getting married, after all.)
I don't remember which one I bought. Part of my brain questions the 80 for 80 using an event that was un-done later, embittering at least two fans I can name (you and me). But I guess it was a pretty big deal at the time.
According to Harrold and Thomas,
WHO?!?? You'd think they'd have given the honor to the regular writer at the time, or at least someone we've heard of.
"Right from the beginning, the idea of a married Spider-Man had been a source of controversy among fans and creators--sparking concerns that it 'aged' the character, who had first found fame as a teen hero," but I don't believe it. I would say, "Right from the beginning, the idea of a married Spider-Man had been a source of controversy among fans suits and creators," and I'm certain it was one suit/creator in particular: Joe Quesada (who also feared fans would find X-Men: Hidden Years "too confusing").
Agreed, on both counts. And I feel the same way about Crisis on Infinite Earths. Which I've whinged about many times before. I had zero problem keeping up with the multiple earths. Neither did casual fans, at least anecdotally. (Once my buddy Billy -- who did not regularly read or collect comics -- asked when he saw an issue of Brave and Bold with Batman and Wildcat on the cover that I had just bought, "Why is Wildcat on Earth-One?" I was stunned. Apparently he had been listening to me more closely than I had imagined.) Then DC announced Crisis, and said the reason was that DC's multiverse was too complicated for readers. No, it was too complicated for writers who wanted to use, say, Doctor Fate without taking a panel to explain the multiple earths. Lazy bums.
Especially since even 17-year-od me knew that SHRINKING your universe was a bad idea, that a LARGER universe gave you more story springboards. Also, 17-year-old me knew that by crushing the concept of continuity you'd turn off a lot of fans who were at least partly into comics because of wanting to learn all the continuity. (Looking in the mirror here.) Also also, when you show the little man behind the curtain by demonstrating just how fictional and easily manipulated your "universe" is, you show fans that there really aren't any consequences to your stories, because literally anything and everything can be changed by writer's fiat.
Ironically, in October DC is going to copy Marvel's Ultimate Universe concept by creating an "Absolute Universe" that will run in conjunction with the regular DCU. Sort of like, you know, EARTH-TWO.
Further irony: today's DCU has grown into something more complicated and convoluted than the pre-Crisis multiverse ever was. First there was "New Earth"; then "Hypertime"; then there were 52 universes; then there were infinite Earths again. I'm not certain what the state of universes is today.
I don't either and, tellingly, don't care. If history serves, it will all be undone in a few years anyway.
It's true that DC Comics has broken me of my addiction to continuity. They've also broken me of my addiction to DC Comics.
1988 - "Venom":
[This is the image "Marvel" (i.e., Harrold and Thomas) chose to represent Venom.]
I followed the "Saga of the Alien Costume" from Secret Wars through Amazing Spider-Man (#252-262), Spectacular Spider-Man (#90-100) and Marvel Team-Up (#141-150) to its conclusion in Web of Spider-Man #1. Personally, I would have been just as happy if they left it there. But Marvel never knows when to leave well enough alone...
Kill:
Overkill:
1989 - "A Mighty Mutant Tradition is Born"
Here is another one in which Harrold and Thomas play a bit fast and loose with the facts. The "tradition" they refer to is the seemingly endless stream of mutant title crossovers, using 1989's "Inferno" as the example. Yet the text itself cites 1986's "Mutant Massacre" as well as 1988's "Fall of the Mutants" as predecessors. For my own part, I had become disenchanted with X-Men shortly after #200, yet I continued to buy the title long (too long) after I stopped reading it. I was still reading all of the mutant titles at the time of "Mutant Massacre," which crossed over not only between X-Men and X-Factor and New Mutants, but Thor and Power Pack as well. What I remember most about "Fall of the Mutants" is how appropriate the collective title was, because that is when the mutant titles "fell" for me and I stopped reading.
The "completeist mentality" in me would not allow me to stop buying the titles, however (not yet, anyway), so I was still there when "Inferno" rolled around. I'll cop to being intrigued when Madelyne Pryor was introduced in X-Men #168, even more so when I learned about her "first" appearance in Avengers Annual #10. But then Marvel brought back Jean Grey, setting up an adult triangle among Scot Summers, his wife and his true love. It soon (very soon) became clear, however, that Marvel had no idea how to resolve this situation. It was also around this time that Marc Silvestri became regular (or semi-regular) penciler of X-Men. I have been quite critical of his fellow Image partner Rob Liefeld over the years, but I found Silvestri's work to be virtually (sometimes literally) unreadable.
When "Inferno" re-imagined Madelyne Pryor as the Goblin Queen, I thought I would finally learn the connection between the two women. I did read the "Inferno" storyline, but I was so turned off by the art that none of it stuck and I still don't know. I don't much care, but if anyone would care to explain it in 25 words or less, I'd appreciate it. I do know that Jean Grey now has the memories of the Phoenix persona which took her place from #101-137 as well as those of Madelyne Pryor, so I guess it's a moot point.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 9 Next