quote:Originally posted by walkwithcrowds: I just want to say thanks to Prof, Cobie and of course Stealth for this thread.
I'm really enjoying this and I hope you keep going and cover the ENTIRE history, up to and including, the current run.
Keep up the good work guys.
You're very welcome, WWC. Glad you're enjoying. And the best is yet to come.
Avengers Volume One # 150-177 & Annuals # 6-8
Originally intended as the introduction of the new lineup, issue #150 has only a few pages of new Englehart material, and the rest is a reprint of Lee & Kirby's # 16. And then...exit Steve Englehart, enter a most unwelcome Gerry Conway. Issue # 151 is a real Frankenstein's Monster of a story, with Conway and Jim Shooter both padding out Englehart's final bunch of pages. According to Englehart, the pages that he recognizes as his own are 3, 7, 10, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, and 31. The new Avengers lineup is a dissapointment: Jan & Hank AND Wanda & Vision in the same lineup? I don't think there should be more than one married couple in a superhero team; Hellcat lets Moondragon talk her out of joining the Avengers (NOOOOOO); Moondragon herself is one of my least favorite characters, so I have no problem with her own exit -- regrettably, it wasn't a permanent exit. And then there's the return of Wonder Man. I must admit I've never really been a fan of Wonder Man, mostly because I associate him with the decline of Avengers.
Perez is gone for # 152-153, where John Buscema and Joe Sinnott substitute with art that is far below both artists' standards -- but who can blame them, when they were working from awful Conway scripts? Conway's first Avengers storyarc, a convoluted mess involving the Living Laser, the Whizzer, and Nuklo, ends in Avengers Annual # 6 (the first non-reprint Avengers Annual since # 2), drawn by Perez with three inkers, all of them failing to do Perez justice. By the time Perez returned to the monthly book in # 154, Avengers had acquired the services of Pablo Marcos, a good inker AND an inker who stayed on the book for many issues. Which makes it a shame that Conway's second (and, thankfully, his last) Avengers storyarc -- this one involving the Sub-Mariner, Dr. Doom, and Attuma -- was just as bad as his first. Perez began missing deadlines again, and so # 156-159 have undistinguished guest pencils -- this time from Sal Buscema (# 156, # 158-159) and Don Heck (# 157). Conway left after # 157, a dreary, confusing stand-alone involving the statue of the Black Knight, went to DC, and wrote five thousand issues of JLA.
# 158-159 is the first storyarc by Shooter, and right from the start he establishes one of his recurring flaws -- the villain (in this case, Shooter's creation Graviton) is too powerful! Shooter's issues during his first run tend to follow a pattern: the Avengers are out-matched by a single, powerful villain who is only defeated by some plot contrivance. In addition to this, I personally find Shooter's Avengers stories to be unpleasantly fatalistic and depressing -- Claremont's X-Men stories have the same flaw, but at least Claremont had a fanciful streak and a certain technical flair, while Shooter had neither. The shame of it is, some of Shooter's early issues have really good art -- Perez/Marcos on #160-162 (villains: Grim Reaper, Ultron) and Byrne/Marcos on #164-166 (villains: Lethal Legion II, Count Nefaria). Perez/Marcos also did the first few issues of Shooter's worst folly, the ten-part Korvac Saga (#167-168, #170-177), which in my opinion is just as self-indulgent as its 80s companion, Secret Wars II. I'm utterly puzzled by the high regard in which the Korvac Saga is held -- IMO, it's badly structured and badly paced, it squeezes in a ton of pointless guest stars, it humiliates the Avengers by having the government take away the team's special privileges (those special privileges are what make Avengers such a great wish-fulfillment book in the first place), it has yet another hopeless battle against yet another ridiculously powerful villain, and it has what I consider one of the worst endings of all time: this story asks us to believe that a murderous sociopath was actually on the side of the angels all along, and it asks us to take the egomaniacal Moondragon's word for it! On a personal level, I consider the TPB of this story (which I got rid of after one reading) to be one of the biggest wastes of money in my life. I think it proves that Shooter needed a strong-willed editor like Silver Age Legion of Superheroes editor Mort Weisinger to produce good work; instead, he was editor-in-chief for most of his years at Marvel, and he indulged himself to a sickening extent. Finally, a few words about Shooter's Mary Sue, government suit Henry Peter Gyrich: I know he's supposed to be a character we "love to hate", but I'd rather eat broken glass than read any story with Gyrich in it -- I read superhero comics to escape from the ugly real-life realities of having to deal with jerks like Gyrich, not to be reminded of those ugly real-life realities!
On a happier note, Avengers Annual # 7 (taking place just before Korvac) is in this block of issues, to remind us of how great an Avengers story can be; this is the next-to-last installment of Jim Starlin's Warlock vs. Thanos saga (it concludes in Marvel Two-in-One Annual # 2, but Avengers Annual # 7 does work as a stand-alone), and it's also yet another excellent Avengers space opera. Avengers Annual # 8 (taking place right after Korvac), by Roger Slifer and George Perez, is a well-drawn but nasty little story about Dr. Spectrum's sentient power-prism run amok.
Avengers Volume One # 178-196 & Annual 9
Following the end of Korvac, there were three fill-in issues in a row, after which Avengers picked up where it left off, this time with David Michelinie as the (nominal) writer. Never quite as horrible as Shooter at his worst, this small block of issues is distinguished mostly for being...undistinguished. Nominal writer David Michelinie is my favorite Iron Man writer (or rather, co-writer with Bob Layton), but his Avengers stories are generally dull superheroics that could take place in any run-of-the-mill superhero team book. Additionally, Michelinie was great at writing non-superpowered women in Iron Man (most notably Bethany Cabe), but when it came to writing Wasp, Scarlet Witch, or Ms. Marvel, he was clueless (I don't include Jocasta because the very concept of this she-droid feels creepy and gross to me).
In fairness, I think a couple of the stories are okay -- the battle against the Absorbing Man in #183-184, and the battle against the Grey Gargoyle in #190-191 (although the latter was plotted not by Michelinie but by then-Avengers-editor and future-Avengers-writer Roger Stern, and it's not the only time that Michelinie would have minimal input). And I think the first appearance of Taskmaster (#194-196) is better than okay, it's a good story that should have been the beginning of something better than what actually did follow. I particularly like the guest appearance of Scott Lang as Ant-Man II (a Michelinie/Layton creation who undeservedly ended up on the C-List and later became cannon fodder, because no writer other than his creators knew what to do with him). I think he had the potential to become to the Avengers what the Atom was to the JLA.
Art-wise, Avengers had John Byrne for #181-191 and George Perez for #194-196, but Pablo Marcos was gone, and a mixed bag of inkers (Joe Rubinstein and Gene Day on one hand, Dan Green and Jack Abel on the other hand) keeps this from being a highlight of either pencilers' career. In Avengers Annual # 9, Don Newton -- an underappreciated artist who did far too little work for Marvel -- takes an adequate Bill Mantlo script (villains: Mistress the super-computer and her robot guardian, Arsenal) and produces by far the best-looking issue in this block, especially the second half with inks by Joe Rubinstein.
"Jan & Hank AND Wanda & Vision in the same lineup? I don't think there should be more than one married couple in a superhero team"
Any idea-- was this Steve's idea, or Gerry's? Steve definitely had a thing for romance, especially if it involved unusual couples.
"Hellcat lets Moondragon talk her out of joining the Avengers (NOOOOOO); Moondragon herself is one of my least favorite characters, so I have no problem with her own exit -- regrettably, it wasn't a permanent exit."
Again-- Steve or Gerry? (Will we ever know?) Hellcat worked out okay in DEFENDERS, but dammit! she belonged HERE-- where George could draw her!
I LIKE Moondragon. But outside of Starlin & Gerber, NOBODY ever wrote her decently-- so it's easy to see why she's so disliked. (Hey, I'D do 'er.)
"Avengers Annual # 6, drawn by Perez with three inkers, all of them failing to do Perez justice."
I just remember it looks "okay", but the story had no zing, nothing special about it AT ALL.
"Pablo Marcos, a good inker AND an inker who stayed on the book for many issues."
I always considered him too overpowering, though Perez' pencils were so tight they did kinda work well together. If George ever slipped back to "layouts", watch out! This happened during that Byrne 3-parter-- the last chapter is clearly MORE Marcos than Byrne. Marcos actually developed a MUCH "cleaner" ink style when he got on STAR TREK: TNG many years later-- I was shocked!
"Sub-Mariner, Dr. Doom, and Attuma"
I just re-read this as part of my re-reading the entire run of SUPER-VILLAIN TEAM-UP. As bad as THAT book tended to be, this story was possibly it's all-time LOW point! Rambling and confused. This is a "plot"???
"right from the start he establishes one of his recurring flaws -- the villain (in this case, Shooter's creation Graviton) is too powerful! Shooter's issues during his first run tend to follow a pattern: the Avengers are out-matched by a single, powerful villain who is only defeated by some plot contrivance. In addition to this, I personally find Shooter's Avengers stories to be unpleasantly fatalistic and depressing"
It's strange... at the time, Shooter seemed like a step UP from Conway (THANK YOU, Gerry Conway!!). I've never re-read any of that run, and mostly remember it for the chaos on the art front, because George kept blowing deadlines all over the Marvel Universe. It says a LOT about the "Marvel Method" that with Perez, Shooter seemed readable. The "Korvac" story was apparently as much George's idea as Jim's-- a real precursor to CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS and all the horrors that came after (and keeps coming-- AAAAAUGH!!!). But as soon as George left the book, in mid-story, it barely hung together at all. Shooter seemed more concerned with "story" than "good art", as witness the depths of ugly so-called "art" he plumbed in SECRET WARS II-- the all-time worst-ever crap from a guy who was MUCH more talented than that, Al Milgrom. (Perhaps the office atmosphere "inspired" him in a NEGATIVE way? I've seen it happen in drafting!!!)
"it squeezes in a ton of pointless guest stars"
George wanted the projected 12 issues to guest-star "EVERYBODY"!!! Never got that far.
"Shooter needed a strong-willed editor like Silver Age Legion of Superheroes editor Mort Weisinger to produce good work; instead, he was editor-in-chief for most of his years at Marvel, and he indulged himself to a sickening extent."
AGREED. Totalitarian dictator on one hand ("BECAUSE I SAY SO!!!") and someone no so-called "editor" under his employ could ever say "No" to.
"I read superhero comics to escape from the ugly real-life realities of having to deal with jerks like Gyrich, not to be reminded of those ugly real-life realities!"
I've written real-life SCUM into some of my own stories, and I ALWAYS do it to give them the come-uppance they haven't gotten (yet) in real life. As a friend said to me, "What's the point of writing if you don't play God?" Or, as I said to someone recently, "F*** with me, you end up DEAD in one of my stories."
"Avengers Annual # 7"
This was, I believe, the DEBUT of Joe Rubinstein, one of the BEST inkers of the last 30 years, and one of the few I can think of whose work has NEVER declined in quality in all that time! WOW! (Starlin's art had been SUFFERING from lesser inkers for some time before this.)
"Dan Green"
He started out nice, but by here, SUCKED-- BADLY. He was regularly MURDERING the work of every penciller he touched, including Byrne, Perez, Colan. When he took a shot at pencilling o DOCTOR STRANGE, I was blown away. DAMN! Who knew he was THAT good??? (And then he had the nerve to do a DS graphic novel entirely in watercolors! Holy cow!)
"Don Newton -- an underappreciated artist who did far too little work for Marvel"
This past month BACK ISSUE magazine did an issue spotlighting Don, one of my all-time fave BATMAN artists! It included a timeline of his career, and I had NO IDEA he'd made as many passes at Marvel as he had. For whatever combination of reasons, he NEVER seemed to "connect" with Marvel, and repeatedly kept going back to regular, steady employment at DC. Thank goodness! It's just possible that during Shooter's run as Editor-In-Chief, Don was TOO GOOD for Marvel!!!
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading this thread has really inspired me to buy the Essential Avengers series, but I've just found an add for the complete run of the Avengers on computer disc. I'm kind of torn. If I get the disc it will, I imagine, mean I get perfect quality images and if I get the Essentials it will be black and white on poor paper. The thing is I like READING comics, as opposed to LOOKING at them on a screen - if you can understand my distinction. I'll probably buy the Essentials but I just wondered what you guys thought.
posted
I love my essentials. I do miss the coloring, but with the early stuff you aren't talking about too much spectacular, there really wasn't much they could do. So it doesn't really take away.
posted
Now see, for me, this is when I loved the Avengers most of all. Maybe it's because I started reading Avengers then as a kid. Maybe it's because I love George Perez. Maybe (probably) because it featured my favorite Avengers line up of all time (Wasp, Yellowjacket, Scarlet Witch, Vision, Beast, Captain America and Iron Man).
In any case, for me these were the best stories ever! Maybe not the most well executed, but conceptually I loved it. The Ultron issues were among my favorites (betrayed by Ant-Man; the dead or alive cliffhanger; the power of the Scarlet Witch; racing through the streets of New York, following Jocasta and the kidnapped Wasp). Those were a great read to a kid still in his early stages of comics reading.
To this day, Avengers 150 to 200 remain my overall favorite run of the series.
-------------------- Some people are like slinkys: not really good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when you knock them down a flight of stairs
From: Penthouse atop Levitz Hall, LMBP Plaza, Embassy Row, Legion World | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'll probably buy the Essentials but I just wondered what you guys thought."
From a few issues into Roy's run to about a dozen issues into Steve's run, I was missing MOST of them-- so the ESSENTIAL books finally filled me in on stuff I'd been missing for decades! For whatever reason, the line reproduction in the B&W books tends to be better than the color MASTERWORKS books, and when you get to the run inked by Tom Palmer, lack of color can almost be a plus!
"I do miss the coloring, but with the early stuff you aren't talking about too much spectacular, there really wasn't much they could do."
On interiors, yes. On the COVERS... oy. In the early 60's, in particular, Stan Goldberg was Marvel's main colorist, and what he did on those covers has NEVER been equalled or duplicated. Back then, Marvel's covers had a UNIQUE look to them, with dark, deep, moody colors. This stuff has NEVER been properly reprinted in color. Usually they just re-color from scratch, which is a shame. I keep thinking that, with modern computer technology, they should be able to reproduce those covers PHOTOGRAPHICALLY, but they just ain't doin' it!
I've spent more time than I should scanning in, cleaning up, "restoring" a lot of the early-60's covers from my own copies, and posting them at Nick Simon's SILVER AGE MARVEL site and the GCD. But it's very time-consuming, and I have such a long way to go. (What's annoying is the number of times editors at the GCD seem to feel my covers look "too good". I think they WANT that site cluttered with dark, dirty, UGLY scans.)
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Maybe it's because I love George Perez. Maybe (probably) because it featured my favorite Avengers line up of all time (Wasp, Yellowjacket, Scarlet Witch, Vision, Beast, Captain America and Iron Man). In any case, for me these were the best stories ever! Maybe not the most well executed, but conceptually I loved it."
Makes me wonder how things might have been is Steve Englehart hadn't left. (CURSE YOU, Gerry Conway!!!)
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Set
There's not a word yet, for old friends who've just met.
posted
quote: I LIKE Moondragon. But outside of Starlin & Gerber, NOBODY ever wrote her decently-- so it's easy to see why she's so disliked. (Hey, I'D do 'er.)
I'm all about the B-teams. (Like the Subs)
Moondragon is a total favorite. Xavier-class telepathy (able to mentally influence an entire planet!). Jean-class telekinesis. Martial arts skills far in advance of bikini-ninja-action-Psylocke. Enough attitude to sour the cream in Emma Frost's coffee. And hey, bald! Being old enough to have had impure thoughts about Persis Khambatta (sp?) in Star Trek: the Motion Picture, I'm all for the bald hotties.
Other B-listers I'd love to have seen more of;
USAgent, the Beast (hardly a B-lister, but he needs more love), Tigra, Photon (Captain Marvel 2, Pulsar, whatever Monique Rambeau is calling herself this week), Silverclaw, etc.
Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards to this era, I tend to agree with Cru. I actually enjoy it quite a bit and despite a few week stories, see it as a natural extension of the greatness of the previous $150 issues. It wouldn’t be until much later (IMO) that Avengers hit its all time low.
As always though, I don’t tend to focus so much on the art (though I love reading your guys comments). To me my memories of these issues are all about story, subplots and characters. Like Cru, I first read these as a kid (probably about 12 years old) and rereading them takes me back there.
Avengers Volume One # 150-177 & Annuals # 6-8
#150 – I actually like this issue a lot! I like seeing it from the Thing’s point of view, with the newscasters (a tribute to #16, and Kurt Busiek’s later issues decades later would recall this), and its fun to see them attempt to call back in some old Avengers and seek out possible new ones. Although I didn’t like seeing Hellcat leave, I do think she fits better with the Defenders (I like Patsy). I think that its here that Beast actually becomes ‘an Avenger’, and I really wish he could do that again. Having Hank & Jan and Wanda & Vision on the line-up at the same time might be a little much at times, but they are four of my favorites, and I can’t help but eat that up. Add in Cap, Iron Man and Beast, and its close to my preferred line-up (there’s a few others I like in there slightly more). I think Shellhead should always be in the line-up myself.
Gerry Conway – I get such a kick when I read about reactions to Gerry Conway. His Marvel work in the 70’s was so reviled then, now and probably forever . Love the continued presence of the Black Knight in the MU, but despite a handful of appearances here and there it would be many years before he became the star he deserved to be (and deserves to be again).
Wonder Man – I’m also a fan of Wonder Man. Avengers #9 was one of the first Avengers I ever read (the ninth to be exact ), when I was 11 or 12 and I always loved the character and his noble end. Seeing that he was alive again intrigued me so much. And the reason it works *so* well is his connection to the Grim Reaper and the Vision, and therefore Ultron, Hank, Jan, etc. He’s so tied with the Avengers mythos already (not to mention he originally hated Tony, worked with Zemo, etc.) that it works perfectly And he’s powerful enough that he fits in where he’s needed—the Avengers rosters always need flashy, powerful heroes that can fly. His return marks his real entrance into the Avengers, and nothing annoys me more than a know-it-all fan who never read the issues say ‘no, Wonder Man was an Avengers waaaay back in #9!’—not really, if you read them—its here that he makes his mark.
Wonder Man & Beast – while the Torch and Spidey’s friendship remains what I consider the greatest friendship in comics, Simon and Beast give it a good run for their money. I love their interaction and wish we’d see it more.
Perez art – phenomenal. Gentleman George was knockin’ them out of the park even back then. His art makes this era for me, even if he wasn’t on every issue. His art was a transition for the Avengers, taking precedence over all else. George literally dragged them into the next era and made it look pretty.
Whizzer – I actually find this character annoying. I’m glad he’s not related to Wanda and Pietro anymore. I think the Magneto connection to them was pure brilliance—until the Marvel of the last (5) years went and kind put a damper on it. I think there’s still hope though.
Graviton, Count Nefaria, Lethal Legion II – Again, I really like these stories, and the fight scenes with these villains. It reminded me of good ol’ action—the Marvel way, and I liked seeing these villains recur and have long-standing grudges with the Avengers, and remain a viable threat in doing so. And Avengers Mansion should be destroyed every so often anyway
Gyrich – reading those issues, I can see why anyone would hate Gyrich. But he’s kind of a first in comic books, as the government figure putting pressure on super-heroes (not really, I know, Silver Age Iron Man readers know he had to deal with this his whole career). But in terms of becoming a genuine member of the cast, I think so, and it shows, as he’s been around the MU in one comic or another for thirty years. That sure is a great Perez cover with him telling them only seven can stay and the rest are out.
The Korvac Saga – I have only the fondest memories of this saga. While I wouldn’t name it one of the greatest Avengers stories of all time, the sheer mass of it, especially being George’s first time for giving us the everything *and* the kitchen sink, is a pure delight. The ‘Michael’ plot is a little much at times (reminiscent of “Omen & the Prophet”, which I also liked), but the interaction between the heroes is where its really at, including the gradual addition of just about every Avengers EVER, the Guardians of the Galaxy and a whole host of others. The tension, the drama, all of it was there, and at the same time there was a tremendous sense of fun in the story. I know some people loathe the cover with Don Blake pounding on the dying Avenger’s hearts, but I love it!
Secret Wars II gets no love from me though
Avengers Annual # 7 - the next-to-last installment of Jim Starlin's Warlock vs. Thanos saga – I’ve never read this! *choke* (The issue or the Saga). This is one of those stories I’ve been trying to read for fifteen years but have never had the luck. Trust, I know I’m missing out! And I want *in* dammit!
Avengers Volume One # 178-196 & Annual 9
Michelinie is a brilliant writer, as he proved on Iron Man, Amazing Spider-Man, etc., but I agree that these issues are quite ‘knock your socks off’ good. But there are still consistently good character scenes, and some good battles with villains (I like the Absorbing Man issue and the Task Master issue).
Wanda & Pietro’s story continues to unfold over the decades, and Hank, Jan, the new Ant-Man, Jocasta, etc. are involved. In fact, I love the line-up here too, with the Falcon and Ms. Marvel involved, Beast, Wonder Man, Hawkeye, etc. all still around, and of course Cap and Iron Man. (I know the official line-up is 7, but really, the ‘off-screen’ official line-up must have been 10-11).
I also loved the Ultron/Ant-Man/Jocasta/kidnapped Wasp story as well, and think it was a very dynamic and heart-racing story--and a fun read.
And like Stealth said, these issues had a Byrne and Perez arc each and I think they were for the better for it. Overall, George’s Avengers work is some of his greatest, and Byrne at this point in his career was nothing short of phenomenal.
If anything positive can be said about #151 – 196, it must be the characters used and the interaction between them: Vision, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Hawkeye, Black Panther, Beast, Wonder Man, Iron Man, Captain America, Yellowjacket, Wasp, Ms. Marvel, Falcon, with appearances by Hercules, Black Widow and so many others! I’d say if you asked 75% of *real* Avengers fans who they thought were ‘Avengers’, most would name a list whose majority included Avengers during this period.
Where to next? *EEP*! To me the Avengers were about to hit their all time rock bottom EVER, only to be saved by the glory known as Roger Stern for a really great run.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"To me the Avengers were about to hit their all time rock bottom EVER, only to be saved by the glory known as Roger Stern for a really great run."
Ditto.
What WAS it about David Michelinie, anyway? Twice he got on IRON MAN, blew everybody away, and BOTH times, he left, and the book went COMPLETELY to hell. It wasn't JUST that he was that good... What, did he just leave without ANY warning to whoever was editing the books? You get really SICK of a good writer leaving and then having to put up with, like, 6 consecutive MONTHS of the worst, most amateurish drek imaginable (and by, probably, 6 DIFFERENT bad writers!)
I'll jump ahead here and say just how SEVERELY disappointed I was with THE AVENGERS around that time. Even with Michelinie, Byrne & Perez, the stories were often 2nd-rate, the inks 5TH-rate (Dan Green murdering EVERYBODY). Then, abruptly, Michelinie's gone, Perez is gone, and one of my favorite pencillers of all time-- Gene Colan-- appears to be on the LEAST-appropriate assignment of his entire career. And HIS pencils get MURDERED, too. From various sources, it seems Jim Shooter PERSONALLY did not like Gene's style-- just as those infamous BBC execs in the 80's PERSONALLY did not like DOCTOR WHO-- and wanted him gone. It would appear quite possible that Colan was put on AVENGERS specifically BECAUSE he didn't fit on the book-- and it was the "best" way to make him look REALLY BAD! Then Shooter nit-picks his work TO DEATH (when Stan NEVER had a problem with Gene in ALL his years at Marvel), until Gene finally has no choice but to leave the company, if only to get away from all the aggravation.
Given the circumstances, I feel it's safe to say we NEVER found out what Bill Mantlo could or could not do on AVENGERS. Just as he was unceremoniously KICKED off IRON MAN (because Michelinie & Layton REALLY wanted that book), so Mantlo very quickly disappears, because SHOOTER wants it back. And this time, he didn't even bother with logical stories. He didn't even bother with "AVENGERS" type stories. HELL no! He just went straight for the jugular, determined to run every character he could through the mud. Yellowjacket. Wasp. Tigra. Iron Man. Wasp. (Apparently he had problems with ANYBODY have a really happy, healthy, successful marriage-- or "happy" characters AT ALL.) What an s.o.b.
I'll jump ahead a bit FURTHER here. After Steve Englehart, then Doug Moench, Roger Stern became my favorite comics-writer in the early 80's. But every so often, even he did something that just rubbed me the wrong way. This was one such instance. First, he has Hank Pym pull it together, get the baddies that framed him, and cleared his name. Great. But then, he & Jan split... But THAT'S not the worst part. What is, was when Stern had them say that-- supposedly-- Hank & Jan were "ALWAYS" wrong for each other. WHAT A LOAD!!! Talk about editorial fiat. I'd say part of the job requirement for getting this book was to agree with what Shooter started, and not make waves.
After all, it was MAKING waves that cost Stern the job several years later...
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I post the next review, I'd like to thank everybody for keeping the thread active during my absence with all this wonderful feedback.
Prof: "The 'Korvac' story was apparently as much George's idea as Jim's. A real precursor to CRISIS ON INFINTE EARTHS and all the horrors that came after (and keeps coming -- AAAAAUGH!!!)"
LOL! I think that Englehart's Avengers/Defenders Clash and Shooter's Korvac Saga are a study in contrasts -- Englelhart's is the right way to do this kind of story, Shooter's is the wrong way.
Prof: "I've written real-life SCUM into some of my own stories, and I ALWAYS do it to give them the comeuppance they haven't gotten (yet) in real life."
I do the same thing (see: Gladiator's fate in my first Imperial Guard storyarc). But I haven't yet seen Gyrich get the kind of comeuppance that I think he deserves -- the one that came closest was the Fabian Nicieza Thunderbolts story where Gyrich tries to destroy all superheroes and Hawkeye shoots an arrow through Gyrich's hand.
Prof: "It's just possible that during Shooter's time as Editor-in-Chief, Don Newton was TOO GOOD for Marvel!!!"
Quite likely. Marvel books went through a long phase in the early 1980s where, with very few exceptions, the art had a dull sameness and a lack of dynamics. This is around the time that George Perez gradually phased himself out of Marvel -- no coincidence there.
WWC, I'll second what Wndola and Prof said -- the Essentials are the way to go.
Cru and Cobie, I certainly respect your opinions re: the first Shooter era, and I should add that I first read the Shooter stories in my late teens/early twenties. I think I would quite possibly have a different perspective on them if I had first read them as a child.
Cobie, there's a Warlock reprint mini-series (simply titled Warlock) and the back issues are cheap.
Finally, I think Cobie and Prof have said just about all that needs to be said about the first couple years of issues that followed # 196. Those issues (specifically, # 197-220) are among the Avengers issues I refuse to read on principle. The only thing I'll add is that Ms. Marvel is another character who was dragged through the mud, and the only story from this era that I've read is Avengers Annual # 10 by Chris Claremont and Michael Golden. Claremont's script is on the wordy side (as usual), but his attempt to rescue Carol from oblivion is honorable, and it has a really cool battle between the Avengers and the definitive lineup of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants (Mystique, Destiny, Pyro, Blob, Avalanche, and the pre-redemption Rogue.) Golden's weird, hyper-detailed art shifts from the sublime to the ridiculous, but it just about holds together; and Golden did the coloring himself, and very well.
posted
Avengers Volume One # 221-254 & West Coast Avengers Volume One # 1-4
This is where I come back in. There's still a few issues to go before Roger Stern starts bringing the book back on track. # 221 (plotted by Shooter, scripted by Michelinie) has a nicely-designed cover by Ed Hannigan and introduces the first good lineup in a while, a nice mix of founders (Wasp, Thor, Iron Man), kooky-quartet-ers (Captain America, Hawkeye), and one newbie (She-Hulk). The stories themselves are pretty lame, but tolerable...until # 225-226, where Steven Grant plots and scripts a suprisingly good time-travel story that brings back the Black Knight and pits the Avengers against mystical 12th Century villains. I'm amazed to this day that there's never been a sequel to this story. As a bonus, there's a couple more excellent Ed Hannigan covers.
On the art front, there's a lot of the early-1980s dullness I was talking about in my previous post. But in the cases of Greg LaRocque (# 222-223, # 225-226) and M.D. Bright (# 224) it's excusable, because they were both starting out. I think it's a real shame that LaRocque wasn't kept on the book; it would have been great to see him evolve on Avengers, the way George Perez had in the 1970s. Instead we got Al Milgrom (BLEAH) as the regular penciler; more on him later.
When Roger Stern took over Avengers (# 227), the first order of business was to clean up the mess that Shooter had left. It took four issues, and then Stern could move on to his own plots. Although the stories were hit-and-miss for a while -- the good: Spider-Man/Lava Men/Electro/Rhino/Blackout/Moonstone; Fantastic Four/Annihilus; the bad: Plant Man/Wizard; Dire Wraiths; David Letterman; Spider-Woman/Morgan Le Fay -- Stern's talent for characterization was always in evidence. Stern was the first Avengers writer since Englehart who could write convincing superheroines -- the She-Hulk instantly changed from a caricature to a loveable extrovert; Stern's own creation, Captain Marvel II/Monica Rambeau, had still waters running deep; Jan and Wanda felt like themselves again.
Just a few issues before Stern's arrival, Mark Gruenwald became the editor of Avengers. While I tend to be critical of Gruenwald, I won't deny that his memory is entitled to a good amount of the credit for turning Avengers around. And yet almost from the beginning, there is evidence of a heavy hand: bringing the smarmy, annoying Starfox into the Avengers was entirely Gruenwald's idea; and I suspect that the very long Eternals/Titanians/Maelstrom storyarc (#246-250) was mostly Gruenwald's -- don't get me wrong, I think it's a good story, but it's bothersome to see a writer as talented and distinctive as Stern reduced to a mere scripter.
Around this time, the Wasp had temporarily passed the chairmanship of the team to the Vision (due to events in Secret Wars -- UGH) and the Vision, who had begun to develop quite an ego after Starfox unwisely hooked him up to the Titanian super-computer ISAAC, created a second branch of Avengers, the West Coast Avengers, assigning Hawkeye as leader. The 4-part West Coast Avengers limited series is IMO one of the highlights of the Stern era's first half. Except for Tigra, whom I dislike intensely, the lineup (Hawkeye, Mockingbird, Iron Man, Wonder Man) had good chemistry, Graviton worked as a villain because the team used strategy and smarts to take him down, and I'm of the opinion that Stern wrote Mockingbird better than Steve Englehart would in the ongoing WCA book.
At around the time that the the WCA were establishing themselves, the Vision turned into a utopian megalomaniac, and it took both Avengers teams (including Black Knight and Hercules, two of my favorites) to bring him back to his senses and stop his takeover of the world's computers. This is where I think that Stern started getting really good, and the second (and much better) half of his run was just around the corner.
The art: for someone who had been in the comics industry for over a decade, Al Milgrom's work on the ongoing Avengers book is shockingly amateurish, full of clumsy perspectives and ugly close-ups; the usually great inker Joe Sinnott did a surprisingly sloppy job -- for proof that it wasn't just Milgrom, see the equally sloppy inking over guest artist John Byrne in the Annihilus issue (# 233). On the opposite end, Bob Hall somehow managed to pull himself together and do a really good job on the WCA limited series, although Brett Breeding's inks surely helped a lot; Hall then jumped onto the ongoing book to do breakdowns for the 4-part Vision storyarc (# 251-254)...and suddenly Sinnott was operating at 100 percent again! Unfortunately, Sinnott left after the first two issues, and the next two issues were badly inked (Joe Rubinstein gets partial credit on one of these issues, but I'm guessing he didn't do much more than a few touchups). But the real shame is that John Buscema & Tom Palmer didn't return to the book sooner so that they could have drawn the Vision storyarc -- not only because they were a great art team, but also because Buscema co-created the Vision!!
posted
"Claremont's script is on the wordy side (as usual), but his attempt to rescue Carol from oblivion is honorable"
There've been many instances over the years where one writer does something to contradict a previous writer's work, but this was the first time I can recall it being so blatent-- that the entire story existed FOR NO OTHER REASON than that Chris Claremont was PISSED as what Michelinie, Perez & whoevger else was involved had done with "his" character. But was what Chris did really any better? Stripping Carol Danvers of her powers was one thing, but stripping her of her personal memories-- talk about going too far (or, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"). I HATED Rogue for what she did, and when she turned up, distraught, BEGGING for help, on the X-MEN's doorstep sometime later, I had NO sympathy for her whatsoever. (As an aside: one of the things I LOVED the most about the 1st X-MEN movie was the way they took my LEAST-favorite character, Rogue, and completely REMOVED the entire part of her back-story that I so venehemntly objected to. Rogue, in the movie, became-- along with Wolverine-- the audience' POV and entry into the whole "world" of the X-MEN, and really worked as a sympathetic character. I pretty much fell in love with her in the film... I could NEVER do that with the comics version.) In AV ANN #10, Claremont pretty nuch "finished the job" started by Michelinie & co. He wanted to make a point by striking back at a previous writer; but the character (and the entire group) paid the price for it.
Funny (NOT REALLY) how, with Shooter in charge of Marvel, writers had to follow strict guidelines, not do certain things, and admit and suffer consequences if they did-- EXCEPT when it came to Shooter himself and his cronies, who could GET AWAY WITH MURDER with impunity. "It's good to be the king." That's why we have presidents in this country... (Moving on...)
"a suprisingly good time-travel story that brings back the Black Knight and pits the Avengers against mystical 12th Century villains. I'm amazed to this day that there's never been a sequel to this story"
I wonder if EVERYONE wasn't just tired of the whole mess. After all, it was Steve Englehart who stuck the Black Knight in the 12th Century WAY back in the Avengers-Defenders clash! That sub-plot had been dragging on for over a decade by then, hadn't it? One good thing early in Shooter's run was writers FINALLY getting around to finishing off long-hanging plot-threads and storylines. This one was hanging longer than most. (Though not as long as the "How can The Hood be Baron Strucker if he was killed back in STRANGE TALES? --or, if Magneto was a robot in the 2nd Sentinels story, WHO was it in the "City of Mutants" story-- and who was behind him?)
"it's excusable, because they were both starting out. I think it's a real shame that LaRocque wasn't kept on the book"
I think I first saw LaRocque on OMAC (the unenviable task of trying to follow Jim Starlin-- yikes!). He didn't really impress me until he got on LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES (the later part of Paul Levitz' run), though far too much of his work suffered under not-quite-appropriate inks.
"While I tend to be critical of Gruenwald, I won't deny that his memory is entitled to a good amount of the credit for turning Avengers around. And yet almost from the beginning, there is evidence of a heavy hand"
I'd rank Gruenwald as one more guy who was a BETTER writer than he was an editor. On EVERYTHING he did as an editor, I felt a "heavy hand". Sometimes it worked, but other times... Of course, those editorials he kept doing about the comics biz had such an overbearing, condescending tone about them, I really got SICK of 'em after awhile. Like many before and some since (notably Kevin Dooley), Gruenwald forgot that an editor's job is NOT to write the book himself!!! (Unless, of course, he's the original creator-- or in some fashion, the long-term "caretaker" of a character or series. We really haven't had that sort of editor since Mort Weisinger...)
"When Roger Stern took over Avengers (# 227), the first order of business was to clean up the mess that Shooter had left"
At a yahoo group, someone pointed out that Shooter seemed to HATE all the characters he ever wrote. He'd drag them through hell, but instead of taking them through and bringing them out, in some way, better than when they went in, he'd just DUMP them there. I realized just how true this was when I thought back over Shooter's various works in the 70's & 80's. In DAREDEVIL, he framed Heather's father for countless crimes, and had him commit suicide, thinking he was guilty; Heather found out Matt was DD, and blamed HIM for everything that happened (even though he was the ONLY one who was trying to help); and Matt had a nervous breakdown. Shooter then left it to Roger McKenzie to "clean up the mess". In GHOST RIDER, he had Roxanne suffer amnesia, and (for reasons I've completely forgotten), sent Johnny Blaze out into the desert... WHERE HE NEVER RETURNED!!!! (Until about 50 issues later-- most of them written-- badly-- by Michael "If you've read one of my stories you've read them all" Fleisher.) What WAS Shooter, an 8-year-old whose mother never taught him how to CLEAN UP AFTER HIMSELF????? (I got a lot of people in my neighborhood like that-- they throw trash all over the ground, somehow figuring SOMEONE ELSE will clean it up for them.)
"Except for Tigra, whom I dislike intensely"
ANOTHER character Shooter ran thru the mud!! I never read her original stories as The Cat or Tigra, but I did get a huge kick out of her when she guested for several months in FANTASTIC FOUR. Shooter turned her into a WIMP! My GOD, what was that guy's problem??? How much "damage control" do some writers have to put up with??
"The art: for someone who had been in the comics industry for over a decade, Al Milgrom's work on the ongoing Avengers book is shockingly amateurish, full of clumsy perspectives and ugly close-ups"
Milgrom did some nifty work on both CAPTAIN MARVEL (I think he may have done more episodes than anyone else on that book!) and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY (like CM, they seemed to have a hard time finding any kind of steady inker). But in the 80's... WHA' HOPPEN?? Al's pencils dropped; for awhile, he spent his time aping Steve Ditko; and anytime he inked, it was a ugly, wretched nightmare! Last summer I met Jim Starlin for the first time, and among the comments I made were how glad I was to see that Al Milgrom's inks (over Starlin's recent work) were back up to his 70's high standards. (Did Jim Shooter INSPIRE people to draw badly?????
"the usually great inker Joe Sinnott did a surprisingly sloppy job"
See my previous question... Although, I understand in the 80's Joe used a LOT of assistants. WHO KNOWS what he really did-- and didn't?
"But the real shame is that John Buscema & Tom Palmer didn't return to the book sooner so that they could have drawn the Vision storyarc -- not only because they were a great art team, but also because Buscema co-created the Vision!!"
Alright, who WASN'T shocked when John Buscema AND Tom Palmer finally reunited on THE AVENGERS, after so many years of Buscema publicly saying he "hated" drawing superheroes??? And who wasn't STUNNED that they lasted together MUCH longer and more consistently than they did in the late 60's? And how about that Tom Palmer-- even when Buscema finally did leave, after a NICE, LONG run, Palmer stuck around, to ink-- oh, HOW MANY other pencillers' work? In the late 80's, Palmer really became to THE AVENGERS what Joe Sinnott had long been (before John Byrne-- HAH!) to the F.F.-- the "unifying" force that kept the book consistent, no matter WHO else was doing it.
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, I love that we skipped ahead to #221
I will say though, that I think Claremont attempting to ‘rescue’ Carol and then making her a supporting character in X-Men was a noble attempt. (I actually LOVE Rogue though).
Both Stealth and Prof have made reference to Roger Stern in the 80’s being akin to Englehart in the 70’s and I agree completely. Stern was a master and his Marvel work was like a weekly birthday present to Marvel fans. I can’t say much more without repeating others, other than his Avengers and Spider-Man runs remain two of my all-time favorite runs for any series of any character.
As usual, I’ll just post a few thoughts as Stealth has really nailed the theme of this era:
Black Knight story – the return of the Black Knight here isn’t the greatest story, but it marks an especially cool moment for me as it brings him back after a really long absence. Finally now, with Dane back, we’ll eventually see (in the guiding hand of Stern) the change in Dane being a ‘cool character from the late Silver Age’ to a genuine Avenger and important part of Marvel lore. I love this character, and its owed to both Stern and (even more so) Harris.
She-Hulk – Stern took a character that was basically a female rip-off of a great franchise and made her someone we like and care about, with her own quirks. Marvel has been the better for it. I also love the inclusion of Thor, Wasp, Iron Man, Cap and Hawkeye—all always great in the Avengers. (As I’ve said, I’m a firm believer in Iron Man & Thor being Avengers first and foremost, both more so than Cap).
Stern’s use of Marvel History – What Roger Stern did (like in Spider-Man) was make incredible use of the vast history of the MU in some really dynamic stories that were fresh and exciting. Blackout & Moonstone: for the first time, I sit up and take notice. Spidey & Electro in Avengers? Hey, that’s kinda cool.
Captain Marvel II (later Photon) – and then we come to a character that I absolutely adore. Have me name you my dream Avengers line-up? Photon is always in it, despite my obvious love for the oldest Avengers members. It was a bunch of things: her powers, her enthusiasm, her ‘newness’ at the time, her friendships with other Avengers, Stern’s obvious knack for writing her as his creation…but the real reason? Because we actually got to see her grow. We saw her introduction, her growth as a junior Avenger to a full-time member that was an important part of the team, to being practically an essential member. By the time we get to the Master of Evil story (perhaps the best MoE story ever), her and Dane are no doubt ‘quintessential Avengers’, perhaps the first two you could really say that about since Wonder-Man! Later she became leader, etc. It amazes me she wasn’t used more during the 90’s…which in hindsight I consider a gift from the comic book deities.
Starfox – generally, I did not like Starfox and only have grown to like the character as the years have passed and I’m become more comfortable with him. Like Moondragon, he didn’t seem to fit, and his smary-ness was annoying, but he did have some likable qualities. The problem with Starfox was that he couldn’t be an Avenger for that long, since he just didn’t have enough depth. That being said, I’ve grown to like the character, love his appearances and think he works great as a supporting character or someone who stays on for a brief stint and moves on.
Wasp as Chairman – yes, I say, YES! This was a great move. I think the Wasp proved to be one of the best Avengers chairman’s in the history of the team, and she truly deserved it, as being pretty much the only one left of the originals to not have been so (some may not realize both Thor and Goliath had stints as chairman). She deserved it, especially after Shooter symbolically slapped her, Hank and the fans a few years before.
East Coast/West Coast Split – this must have seemed very exciting at the time (even when this was coming out, I was about 4 years old), and I generally like all the Avengers being seen these days, especially that the Vision, Wonder Man, Scarlet Witch, etc. came back into play. Generally, I’m ambivalent about Tigra, which is probably not a good thing in reflection on Marvel. But I like that we had a lot of Avengers to be seen each month. The eventual east coast line-up that would come out of this would be very enjoyable to read.
As usual, I find the insight you guys provide on pencillers & inkers to be fascinating. IMO, the best Avengers in the 80’s stories are about to hit the next portion of this timeline…
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. Love the continued presence of the Black Knight in the MU, but despite a handful of appearances here and there it would be many years before he became the star he deserved to be (and deserves to be again).![[Cheers]](graemlins/cheers.gif)
