TF Views

Read a bit more of Marvel's 70A collection over the last week.

As in the post above, parse the grades as "relevance/quality".


The 70s:
The 70s were a transitional decade for Marvel. There was increasing strain on the idea of Marvel's characters and setting progressing and changing over time. (If I recall, the idea that 4 years of real time equating to 1 year of page time originated in the 1970s.) Similarly, as Marvel gained longevity, comics had to be significant for reasons other than simply being early run issues of what would become long-running series. Being foundational was no longer enough to qualify a book as important.

Avengers #93 (Thomas/Adams):
It is hardly surprising that this issue made the cut. Besides being part of "The Kree/Skrull War" (a story referenced ~20 years after it was published), this issue contains the famous sequence where Ant-Man pokes around inside of a disabled Vision. In terms of being iconic, this issue definitely qualifies. But, there are too many other (and better) choices from the 1970s justify including an over-rated and unfocused chapter of a story that has not aged very well (despite its staying power).

Thomas' scripting reads like an extreme example (if not grotesque parody) of Silver Age writing. Additionally, it is not even focused. Ant Man's odyssey through the Visions innards is far out of proportion to its importance to "The Kree/Skrull War" and serves primarily as an indulgence for his fixation on old comics. (The final chapter of "The Kree/Skrull War" takes this fixation to an even more absurd depth.) Adams' pencils still hold up, and were arguably ahead of the times in the 1970s. But, as well rendered as his individual panels are, they are not coherent with each other. The external shots of the Vision show him to be flat on a table. However, the internal shots seemingly imply that Vision is standing or sitting upright.

I am trying not to spend too much time second guessing the choices for a "best of" book. But, in this case, I almost feel obligated. The introduction for the 70s chapter notes that "Amazing Spider-Man" 120-121 (the death of Gwen Stacy) was considered. This begs the question of why it was not included, as that story is far more relevant to modern comics than "The Kree-Skrull War" and is arguably better. Alternatively, Jim Starlin's career took off in the 1970s. Early appearances of Adam Warlock or Captain Marvel are not only similarly iconic, but they arguably better capture the spirit of the 1970s. "Giant Sized X-Men" re-launched a series that went on to become a top-seller. (Feel free to add other books to this list. It should not be terribly difficult.)

Grade: B/D


Iron Man #128 (Michelinie/Layton):
This is it true-believers! This is the issue of "Iron Man" that is ultimately responsible for all of those jokes in Toy Fair magazine and among comic readers. Along with some of the problems one would expect of a Silver Age comic (albeit less severe than "Avengers" 93), there is no small amount of the posturing one would expect from a "very special" episode or issue. (My favourite moment of unintentional hilarity involves Stark musing that he needs something "real" before declaring "I need a drink" to himself.

That being said, (and it needed to be), this is arguably the most defining issue of "Iron Man" in the character's 5 decade run. "Iron Man is a drunk." Despite all of the changes and reboots to Marvel over the years, that has stuck. Additionally, "Demon in a Bottle" is an early part of the Michelinie/Layton run that can only be credibly challenged for "most defining" by Fraction's run (which did not start until more than a decade later).

Grade: A/C


The 80s:
One thing that characterizes the comics of the 70s and 80s are the oddly high numbers. Over the last 15 years, both of the big two have renumbered their significant books so often and so capriciously that issue numbers only hold value for the purposes of ordering books from a distributor. (Is Marvel even using volume numbers at this point?) The idea of a comic book's issue number reflecting how long the series had been running seems almost quaint. (Does Marvel even have any books that have broken 25 consecutive issues at this point?)

On a personal note, despite the fact that I started reading comics in the 80s, I have not read any of these comics before. ("X-Men" 132 and "Daredevil" 168 both predate me reading comics. But, "Hulk" 340 is just something that I missed.)

X-Men #132 (Claremont/Byrne): Before Marvel's numbering got screwy in the 1990s, "X-Men" consistently had lower numbers than the rest of Marvel's older titles, despite the fact that it launched more or less contemporaneously in the early 1960s. As hard as it may be to believe post-Claremont, there were several years in the 1970s when "X-Men" was not published due to low sales.

I read "around" this issue of the "X-Men" (and much of "the Phoenix Saga") over the years. In terms of importance, "X-Men" 132 rates about as highly as any comic can. It contains a critical part of "the Phoenix Saga". The last panel of the issue is the famous shot of a sewage-covered Wolverine turning slowly towards the reader. It even has a sequence that ended up being referenced several years later in the X-Men/Titans cross-over.

As ground-breaking as Claremont's writing was, (a result of both when he took over the book and the state of the industry as a whole), it is painfully dated in this issue (Characters are actually narrating tooth and claw fights, out loud, to themselves in more than one place.) Byrne's pencils are damned near perfect though.

Grade: A/B


Daredevil #168 (Miller/Janson):
While I am not a fan of Miller, his run on Daredevil is something that most every comic reader is (and should be) familiar with. When Marvel sets Daredevil (both the title and character) to spec, it is often to a late/post-Miller standard. In a technical sense, Miller and Janson were ahead of many of their contemporaries. The scripting, illustration and basic page formatting still hold up in 2013, which is more than can be said of some of the better books from the early 1980s.

A selection from Miller/Janson "Daredevil" is obligatory for any "best of" Marvel book that includes the 80s. And, that run offers more than once choice. I would not necessarily have chosen the first appearance of Elektra. But, I would be hard pressed to argue that I could come up with anything more than a comparable choice and have no illusions about coming up with something clearly better.

The worst thing that can be said about the first appearance of Elektra is that it is heavily back-written.

Grade: A/B


Incredible Hulk #340 (David/McFarlane):
If the selections for the 80s have one thing in common, it is defining creative teams. David and McFarlane are not the only creators from the 80s who have kept their relevance over the years. But, both have maintained a significance that transcends good-will and branding.

The plot of the issue involves significant contrivance (the Hulk and the X-Men just happen to cross-paths for some reason or another). The scenario in this book is not impossible in a setting like 616 Marvel. But, the events and characters converge a little too neatly in order to allow Wolverine and the Hulk to have an obligatory fight (that just happened to take place as Wolverine was on his way to fight the Adversary during "Fall of the Mutants").

The write-up for this issue specifies that it was included partly because it is an example of Peter David writing Wolverine. This is not an unreasonable metric. But, similar to the Miller/Janson "Daredevil" run, there are plenty of credible alternatives. And, some of them likely would have been better choices in terms of showing why David/McFarlane is still considered definitive.

Grade: B/B

i hate Todd McFarlane's art. Always have. But Peter David did a great job writing the Hulk. That's the one Marvel comic I collected years ago in the early 90s alongside my 20 DC titles a month.

David's run set the precedent for Hulk as something other than a lumbering brute. Ironically, for a time, "Incredible Hulk" was one of the smartest books on the shelves.

Okay....the 90s.

Gonna jump right to the reviews this time, and save the musings for the end of the post.


Marvels #0 (Busiek/Ross):

This is a partial retelling of the Human Torch's origion. Relative to the "Marvels" series, it is notable for being the only chapter not told from the perspective of Phil Sheldon. The story is told as a flash-back, as the Torch remembers his creator. It covers the early stages of the Torch's construction to his escape from the concrete tomb he was encased in.

In terms of relevance, this one is tough to beat. "Marvels" is one of the high points of 90s Marvel and is pretty well obligatory in any "best of" collection. Busiek and Ross are still relevant as creators. And, the Human Torch is not only one of Marvel's first characters, his first appearance is considered to be one of the first 616 Marvel stories.

Aside from a bluntly placed, and arguably inappropriate, quote from "Frankenstein", this one is pretty much unassailable.

Grade: A/B


Avengers #4 (Busiek/Perez):
This was part or Marvel's attempts in the late 90s to repair the significant damage they had done to themselves and the industry. Busiek opens the issue with a fight scene contrived to make it obvious that there are (in the words of the title) "Too Many Avengers". He achieves this by having the team lose a fight to (a very 90s style) Whirlwind. The rest of the issue consists of the team being cut down to a more reasonable size. The biggest reset in the issue is the dynamic between the Vision and the Scarlett Witch, who are set back to 70s spec (well before their marriage).

There is really nothing relevant about this issue. Marvel was just getting its footing back (barely). And, Busiek was coasting on acclaim from "Marvel's" and "Thunderbolts". But, there is nothing special in this issue.

D/C


At first glance, this might seem to be the most difficult part of a "best of" volume to put together. 90s Marvel is generally agreed to have been terrible. The most significant and high profile books Marvel published in the 90s were also some of the worst. The clone arch from "Spider-Man" is remembered now, 20 years later, for how bad it was. "Avengers: The Crossing" was so bad that Marvel tried to pretend that it did not happen for several years. Need we discuss "Sabertooth: Death Hunt"?

Conversely, many of Marvel's best books from the 90s were some of the most obscure. Larry Hama's "Nth Man" was brilliant. But, it barely made an impact then, let alone leaving a lasting impression now. Despite a sustained editorial push and significant creative efforts, Marvel has never been able to make their "2099" books sustainable.

But, there were still better choices than Busiek's "Avengers".

If Marvel wanted Busiek's work to represent the 90s (which would not have been totally unreasonable), they could have used "Thunderbolts" #1. Dixon's "Punisher" run also provides better options, as would early issues of "Ghost Rider". War Machine, a character with legitimate staying power and relevance (even before the "Iron Man" movies), first appeared in the 90s. And, Jim Starlin's "Infinity" opus was published in the early to mid 90s.


Still, one thing can be said of Marvel's selections for "best of the 90s". Much like the decade itself, "Marvel's" stands tall on its own and in contrast to what it shares space with.

And, here is the last retro-review that I plan to post for a while, and the last of the selections from Marvel's 70th Anniversary Collection.


The 21st Century:

Hey, do not blame me, that is what Marvel called the last chapter. If somebody were going to take that literary, they could read it as Marvel saying that the best comics of the 21st Centry have already been published. Apparently, it is all down hill from here.

The last decade was largely defined by Marvel's successful transition from comics to movies. Ironically, despite the success of the "X-Men" films, there are no X-books from after the turn of the millenium included here. (If nothing else, I would have expected Marvel to want to show off the fact that guys like Whedon and Morrison worked for them.) Another oddity is that despite the fact that Bendis is the writer on two of the 3 selections, his early "Avengers" work did not make the cut (despite the fact that Marvel would have been pushing the various "Avengers" books by late '09.


Ultimate Spider-Man #13: (Bendis/Bagley)
This issue shows Bendis at his best, writing dialogue and interaction. Another of Bendis' strengths as a writer is his ability to write kids who sound like kids while not writing something that is nearly impossible to read. USM #13 is the issue where Peter reveals his double-identity to Mary Jane....and Bendis carries it off. (It is also worth noting that the perpetual 15 year old of the Ultimate books is arguably more mature than the perpetual man-child of the 616 Marvel Spider-books.) Bagley's art is very much a product of its time....which is unfortunate given that it still bears a significant 90s influence.

As a brand, "Ultimate" played an undeniable roll in Marvel's growth over the last decade. And, Bendis' "Ultimate Spider-Man" has generally been the strongest "Ultimate" title.

Grade: B/A


Illuminati #1: (Bendis/Cheung)
One of the the biggest problems with Marvel from the previous decade is that so little of consequence has actually stuck. ("Civil War" was presented as "changing everyting forever", but was largely undone by "Secret Invasion" and "Dark Reign".) "The Illuminati" is one of the few comics that is still relevant and referenced.

Bendis fumbles the action sequences, leaving much to be assumed between panels. But, the book adequately establishes its concept and sets up for "Secret Invasion". And, as ever, Bendis' writing is very readable.

Grade: B/C


Captain America #25: (Brubaker/Epting)
This is the most inexplicable choice in Marvel's best of. Marvel had 7 decades worth of comcis to select from. Marvel crowd-sourced the selection process to a group of fans. And, they chose....this?

By the time that Marvel released this "Best of" volume, the death of Captain America was being undone (if it had not been undone already) by a cheap McGuffin bullet angle. There is absolutely nothing about this book that makes it more important or distinctive than any other book published since the turn of the millenium, let alone over the course of 70 years. It is merely one more example of a 'big change" and a character death that did not stick.

Grade: F/C

Marvel's reaching a bit with a "70th Anniversary" collection, aren't they? Yeah, they had some Timely and Atlas comics with Namor and Captain America back in the 40s, but Marvel as we know it has really only been around since the late 50s, right? They haven't really been in continuous publication for 70 years. Then again, I could be dead wrong about that.

I keep debating those collected volumes with Captain America from the 1940s just out of curiousity. But I've got so much DC to read from that era that I"m in no hurry.

The "published continuously" qualifier is where it breaks down.


Marvel has counted Atlas and Timely output as part of 616 since at least the 70s. (This would arguably be similar to if Wildstorm had bought DC and then claimed to have been around since the 1930s.)


But, their sourcebooks from the 80s explicitly strike significant amounts of their non-hero output from the 1950s. (I am pretty sure Groot only counted as part of 616 retroactively as of a few years ago.) And, of the fairly small amount of content from the 50s that Marvel does count as part of 616, a significant portion ended up getting retconned (like that "other" Captain America that nobody seems to want to talk about).

Dominic wrote: And, of the fairly small amount of content from the 50s that Marvel does count as part of 616, a significant portion ended up getting retconned (like that "other" Captain America that nobody seems to want to talk about).

The 50's facist Captain America that recently returned during Brubaker's run? That Captain America that nobody wants to talk about? Also, dang, I kind of miss Jack Monroe now that you got me thinking of the fifties Cap and Bucky.

andersonh1 wrote:Marvel's reaching a bit with a "70th Anniversary" collection, aren't they? Yeah, they had some Timely and Atlas comics with Namor and Captain America back in the 40s, but Marvel as we know it has really only been around since the late 50s, right? They haven't really been in continuous publication for 70 years. Then again, I could be dead wrong about that.

I keep debating those collected volumes with Captain America from the 1940s just out of curiousity. But I've got so much DC to read from that era that I"m in no hurry.

Thing that gets me about that is I remember being a big Marvel guy in '86, when they were celebrating their twenty-fifth anniversary. So when I first saw 'em talking about their seventieth, man, I felt real old for a minute before I realized the math didn't add up.

Hm. Did any of DC's guys from WWII directly fight Hitler? I know the reason that came up later why the JSA and such couldn't be in the war was the whole "Spear of Destiny" thing, but at the time were they over there fighting Nazis? I honestly don't recall either way. But one of my favorite things to know about Golden Age Marvel is that Captain America punched Hitler right in his stupid face before America was even in the war. And Jack Kirby got hate mail for it. Sigh.

Then, of course, it's always entertaining to me to remember that the android Human Torch was the one who killed Hitler in Marvel's WWII. Of course, he survived by transferring his brain to a clone, but that's still kind of cool.

138 Scourge wrote:Hm. Did any of DC's guys from WWII directly fight Hitler? I know the reason that came up later why the JSA and such couldn't be in the war was the whole "Spear of Destiny" thing, but at the time were they over there fighting Nazis? I honestly don't recall either way. But one of my favorite things to know about Golden Age Marvel is that Captain America punched Hitler right in his stupid face before America was even in the war. And Jack Kirby got hate mail for it. Sigh..

Wonder Woman may have fought Hitler, but I don't think any of DC's other characters did, not generally. I've got an ad for war bonds that has the Flash fighting Hitler, Moussolini and Hirohito, but it's a dream his girlfriend is having. I think DC kept their characters out of the war generally, and the Spear of Destiny was a retcon from years later to explain it, since they should have just won the thing outright.

andersonh1 wrote:Wonder Woman may have fought Hitler, but I don't think any of DC's other characters did, not generally.

I'm pretty sure there was a comic where Superman took down Hitler. At least, I recall seeing some scans of an old comic where he single handily captured both Hitler and Stalin, and then took them directly to the League of Nations to stand trial for their war crimes.