Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

As a kid growing up in the 60s-I always bought DC comics and shunned Marvel Comics. Didn't like the art work(looked rushed). Been reading that Jack Kirby did 4 books a month(maybe thats the reason). Now that I recently bought a few Marvel Essentials-the opinion stays the same. Maybe there second tier of Superheroes was kinda on the weak side. Was Beast/The Thing and The Incredible Hulk the same character? Was Mr. Fantastic a rip-off of PlasticMan/ElongatedMan? I still plan on buying Amazing Spider-man Vol 1 Omnibus along with Fantastic Four Vol Omnibus Vol1, but besides that-think I will stay with buying DC Comic book material.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Uh... ok.

i don't get this part of your post:

Are you saying they were written the same in the 60s or something? I haven't read those issues in a long time, but I swear that the Beast (on X-men), the Thing, and the Hulk were all written differently, and as a character Reed Richards was not the same as Plastic Man or Elongated Man...

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Rip-off is a harsh word. The power-sets for super heroes were not really that creative back then (or now really...) and

I think you need to look at personality, costume and secret identity as well as power sets to decide if someone is a copy. Batman and Moon Knight is a better example of a copy.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

If you are comparing their superhero powers only, then I think you are missing the big picture and what made Marvel great in the 60's: the alter-egos. The stories of Bruce Banner, Peter Parker, Ben Grimm, etc were the main focus. The way the X-men face prejudice was a lot of times more interesting than their battles. Marvel did in the 60's something that DC didn't: make these superheroes relate more to normal human beings like the readers. While a lot of kids wanted to be Superman because of their powers, they also related to the teen struggles of Peter Parker, to being considered ugly by people like Ben Grimm, or just rejected for being born different, like the X-men.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

At least Marvel has made little change with their superheroes,while DC changes just about everything at the drop of a hat. Who knows how many times they've changed Aquaman(Submariner rip-off???)? Plus DC now is just a two trick pony(Superman/Batman) with little too offer after that. Marvel takes chances,while DC only worries about the bottom line. They are afraid to come out with a Flash or Green Lantern animated series,God forbid ,it might be successful. Don't understand the popularity of the Incredible Hulk. Seems pissed off all the time. Maybe they are gearing him to turn into a villain.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

UH... what?

Marvel just went about changing a ton of things about the Marvel Universe, with House of M, Civil War, Skrull Invasion, Dark Reign, Age of Heroes. etc. See the Brand New Day thread for Spidey. See the Dark Daredevil stuff, FrankenCastle, etc. See the cosmic stuff starting with Annihilation. I hardly recognize the X-men anymore. If anything, DC is guilty of wanting to go back to pre-Crisis days with a lot of their continuity.

Or are you talking about the 60s again?

Flash or Green Lantern animated series? What? There's a GL movie coming out, what more do you want? And I haven't read Incredible Hulk in a long time, but isn't being mad his gimmick anyway?

DC has dropped the ball on a lot of their titles in many, many ways, but I don't understand your complaints.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Marvel Comics are absolutely unreadable these days. They change their status quo every 5 minutes, each worse than the last. After 30 years of faithful reading, I gave up reading Marvel earlier this year. I have little to no interest in the crappy Bendis/Millar/Loeb-verse. Mostly Bendis. Shitty, repetitive, overrated writer if there ever was one.

DC isn't much better either. But I like the characters more, so it hurts more.

I'm mostly reading indies these days. Invincible is easily the best superhero comic on the market.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

You think Marvel would learn after so many misfires, but now I read more bullshit coming from them

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

I couldn't believe they did this

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Civil War, Secret Invasion, Siege, Heroic Age, Dark Avengers, New Avengers, Mighty Avengers, Secret Avengers, Norman Osborn runs the Marvel Universe, Osborn is NOT running the Marvel Universe, Iron Man is head of SHIELD, Iron Man is an outlaw... I'm sick of all of Marvel's bullshit.

And as far as DC being a two-trick pony (Superman/Batman), I'd like to point out that the biggest comics event of the year was Darkest Night, and before that the Sinestro Corps War. GL is much more high-profile than anything else comic out of DC Comics. But I'm almost as over DC as I am Marvel.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Yep, Matt Murdock will be "killed off" at the end of the series. His replacement choices are to wear the horns are... Gambit, Kraven the Hunter, Nova, Battle-Star and Black Panther.

I kid you not. Not one of them has history with the character or makes any logical sense. My picks would be...

Punisher
Paladin
Iron Fist
Bengal
Moon Knight

My comic book store was littered with little fliers about it.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Green Lantern animated series is coming out in 2011 from Cartoon Network. :banana:

Also, DC's animated output is far superior to Marvel's. Granted, there's a ton of Superman/Batman product, but there's also been Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and New Frontier (which was primarily based around Martian Manhunter, Flash, Wonder Woman, and GL). Plus those awesome Spectre and Jonah Hex shorts.

Unfortunately, the market dictates that if it doesn't have Superman or Batman in it, it doesn't sell as well. Which is a shame, because the Wonder Woman animated movie was the best of the lot, and they've mostly been great (except for Superman/Doomsday and Public Enemies). I'd love to see a Flash movie, Legion of Super-Heroes "Great Darkness Saga", or modern-day Justice Society. :(

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

I like the Planet Hulk and Hulk Vs. movies they did. They both rank up there with the good DC stuff... the rest from marvel is "meh" at best.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

I stopped reading mainstream super hero comics a long time ago. I think the Ultimate Marvel Comics are better than the regular ones at this point, but by now even that is pretty messed up. If I'm going to read superhero comics now, I prefer to read isolated story arcs or alternate/what if stories.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Nova? The cosmic one, or is there yet another Nova (besides the ex-herald of Galactus). This also makes no sense considering Iron Fist was the replacement last time anyway. And how is Battle-Star?

As far as #1s go, we can complain all we want but the title will no doubt get a boost in sales because of it, which is exactly why they do it.

And yeah, DC's cartoon universe has been amazing. Even with Superman and Batman in them, stuff like JLU and Brave and the Bold have so many obscure characters showing up, it boggles the mind. We got an anime-lite version of the Wolfman/Perez team of Teen Titans with a bunch of cameos there as well. The aforementioned Superboy and the Legion of Superheroes, which I have yet to see (did that ever come out on dvd?). They had a Krypto cartoon, for crying out loud...

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

The greatest era is DC 1950s. :)

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

I tell you what. I preferred the "Batman fighting aliens on giant typewriters" era long before Grant Morrison wanted to bring it back. There were some imaginative stories back then. Everyone wanted to write the next "Dark Knight" for 20 years after 1986. It got so repetitive and derivative, I wanted to hurl buckets of donuts.

And if I had my druthers... and I don't... and if it were under my control, I'd want the next Superman movie to be a late 50s/early 60s period piece, taking its cue from Silver Age Mort Weisenger/Curt Swan. Pah.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Superman meets Mad Men!

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Totally agree about old Marvel stories. I just cant read them, so damn wordy. I believe it was Stan who said each issue was written for a new reader picking the book up for the first time. But damn, do I need to see a panel of someone walking down a hallway, with the caption saying they are walking down the hallway, with a thought balloon confirming both.

I guess i just prefer the fun of DC Silver Age.

Current Marvel is pretty rough too, but I do enjoy PunisherMax, current X-Men, and Secret Avengers.

Just read Marvel is ending Daredevil at issue #512, after Shadowland. I'm sure they will have a shiny #1 soon with Gambit or someone.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Yep and I thought that I was the only one who loved Sci-Fi Batman. Don't know why DC shunned that era for Batman with there DC Showcase line.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

I know this is more from the 70's, but I just stumbled today with the Marvel character D-Man. Couldn't they have been more lazier?

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0...-man_super.jpg

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

I feel it is incredibly disengenuous for fans to gripe about new #1 issues, when those are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the ones that sell the best. Barring exceptions like Jim Lee/Jeph Loeb on Batman, new #1s always give titles a bump, and these companies are in the business of making money.

However, if the story is the most important aspect, what does it matter what number is on the cover? That is something I've never understood -- the griping about renumbering. It's totally unnecessary, sure, but I could not care less. The history is still the history.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

I agree (though I have a soft spot for 1950's Fawcett!).

Early Marvel artwork is admittedly a bit primitive but, even at 4 a month, Kirby was better than everyone else. Hit art does change and look more polished as the Fantastic Four series progresses and Joe Sinnott gets take the inking reins over. Also, Kirby brought unrivaled creativity to the Fantastic Four (and his other Marvel work as well) until he became disenfranchised with the endeavor and refused to create new, meaningful characters for them. Remember that you're reading this stuff 50 years + after the fact. The Marvel Universe was being created on the fly. Characters as significant as Galactus, the Inhumans, Silver Surfer, and more woud just show up, month after month. It really was something else.

dvd-4-life, please do post your reactions after reading the Omnibuses. Those Ditko Spider-Man comics are, IMO, at the top of the all-time best list. The FF too, but I'm a bigger fan of the comics in the 2nd FF Omnibus, you should try to read those too. Go to the Essential volumes if you have too (obviously they'll be cheaper too). Good luck & have fun.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

I still have all those key issues of FF. I sometimes like to pull stuff out just to look at them and I now find they were horribly written and drawn. Their a chore to read and really not that good. Most people see them through rose colored glasses and think their the best things ever to come out but honestly they don't hold up to the test of time. The later writers and artist that added onto the mythos are the ones that actually made the characters interesting. Saying that I love the fact I own a piece of comic book history. :)

http://i877.photobucket.com/albums/a...iscMarvel7.jpg

http://i877.photobucket.com/albums/a...iscMarvel8.jpg

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Been reading the Marvel Omnibuses(X-Men V1,FF V1,Spider-man V1). Spider-man has been the best so far. As expected-the background artistry isn't as good as DC Comics during that time period. Seems rushed. Also noticed an overabundance of Sub-Mariner. He seems like a secondary character that was overexposed during that time frame. I would like to get FF V2-but right now its cost prohibitive. Would also like to get Tomb of Dracula ,but V1 is still quite costly. Is there any talk of second printings coming out?

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Awesome FF collection!

Not sure about the 60's run, but I think the 70's-early 80's FF was really fun sci-fi and I enjoy going back to them.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

You know, as a 12-year old reading through my dad's Marvel comic collection from when he was a kid, I absolutely would have agreed with you.

But now that I have a comic reader on my iPad (and I have to say, out of all the things I use the iPad for, reading comics on it is by far my number one use for it) and I'm able to throw 30 years worth of a single title on there, I have to say it's quite difficult to read a lot of those old comics. While I can certainly appreciate the creativity that went into early Iron Man, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, etc, the dialogue is so blunt and obvious that it really makes them difficult to read now.

All the time I'll see dialogue like "Oh no! The police have captured me, Reed Richards, also known as Mr. Fantastic of the Fantastic Four, and think I am the culprit, even though I've been set up!" And this will be right after the villains explained to Mr. Fantastic how they've set up him up, and that will be after Villain A explained it to Villain B, and so on. Now, I know Stan Lee and Steve Kirby and all those guys were basically making this stuff up on the spot, but with the arrival of more sophisticated writers onto the scene (who no doubt had been hugely influenced by the writers in the 60's), a good chunk of those defining Marvel comics look antiquated.

So I can appreciate those comics for their place in history, and how they helped open things up to today's writers, but it's something that's much easier for me to admire from afar.

That being said, the current Marvel universe is a sickening joke.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Agreed about the Silver Age Marvel books. For their time, they were innovative and introduced a lot of big concepts and layered characters, but the comics themselves are crude and unsophisticated to modern sensibilities.

People who read comics, as well as those who work in the industry, tend to oversell the actual quality of these books. They're important as historical artifacts, but they are not great literature or art by any measure.

As for the current state of the Marvel Universe, I've read so few stories in it that I can't really comment other than to say it appears, from afar, that they're doing some really interesting things with it, but when I get closer it looks like a huge fucking mess where you have a handful of "good" comics so tightly interwoven with a truckload of drek that it becomes impossible to separate the two.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

There's no accounting for taste, but I would put a Lee/Kirby or Lee/Ditko book up against anything coming out of mainstream comics these days. I mean, do you really think Batman R.I.P. or Blackest Night or Avengers: The Siege is significantly better than some of those Fantastic Four or Thor or Spider-Man epics?

I'm currently reading Essential Iron Man 3, which is late Silver/early Bronze Age stuff, mostly by Archie Goodwin and George Tuska, and I'm enjoying it just as much as most of the stuff I bought new off the racks last week. None of it is going to set the world on fire, but neither is Shadowland or Brightest Day. :shrug:

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

The 70's was when Marvel had their shit together; so yeah their still pretty awesome stories even by today's standards. The stories from the 60's are still horribly written and drawn even though all the good characters were created for them. They were waiting for good artist and writers to take over in the 70's and early 80's. Too bad that quality doesn't really exist in today's comics. Like I stated earlier; readers remember the stories from when they were kids and have not gone back and reread this stuff. It's really hard to get through the stories from the 60's. However, if someone asked me if they should read these stories I would totally recommend that they do; just so the new reader will know the original history of the characters instead of some revisionist version that was written later or what's shown in a movie version.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

There's a lot of crap in mainstream comics today, all without the enthusiasm and sense of fun of the 60's comic book scene. I can certainly appreciate those elements of 60's comics without a doubt. But I hardly ever read mainstream comics these days, and those I do are almost never superhero titles.

I just got finished doing my annual re-reading of Sandman, and that comic is subtle, layered, artistic, touching, and I cannot ever heap enough praise upon it. That Neil Gaiman took inspiration from what had been done in the 60's and 70's (and 80's) is without doubt, but it also shows how far comics have come since then.

But yeah, if all you're reading is the latest Marvel crossover, the 60's stuff is an absolute masterpiece by comparison.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Yeah, I understand where your coming from. Your not much older than me and comics were introduced to me so I can learn how to read, also. Early Marvel and DC was my first exposure in the late 60's. I remember really liking the Marvel stories. In the late 70's I started buying a lot of back issues (both Marvel and DC) and the Marvel books just didn't have the same impact on me. To me the DC stories and art were just better in that same time period. I do agree that the books from the 90's and later are horrible. It's the reason I stopped collecting monthlies over a decade ago and just buy GA, SA and BA books today.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

In my younger days I didn't have as great an appreciation for Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko as I do today, hell the rest of the Bullpen even, but never once did I think their comics were "horribly drawn". I still think Ditko was the perfect Spider-Man artist and Kirby had a majesty to his work that no one's come close to. Granted, some of the inking was a bit rough and I'm sure some of the work was rushed, but it still is miles better than most art being produced today. I personally don't enjoy the work of guys like Ethan Van Sciver, Ivan Reiss or (especially) Alex Ross. I never needed, or wanted for that matter, my comics to look or be realistic. Give me the classics any day.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

I think we've had this discussion before, but there's no way you're going to read the entire universe of Marvel or DC books and get the same quality as you had back then, just because they've expanded so much. When you have like two writers and two artists doing everything, you can have better continuity and better QC.

Having grown up on Claremont's X-men and Byrne's FF and Simonson's Thor, I like the multipart, layered epics that were lacking in the 60s.

You can still get excellent books that you can read (but that admittedly will still get pulled into a crossover here or there) in different corners of both Marvel and DC. If you want a superhero universe that is much more self contained try something like Invincible.

Just as an aside, it seems like there are a bunch of creators these days who have a lot of reverence and or knowledge of the history of both universes and will try to "fix" old continuity. Sometimes, they do amazing things, and it seems like there's a real push to get obscure characters back into the limelight. Other times, I'm sure old timers feel like they're just trampling on memories.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Compared to Adams "realistic" style most of the art from the 60's just paled in comparison. He elevated the artform so high that imho no one even came close; not in the 60's when he started or even today. Most if not all comic book artist today put him in the #1 spot as their favorite or most influencial artist to ever draw a comic book. So, yeah compared to him; Kirby's art is just okay. I put Kane, Steranko, Ditko, Aparo or Colan above Kirby. I know that sounds harsh but if you look at back issue sales; Adams art commands higher prices than most of them with the exception of the early origin issues by Kirby. Those that don't like Kirby's art is in the minority i.e. ME. Just as those who doesn't like Adams. As always art is a very subjective matter and you will like what you like regardless of others opinions. :)

I don't like Ross' art, either and I don't know why Jim Lee is so popular. His early work in the X titles were good but to me his work at DC and especially Batman just doesn't do it for me. I read the TPB's and everyone looks the same and Batman seems to always be drawn posing.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

I love Kirby's artwork. That's never been my issue with 60's comics.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

I know this isn't the 1960s-related, but regarding the topic of just "Not impressed with Marvel Comics" in general, I don't think Marvel ever had a really amazing mainstream book except for Mark Gruenwald's 1980s SQUADRON SUPREME utopia book. I think it's the most interesting Marvel superhero book yet. It's Marvel's way of poking fun at DC's Justice League but doing it with one of the best storylines I have ever read for a mainstream Marvel book. Once I became an adult, I realized that there was not one interesting storyline for any of my favorite superhero characters such as Spiderman, Hulk, Iron Man, etc.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/...ron%281%29.jpg

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

I think Spider-Man had several great storylines in the 60's and 70's, and the Dark Phoenix storyline in X-Men is probably the best mainstream superhero storyline (in continuity) I've ever read.

Re: Not impressed with Marvel Comics(from the 1960s)
 

Supr: Comparing 60s Marvel to Sandman is a bit unfair. Sandman is probably one of the top 5 comics of all time in terms of literary merit. Saying the 60s marvel stuff falls short of that is like writing off Citizen Kane because the movies of the 40s don't stand up to the Godfather.

Toddly: For Spider-Man, read the Lee/Ditko stuff, particularly the Master Planner stuff from 31-33. Or read Kraven's Last Hunt. Or Roger Stern's work with the character. Or the amazing stuff Gerry Conway and Sal Buscema did with the character in the late 80s.

For Hulk, try any number of Peter David's stories. Or Greg Pak's Planet Hulk or World War Hulk.

For Iron Man, Michelinie and Layton did amazing things with the character -- try their Demon in a Bottle story, or Armor Wars.

As I said to Supr, if you're looking for something to rival Sandman (or Watchmen, or Maus), you're probably not going to find it. There have certainly been glimpses of that kind of genius over the years, but the nature of a sustained serial comic tends away from that sort of literary merit because ongoing superhero comics don't allow for the beginning, middle, and end necessary for true literary merit. A large part of why Squadron Supreme was so good was because Gruenwald was allowed to move the characters from Point A to Point B and not have to move them back to Point A.