Star Wars is so hot right now, so let’s look at The Avengers.

   The Avengers was my favorite title of Marvel Comics when I was a kid. I’ve managed to collect nearly all of the first 200 issues. I’m missing only the very most expensive ones, so I’ll have to wait until this blog makes me rich or I win the lottery. So, I’ll probably never own them. Anyway, I dug back into the archives of my personal blog and found this one discussing the virtues of Avengers #164. I’ve given this write up a little updating and revision, but it’s still about how cool I thought this comic book was.

   Issue #164 features guest penciler John Byrne. John Byrne is one of my all time favorite comic book artists. This issue was one of his early efforts for Marvel Comics, but he would soon make a huge splash in the comic world when he became the regular penciler for the X-Men (starting with issue #108).

   I love Byrne’s work. For quite some time I considered him the top artist at Marvel. George Perez was a close second, but Byrne’s work just had something that impressed the hell out of me. He continued to produce great work for many years until he began writing titles as well as drawing them. Then he seemed to hurry his drawing.

   The Avengers #164 was early in his career at Marvel, but he was already showing those signs of greatness. His inker was Pablo Marcos for this three issue series, giving George Perez, Avengers’ regular artist, a break. However, I am focusing on the first part of the three issue story, because as I’ve always found the set up issue seems to be more interesting than the conclusion issue of a story line.

   The synopsis of this issue tells of an old Avengers’ villain, Count Nefaria, recruiting three other villains: Power Man, Whirlwind, and the Living Laser (known as The Lethal Legion), to help him defeat the Avengers once and for all. Through the efforts of the team of scientists he employed, Count Nefaria enhances the powers of the three recruited bad guys. But only temporarily. This reunited and boosted Lethal Legion rob a bank, the Avengers try to stop them, but the Legion get away and to regroup and counterattack. At the end of their counterattack, the bad guys appear to have the upper hand and are about to become victorious when their powers begin to mysteriously disappear. Enter Count Nefaria, crackling with the super powers he’d just stolen from the Lethal Legion. That dastardly double crosser!

   OK, it ain’t Tolstoy, but it’s good comic book fun. (And I’ve never read any Tolstoy.)

   Now to look at the art…

   The cover (see above) was draw by George Perez and it depicts the Lethal Legion putting the beat down on the Avengers. Power Man states that the Avengers are finished, but someone is shouting, “Not all of them!” But who is it? We do see a pair of gloved hands, but the story doesn’t let us know who it is. Is it Yellow Jacket? The Wasp? The Scarlet Witch? I guess we aren’t supposed to know. It was a common practice in comic books to have cover art that didn’t exactly fit the story inside.

   The first frame I’m including is the beginning of the second battle between the Avengers and the Lethal Legion. The three bad guys decide to use the old attention getter of throwing a car through the window of the second story conference room of the Avengers’ mansion. How the Legion knew our heroes were gathered there I don’t know. Still it is a dramatic shot with the great sound effect “KA-SMA-A-ASH!” Marvel always did pride themselves with their uncannily descriptive sound effect words.

   Next is a two frame sequence in which we get to see just how much more powerful Power Man has become. At the expense of the Beast, unfortunately. Poor Beast, that looks like it hurt.

   Then I have the last page of the issue. Here is where Count Nefaria makes his dramatic entrance. He tears up the street under the Avengers’ feet, sending them all down to the ground, stunned. A shocked Capt. America recognizes the villain and can’t believe Nefaria is capable of such a display of power.

   And doesn’t the Scarlet Witch have quite the nice behind?

I’m also including another two frame segment that always bugged me. It shows the Whizzer (yep, that’s his name) speeding through his apartment. He’s heading off to get into the action, but he really shouldn’t because he’s an older fellow and he’s got heart trouble. So, he’s using his power of traveling at super speed (did you think the name and the yellow costume indicated a different super-power?) when his daughter, the Scarlet Witch, gets in his way. (She wasn’t really his daughter. It’s complicated, just take my word for it.)

   He grabs a trellis rod and spins himself backward into the wall to keep from colliding with his daughter. I always thought the drawings were confusing. Why would he go backward?

   Looking at it now, I think I understand what happened. The Whizzer (Yes! That is his name!) must have reached to his right to grab an “off camera” trellis rod and that’s why he’s flung backward into the wall. I guess Byrne had difficulty fitting the trellis into the first frame.

   This is my favorite era for comic books. The art was improved, in general, over that of the early 60s. I like the use of newsprint and full gutters on the pages, with the occasional breaking of the frame in the big action sequences. But then again, I’m probably just nostalgic for the simpler days of my youth.

   Yes! He was called The Whizzer!

The best version of…

Well, it’s holiday time again and I figured I’d weigh in on this most serious of debates: Which of the 14,398 film and television versions of Charles Dickens’ classic  story  of greed and redemption is the best? It’s difficult to say for certain, because I haven’t seen all 19,573 versions of A Christmas Carol. But that’s not going to stop me from naming the one of the 22,741 versions I think is best.

The story is very familiar to most anyone. (With 27,821 versions it’s hard to believe many people wouldn’t know the story.) Ebenezer Scrooge is a cold, money obsessed man of business. He’s penny-pinching and cruel to all around him, with no charity toward those who are less fortunate. He thinks Christmas is a bother and a humbug.

However, his former business partner, Jacob Marley, who had died on Christmas Eve seven years earlier, visits Scrooge as a ghost who exists in a hellish kind of limbo. The late Marley has taken pity on Scrooge and wants to give him a chance to change his ways and avoid a similar fate. Three spirits will visit Scrooge on Christmas Eve to help convince him of the error of his cruel greediness.

Looking through Christmases of his past, present, and future, Scrooge learns he’s had a wonderful life and that he really shouldn’t kill himself for a bit of insurance…money… Wait. That’s a different movie.

Anyway, the spirits do their job and Scrooge awakens enlightened and inspired to change his ways. He becomes quite the generous soul who henceforth always kept Christmas well.

Yeah, I know! Spoilers! But come on.

As I said, there have been many, many, many versions of this story told since Dickens wrote it. Hell, WKRP in Cincinnati even did a version of the classic tale. But, hands down, my favorite version is the UK’s 1951 Renown Pictures film Scrooge (or A Christmas Carol as it was titled in its American release) starring Alastair Sim as the mean old miser himself.

It’s vital that the actor playing Scrooge gets it right. And not just the cold-hearted, money-grubbing, humbug-shouting Scrooge, but the joyous, giddy, warm-hearted redeemed man that he became. And Sim is brilliant! His dark and cruel Scrooge is terrific and his humbled, kind-hearted Scrooge is just as convincing. His supporting cast is filled with wonderful English character actors most of whom rise up to match the caliber of Sim’s performance.

I have two quibbles: One is the woman who plays the younger Scrooge’s love interest. She acts a bit wooden and is always looking off into the distance. And her crying is about as phony as I’ve ever seen in film. I’m not sure if that was an acting choice or if that was how she was directed to play it. It just felt acted, if you know what I mean.

The second quibble is the whole Cratchit family Christmas celebration. They are so pitifully poor, because Scrooge pays the head of the family so little, and yet theirs will be the finest Christmas goose and the finest Christmas in all of London. They’ll even have enough gin punch for two toasts! And the pudding! Oh, the pudding! Come hear the pudding singing in the copper!

Yeesh! The whole sequence is so sweet I think I develop a cavity every time I watch it. Now, I know the scene is supposed to show how happiness is not tied to money. The Cratchits are joyful despite their poverty, while Scrooge is miserable with all his wealth. But still, I’d advise brushing your teeth immediately after watching that scene.

And Tiny Tim is too tall! OK, that’s three quibbles.

Otherwise, I think the film is wonderful. It has a dark and brooding feel prior to Scrooge’s conversion. And one of the effects of that darkness is to give the feeling of authenticity to the story. It feels real and makes one think the movie goes back much farther than 1951. But, the picture brightens and the world becomes a hopeful place after the spirits have succeeded in their task.

Oh! And as a bonus. There is an excellent continuity error in the film. Christmas morning has arrived and Scrooge’s charwoman (terrifically played by Kathleen Harrison) has come with his breakfast. Scrooge is not acting himself. He’s giddy and happy and she’s terrified.

So, there’s Scrooge dancing around his bedroom, when he stops to look in a mirror to tell himself he doesn’t deserve to be so happy. It’s at that point you need to look in the mirror. Look closely! You will see a man off camera lean in to watch the scene.

It’s not a ghost! It’s not pareidolia! It’s a member of the crew. And it’s a pretty cool continuity error.

If you have never seen Scrooge or if it’s been a long while, it’s well done and worth your time. The entire film is available on YouTube, but if you watch the colorized version I will be sorely disappointed in you. Colorization is a humbug! HUMBUG!

Merry Holiday, everyone!

Correction (12-27-15): When originally posted I had listed the wrong character and actor for the scene in which we see the off camera crew member in the mirror. I had said it was the laundress played by Louise Hampton. The character was the charwoman and was played by Kathleen Harrison. I have made the correction.

Hey, would you like to buy a monkey?

Forget the soap that turned your enemies’ hands black. Never mind the whooping cushions. Pay no attention to the onion flavored chewing gum. And don’t even bring up the X-Ray specs. Because in 1965, you could buy a live squirrel monkey through the mail for a mere $18.95!

The ad states that a squirrel monkey can make “an adorable pet and companion”, but a monkey? I’m not sure that’s a good idea.

The ad does guarantee live delivery. Which is a good thing. Along with the monkey you’ll get a free cage, a free leather collar and leash, a free monkey toy and instructions.

I assume those instructions are on how to care for the monkey, but I have my doubts as to how good they are, because the ad tells us that squirrel monkeys eat the same food we do, even lollipops! A staple of any primate’s diet, I’m sure.

I wonder how many kids scraped together the $18.95 and purchased a “darling live pet monkey” through this ad in the back of a comic book, without informing Mom and Dad. Must have been quite a surprise when that package arrived.

“Billy! A monkey?! Now I understand why you had me stock up on all those lollipops. Just wait until your father gets home, young man!”

And live seahorses! A buck apiece! What a bargain!

Answers for holiday game (Read “A game for holiday…” first!)

Before you read the answer, make certain you have read the previous blog entry first. You haven’t read it? Well, get to it!

Everybody try their hand at the Vague Spoilers Movie Quiz? Yes? Good. Well, here are the answers…

1) She was dreaming. (1939) – The Wizard of Oz
2) He was on Earth the whole time. (1968) – Planet of the Apes
3) His mother was dead all along. (1960) – Psycho
4) She leaves with her husband. (1942) – Casablanca
5) He’s a ghost. (1999) – The Sixth Sense
6) She’s biologically male. (1992) – The Crying Game
7) She’s the sister and the mother. (1974) – Chinatown
8) He goes home. (1982) – ET: The Extraterrestrial
9) They all killed him. (1974) – Murder on the Orient Express
10) He hits the pennant-winning home run. (1984) – The Natural
11) They get gunned down in their car. (1967) – Bonnie and Clyde
12) The bad guy is his father. (1980) – Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
13) They find the defendant not guilty. (1957) – 12 Angry Men
14) The fire gets put out. (1974) – The Towering Inferno
15) They never complete their quest. (1975) – Monty Python and the Holy Grail
16) He blows it up. (1977) – Star Wars: A New Hope
17) He blows it up. (1975) – Jaws
18) He blows it up. (1957) – The Bridge on the River Kwai
19) He doesn’t win. (1976) – Rocky
20) He does win. (1979) – Rocky II
21) They survive. (1995) – Apollo 13
22) She survives. (2013) – Gravity
23) They save the earth. (1986) – Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
24) He gets away. (1994) – The Shawshank Redemption
25) It sinks. (1997) – Titanic

A game for Holiday…

Christmas gatherings with my family involve some game playing. Nothing too vigorous. No charades or anything very physical, but there might be some kind of quiz. No, not some Common Core thing, but a quiz involving a theme. For instance, one year we had to identify Christmas carols from some cryptically worded clue. The clues might be: The lad is a diminutive percussionist (Little Drummer Boy) or Sir Lancelot with laryngitis (Silent Night).

I thought I’d try my hand at it.

I have come up with a list of clues that hint at a specific popular movie. I call it Vague Spoilers. And I mean pretty vague and they are spoilers. Although some answers may be pretty obvious, I realized this could be a very difficult quiz, so I’m including the year the film was released as an additional clue. I will post the answers in a follow-up blog that will be posted shortly after this one.

So, here it is….

The Vague Spoilers Movie Quiz!

1) She was dreaming. (1939)
2) He was on Earth the whole time. (1968)
3) His mother was dead all along. (1960)
4) She leaves with her husband. (1942)
5) He’s a ghost. (1999)
6) She’s biologically male. (1992)
7) She’s the sister and the mother. (1974)
8) He goes home. (1982)
9) They all killed him. (1974)
10) He hits the pennant-winning home run. (1984)
11) They get gunned down in their car. (1967)
12) The bad guy is his father. (1980)
13) They find the defendant not guilty. (1957)
14) The fire gets put out. (1974)
15) They never complete their quest. (1975)
16) He blows it up. (1977)
17) He blows it up. (1975)
18) He blows it up. (1957)
19) He doesn’t win. (1976)
20) He does win. (1979)
21) They survive. (1995)
22) She survives. (2013)
23) They save the earth. (1986)
24) He gets away. (1994)
25) It sinks. (1997)

So, how’d you do? Answers in the next blog entry.

You know who is great? You know who isn’t?

This was originally posted on my blog over at dimland.com way back in June 2010. I have updated it a bit.

I know there are lots of fans of Todd McFarlane’s artwork out there. I am not one. The following is my comparison to one of McFarlane’s contemporaries who, in my opinion, should be counted as one of the all-time greats. Again, this is just my opinion…

You know who is great?

I’ll tell you. Alan Davis.

Who is Alan Davis? Alan Davis is one of my favorite comic book illustrators, that’s who! Back when I was still buying new comic books (I stopped years ago), I discovered Alan Davis when he was penciling Detective Comics for DC. His Batman was terrific. On par with Neal Adams, I’d say.

Davis’ style is fluid and graceful. It’s every bit as powerful as comicdom’s other greats: John Buscema, Jack Kirby, Joe Kubert, Will Eisner, John Byrne, Jim Lee, Alex Ross and the like.

When he finished up on Detective Comics on the middle of a story run (he was replaced by the extremely overrated Todd McFarlane, I’ll talk about him in a moment), he moved over to Marvel Comics. He went to work penciling Excalibur. And I went to work buying them.

You know who isn’t great?

Todd McFarlane.

Now, I should say that these fellows’ greatness is only pertaining to their artwork. McFarlane might be the nicest guy in the world and Davis a complete jerk. I don’t know, I’ve never met either. My critique is only of  the art, not the artist.

I think Alan Davis was, unfortunately, overshadowed by the Todd McFarlane craze. I must admit I was impressed with McFarlane’s work for about five minutes, but, as a life-long student of comic book art, I quickly saw McFarlane’s deficiencies as an artist.

His work was dramatic and eye-catching, but his anatomy drawing was poor. His proportions were off and his women all looked wrong. His characters all looked like they were in danger of falling over (always leaning and their bodies severely tapering toward their feet). McFarlane’s line work was also way too busy and lacked weight and definition.

Just how big is Spider-Man’s butt?

Alan Davis’ work, on the other hand, was lush and disciplined. His line work was simple, flowing, elegant and expressive. His eye for page layout and design was outstanding. A mark of a really good comic book artist is being able to follow the story without having to read the narrative and dialogue. Davis’ pages never left you confused as to what was going on, while McFarlane’s often did.

And the way Alan Davis drew women… AHEM.

Davis putting the Vampirella in va-va-voom!

Maybe I suffer a little from the sour grapes when I look at McFarlane’s work. I spent years trying to get into the comic book biz, but no go. Sometimes I’d get some praise, “You’re good, but you need work.” Sometimes I’d get slapped, “Have you had any drawing lessons?” (This was asked of me by an editor after I had spent three years in art school.)

Often I would hear that my work was a little too cartoony. I’d work on improving my drawing and then I saw McFarlane’s drawings. Cartoony?! Talk about cartoony! Are you looking at his stuff?!

Eye-catching to be sure, but just not quite right.

That’s more like it!

I know art is in the eye of the beekeeper, or something like that. It’s subjective, so there might be a person who thinks the exact opposite of me when it comes to these artists. That person would be wrong, but they might exist. And they are entitled to their opinion.

And so as not to be too harsh toward Mr. Mcfarlane, he has succeeded in an industry that many have tried to get into, but just couldn’t, including myself. And that is remarkable. Of course, Rob Liefeld also made it in… Don’t get me started.

I, also, have to say that although I don’t care much for McFarlane’s drawing, the line of toys he later produced were fantastic!

Just a mess.

It’s when I see art done this well that I say to myself, “Put down the pencil. Let’s the pros handle this.”

Whenever I see great work, I marvel at the artist’s ability. I revel in it. I feel as though I’m witnessing something special. It’s a beautiful thing.

And I think Alan Davis produced many beautiful things.