vaillant

Actually "Oop" is precisely "Thor", phonetically. The first one you mistaken for a "O" is a uppercase Theta (see the dot within the circle, it’s one of the graphical forms of the letter). The second "O" is indeed an Omicron. The "P" is actually a "R" sound (the Rho). So you have "Thor", exactly as in English. They just transliterated the names the way they sound in English. Is there anything you don't know? I swear you're a walking encyclopedia. That's not a bad thing though. (thumbs u If you only knew how actually ignorant I am. I recognize (vaguely, and not even all the letters) the greek alphabet just because I picked up an interest while toying with the idea of designing greek versions of my typefaces (never completed one in full) and for my interest in the scriptures, so I caressed the idea of studying ancient Greek (without having studied Latin). Ended up that I realized it was too much of a tough task.

I now have one, but still have to receive it – will post it when I get it! (thumbs u The modern image you posted, however, is really ugly. It does not even remotely resemble’s Luke features.

Actually "Oop" is precisely "Thor", phonetically. The first one you mistaken for a "O" is a uppercase Theta (see the dot within the circle, it’s one of the graphical forms of the letter). The second "O" is indeed an Omicron. The "P" is actually a "R" sound (the Rho). So you have "Thor", exactly as in English. They just transliterated the names the way they sound in English.

Yes, but while this element has never been much of a problem in the past, now it is exacerbated by the refusal to recognize objective elements while debating, even if they are really evident. There is also a tendency to refuse acknowledgment of historical relevance of facts and thought, and of shared paradigms (in more scientific approaches). And this is not good.

Thanks, but what "Siege Perilous" refers to? I restarted reading the X-Men as a young adult with issue #214 and I liked the various titles a lot, especially X-Factor, New Mutants and Power Pack. But there are various thing I don’t understand. First, while I can see your point about the second half of the run you mentioned, I seem to recall up to some point the stories were good. Second, I never thought Claremont was "terrible" at dialogue. I was re-reading some New Mutants and dialogue is good. Why do you say that? Also, how the presence of a "strong artist" can improve a story if it is not already decently good? I also don’t understand why you say that Jim Lee "gave him a gracious ending to his run" – I think I stopped buying the title when Lee started to co-wrote, or at least that is what I got. What would be the gracious ending?

+1 ! Preach it, brother. Another example: I never cared much about the X-Men before I restarted reading Marvels as a young adult in the late 1980s, and that was one of the thing which hooked me up. Also the cured Michael Morbius, the maturity of Roger Stern writing on the Avengers, etc.

It‘s a very long discourse, and I have been reasoning upon it for almost 25 years, so it’s not something "out of the blue". Your example does not hold, as it is related to impressions, and memories one can hold dear, but it‘s not the objective element I have tried to underline – and which pretty much eluded me in full – for the last 20 years or so. For example, Power Pack had almost no editorial life after the series ended (and Louise Simonson was happily pushed out), so it cannot be taken as an example. "Interpretation" is too much a vague word. A writer, when taking up such a thing as Marvel as it was in the – say – early 1970s, had something to work upon but also something to work within. And a good writer can freely express himself/herself, while building upon – and developing consistently, something which existed before him. It seems to me it’s not chiefly a question of "original version", as "versions" is something which has been misinterpreted in the more ego-centered modern thought, meaning that the writer can, and should, do whatever he "feels". If you are familiar with the work of Steve Gerber, for example, and how he approached characters he did not create as related to their creator, you’ll begin to see better what I mean. In fact, I love more the mature later stories than the sense of wonder of the early Marvel Age, as they showed maturation, development, consistency. It‘s not about versions, rather about consistency, which is no longer there. And most of all, about heroism, which is also barely there, because to write a story of a certain weight, you must have the background. And most of these current writers, I am sorry to say, they do not have (but I think it’s more a problem of management).

BTW, all would have been easily, and originally, handled by starting to make the characters age a little more, while developing their stories, and introducing new character. This was excellently done in the mid to late 1980s – as an example I still consider Magneto’s reformation and the Sandman character development awesome things. Now they already thrashed them, and more than once. Now Matt Fraction does not even know the age differences between the chidren brought in the Future Foundation, and Hickman probably cared even less.

Honestly, Jimmy: NO. 99% of what Marvel has done in the last ten years has little to do with the proper meaning of the word "sense". While I agree silver/bronze Marvel is great, there is also a lot of fluff. Copper has some good stuff but there is also a lot of . Modern the same. The writing definitely has improved over time in some series but I can see how this can be off putting if you idolize the early stuff. Kirby and Ditko etc aren't walking through Marvel doors anymore. Has some of it been outrageous no doubt (hate Norman came back) but it's pretty difficult to maintain characters for over 50-60 years without some change, especially as society changes. The world has changed, why shouldn't comics. I'm sure Golden Age fans were appalled at the new direction Captain America/SubMariner took in the 60's. I enjoy them for what they are while trying not to reminiscent about the past or what could have been. Claudio, if we were truly honest, much of what Marvel has done in it's entire history doesn't make much sense. This would open up a huge discussion, as I pretty much entirely disagree with your three last statements. As much as I love Jack’s work, I am not nostalgic about a good deal of the early Lee/Kirby (except the FF which I know quite well). In fact, I may not even have read them. Or I haven’t read them yet, so I certainly not "idolize" them. I prefer early to mid-bronze, and even some copper, in which there are indeed gems (Power Pack is a fine example, and I will never get tired repeating this). If I am not nostalgic, surely it’s not in the negative (and sterile) meaning of the word (and this speaks a lot on how superficially language ends up being used when a word is deprived of the richness of its meaning), and while one may be more or less affectioned to different periods, it’s the whole concept which stayed at the basis of the Marvel Age, and how it was developed, that made sense. And I mean "sense", in the fullest, highest, etimological meaning of the word. To me, the Marvel Age ended up more or less around the early 1990s. More markedly after Quesada became Editor in Chief. Marvel’s future is what I am more interested in. The world changes, but it changes through the choices which are being made, and you are part of this change, and the essence of things never change. Marvel was all about this coherence, which is now lost.

Honestly, I can’t blame Liefeld alone for his poor vision, I blame Harras which definitely emerges as a not-so-uplifting figure from there…

Bets on who gets Louise Simonson to sign a New Mutants #87 "To Commander X's biggest fan..." If I have to choose a book to ask Louise to sign, it would be a Power Pack, don’t worry.

Now everything makes sense on why I was so disgusted by what I was reading/seeing but was unable to understand at the time. I would really love to contact Louise Simonson – thanks Bosco! (thumbs u

He is supposed to be mentally instable, and the symbiote adapt to the host, so it made sense, That’s why I liked the idea but of course it takes work to be handled properly. Work = a thing of the past.

You know that I am going to love you for this post, right? Ultimately, everthing becomes generally understandable as the facts are more better known.

On the inside back cover of this issue it’s announced the Captain Britain US title (which never happened and turned out as NM Annual #2 and Excalibur) The earlier Moore stories date back to the early 1980s. Very different from most of the US stories, but pretty much attuned to Marvel. I decided I had to read them when I saw this cover, which now must be one of my favorites cover ever. BTW, most of the content of "Age of Ultron" has considerable similarities with this storyline – the Fury’s (the disturbing villain on the cover, half animal, half machinery) is programmed to erase every life form across dimensions.

I have not. I stopped reading Uncanny soon after the Siege Perilous challenged my ability to keep my gorge down. I never really read X-Men. I speced some mutant books when the artists got, but never read them. For me, the glory era of X-Men was between GS1 and UXM121. That is the essence of comic books and my childhood connection to them. I don’t recall what "Siege Perilous" is but I tend to agree, as I never found convincing the whole idea behind the "Dark Phoenix" storyline, as much as it has been cherished during the years, while I love the early issues (I have read Uncanny from GS1 and about #112 in italian at the time). But I appreciate the mid-1980s, especially how the titles often perfectly worked as a whole, also thanks to the talent of Louise Simonson (some Power Pack and New Mutants issues are little gems) I think you would enjoy the Captain Britain, also the first run (the second was entirely written by Davis with Delano, the first was written by Moore and unsure if it had a proper US edition: I looked for the UK original mags). This is the last issue of volume 2, which preceeds New Mutants Annual #2 and Excalibur:

Honestly, Jimmy: NO. 99% of what Marvel has done in the last ten years has little to do with the proper meaning of the word "sense".

P.S. Have you ever read Captain Britain v2 #13-14? That‘s where all the story starts. I think they have been reprinted in the USA in the X-Men Archives title. That’s pretty much quality work, compared to the aforementioned chit.

And this shows how little sales have often to do with quality. You could always see that the characters in Excalibur had feet, I'll say that for it. I think we need to destroy more copies of NM #98, regardless of the print run.

Did you actually read those "mainstays" books in 1990 and 91? Utter garbage. They were only continuing through sheer momentum, not because they were good or anything. Marvel just didn't want to pull the plug on the different members of the Avengers solo books. From what I recall, Captain America kept having decently good stories up to some point, although Ron Lim artwork was not so good when he replaced Kieron Dwyer. Surely most of the mediocrity of those titles wasn’t worse than what Liefeld, Portacio & al. were going to do in short, together with Claremont, on the X-Men related titles.

And this shows how little sales have often to do with quality.

BTW, I also like the extension of the idea to Carnage, but not what they escalated to afterwards. I especially find ridiculous the "resurrection" of Norman Osborn, and all that followed.

Venom is a good exception – in fact I bought my #300 after getting hooked on late Michelinie/McFarlane Spideys. But it‘s not *very* late 1980s, I think it’s 1987. I was mostly referring to post-1989, and thinking of the X-Men and related titles. I used to love the New Mutants, which I started to collect in the mid-50s numbers, and when Liefeld arrived, and the stories got that poorer, I dropped the title with #94, only to pick it up again with the intention to complete it when I learned it was going to close at #100. But I never bothered to pick #95-98.

Well, in my opinion most of the characters introduced in the very late 1980s, early 1990s are mediocre or worse. If Deadpool wasn’t recycled as a sort of satire and weird commentary on comics et al it seems to me it would even be less popular than Gambit or Cable.

Where are you from, wong? You could ask a US board friend to bid on your behalf…