Here are the guidelines:
1) Whoever gets here first (or even second) post a topic starter in the comments that others can jump on and discuss for the day; supply as little or as much detail as necessary to get the ball rolling.
2) The range of possible subjects is broad - comics, movies, music, television, fiction, hobbies, queries, etc. Try to have the topic touch some aspect of Bronze Age nostalgia if possible.
3) Keep it clean and family friendly.
4) All others...follow the Leader! Your job is to keep the conversation rolling. (As I said - follow the topic wherever it takes you; a conversation started about comics may lead to comments on jazz for all we know)!
Note: There is one caveat... if Redartz or I notice that the suggested topic is something we already have in the pipeline, we will let you know and inform you of the projected date for that subject for discussion. That is just so we don't double up. Hey - great minds think alike, right?
Cheers all! Have a happy Wednesday!
21 comments:
Between 1961 and 1985, did Marvel produce more good annuals or bad/mediocre annuals? Or to be more succinct, did you think Marvel's annuals during those years were generally good or bad?
Generally good. And some of the annuals from that period are downright outstanding. A few examples that come to mind are X-men Annual #3 (alias the Best Annual Ever); Fantastic Four Annual #17; Avengers Annual #7 and Marvel 2-in-1 Annual #2, which conclude the Warlock saga; Spider-man Annual #s 10 (my first ever annual), 13, 14 and 15; Incredible Hulk Annual #s 7 and 14, and, oh, man, just bunches of others...
I believe most of Marvel's Silver & Bronze Age annuals were mostly bad/mediocre. In the early years, we got some great annuals:The Fantastic Four annuals were very good in the early years, we got Namor's invasion of New York, Doctor Doom's origin, Reed and Sue's wedding and the return of the original Human Torch. During the Bronze Age, there were 5 straight mediocre annuals from 1977 to '81.
Amazing Spider-Man annuals gave us the Sinister Six, a great Doctor Strange team-up, the Spider-Man's audition to be an Avenger, the story of Peter Parker's parents (not a great story, but certainly a memorable event). In the 70s, we got annuals that were reprints and forgettable tales that pitted Spidey against losers like the Fly and the Spider-Squad.
Even during the peak years of the X-Men (the Claremont/Byrne/Austin era, natch), we got an Arkon story and Nightcrawler went to Hell (sort of).
There are exceptions, of course, but I remember lots of annuals that, in retrospect, feel like inventory stories.
J.A., I might submit that you sort of have two distinct eras of Annuals grouped into one single long time period, which makes comparison a little tricky. IIRC, by 1969 or 1970 or so, Marvel had indeed dropped original "Annuals" for the most part, replacing them with reprint "Specials"-- but kept the numbering going right along (which is why we had an Incredible Hulk Annual #1. . . and the next original annual a few years down the road was #5). Most of the Silver/Late Silver/Early Bronze annuals I've read have been pretty darned good-- there was clearly an effort to make them the special events they were shilled as being. Late 70's/early 80's-- I think Marvel was already looking to return to the roots of its "glory-years" by re-instating the annuals as a regular feature-- but it was very hit & miss (sort of like the Giant-Size era). I remember liking the majority of the FF annuals from that stretch, about half of the Avengers annuals, and only a couple of the Hulks. And some of the X-Men. Maybe just a couple of Spidey's. Perhaps it was simply us becoming more sophisticated about the commercial aspects of comics and products and merchandising-- but I was much more aware of them existing largely as a means to cash-in on a title's success, so quality became a secondary concern, and getting them books on the racks was paramount. Thus, you end up with 2nd or 3rd tier writer/artists-- or ageing artists who were past their prime, and therefore available-- or unfamiliar capable creative teams who hadn't worked on the book/character before-- so it didn't feel "right", y'know? (Although I can't pull a specific example out of my head at the moment--).
I think the true death knell for annuals came about in the early 90's when Marvel commenced with several years of doing those awful over-lapping, cross-annual continued stories-- in a naked bid to get readers to buy titles they would never, ever otherwise pick up. And. . . those books were almost universally bad, IMO. The Crossover headline stories tended to be a little short, followed by short sub-par try-out or inventory stories from unknown writer/artists, and then sometimes a reprint or two. Ohhh, I shudder to think of a lot of those. . .
HB
Marvel's annuals certainly were a mixed bag; some gems, some disappointing misfires. I recently reread Amazing Spider-Man Annuals #14 (Dr. Strange) and #15 ( Punisher, Doc Ock) which are two of my favorites. I agree with HB about those 90s annuals. Couldn't stand all those crossover stories that forced the reader to purchase a slew of otherwise unreadable titles produced by mediocre creative teams.
Annuals were pretty hit/miss for me. The only ones I enjoyed the most buying off the rack was 1973, not 'annuals' per se, but the King Size FF and Spidey issues (both reprints of the wedding and the perhaps the greatest Goblin story ever, respectively..). Gorgeous covers and at the time, and I recall I could only afford one..
ARRRG...!!
Since I've started collecting all the '60s back issues, I've really come to enjoy the Silver Age Marvel annuals, they were soooo chockfull of extras such as the various Rogue's Galleries, extras on how DD or Spidey's costume works, little tidbits with Stan and Gene Colan (behind-the-scenes drawn out..), you name it. They were the BEST, before the extra advertisement pages were mandated in the '70s.
I am an unabashed annual fanboy. I landed in the MU with the first Avengers Annual, a stupendous out-sized adventure and loved it through and through. Even when they quit new material and started with reprints it was a valued way to get the early material in handy packages. Admittedly annuals became less special with familiarity, and were to no small extent undercut when Marvel produced its fun Giant-Size books, but I never didn't enjoy an annual. Some more, some less, but all at least a little.
Rip Off
Rip,I'm on your team. I've always had a fondness for the annuals (and the Giant-Size)books. There were definitely some I preferred over others, but just the format counted for something. Concurring with HB in frowning upon the crossover annuals from the late 80's and 90's.
Favorite Annuals: Spider-man Annual 1, 13-15. Fantastic Four Annual 3, 5, 11, and the Byrne one with Skull milk (ew). Avengers Annuals 1, 7, 10.
Honorable mention: Marvel Team-up Annual 4 (Spidey, Power Man, Iron Fist, Daredevil and Moon Knight). Loved the cover and story, but the art- not so much.
Low end of the Annual spectrum: Spidey annual 11. Very forgettable imho.
Yeah, some of the early ones were really good (Spidey especially), but they went downhill in the late 70s, then picked up again later. 1984's Amazing Spider-Man Annual #18 (with Scorpion disrupting Jonah Jameson and Marla Madison's wedding) is one of my later Bronze Age favourites.
Nice question!
I first read annuals when I was around 10 - 11 years old in 1972ish. Loved them. Spidey King Size #8 (vs. the Shocker) and FF #9 (vs. th Frightful Four) are my favs, though they are reprints.
As I got older, the less enjoyable they became. It started to seem like just "another Gil Kane cover" on an overpriced comic. Perhaps I was just getting older and the quality was still the same?
On a tangent, I never tired of DC's 100-page Spectaculars b/c I really enjoyed the golden age reprints. DC's Annuals... I had a few; they were nothing remarkable b/c I tired of Batman and Superman reprints whereas the Spectaculars unleashed a whole horde of new material and characters e.g., from Fawcett or Quality Comics Groups that DC acquired in the 50s. Plastic Man, The Blackhawks, Dollman, The Ray, The Condor, Captain Marvel... just loved it!
Cheers all!
I agree with david_b ,the early Annuals were a lot of fun when I could get a hold of one.
Seems like there were a lot of forgettable ones thru out the seventies though. But I will admit to enjoying Defenders Annual #1.
I don't have a whole lot to pull from the eighties but FF Annual #17 is a gem.
Now if we're talking Giant Size, I don't know if I can think of one I didn't like!
Good Topic!
Great question J.A.! But you and Red are killing me with your dislike for ASM Annual #11. That was the first annual I ever purchased on my own and as a kid I loved the Spider-Squad. I know it wasn't a classic but I always wanted those three stuntmen hoods with exoskeletons to return. I can remember almost everything about that issue; including seeing Mary Jane as a struggling actress in a role as an extra in a movie and the director telling her to just say "peas and carrots" over and over again in the background of a shot. I must have read that book twenty times. It is funny how the timing and perspective of youth color our appreciation for a comic. Unlike other forms of medium at the time, you could review everything many times. Until VCRs came along reading was one of the only forms of on-demand entertainment repetition. That was John Romita Jr.'s first penciling work by the way.
But what can I say, I liked Avengers Annual 9 (Arsenal) and X-Men Annual 4 (Dante's Inferno) as well.
On the subject of annuals I lean toward more good than bad. I liked the extras, the pinups, the "good" back up stories, etc. but I did kind of sour on them during the "Atlantis Attacks," "Evolutionary War" era. I preferred the stand alone annuals or perhaps the two-parters, but the start of the big event comic bothered me. And of course in those issues they stretched everything and only has a handful of new development pages anyway. I also did not like the uniform background design for the covers, even if the image was fairly powerful. It seemed too packaged for my taste.
I store my Annuals in the back of the title run; I don't mingle them into the year they appeared. Do others do that or do you store in continuity?
In general I liked big books - Giant Size, Annuals, 100 Page Giants, What If, early Silver Surfer, reprint books like Marvel Tales, etc. I guess it felt like I was getting something extra.
MX-- stored at the back of the run, along with other similar specials and one-shots and Giant-Sizes, yes.
I have to say that one of my favorite Annuals- which I know I read several times over as a youngster- was a Thor "Special" that was entirely reprints. It contained what I'm assuming was an extended Journey Into Mystery story arc that may have been Thor's. . . second?. . . throw-down w/ the Absorbing Man? The book opened with Thor fixing a slightly damaged Mjolnir in the forges of a steel mill in Pittsburgh. SUCH a cool image-- and a great story for a youngster who almost always found Thor to be 'bout dull as herring on white-toast. . .
HB
When I had my comics, I stored the annuals and Giant-Size at the back of a title, yes. But in the case of the Celestial Madonna story, that really doesn't make sense, does it?
I am going to toss out a couple of my all-time favorites that I don't believe have been mentioned: Avengers Annual 6 (originally slated as Giant-Size Avengers #6) and Thor Annual 5. The former was part of a storyline that brought the Whizzer to the team and deepened the mystery around the origins of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch. The latter is a John Buscema tour de force pitting Asgard against Olympus in a pulse-pounding tale told in the Mighty Marvel Manner.
And... Bring On the Bad Guys gave us a reprint of FF Annual #2 with the origin of Doctor Doom - another of my favorites.
Doug
Marti- stand proudly by your love for ASM Annual 11, and let not us naysayers dismay thee! It's all about personal tastes and experience; after all, I must admit to liking the White Rabbit issue of Marvel Team-Up...
And I too store Annuals and Giants behind the regular title. Aaaaand, some of the reprint Annuals scored high in my book too. Conan Annual 1, with its magnificent cover. Spider-man Annual 6, where I first read about the Sinister Six.
Love those giant issues. Excuse me, I think I'll go leaf through a couple...
Hey Thomas F, welcome back. I like ASM #14 as well. That was kind of a weird one and definitely at a point in my mind when Miller was quite creative.
Also over on twitter, one of our commenters mentioned Avengers #10 which is an extremely strong annual and maybe one of the best. Couldn't agree more.
And Doug, I think Thor had a few strong contenders. Many of the Thor Annuals in the heyday seemed epic - I liked the Guardians of the Galaxy /Thor space battle. And I always enjoyed those Journey Into Mystery reprints - I seem to remember an Annual or Special that had Thor and Loki as kids exploring the lands of Asgard. I really liked those stories but cannot recall exactly where I saw them.
Arrrggh, how could I forget? There were the Archie Annuals! Again, loads of pages, loads of stories, loads of fun...
Thanks to all who responded, it appears that when it comes to annuals some of our, to quote Charlie Brown in the 'Great Pumpkin' special, "separated by denominational differences!"
Hey Matinex, thanks. It's been awhile!
How about Thor Annual #6? Guardians of the Galaxy and Thor vs. Korvac ... Seems this issue is often overlooked.
I'm late to this, but will quickly say OF COURSE annuals were good during those years!
I fondly remember the Thor annual with the guardians of the galaxy, Hulk vs. Mastermold, Hulk vs. a whole whack of monsters (including Groot!), Avengers vs. Thanos w/Adam Warlock's "death" (the second time around) and the one with Rogue's first appearance, X-Men annual #'s with Arkon, Hell, Dracula (they dipped in quality in later years, I thought), Marvel Team-Up street heroes vs. Purple Man and of course, Marvel Two-in-One with the strong guys boxing against the Champion!!
Annuals in those days were reliably done-in-one stories and were, usually, just a lot of fun.
-david p.
Post a Comment