We’ve reached a point in the Fantastic Four run, following the big anniversary issue, where it feels like…well, I can’t say exactly that it’s “killing time,” or “filling pages,” or “keeping a monthly Fantastic Four title on the stands while we wait for a new direction and strong creative team to capture readers and sales like it did during John Byrne’s heyday,” because, well, these are actually pretty good.
Issues #297 through #302 (cover dates December 1986 through June 1987) came out as I was in the home stretch of my high school years, with #302 being on the stands sometime in February. I missed Byrne on the title (particularly after that underwhelming #296), and while I think I kept picking the comics up out of habit, I was still a high school senior working at the local library and not exactly rolling in disposable income to be wasting on comics I didn’t like. Therefore, there must have been something to the title that compelled me to keep reading, despite the loss of the artist/writer that had hooked me in initially.
I’ve mentioned before, somewhere in the past twenty-two years plus of writing this here website that I read all of Fury of Firestorm, staring with the first issue in 1982 and buying it each succeeding issue, and the annuals, new off the rack, until it wrapped up with #100 in 1990. And whenever I bring this up, I tend to note that while the first twenty issues (give or take) of the series are excellent, and the last twenty issues (giving and taking again) are also great, there’s a 60-issue kinda saggy middle that’s just sort of “okay,” usually. Not bad, but not outstanding. Just one of those comics you bought because you liked the character(s) and wanted to see what they were up to, not a comic you picked up because it was breaking new ground in the comics medium, excelling at the art form and influencing future generations.
Do I regret reading all those Firestorm comics? No, of course not. While not necessarily “great,” they were perfectly fine serialized superhero adventure comics. When it came time for me to scour the Vast Mikester Comic Archives for material to stock the shelves at my then about-to-open store Sterling Silver Comics (located in Camarillo, CA — ask for it by name! Um, the store, not the city), the box of Firestorm remained mostly untouched. I did sell my copies of the original short-run 1970s series in the shop, since I had that swell trade paperback. Despite that, Firestorm was just one of those characters I really liked, and my affinity for the character was, in a sense, detached from the actual quality of the stories.
Well, this series of posts isn’t “My Fur-ay of Firestorm,” so let me aim this back at Marvel’s First Family. I think the ultimate result Byrne’s FF run had with me was making me invested in the characters. I wanted to know what happened next with Reed, Sue, Johnny, and especially the Thing. I adored their adversaries, like Dr. Doom and Galactus, and wanted to see more of the FF clashing with them. Byrne’s run wasn’t perfect, but as a whole it was, and remains still, a high-watermark in this superteam’s history. Anyone else who works on the book is inevitably compared to him. And Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, too, natch, but that’s pretty much a given as they’re the creators of the whole darned thing. But you get what I mean here. You’re gonna get compared to Byrne, especially if you’re there right after Byrne.
However, Byrne created a lot of goodwill, I believe, for the comic following his run. People loved his FF, and I have to imagine the entire readership didn’t just drop the series the second Byrne was gone. I imagine many were like me, hanging on because 1) they loved the characters, 2) they wanted to see what was next, and 3) wanted to see what new direction with what new creative team was going to happen. This was me, at this point of time. I was willing to follow along, even after that anniversary issue which, under normal circumstances, may have caused me to drop the book entirely. However, I was still willing to gamble a portion of my high school senior and about to enter college income on the series, because I liked what I had read in the past, and still wanted to see where it would go in the future.
And these six issues, just who was going to work on them? We have Roger Stern as writer, still soldiering on after taking over the scripting chores following Byrne’s departure. And for the last couple of issues, Tom DeFalco comes on to help with the writing chores, presaging his long (and I think, unappreciated) run on the title a few years later. Stern himself is, of course, one of Marvel’s most solidly dependable scribes. For art, we have the Buscema Brothers, John on pencils, Sal on finishes (more or less…Sal does a little pencling as well). An interesting combination, and the name “Buscema” is one that is integral to the history of Marvel as a whole, lending a lot of weight to the title in its time of need. For all my talk of “following a property despite dips in quality,” it seems like my worry was for naught, given the pedigree of talent about to take over the book.
Am I right? Not to leave you all in suspense…well, I used the word “solid” to describe Stern, and I think it’s an overall good description of this short-lived permutation of the Fantastic Four creative team. We get a couple of hte classic villains, like the Wizard and Puppet Master, we get that wedding in issue #300 (promised by Byrne when he was still on the book), we get the superhero melodrama one would expect, including more follow-up on the Thing’s mental state vis-a-vis the team. Each issue is, as my pals over on War Rocket Ajax would say, exactly One Unit of Marvel Comics — competently done, not too much, not too little. It may not reach heights, but it’s not scraping bottom, either.
We’ll be taking a closer look at the individual issues in the next installment, hopefully with a special focus on #300, which I think is the standout. And for a later installment…for all my talk of sticking with the title through thick and thin, when did I eventually drop the book? Hit those Like and Subscribe buttons and you’ll eventually find out!
Unlike Mike, issue #297 was the last issue of the Fantastic Four that I would buy for five years. Money had become tight for me as a student and I had become disenchanted with late-Shooter period Marvel during the course of 1986, and I dropped most of the Marvel titles I collected that autumn after the 25th anniverary. FF, the Avengers, West Coast Avengers, X-Men, New Mutants, X-Factor, dropped like a stone. I came back to WCA during Byrne’s run, but mostly I was down to just Swamp Thing over at DC, and a little later, Hellblazer for the remainder of the eighties. (Oh, and George Perez’s brief return to the Titans in 1988.)
Yeah, I dropped it, too. I look forward to hearing about what I missed.
I have to say these FF covers are not doing it for me. After Byrne’s strong sense of design, these look retro in the same way Curt Swan’s Superman work was looking in the mid-’80s.
I really liked Sal Buscema’s art on early issues of New Mutants. Maybe he should have been given the lead on these FF issues, too.
Marvel was going through something of a retro-cover phase around this time, after their 25th anniversary month. It was around this same period that Ron Frenz started drawing retro-Kirby covers on Thor. Although, that did fit the contents, as the first part of DeFalco’s run on Thor featured his pastiche of Silver Age Thor issues. Until he brought his weird Silver Age pastiche mixed with early-‘90s “cool” sensibilities to Thor, much like he would do on his (regretful rather than unappreciated, I’d argue) FF run.
I’m trying to remember if any other Marvel titles began to use this type of retro-feel for their covers in 1986-1987, or if it was only FF and Thor. I think some of the DeFalco Amazing Spider-Man covers may have done the same. Unsurprisingly, all titles that, one way or another, were associated with Tom DeFalco, who’d initially attempt to replicate the Lee/Kirby/Ditko Marvel Silver Age with so many titles before caving in (rightly it wrongly) to the McFarlane/Liefield/Lee 1990s school. Personally, I think both the nostalgic and the “extreme” approaches were major missteps, and big steps backwards from where Shooter had taken Marvel, until the late-Shooter period mentioned by Donald G, when I thought the quality of most of the Marvel titles had dropped off (minus Uncanny X-Men, New Mutants, DD, and Hulk).
I think every comic book collector asks this question: “Why am I buying this title again?” and the answer usually is “Because I’ve always bought it.”
I remember being profoundly disappointed with everything that followed Byrne’s FF for years afterwards. I just couldn’t understand how the title could take such a retrograde step, particularly in terms of the art. There were plenty of good artists around but I guess none of them wanted to work on the FF (until Walt’s brief run, I suppose.) I knew that John Buscema was capable of so much better than what he was doing in the 80’s, on FF as well as the Avengers. Even Sal was capable of vastly better than his scribbly inks over John’s work. Admittedly, I haven’t read these since they came out – maybe I should give them a re-read sometime to see if I can derive any joy from them nowadays.
I think one thing to bear in mind is that, as the first proper “Marvel” superheroes, as opposed to Golden Age “Timely” or “Atlas” mystery men-type characters, the Fantastic Four were might have had one collective foot in the Silver Age, but its other collective foot was in the Atomic Age.
That sorted of dated the FF more quickly than a lot of the other, hipper Marvel characters–by which I mean that by the late ’60s (right about the time that Kirby quit), the FF were a bit out of touch with the cultural climate of the time. Especially Sue Storm – Richards and Reed Richards, who were very “suburban 1950s” in their portrayal in the first few years of the book. Reed could have basically been Fred MacMurray as seen in “Flubber,” or “My Three Sons.”
If you add to that the fact that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the FF as a pastiche of Kirby’s already successful The Challengers of the Unknown, plus recycled the power sets of Jack Cole’s Plastic Man, Carl Burgos’s the original Human Torch, and Russell Stamm’s Invisible Scarlet O’Neil for Mr. Fantastic, the new, teenage Human Torch, and the Invisible Girl, that basically leaves The Thing as the only original element of the Fantastic Four. And even The Thing was based loosely on the Atlas “monster of the week” formula.
So, I think what really made the ’60s FF stand out was Jack Kirby’s incredible imagination, a great cast of villains and anti-heroes, and the introduction of many great new characters including Black Panther, The Inhumans, Silver Surfer, and HIM–who would become Adam Warlock. And, yes, the personality of The Thing became so well developed that he became a much beloved Marvel character by the the ’70s and got to star in the Marvel Two-in-One comics.
But based on comments people have left on earlier installments of Mike Sterling’s Fantastic Four-ay, it might seem like a lot of creators were just marking time on the book because it was simply too difficult to out Kirby Jack Kirby for sheer creativity–and John Byrne was the only guy who came somewhat close.
Another factor could have been that a lot of ’80s creators found the book too boring, or the characters too bland.
I think a better move might have been to let Johnny and Crystal get married and start a family all the way back in the ’70s. Or have her divorce Quicksilver and marry Johnny by the late ’80s. Same for Ben and Alicia. That way a “Future Foundation” concept could have happened earlier on. If they had done all of this in close proximity after the birth of Franklin, they could have had a spin-off title for FF offspring called “Fantastic Four Year Olds,” by the early ’70s and maybe it would have outsold the Superboy issues which featured Superbaby.
And considering that we got future Franklin Richards in “Days of Future Past” was there ever a FF story arc in the last 40 or so years where the FF time travel to that future timeline and prevent that iteration of Franklin from being killed? If not, why not?
Personally, I think I pretty much stopped buying FF after no. 296–or at least I don’t recall reading issues after that. But I think Johnny and Alicia becoming involved and getting married was a horrible idea and a step in the wrong direction. And having Reed and Sue quit the team seems misguided as well.
I feel that a comic called the Fantastic Four should really be about the actual, original Fantastic Four who were bombarded by cosmic rays –not placeholder characters (unless Sue needs time off due to being in family way, and then Crystal, Medusa, She-Hulk, Thundra or whoever subs in for a year).
As to some of the comments about John and Sal Buscema. Tastes vary, but I think it is important to remember that John Buscema had been drawing comics since the late 1940s, and Sal had been drawing comics since at least the late ’60s. They were among Marvel’s top talents who got the job done. And John had a very great sense of anatomy, pacing, and visual storytelling.
I get it that by the 1980s Byrne, Perez, and Miller were considered the comic art gods who had cultivated cool styles, but Buscema was actually a more accomplished overall artist than any one of them in terms of laying out a page and progressing a story with great pacing, and fluidity. Just look at his decades worth of work on Conan the Barbarian, or his Silver Age Avengers issues. And even his ’80s Avengers issues inked by Tom Palmer feature really dynamic art.
Another factor is that a lot of top art talent had probably been alienated by Jim Shooter at that point and/or DC was offering better page rates, so John Byrne, Jackson Guice, Pat Broderick, Jerry Ordway, etc, etc went over to DC and we got some great art on Superman, Action Comics, The Adventures of Superman, Fury of Firestorm, The Flash, etc.
But, sure a Bill Mantlo/Jackson Guice FF might have been cool to read, or a Jim Starlin FF–versus Thanos, no doubt. Or a Keith Giffen FF–if he wasn’t already doing LOSH over at DC. Or what if we had had a Claremont/Cockrum FF? What if Al Williamson had drawn the FF?
As to Tom DeFalco’s pastiche on Silver Age stuff, can you blame him for going back to the source? The older I get, the better those Ron Frenz covers and art look. Frenz was basically building on the whole “How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way” aesthetic in the tradition of John Romita Sr. and John Buscema. And I would say that Frenz is a better overall comics artist than almost all of the Image guys– except for Marc Silvestri and Jim Lee.
And late period John and Sal Buscema definitely still looks very professional compared to late period Frank Miller.
Here’s an interesting side tangent question, if Jim Shooter had been pushed out earlier, and the New Universe had been launched under Valiant Comics, along with Magnus, Solar, and Turok, would it have been more successful?
@Steve – 100% agreement on all points.
I was going to post pretty much exactly the same comment, except I might prefer Sal’s era of ersatz Simonson inking more than you. I looked over them again last night, the second time since I’ve done that due to Mike’s recent posts. I don’t want to unjustly prejudice anyone against possibly enjoying them, but they just leave me feeling slightly depressed at their absolute blandness. I wonder if John Buscema was trying to tow the Shooter line and just doing panels of nothing but mid-shots? They lack any of the dynamic charm of his 70’s run and end up looking like storyboards for a very boring TV commercial.
As always, just my thoughts, and good on anyone who enjoys them.
@Sean
As always, you make some good points, but I disagree about John Buscema.
I LOVE John Buscema’s work from the late 60’s Avengers through his 70’s FF run. I’ve said before that to me, with Kirby and Byrne, he is one of the top 3 best FF artists ever. By this point though his art just feels tired. It DOES tell the story clearly, that I can’t deny, and I’ll take that all day over McFarlane or most of the other early Image guys. I’ll stand by my comment from several FF posts earlier that because of their lack of dynamism, these issues look like the examples in How To Draw Comics the Marvel Way of how you should not draw comics. I’ll also state again that I don’t have 100th of the talent John had even at his blandest. As Mom used to say, “I’m not mad at his, just disappointed.” : /
@LouReedRichards
At least we can agree that Jack Kirby, John Buscema, and John Byrne are the top three FF artists–although that Alex Ross FF graphic novel which I still need to track down might skew that list a bit.
And, in all fairness, I don’t think I have seen the interior art on many of those post-Byrne FF issues that John Buscema drew. But I do have a run of his late ’80s Avengers issues inked by Tom Palmer and I think they look pretty good–although, you are right that his ’60s Avengers work tops them.
Perhaps John Buscema was tired of drawing comics by the late ’80s — he had been doing it for at least 40 years by then.
I always thought that Sal Buscema ‘s art looked more like storyboards, actually.
But I would also argue the point that not very many comics artists maintain their creative zenith into retirement age. Jerry Ordway is one of the few who comes to mind who still draws amazingly well.
And if Marvel really wanted FF to live up to “The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine!” cover blurb hype post-John Byrne they would have needed to get Alan Moore!
I totally get the “buying it out of habit” thing – those middle stretches of a long run are weird because you’re invested enough to keep going, but you’re also kinda just waiting for the next big thing.