Comic books used to really suck
Posted on | April 6, 2008 | 16 Comments
I haven’t been keeping up with the events in the Marvel Universe, but I wanted to read the Secret Invasion event that kicked off this week. Luckily for people like me, Marvel released a special trade paperback that collected key comics that chronicled events leading up to the Skrull invasion. The first story was from FANTASTIC FOUR #2. It was originally published in 1962 and features the very first appearance of the evil Skrulls.
Wow, I forgot how utterly kooky comic books were back in the early 60’s. I think I actually got deuce chills while trying to read that first story featuring the Skrulls. In the above image, we see a Skrull masquerading as Reed Richards plunging the city of New York into complete darkness by literally flipping switches. I don’t know why the workman can’t just turn the power back on.
I flip switches on and off all day long. It’s easy.
Comments
16 Responses to “Comic books used to really suck”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
Meta
Archives
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- May 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
April 6th, 2008 @ 9:41 AM
Well, you know my feelings on funnybooks. But I think it’s cool that they went all the way back to the 60s to help explain the current story. At least it shows some kind of real continuity.
April 6th, 2008 @ 10:27 AM
The execution used to be poor, but the ideas weren’t. I will be very surprised if Secret Invasion is anything more than a really long fight with lots of plot twists and as little story as possible.
April 6th, 2008 @ 10:46 AM
The idea that flipping three centralized switches can plunge the city of New York into utter darkness and that long after the fact the city could remain in utter darkness is too kooky for words.
April 6th, 2008 @ 11:01 AM
Not within the context. It’s a super-hero comic, it’s written for children and it’s from the 1960s. That was probably the most logical part of the story.
April 6th, 2008 @ 2:19 PM
Was it written for children or were children the only people that could read such material with a straight face?
April 6th, 2008 @ 2:30 PM
Do you really not know?
The way I see it, anyone complaining about a logical inconsistency in a super-hero story has had a few of their switches flipped.
April 6th, 2008 @ 2:44 PM
Do I not know what exactly? Have you even read the trade paperback I’m referring to?
April 6th, 2008 @ 3:16 PM
You: “Was it written for children or were children the only people that could read such material with a straight face?”
Me: “Do you really not know?”
You: “Do I not know what exactly?”
* * *
No, I haven’t read the Secret Invasion TPB, but I have the first volume of Essential Fantastic Four which collects FF #1-20 & FF annual #1.
April 6th, 2008 @ 3:36 PM
I wasn’t asking you what I wrote. If for some reason I didn’t remember what I had just written, I could just scroll up and read it. I was asking you what you were trying to ask.
FANTASTIC FOUR #2 reads as a silly story when it is read in the context of kooky 1962. When it is presented as the starting point of a current story, it’s laughable. It’s embarrassing. I think including it as the first chapter in this special trade paperback was a dumb idea.
The comics of 1962 and 2008 don’t mix together well.
April 6th, 2008 @ 4:45 PM
Are you drinking right now, Rick? You asked whether or not Fantastic Four was targeted at children. I asked you if you were serious.
April 6th, 2008 @ 5:27 PM
Am I drinking? What I asked was if you thought FANTASTIC FOUR #2 was written for children. Personally, I don’t think children were necessarily the target demographic.
Maybe you ought to actually read it before commenting. Then you know what a clumsy and awkward transition it is to go from FANTASTIC FOUR #2 which came out in 1962 to NEW AVENGERS ILLUMINATI #1 which came out in may 2006.
April 6th, 2008 @ 5:43 PM
“Am I drinking? What I asked was if you thought FANTASTIC FOUR #2 was written for children.”
And I thought you were joking. Why would you ask me that after I just said “It’s a super-hero comic, it’s written for children and it’s from the 1960s.”?
“Maybe you ought to actually read it before commenting. Then you know what a clumsy and awkward transition it is to go from FANTASTIC FOUR #2 which came out in 1962 to NEW AVENGERS ILLUMINATI #1 which came out in may 2006.”
Maybe I ought to read it? You’re the one blogging about it! If your point was that it wasn’t wise to include such a dated comic, maybe you should have mentioned that somewhere in your blog? Instead you title it “Comic books used to really suck” and link to the trade paperback instead of naming it.
April 6th, 2008 @ 6:13 PM
Well, I’m fucking drinking and ithn thimnk all you guys are dassholes. F a,l. of you!
April 6th, 2008 @ 8:05 PM
Ryan, I accept your apology. Now let’s agree to put our difference of opinions behind us.
April 6th, 2008 @ 9:14 PM
One of you two is obviously a skrull.
April 6th, 2008 @ 10:06 PM
YOU’RE ALL SKRULLS!!!!!!!!