At some point I may review the 1st appearance of Star-Lord in its entirety, as originally presented in Marvel Preview #4 back in 1976. Memory fails me now, but I believe it's either in the Marvel Firsts: the 1970s trades, or the Marvel Visionaries: Chris Claremont hardcover. But until then, enjoy this splash page from John Byrne:
Who knew back then that Star-Lord would (almost) become a household name? The Guardians of the Galaxy were still relatively new, although gaining popularity - and their own series in Marvel Presents. I have zero experience with this iteration of the character, but as I said above, need to fix that problem.
*On Monday I'll feature a special review of the work of a Polish artist. Thursday we'll take a look at some Mike Ploog monster art, in various stages of production. Stay tuned!
Doug, try Marvel Firsts uh... first, as Star-Lord's original appearance is unlikely to be in Marvel Visionaries: Chris Claremont as it was written by Steve Englehart (:
ReplyDeleteBut you're not missing much really, since Marvel Preview #11 was by far the best story with the 70s version of the character, in part because Claremont and Byrne (who I assume was co-plotter) had the sense to come up with a couple of more sympathetic characters as the way in; and of course, it was the best thing Marvel put out in '77.
Not that keen on Terry Austin's inking - its a bit too tight for my taste - but thats surely a minority view, and its not like it was bad or anything.
-sean
Ha! Probably a wise decision by editorial to not include the Englehart story in the Claremont book! Sorry for my laziness - I should have checked.
DeleteAnyway, I do have the Marvel Firsts book. When reading that way back when, I stayed away from the Star-Lord story due in large part to its length. But I should rectify that.
Thanks for stopping by!
Doug
Sorry guys, I genuinely hate to disagree, but Marvel Preview #4 is my all-time favourite comic ever, and I can't let this one go, so here's my fourpenny worth:
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Byrne's fantastic art covers up Claremont's appalling script, and not even that well. Englehart's original Star-Lord was an angry, edgy ( and yes, I'll admit, unlikeable ) character, but that's what made him fascinating. As opposed to literally every other Marvel hero, HE dealt with the murder of a parent by reacting kind of like real people do.
I personally loved that Star-Lord.
Claremont, by comparison, as he admits in the intro to Preview #11, didn't like Englehart's character, couldn't figure out what to do with him, so jumped ahead in time until Quill was a touchy-feely, in touch with his emotions nice guy. Just every other Claremont character at the time.
Rather than work with what he'd been given, he simply wrote a completely different character.
Plus, the script for Preview #11, as I say, is all over the place in terms of focus and characterization, and completely feels thrown together ( especially the last chapter ). If this script had been drawn by Frank Springer or Carmine Infantino at his most angular, I guarantee no one would be talking about it all these years later.
Different tastes and all that, of course, but in my opinion, Preview #4 is the comic Preview #11 dreams of being when it grows up.
All-time favourite ever?!? Ok Pete, I'll bite.
ReplyDeleteFar be it from me to defend Chris Claremont's scripting - you're completely right there, and it isn't surprising in the slightest that no-one talks about the Star-Lord stories he did with Carmine Infantino. But, you know, John Byrne did draw Preview #11. And had a lot of pages to work with, giving the story an expansive feel whatever its faults.
Englehart's writing wasn't any better than Claremont's though; I did't mind his Star-Lord being unlikeable, it was his implausibility as a character that was the problem. Plus, the astrology angle was irritating (that might just be me). As you say, different tastes, opinions and all that...
To be fair though, Steve Gan's artwork was pretty decent in Preview #4 - and theres a Berni Wrightson illo - so I take back what I wrote above about not missing anything.
-sean
Well, I'm a firm believer that anybody's favourite anything is largely down to when you first experienced it ( that's certainly true for songs, and I believe, comics and movies too ), so I should fess up and admit a large part of my love for Preview #4 is because of when I first encountered it.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that I didn't find Quill in the least implausible, probably because I was as angry as he was at the time ( don't worry, I didn't have an upbringing like him or anything! ), so he really did speak to me.
The astrology stuff didn't bother me either, to be fair, and I feel it was a missed opportunity for Englehart to leave the character, as the plan was for each adventure to take place on each planet in our solar system, as Quill slowly came to terms with himself, and then head on out into the wider universe.
None of which means the original story shouldn't be taken on it's own merits, but even if I subtract how I personally connected with this character, I would still ( as objectively as I can! ) say that it's the better story.
As I've said on my blog a while back, I loved Claremont & Byrne as much as anyone at the time, but Chris' writing tics drove me insane, even back then. EVERY villain is called 'Butcher' by the hero, even if they've never butchered anyone. Every girl is feisty and spunky, and vaguely Irish, and his Peter Quill spends every panel lamenting his emotional inner life, just like every one of The X-Men did. He really did just write The Claremont Character again and again and again.
Byrne meanwhile, was at his peak, as was Terry Austin, but I was ( and remain ) massively disappointed in this one.
By the way, Doug, I've added a link on both my blogs to your one here - Us Bronze Agers gotta stick together!
ReplyDelete( even if we disagree about Star-Lord... )
bronzeageofblogs.blogspot.com & kidsfromrecroad.blogspot.com if you want to check them.
Thanks, Pete, and I'm enjoying the conversation between you and Sean. With no firsthand experience, you guys are pushing me to read the material so that I have a sense of what you're speaking.
ReplyDeleteAs to the links, my apology - I thought I had your Bronze Age of Blogs linked. I will take care of that immediately, and add the other as well.
Be well, gents --
Doug
No probs, thanks Doug. Yes, read them and weigh in...!
ReplyDeleteBy Lenin's ghost thats a good takedown of Claremont Pete.
ReplyDeleteMore to the point, you're right about when you first experience this stuff; actually, I nearly qualified my last comment by mentioning that I read Preview #11 first. Not only that, but I was 12 or so at the time it came out, which is probably the right age for that kind of thing, whereas I didn't read #4 til a few years later...
So - agreement. Uh... sort of.
(Except I still think #11 is objectively the better one:)
Time to argue about the Doug Moench version?
-sean
Doug Moench! Still knowing nothing about Star-Lord, I can comment on Moench.
DeleteHe was ubiquitous on the B&Ws in the 1970s. And I've really liked just about everything I've read from him. Very creative, high energy plotting. I'm almost done with the 4th Planet of the Apes Archive and it has been one fun ride. I'm looking forward to digging into a little Rampaging Hulk as well.
Doug
Moench wrote Star-Lord's next appearances after Claremont, Doug; as a writer I generally like his work too, but it wasn't one of his more memorable efforts. And thats with artists like the (then) young and hungry Sienkiewicz, Gene Colan (in a full colour Super Special magazine no less) and Tom Sutton.
ReplyDeleteThat tends to suggest Star-Lord didn't quite work as a character, and that there was a bit more to Marvel Preview #11 than just Byrne's artwork. Despite Claremont's shortcomings (maybe his co-plotter helped with that...?) I reckon the extra characters and scope helped a lot.
Although Pete might well disagree of course(;
-sean
Well, I'd agree that Bill & Gene saved those two scripts , which weren't that great, but I did like the Marvel Spotlight's Doug did with Tom Sutton, and the last one they did, Marvel Premiere #61 ( 'Planet Story' ) I thought was great.
DeleteIt's actually astounding how much Moench wrote in the '70's, it's like he didn't sleep at all, and POTA is great, along with Moon Knight of course.
I think again, Star-Lord by Englehart would've worked if his plans had come to fruition, and maybe no one else really could get a handle on it. ( Moench's Peter Quill isn't the same character as Englehart's, just like Claremont's isn't )
Always willing to take on board other fans opinions, by the way, ( I wouldn't've got away with my blog for so long if not ), but I'll always love Preview #4, and lament what could've been...
Moench's main failing on Star-Lord - and Claremont's now I think about it - was the lack of any real direction - you could pretty much shuffle their stories into any order and it wouldn't make any difference. Thats particularly a problem for a science fiction series as they have to lay down the basic groundwork for the planet, alien or whatever every time.
DeleteI appreciate Star-Lord appeared intermittently, but they could at least have used a consistent setting.
The Super Special was the really disappointing one - how can you not do something at least memorable with Gene Colan and Tom Palmer AND full colour? Moench was always at least competent, which makes me wonder if there was some sort of editorial constraint operating, like a demand for one-off accessibility to new readers, that kind of thing.
-sean
I'd never thought of it like that, but I agree. We have an accord!
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, Colan admitted that he hated drawing sci-fi and felt he had no aptitude for it whatsoever. Not that you could tell, him being such a old pro and all.
Pete, I do believe your paragraph describing Claremont's writing tics is one of the most concise I've ever read. Well put, sir. :)
ReplyDeleteAs I say, I once did a whole blog post about Clarmont's 'tics'. I've reduced it down these days!
ReplyDelete