Roy Thomas’s All-Star Squadron, please.
And Ambush Bug.
Michael Kaulta started a really beautiful adaptation of the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel Carson of Venus for DC comics back in the early 70s. (IIRC, it appeared in the back pages of Korak, Son of Tarzan comics.)
As of 1998, Kaluta was expressing an interest in someone collecting those stories and allowing him to finish the job. Cite. Does anyone know whether that ever happened?
“Michael Kaulta” should be “Michael Kaluta,” of course.
I’ll stand by the word “butchered”, especially with respect to The Question. Don’t get me wrong–the stories were actually pretty complex and well written (with beautiful artwork) but dammit, they should have been done with new characters. The guy running around in the O’Neill QUESTION book was a deliberate, fairly obnoxious slap in the face to Ditko–O’Neill can’t write any character he doesn’t politically or philosophically agree with and his turning Ditko’s boldly Objectivist statement into a fuzzy “it’s all relative” zen type was an incredible insult. I don’t know why he didn’t just create a new character…or have Ditko’s Question killed and the fuzzy zen guy be a new character who discovered the old guy’s costume. (All IMO of course!). This is a terrible comparison and I apologize in advance, but The Question’s Objectivist philosophy is as integral to the character as Captain America’s pro-US ideals stance. Imagine reviving Captain America as a racist neo-Nazi type and you’ll get an idea of the type (though certainly not degree!) of butchery that O’Neill committed.
If the character had been The Question II or Mr. Blank or something I’d have had no problem, but O’Neill gave an interview in either Amazing Heroes, Comics Journal or (maaaybe) The Comics Buyer’s Guide where he specifically said that he wanted to write The Question to show how stupid a philosophy Objectivism is. That’s a bad reason to write a book and a shabby way to treat a character. Black Lighting was an intelligent liberal black guy–recently (per Tony Isabella–I haven’t read the book) an angry rage-filled character and he recently (allegedly) killed someone. Isabella was outraged, with some justification.
The Masterworks that reprints the intro of Polaris (with some beautiful Steranko artowork) just came out today and the next one should be out in about 6 months(?) and will reprint Havok’s intro (along with a bunch of very pretty Neal Adams work–perhaps his best work).
Fenris
I am sorry for the hijack but since this is the current active comics thread I thought I would mention that I just saw that James Aparo passed away yesterday. I don’t know where he fits in the grand scheme of the animated universe, but I thought I would pass the info along.
I’d second the call for Ostrander’s *Spectre * to be collected, as well as the remainder of Sandman Mystery Theater, which now has 3 volumes out so I think they’re still slowly chipping away at that one. I also wish Ostrander’s Suicide Squad was out in TPB, as I’m just starting to read it in single issue form.
I’d also like to see the rest of Garth Ennis’ *Hitman * collected. They did the first 30 issues or so and then quit, which was really frustrating. It’s a fun series that I’ve never been able to finish.
Hello Fenris, I know we’ve had this disagreement before.
I loved O’Neill’s version of The Question. I have never seen Ditko’s version and, if it’s as objectivist as you describe it, I really wouldn’t care to.
Also, “bold objectivist statement” is an oxymoron and showing what a stupid, selfish “philosophy” it is is always good.
Anywho, I’m all for collections of *Ambush Bug *, Strikeforce Morituri, and the '80s Question, and I’d like to add 'Mazing Man to the list.
Note that I liked the stories quite a bit too. I just loathe O’Neill for intentionally trying to piss on Steve Ditko.
It’s not that bad. It’s certainly not as shrill as the average Green Arrow story from the '70s or '80s.
-
I’ll stand by “bold objectivist statment” as opposed to the dull sameness of most super-hero philosophies. Regardless of your opinions of objectivism, it was a ‘bold’ statment for Ditko to make. How many other super-heroes were created soley to espouse a philosophy?
-
Why not just kill Vic Sage and make a new Question as opposed to pissing on someone else’s very personal beliefs and philosophies? Hell, Alan Moore is on record as loathing objectivism and managed to make Roarschach much more faithful to the ‘real’ Question than O’Neill
I’m not an objectivist, although I see some value in some parts of their beliefs, but to intentionally scribble grafitti on someone else’s creation just because one disagrees with the philosophy is simply petty vandalism. I abhor Marxism (and much worse, Stalinism) but wouldn’t dream of vandalizing a website that displayed their propaganda posters from the '30s through '50s (even assuming I knew how) O’Neill admitted that he did just that intentionally. Moore treated the character honestly, by taking him one step further*. O’Neill didn’t.
Fenris
*Heh–The Question was a superhero who was also an objectivist. Another Ditko creation at the time was Mr. A, who was a walking, breathing objectivist tract–who happened to be vaguely super-heroic–in a loose vigilante sense. He wasn’t above killing people who were ‘evil’ from his viewpoint. It’s conceivable you’d enjoy Ditko’s Question series. Mr. A would make your head explode as Mr. A was “Chick Track” didactic. A quote from Mr. A after he kills a kidnapper and lets two more kidnappers die gruesomely (in a fire, I believe) "Only through black and white principals can man separate good from evil! Men can choose grey principals, to choose to be corrupt, but that choice only leads to evil and self-destruction!”
Apparently (and Alan Moore finds this hysterical…and so do I honestly) Ditko was asked what he thought of Roarschach, and Ditko replied “Oh yeah, he’s the guy who’s like Mr. A–but insane.” 
