Inaugural Post: The Ever-Changing Blue-Eyed Thing

Doug: Ever have an idea percolating in your brain for... forever? This is that. For many months I've been wanting to do something on the blog with one of the greatest aspects of the end of the Bronze Age and beyond. In the early-mid 1980s Marvel Comics published a periodical encyclopedia called The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe; the Distinguished Competition's entry in the genre was the equally entertaining Who's Who in the DC Universe. There is a nearly bottomless mine of good stuff for us to discuss, so we'll see if today's inaugural foray gets any kind of commenter love. And I don't want to hog this idea -- if anyone reading wants to submit a post in this vein, by all means email us.

Doug: Below you'll find the entry for the Thing, as it appeared in the second volume (1986) of The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe:

Doug: My focal point for today's discussion is the height of Benjamin J. Grimm. From the moment I first laid eyes on this issue of the Handbook I was a little skeptical as to the accuracy of whatever tape measure was used to check the Thing's height. However, doing a quick image search for the purpose of researching my accusation that something must have been amiss, I found that by and large through the Silver and Bronze Ages the Thing was drawn at about the same height as Reed Richards. In the Handbook, Ben Grimm is listed at an even 6'0", while Reed Richards is a bit taller at 6'1". See the images below from superstar FF creators Jack Kirby, Joe Sinnott, and John Buscema. Nowhere do we find the Thing towering over his teammates --

Doug: Additionally, we can use the Hulk for comparison's sake. From the earliest days of the "splash tops" that ran on page one of Bronze Age Marvel Comics, we knew what we were dealing with in terms of the Hulk's massive scale:

Doug: And here are some visuals in support of the Thing's "diminutive" stature:

Doug: Going hand-in-hand with the Thing's relatively short height is his weight of "only" 500 pounds. So at 6'0", 500 pounds, the Thing is certainly not imposing in the presence of She-Hulk's 6'7" height, Thor at 6'6" and 640 pounds, or even Captain America (6'2", 220 lbs.). But then the "Image era" began and Benjy grew... and grew... and grew (please excuse the glorification of Sue's assets (ahem) -- after all, it was the 1990s):

Doug: Obviously there are many more points of interest in the Thing's biography. But today let's center on the man's scale, particularly as compared to his fellow denizens of the Marvel Universe. How's that stature? Too small for you? In the Fantastic Four films of a few years ago, featuring Michael Chiklis made up as the Thing, Ben was no taller than his male teammates. But then, what of some of the latter samples I posted -- too large? In the FF film from last year, the CGI Thing seemed more in line with the art above. That being said, I suppose Ben would still be in scale with the Hulk, as ol' Jade Jaws is now never depicted on film as shorter than 10 feet (or so it seems). Have at it, and thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Discuss: X-Spinoffs

Doug:  Below is the updated bracket.  As we've moved to the "Elite 8", which artists left behind certainly would have been worthy of being in this round of honor?  From my perspective, Jim Aparo stands out, as does Rich Buckler.  I wouldn't place Buckler in the category of "technical master" as I would, say, the Buscemas, Adams, or Byrne, but for sheer output and his oft-mentioned morphing style (which I actually like -- on the one hand it sort of dates the art for the viewer, and I do think aping Kirby and then Adams, and then developing a style all his own, is no small feat), he truly is a Bronze Age treasure.  So we'll have two discussions today -- the one at hand, and a continuing conversation on artists.

Wonder Woman...street-fighter?!

Karen: OK, I bet you've all seen it, but here it is, in all its glory, the new Jim Lee-designed Wonder Woman outfit:Karen: I don't know if I can adequately express just how much I don't like this outfit. What in the heck are they thinking? The outfit, and the direction outlined by JMS, sounds terrible to me. Wonder Woman (in my opinion) should be DC's Thor: a link to the tales and heroes of mythology, and a figure of grandeur. I'm not feeling that from this look. Now I know that WW sales have been poor -in fact, have been for most of her existence. But her costume was never the reason!

Doug: DC's Thor? What, you mean like George Perez was doing back in the post-Crisis reboot? Exactly right, and those were some mighty fine tales. Not only did he update her look and really improve the overall quality of the book, but he made it fun -- just as you said, a link to the immortal corners of the DCU. Although the book began to fade near the end of his run, I don't feel that's as much his fault as it was DC's in not finding comparable creators to step in and provide a smooth transition between creative teams.


Doug: I will fall in line with much of the rest of fandom and echo your sentiments about the costume. While I don't care for it and some of the story elements, I do understand from a marketing standpoint why this is being done. And, too, like many critics and bloggers have also suggested, this will all be undone in two years tops. In fact, I'll wager that while Diana is wearing this costume, we see some high-quality reprints of previous material -- Perez is probably due for the new DC Library hardcover treatment. After all, the tpbs of his WW material were out several years ago, and really that translates to a generation of comics fans. The suit we all know and love will live on, but just in places other than the main title.

Doug: When you think about the iconic characters, none are spared the occasional fashion reboot. Think about it: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Atom, Hawkman, Aquaman, Robin, and J'onn J'onzz have all been retooled occasionally -- but they always come back to the classic. At Marvel, Spider-Man, the Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, the FF, Dr. Strange, Namor, Daredevil, the Scarlet Witch... same story. In the end, it's all about attention-grabbing, and in these mass-media times, it's about hooking the non-comics fan (or latent comics fan) to get them into the shops or other comic outlets.

Doug: On a personal note, I'm just tickled that Don Kramer and Mike Babinski have been chosen to illustrate these now-high profile adventures. I've documented it here and elsewhere that Don and I worked together through high school and college (Redwood Inn, Kankakee, IL, baby!), and I had Mike as a student very early in my teaching career. Don paid his dues for a long time, dreaming since childhood to be in the business. After college, he sweated it out while working for his dad's trucking company, doing small press stuff and showing his portfolio to industry bigwigs (and some small wigs, too!) at every turn. Of course, his big break came when he landed a Startling Stories Starring the Thing for Marvel, and a Dr. Fate mini at DC shortly after. Since then, he's done JSA, Detective/Batman, some other DC minis, and now Wonder Woman. DC is certainly not afraid to put him out there.


Doug: So, while I am not in love with this particular outfit, and agree that sometimes telling a good story should be enough without busting out the dog-and-pony show every five years, I know that soon order will be restored in my comic-icon universe. We're just victims (constantly) of the big marketing machine.

NOTE: Read an outstanding retrospective of Wonder Woman's different looks throughout her history by clicking here.

Part Three: Cajun Gumbo, or Dumbo?

Karen: I've always thought that the 1990s were a terrible time for comics. We had all the ridiculous gimmicks, like the foil covers, multiple covers, and holographic covers. But the quality of comics in general seemed to decline. I was particularly put off by the 'art'. Sure, there were some guys who eventually blossomed, like Jim Lee, and then there were those who just kept sliding further and further down the slippery slope of horrifically bad (and yes, I do mean Liefeld).

Doug: What are you trying to say, Karen? That you aren't built like one of their women who would have permanent spinal cord damage from posturing all the time?

Karen: To go along with this, there were a lot of horrible costume designs. The X-Men were at the forefront of this. Suddenly, the X-Men were all covered with straps and pouches. People had padding all over. Headbands. It was awful. And the one that bothered me the most was Gambit.

Doug: Yeah, all of those accessories almost made those stupid bomber jackets the Avengers were wearing look good!

Karen: Let's take a look at his ensemble. It is confused. It looks like three different character designs were combined into one. We have the skin-tight jumpsuit, with the odd steel blue and violet color combo. He has weird scriggly things around his neck. Headband, check. The boots look either metallic, or later, like robot-dinosaur feet. And of course, the most glaring item, the trenchcoat. I have no problem with trenchcoats per se. But combined with tights, well, I think they look ridiculous.


Karen: I don't get this. What are they going for here? The trenchcoat seems to indicate toughness, yet he's got that big violet chest piece, which just seems kinda wimpy.

Doug: Agreed. You'd have thought he could have found a violet-colored trench coat. Of course, they never drew him with irises, so perhaps he couldn't really see how dorky he looked...

Karen: But I should admit that I am biased, as I always thought Gambit had the dumbest powers to go along with his look. I mean, c'mon - the guy throws playing cards at people. I guess if he missed his target, they'd probably fall on the floor laughing, so he'd still catch them. But really...playing cards.

Doug: The only time playing cards were used in an "oh, wow" way was by Bullseye in Daredevil #181, and that was certainly a morbid display of accuracy.

Karen: Obviously, I am calling this one a disaster.

Doug: Second. And get a haircut, too!