Legion World Forums LEGION CLUBHOUSE The Legion of Super-Heroes Long Live the Legion! Lardy's Roundtable: How forgettable or unforgettable was SLSH/LSH between Earthwar and Levitz II/Giffen?

So, "geezer" , was X-Men really already a smash hit at the time Jean was killed off? If so, it disproves my notion from the post you quoted from--that Jean could be killed because X-Men was a 'cult' book.

I'm pretty sure the relaunch wasn't an instant hit from the publication of GS X-Men #1. After all, the ongoing was published bi-monthly for a good while (until circa the Magneto arc in the 100s, IIRC). Was it a mega-hit by the time it went monthly? By the Imperial Guard arc? The Alpha Flight arc? The Proteus arc? Is there a reference for exactly when it became Marvel's #1 title?

(HWW, I don't expect you to provide these answers, by the way; I'm just curious, especially in regard to my pet theory about why Jean's corruption and death were possible in the first place.)

And stepping back to Hank Pym, I'm actually a little shocked that there's so much negativity about what was done to his character under Shooter and subsequently. I started reading the Avengers very early in Stern's tenure with a Spidey crossover teasing his membership. I quickly started snapping up back issues and found the relevant stories intriguing. I could also relate to it since I'd experienced some of those character flaws in my own family.

I understand the reaction, though, as it jibes with the kind of "character assassination" we've been talking about. In my case it was okay because I'd never really been exposed to Hank as a character before. This is also the same way I feel about Tony Stark's alcoholism. But I never hear this kind of negative reaction to "Demon in a Bottle".

Is it simply a matter of the DPS and "Demon in a Bottle" having just been better-told stories than was Hank Pym's fall from grace?

To me, Shooter's story with Hank is the worse case of character assassination in the history of DC or Marvel. I hate it with a passion.

Stern's subsequent story did its best to move Hank forward (and succeeded). Bob Harras later moved him even further along IMO (I know Stealth agrees with me but HWW does not). But what was done was done and its too bad.

Lardy, Morrison's story with Jean dying a second time was not very good IMO, but I'm glad she's dead again. Even worse was the 3+ years of a Jean/Cyke/Wolverine love triangle being ressurected because of the movies. Ending that was more important than anything, considering Logan never really seemed to show any emotion about Jean until *after* she was dead (a handful of thought balloons notwithstanding).

All of these thoughtfull posts have me thinking about baggage, longevity, and celebration.

Baggage - An important function of reboots or fresh versions is to allow a series, character, or team to let go of some of the baggage that has accumulated over the years. Comic books are unique in that some of them have been running for 50, 60, or even 75 years. Not everything that happens in these long runs is good idea. Frequently attempts to write past the mistakes or correct them just makes things worse. As much as I loved Superboy and his adventures, I was glad to see some of the trappings go by the wayside when Byrne wrote out that portion of Kal-El's career. Something else else I didn't like was the fact that all of the Superman villians and most of the major JLA members had manged to make their way to Smallville as teenagers. Credibility was stretched too thin. The multiple deaths of the original Steve Trevor weighed Wonder Woman down to a point where the entire series sufferred.

Longevity - How long do we really think that a comic book series can last? It defies imagination, for me, that Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and the Legion are still being published in any format. These are all pretty simple concepts that have just gone on for years and years. I'm fine with a series like Sandman coming to a natural end when the writer is done. Likewise I am glad that the Peanuts strip ended when Schultz retired. It seems strange that this approach to comic books is the exception instead of the rule. The answer to question regarding how much of a change in status quo is too much depends a lot on your expectations regarding longevity. If you think that we (readers, owners, publishers, creators, society at large) have a responsibilty to keep the concept going for the next generation. Marlon Brando was quoted as saying, "We must preserve the myth," when he accepted the Jor-El role. Must we, really? I don't think we have to. These stories and characters entertained me, my generation, and previous generations. I think future generations will find plenty of choices in reading and entertainment without them. I'm fine with the status quo being shaken up if the story is entertaining to me. Others view this as destructive, and this is perhaps one of the biggest reasons for the wildly opposing opinions on 5YL. It also brings us back to baggage. If you feel the need to preserve, you have to acknowledge that unloading baggage from time to time is going to be necessary.

Celebration - The fact that the Legion is still being published after 50 years is amazing. It truly defies all logic and expectations. The meanderings on this thread point out all the pitfalls that a super-hero team can fall into. Holding too tight to the staus quo, straying too far from the status quo, periods of poor quality, wildly different expectations of fans, dropping sales, inaccessible storylines, too much baggage, too many reboots and retcons, ineffective reboots and retcons. The Legion certainly has managed to find every single pitfall imaginable. Somehow, we're still standing. In the midst of all the mess is a series that has found some kind of strange unexplainable magic in all its versions. That is worth celebrating.

Before Shooter's story, Hank had been putting the whole identity problem/inferiority complex behind him, fighting alongside the Defenders, teaming up with Wasp and Spider-Man in one of the best Marvel Team Up stories (which not only showed him to be a fully confident and highly effective crimefighter but also reaffirmed the love between him and Jan, not least by Hank boosting Jan's powers), and putting in an impressive performance in the Avengers vs. Taskmaster arc. Ideally, the Ultron-creates-Jocasta story from Shooter's first Avengers run where Hank came off very badly indeed, should have been ignored. Instead, Shooter picked up this thread during his second run and metaphorically tore Hank to pieces and put him back together as a Frankestein monster carrying Shooter's own personal demons (and to keep this thread Legion-relevant, let us not forget that Shooter wrote the Legion story where Cosmic Boy hits Light Lass, making the Hank story a case of the dog -- Shooter -- returning to his own vomit.)

I hate the whole subsequent plain-clothes-Hank crap from the next several years, because all I get out of that is a sense of self-denial on Hank's part. Interesting tidbit: although Steve Englehart scripted the stories that set up Hank's plain-clothes phase, Englehart confirmed in a chat I participated in that the whole concept of plain-clothes Hank was a directive handed down to Englehart fully-formed by his editor Mark Gruenwald.

Bob Harras had Hank become Giant-Man again when Kree renegades were invading the Earth with intention to blow up the planet, and the Avengers needed extra muscle because the Kree had captured half the team, including powerhouses Hercules and Crystal. Hank saves the team from being crushed by a Kree Sentry and realizes that he really does want to be super-hero. All told, a good, no-nonsense way to vaporize Shooter's folly.

But instead of leaving well enough alone, Kurt Busiek rehashed Hank's old angst, probably because Busiek couldn't think of anything better, and wrapped it up in a bizarre, muddled way: Hank at peace, but sporting the Yellowjacket identity. WTF?

Enter Mark Millar, even more bereft of good ideas than Busiek, who dredged up Shooter's old horseshit so he could shock people into buying his crappy Ultimates stories. Meanwhile, in the official continuity, the equally bereft Brian Bendis went out of his way to present Hank in the worst possible light. Recently, Hank has been retreading old identity-issues ground by flitting back and forth from plain-clothes to Yellowjacket, and while his Skrull-reveal has gotten some people's hopes up, I doubt very much that anything good is going to come of it as long as Bendis and Quesada continue to dictate his destiny. At this point, nothing short of a total reboot of the Marvel Universe could save Hank IMO.

Going by memory, X-MEN # 137 was published around September 1980 (I recall a later issue establishing Jean's death as 9/1/80), while FF # 286 was cover-dated January 1986 (meaning that it was on sale in November or December of '85, if the custom of dating covers in advance was still in use then) -- so let's compromise and say five years.

As for X-MEN being popular before the Dark Phoenix Saga -- I have no sales figures to prove this, only my rusty memory, but I'm sure that it was extremely popular for some time before DPS. It is true that the early issues were published bi-monthly and probably did not sell well, which only served to make them escalate very quickly in back issue prices. I was lucky enough to get on almost the ground floor -- with X-MEN # 95 (the third issue of the relaunch, after GIANT-SIZE X-MEN # 1 and regular issue # 94), but I had to wait nearly 10 years to read affordable reprints of the first two issues.

X-MEN was so popular, in fact, that around 1980 or '81, Fantagraphics published a companion magazine called X-MEN CHRONICLES. One of the features was a cartoon which lampooned their meteoric rise in popularity. In it, the lead character buys a box load of X-MEN # 94 when they come out and which his comic book dealer can't get rid of. After X-MEN's success, the main character sells them and becomes a media mogul, only to blow it all on his next investment: "Traders of the Lost Disco."

But X-MEN was certainly a hit by the time Byrne came aboard; DPS took them over the top.

I couldn't agree more, Jerry. The motives for "preserving the myth" become even murkier when one considers that these characters aren't really myths; they are commercial products. The desire to pass them on to the next generation seems less convincing than the desire the make a buck (and Brando was paid handsomely for his minimal contribution to the "myth").

Every generation decides on its own heroes and stories, and which heroes and stories of the past to keep and which to discard. Trying to force a character to conform to what each generation values destroys something of what was unique about the character in the first place: the mindset, values, and philosophy that made the character connect to its initial readers. It's like watching your grandfather dress and act like a teenager.

But there is another side to this. King Arthur did not start out as a Christian legend; those elements were grafted onto his story over several hundred years. If they hadn't been, would King Arthur have survived as a legend? Would we care? I think the answer to both questions is yes. A good story is a good story, regardless of what cultural trappings are tied to it.

Each generation must decide for itself what it chooses to value and preserve. If the Legion survives, it's because it's a good story, not because it needs endless rebooting to clear out the baggage.

I don't know that there's a simple answer that can be given to this question. Both models, it seems to me, can work and be successful. Arguably the most artistically successful comic of all time was Will Eisner's The Spirit, and part of its success was that the title character was mostly an iconic symbol rather than a character that underwent "growth" or "change". I think the argument can be made that Superman or Batman (or even the Legion) would be better if treated like that as well. The problem is the problem is the inconsistency with which the characters are treated. On the one hand, they're considered parts of "universes" where other characters do undergo change, and so they've have to at least maintain the pretense of undergoing change themselves. But yet they are considered flagship titles of the company, which puts pressure on the company to maintain the status quo. And so what we get is the kind of "illusory" change that you mentioned originally.

In a way Jerry's post on this page sums up brilliantly what this thread has been about from its inception until now. And of course, the post capsulates the Legion itself in the process. I thank you for that, Jerry!

And it really highlights and puts into focus for me how unique the Legion is as a comics phenomenon. Legion is THE quintessential cult property within what is itself pretty much a cult art form that is comic books. Is there any other comic that has been published as consistently (with a few hiatuses) as the Legion for so long without ever really 'making it'?

Yes, it was critically and commercially very successful for a brief time in the '80s. Yes, it recently had a short-lived cartoon adaptation. But for the most part the Legion has remained well below the radar in a way that other formerly cult successes like X-Men didn't. And the Legion may have crashed and burned a few times, but <knock on wood> it never seems to run out of lives!

As Jerry says, no matter what big or small caveats you may have, the Legion's longevity, even with all that baggage, is truly something for us to celebrate!

I have to respectfully disagree. I was a kid in the 1970's (don't call me a geezer lol) and the Legion was HUGE then - on a level comparable to the Levitz/Giffen years. Cockrum got the ball rolling and then Grell hammered in the runners. By the mid 1970's, Legion was one of only two titles to go to giant size with all new stories (the other title being JLA). Also if I am remembering correctly TDTB with Garth/Imra wedding was the first tabloid DC did with completely new content. The Legion had definitely "made it" at that time.

What knocked the Legion off it's horse? First the DC Implosion, and then the Gerry Conway years of horrible stories with horrible art (the Mordur issue being one example of the apex of badness here) and an editor on cruise control. Many readers bailed during this time. But to make lemonade out of lemons, at least the Legion continued to be published during this dark time in the history of DC.

I also was lucky enough to pick up the Dark Phoenix Saga off the newstand. By this point, the X-Men was THE biggest, hottest title in the marketplace (keep in mind that DC was in the creative dumps at this time due to the DC Implosion and the "new DC" was still a year or two away). I remember to this day where I was when I read #138, when I read it, etc. I knew as soon as I read the last page that I had just read an instant classic and an historic moment in comics.

At the same time I was very PO'd because Jean was my favorite character in the X-Men then. Back then, bringing back dead characters was practically unheard of, so everyone tried to move on. But what ended up creeping into the X-Men stories was this long-term extended mourning of Jean and the continued interest in Jean both by the fanbase and the creators. Eventually things progressed to the point where Maddie Pryor was introduced and the can of worms was opened in a major way. By the time Jean came back I was older and I guess a bit jaded, as I was actually happy to have the character back and didn't feel cheated because I was hoping that this event would lead to some good new X-Men stories that didn't center on Jean being dead and not being around.

Coming a little later after the DPS was when Spock was killed in the Wrath of Khan, and the absence of Jean in X-Men was like not having Spock around in Star Trek - there was a big vacuum that was hard for the creators to fill. So Spock came back. And I guess from being a big science-fiction fan, having Jean come back then didn't really bother me. However now Jean has become a joke - being continually killed and brought back.

CB, I'm feelin' ya with regards to your rebuttal of my "cult" labelling. But I still feel I've got a point. I mean, the average comics fan probably knows next to nothing about the Legion despite is moments in he sun. Whatever it may have been at times in he past, is definitely a cult book now and has been for some time.

For example, before my local comic shop went under around 2000, I used the eyeball test. I was a regular and used to be there often when shipments arrived. Legion was on my pull list there from about 1986 'til the store closed, and I was always one of a handful of usually five or less who ordered it. Of those, some were only getting it because they were getting all DC titles for collectibility and others for Superman AR completism and such. If copies were on the rack, they stayed there--no one bought it. And for the bulk of its existence my CBS had a very healthy subscriber base, so it's not as if we're talking a very small sampling of comics fans.

So, as I said before, there were definitely times when Legion was a commercial success, even a hit, but those periods were fleeting. And of course, even with the cartoon, if you polled a hundred random men on the street, I'd still be surprised if even one of them would know who the LSH are. That's the definition of a cult following.

And thanks CB, for steppin' up and representing who I suspect were a lot of 'geezers' who were probably upset when Jean killed herself.

One thing that was surprising to me when I got to read reprints of the preceding years of the new X-Men was that Jean was pretty scarce thru most of the series until DPS. For the most part she seemed like more of a guest star than a part of the actual lineup during most of the run before DPS. Perhaps that made her more susceptible to changes in her character than if she'd been an active part of the team all that time?

I have to wonder, though, exactly how longterm was Phoenix's arc planned? I know Mastermind was shown manipulating her quite a while before DPS, but specifically, I'm thinking of when Jean was first turned into Phoenix after the shuttle crash. Were the seeds planted right then and there for something that wouldn't pay off for 4 years? I do know that Jean's death wasn't planned all along--originally she was just going to be depowered--but I wonder if Dark Phoenix was always part of the plan.

I know there's an off-topic drift from the Legion, but I think CB brings up a good point about the very much extended mourning period for Jean. The initial comics after of course had some excellent character bits where the X-Men mourned her, but as the series moved forward in real time, there's a sense within the comics themselves that "Jean's no longer around" was a theme that never left the series.

This was only further felt by Madelyne Prior, especially because the way Claremont wrote those sequences with Cyclops in Alaska, you really didn't know what the hell he was talking about or what was going on, for like three years. Then came the Mastermind story in #175, which added to that. And then came Rachel Gray/Summers (after her brief appearance in #139-140), which only furthered the Jean Grey phenomina.

Now, there's two ways I look at it: (1) it made for some greaty and drama and built on years of what had just came before, with the same writer guiding the way; and (2) it partially showed the series (creators, company, fans, even characters) simply being unable to let go. I guess those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Or maybe Dark Phoenix Saga, like the Great Darkness Saga, was simply so important to the mythos that it needs to be addressed every so often? Its the manner in which its addressed that things become slightly screwed up: say, Darkseid's curse on Validus and Garth & Imra vs. the Quiet Darkness vs. the Reboot DnA Darkseid story. Or 'Return of Mastermind in X-Men #175 vs. Rachel is the new Phoenix, Madelying Prior becomes the Goblin Queen and Jean Grey returns'.

Where is the line between stories building upon the past, becoming almost living entities that have some semblance of control over where the stories *must* go to overt editorial/creative impulses forcing a series to retread old ground? Its impossible to define that line, but I'd wager there are at least a few guidelines we, the fans, can install given our experiences with these trends over the last twenty-five years (longer, but specifically these last twenty-five).

While it's true that Jean did not officially rejoin the X-Men (although, if memory serves, her picture was added to those of the others next to the logo on the cover), she was, indeed, a prominent character long before DPS. In addition to her role in the Sentinels story, in which she acquired her Phoenix powers (# 98-101), she also played a significant role in the 110s, in which she and Beast (as I recall) got separated from the rest of the team in Antarctica (I think) and were feared dead. This arc is memorable for a scene in which Scott, unable to feel grief, confesses to Ororo that he may never have really loved Jean. (It turned out that he was just in shock and suppressing his actual feelings.)

Because the X-Men had a large cast, several characters rotated in and out of importance during this period and later. As I already mentioned, Beast was a guest-star (even though he, too, did not officially rejoin the team), and Banshee was written out around # 117, though he continued to appear as a guest. Then you had Kitty Pryde and Dazzler appearing as membership candidates (which actually led to membership in Kitty's case). So it's not surprising that Jean was more prominent in some storylines than in others.

You touch on two important points, Lardy. First, I think you make a good case in that fans who have a strong attachment to a certain character are less apt to accept "negative" changes than those who do have a strong attachment to them. To wit: Certain fans' rejection of the reboot Element Lad becoming the Progenitor.

In my case, I never had a strong attachment to either Hank Pym or Tony Stark (this in spite of having read the latter's book for nearly 20 years; there were times when it was one of the best written and drawn Marvels out there), so I think I more readily accepted the former becoming a neurotic wife abuser and the latter becoming an alcoholic than others might. However, I also believe that heroes should be human and learn from their mistakes, and that their mistakes (since they are heroes after all) can be as tragic as their good deeds can be great (those who are capable of the greatest good are also capable of the greatest evil, the old maxim goes).

Among my own personal favorite characters, the "worst" things that have happened (off the top of my head) were Mon-El's transformation into Valor, which was part of a larger problem of the Legion becoming mini-rebooted, and Green Lantern becoming a drunk driver. The former is really not the same situation at all, since it involved Lar becoming essentially a different character, not becoming a "worse" character. And, As I noted above, my objection to the latter was that it happened retroactively, which was also part of larger problem: DC's reinvention of its universe following CRISIS.

I will say that the first time I ever cared for either Hank or Tony as characters was after they went through their own personal demons and emerged stronger. For Hank, this meant giving up being a super-hero entirely--an occupation he seemed to have never been truly comfortable with (as noted above, others disagree with my interpretation here). For Tony, it meant resuming his Iron Man identity and role as an inventor with new commitment.

As to your second point, I'm not sure if "Demon in a Bottle" was a better story than Hank's downfall, but you have to bear in mind that Tony's story played out in his own title, where much more space could be devoted to it, while Hank's story came out piecemeal during an AVENGERS run in which the overall storyline marked time and the art was unimpressive. It wasn't until Stern took over that Hank's story reached (what I feel was) a satisfactory resolution.

By the way, in no way am I condoning Hank's (or Tony's) behavior. Wife beating is a horrible and destructive act. The same can be said for abusing alcohol, whether alcoholism is a disease, as some say, or not.

But although heroes (real and fictional) should strive to represent the best of humanity, they are, I think, better seen as representatives of humanity and the flaws we strive to overcome. As such, they should occasionally fail. As Lardy suggested, it's easier to relate to characters when they undergo the same personal and family problems that many of us undergo.

My dad was both abusive (albeit verbally, not physically) and an alcoholic, so maybe that informs why I related to seeing superheroes showing those flaws. My dad was kind of heroic to his peers in a way and yet he had those problems at home that those peers never saw.

As a kid, I think it helped me understand the duality of my dad a little better. These were heroic guys who were fallible and very human underneath it all. Does this mean they were to be admired for being abuser and alcoholic? Hell, no! What made their stories great was that they overcame their problems and were all the stronger for having done so. Were they well-told and consistent with their established characterizations? I honestly don't know. But I'm thankful for having their stories to help a young teenager through a period in his life packed with turmoil and uncertainty for the future in some small way.

And by extension, I was glad to see the Legion grow up to be fallible themselves during 5YL as they began to age with me.

I read something interesting tonight here on the "Shooter off Legion?" thread that's a different perspective IMO on what happened when Superboy was retconned as being from a pocket universe following the Byrne relaunch of Superman and his never having been Superboy at all. My take on what the poster's (ironically, "Superboy") essentially saying is that from the point Superboy is retconned as being from the pocket universe, we are reading the adventures of an alternate Legion (very similar but diverged from that timeline--kinda like the idea behind the SF show "Sliders"), a New Earth/post-Crisis Legion. Before that point we had been reading the adventures of the Silver Age Earth-1 Legion. So everything from, say, Vol. 3 #38 'til the end of Vol. 4 is the first total reboot, not the one that began after Zero Hour. He reconciles this very reasonably by saying its ludicrous to explain away all those decades of continuity, especially when the Legion also teamed up with Superman on many occasions.

I've gotta say that even though the tone of his posts are a little on the combative side, the idea underneath is an interesting one, especially in that it shows where the Lightning Saga Legion came from. Of course a few years later, we had Zero Hour, a NEW-New Earth and and a new Legion to go with it. And then I guess Infinite Crisis birthed the WaKboot, even though IC came out after that series' launch...possibly Superboy-Prime's pre-IC reality punches. But IC and 52 also opened up the return of the multiverse and the LS/Silver Age Legion.

But, anyway, the core idea behind Superboy's post is intriguing. Though it may have been discussed before (I'm not sure if it was worded exactly that way), I was wondering what the reaction to the idea might be. Mostly the PU Superboy thing is discussed more as a retcon than a reboot, but I can see the argument.

Thoughts?

Agreed.

Another aspect that needs to be pointed out is that the character who emerged strongest from Hank's downfall was not Hank, but Jan. She not only left Hank but became leader of the Avengers, something that would have been impossible so long as she was still in his shadow.

I think it's a semantic distinction at this point, but I always understood a retcon to be something that was inserted into a character's history that did not significantly change his or her present circumstances. In other words, Roy Thomas' ALL-STAR SQUADRON stories, though set in the 1940s, did not significantly change the present circumstances of the JSA as they were depicted in the 1980s, when ALL-STAR was published.

A reboot, on the other hand, consists of going back to the beginning of a character's history and starting over from scratch, as was done with the Legion in 1994 and again in 2004. This also describes what was done with the DC Universe as a whole following CRISIS.

The 5YL Legion falls somewhere in between. Their history was mostly left intact, except for the parts involving Superboy and Supergirl being redacted and replaced. Superboy (the poster) rightly points out that this was a significant alteration from what had gone before; it set the V.4 (5YL) Legion apart from the original Legion.

(I hasten to point out, though, that the Legion he seems to be championing was vastly different from the one that appeared in ADVENTURE COMICS # 247. Does this mean, per his argument, that a reboot occurred sometime in the early Silver Age of the Legion? If so, would this be the first reboot?)

As for the 5YL Legion, in an earlier post I used to term "mini-reboot." I'm comfortable with that term unless someone has a better one.

RetconBoot?

That one's a little hard to say.

Recoot?

That's...disturbing somehow!

Retoot?

I'm pretty sure there's a thread around here somewhere where not too long ago I pointed out the need for a term for something stronger than a retcon but less substantial than a reboot. Retcons add to history but are compatible with established facts, while reboots completely eliminate all history. "Softboot" is sometimes used for something that intentionally changes history, but leaves a significant part of it intact.

Of course, I'd argue that LSH #300 was a fairly significant continuity change, albeit one that messed with their established fistory* rather than their established history.


See this post for enlightenment on the notion of "fistory"!

Fistory? Softboot? Our language changes before our eyes!

(I actually like "softboot.")