Options
Episode 1623 Talkback - Spotlight on the Invincible Iron Man in the Silver Age
Adam_Murdough
Posts: 506
Our sizzlin' series of Silver Age Spotlights on Mighty Marvel mainstays continues with a look at the Invincible Iron Man! Head engineer Chris Eberle lays out the schematics of the first five years of Iron Man stories: the supporting cast, the nefarious foes, the Cold War propagandism ('COMMIES!'), the high-tech armor with its various upgrades, and the tortured, ingenious human being at the center of it all, 'cool exec with a heart of steel' Tony Stark. Includes a quick, nostalgic nod to the 1966 Iron Man cartoon! (2:56:40)
Listen here...
...or watch here!
Listen here...
...or watch here!
Comments
A thought on the Communist threat found in many early Marvel Comics: While many of the Communist leaders and villains portrayed in Marvel's stories were rather silly caricatures, it should be emphasized that the threat represented by the Soviet Union was a real thing that most Americans at the time took very seriously, especially in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis. This wasn't a theoretical threat discussed by academics or zealots...the expansionism of the Soviet Union was a real, observable, and rather frightening phenomena. So, while the depiction of the Soviet threat was extremely (and literally) cartoonish in the comic books of the time (as the Axis threat was in WWII comics), the threat represented by International Communist Expansionism was very real. Based on comments in this podcast (and previous ones), I suspect Chris may not see things that way and may, indeed, see more of a moral equivalence between the Soviets and the United States (i.e. U.S. imperialism, etc). If that's his opinion, that's fine...I'm not going to try to change it...but I just wanted to step in a say there was definitely some basis in fact behind the Communist scare portrayed in the early Marvel Comics. So, yeah...the goofy Red Threat comic book characters were a joke...but not the underlying threat they represented.
I should also note that you can't be faulted either, @Mark_Engblom, because several online outlets insist that Flash volunteered for his military service, and wasn't conscripted - including Wikipedia. And then there are several other outlets that mention Flash WAS drafted... Maybe someone out there has a page scan more definitive than the one I've posted above.
Of course these days, thanks to the sliding timescale, Flash Thompson cannot have served in the actual Vietnam War, but rather something that happened within the last several years of Marvel Universe history. Adding to the confusion, and after the events of "One More Day", Flash Thompson willingly left his college job as a P.E. instructor to rejoin the Army and fight in the Iraq War.
Comics!
I also want to make it clear that I really appreciate Chris' great efforts regarding this Iron-Man spotlight, as well as all the other Spotlight episodes he helms. I don't want my (likely) disagreement with Chris's geopolitical history views to give the impression I don't appreciate him, his humor, and his great enthusiasm for the subject matter. Great work, Chris and Geeks! Another very enjoyable tour of the beloved Marvel Silver Age!
As for the episode, job well done as always, gents. @Adam_Murdough's name spouting was truly at its finest!
That said, when it comes to the foreign policies of great powers, I think it's vital to acknowledge the perspective of "the other guy" when it comes to addressing the impact of our own policies. Not for the purpose of knee jerk anti-Americanism (I'm very much a patriot, but not a nationalist; there's a big difference), but to encourage critical thinking, that, ideally, provides a well rounded historical perspective. Whenever politicians provide simplistic explanations for the policy of an adversary by throwing around loaded words such as "evil" and "freedom," I'm automatically distrustful, as I know my intelligence is being insulted. Reducing complicated geopolitical subjects to sound bites may win votes and placate the "USA!" chanting mentality, but it's incredibly dangerous, as it discourages thinking and the need to question the authority and decisions of our leaders. One hopes that our political leadership, when smack dab in the middle of a crisis, attempts to understand the motivations of the other side in order to make sound decisions in the event of conflict, and perhaps even avoid that conflict all together. The Cold War in general, and, per Mark's example, the Cuban Missile Crisis in particular, is a perfect example of my point. Was the Soviet Union a threat to the security and freedom of the U.S., or was their belligerent posture a reaction to the fact that the U.S. had exploded two atomic bombs? If you've just fought a war that essentially decimated your country via an invasion by a hostile power bent on your complete destruction (i.e. the Nazi invasion of the USSR), you're going to feel vulnerable and suspicious, if not outright paranoid (and there is no shortage of suspicion and xenophobia in Russian history). Granted, Stalin, the ruthless pragmatist that he was, helped facilitate the war in Europe by initially making a deal with Hitler, but that doesn't change the fact that the Soviets suffered the greatest casualty rate in WWII (their efforts are what really bled the German war machine to a point where it could be defeated). Hence, in the wake of that trauma, the Russian mindset would have no problem enslaving Eastern Europe for the purposes of creating a buffer zone as a guard against another invasion (which, short of engaging in what would've been another horrific war against the largest army on earth, we had no choice but to accept), spying on the U.S. via the Rosenberg conspiracy to secure atomic secrets, and insuring its sphere of influence remains secure. In short, the Soviets were advancing their economic and security interests like any other great power, including the U.S. If there is a case to be made for equivalence, it's that all great powers, whether it be ancient Rome, UK, Russia, China, or the U.S., pursue their economic and security interests, and that often means at the expense of people in other lands. Every great power, regardless of how exceptional its founding ideals might be, has blood on its hands in the service of those interests. It's simply the nature of the beast. We kicked the Spanish out of Cuba in 1898 and imposed a puppet dictator the Cuban people did not want, which created the environment for a Fidel Castro to seize power and kick out our lucrative business interests on the island (think of the meeting of the corporate bigwigs with Batista in Godfather II : ). Of course, our gov't and corporate entities are incensed by this, so we attempt to assassinate Castro (again, to advance our economic and security interests). Castro (who initially was popular with Cubans until he became the standard issue repugnant communist dictator) is naturally alarmed by this, so he asks the Soviets for aid. We've already parked missiles in Turkey (which the Russians consider their neighborhood), so they respond by placing missiles in Cuba (our neighborhood), and we're off to the races. The fact that the human race is still here is testament to both sides realization that perhaps they might consider the perspective of the other before making Dr. Strangelove a reality.
I agree with Mark in that many Americans took the Soviet threat seriously. How couldn't they when kids were being told to dive under desks in "duck and cover" drills, the media, in reaction to the very real Rosenberg spy ring, was constantly harping about communist infiltration throughout U.S. society to an hysterical, and unsubstantiated, degree, and that classic example of good old fashioned American political opportunism, Joseph McCarthy, waving around his lists of supposed communists in gov't and media and destroying the careers and reputations of law abiding U.S. citizens in the process. By creating a monolithic boogieman (the Soviet menace pulling the strings of communist movements around the world) to encourage the U.S. public to remain on essentially a permanent war footing, our gov't dangerously simplified the nature of the Cold War. There is no greater example of this than the tragedy of the Vietnam War. Instead of educating themselves and the public as to the complicated nature of Vietnam's history and independence movement, our gov't committed to a counter insurgency against an adversary who had been fighting, literally for centuries, against outside powers, an adversary who had initially asked for our support (!) against French colonialism. Ho Chi Minh was very far from a saint, but he wasn't a Soviet stooge either. Again, our gov't presented Vietnam, a third world nation, as somehow a threat to the security of the U.S. based on the standard red menace model, and plunged in without doing its history homework. 58,000 U.S. soldiers and over a million Vietnamese paid the price for that act of hubris. Was the North Vietnamese gov't totalitarian? Yup. Was the Soviet Union a despicable regime? Absolutely. But while they were certainly a threat to their own populations (and in the case of the Soviets, their satellites, which, again, we allowed out of a sense of realpolitick), were they really as much of a threat to the U.S. as they were made out to be? That's a question historians continue to debate. All I know is that when I traveled through Vietnam, the population was vigorously engaged in capitalism at every turn. Whether or not they want to retain the one party rule of the communist gov't is up to them, but, where U.S. bombs and bullets failed, globalization succeeded in further relegating the fairy tale of Marxism to the ash heap of history.
Whew! Sorry if I got a bit long winded there, but, as history is my passion and profession, I can't resist a healthy, respectful discussion. Thanks again gentlemen for the kind words and food for thought!
Best,
Chris, WP, CGS
Thanks once again for the well-done Spotlight episode. And I am doubly pleased that you joined in the discussion here on the forums. I hope it continues.
Interpretations of the above theme song from the 1966 Iron Man cartoon are heard several times in the 2008 film. It's Rhodey's ringtone, it's part of Stark's wake-up sequence in his bedroom, at the Apogee Award ceremony and there's a jazz version being played in the casino in the following deleted scene that I'm guessing 'Rod @Adam_Murdough Serling' might enjoy.
And since @ShaneKelly said that he's never seen an episode, here's one he can try to suffer through...
We had a copy of that on the wall at the store I worked at back in the early to mid-’90s which sat there, and sat there, and sat there. I was there for about five years, and I think it finally sold just before I moved on.
As for Iron-Man himself, it may interest some to know there was a comic book "Iron-Man" that predated Marvel's by almost twenty-five years, In the pages of Smash Comics #1 (Aug. 1939), investigator Hugh Hazzard reprograms an evil scientist's robot to help him fight crime. Naming the robot Bozo the Iron Man, Hazzard would often crawl inside the robot to guide the Iron Man on their crime-fighting sprees.
Was Stan Lee inspired by this long-ago tale of a machinery-encased crime fighter? I doubt it...but an interesting "shadow" of what would come nonetheless.
Great discussion everyone. I really appreciate a forum where people can share their thoughts constructively and without malice. So much more informative! Chris, the spotlight Episodes you have been apart of have been my favourite and have ended up costing me a lot of money! I can't keep track of how many more marvel titles I've read because of you! Oh, and that Paul Jenkins& Humberto Ramos Spider-Man/Goblin story was hard to find, but it was worth it.
On a side note, I loved when Pants was talking about how he only has 1 piece of art by Don Heck and he mentions that it's from Hawkman #4 in 1986 featuring ... and all of a sudden Murd chimes in with "ah, yes, Kite Man."
I was ready to drop some money on some actual Tales of Suspense issues at a local show this weekend. I will once I decide what issues and how much I am willing to pay. It will be nice to have 4 or 5 issues in my collection.
Best,
Chris
Best,
Chris